Editor’s Note: On Jan. 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 have obtained a fundamentally fair trial.
On January 14th, K.R. Claviger shared his initial thoughts concerning the first 22 questions in Part 1 Claviger: My Initial Thoughts to Suneel’s ’44 Questions’ on Raniere Trial
This is Part 2 where Claviger addresses the second 22 questions posed by Suneel.
23. What probative value did the Camila texts have?
Other than getting each juror in Keith’s case to answer a series of questions about this particular testimony, I don’t know how this question can be answered with any certainty – and even then, I would question the accuracy of the information obtained by such questioning.
If what Suneel and his colleagues are asserting is that the Camila texts were “extraneous evidence”, then I will simply remind them that such evidence is generally admissible to show such things as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Simply put, not all extraneous evidence is inadmissible.
24. How were the Camila texts obtained and should they have been admissible?
Although I have not reviewed all the filings in this case (there are now almost 1,000 of them), my recollection is that this issue was raised – and resolved – prior to the start of the trial. While I am waiting for Suneel and his colleagues to produce their posts, I will go back to see if that’s true.
If the provenance and admissibility of these texts were not previously raised, then the appellate court will not even consider these issues. That’s because appellate courts only look at the record of the case being appealed – and the appellate briefs filed by each side.
25. What does Daniela and Nicole’s participation in a civil lawsuit have to do with the case?
I’m tempted to just write “Absolutely nothing” – and just move on to the next issue. However, in order to prevent Suneel and his colleagues from wasting their time on a non-issue, I do want to point out that it is not at all unusual for victims to testify against alleged perpetrators at a criminal trial – and to then sue that alleged perpetrator after the criminal trial is over.
And while that pattern happens even if the alleged perpetrator is not convicted at the criminal trial (e.g. O.J. Simpson), it is even more common when the defendant is found guilty.
The “standard of proof” for a civil trial is substantially lower than the “standard of proof” for a criminal trial: i.e., “a preponderance of the evidence” versus “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That’s why defendants who are found guilty in a criminal trial are at a significant disadvantage when they are subsequently sued civilly for damages that are related to the crimes of which they were convicted.
26. Can adult women consent at the time and later withdraw their consent to create a crime?
I am somewhat amazed that this question is even being asked but perhaps it’s just poorly worded.
If you mean “Can an adult woman change her mind before a sexual act is consummated?”, the answer is “Yes”.
The basic rule is that “No means No – and Yes means Yes unless the woman changes her mind before the act is consummated”.
But if you mean “Can an adult woman change her mind after a sexual act has been consummated?”, then the answer is “No”.
In this case, the jury heard a great deal of testimony from witnesses who thought they had been victimized by Keith – and obviously deemed that testimony to be credible.
27. Can a female victim be questioned?
This is obviously a rhetorical question.
But I look forward to reviewing whatever “evidence” that Suneel and his colleagues can produce to show that female victims can or cannot be questioned.
28. What were Lauren’s motivations and relationship with the prosecution?
I believe that the facts regarding this matter are simple and straightforward: i.e., Lauren entered into a plea deal that apparently included a provision requiring her to make herself available as a witness for the prosecution – and she fulfilled that obligation.
Only Lauren really knows what her motivation was for entering a plea deal – but I assume that, like most people who accept plea deals, she did not want to risk the vagaries of a trial and, thus, was willing to plead to reduced charges in order to reduce the amount of time she might end up serving in prison (In her case, she pleaded guilty to Racketeering & Racketeering Conspiracy).
I will be interested to see what “evidence” Suneel and his colleagues can produce to document Lauren’s “motivations and relationship with the prosecution”. And I will be even more interested if that evidence proves that there was something untoward about either of those matters.
29. Were some witnesses given deals of immunity?
Insofar as I know, none of the witnesses who testified at Keith’s trial were given any type of assurance that they would not be prosecuted for any of their NXIVM/ESP-related activities. Normally, that’s a question that defense attorneys ask most witnesses who testify.
I have not yet gone back to see if Keith’s attorneys asked every prosecution witness such a question but I am certain they asked that question to Lauren and Mark Vicente.
Such immunity agreements are pretty standard procedure when the alleged crimes involve multiple defendants and/or multiple unindicted co-conspirators.
If all Suneel and his colleagues are going to do is read the trial transcripts to find out which witnesses were given immunity by the prosecution, that should be a relatively easy task. But if they’re going to try and produce evidence to show that the immunity agreements led the witnesses to perjure themselves, I think that’s going to be a very difficult task.
30. Was Keith kidnapped or arrested?
I’ve already addressed this issue in one of my posts concerning Keith’s “Call To Action”.
Nevertheless, if Suneel and his colleagues can produce evidence to show that Keith was not properly apprehended and expelled from Mexico – and subsequently arrested pursuant to an outstanding “Arrest Warrant” in the U.S. – I will certainly consider changing my stance on this matter.
