Claviger: Supporters’ Silly Nonsense: Keith Raniere Case Among Worst for Trying to Bring Change in Criminal Justice System

Keith Raniere Black and White
"Humans can be noble. The question is: Will we put forth what is necessary?" -Keith Raniere

By K.R. Claviger

While it is true that Keith Raniere’s case has gotten more media attention than many other criminal cases get, that does not necessarily mean that it is an ideal case that can be used to push for needed changes in our country’s criminal justice system.

To begin with, the Keith Raniere case involves some charges and allegations that, even if proven to be untrue, still raise a lot of suspicions about the defendant (e.g., Racketeering, Sexual Exploitation of a Child, Possession of Child Pornography, Sex Trafficking, etc.). The fact that Keith Raniere was indicted for these crimes and predicate acts confirms that a grand jury determined that, after reviewing witnesses’ testimony and other evidence presented by the U.S. Department of Justice, there was enough evidence to warrant charging him with seven (7) crimes:

  1. Racketeering
  2. Racketeering Conspiracy
  3. Forced Labor Conspiracy
  4. Wire Fraud Conspiracy
  5. Sex Trafficking Conspiracy
  6. Sex Trafficking
  7. Attempted Sex Trafficking

And sixteen (16) predicate acts:

  1. Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft: Ashana Chenoa
  2. Conspiracy To Unlawfully Possess Identification Document
  3. Sexual Exploitation Of A Child: November 2, 2005
  4. Sexual Exploitation Of A Child: November 24, 2005
  5. Possession Of Child Pornography
  6. Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft
  7. Identity Theft: James Loperfido
  8. Identity Theft: Edgar Bronfman
  9. Conspiracy To Alter Records In An Official Proceeding
  10. Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft
  11. Trafficking For Labor & Services
  12. Document Servitude
  13. Extortion
  14. Sex Trafficking: Nicole
  15. Forced Labor: Nicole,
  16. Conspiracy To Commit Identity Theft: Pamela Cafritz

I am not a fan of our grand jury system — but, per the Fifth Amendment, it is the system that our Constitution requires in cases involving federal felonies and other infamous crimes. And it was a grand jury that, after reviewing the testimony and other evidence that had been presented to it, determined that Keith Raniere should be indicted — and tried — for the above-listed 7 crimes and 16 predicate acts.

Did Keith Raniere Get a Fair Trial?

To date, I have not seen any evidence — or heard any witness testimony — to support the allegation of “prosecutorial misconduct” in Keith Raniere’s case. Simply because federal prosecutors took advantage of what the criminal justice system allows them to do does not mean that they committed misconduct.

That’s why doing things like calling NXIVM/ESP a “pyramid organization” — or describing DOS as a “sex cult” — is not going to get Keith Raniere a new trial. And even though I agree that some of the evidence that was introduced at Keith’s trial was somewhat irrelevant with respect to the charges pending against him, I do not think that any of that evidence was prejudicial to the point that it warrants a new trial for Keith Raniere (Extraneous evidence can be introduced by the prosecution to show such things as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake).

So, if I were looking for an ideal case to use as the basis for seeking to make changes to the U.S. criminal justice system, I would look for one that had these characteristics:

  1. A defendant who did not have any prior incidents of negative involvement with the criminal justice system (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  2. A defendant who had been charged with a single crime that did not involve any eyewitnesses (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  3. A defendant who was not likely subject to another criminal charge (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  4. A defendant who had an alibi — or an explanation as to what really happened — and was willing to testify before the jury (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  5. A defendant who had a history of being an upstanding member of their community — and/or who had donated time to community projects (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  6. A defendant who was employed in a job that other community residents saw as beneficial and/or necessary to their community (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  7. A defendant who was known for telling the truth — and who could not be proven to be a liar on the witness stand (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  8. A defendant who was well-liked by their neighbors, co-workers, etc. (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);
  9. A defendant who had a record of success — all the way from grammar school, through high school and college, and on to their current job (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion); and
  10. A defendant who had never been found guilty of lying to a judge (Keith’s case did not meet this criterion);

In my ideal world, that’s the type of defendant that I would like to have if I were asserting that their trial and conviction had been a miscarriage of justice. Not having to worry about any of those factors would allow me to concentrate all my attention on the mistakes that had occurred from their indictment to their sentencing.

