Suneel Chakravorty is being asked by Bangkok to kindly provide some proof or at least a plausible explanation.

Claviger: My Initial Thoughts to Suneel’s ’44 Questions’ on Raniere Trial

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 (See: Suneel: My Plan to Show the World What Really Happrened to Keith Raniere).

In future posts, Suneel will be presenting whatever “evidence” he and his colleagues are able to find regarding each of those questions.

At Frank’s request, I have agreed to serve as a  “Devil’s Advocate” regarding Suneel’s recent and future posts.

As the first step in that process, this post will list each of Suneel’s questions – and provide my initial thoughts about them. After Suneel provides the promised “evidence” regarding each of those questions, I will provide a more detailed response.

At the outset, let me make it clear that I do not consider several of Suneel’s 44 questions to involve any legal issues. Some involve moral issues, some involve philosophical issues, and some I have interpreted as rhetorical questions.

Let me also remind Frank Report readers that at this stage, Keith and his attorneys have very few options in terms of seeking a new trial: i.e., they can either make another Rule 33 motion, which would require them to identify “newly discovered evidence” that was previously unavailable – or they can file an appeal, which would require them to identify one or more errors that occurred during the course of Keith’s case that were so important that they warrant a new trial (See: What Are Raniere’s Remaining Legal Options to Ever See Freedom Again? for a more detailed description of these two options).

If Keith’s legal team failed to raise an issue before he was convicted, they cannot raise that issue as part of an appeal. And given the quality of that legal team, I doubt there is any chance that Keith will be able to successfully argue that he had “ineffective counsel”.

Suneel has indicated that he is “…willing to listen to anyone with evidence to prove or disprove Keith’s innocence”.

Like Suneel, I am undertaking this new work with an open mind – and am quite willing to adjust my opinion and thinking if/as the evidence presented makes it appropriate to do so.

Like most people, I have built up my own biases, opinions, preferences, values, etc. over the years because of my own personal experiences.

Even though some of those may show up in my initial thoughts about the various questions being examined by Suneel and his colleagues, I am confident that I can set them aside as I examine the evidence to be produced regarding those questions (If I fail to do that, I am even more confident that one or more Frank Report readers will be quick to point out where I have not done so).

So, without further ado, let’s take a look at the 44 questions…

***************

1. How does Keith’s 120-year sentence compare to other cases?

I think it’s going to be very hard for Suneel and his colleagues to find many cases that are comparable to Keith’s case in terms of the charges he was facing. And I will be surprised if they will find many cases that resulted in a sentence of 120-years or more.

Suneel and his colleagues may think that something is amiss if they can’t find any similar cases and/or any similar sentences. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

The 120-year sentence may seem mind-boggling to many people. But Judge Nicholas Garaufis was very careful to document every element that led him to render that sentence – and, unlike the sentence he meted out to Clare Bronfman, he stayed within the applicable sentencing guidelines on Keith’s sentence.

It would not shock me if the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided to reduce this sentence.

Bur rather than set a new sentence, the Second Circuit would simply send the case back to Judge Garaufis with a recommendation that he reconsider certain aspects of his calculations.

***************

2. Was the evidence presented by the prosecution fact-driven or sensational or emotional?

This question does not really involve any legal issues.

Given the charges in this case – and the alleged activities concerning those charges – it would not surprise me at all if Suneel and his colleagues conclude that at least some of the evidence presented by the prosecution could be labeled as “emotional” and/or “sensational”.

When you’re dealing with alleged crimes like Sex Trafficking – and with alleged underlying acts like Sexual Exploitation of a Child and Possession of Child Pornography – it’s almost guaranteed that you’ll be dealing with evidence that could be considered to be “emotional” or “sensational”.

This wasn’t a case that involved relatively mundane crimes like embezzlement or bribing a public official. Instead, it involved alleged crimes that include obscene and salacious details.