31. Did prosecutors mislead the court to deny Keith bail?
I’m not sure exactly what legal issue Suneel is raising here but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Keith had legally traveled to Mexico – and that he was allegedly willing to return to the U.S. to face trial.
Depending on what evidence Suneel and his colleague can produce, they might be able to convince me to reconsider whether the denial of pre-trial release for Keith was/was not proper.
Even if they could do that, I’m not sure that will be enough to convince the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Keith deserves a new trial – and I doubt very much that Keith would be released from prison now even if he were awarded a new trial (A guy facing a 120-year sentence is pretty much a de facto flight risk).
32. Did the judge not properly review the evidence that Keith wasn’t hiding?
Once again, depending on the evidence that they can produce, it’s possible that Suneel and his colleagues will be able to convince me that Keith was not actually hiding in Mexico at the time he was expelled from the country – and transported to the U.S.
And once again, I’m not sure that would be enough for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to award him a new trial. Even if it did, I doubt very much it would order Judge Garaufis to release Keith on bail prior to his new trial.
33. What impact did Keith not having bail have on his ability to mount a proper defense?
This is an issue that I fully believe in – and one of the reasons why I think our current bail practices need to be substantially reformed. And while it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Suneel and his colleagues to produce evidence to show what would have happened if Keith had been granted pre-trial bail, I think they should be able to find several experts to provide affidavits indicating how onerous a burden pre-trial incarceration is – especially in a place like the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) – for a defendant who is awaiting trial.
At some point, I believe this issue will be addressed by an appellate court or a state legislature – and that the number of people who are incarcerated before they go to trial will be greatly reduced. Perhaps Keith’s case is the one that will lead to that type of reform.
By the way, it should be noted that some of the crimes that Keith was facing include a presumption that the defendant not be released before trial. Thus, the burden of proof was on Keith to show why he should be released rather than on the prosecution to show why he shouldn’t be.
34. Did any “victims” in the case have a motive to lie?
This is an issue that really should have been addressed by Keith’s attorneys during his trial and/or at his sentencing hearing.
Trying to bring it up now – and asserting that it warrants Keith getting a new trial – is, in my opinion, a waste of time and effort.
To some extent, every victim of a crime has a motive to lie about the person(s) they believe to be the perpetrator(s). The desire for justice – and/or the desire for revenge – pretty much guarantees that.
What Suneel and his colleagues need to do here is produce evidence to show that one or more of the victims did lie – and that their lie(s) had a direct impact on Keith being found guilty of one or more of the charges on which he was convicted.
That is going to be a difficult task – but I am looking forward to reviewing whatever evidence they can produce to document that this happened.
35. What were Keith’s relationships with the alleged victims?
I have no idea what legal issue this question is related to – and/or how any related evidence might warrant a new trial.
But, as I said with respect to many other issues, I’m looking forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues can produce to show that the true nature of Keith’s relationships with the alleged victims is significant enough issue to warrant a new trial.
36. What were Keith’s relationships with the alleged co-conspirators?
I also have no idea what legal issue this question is related to – and/or how any related evidence might warrant a new trial.
But, once again, I’m looking forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues can produce to show that the true nature of Keith’s relationships with his alleged co-conspirators is significant enough issue to warrant a new trial.
37. Was Daniela really a captive in the room? What role did her father and mother play?
When I first heard about Daniela’s “imprisonment”, I thought it sounded over-stated. But when I listened to her testimony – and Lauren’s testimony – at Keith’s trial, I finally understood that even though Daniela could have physically left the room on any number of occasions, she was, in fact, emotionally and psychologically imprisoned throughout the time she was there.
I’m looking forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues can come up with to demonstrate that Daniela was not really being held captive throughout the almost 2-years she spent in the room.
I’m also looking forward to reviewing whatever evidence they can produce to explain the role that Daniela’s mother and father played in her “captivity” (Crimes such as this can have multiple perpetrators – which means that even if Daniela’s parents were somewhat responsible for her captivity, that does not preclude that Keith was also responsible).
38. What were the elements of Daniela’s so-called imprisonment in the room?
This question would be more important if Keith had been charged with Kidnapping or False Imprisonment – or if either of those were among the 16 alleged predicate acts that were the basis for the Racketeering charge.
But the charged crime in this case was Document Servitude – which does not actually require any imprisonment.
There was testimony that indicated all of Daniela’s identification-related and immigration-related documents had been taken from her shortly before she was ordered to stay in the room (They were not even back to her when she was driven to the U.S./Mexico border). That’s why Keith was found guilty of this crime.
39. Were any potential defense witnesses intimidated by the government?
While Suneel and his colleagues are planning to re-examine the affidavits from Michele Hatchette and Nicki Clyne that were part of Keith’s ill-fated Rule 33 motion for a new trial last October, the reality is that Judge Garaufis has already determined that their claims of being intimidated by prosecutors were not sufficient to warrant a new trial.
