Keith Raniere

From Prison: Keith Raniere: Part 2 My Co-Defendants Are ‘Very Innocent!’

Editor’s Note: This is Part 2 of the “From Prison: Keith Raniere” series on the subject of his co-defendants being innocent. I have published Part 1: From Prison, Keith Raniere: ‘My Codefendants Are Innocent’ Part 1: Attackers Destroyed Our Community!

Below is Part 2. I have already explained why I chose to publish this in Part 1 and in a separate post, Why I Choose to Publish Raniere’s Prison Letters About the ‘Innocence’ of His Codefendants. Raniere’s codefendants are Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, and Kathy Russell.

Without further ado, here is the second part of the series.

By Keith Raniere

What is Very Innocent?

My co-defendants have all understandably pled guilty, but all are innocent — actually, most are very innocent.

What do I mean by, “very innocent”?

It is one thing to be implicated in a crime that

  • you might have done but didn’t (an example of this might be a drug dealer who is charged with a transaction he simply didn’t make),
  • could have done (an innocent man is found at the scene of a murder with the murder weapon in his hand),
  • or the act simply shouldn’t be illegal, yet it is, and you did it (a terminally-ill, immobile, patient receives medical marijuana in her final painful days. She resides in a state wherein it is not legal, and receives it from a neighboring state, in which it is legal, literally footsteps away);
  • it is another to be implicated in a crime that simply did not exist — no crimes happened and the people charged were not criminals.

Some of what has happened to my co-defendants I cannot address for I do not have full knowledge of the situation (in a number of cases I have no knowledge of the situation). But in a number of cases, there is simply no crime and always the true situation is well intended and often a good thing.

Lauren Salzman admitted to committing the crimes of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. It may have saved her from a sentence of life in prison.

Plea Deals Motivate Innocent People to Believe Themselves Guilty

Most honest people who plea will strain to believe some theory of guilt to feel better about the untruth of their plea.

This is a basic application of Cognitive Dissonance theory. Over time, they might even come to believe themselves truly guilty of a crime and believe other, equally false things to support this view.

Imagine the motivational tendency to do this: it’s not just a $50 mistake, it’s a verdict on their whole self-image! The verdict they must pass upon themselves could be generalized as one of the following:

  • If they believe they are innocent, and plea, then they are the type of person who will lie to the court, and the world, under oath (their word) just to get out of a crime (committing a crime to get out of crime).
  • Or, if they can convince themselves they did actually somehow commit a crime, they are the type of person who can strongly stand up to their guilt and take the consequences.

The choice reduces to: are they a weak, deceptive innocent person, or a strong, but guilty by human frailty, person willing to admit their error and take the consequences for their transgression?

Which sounds better to you?

It is certainly an easier psychological route, in this case, to find guilt in one’s self — even if none exists.

Allison Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. By so doing, she avoided the more serious charges of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy.

Innocent NXIVM Defendants Should Have Stood Together but Lawyers Thought Otherwise

Keith Raniere after his ‘arrest’ in Mexico.

When I was first indicted and then, ultimately, my five codefendants were indicted, I felt as though we could — and would — stand against any injustice. That is not what happened.

It would become apparent the lawyers in the case had a different agenda. Instinctively, as well as rationally, they must build a wall to protect their client from all potential criminal liability.

Which side of the wall do you think I would be on considering I am the leader and the source of all the problems?

From this natural perspective it makes sense, almost as a highest priority, to isolate their clients from me, and convince their clients to distance themselves as much as possible — especially if their clients are innocent!

Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman were once inseparable.

I am a liability with no “upside” because all things are seen to stem from me. I am portrayed as a “crime boss” — so getting, and keeping, their clients as far away from me as possible is safest. All accusations of their client’s potential wrongdoing are best seen as stemming from me. Ideally, they can convince their clients they are actually a victim of my doings.

This is short-sighted and inherently not good. It presupposes crime, guilt, and also eliminates the possibility of a “united we stand” posture against false accusation, by availing ourselves to the prosecutorial objective of “divided they fall.”

Note: It is true that all things within this case do stem from me.

Charges Would Have Been Dismissed If Innocent Co-Defendants Stuck Together

Keith Raniere teaches a group of his students.

Our community and its success stem from my odd way of looking at the world and creations different from the societal norm. It is also these very things that led to this down-fall. Although one needs to accept the good with the bad, it is true I feel responsible for all of this injustice.