And just because some of the evidence that was introduced by the prosecution may be “emotional” and/or “sensational”, that will not be enough to warrant a new trial for Keith.

It should also be noted that Keith and his attorneys cannot just raise a general complaint about an issue like this. Instead, they will have to identify specific instances where they believe that Judge Garaufis erred by allowing in evidence whose probative value was outweighed by its likely prejudicial impact on the jury.

***************

3. Was the evidence against Keith strong or flimsy?

Given that Keith faced a total of seven (7) charges – and sixteen (16) underlying predicate acts with respect to the Racketeering charge – I would expect there to be quite a variation in terms of the “strength” or “flimsiness” of the evidence that was presented by the prosecution throughout the trial.

It doesn’t really matter whether the evidence of an alleged crime was “strong” or “flimsy”. It just matters whether it was sufficient, in the aggregate, to prove that the defendant did/did not commit each required element of each alleged crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Everything beyond that point is irrelevant.

Once again, it should also be noted that if Keith’s attorneys did not raise an issue about – or make an argument against – the admission of certain evidence, they cannot do so on appeal.

***************

4. Was Keith condemned for alleged moral deviance or actual crimes?

I understand why Suneel and his colleagues are concerned about this issue.

As I see it, however, the problem they’re going to have to overcome is that since some acts can be both a “moral deviance” and a “crime”, it will be difficult – if not impossible – to answer this question with any certainty.

To really answer this question, you would need to be able to look into the minds of the twelve jurors who found Keith “Guilty” on all seven charges he was facing – and who also found that the prosecution had “Proved” that he committed all sixteen underlying acts with respect to the Racketeering charge. Unless Suneel and his colleagues are able to interview the 12 jurors, I don’t think that will be possible.

***************

5. How can there be sex trafficking if there was no money exchanged?

I can probably save Suneel and his colleagues some time and effort on this one.

Per 22 USC §  7102, the term “sex trafficking” means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act  – and the term  “commercial sex act” means any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person (That term “anything of value” has been construed to mean all kinds of tangible and intangible things besides money).

Thus, even if they can prove that no money was exchanged – which I think they probably can do – that doesn’t mean that Keith was not properly convicted of the crime of Sex Trafficking.

***************

6. Was the element of “coercion” met in the sex trafficking charge?

Although Suneel’s question implies that “coercion” is a necessary element of the crime of Sex Trafficking, the applicable statute actually reads “force, fraud or coercion”.

As noted above,  the term “sex trafficking” means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act – which means that there is no requirement that coercion be involved in order for someone to commit that crime.

By the way, the term “coercion” is defined to include actual or threatened serious harm – which, in turn, is defined to include physical, psychological or reputational harm to oneself or another. Thus, even if coercion were a required element for this crime, it will be difficult for Suneel and his colleague to produce evidence that will show it didn’t occur.

***************

7. Was the element of “intent’ met in the sex trafficking charge?

I’m not exactly sure what legal issues, if any, are related to this question.

It’s possible that Suneel and his colleagues are thinking about the difference between crimes that require “general intent” – and those that require “specific intent” (General intent simply means that the defendant intended to commit the prohibited act – whereas specific intent means that the defendant intended to cause the harm or the result that occurred).

I look forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues are able to produce regarding what Keith’s intent was with respect to this alleged crime.

           ***************

8. What is Blackstone’s Ratio and should we uphold it?

This question obviously does not involve any legal issue but more a philosophical or moral one. Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing what evidence Suneel and his colleagues produce with respect to this one.

Blackstone’s ratio – 10 to one.

***************

9. How does the 97% US federal conviction rate compare with fascist regimes? 

This question obviously does not involve any legal issue – but it will be interesting to see what Suneel and his colleagues have to say about it.

In this regard, our discussion will require us to be very specific about the statistics we cite.