Although Judge Garaufis denied the Rule 33 motion solely because it was not filed on a timely basis, he did note that even if he had considered the merits of the motion, it would have failed.
As he noted in his decision: “Because the court finds that Mr. Raniere’s motion was not timely filed, it declines to analyze the merits of the motion. The court notes, however, that even if Mr. Raniere’s motion were timely, it would fail on other grounds, including the fact that the evidence contained in Ms. Hatchette’s and Ms. Clyne’s affidavits is neither material nor exculpatory.
“The fact that these two individuals may have perceived their and others’ participation in DOS, sexual contact with Mr. Raniere, or uncompensated work for Mr. Raniere’s organizations to be voluntary or even beneficial does not undermine the credibility of other witnesses who testified to vastly different experiences and perceptions.
“Mr. Raniere was not convicted of crimes committed against Ms. Hatchette or Ms. Clyne, and the fact that they do not perceive themselves as his victims is therefore of minimal relevance. See United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) (‘A defendant may not seek to establish his innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions.’).
“Even assuming, without deciding, that all of the information alleged in Ms. Hatchette and Ms. Clyne’s affidavits is true, the court is far from convinced “that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result” or that justice was not served by the verdict in Mr. Raniere’s case. Snyder, 740 F. Appendix at 728.”
I look forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues can develop with respect to this matter – but, based on Judge Garaufis, ruling, I do not think it is likely going to be enough to warrant a new trial.
40. Were any statements made by the government to the court or to the press incorrect?
Although I have read many of the filings in Keith’s case – and most of the transcripts from his trial – I have not read all the government’s press releases or other statements to the press concerning the case.
I should note, however, that although statements made by the prosecution in the courtroom can be challenged by the defense, statements made outside the courtroom are considered irrelevant.
Thus, I am looking forward to reading whatever “incorrect statements” and “false statements” that Suneel and his colleagues may identify so that I can determine whether they might be sufficient to warrant a new trial.
41. Did any witnesses have a legitimate reason to fear for their lives?
Although I do not recall the prosecution making such claims, I will not be surprised to see evidence that they did so. Thus, I am interested in seeing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues can produce regarding those claims – and how those claims may have affected the case.
I’m not quite sure how they will be able to ascertain “the impact of these claims on the case” without talking to the individual members of the jury but I am definitely open to the possibility that one or more of them were influenced by such claims.
42. Did any witness for the prosecution change their story overtime?
It would not surprise me to find out that some of the witnesses for the prosecution did not respond to questions exactly the same way when they were asked some questions multiple times.
The simple reality is that very few people recollect events exactly the same way when they recount an experience multiple times. Sometimes, they add more details, sometimes they leave out details, and sometimes they change details.
Here, however, Suneel and his colleagues are going to produce evidence concerning witnesses who once “…were positive towards NXIVM and Keith [but] now feel the opposite”. It will be interesting to analyze that evidence – and to see if there is a logical explanation for such a change of perspective.
43. What does the case look like when without sensational language and moral judgments?
Depending on how thoroughly they analyze the filings in the case, this could be a Herculean task (There have already been almost 1,000 filings in the case).
In addition, it is also a task that will depend very heavily on personal standards and values: i.e., there is no agreed-upon list of “sensational language” and/or “moral judgments”.
Nevertheless, I look forward to reviewing whatever evidence Suneel and his colleagues produce with respect to this aspect of the case. That is especially true in terms of how they will go about determining how the case might have turned out if all that “sensational language” – and all those “moral judgments” – were removed from the proceedings.
44. What does the case look like when all the genders are reversed?
This is indeed an intriguing question – and one that would be appropriate to ask with regard to just about any criminal trial.
I am very much looking forward to reviewing the evidence that Suneel and his colleagues will produce concerning this aspect of the case.
And I am anxious to see just how broadly they will pursue this analysis: i.e., are they only going to change the genders of some of the people who were involved in the case – or is this going to be a total makeover?
So, there you have my initial thoughts regarding the 44 questions that Suneel and his colleagues will be analyzing – and providing evidence about.
As I said at the opening of this post, although I come into this process with my own biases, opinions, preferences, values, etc. that I have developed over the years because of my own personal experiences, I pledge to try and set those aside as I evaluate the evidence that Suneel and his colleagues provide with respect to those 44 questions – and I expect to be held accountable by Frank Report readers if I fail to do just that.
Just remember what I said at the outset of this series:
“I am not trying to present the “best possible” position for Keith on each issue. Presumably, that’s what he was trying to do in his ‘Call To Action’ — and what Suneel is going to do in providing evidence with respect to the 44 legal issues he has identified regarding Keith’s apprehension, expulsion, arrest, indictment, pre-trial detention, trial, and sentencing.
“The U.S. criminal justice system was not designed to operate in an objective manner. Instead, it was designed to be a fair confrontation between those who believe the defendant is guilty of committing a crime — and those who believe the defendant is innocent.
