In the trial of USA v. Keith Raniere, some women were referred to by their first names only, while others were referred to by their first and last names.
By the way, this first-name-only was gender-biased. All men were referred to by first and last names in the court of Judge Nicholas Garaufis.
But all the women who testified at Raniere’s trial, other than one cooperating witness, the convicted Lauren Salzman, were known by their first name or nickname: Sylvie, Nicole, Daniela and Jaye.
On the other hand, Daniela Padilla, Rosa Laura Junco, Karen Unterreiner, Dawn Morrison, Monica Duran, Loreta Garza, Nicki Clyne – none of whom were charged – were identified by their first and last names.
All who were identified by two names were cast as being aligned with defendant Raniere.
Of the eight founding sisters of DOS, seven had first and last names revealed.
Only one was portrayed as a victim at trial: Camila was referred to by her first name only.
Others, such as India and Sarah, despite making themselves famous by doing docuseries and writing books, were referred to by first names only. Why?
Because they were cast as victims at trial.
India, who at the time of Raniere’s arrest, was staunchly behind him, and at one time was considered a co-conspirator of his, [she was referred to as CC2 in the original criminal complaint] would have been referred to by her first and last name, but by the time the trial was held, she had broken from Raniere and was providing evidence for the prosecution and hence qualified for first-name-only status – even though everyone knew who she was. She’s famous.
The point is that the jury was supposed to understand that India is a victim.
So she was first-name-only.
If you help the prosecution, the judge ruled, you’re first-name-only.
Still, it was dizzying at times. One witness had to ask if she should use the first and last name of a certain individual. When she got her answer, so did the jury. First name only, ‘victim’ — first and last name, ‘criminal’ or ‘supporter of the defendant.’ [Same difference].
For six-and-a-half weeks, the jury heard testimony from women who only used first names and heard women referred to by their first names – all of whom were cast as victims of Raniere.
What would an ordinary person think or feel, based on the fact that women testified without last names? That some predetermined metric devised by a judge and the prosecution [same difference] was the demarcation line between first and last names being used.
Juries depend on the judge to guide them through conflicting and complicated issues. They are often lost during trial.
The message to this jury was that the prosecution, in partnership with the judge, was making it easy: First name women were in danger, they were victims, they deserved protection – as victims of Raniere.
Why else would their last names be hidden? It was not just sex crimes. Many of the first-name-only women were not alleged to be sex crime victims of Raniere’s.
The metric was plain: women who had one name were good, innocent victims. The women who had two names, first and last, were bad.
One name good, two names bad.
Despite the unavoidable and perhaps intended perception of danger that this would bring, the judge did say that “the Government does not argue that Raniere was a danger to the victims.”
And the judge did give a 30-second jury instruction to explain the reason for first name only [anonymity] was not safety but embarrassment.
The judge and the prosecution decided who was to be embarrassed and who wasn’t.
For instance, it was ok for Dawn Morrison to be embarrassed but not Sarah, who had her picture, along with her brand. appear on Page 1 of the New York Times.
Amanda, Chelsea, Crystal – first name only. No embarrassment.
Loreta Garza, Ivy Nevares, Monica Duran — embarrassment approved.
But was that all the jury was to infer?
For much of the trial, the jury heard emotional, crying women alleging abuse, with no last names, testifying.
As a precedent, as a matter of law, and non-transparency, is embarrassment an acceptable reason to grant anonymity in a criminal proceeding, where open and public access to trials is part of the fabric of a free country?
While it is established that rape and serious sex crime victims’ last names are often shielded, a number of the first-name-only women in this case were not alleged to be sex crime victims.
Sarah for instance was not.
What next? A person is embarrassed because they were mugged? Or their house was broken into because they left it unlocked?
The public has a right to know the names of accusers in a free society — just as they have the right to know the name of the accused.
Scrutiny protects the accused from false allegations.
Anonymity is a two-way shield. It might protect an honest [female] witness from embarrassment but it can also shield a dishonest witness from being exposed.