Based on the most recent statistics published by the Pew Research Center, 90% of the approximately 80,000 individuals who were indicted on federal charges in 2018 – which is when Keith was indicted – 90% pleaded guilty, 8% had the charges dismissed, and 2% went to trial. Of those who went to trial, 83% were found guilty. Thus, Keith was one of the 1,600 federal defendants who decided to go to trial – and one of the 1,328 who were found guilty.

I do not find any relevance in comparing the statistics of the U.S. criminal justice system with those of some unnamed fascist regime. Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing what evidence Suneel and his colleagues produce regarding this issue.

As most Frank Report readers know, I am extremely critical of many aspects of the U.S. criminal justice system. I believe, for example, that legislatures criminalize too many activities; that prosecutors often overcharge in order to gain leverage in plea deal negotiations; that pre-trial detention should be limited to those who have been charged with crimes involving violence and those who have previous convictions involving violence or prior incidents of flight; and that many convicted defendants are sentenced to excessive amounts of time in prison.

But I also deal with the reality that regardless of my personal views, the U.S. criminal justice has certain operational rules and norms that affect anyone who is charged with a crime. My plan in dealing with this issue is to focus on “what is” – and not on “what I think it should be”.

***************

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?

Once again, this question does not really involve any legal issue. Nevertheless, I will be happy to share my perspective once I see what evidence Suneel and his colleagues produce regarding it.

***************

11. Could any of the charges against Keith be considered “victimless crimes”?

Another question that does not involve any legal issue but one that can certainly provoke some interesting discussions.

In my experience, there is little, if any, consensus in terms of what constitutes a “victimless crime”. In addition, not all crimes require a victim.

Some people consider some/all of the following to be “victimless crimes”: drug abuse, prostitution, gambling, public drunkenness,  vagrancy, obscenity, riding a bike without a helmet, or driving a motor vehicle without a seat belt.

I don’t consider that to be the case with regard to the seven crimes that Keith was convicted of committing: i.e., Racketeering Conspiracy, Racketeering, Forced Labor Conspiracy, Wire Fraud Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking, and Attempted Sex Trafficking – and I will be interested in seeing whether Suneel and his colleagues can produce any evidence that will  convince me otherwise.

To the extent they can do that, it will certainly affect my assessment of the appropriateness/inappropriateness of Keith’s 120-year sentence.

***************

12. How is jury nullification relevant to Keith’s case?

This is another question that doesn’t really involve any legal issue that could lead to Keith getting a new trial.

Nevertheless, I was somewhat surprised that Keith’s attorneys didn’t at least raise this concept during their “Closing Statement” because I think it’s something Keith believes in. But now that the trial is over – and the jury has rendered its verdict – I don’t really see how this concept is relevant anymore.

***************

13. How was the attempted sex trafficking of Jaye proven without India Oxenberg or Allison Mack testifying?

I’m not quite sure what legal issue Suneel and his colleagues intend to raise via this question. For now, let me just note that, in general, there are two primary types of evidence that can be introduced at a trial: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence (Evidence can be further broken down into various categories: documentary evidence; physical evidence; trace evidence; etc.)

As its name implies, direct evidence is evidence that directly links a defendant to a specific crime without the need for any inference on the part of the jury (e.g., an eyewitness who saw a defendant shoot someone).

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that implies the defendant committed a specific crime (e.g., an eyewitness who saw someone fleeing the scene where someone was shot).

I look forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues are able to produce which indicates that Keith could not have been convicted of Sex Trafficking Jaye without direct testimony from Allison Mack and/or India Oxenberg.

***************

14. Should a mysteriously accessed device in the child porn charge be admitted as evidence?

I am looking forward to seeing any evidence that Suneel and his colleagues can produce to demonstrate exactly what happened to the hard-drive that contained the nude pictures of the 15-year-old Camila.

During the trial, an FBI witness admitted that this hard-drive had been accessed by an unknown person after it was taken into custody by the agency. But insofar as I can recall, neither that witness – nor any witness for the defense – testified as to what exactly, if anything, was done to this hard-drive after it was accessed by the unknown person.