“I am also trying to take into account the realities of how U.S. criminal justice actually works as opposed to how I think it should work. Thus, for example, even though I believe that pre-trial detention should only be allowed when the defendant is (a) charged with one or more violent crimes, (b) has previously been convicted of one or more violent crimes, or (c) has previously failed to show up for court appearances after being released on bail, I evaluated Keith’s request for pre-trial bail in the context of how the system actually works today.
“My role is not to make Keith’s supporters feel good or bad about how a given legal issue will likely play out. Instead, my role is to explain how and why I think various legal issues will play out in terms of Keith’s quest to get a new trial”.
We cannot assume that Mr. Claviger is inexperienced. We should celebrate that he seeks transparency, away from his personal vice.
The constitutional smorgasbord was appointed by the founding fathers who as fathers would then have found Keith Raniere not derelict in his duties as an absentee father the unjust data of the biased hate filled prosecution has more tails then has a feral cat which swing more fairly then a retaliatory judge’s gavel bangs down the line for all men to be free in having slaves of sex branding them with their initials to uphold principles and principals in the school district and the playing field of unmitigated banana storms.
You know exactly what I am saying.
You are too funny…love it, are you the one making a film with cats and sock puppets? if yeah – how’s it going?
I am the very one. We were using a neighbor’s white fluffy cat for India Oxenberg. Perfect casting! So cute. Then the neighbor heard us outside her window. Shooting the “Vanguard’s walk with India scene. ”
She was not happy. “I said my cat could be in your movie, but not that kind of movie! What is wrong with you?!”
So, a little setback. But we are working it out. We could not find a perfect Bonnie. So a beam of sunlight is playing Bonnie.
The annulment of the Jury is based on the constitutional principle, that it is better for the guilty persons to be free, than to allow the innocent to be punished and arises to avoid unjust, prejudice and retaliatory rulings that condemn the accused for what the law says, without assessing the circumstances and facts, which leads to a final verdict without a doubt unfair, as happened in the Keith Raniere Trial, where due process is not followed, as has been demonstrated, both with the evidentiary facts of the accused that they were not taken into account, such as due to the attitude contrary to the judge’s right to influence the Jury to issue an illegal guilty verdict, when it is precisely in these cases that the Jury’s right to annulment would proceed.
Daniella and Nicole had already consulted and hired a civil lawyer and planned to sue before testifying at trial. This is information the jury should have access to because it creates a motivation to lie or present slanted data since if he’s found guilty they likely win the civil suit (in which by the way they stand to gain some of the Bronfman family fortune which is what this is really about for many of the “victims”) When asked about this to respond no under oath which is what happened is PURJURY.
How do you KNOW that Daniella and Nicole “…had already consulted and hired a civil lawyer and planned to sue before testifying at trial“?
Do you have copies of the “Retainer Agreements” they signed with that lawyer?
Do you have copies of email correspondence between them and that lawyer that confirms they had hired him to sue Keith et al if Keith was found guilty?
Do you have transcripts of recorded phone calls between them and that lawyer that confirms they had hired him to sue Keith et al if Keith was found guilty?
Do you have an eye-witness who overheard them discussing these matters with that lawyer — and who will testify that they had hired him to sue Keith et al if Keith was found guilty?
Please share copies of any of this “evidence” that you have so that we can all see proof that Daniella and Nicole perjured themselves during Keith’s trial.
PS/My recollection is that during the course of his respective cross-examinations, Mark Agnifilo asked both Daniella and Nicole if they had hired an attorney to assert civil claims against Keith et al if he was found guilty — and that both answered “No”. Every attorney has their own style but I would have used the “evidence” that I’ve asked you to share to impeach both of those witnesses while they were still on the witness stand rather than waiting until after the trial was over and making it part of an appeal.
I disagree with most of your responses to Suneel’s questions. I believe Suneel brings great points to this case that could serve law students to analyze for a whole semester and come to a conclusion where justice was upheld or wasn’t. I believe for most of the questions/points Suneel brings up it wasn’t.
I agree that Suneel has raised some interesting points. What I’m waiting for is the “evidence” that he has promised to produce to buttress each of those points.
There are many aspects of Keith’s case that would be interesting to debate. But the outcome of such a debate will be very different depending on whether we’re trying to answer the question of “How should our criminal justice system operate?” versus “How does our criminal justice system operate now?”
I am focused on looking at the rules and standards that currently apply to a convicted felon who is trying to get a new trial. Contrarily, I am not looking at how the current rules and standards should be changed so as to ensure that someone like Keith Raniere is never convicted again.
I agree with you Claviger, evidence of the arguments is what’s needed.
If any of this types of evidence does exist though.. what do you think should happen?
Let’s say there is evidence the witnesses where already planning a civil lawsuit, what’s the right thing to do then? And where would you personally stand?
Lol. Is that the next step of your misguided campaign to free a criminal just because you love him?
To get a class of law students to spend a semester working for Keith for free? Keith who has unlimited money to hire lawyers?