So, give me a widow:

  1. Who works as a full-time grammar school teacher while she raises her son and daughter;
  2. Who volunteers as the Choir Director at her local church on weekends;
  3. Who has been voted “Teacher-of-the-Year” four years in a row by the other teachers at her school — and who turned down the opportunity to become the Principal because she wanted to continue teaching in the classroom;
  4. Whose only interaction with law enforcement is that she was once ticketed for not coming to a full stop at an intersection 15-years ago;
  5. Who is the Director of her Neighborhood Watch program — and who organizes the neighborhood caroling group for the Christmas holidays;
  6. Who always hands out full-size candy bars at Halloween;
  7. Who got a rescue dog and a rescue cat for her kids;
  8. Who often serves as a volunteer baby sitter for her neighbors when emergencies arise;
  9. Who was charged with one count of homicide with respect to the homeless man who was found dead in her garden (He had been shot once in the head by a 30-30 caliber bullet); and
  10. Who was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison (The primary evidence against her was a 30-30 rifle that had been recovered by the police about a mile from her house and then planted in her garage at the direction of an ambitious Assistant District Attorney).

That’s the case I want to use when I try to overturn basic elements of our current criminal justice system.

All kidding aside, Keith Raniere’s case is among the worst I can imagine for trying to bring about any major changes in our criminal justice system.

Who, except his most ardent followers and a few celebrities who may not know very much about the case, is going to devote the time and resources that will be necessary to get people interested in Keith Raniere’s “cause”? And who is going to finance what will undoubtedly be a very arduous and expensive process to get him a new trial?


About the author

K.R. Claviger


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Is the Criminal Justice System perfect? From my point of view, I think it is not and, therefore, can be improved. Is it possible to manipulate a trial? I think so.

    Is it possible to direct the outcome of a trial? I think that yes, I believe that the power of money is greater than the morale of some people.

    • I would like to review the full reports that were written by the experts who were hired by Keith’s supporters — and not just the pages they have chosen to post.

      I would like to have the prosecution’s witnesses review those same reports — and provide their responses to them.

      And, finally, I would like to be able to question the experts and the witnesses myself.

      This is essentially what should have happened in the courtroom but never did.

      And although I’ve read that the defense didn’t call any pro-DOS members as witnesses because those women were afraid of being charged themselves, I have not read why the defense chose not to call any outside expert witnesses to challenge things like the photographs of Camila.

  • Excellent, this case may not be the right model to change the judicial system in the United States, but it is a strong example of what we have.

  • It’s just abundantly, incessantly obvious that the only injustice any of these clowns care about in the slightest is the imaginary injustice they perceive done to Keith, ET AL.

    They must know that Keith’s case — where the only injustice is that being done by his own defense operatives against NX victims, including the leftovers, IMO – puts them at cross-purposes with their alleged mission.

    Yes, there is corruption aplenty in the US justice system starting, again, with the elements of it NXIVM contributed to — namely the Evil Empire’s own NDNY DOJ faction — which did so far serve to prevent the full application of justice on Keith Raniere and many other culprits for crimes that have gone uncharged. And not bc of any lack of evidence, as some propose, but bc of corruption alone.

    If any of you really want to help defeat that corruption so that another Raniere does not emerge to get away with the type of crime cycle you acolytes remain entrapped in, OR to protect the truly innocent from unjust persecution and prosecution — pick a winner otherwise you’re just picking your noses in public here.

    I liked the dancing better; horrendous as that was, at least it was mildly entertaining.

  • Maybe I am misreading this, but it sounds like you are suggesting that we must have a case where the defendant is naturally free of negative prejudice to reveal the problem of the prosecution and judge using negative prejudice as a tool to imprison people. Isn’t the problem the use of negative prejudice as the fulcrum of the case, as opposed to strong evidence of actual crimes?

    Also, isn’t Raniere free of any previous incidents with the criminal justice system? The problems with the previous companies were not criminal complaints, but they were regulatory complaints.

    • I was talking about the type of case that I would generally consider “ideal” in terms of making substantive changes to the U.S. criminal justice system. If you’re only looking at one specific issue — such as the use of negative references unrelated to the pending charges in a criminal case — then you obviously need a case that had such negative references. Even then, I would still prefer a case that didn’t have crimes like Sex Trafficking, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy and Attempted Sex Trafficking because those charges all by themselves are hard to get past with some jurors.