Keith’s defense team cross-examined the FBI agent – and presumably asked all the questions about the hard-drive that they thought were relevant.

In addition, I believe that Keith’s defense team had identified an expert witness who was going to testify for the defense about this matter – but that person was never called as a defense witness.

[Sidenote #1: It’s difficult for me to understand how any type of evidence that is in the FBI’s possession can be accessed by an unknown person. Don’t they have security cameras, sign-in sheets, and the like to prevent this type of thing from happening?].

[Sidenote #2: It’s too bad that Rodger Kirsopp and his colleagues at the NYS Police destroyed John Tighe’s computers before they could be subjected to a forensic analysis. It would have been interesting to find out whether those computers were also accessed by an unknown person after they were taken from John].

***************

Mk10ART’s sketch of Camila.

15. What is Camila’s new role in the case? 

Maybe this is a more complicated question than it appears – but, insofar as I know, Camila’s only role in the case began and ended with the reading of her “Victim Impact Statement”.

She was not called as a witness by the prosecution. Nor was she called as a witness by the defense.

Under our current laws, victims who wish to give a statement at a convicted defendant’s sentencing hearing are not required to do so under oath. Nor are they subject to cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney.

Simply put, I don’t think Camila has a “new role in the case” – and her statement at Keith’s sentencing hearing did not violate any of his legal rights.

***************

16. What if the tampering is proven and Camila is also telling the truth?

I assume that Suneel and his colleagues are using the term “tampering” to mean that something was done to alter the nude pictures of Camila (e.g., the scar from her appendectomy was photoshopped out) – or to change the “date-stamp” on them.

If that’s correct and they’re able to prove that there was tampering, then it’s possible that “Possession of Child Pornography” – which was one of the 16 predicate acts regarding Count 2: Racketeering – might be dismissed by an appellate court. I doubt, however, that such a dismissal would be enough to overturn Keith’s conviction on that count or to change his overall sentence.

I’m not quite sure how Suneel and his colleagues will be able to determine whether Camila was telling the truth. Nor, since she didn’t appear as a witness at the trial, am I sure how that’s relevant to Keith’s appeal.

***************

Lauren Salzman

17. What are the ramifications of the judge stopping Lauren Salzman’s cross-examination?

I have said from the outset that this could be a serious appellate issue – and I clearly expect it to be one of the central issues in Keith’s appeal.

I don’t know how it would be possible to produce any real “evidence” to show what would have happened had the cross-examination of Lauren been allowed to continue – but I fully expect Keith’s appellate attorneys to argue that Judge Garaufis should have granted Marc Agnifilo’s motion for a mistrial regarding this issue.

At the time of this incident, Marc Agnifilo said “Your honor, I agree this witness is in serious distress. I still have questions for her, so perhaps we can adjourn for the evening and I can continue tomorrow”. When the judge responded by saying “You’re done”, Agnifilo responded by saying he agreed.

The next morning, Agnifilo did not ask that he be allowed to continue cross-examining Lauren (I have been told that she was available that morning – and ready to re-take the stand). Instead, he moved for a mistrial.

Had Agnifilo asked for Lauren to return to the witness stand so he could continue his cross-examination and Judge Garufis had turned him down, I think this could be a very significant issue on appeal. But given what actually happened, I’m not quite as sure.

***************

Marc Agnifilo

18. Should Lauren have been recalled or was it better to go for a mistrial? 

This looks to me like a question that should be directed to Marc Agnifilo and Keith’s other trial attorneys because it was their decision (a) to file a motion for a mistrial and (b) to not seek to recall Lauren to the witness stand.

By the way, the two actions are not mutually exclusive.

There were all sorts of options available to Keith’s trial attorneys after Judge Garaufis halted Lauren’s cross-examination.