There is zero chance any Nxivm cult members care about justice/injustice in general. At all. In spite of all that charity work that Nxivm did…. Never.
Not sure if you’re aware, but 17,000 people took courses in NXIVM over the course of almost 20 years, how are you so sure about what all of them care about or not? Seems like a slippery slope to make a blanket statement about a group of people, especially if you don’t even know them, but even then it’s probably not good.
That’s not a slippery slope you buffoon. That would be a [possible] example of over generalization. But he wasn’t even making a claim about every person who took a NXIVM course anyway, but those who are [still] NXIVM cult members, so it couldn’t have been that either.
Another article from Clavinger where he shows absolutely no objective analysis but a one sided, biased opinion. I sure hope you are never in a position where you need the justice system to be just, as you’ve accepted and supported injustice.
I think we get lost on the issues and not in the process of how things were made. I think the whole process was made towards the most extreme crimes so they made up things that would support it, as if it was done properly it would lack sustainable proof.
And it’s something we are seeing today in the press censoring people, if it’s something they don’t like the y censor, but they don’t follow a just process for all, it’s whatever the moderators interpretation, so you can see it’s very biased the block an account that says COVID and alternative treatments and leave one that says get the vaccine all based on opinions and not process.
When you cannot defend the crimes, like kiddie porn, attack the process. Classic move of the indoctrinated.
As always, excellent analysis and explanation.
My constant compliments are almost a cliché. Regardless, I genuinely mean them.
The philosophical question of reversing the male-female dynamic, in the criminal case, is an intriguing question. Unfortunately for Nxivm, it won’t help one iota in an appeal.
Canadian ‘actor’ [redacted] was in NXIVM.
He is also, like many NXIVM males, into trying to make poo pregnant.
I was threatened by the prosecution, and I can definitely say they weren’t looking for the truth. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of the things Suneel said were true.
Be more specific, please. Threatened by what? Your criminal behavior? Did they say they’d take you in a back room and beat you?. You’re here. Exercising free speech. If you make anonymous claims instead of filing a legal complaint – it is really hard to believe you. The trial is over. Let us hear your story. And give your accusers a chance to confront their accuser. You. That’s what you want for Keith, correct? The chance to confront his accusers? Seems hypocritical. You accuse people. Don’t file a legal complaint. And do not let them address your vague accusations.
All this vapid, redundant, droning analysis is so tedious — judging by the two sentences I got through — can’t keep my eyes open.
Say, you know, you guys might just have finally hit on a real, patentable invention:
The best insomnia remedy since death itself!
Wait, is this some kinda twisted suicide-by-boredom module?
Break out the champagne. Hutchinson and I finally agree on something.
I genuinely think you should write some articles for FR on topics not related to the details of Kristin/Gina’s suicides, since those topics have been talked about enough lately and would only generate more bickering.
Maybe you can write some articles which discuss different aspects of Keith’s past or other immoral people involved with Keith, such as your old pal “Tones” or other people that deserve to be dragged thru the mud some more.
Or maybe you can discuss the actual date (point in time) when you finally turned against Keith and the circumstances of that turning point.
We know that you were obviously enamored by Keith up until a certain point in time, since according to your past statements, you said he was part of your divorce (you received marital advice from him) and you also said that he sent you $10k for your slogan.
Did he hold sway over you back then? Were you his follower or his friend?
Please ‘dish’ on the circumstances of your official falling out with Keith. I’m curious if it happened before or after October 2002 (curious if you suspected he was part of that incident immediately after it happened). I’m also curious what the final circumstances were when you finally switched from being Keith’s friend to his enemy?
Frank, these were fair comments and I went out of my way not to hurl any insults.
I was legitimately interested in hearing about the circumstances (and point in time) when Heidi turned against Keith.
It’s on topic and relevant.
Yet you’re still blocking it.
You cocksucker. You company boy. You god damn, ball-sucking liberal fucktard.
Your Sicilian ancestors are turning over in their graves —— seeing what a sissy-boy you’ve become.
You’re a disgrace to every Sicilian mobster in your family tree.
This may have been mentioned by you earlier, K.R. Claviger, but I couldn’t find the answer. Are you a lawyer? If so, do you mind sharing what type of law you practice? Thanks for that detailed analysis, I appreciate your perspectives and using your time in this way.
This may have been mentioned by you earlier, Minerva but I couldn’t find the answer. Are you a DOS member? If so, do you mind sharing whether you are branded? Thanks, in advance, for your detailed and non-evasive answer.
I appreciate your insightful, honest, and always independent contributions to this forum.
Claviger needs a lot more practice. There was almost zero analysis, all Claviger said 44 times is that she is looking forward to more information from Suneel & Co.
I am a retired attorney who was a practicing member of the bar for over 30-years. I handled a wide variety of legal matters but concentrated on white-collar criminal cases. I am now a part-time instructor regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
US Department of Injustice = Chinese Communist Party
Keith Raniere = Tibet
The Dalai Lama said
“Love is the absence of judgment.”