      Although the investigations that were undertaken by multiple State Attorneys General and two federal agencies were closed down after Keith shut down Consumers Buyline, many of those investigations were looking at potential criminal charges as well as civil charges. Once again, I would prefer a case that involved a client who did not have any prior involvement with criminal charges and/or potential criminal charges.

  • I read your article. Your points (why KR’s case is not ideal for pointing out the injustice in our “NOT-justice system”) are actually the very reasons this IS in fact an ideal case to point out the injustice.

    Not sure why you think a more socially acceptable defendant would be more ideal. It seems you are confusing “moral behavior” and “criminal behavior.” Raniere’s sketchy or edgy choices provoked the prejudice that inflamed the hate that was used to convict him in the first place. This isn’t about him getting off scot-free, this is about how he really didn’t have a trial!

    We could have saved a lot of time and money and just let the general public vote on it… with no evidence of the crimes. Actually, that IS what happened, while pretending there was a fair trial.

    Very little time was used to deliberate the case to conclude a guilty verdict. Any reasonable critically thinking adult (that can see past the ridiculous offensive nature of the content) can see, there is NO evidence that proves he did anything criminal; maybe disagreeable to some, maybe massively offensive to most, but was it CRIMINAL? Not that I can see. The whole thing is just as unconstitutional as the senate thinking they can use impeachment as a political move when it’s a LEGAL ACTION.

    What happened in that courtroom with Raniere was a demonstration of a witch hunt, and the prosecution participated without consideration, conscience, or respect for Americans’ freedoms to a fair trial.

    I now believe this has been going on for decades to minorities (yes BLACK people) and now even more evident as it’s happened to a white male that was honest about his unpopular and non-socially acceptable life choices. Again, the perfect case to expose the injustice in our “NOT-justice” system. A black man would have been laughed at or killed by now for even trying to have a trial. Sorry Mr. Claviger I don’t get your logic. HUMAN LIVES MATTER.

    • While you and I may have similar goals — i.e., bring about major changes to our current criminal justice system — we have very different viewpoints as to what type of case would be best for doing that.

      If I’m the one responsible for making that choice, I want a case in which a major travesty took place that, if exposed, would result in the case being completely overturned (e.g., the planting of falsified evidence by the prosecutor) but that doesn’t have any extraneous problems (e.g., a defendant with a prior record, a defendant accused of heinous crimes, a defendant who is unliked by their neighbors, a defendant with a history of lying, etc.). Convincing people that an injustice has occurred in a recently-concluded trial is hard enough. I don’t need a defendant that is going to make that task even harder.

      I get your point: if you can get Keith’s convictions completely reversed, you would feel that, thereafter, you could get just about any other wrongly convicted defendant’s conviction reversed. My point is that when the rate for a complete reversal is less than 4% (See:, I think you significantly lower your odds for success by selecting a case that has one or more inherently negative aspects to it.

      • I agree “significantly lowers your odds”. But that’s the point. We agree on the most important part, the system is broken. We disagree on how to fix it. Finding a way to make it work without bias won’t fix it. We need to also evaluate if all immoral behavior is criminal. Is all criminal behavior immoral? If the first is true, we are all criminals. Who gets to determine what’s immoral? Which church? Which race? What people? Harvey Silvergate’s book, “Three Felonies A Day” is a good read for this problem. The Feds target the innocent for control and profit.

        • I will be happy to participate in a detailed discussion about changes that need to be made to the U.S. criminal justice system — but that’s not what I was tasked to do here. Instead, my agreed-upon role is to act as “Devil’s Advocate” with respect to the various “legal issues” that Keith Raniere raised in his “Call To Action” and the 44 “legal questions” that Suneel has raised concerning the apprehension, arrest, indictment, pre-trial detention, prosecution, and sentencing of Keith Raniere — and to determine if any of those “legal issues” and “legal questions” are likely to result in him getting a new trial.

          I started out by giving my analysis of the “legal issues” that were raised in Keith’s “Call To Action”. Suneel, in turn, responded to one of the issues that I wrote about: i.e., the prosecution’s use of the term “pyramid organization”.

          Then I shared my “initial thoughts” regarding the 44 “legal questions” that Suneel has raised — and for which he has promised to provide “evidence” to support his argument that those questions should result in Keith getting a new trial.