They could have filed a motion for a mistrial – and then sought to recall Lauren to the witness stand (If Judge Garaufis refused to let Lauren back on the stand, that might have been the basis for another motion for a mistrial).

Or they could have sought to recall Lauren to the witness stand – and filed a motion for a mistrial after the judge did or did not allow them to resume their cross-examination.

Maybe this is an issue that will eventually be part of a separate appeal based on the assertion that Keith had “inadequate counsel” throughout his trial. But as I already indicated, I do not think there’s any chance of Keith winning on such an appeal.

***************

19. Did the judge “poison the well” by his remarks about Lauren and his scolding Agnifilo?

Once again, I don’t see how Suneel and his colleagues will be able to produce any real “evidence” with respect to this issue – but I will certainly review whatever they produce with an open mind and then offer my opinion as to whether it will likely be helpful in terms of convincing an appellate court to overturn Keith’s conviction and order a new trial.

In general, trying to find “evidence” for what would have happened if a certain event had not occurred is an impossible task.

Notwithstanding the difficulty in finding evidence to support the contention that the judge “poisoned the well” by his remarks about Lauren and his scolding of Marc Agnifilo, I do expect this to be one of the central issues in Keith’s appeal. I also think that in the best case for Keith, the appellate court will deem this to be a harmless error.

***************

20. How did the judge treat prosecutor Moira Penza versus defense attorney Marc Agnifilo?

This seems like a pretty amorphous question.

Maybe what Suneel and his colleagues are really asking is “Did Judge Garaufis disproportionately treat Moira Penza in a favorable manner as compared to his treatment of Marc Agnifilo – and if so, did that disproportionate treatment contribute to Keith being found guilty on all charges?”

Once again, I don’t see how it will be possible to produce any real “evidence” regarding this “what might have been” issue – but I will certainly review whatever they produce with an open mind.

***************

21. What impact did the judge’s decision on witness anonymity have on the case?

This is another instance when I think it will be extremely difficult – if not outright impossible – for Suneel and his colleagues to produce any real “evidence” regarding this “what might have been” issue.

Trying to determine how the trial would have turned out if every witness had to disclose their full name is, in my opinion, an exercise in speculation rather than fact-finding (Several federal cases have concluded that this type of nomenclature is permissible in similar circumstances).

Nevertheless, I will review whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues might produce on this matter with an open mind. And I will also do some research to determine how this issue was handled in similar federal trials in the Second Circuit and in other locations.

***************

22. What impact did the judge’s rules regarding the partial sequestering of the jury and their anonymity have on the case?

I’m not sure what Suneel means by “partial sequestering”.

Protecting the identity of jurors in a criminal trial is not at all unusual – especially when the trial has as much media coverage as this one did.

Keith and his attorneys knew the identity of every juror – and were, of course, fully involved in the juror selection process.

 

[Stay tuned for Part 2 of Claviger’s response to Suneel’s 44 Questions.]


About the author

K.R. Claviger

36 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Re Question 21. Yes, it’s not by itself unusual for a sex trafficking/forced labor case to allow the use of first names only or pseudonyms. What is unusual, at least to my eye, is that Keith’s case bears little resemblance to the cases the Judge referenced in his decision granting the motion (See my comments Re. Question 1 for more details).

  • Re Question 1: I agree it’ll be hard to find many cases comparable to Keith’s, and perhaps that’s the point. Let’s consider only the sex trafficking and forced labor charges for a moment. The Judge has compared Keith’s case with several federal cases [1,2,3] that had similar charges (e.g. see the Judge’s decision to allow the motion requesting the use of first names only[4]). However, from a layperson’s perspective, these cases bear little resemblance to Keith’s. For example, all of them include allegations of physical violence, or threats thereof — neither of which were present in Keith’s case, to my knowledge. The point is, even the cases the Judge used as reference share little in common with Keith’s, besides the charges. Yet, the sentences are similar.