“When you talk you are only repeating something you already know. But, if you listen you may learn something new.”
“Follow the three R’s: – Respect for self. – Respect for others. – Responsibility for all your actions.”
“Never give up. No matter what is happening, no matter what is going on around you, never give up.”
“Compassion is the wish for another being to be free from suffering; love is wanting them to have happiness.”
“Anger cannot be overcome by anger. If someone is angry with you, and you show anger in return, the result is a disaster. On the other hand, if you control your anger and show its opposite – love, compassion, tolerance and patience – not only will you remain peaceful, but the other person’s anger will also diminish.”
Fill your boots.
Claviger, please keep your ear to the ground and give us the latest scoop on how Clare is doing behind bars.
I don’t think she’s gonna adjust too well. Based on Frank’s description of her personality, I think she’s gonna struggle every day — during her entire sentence.
You’ve given us plenty of juicy tidbits about Keith’s interactions with other inmates and guards (including Keith crying and getting his ass kicked) but you haven’t really dished out much juicy info about Clare Bear’s time in jail.
Just get the info.
We don’t care how you get it. Just get it.
If you need to blow a guard to get him to dish, then please kindly do so, sir. 🙂
Niceguy might be able to assist with that kinda thing.
How can NiceGuy assist? Pin the guard down during the process?
NiceGuy 666 also has a mouth.
OMG….Your wife told you about my mouth? Did your daughter tell you as well?
Hopefully a willing source will rear their head at Clare’s new residence.
I just checked — and, as of 9:00 AM on Sunday, January 17th, Clare is still listed as being at Philadelphia FDC — and Keith is still listed as being at Lewisburg USP. We normally check on their status — and look for new PACER filings — at least three times a day.
We’ve held off trying to establish new relationships at Philadelphia FDC and Lewisburg USP until we see how long Clare and Keith will be at those respective locations. But one way or another, we hope to be getting reports on each by the end of January.
Suneel is trying to accomplish a makeover all right, and for guess who. Holy, wholly monkey butts, ignore all of the sistah wife shit, still clogging up some buddy’s brainpipes. Who is whistling Dixie? Peep behind the veil.
Ugh a bugga boo. It’s simply time for the Gong Show.
What’s the downside with asking these questions in an open forum to get individuals to reassess if things were handled justly?
I’m cross posting this in at least two articles, and it addresses nxians incessant comparison of Vanguard s prison sentence, and the holocaust, which was the murder of six million innocent men, women and children, mostly Jewish, the disabled and prisoners. But mostly Jewish civilians.
There is a piece missing. Was nxivm an anti Semitic group…..?? perhaps, Anonymous, this should be brought up to the Simon Wiesenthal center???
Wow. This is crazy.
So many layers to this evil NXIVM onion.
Using guilt about evil acts supposedly committed in past lives to enforce obedience is straight out of the Scientology playbook. In KAR’s case, it isn’t hard to imagine he then twisted this around somehow to say the evil wasn’t evil and served a greater good.
Accusing their enemies of “twisting” reality is a standard NXIVM Koolaid-drinker line. They are projecting.
NXIVM was so secretive it’s hard to believe we yet know just how deep the rabbit hole goes. But reality has a way of slowly leaking out.
Nexionion, please Shivani use this in a post 😜
Good catch! Thank you!!!! Seems like a forward worthy piece of the insanity.
Claiming an incompetent lawyer will be difficult but it’s likely his lawyer just followed Keith’s instructions.
At this point, Keith’s best hope may be to claim he, Keith Ranriere, has too low of an IQ to have understood what was going on, and advised his lawyer wrongly. That may be his best shot. When you add up all the bad or crazy decisions he made, it just might make sense.
A group of people went fishing and caught a malignant narcissist fish.
It is so strong, it’s sinking their ship.
Is it fair? Although I have not reviewed all the filings in this case (there are now almost 1,000 of them), my recollection is that this issue was raised – and resolved – prior to the start of the trial. While I am waiting for Suneel and his colleagues to produce their posts, I will go back to see if that’s true. Facts and objetivity require careful review of evidence.
That’s your job (if you choose to accept it): to provide any evidence. Clavier’s stated purpose is to look at what’s provided and and give an opinion whether it is useful to KR’s legal future in the country and legal situation in which KR now exists. Frankly (I enjoy writing “frankly” on the Frank Report) you’re lucky an attorney is patient enough to do that without charging you.
Tl:dr: Don’t ask Clavier to do your homework, *and* to grade your homework. For free.
Yes, it is fun to write “frankly” at Frank’s place as an adverb with *zing.* Fun like having a little bit of splendid chocolate or fresh mango. And then, if Frank Parlato keeps on giving a damn, and so prolifically, there’s always Rhett Butler. Sadly, Clark Gable was known by his costars as a man with romance-curdling halitosis. Dreams do shatter.