None of my co-defendants did anything wrong to my knowledge. The charges against them should have been dismissed and, if anyone should have to face any charges, it should be me. (This would provide a problem for the prosecution for I am innocent.)

I firmly believe, as does my legal team, had we stood together strongly, and pushed the case quickly, we all would have been shown to be innocent. After all, we are all innocent!

Our community would have been much more steadfast, our businesses would have had a second life, and light would have prevailed over darkness; good over evil.

Vested Interest in Making Someone Bad

If you are not getting fonder of all people from your past, you are doing something backwards — likely you have a vested interest in making them bad — probably you are wrong. Why ruin real or potential beauty?

Cecilia and Emiliano Salinas [green] with other Mexican Nxivm members, each with their t-shirts indicating their respective rank in Nxivm.
If you know a person, and you no longer see them, do you take your memories of them —even the good ones — and look for sinister things, making this person bad or distasteful to you? Or, do you cherish the good memories and come to compassionately understand the memories where you felt hurt?

How we relate to our past helps determine how we feel about the present and future. This affects our gratitude, learning and wisdom. Do we see our past as part of the cumulative journey and lessons which have created ourselves? We have the power to make our pasts an object of suffering — and thereby suffer in the present or a perfected puzzle interrelating to teach us and build us towards love and joy?

We Have an Agreement With Each Significant Person in Our Lives

There is a concept brought forth from Eastern philosophy and explained in the book, Conversations with God (l am not recommending this or any book or philosophy but this explanation is edifying): we have an agreement with each significant person in our lives.

This includes the people we think of as wronging us. This agreement has both participants playing whatever role they do fully and vigorously to help each other learn a lesson.

With even a case like a torturer and the person being tortured, each has a lesson to experience and hopefully learn: the former experiences power and the abuse of it through a lack of compassion and moral compass, the latter experiences dealing with hate, insurmountable adversity, suffering, and physical pain.

Quite an agreement!

If it is truly essential to learn these hardest, ugliest lessons, it would take a person of great love to truly execute it.

This does not mean the torturer is really torturing out of love. That it does say is the highest part of the soul of the torturer — it be a concept of Higher self or God or Over-soul — is acting out of love.

If that part is truly love-based, then agreeing to such a horrible role to temper the soul of the recipient is a very transcendent type of love. The beauty of this idea is not to take away the reality that there are terrible worldly things and people. It does not justify the actions of the terrible people (for it is their lesson to get the consequences of their actions or worse, be consigned to live in a treacherous world which allows such things unpunished).

Nxivm Community Always Strove to Do the Right Thing

V-Week group picture

Our community stresses mindfulness, honor, and compassionate fairness. We make great efforts and do everything we can to affect these things and not abuse power. In our community we have processes to review such things so they are far less likely to happen than in a typical community: we have procedures for arbitration, ethical breach work, value-ethics discussions, and people have coaches of their choosing as resources. Our highest priorities are to help people and do the right thing. We are a rare group who labor vigorously with each decision to do these things.

We did not commit any of these alleged crimes.

My Co-Defendants Have Great Souls

Kathy Russell leaves court after pleading guilty to one count of visa fraud.

I raise these concepts for I am about to discuss each of my co-defendants individually and personally. I have heard some of them have greatly lowered their opinion of me, and some of them greatly raised it. The injustice that we have gone through, and continue to face, has brought us all forward ultimately.

I view all of my codefendants as wiser, even if I do not agree with their actions or opinions. So far, this has certainly been an intense, unique journey.

I feel each of my codefendants have great souls, and I hope to honor that with everything I say. I am deeply sorry for the pain and destruction of all this for I am either directly or indirectly responsible. I am also deeply grateful for all they have given me and their participation in my life.

I believe my co-defendants, and l, are innocent, good, and should never have been pursued or charged. This is a great injustice.

***

[The next story in the series, on Why Nancy Salzman Is Innocent will be published soon.]


About the author

Guest View

92 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • 1.There is no “agreement” in the case he sets out. That is typical cult words with no meaning.

    2. They pleaded guilty. They were guilty.

    3. Like all cults, they never go into the details where the details are against them – e.g., here, he does not pick each conviction and say why eg
    take one fairly simple crime -= Russell “She pleaded guilty to a single count of visa fraud, acknowledging to the court that in early 2014, she had made false statements in a document to the United States Consulate in Mexico to help a woman named Loreta Garza Davila obtain a visa. “I’m very sorry for the trouble I have caused,” Ms. Russell told the judge, her voice breaking. “I compromised my own principles.” Is KR saying that visa fraud did not take place? If we just stick with that one, I think like all of the crimes it is the tip of a massive iceberg. We know there were more visa issues – taking of a passport, the control of people by those means, the perhaps fake marriage of Clyne to Mack, etc.