Through anonymity, a witness can say things she otherwise would not have said if the public knew her name – whether false, exaggerated, or truthful.
But don’t we also have a defendant’s freedom at stake? He or she has rights too. Embarrassment is important to avoid, as is the incarceration of innocent defendants.
The government’s argument of undue embarrassment seems disingenuous, at least in the case of, for instance, the witness Jaye.
Jaye was allegedly a victim of attempted sex trafficking and got immunity for a fake marriage in fraud of immigration and that she stole the collateral of certain DOS women and was the first to actually release collateral to outsiders.
After the trial, Jaye launched a podcast using her real name: The “Untouchable Jessica Joan” — and gave an interview on CBS The Morning Show, on national television.
In the government’s argument for anonymity, they cited precedent cases where the witnesses were not embarrassed at all.
They were cases where witnesses had threats to their physical safety, not threats of harassment or public embarrassment.
- In United States v. Dan Zhong: Zhong forced Chinese construction workers to work for him 14 hours a day, seven days a week for years without pay under the threat of physical harm. Workers were forced to hand over their passports and were housed in inhumane living conditions.
- In United States v. Marcus: Marcus was physically abusive towards his victims, and threatened physical violence if women expressed a desire to leave the BDSM relationship they were in with him. The violence included sewing a woman’s lips shut with surgical needles and carving “slave” into her stomach with a knife, among even more graphic and sexual abuse.
- In United States v. Rivera: Rivera recruited undocumented Latin American immigrants to work at his bars and forced them to perform commercial sex acts with patrons through raping the victims, stealing money from the victims, and threatening to report them to authorities.
- In United States v. Alimehmeti: Alimehmeti was convicted of attempting to support ISIS, and pseudonyms were used to avoid exposing the undercover officers involved in the case.
- In United States v. Urena: Urena and co-defendant Vasquez were gang members who were found guilty of participating in an attempted murder, murder conspiracy, and drug conspiracy. A pseudonym was used to avoid exposing an undercover detective involved in the case.
Despite this obvious shape-shifting of serious threats in the cases cited and the judge’s candid admission that the government agreed that Raniere posed no threat to the witnesses, it was just plain old fashioned embarrassment, the cases were used to support the first-name only ideal.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis sided with the prosecution and allowed them to choose which witnesses were to be first-name only and immediately reinforced the inference to the jury that they were victims in the eyes of the prosecution, in the eyes of the judge and that Raniere, the man who sat before them, was – even before the jury deliberated – the one who victimized them.
The jury is supposed to be the trier of fact, but in this case, the judge and the prosecution did the jury’s work for them.
From the beginning, it was clear to the jury: One name, good. Two names, bad.
Of course embarrassment is violence if you are ritually humiliating people!
The biggest problem in my mind, period?
Is that the ringleader of this whole damn show is stupid Keith Raniere. The smartest man in the world who has the best knowledge of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, ever!
It’s so obvious. Anyone on the outside can see! He uses analogies to make himself sound knowledgeable and creates a community to make himself appear trustworthy.
Ugggh. All he’s really done is hurt a lot of people and got his best friends going to jail!
This guy sucks!
[…] recently wrote an article that was published on Frank Report called ‘One Name Good, Two Names Bad,’ about due process concerns surrounding Judge Nicholas Garaufis’ decision to allow the […]
Speaking of fake marriages for immigration fraud…
Nicki Clyne still hasn’t been prosecuted for her fraudulent union to Allison Mack.
So making that point about Jessica Joan isn’t effective.
[…] I have to agree with Suneel in his article Message to Jury in USA v. Raniere: ‘One Name Good, Two Names Bad’ […]
Holy smokes? Who else would write all this bs except someone with WAY too much idle time! Get a job and stop blowing smoke up everyone’s ass here!
— For instance, it was ok for Dawn Morrison to be embarrassed but not Sarah, who had her picture, along with her brand, appear on Page 1 of the New York Times.
Two people can have 2 different perspectives of the same shared experience.