So far, no news about Frank Parlato. Or his inhalations or his exhalations. Maybe Toni Tattlelee has got the goods? Oh oh, do watch out, Shivani, tread softly.
Frankly my dear I don’t….
However flirting is quite a sport. Okay. Ballet. Tutu Parlato? There is no hope for me, so what to do with all of that leftover word sundae?
“I’ll think about it tomorrow,” said Scarlett, facedeep in the field of grass at Tara. Or is that facedeep in the lookng-glass? Yin and yang ? Ask the I Ching? Let’s get out our Woody Woodpecker laughs. Only five notes.
n/a & Shivani, so true about writing ‘frankly’ on the Frank- its a pure thrill! – along with ‘..to be frank..’
(As to the rest…I for one am hooked on this embedded, this nesting layer, but know for a fact that discretion is the better part of valor…)
Clearly there are a lot of unanswered questions and still did not see any strong fact based evidence in this case.
Eyewitness testimony is so biased and the least reliable form of evidence.
She said, she said. Besides that, is this what our court system is now putting people in prison based on what other people say? That makes for a trial of hate and not justice and laws…
Witness testimony has always been allowed in U.S. courts. Are you suggesting that we should bar witness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony is the most direct. Not only that, it is subject to strict scrutiny in the form of cross examination.
I see no unanswered questions. The judge and an impartial jury asked and answered just about every question imaginable.
Let’s see the evidence and commentary not that helpful…
Frank: Have you considered having here also alternative news on political topics? Given the climate, I think investigative reporters like you are much needed to present the other side of what is happening in the world. Main Stream Media is showing one side of the story and we need more voices.
What do you think? Thanks for all the great work you do
Frank, in time,should do this. It wouldn’t be hard to do, Frank. But wait until the others get sentenced. (It’s up to you, of course)
It should be obvious by now that Frank is more interested in NXIVM news and making the advertising money, something more meaningful would chase off the Libtards.
True. It could scare people off. Maybe this is fine. Maybe I just love reading about Roger Stone…haha
Took a few secs. to find this for you, Mexican Lady, I’m sure there are lots more out there.
I like it that such a discussion can take place. I think it speaks of civilization.
I do think that some of the arguments here are a bit cold. To take private communications out of context and allow them at a trial where clearly the intent was to dirty someone’s name is not right, even if you can find a technicality that gives it legality, this creates a slippery slope. Soon, anything about anyone’s life will be admitted at a trial if the person is viewed badly enough, and context won’t matter at all like it didn’t did here.
I think that is one thing to bring tangential evidence that means to prove motive or character, but we need to watch it that our government is not bluntly trying to match the narrative of the media.
Why do you think private conversations were taken out of context?
I think they were spot on the context.
I like the fact that your statements are posed with the assumption that you as one person cannot possibly know everything. “What will Suneel and his colleagues come up with?”
The reality is that we cannot all know everything. More media should be stating their facts and TELLING their viewers how they came up with those conclusions. Based on this information, we determine this is the conclusion. But what they end up doing is stating hypotheses or opinions as facts. That is just not the case.
I could not care less if my communications were used in court. I have nothing to hide. Live your life with integrity. It becomes a non-issue. As soon as you text or email a person you’ve lost control of your “privacy”. Good lesson if you are operating a criminal organization or grooming a child for pedophilia. Also… Maybe don’t record conversations about how to brand your sex slaves. And what to make them say.
How much less could you care?
What do you think about this guy? https://www.bing.com/search?q=ari+teman&cvid=e5a8979407b645b9a96a55b80154b0e7&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531 He wasn’t concerned about his communications, either, and it appears he got screwed by the system.
This one was even more boring than the “answers” to the first story of 22 questions.
So there ya go, Nxians. You have a lot of homework. Get cracking’!.
Thanks again, KR Claviger. You are amazingly patient in how you are willing to repeat yourself to people who don’t seem to be able to understand you the first time.
You’ve convinced me that, barring some blockbuster new evidence that blows the prosecution’s case to smithereens, Raniere’s goose is cooked.
The other remaining question is: might the goose get pulled out of the oven before he dies?
How would an appeal of the sentence length work? Does the appeals court have to find there was some fundamental prosecution mistake made in order to reconsider the sentence? Or can the defense say, “Well, we aren’t admitting guilt, but even if what the prosecution alleges were true, this is too long”?
You have indicated the appeals court can send the case back to Garaufis to reconsider the sentence, but it sounds like he still has wide latitude to set another sentence. Is this correct?
Since Raniere’s sentence was within the guidelines for the charges convicted, what are the chances of the appeals court granting a reconsideration?
Keith has the right to appeal the length of his sentence separate and apart from any appeal of his conviction.