          At the outset, I acknowledged that I came into these tasks with my own experiences, biases and opinions regarding the U.S. criminal justice system — and I promised to try and keep those out of the work I was undertaking on behalf of Frank Report and its readers. To date, I believe I have maintained that promise.

          At this point, I am still waiting to review the “evidence” that Suneel is going to produce with respect to the 44 questions he has raised about Keith Raniere’s case. If/as I receive that “evidence”, I will review it — and share my opinion as to whether it will — individually or cumulatively — likely result in a new trial for Keith.

          I have shared the simple reality that “complete reversals” of District Court verdicts and sentences happen less than 4% of the time that those results are appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And I have shared my opinion that the rate of reversals has likely gone down in the Second Circuit in recent years as more conservative judges were appointed to it.

          So, here we are: I have not yet seen sufficient evidence regarding even one “legal issue” — or one “legal question” — that I think will result in Keith getting a new trial. That said, I do think there are legal arguments that, if proven and buttressed by sufficient evidence, could result in the overturning of some of the 16 criminal acts the jury deemed to be “proved” by the prosecution with respect to the Racketeering charge– and/or in a slight reduction of Keith’s sentence.

          I look forward to reviewing the “evidence” that Suneel and his colleagues are working to produce. And I look forward to having a free and open discussion concerning the U.S. criminal justice system outside of the context of Keith Raniere’s case.

    • Your data is correct, Crucible. The way Keith was treated was like if the prosecutors were constantly calling a black man n—–r. The media kept saying pyramid and blow job because he was white. People were too stupid to see it is just the same hate bias.

    • –It seems you are confusing “moral behavior” and “criminal behavior.”

      You’re clueless. Criminal behavior IS considered immoral behavior with respect to the democratic society AS A WHOLE that deemed it criminal via the legislative branch of the government, because a legal system is a general reflection of the moral code of society. Therefore, adults having sex with minors in the USA is considered implicitly immoral due to its illegality. Even something that most people do much of the time, e.g., speeding, is also considered so even though they don’t necessarily think “immoral” when they speed. You can spend significant time in jail for being a reckless driver, as most people think endangering the lives of others with a two ton vehicle is immoral. Whether such behavior is considered “objectively” or “relatively” moral or not is an altogether different philosophical issue.

      Individuals can have more rigorous or stricter moral codes within such a society, but they cannot have looser moral codes that contradict it because that will necessarily get them in trouble with the law. Adultery or sleeping around is NO LONGER considered immoral by the U.S. justice system (because it’s not illegal) even if it is considered immoral in certain religions or by individual people.

      –Raniere’s sketchy or edgy choices provoked the prejudice that inflamed the hate that was used to convict him in the first place.

      Oh please! The many life choices of Mr. Raniere that led up to him creating a sex cult using blackmail material is what got him into trouble with the law (among many other things, some of which he got away with like statutory rape), which were things the prosecution had to prove in court of law with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to get him convicted. Not one law school in the US teaches its students to use hate to convict a defendant, because hate cannot be used to convict anyone in a court of law. Hate–which is a SUBJECTIVE perception of a being that is held by one or more people–can never be OBJECTIVE evidence of guilt of a crime.

      Your contention is that hate overrode evidence of criminal conduct. In other words, you’re claiming that the justice system engaged in an appeal to hate to convict Raniere, which is a logical fallacy. OK. Where’s your evidence? Show how the judge “hated” Raniere so that he didn’t objectively look at the law when ruling the court or determining his sentencing. Show how the jury “hated” Raniere so that they didn’t objectively look at the law when deciding upon the evidence for illegal behavior.

      Just throwing out wild assertions of hate isn’t going to get you anywhere.

      That you guys keep behaving in playing the hate “card” is annoyingly pathetic for a leader who taught that there are “no ultimate victims”, except apparently himself now that he’s going to be spending the rest of his life in jail if the sentence stands appeal.

      –Very little time was used to deliberate the case to conclude a guilty verdict.

      This doesn’t necessarily suggest what you want, for it can be used to more strongly suggest its opposite, i.e., the fact that Raniere was found guilty so quickly was because the prosecution did its job and the evidence against him was so overwhelming that it was easy to get a consensus and find him so in such a short amount of time.

      –Any reasonable critically thinking adult.