  • Excellent points, Keith!!

    You’re really making us think.
    Now how about you think for awhile and apply your philosophy to yourself?

    Yourself, the judge and the prosecutors each have a lesson to experience and hopefully learn! The judge and prosecutors have a lesson to learn what it feels like to put someone in prison for life. And you, have the lesson to learn what it feels like to be in prison for life.

    Quite an agreement!

    But this doesn’t mean that the judge and everyone who directly or indirectly put you in prison is not doing this out of love….
    It is truly essential to learn these hardest, ugliest lessons,and it takes people of great love to truly execute it.

    It is the highest part of the soul of the judge, and the prosecutors and all of the witnesses against you…etc. It is their higher selves that are doing this for you to learn!

    So why argue and rail against it? It is all for you personal growth.

  • Raniere attorney Steven Metcalf appears on the Law & Crime Daily YouTube channel to discuss the upcoming appeal.

    • 1) Good attorneys are getting paid big bucks to repeat the same warmed-up leftover talking points Suneel has been yapping about for free.

      2) L&C Daily commentators agree with Claviger’s analysis.

  • Here’s a real question I have if anyone can answer. Why did the women in DOS have to keep putting up more collateral on a continuous basis?

    Wouldn’t 1 or 2 pieces of incriminating and/or salacious evidence do the trick for its intended person to not break their vow?

    • It was for Keith’s pleasure. Both to look at the graphic photos and keep them as trophies/blackmail. Plus have the control to make his slaves do as he ordered, when he demanded it.

      This is not something women would think up. It is not something they would want to do. Posing alone or with their “friends” in a really graphic manner. That’s a dude thing. A man’s idea. And desire.

      • As a woman, I completely agree with this.

        It’s one thing to see each other’s bodies when you’re trying on clothes or in the dressing room after yoga. Or to have some funny candids that stay private within a private group because, you know? Not flattering, exactly. But vagina pictures weren’t meant to be shared with the members because it was funny and lighthearted and joyous and everyone could laugh a little looking back on them.

  • Nicki Clyne Tweet

    Nicki Clyne
    @nickiclyne
    ·
    1h
    I have a friend in prison who was forced to stay in a cell with someone COVID positive until he tested positive too. Does anyone know lawyers taking on suits of this nature? It was at a prison in PA. Multiple people can corroborate and had a similar experience.

    I wonder who that friend was

    • Raniere needs even MORE lawyers? At the rate he’s going, he’ll have half the defense attorneys in the USofA on retainer by the end of the year.

      Would love to know who is footing the bill for this. Serious dinero involved here.

  • Looks like they are out in full force on this one!

    I think it’s time that Frank creates a “Keith’s Korner” in the comment section so that his supporters can post their comments there exclusively!

  • KR: I am very innocent and did nothing wrong. I always stand by my ethics no matter the cost.
    KR: I am sorry and remorseful for what I did.

    Q: If you did nothing wrong what are you remorseful about?
    KR: I am remorseful that I got caught. Not really, I just told the judge that remorseful stuff to get a lighter sentence.

    Q: How is that the highest ethics?
    KR: This isn’t about me, it’s about how ethical “our” community is. Forget about me for a second.

    (“For some reason I now feel the need to write about cognitive dissonance” — KR wanders off saying to himself).

  • Raniere’s ramblings here are all abstractions and hypotheticals. But he stands convicted of very specific acts, as would his co-defendants have been, had they not taken plea deals.

    The KR brands burned into women’s bodies were not abstractions. The audio recording of him describing how the women were to be held down “like a sacrifice” while naked – that’s not a hypothetical.

    The blackmail material is real – it’s not some concept in a philosophical inquiry.

    Multiple victim’s testimony citing specific outrages at specific times and places is not theoretical – it is evidence, evidence that led to his conviction. And his co-defendants were implicated by this same evidence.

    Raniere’s ramblings are nothing more than a clumsy attempt to change the subject.

    The man seems barely literate and very confused. He’s just another inmate complaining that the system’s unfair and he didn’t do anything wrong, didn’t mean to, anyway. More a whipped cur than a man. Pathetic.