Suneel, you are smarter than this dribble.
ummmm….bad bad example….Sarah gave (maybe even sold) the picture to the New York Times…
Suneel sounds like someone desperately trying to talk themselves into something they no longer believe.
My fellow FrankReport readers, you’re all thinking with your EMOTIONS, not your brains.
You’re thinking with pure EMOTIONS, not logic.
Not a single person here has even attempted to LOGICALLY rebut Suneel’s points.
Some of you just create a ‘straw man’ argument, then pretend as though you’ve rebutted Suneel’s points.
Especially RED HERRING’s argument. He doesn’t even address Suneel’s true point. Instead, he just tears down his own straw man argument.
The truth must be told here.
I must speak the truth.
While it’s okay to wanna protect certain witnesses who may feel vulnerable after an alleged sex crime, it’s not okay for the JURY to PERCEIVE that the judge is giving EXTRA CREDIBILITY to any particular witnesses.
Anybody with an IQ over 75 (retard level) would understand that you can’t give more ‘credibility’ to certain witnesses AND STILL have a fair trial.
It’s NOT okay for certain witnesses to be PRESUMED ‘truthful’ by the judge (to be perceived as ‘true’ victims of the defendant) —– because that’s tantamount to PRESUMING that the defendant is GUILTY before the trial is even over.
A person’s FREEDOM and LIFE is at stake during a trial.
Thus, the law says that he must be PRESUMED INNOCENT until he’s convicted, which means the judge shouldn’t be giving the jury any perception that certain witnesses are 100% legit ‘victims’ of this defendant.
I realize that sex crime victims are granted certain anonymity (and that won’t change, mostly for political reasons).
Thus, the only real solution (to help EQUALIZE the credibility of ALL witnesses at sex crime trials) is to refer to ALL witnesses using their first names only, so that the jury doesn’t perceive ANY difference between how the judge views each witness.
It’s easy to say you disagree with Suneel, especially when you have nothing at stake and nothing to lose.
Any COWARD can give an opinion when he’s got no “skin in the game”.
Let’s have somebody come forward and LOGICALLY refute Suneel’s points without using emotion and insults to help make their point.
Does anybody here have the BALLS?
No? That’s what I thought. 🙂
If Claviger was defending a real client, would he be okay with this kinda witness treatment for all prosecution witnesses?
Will Claviger respond?
Or is he afraid of the ‘mob’ along with their fearless leader, Mr. Stank Farlato, Jr., a Sicilian migrant who seems to cave to the mob?
This is a legit issue, yet Frank and Claviger — 2 of the biggest JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM advocates — have gone radio silent.
PS — When I say ‘witnesses’ — I actually mean all parties spoken about by witnesses to the jury. Not just actual witnesses.
*If a case requires that one person be addressed by their first name only, then all parties (of that same case) should automatically be addressed in the same manner, to keep the trial fair.
Retard, it doesn’t work that way. A witness is a witness, someone who testifies before a court.
Perhaps if Raniere had called ANY witnesses on his behalf, the judge may have ruled to use only their first name, too. Because, then, they would be sharing personal experiences with the court that they may want protected with anonymity.
That is why Suneel’s argument is BS. As is yours. This is why I hate Google lawyers.
Sherizzy-
A witness with only the first name or an alias implies that the victim/witness is a credible victim/witness who needs protecting from the defendant and the public.
No it doesn’t. There is no implication whatsoever of any more or less credibility than a witness who is known by only one name as opposed to two. A witness whose name is John Smith isn’t any more or less so than one whose name is John. This has got to be one of most irrelevant, insults to the jury’s intelligence, attempted arguments that I’ve ever heard. Apparently, in the “critical thinking” minds of the remaining NXIVM acolytes, when they have nothing left to counter the testimony of a witness, they think talk of grand principles, associating themselves with some who have been wronged by the justice system, and minute technicalities will save their obviously guilty master.
There is no correlation nor causation that revealing only a first name adds to, enhances, strengthens, etc., the credibility of a witness before the jury.