      I believe the longer you exist in NXIVM, and the more intensives you take, as well as the closer you are to Raniere, all of these things, kill your critical thinking skills. Which seems to have happened to you.

  • To suggest that the media had no major role on Keith’s conviction is non sense.. This case was trial by media evidently. It doesn’t matter if you hate the guy, there was no due process… What’s the discussion here?!

  • I agree that Keith Raniere’s case is not “ideal” for inspiring change in the U.S.’s criminal justice system, if we define “ideal” as having a high likelihood of success. The reason has to do with one of the issues with the criminal justice system itself – if someone is seen as a “victim,” they get special treatment, in my opinion. I believe this is what Claviger was getting at in this article.

    I don’t think a white male American with access to millions of dollars and multiple sex partners is ever very likely to be seen as a victim. I’d say they’re more likely to be an object of jealousy. So who would want to help them, even if they might be up against real injustice? The answer: people who believe in justice as a principle, which, in my opinion, is the only real justice there is. This means wherever there’s injustice, even for “non-victims,” it should be rectified.

    So if we define “ideal” for inspiring change in the criminal justice system as having a high likelihood of actually making the criminal justice system more just, then addressing the issues in the system for a man that many hate and few see as a victim might be one of the best cases out there for the job.

    • Yes…That is exactly what I was trying to convey in sharing my opinion that Keith’s case is not an “ideal case” if the goal is to change some of the basic tenets of our current criminal justice system. Simply put, there’s way too much baggage to get past before you can deal with any injustices that occurred in his case (and I do think there were some).

      The kind of changes that I think need to be made to our criminal justice system will not happen all at once. Instead, they will happen incrementally over a period of years.

  • Possible good news for Keith- Trump will be issuing 100 more pardons on Tuesday! No word yet of who is on the list.

    Keith, keep your fingers & toes (or is it cloven hooves?) crossed!

    • Whose hearts are going to be broken and sense of reality shattered more come noon on Wednesday?

      Hardcore QAnon cultists?


      The Drinkers of Keith’s Kool-Aid™?

  • I understand your position but ask you to consider the value of defending the devil. This would be the standard to having a true justice system. If you can uphold the system with the devil, you can guarantee justice for all. Anything less than the devil will not provide the challenge needed to test the system. We never know the strenght of a pereson or system until tested. You don’t know if you would abuse power until given the power unchecked. It’s easy to abuse power against the devil becacuse no one will mind. Now, I expect you to say that the system will never be perfect. But I say to you, that is no reason to set a low standard.

  • Just going to repeat what I wrote in another article:

    What is fascinating about most of this is they are issues that should have been brought up at trial by the defense. Without meaning to, Suneel et al are 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.

  • Thanks for your opinion, KR Claviger. I disagree. Evidence of tampering with evidence by the FBI (there’s clear corroborated evidence of this), intimidating witnesses (many firsthand evidence of this) and a judge who did multiple questionable acts (evidence of this) to hurt the defense argument and did not seem to uphold his position all seem to me to be an ideal case to look at for prosecution misconduct.

    • …and if farts caused rainbows, the world would be extra happy and colorful

      My viewpoint has about as much chance of coming true as yours.

      Which of the 5 are you?

  • Prosecution and judges should be questioned about their job.

    Keith´s case showed how they act.

    Suneel listed with data what they did wrongly.

    I do think that this case can and should be used to change justice for the better.

    What is the downside of questioning and changing a bad job? Every enterprise does.

    There are many innocent people in jail.

    Taxpayers must ask for true justice.

    • No they don’t. Taxpayers want pedophiles and rapists in jail.
      A pedophile and rapists is in jail by the name of Keith Raniere.
      I suspect most tax payers are fine with.

      The only ones that are not are probably not really paying taxes called the NXIVM 5. Which one are you?

  • Please help me understand the logic of this argument. Raniere was indicted through a grand jury system, therefore his case is not a good example of an innocent person being found guilty as a consequence of our broken justice system? Bring in the indicting a ham sandwich quote. The grand jury system was designed to protect people from overzelous prosecutors. Now, the grand jury system is simply a tool for the prosecution. This is a real problem and, unfortunately, it makes all indictments questionable.

    Concerning your other arguments:

    1. When was Raniere involved with the criminal justice system as a defendant? It is my impression that he this is his first experience as a defendant in the criminal justice system.