    The only item of slight interest in this outpouring of nonsense is that now he’s citing books like “Conversations With God”. He seems to be all about Christian forgiveness now that he’s in prison and begging for mercy. Before, he was all Ayn Rand competitiveness and harsh lessons from the business world. The wolf has now become the sheep. Happens to a lot of jailbirds, finding Jesus.

    Pathetic, confused little man, how quickly he changed his tune. Incredible that so many dopes followed and worshipped this cretinous nonentity.

    • Raniere is an obvious fraud and the people who continue to follow him continue to be fools.

      He doesn’t really care for them. They were mice in an “intellectual” cat and mouse game. It was fake sincerity, philosophy, ethics, etc., to see how far he could take it to pilfer money, time, sex, and other benefits from them. He was the cat and they were the mice. Now the script is flipped.

      He simply fooled trusting, less skeptical people with his specious intellectualism, thought himself clever in doing so with it, and was arrogant enough to believe that he would never be caught.

      His remaining followers think there is some genius to his ramblings about agency, responsibility, empowering women, etc., It’s nothing more than deception of words, e.g., “collateral” for what is actually blackmail, and other sophistry. He’s not even that good of a sophist.

  • This is amazing. You know, I thought that the media had done a very weird, one-sided coverage of this story. Now I’m starting to believe those stories about the prosecution and his former friends railroading him. Especially after the court tampered with evidence in none less than the president’s trial!

    I’m now convinced this is an injustice as well. Shame on our country!

    • Pandering to Trump supporters on this topic isn’t going to win you any support from Trump supporters.

      Or anyone else.

  • What Keith writes makes sense. The prosecution was strategic in indicting as many people as possible for bogus crimes. Then played them against each other, scared them into taking plea deals, and then used them to testify against Keith.

    All of them were able to hold together for a long time until the prosecution came out with the child pornography pics. And now it appears that the device that contained the photos was tampered with and altered.

    The prosecution is corrupt and are the true criminals.

  • Anthony, as usual, your analysis is purely objective data. We concur that Mr. Raniere is a very smart man and by application of so-called sophisticated neurolinguisticated modality transformative analysis and application of the principle of a barba stulti discit tonsor, we deduce that his IQ is not 242, but actually 256.74! Q.E.D.

    By taking care fortior ratio est we calculate his current level of innocence as 74.28% and guilt as 28.338%. A final calculation can only be concluded upon the completed revelation of his full writings on these topicalities.

    However, we must addition post haste propter hoc Mr. Raniere is incorrect to state his codefendants are very innocent. By our calculationing his codefendants are EXTREMELY MEGA UBER ULTRA innocent to a confidence level of 99.999999999999999999999997415%

    Anthony, take care that we are pleased to inform you there is a new toaster and blender in the break room; however, be aware that so-called vampires are beginning to have buyers remorse about the purchase of these kitchen appliances, ergo, take care for cognitive dissonance. It is obvious that any negative evaluation of these devices is purely a projection of internal hatred and a pretty weak strategy, ceteris paribus.

    What are you bringing to the potluck this weekend? We’re making Waldorf word salad with extra prepositions and a side of run-on sentences. See you soon!

    • K.R. Claviger, are you actually Two Lawyers? I’ve decided that you must be, along with your other monikers, e.g. Pea Onyu, Anthony, Monte Blu, that other long law firm name you used to use, Dr. Gastone Porter, and who knows how many other names over the years.

      Frank says he knows who Pea is now, and it isn’t Nicki Clyne or anyone associated with NXIVM. So I think it is the mysterious K.R. Claviger. Have I missed somewhere along the last 2 or 3 or so years where it is explained just who K.R. actually is? I’m pretty sure K.R. is a dude or a they. Does he work for the Claviger Law Group in NY? Or is Claviger some sort of beetle? What does K.R. stand for, Keith Raniere? So many questions.

  • It’s just amazing to me the mental gymnastics that his remaining followers have to go through to still support this guy.

    Does he think with this writing that he is going to convince anyone to change their minds about his case? I knew he didn’t have a 250 IQ or whatever he claimed but I still figured he was a brilliant guy and a good writer. Obviously, after reading his two pieces, this is not the case. Such non-compelling arguments and the writing itself are not good.

    I want to hear his supporters address the inflammatory stuff (I know he wasn’t charged with those things) to understand how they can support a guy that treated various women like he did.

    • —the mental gymnastics that his remaining followers have to go through to still support this guy.

      That’s a superb metaphor!