If I had been one of Keith’s defense attorneys, I would have pushed very hard to have the “victims-witnesses” testify under 2-name aliases. That would have made all this a non-issue.
But, reluctant though I am to agree with Bangkok/Retard about anything — including, but not limited to, the time of day — I do think this is a valid issue for Keith’s attorneys to raise on appeal. Having said that, I also do NOT believe that this issue will result in a reversal for the simple reason that there is plenty of precedent for Judge Garaufis’ decision to use the one-name-for-victims rule in this case.
I have lots of issues concerning the way in which Keith’s attorneys handled various aspects of his defense. But I also think that many of their decisions in terms of trial strategy were likely dictated by Keith — and that they have emails or other documentation to back them up on that point (That’s the main reason why I think he’s not going to prevail on any appeal that is based on “incompetent counsel”).
The entire criminal justice system is slanted in favor of prosecutors — and against defendants. Which is why people like me are continuing to work so hard to change that system.
PS: I have already made it clear that I am not bothered about Keith’s conviction, nor his grossly excessive 120-year sentence. But that’s because I have personal knowledge of the harm that he caused to so many people that I happen to know.
From a personal standpoint, I think Keith got what he deserved. From a professional standpoint, it bothers me a great deal that many other defendants end up being treated much like Keith even though they did not do a hundredth of the damage that Keith did to other peoples’ lives.
So, sorry — not sorry — Bangkok/Retard. Keith got exactly what he deserves.
“… that they have emails or other documentation”
– Claviger, do you think the attorneys might have saved any of the thousands of post-it notes Keith passed to them during trial instructing them on what to do? Could those be used to invalidate any incompetent defense argument Keith might try to raise?
It’s entirely possible that they would have kept those — either to show their colleagues what they had to put up with Keith or to file away in case he ever tries to argue that they had provided incompetent representation. Given the experience of the two lead attorneys on Keith’s team, I doubt very much any such argument will succeed anyway — but having those post-it notes could be very valuable evidence.
The world has stopped spinning on its axis.
Hark, the anti-Christ is coming! The apocalypse has arrived. Signaled by Claviger in-full agreement with the bastard of all bastards, Bangkok the SoCal Retard.
Sooth well said. And for Suneel’s crass argument—these agreements? Verily, the centre will not hold.
Reminds me of that similar trial when Tuffy was testifying against the Carozzoni crime family.
Vanguard = good.
Frank Parlato = bad.
Being filmed while you are held down naked by other naked women to be branded near your vagina with (lied about) Grandmaster Keith’s initials so this gross old pedophile can get off on watching the recording (also lied about) is sexual.
And blackmail.
That’s why Keith is recorded saying the branding would be used as collateral.
Are there really people who don’t understand what/why Keith wanted naked photos of women who were starved to his sexual ideal and had their pubic hair groomed to his sexual preference?
Does Suneel honestly believe that all the porn generated was for non-sexual purposes?
And the 3x weekly group naked photos?
The ultra close-up vagina shots?
The masturbation tapes?
Those were just for… bookkeeping?
And the purchased sex toys for the dungeon?
The entire basis of DOS was the sexual gratification of Keith Raniere.
It’s like if a serial predator took women to a restaurant before drugging and raping them and then insisted on calling this behavior a “supper club”.
Clothed photos and recordings not for sex.
Naked photos and recordings for sex.
But, but, but…prison reform! Hate!
That is all this is. It is the public who did not get full disclosure, not the accused, and it was completely irrelevant to due process and the evidence of the case at hand. This is analogous to the method of attempting to throw out evidence on a technicality that you see in fiction that rarely—if ever—happens in reality, or if there is some error reported in the media, or the prosecution admits to a minor mistake—to throw out the baby with the bath water. These dead-enders keep repeating themselves as “critical thinkers”—especially the chief one who is the most outspoken on Twitter—but repeating it doesn’t make it so as they keep proving otherwise when it comes to the facts of the case.
Not only a red herring, but grasping at straws. It’s common practice in sex crime cases to shield the identities of alleged victims.