    2. Why no eyewitnesses? It seems like this case is a good case example of the prosecution using trumped up charges on a list of defendants and a false narrative (pyramid scheme, crime organization, sex trafficking, etc.) in order to create false confessions, false testimonies, and bring more weight to the false narrative.

    3. What other charges might Raniere see?

    4. The argument that he didn’t testify can be used to justify the need for change in our justice system. The prosecution was obviously on a defamatory campaign against Raniere. Is it a good idea for a defendant to go to the stand in this type of environment?

    5. You don’t see Raniere’s efforts to find peaceful solutions to the violence in Mexico to be upstanding? He also was trying to improve the relationships between men and women. This curriculum was misrepresented, but this is something that he did and was effective in. The courses inspired people to be noble. How is this not a good cause?

    6. A large community accepted him as a beneficial component of the community. His local community was hostile toward him.

    7. The point of Raniere previous episode of lying on the witness stand may make it difficult for his case.

    8. It looks like this point about being well-liked is being used twice. However, while it maybe best to have the well-liked quality to get a win, isn’t that part of the problem with Raniere’s current situation. He was convicted and sentenced to 120 years in prison because the prosecutors did a good job inspiring dislike, even hatred, in the jury and the judge. While, the facts of the case are quite weak and don’t even look like they support the charges.

    9. My comment is similar to #8. Maybe part of the problem with our current justice system is that we depend too much upon inspiring hatred of the defendants in order to gain convictions.

    10. I wonder how Raniere would address the lying in court problem. It might be a big deal. However, again, is the goal of the justice system to imprison people for all of our human foibles or for specific misdeeds? The major problem in Raniere’s court case seems to be the prejudices that were brought into the court in order to inspire hatred and impulsive punishment, as opposed to a careful analysis of the charges and the facts of the case.

    In sum, it seems to me that Clavinger is looking at the justice system through the vary lens that creates the current injustices the justice system is creating. Do you agree?

  • Clav, you are a gentleman (or lady), a consummate professional and a gift to US all, however this is getting close to usury and forced labor on the part of NXIVM. Just reading their logical pretense is torture. I applaud your stamina.

  • After adamantly swearing off Frank Report a few weeks back, I found myself missing FR as it serves as a guilty pleasure. So, against my better judgment I thought I’d pop by today to see if the nonsensical NX 5 arguments have subsided insulting readers’ intellect and it would appear that these very reasonable, well laid out articles by Claviger make very sound and valid points that even the NX 5 die-hards should be able to comprehend: There is nothing special or compelling about the circumstances of the trial or evidence that will ever warrant a new trial or that it will be heard on appeal. The best KR or his supporters can hope for is that perhaps his sentence is reduced by 20 or 30 years. Any hope of anything more than a slight reduction of sentence is the only place for them to hold out any type of hope. Which brings us to the old adage that “Hope is not a plan” — and with that, I hope the Nx5 can find some peace in their lives and a new direction for their lives. The rest of their life journey does not have to be wrapped up in defending the inexcusable acts and crimes of KR. NX5: return to normalcy and reconnect with family, friends and colleagues with whom you journeyed in life prior to falling victim to this prolific con man, criminal and the Worlds Smartest Child Rapist. Do not allow the rest of your life’s work to be spent defending the inexcusable. You’ve wasted so much of your lives thus far with this maniac. Make a conscious decision today to turn the page, start anew and leave KR and the rest of this sordid mess in your rear view mirrors. Each of you has the power to make a significant change to better your lives independently of KR and NXIVM. Take back your power over your own life and you’ll find contentment and a new purpose.


  • Indeed, Mr. Claviger, there are no do-overs. The whole thing is nonsense. There is no tampering evidence but it sounds good to tell people, like the Dilbert creator, and they lap that up without researching it whatsoever and throw their flimsy support behind it. It’s ludicrous and just about a waste of time. I guess Keith and his supporters are still living in hope, which is something they can still hang on to I guess.

    I wonder how the supporters are feeling now Keith has been removed from their neighbourhood.

    Another take out from this is, I am going to start handing out full-sized chocolate bars at Halloween.

    • Full-sized candy bars at Halloween can truly enhance one’s reputation in the community. I’ll be sure to stop at your house on Halloween this year.

      • LOL

        A number of years ago I asked an elderly neighbor why he handed out full sized candy bars. He said he did it so when the kids grew they wouldn’t egg his house.