And even though the 120-year sentence was within the applicable sentencing guidelines, it would not shock me if the Second Circuit disagreed with some aspects of Judge Garufis’ calculations — and sent the case back to him for re-sentencing in line with their findings. Even if that were to happen, however, I think the most that Keith could expect in the way of a reduction is a sentence of 60-80 years and 3-years of post-release supervision.
Gotcha. Absent a virtual miracle that wins him a new trial and acquittal, Keith Raneire dies in prison.
The money and time spent on appeals will be sound and fury signifying nothing.
In that case, if Raniere’s supporters really believe in “the tech,” they’d be better off focusing on spreading the gospel of NXIVM rather than trying to win a symbolic, pointless game of shortening his sentence.
I personally think his flock is ruining his chances of anything. I believe the judge mentioned something like him running the cult from behind prison. Don’t remember the wording.
So, it is part of the record.
I find it rather ironically hilarious–that his remaining kool-aid drinkers are just digging a bigger hole for him to get out at his behest. So, once again, he is responsible for his own demise. Their behavior is just proving the judge and prosecution right regarding his sentencing. He’s trying to do what Catherine Oxenberg, Sarah Edmondson, Mark Vicente, and others did: i.e., use the “fake” media (more irony) to bring attention to his narcissistic “plight” by trying to pretend like it’s a poor, innocent David who got railroaded by the Goliath of the injustice of the U.S. justice system.
The problem for him is he’s someone who claimed to be an “ethical” leader, but he’s just an immoral, selfish person who lived a promiscuous, sordid lifestyle, and although not lacking in intelligence, he is emotionally and empathetically stunted. He has been in previous trouble with the law, used the legal system as his own personal litigation machine by way of the substantial Bronfman sister fortune against his enemies (more irony considering the present situation), created a secretive sex cult that branded women which became public during the time of the “Me-too” movement, and has left a trail of victims in his wake, many of whom testified and made statements against him. Now, he and his followers are speciously speaking in terms of grand principles of standing up for justice. Their words are hollow and fall on deaf ears. They’re ringing bells in a vacuum of apathy because people can see through the transparent facade. The human side of me would feel pity for this man for how he lived his life if he wasn’t such a smug, arrogant, statutory rapist, because you know if he was to become free, he would simply start doing the same things again, except maybe this time he’d be more careful not to get caught again. It was a synergy of events that effectively got him exposed and caught, all drawn out by Karma for his utter hypocrisy. And it is poetic irony for those who can read the signs, which means he’s right where he’s supposed to be.
People simply don’t “stand up” for justice for people like him. A reminder to all of those who want to have a true, meaningful, actual impact in the world, especially in the context of what Claviger recently wrote in his article, “Supporters Silly Nonsense: Raniere Case Among Worst for Trying to Bring Change in Criminal Justice System”:
Excellent moral character is the best proof of innocence.
And so, the thought exercise continues.
What is fascinating about most of these questions is they are issues that should have been brought up at trial by the defense. Without meaning to, Suneel is basically accusing Raniere’s attorney of incompetency. Which may be true (beats me, don’t really care) but an attorney paid for by the defendant and his performance is subjective at best and not cause for a re-trial.
As a whole, the questions again are a thought exercise that could be applied to any sensational case that is complex in its execution and, thus, how the trial unfolds. It doesn’t mean they “prove” malfeasance, unfair practices, an unfair trial, or anything else. It’s just holes in an argument that come up once able to see the entire picture because the trial is over. None of it, even if taken at 100% face value as “fact”, is enough to lead to a retrial or release.
It’s like accusing the coach of being bad at his job after the end of the game because of his first-quarter play calls where the one touchdown was made in the game. You only knew to do that because you had the entire game to look at.
Nice summary and I agree with you, erasend.
Is the author a lawyer or something? What is his relationship to Nxivm? (In other words, why should we listen to the author?)
Who says you have to read or listen to anyone? You have the gift of choice or you should have.
Perhaps you should keep reading and listening to Suneel and his posts if those are what make you feel better. Everyone can be happy.
N. You are awesome.
I believe Anonymous above was just trying to get a sense of the writer and what authority do they have in the matter in order to evaluate their perspective, meaning, if I’m giving an opinion on your yoga pose and I’m a yoga teacher is a different thing than me giving an opinion on your yoga pose while being my first time doing yoga..excuse the ‘extreme’ example but just to illustrate the point . I think is a fair question.
My sincerest apologies to Anon if I have fallen foul of mistaking the comment as something other than a simple, fair question. I wrote it after reading a lot that sounded like they had been made by petulant children and may have mistaken Anon’s for something similar.
“sounded like they had been made by petulant children”
Apt description of just about everything written or said by a supporter of The World’s Smartest Child Rapist™.
The author is an alleged lawyer, and if so, not a very good one. She isn’t willing to come on Scott’s podcast and be forced to think on her feet, which says a lot.
I feel sorry for your bitterness. Be careful it doesn’t bind to you.
What did/ or would you do without the hands of Frank and Claviger to bite off every time they hand you a treat?
Author is a lawyer AND something.