    Perhaps this only suggests Keith’s case is not a typical sex trafficking or forced labor case, and this has no bearing on what the sentence ought to be. I’m only looking at this from a layperson’s perspective, so no doubt there are flaws with my analysis. I look forward to seeing more from both sides on this question.

    [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18041404595921530526
    [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14561902400220510072
    [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14326096689147034625
    [4] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1059497150149566762

  • Klaviger-

    An intelligent and unbiased legal analysis article, written by an actual attorney, garners 22 comments.

    And then an article written by a lay-person with a deeply-flawed understanding of the law generates 122 comments.

    I am glad to see the Frank Report readership is an exact reflection of the public at large because that means Frank is attracting broad demographics for advertisers!!!!

    Sadly, the disparity in comments between the articles also reflects that the public at large loves slant more than the unadulterated truth. It’s why CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are so popular.
    ********

    I wonder if you framed a 13th Amendment article with a mass appealing slant, you could get people to pay attention. Seriously!

    I’m kind of surprised the ACLU hasn’t attacked the 13th with more aggressively. Then again, the ACLU is obsessed with headlines to attract more donations and is now tied down with Woke-ism and getting transgendered athletes into women’s sports.

  • I personally think that the Nxivm 5 should be banned from (all sane humans, they are dangerous) Frank Report. I have seen so many testimonies of ritual abuse víctims, and they have many things in common, one of them is the forced silence, prosecution, humiliation, and attacks of media, the criminal justice system, perpetuators, etc. So no, if they want a platform to express whatever they can start a blog, one for crazy people. People who would think that a pedophile has a defense for example. Every single attention that they get is dangerous, and could potentially put off jail for possible serial killer. Raniere is kinda a Bond villain. He wanted to rule the world with his Luciferian concepts. None of the pedophile crimes were actually charged, except Camilla’s pictures. Which doesn’t really do anything for him, just shows how the USA government is lying and protecting pedos. The snuff videos, the fright experiments, the extortion, the exploitation of migrants, the influence of elections, vicinity to politicians, torture, rapes, what happened in Rainbow Cultural Garden. The lockdown of Daniela, the abortions, the suspicious deaths, etc., etc. should be looked up, but just to separate the Bronfmans Emiliano, the first line of slaves, the Salzmans, Raniere, Asunsolo, Mack, etc. and every single horrible criminal from society itself, so they cannot hurt anyone else or themselves and find treatment. There are obviously many ways that the government crushed people’s rights in this case, like Rhiannon or Daniela, and probably in the process, Raniere, etc. but the victims have suffered way more than a double standard. And Asunsolo and Suneel are truly immoral characters. And the rest of them. I mean Nicki Clyne has the guts to deny anything, she must have a laugh. Or Kristin Pimp Kreuk can walk freely. Ugh, gross!!!

    • So… you should be allowed to spew your hate freely and claim righteousness in your inflamed comments being true, but any person that attempts to defend themselves with their logic or experience is dangerous and should not be allowed to speak.

      Got it.

      Disagree with your opponents options or not, they are actually fighting for the very freedom of speech you exercise, yet you would deny them the right to do the same. SHAME ON YOU. You are living in the wrong country.

  • K.R. Claviger, this is great! I had the impression that Suneel had done a lot of work/research for his points and I feel confident you have done (and will continue to do) the same with your points. This is so refreshing to read compared to sensationalized/radicalized/non-specific claims that are commonly made about this whole case. Thank you to Frank for setting up these two minds to go head-to-head in such a satisfying way.

  • Thank you for the commentary. I respect that you’re awaiting evidence on some pieces. I don’t know if Suneel’s goal was to link everything to an actionable legal item. It seems the goal in some of the bullet points was to show how many factors, legal or otherwise, were stacked against him. It would be enlightening to understand how often these things happen in other court proceedings as well, or if they only occur in high profile cases like this where the media has a strong hand in painting the picture beforehand.