  • Re Keith 2nd Installment Synopsis:

    This 2nd installment is more coherent than the 1st. Although the same delusions are present in this 2nd writing, Raniere’s desperation is not as palpable as in the 1st writing.

    I believe on some level Keith Raniere feels he is innocent, to the extent, he personally did not break the law.
    Raniere, of course, attempted to insulate himself from the criminal enterprise like any good mafia boss. Hence, Raniere was prosecuted under the RICO statute.

    The word salad is as crappy as the 1st writing. It’s so crappy, it’s not even fun, to make fun of……

    …I miss his fortune cookie idioms and non-sequitur proverbs.

  • Uggg. He’s trying to convince everyone his leadership style was just “different”. But that’s only half true.

    Good people, good influences, don’t encourage dangerous diets, or the creation of artifacts that could lead to disastrous consequences, like collateral. Good leaders don’t spend years and years punishing people in a courtroom or encourage bright young ladies to give up their well-earned scholarships.

    So, ya? He’s different alright. He led people into committing criminal acts!

    He’s also claiming that “to his knowledge” nobody did anything wrong.

    How can this be? Does he really not know that these types of schemes are criminal? I’m pretty sure it was brought to his attention with Consumers Buyline.

    It’s just an ordinary opinion but I think he’s refusing to see anything that doesn’t match *his* confirmation bias. This may also be the reason he’s waxing on about it. Just like he did with the speech about sex with children.

    • FP8, you can continue to believe that; it doesn’t change the reality of what actually happened.

      Keith is going to spend the rest of his life in jail and anyone you tell of your involvement with NXIVM is going to shun you.

      The only way you can avoid being treated like a leper is to hide your experiences and beliefs from others and only express them anonymously.

      You can’t be honest with the outside world and have people respect you.

      Sad, so sad.

    • “These are all great distinctions!”

      Is that really the best you can come up with?

      You could at least add more exclamation points.

  • I’ve said it before. He’s talking poetry. That’s what gives him the sound of intelligence without real substance, the use of rhyme and simile

    Am I wrong? i.e.:

    “What do I mean

    by …

    “very innocent”?

    It is one thing to be implicated

    in a crime

    that you might have done

    but didn’t

    could have done

    or the act simply shouldn’t be illegal,

    yet it is,

    and you did it

    it is another to be implicated

    in a crime that simply did not exist

    no crimes happened

    and the people charged were not

    criminals.”

    • To a lot of people, real poetry has meaning, substance and, above all, intelligence. Line breaks = Line breaks not poetry – which is a talent way beyond Raniere’s bs lorem ipsum sensibility for sure.

      • He’s using poetic logic.
        “it is one thing to be implicated in a crime that does not exist.” Seriously. It’s metaphoric logic.

        • He was apparently a fan of Boolean Logic, but in that way that suggests he liked the sound of the words ‘Boolean’ and ‘logic’ and the frisson of excitement expressed by actual logicians about the possibilities of it, rather than you know his own real ability to formulate with it, so I sort of see what you mean by ‘metaphoric’ logic, but I still think you give him too much credit, for being a somewhat dull fantasist with null and void reasoning skills – imo the word salad covered his depravity his driven contempt for positive values – but immodestly.

          • Whether you give him credit or not, it doesn’t change the fact that his words had incredible power over people. Substance or not, it was effective.

  • “I have heard some of them have greatly lowered their opinion of me” ( Keith writes of his co-defendants).

    There are only 4 co-defendants, right? “Some” of 4 is how many?

    2 is “half” not “some”.

    Three?

    • And then right after that he says, “and some of them have greatly raised it.” ( their opinion of him).

      Again, there are only 4 co-defendants.

      • Or is it 5? Always forget that one older lady.

        Let’s say 5. “some” would be 2 or 3.

        Why not just say that? 3 are with me. 2 against.

        Or say ” half”? Half of my co-defendants support me. Or it’s “split about half” in favor and against me.

        It’s the constant “some” and “many” vagaries that reek of pomposity and total bullshit.

        In all of Keith’s writing.

        Can you imagine this dude coaching actors? Ha ha ha ha.

  • Read the ‘Very Innocent’ bit and it reminds me of “How long ago did you stop beating your wife”? You either are a wife beater or you aren’t. Much like you either are innocent or not. No such thing as “Very Innocent” despite the notion and explanation offered by the illuminated Vanguard.

    From there on, I had to skim the rest, it is ALL just a game of semantics.