Oh Suneel, Suneel. I seriously had my money on you waking up by now. You really need to make some different friends. You’re throwing pebbles at tanks and have lain waste to your professional future with your nonsensical gibberish. Find new friends, my boy!
I believe victims should be given privacy and the protection of their name. It should only be their decision — not the legal system, media or social media — to release their full names.
My concern is victimizing the victim and invading their privacy as they struggle to heal and move forward with their lives. If some decide to reveal themselves then it is part of acknowledging their empowerment.
Suneel is twisting this protection to say that these female victims were treated with kid gloves, which plays into the dogma of DOS and the current message of the 9 supposedly fighting for judicial reform. Firmly believe the only person that has a right to stand up and disclose they are a victim is the actual victim.
In the case of India, her mother was trying to save her and other young women from following into India’s full victim experience and made a decision as a mother to protect India and other young women. Also, the sisters of the two women that were likely murdered by NXIVM have every reason and right to speak up and state their sisters’ names as victims, as they are advocating for justice and not letting their sisters be forgotten. In this specific case, I also think keeping the victims’ full names private testifying against Raniere was for safety.
There is no telling what the Mexican connections or other nefarious connections would do to protect themselves and their own interests… we still don’t know if the LeBaron murders were a hit to hide information of sex trafficking between Mexico and NXIVM.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Clare Bronfman felt justified in her punitive mindset to hire hits against victims… or any of the Mexican elites to arrange hits for their own self-preservation of political interests. Suneel quickly forgets this is an organization that keeps collateral for control over victims with the ongoing and un-resolved threat of release.
A lot of pointless gibberish here. Is this how they think they are going to free Raniere?
Ya know, I don’t even think it’s about freeing KR anymore. More like desperation to not see or admit all they’ve lost. They’d have to face not being superior to the rest of the world but rather ordinary people who were taken by a con man. No fun to eat shit.
Re ‘One Name Good, Two Names Bad’
My comment before I consider reading this post. [Most definitely, but I’ll give myself a few hours to do so first].
This is a hypothesis or assertion that has not been proven.
Where is the proof that this was the case? And why not say single syllable names are good, multi-syllable names are bad. Or easy and common names are good, unpronounceable names are bad. [Like Phang Vu for example!]
There is not only one possibility. There are many possibilities. And there could be many case-by-case decisions regarding the designation of people in court. It goes simple and it goes complicated. And the more individual decisions that have to be made, the more contestable the outcome. The judge ruled the way he did, and he has the discretion to do it that way. It’s not a legal ground to challenge the process or the result or the verdict because it didn’t affect the process or the rights of the defendant.
Anonymous at 1:53 a.m.
You are so right. This is YouTube reasoning.
These Nxivm dead-enders claim to be logical, yet they always set up these non-reasoned either/or dumb social media post arguments.
No nuance. No true critical thinking.
I have to agree with Suneel here.
He does make logical arguments.
Only people who think with their emotions — rather than pure logic — could disagree (read: flaming liberals).
Why is Frank too chickenshit to weigh-in on this issue?
Suneel is not afraid to stand up against the mob. You gotta respect that.
However… Suneel seems to have forgotten that Ivy Nevares has repudiated Keith in the harshest terms, so why is he citing her plight as though she’s on Keith’s side?
Ivy’s victim impact statement was likely the best one.
Her emails showed that Keith has major issues with feelings of sexual inadequacy. Keith got very jealous because she dreamed about other faceless men at night. Also, Keith said she was not ‘ethical’ because she wouldn’t lose more weight for him. That’s the language of a very controlling and insecure man, not a great leader looking to help humanity.
Frank, maybe you can send Suneel a copy of Ivy’s statement to the court (about Keith) and ask him to write an article defending his Vanguard’s behavior in those emails. How can Suneel defend a man who wrote such emails?
Be a journalist. Do your job. Asshole.
—Ivy’s victim impact statement was likely the best one.
That’s a 100% true. I’m shocked you read it.