      • By the end of October, you will deserve a whole bag full of the giant size bars for all this nonsense you are putting up with. You have great patience sir!

  • I’m sorry Claviger but at this point your articles become ridiculous. 3 different lawyers (2 of my company) and another one have reviewed the case as per my request and they ALL agree they can’t even see a crime that fits any part of a sex trafficking charge. Initially I thought you were serious about showing NXIVM supporters a different perspective but now I see this is just a right/wrong game. You seem to have no space for true analisis. I’m not a Keith supporter I don’t even know the man, while he might be guilty of a lot of things what happened in trial definitely exposes big issues on our justice system.

    • Anthony, have your lawyer friends contact me — and I’ll conduct a Zoom meeting where we can all share our viewpoints about any of Suneel’s “44 Points” and/or any of the issues that Keith raised in his “Call To Action”.

      Just be sure they are clear that we’re talking about a man who has already been found guilty of seven (7) crimes and sixteen (16) predicate acts — and that the issue at hand is whether he will be able to get a new trial. So, we’re not going back and talking about “What ifs” but instead dealing with the realities of the case record from Keith Raniere’s arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing.

      If they can convince me that Keith has at least a 50% chance of getting a new trial, I’ll take down all my posts — and give up teaching about the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

      • Claviger, you really can’t say fairer than that.

        If you need a ‘chair’, as a [remarried] widow and long time teacher of Grammar and Rhetoric, [hell, I’m even in a choir!] I offer you my service.
        (Though, I appreciate the fun-size candy bars and the criminal record gained before I was a mere 16 years old, might work against me.)

      • It looks like you just offered to do pro bono work for this guy. He doesn’t seem capable of research, but creates conflict to get others to do it for him.

    • OK, I give up.

      It is impossible to tell whether this “Anthony” post is written by a NXIVM sockpuppet or an anti-NXIVM troll.

      Poe’s Law: without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

      It is a sad commentary on the mental effects of Keith’s Koolaid™ that its drinkers’ statements parody themselves.

    • “Analisis” does sound like a serious condition. Perhaps your chain of co-workers who might be layers or lawyers can refer you to a treatment plan. All ass! Er, alas.

    • And yet no one has claimed the $$$ booby prize? I’m not sorry, no one with any sense believes that. Try harder.

    • I am curious if those 2 lawyers would go so far as to actually defend this. It’s one thing to engage in a thought exercise on freeing a pedophile, its another to actually commit to doing it.

    • If what you mean by “the tampering evidence” is the testimony of the FBI agent Brian Booth who indicated an unknown person accessed the hard drive that contained the nude pictures of Camila while the hard-drive was in the possession of the FBI, yes, I am aware of that. If what you mean by the term “the tampering evidence” is the report that was prepared by Dr. Keshava Musnegowda, I have read stories about that report and what it contains. I have not, however, read Dr. Musnegowda’s full report but will be happy to do so if you’ll send me a link to it.

      The point that I have been trying to get across — albeit without much success — is that even if Dr. Musnegowda’s report is 100% accurate and 100% unassailable, it may be “too late” even if it’s not “too little”.

      The time to introduce such “evidence” was at Keith’s trial — which would have given the prosecutors an opportunity to question Dr. Musnegowda, under oath, about his findings and theories. Bringing it to light now is worthless in terms of getting a new trial via a Rule 33 motion because that “evidence” was available at the time the trial took place. And how exactly is this issue going to be part of an appeal based on alleged judicial error?

      The judge allowed Keith’s attorneys to cross-examine FBI agent Booth as much as they wanted. And, insofar as I know, the judge did not refuse a request from Keith’s attorneys to have Dr. Musnegowda testify during the trial (If you have evidence that contradicts my understanding on that point, please submit it so I can review it).

      In essence, you’re like the coach of a losing football team who now wants to run some of the plays the team didn’t run during the game because you’ve got film from a practice session that shows how successful those plays are. Sorry, but the game gets played on the field — and there are no do-overs because you didn’t call some of your best plays during the game.

      To use one last football analogy, you are also like the football coach who chose not to challenge a really important play in the game. Several months later, after thinking about it some more, you decide you should have challenged the play. Now, you want to bring the referees and the other team — and throw that red challenge flag on the field. Unfortunately for you — and Keith — that’s not allowed either.