    I applaud Keith’s ability to play semantics to make his view seem reasonable but no matter how skilled he is at the game, semantics are not going to change his convictions.

    Why is series 3 titled ‘Why Nancy Salzman is Innocent’ shouldn’t it be ‘Why is Nancy Salzman VERY Innocent’?

    • Maybe the word “very” is a cry for help or urgency? He’s not using his outlet and words to really tell us how to be free from life’s bondage and get to heaven.

      One important thing is he may possess the cure for light to moderate Tourettes.

      • To Peaches 🍑 and Frank,

        “Tourette syndrome tends to get milder or go away entirely as kids grow into adulthood.”

        The scientific expression “correlation does not imply causation” is applicable in the case of Marc Elliot.

        Marc Elliot’s Tourette’s may have gone away on its own completely this happened to a number of people over the years albeit rare.

        The articles below describe the phenomenon of Tourettes disappearing. There is no known cure for Tourettes currently in the world.

        https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/tourette-syndrome-a-to-z

        https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/tourette.html

        I believe Keith Raniere has nothing to do with curing Marc’s Tourette’s.
        Marc is simply an outlier!

        • Thanks NiceGuy for the information. I’ve been unintentionally following Elliot for a few years now through social media entertainment. I’ll post some links of him later.

  • First time I ever posted but seriously, does no-one listen to this guy? He belongs in prison.

    ‘then agreeing to such a horrible role to temper the soul of the recipient is a very transcendent type of love’
    The torturer is ‘tempering’ the soul of the victim, and is the real hero by agreeing to such a terrible role?
    ‘or worse, be consigned to live in a treacherous world which allows such things unpunished’
    And the worst consequences possible of being a torturer is getting away with the crime?

    ‘This agreement has both participants playing whatever role they do fully and vigorously to help each other learn a lesson.’
    And since both participants agree to everything in advance, by his logic there is no such thing as wronging someone because they’ll learn a lesson?

    This is nothing but psychopathy and delusion.

    • Anonymous 6:33 pm

      —The torturer is ‘tempering’ the soul of the victim, and is the real hero by agreeing to such a terrible role?

      Great quote you picked! 😉

      WTF is Raniere smoking? 😂

    • Anonymous, Absolutely.
      That section of his argument is the part that deeply disturbed me.

      “With even a case like a torturer and the person being tortured, each has a lesson to experience and hopefully learn: the former experiences power and the abuse of it through a lack of compassion and moral compass, the latter experiences dealing with hate, insurmountable adversity, suffering, and physical pain.

      Quite an agreement!

      If it is truly essential to learn these hardest, ugliest lessons, it would take a person of great love to truly execute it.

      This does not mean the torturer is really torturing out of love. That it does say is the highest part of the soul of the torturer — it be a concept of Higher self or God or Over-soul — is acting out of love.”

      Does he seriously believe this?!! That the torturer is acting from their Higher Self?!!

      He is so self-deluded… He wouldn’t know a higher self if it were right in front of his face. What a gross, empty, hollow individual.

      I used to feel slightly bad for him. I thought his sentence was severe.

      Now I don’t care what happens to him.

    • So very true anon, amoral and cruel with that veneer of sentimentality peculiar to the deluded psychopath – because he makes it loudly known he loves his mum/the kids/stray dogs/ the nuns/God…He imagines his innocence intact once again.

  • Here is where he’s going with this:

    “Most honest people who plea will strain to believe some theory of guilt to feel better about the untruth of their plea…

    “If they believe they are innocent, and plea, then they are the type of person who will lie to the court, and the world, under oath (their word) just to get out of a crime (committing a crime to get out of crime).”

    Read between the lines: he did nothing wrong. The testimony was all a lie.

    There’s the agenda.

  • I have it clear. Raniere is innocent. He has been a new victim of radical feminism that has infiltrated the judicial system and that punishes men for the mere fact of being one. Gender ideology is a set of pseudoscientific and subversive ideas created for political and social engineering purposes. Gender ideology is dangerous because it tries to legitimize itself academically as a series of “scientific and social fields of study” when it is nothing more than a series of ideological postulates that contradict natural science and social science, but especially because it tries to impose itself socially by means of coercive politicians so that the whole society submits to their absurd premises.

    • RIght back at you my friend. Loving the double-down on your double-standard, double-speak. Are you modeling KR’s con man circular logic and out-in-the-open confessional style of blatant hatred? Record your reply and play it back to yourself…perhaps you will pick up on your absolute need to radicalize “feminism” to keep yourself separate and isolated. Obviously, you feel alienated for some reason and are/were a perfect candidate for KR’s SOP indoctrination. What would Mark Vicente editorialize?