    Thanks again.

  • K.R. Claviger-

    As always, top-shelf legal analysis with very lucid explanations for us lay people.
    *****
    RE Side Note #2:

    —It would have been interesting to find out whether those computers were also accessed by an unknown person after they were taken from John]

    If an individual takes a disk drive out of another computer and reattaches it to another computer as a “Slave Drive”, it would be impossible to tell if the hard drive had been accessed as long as the right steps were taken.

    You can easily Google what I’m stating and research it. Any 13-year-old could do it. It’s easy. All it takes is a “hex editor program” and time.

    My guess is that someone was bored and curious at the FBI office evidence storage room.

    • I think that finding photoshopped photographs when the legitimacy of the photograph determines the age of a woman, is a very serious thing.
      To normalize this by saying that someone was just fooling around is ridiculous. You’re talking about the biggest most bad ass investigative institution in history, you think they take the most delicate case of the year and they play around?

      • I think Raniere’s lawyers should have brought up this issue during trial and now it’s too late unless he can get an incompetent representation ruling from the court.

      • They probably just opened up the digital image, in question, to look at it out of curiosity.

        At the end of the day, the men and women of the FBI put on their pants in the morning just like everybody else. And just like everybody else, sometimes curiosity gets the best of them.

        Are you so different?

  • I’ll be interested to read what Suneel and his colleagues present for each of these questions, what Claviger’s opinions on those are, and what Suneel and his colleagues’ opinions on Claviger’s opinions are. I’m sure they’ll all deepen my understanding, or, more likely, make clear how much I don’t understand, about our current justice system. It feels safer to think our justice system is fair and just, but I’m not so sure about that anymore.

  • This dialogue seems to be a dialectical process: thesis-antithesis and synthesis. Suneel’s arguments represent the thesis, Claviger’s the antithesis. From this struggle, positions close to the truth or synthesis would emerge. Very interesting.

    • Peter, your comment seems to be composed of a topic sentence, a supporting sentence and finally, lastly and ultimately, a concluding sentence comprising a whole paragraph. From this triumph of lexical positioning, lies or synthetic truths would emerge. Very something or other.

      Some of us were raised on edicts of dialectical materialism. Put your crayons away, comrade, if you want to go there.

  • What a boring story. Most of what Claviger said he is awaiting evidence from Suneel even though he has full access to all of the court transcripts and is very familiar with the trial exhibits. YAWN!

  • A good analysis from my good pal and colleague, Mr. Claviger.

    But his analysis about Lauren’s testimony is kinda based on horseshit.

    He’s acting as though the judge stopped Lauren’s testimony when relevant questions were being asked.

    Nope.

    The judge waited until Agnifilo had finished his relevant questions and proceeded to BADGER the witness repeatedly, seeking to upset her by asking redundant questions (questions which had no objective other than to badger her).

    Agnifilo had already made his ‘point’ to the jury ———– and there’s no rule which says attorneys may continue badgering witnesses until they’re good and ready to stop. That’s why we have judges who use their discretion in such situations.

    Have a nice day.

    • Tips 4 Young Bangkok

      1. Always keep a condom in your wallet.

      2. Never marry a woman who [redacted] on the first date unless she is a divorcee.

      3. Never make babies with women unless their parents are rich so you don’t have to pay for the kids’ college.

  • It is helpful to have your comments, Claviger. To me, they provide a backdrop for the arguments Raniere might experience in his quest for another trial. The list of abuses in this case seem to be long. However, it seems that the justice system is abusive. The system is geared towards punishment, as opposed to being geared towards justice. As you wrote: “I believe, for example, that legislatures criminalize too many activities; that prosecutors often overcharge in order to gain leverage in plea deal negotiations; that pre-trial detention should be limited to those who have been charged with crimes involving violence and those who have previous convictions involving violence or prior incidents of flight; and that many convicted defendants are sentenced to excessive amounts of time in prison.”

