Bangkok: Suttons Deserve Money, Mack Deserves Perdition, and Raniere Deserves to Win Appeal Based on ‘Ineffective Assistance of Counsel’

Bangkok, who has recently returned to Frank Report after a much-needed sabbatical [for readers], has been most expressive recently. He has something to say about almost everything.  He is wroth with my report that the prosecution in the Keith Raniere case is recommending that the estate of Morris and Rochelle Sutton get about half of the $6 million in victim restitution funds. He is not wroth that out of 117 alleged victims, the Sutton family might get half the total pot of money. He is wroth that I reported it.

He is likewise perturbed that I have suggested that Allison Mack might deserve a modicum of mercy, annoyed that I do not denounce certain individuals seeking restitution, such as Barbara Bouchey and Toni Natalie, galled at my not supporting Tanya Hajjar to his satisfaction, and utterly and completely vexed that our distinguished legal correspondent, K.R. Claviger, disagrees with his assessment of Raniere’s chances at success on appeal.

In a word, Bangkok is aggravated at everything, and adheres faithfully to a saying learned as a child: “The more I complain, the longer God will let me live.”

By Bangkok

This is in response to the post, Government Wants Almost Half of $6 Million in NXIVM/Raniere Victim Restitution to Go to Suttons, a Family Worth [est.] $100 Million:

Kindly stop disrespecting the prosecutors, Frank. Tanya Hajjar is supposed to be your ally. You had no problem letting Toni Natalie (a known liar) ask the judge for a ton of money, without raising so much as a fucken PEEP.

Why? Because you’re trying to remain friendly with Neil Glazer. You’ve sold out your principles.

Also, Barb Bouchey asked for TONS of money even though she spent years assisting Keith to keep his ownership of certain money/assets hidden from the IRS.

Hint: If Barb Bouchey had followed IRS regulations (as his investment agent), she would have disclosed to the IRS that Keith had ownership of certain money/accounts/assets under her control.

The $1.5 million dollar ‘loan’ was a bogus loss. It was a ‘gift’ she gave to Keith —- because she LOVED him and worshipped him. He did not steal it from her. She gave it to her Vanguard.

My main point is that you have no problem with Irish Barb Bouchey asking the court for millions, even though she assisted Keith to do harm for many years.

You’re an asshole, Frank.

You’re guided by ‘bias’ and ‘friendship’ with these ex-NXIVM players.

Truth is, the Sutton family LOST that money for real.

The Sutton family actually LOST REAL MONEY equal to that amount [$2.8 million]  —– while the other alleged victims spent years helping Keith to perpetrate NXIVM misdeeds.

You’re not being objective, Frank.

Just like how you now view Allison Mack as a victim —– even though she’s never repudiated Keith even one time. You’ve never read her courtroom statement. It did NOT repudiate Keith. It used the word ‘misguided’ once and that was it. It didn’t even say that Keith was misguided, it said that SHE was misguided in following his teachings, without ever saying that his teachings were bad or repudiating them.

Yet, you’ve LIED to your readers by saying that Allison REPUDIATED Keith, LOL.

That’s not a repudiation. You’re not much of a journalist for lying to your readers.

The Suttons deserve that money cuz they actually LOST REAL MONEY and weren’t a party to NXIVM’s misdeeds, like the many other cretins who are now pretending to be victims.

***

In response to the post, Further Debate on Impact of Judge Halting Lauren Salzman’s Cross-Examination on Raniere’s Chances on Appeal, our resident legal turd, Mr. K.R. Claviger, has just made a strong point for Keith Raniere reversing his conviction in a post-conviction appeal (2nd appeal) for “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

Mr. Claviger wrote: Judge Garaufis did not prevent Marc Agnifilo from cross-examining Lauren Salzman. To the contrary, he let him cross-examine her for quite some time before he told him to stop badgering her on a particular point — and to move on to another topic.

When Agnifilo persisted, the judge called a halt to the proceedings for the day.

The next morning Agnifilo began the day’s proceedings by making a motion for a mistrial — which was quickly denied by Judge Garaufis. At that point, Agnifilo could have asked to resume his cross-examination of Lauren — but he failed to do so. She was still there — and available to re-take the stand.

Duh, Claviger.

Mr. Claviger has implied that Keith’s attorney was EXTREMELY ‘ineffective’ for failing to call Lauren back to the witness stand the next day. I happen to agree with that assessment.

This means that Keith has two solid appeal chances, not just one.

Firstly, Keith gets a ‘direct’ appeal (1st appeal) where he can argue that the judge fucked up by cutting off the cross-examination.

Secondly, Keith also gets a post-conviction appeal (2nd appeal) where he can argue that his attorney was ‘ineffective’ by FAILING to do something so BASIC as to call Lauren back to the witness stand the next day.

Mr. Claviger has just implied that even a DUNCE attorney would have attempted to call Lauren back to the witness stand the next day.

Yet Keith’s attorney didn’t do that. That’s the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’.

Guest View