      Note:
      Even from jail, this absurd individual gets an audience. Frank leave it be – and stop giving this creep attention. You know he loves it.

  • “If they believe they are innocent, and plea, then they are the type of person who will lie to the court, and the world, under oath (their word) just to get out of a crime (committing a crime to get out of crime).”

    He should have just addressed the first part of this writing as: Dear Lauren….

  • Wow. This is a great article. Thanks for publishing it, Frank. I can see that Keith is really smart. I can’t wait to see what else he wrote. I believe at this point his way more innocent than guilty.

    • Sure. Raniere, spewing his same old half-baked, maniacal garbage. Parlato being the janitor with a dustpan and broom, scooping the shit and hairballs up and publishing them.

      Anthony, this sounds like a fine job opportunity for YOU. Once you begin to learn how to write, that is.

  • “This is short-sighted and inherently not good. It presupposes crime, guilt, and also eliminates the possibility of a “united we stand” posture against false accusation, by availing ourselves to the prosecutorial objective of “divided they fall.” We used to believe in the word of lawyers as well as teachers an Parents, but the true is, many, many times they are incorrect. Because they do play following past experiences, instead of looking and searching for the true or the root.

    • Interesting that you call it word salad, it made perfect sense to me. Not sure if I agree, but it was clear. What’s the part you feel you didn’t understand?

      You know, sometimes people feel uncomfortable when someone makes more sense than themselves regarding a point they disagree about. Are you sure your incapacity to read through is not just refusing to look at a different perspective?

      Word salad is a term people start using when their logic doesn’t allow them to discuss further in fair game… It’s a pretty weak strategy…

      • That’s an interesting point of view. But I agree with the comment about ” word salad”. Maybe a different description is preferred by this reader.

        Like, it is Bad. Crude writing. Poor vocabulary. Repetitive to the point of losing the point instead of making it clear. Way too long. Weird.

        One example: Why make such a point of saying you are not recommending a specific book? Or any book? And yet use that book to make a point? A clever person could just create their own example.

        It’s too boring to further invest time analyzing. But a person can have a different opinion without the agenda you laid out.

      • Anonymous February 18, 2021 at 4:14 pm, it must be awfully frustrating to you that the thought stopping and abuse enabling cliches that worked inside the NXIVM cult bubble to shut down critical thinking and turn it against doubters doesn’t work in the real world.

        If must be scary to realize that your guru is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, some of his highest ranked followers are also going to serve sentences and you must hide your identity, history and beliefs lest people treat you like a leper.

        Sad, so sad.

    • I hope this is not a confession, since it’s wise to reject Raniere’s words, made from his personally chaotic and highly disorganized disturbances. There is no reasonable excuse for taking on anyone’s criminal sociopathy, whether its toxicity is long and drawn out or merely a quick ejaculation.

      Not only that, but very likely you’re able to anticipate Raniere’s crap-taking/talking, delusionary discourse(s) before he even gets the thoughts to fart out of himself.

      • It absolutely is a confession. Every recorded word of KR’s is a confession. It was clearly important and perversely thrilling for him to reveal his intentions. This is his M/O and he is clearly not prepared to abandon his honed craft.

  • Wow. Thank you Frank for delivering saliva straight from the horse’s mouth. So fascinating to look at the inner thoughts of this semantic Judo master at work. I think the best bet at this point is for Keith to keep preaching what he doesn’t practice to his new community of inmates…

    Help them let go of their pasts, help them stop demonizing the loved ones they betrayed and lost along the way, help them see the innocence wrapped up in their guilt, the beautiful truth wrapped up in their ugly lies, and the brilliant clarity contained within their cognitive dissonance. Maybe he will finally see through a mirror darkly and spend the next 120 years frozen in a blissful enlightened buddha state.

    There is no impermanence in Keith’s Nirvana. It always smells like teen spirit.

  • He needs to get a grasp on reality and realize he is very imprisoned because he was found very guilty and the only time he will be leaving prison is when he is very dead.

  • This is pitiful stuff.

    “It is true that all things within this case do stem from me.”

    How is this compatible with Suneel’s frequent claim that these were strong, independent women who made their own completely free choices?