    • I appreciate that you understand the purpose of my recent string of posts concerning Keith’s “Call To Action” — and Suneel’s “44 Questions”. Unfortunately, several Frank Report readers have totally misconstrued — or totally misrepresented — what I’m trying to do.

      To repeat what I previously stated, my objective is to determine whether Keith and/or Suneel has raised enough bona fide legal issues to warrant a new trial for Keith.

      Thus, when I challenge the accuracy of one of Keith’s statements — or I suggest that one of Suneel’s questions has nothing to do with the law — I am not trying to argue against whatever issue they’re trying to raise. Instead, I’m trying to objectively analyze whether the issue in question is something that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals might find important enough that it would take the extraordinary step of ordering a new trial for Keith.

      The latest analysis of reversals by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — which looked at cases during the period from 2000 through 2013 — indicated that Keith has about a 3.78% chance of getting a “complete reversal” (See: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/feb/15/what-are-the-odds-of-complete-reversal-after-conviction-in-the-second-circuit/). In this context, the term “complete reversal” means that Keith’s conviction would be overturned — and that he would get a new trial. That rate will likely decline now that the Second Circuit has more Republican-appointed judges than Democratic-appointed judges (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/trump-flips-new-york-based-2nd-circuit-as-steven-menashi-confirmed).

      The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to “…a fair trial but not a perfect trial”. That is why the reversal rate for U.S. District Court cases is so low — and why I believe it is unlikely (but not impossible) for Keith to get a complete reversal in his case.

  • Well done. You do so much free work for the cult members. I know you disagree but by pointing out what is not worth pursuing using the law and logic, you do! And they still accuse you of “hate”. I think Nxivm and its people are black holes. They take, take, take. And never give back. They only care about Keith and themselves. And no one is ever thanked. They have hi-jacked this blog. They accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a Nazi, a witch hunter,r or just vaguely “filled with hate”. If you guys believe that giving them a platform and equal time will mean anything to them – you are wrong. They are a black hole. Everyone who gets sucked in comes out diminished. Their mental justification gymnastics, attitude of moral superiority, and language games make them almost impossible to communicate with effectively. Again, they are black holes. It will never end. And that is fine, it is their battle. But it is so insulting when they compare Keith to the Holocaust. Or try to rally us all that saving Keith is saving America. The ironic part is that if they admitted even a crumb of culpability or made themselves human, it would be a lot more effective. I won’t be reading any more Suneel or Keith manifestos. But since I know they won’t – I thank you for your educational posts!

    • Well, if they don’t like what I have to say about the various “issues” they’ve raised, they’re really going to hate what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has to say in response to any appeal based on those issues.

      • KR,

        The Nexium 5 clearly have not learned life’s most important lesson: life is not fair and neither is the legal system.

  • Thanks for that breakdown, KR Claviger. Sensible and measured as usual–lots of great “data,” as the Nxians would say.

    Suneel Chakravorty outlined his “Plan to Show the World What Really Happened to Keith Raniere” 9 days ago. Since then, KR Claviger has responded extensively and specifically to issues raised by The World’s Smartest Child Rapist™, Mr. Chakravorty, and others.

    Mr. Chakravorty hasn’t posted a single word, at least under his own name, since that time. During this period it would seem that “Vanguard” has been mostly incommunicado to his acolytes. Might there be a causal relation between these two facts? Might Mr. Chakravorty’s assertion that he’s performing an independent investigation be an untruth, a lie even? Might Mr. Chakravorty only be a scribe for his guru?

    Perhaps the person who posts as “The Crucible,” Mr. Chakravorty’s most vocal supporter, can shed some light.

    In any case, I’m sure I’m not the only one anticipating with bated breath the incisive evidence and arguments that will secure “Vanguard” a chance of victory.

Frank Parlato Investigates

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