      • Claviger-

        RE: Dr. Munegowda

        I looked up Dr. Munegowda who holds a PhD in Computer Science and his
        co-expert listed on the make justice blind website. Dr. Munegowda does not reside in the United States and did not attend a United States accredited University, this ‘fact alone does not preclude, him from being a credible expert. Munegowda‘s
        co-experts are “certificate jokes” with no computer science degrees. Munegowda‘s patents are as impressive as Bangkok’s ability to chew gum and walk.

        Where did the Nxivm 5 dig Munegowda up from? The title of Forensic Expert is a stretch.
        Extremely Important Fact and Personal Admission:

        Suneel is more qualified(Harvard educated) than Mungegowda or I am afraid to admit myself in terms of intelligence, degrees, and knowledge.

        Suneel knows it’s no big deal if the hard drive was accessed.
        More importantly he has the ability and knowledge to study the hard drive for himself.

        Claviger the observation I have made is an important because “it” illuminates Suneel’s mindset. Suneel is so personally invested in Raniere’s case he can not see the truth.

        Suneel will never accept that his mentor and friend was given a fair trial.

        You got a better shot at “parting the sea” or the Yankees winning the series this year.


        • ADD-ON! I hit post to fast.

          …Than convincing Suneel that Raniere receive fair trial and will not win an appeal.

    • Setting aside the critical issue KRC keeps very patiently re-re-re-explaining (to people who at least act like they lack basic reading comprehension skills) that this alleged evidence should have been raised at trial and, thus, can’t be used to argue for a Rule 33 do-over (what the cool kids call a R33DOO), I took a look at the “Full Munegowda Report” on the Justice Has Been Drinking Keith’s Koolaid™ website.

      Strangely, this “full report” only presents Expert Statements 1A, 1B, 5, 7 and 10.

      This begs the question: What are in Expert Statements 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and… any others?

      Certainly, nothing that The World’s Smartest Child Rapist™ doesn’t want the court of public opinion to consider; of that, we can be certain.

      No doubt “Vanguard” and those who have trained with him know that “full” doesn’t mean what everyone else (blinded by bias and emotion, of course) think it does.

    • Pss you gave away that you are one of the NXIVM followers. Just keep ignoring that he is an actual pedophile. It’s not even something Raniere denies, it just happened in Mexico so can’t be charged with it.

      When people defend pedophiles…the only thing that comes to mind is “Are you a pedophile too?”

  • Totally disagree. The person doesn’t have to be a living saint. In fact, using that type of person would put most of the focus on them rather than the f*cked up process. It would be seen as such a rare aberration that the effort to fix the process would fall flat. It would be much better to put together several examples to illustrate a systemic problem because that’s how you prove the system has systemic problems. Here is one example that could be used: I don’t know the details of this case, but at first glance, it appears to be a great example of what you’re trying to accomplish. Of course, all the Commie/Libtards wouldn’t like it because the system is screwing over a businessman/capitalist, which is even worse than Raniere.

    Raniere has Bronfman money at his disposal to pursue this effort AND there is enough evidence against him that even if he gets some charges overturned, he will still spend the remainder of his life in jail, what would be a better win-win scenario than that?

  • Totally agree Claviger,

    The NXIVM 5 are too blind to see Raniere’s life of criminal acts.

    The community outside of NXIVM didn’t like Raniere being in Clifton Park. He wasn’t like the RPI, or his other schools growing up. The court systems hated NXIVM cases due to the lies they told. Many people within NXIVM left broke and beaten if they stayed for any amount of time.

    Raniere’s company CBI was shut down by the State of NY as a Ponzi scheme and he was ordered to not run anything that looked like multi-level marketing ever again in the state of NY.

    NXIVM was indeed set up just like a multi-level marketing Ponzi scheme and so was National Health Network.

    That is why he ran both but put them in Nancy Salzman and Toni Natalie’s names.

    Raniere had committed other crimes before he was arrested for his many crimes he was found guilty of in the EDNY, he had just not been found guilty of those crimes.

    He got his pass with the many other States that came after him for CBI and kicked him out of their states.

    Raniere didn’t stop his life of crime after that lesson

    Raniere’s Justice is Blind group needs to change their name to I’m Too Blind to see Raniiere’s Life of Crime.

About the Author

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 prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, 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 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. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083