    • Suneel Chakravorty himself has not had any idea what Suneel Chakravorty is going on and on about, as Raniere’s nouveau monkey with an accordion, so there’s not much of anything to hear out of his semi-educated piehole anyhow. Of a matter of course, it is all easily demolishable, as well as being an indignant, petulant and conflict-ridden mishmash of utter impotency.

      The only thing Chakravorty says is, “Well, I’ll be a monkey’s nephew.” He just says it in longwinded and anally-retentive essays.

      My grandsons are half East Indian, and even as pre-teens, both of them are alert, analytical and conversational enough to blow the nearly chinless screwhead, Chakravorty, right out of any amount of water, water on the braaaainpan, the cerebral cortex or the “turd eye.”

  • “I am killing you. But it is out of love. Don’t you want to learn how to die”?

    Now, put me in your will first.

    • If only it were that simple. Butt, Cornholio!

      (I’m not calling you that, Shadow, my virtual friend.) However, Raniere has been quite the Butthead of spirituality, as well as of ethics.

      Theoretically, maybe we are “supposed” to buy into some “brainwashing” concepts regarding Raniere’s groupies. Many of these groupies were devoted to this stinking human growth potential, a gigantic communal bowel movement, for ten or even twenty frigging years.

      Where are their pensions and benefits now? So MUCH dedication was, and in some cases, still is has being demonstrated and offered to their cause.

      Remind me, Shadow, wth was that cause? You know that I am joking.

      Running around like stinky half-maddened chickens with their heads cut off into shards of egotistical, very confused bullshit and busily supporting cruelty, along with the criminalities which they have practiced together. So devoutly. False gods.

  • “Some of what has happened to my co-defendants I cannot address for I do not have full knowledge of the situation…”

    So, first, he claims that his codefendants are “very innocent” and then he contradicts himself (intentionally or not) by stating the above disclaimer. If he doesn’t have full knowledge of the situation, then his guess about their innocence is not necessarily better than anyone else’s who doesn’t have full knowledge. His codefendants could well be guilty due to that portion of knowledge which he and others lack.

    “If they believe they are innocent, and plea, then they are the type of person who will lie to the court, and the world, under oath (their word) just to get out of a crime (committing a crime to get out of crime).”

    Not only is this the first option of a black-and-white fallacy, it is simply a non-sequitur. For example, a person can believe he is innocent but the context makes him look guilty and he simply doesn’t want to risk a more punitive sentence for a lesser one. The example of John Tighe comes to mind. It’s just them being practical and says nothing about all of these other different contexts that he stipulated.

    It also seems quite manipulative, self-inflating, and patronizing. With this option, Keith is implying he’s “super” ethical not to lie in any circumstance–because he claims innocence and didn’t take a plea–but his codefendants are not–because of the supposition of their innocence and the fact that they did take one. The first option is defined to be “weak”, which means no one wants to be that–especially “bad-ass” women–so it leads the reader to accept the second option, which has been set up to be the stronger one of a false dichotomy.

  • I feel like maybe I should wear a helmet while reading FR. Besides that, it’s almost 8 a.m. on my side of the planet, and I am anxious to read what the Grandmaster will say about Nancy.

  • Nothing like a philosophy where being a torturer expresses “a very transcendent type of love.”

    Here’s to hoping the World’s Smartest Child Rapist™ is the recipient of the most transcendent type of love possible!

  • His analogies are so BASIC and ludicrously flawed. They have the same pompous tone as the workshops and lectures I have watched him deliver online. He reads as someone desperately trying to appear clever and illuminating, but actually it is just posturing and performing this notion of ‘White Male Genius’! Give me a break. He actually has very little life experience or global knowledge of cultures, philosophies and critical theory in the field he claims to master.

  • 1) There’s a huge difference between innocent and very innocent. A hugemongous difference!

    2) Innocent people can feel better about themselves by feeling guilty.

    3) Keith’s former acolytes ran away from him like he was a stinking turd.

    4) Just in case it isn’t clear, them thar women back-stabbed Keith.

    5) If you don’t love assholes who screwed you over previously, you are a bad person.

    6) A torturer does not act out of love, but a torturer acts out of love.

    7) NXIVM tried really, really, really, really, really hard to do the right thing. REALLY HARD.

    8) Keith is grateful that those backstabbing women back-stabbed him. Really, seriously, he’s not being passive aggressive or trying to guilt trip anyone. Really.

    9) Spending the rest of one’s life in prison is interesting and unique.

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg; “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson; “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

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

Parlato has appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest, which was ironic since many credit Parlato as being one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

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

Got A Tip?

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

Archives