I 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 prosecution to choose which witnesses were shielded by anonymity and which were not.
My article received a few critiques that I felt warranted a response.
Non-sequitur wrote: 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.
Suneel: What would the reason be then for obscuring the identity of one witness while exposing the identity of another? In Raniere’s case, the commonsense, subliminal inference was clear: ‘one name’ women were Raniere’s victims.
Judge Garaufis understood this and agreed to give “a jury instruction explaining that the reason for the anonymity is regard for the witnesses’ and non-witness victims’ privacy” and not because there was a danger posed to the witnesses, in an effort to rectify the issue. But how could a short (seconds to minutes) jury instruction possibly counteract the prejudice that was introduced over weeks of testimony?
K.R. Claviger: 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.
Suneel: The precedent Judge Garaufis cited were cases that required protecting witnesses from violence. But in his ruling, [Dkt 622] Judge Garaufis admitted, “the Government does not argue that Raniere was a danger to the victims, but rather that the potential for humiliation and unwanted media attention would unfairly damage the victims’ recovery and hinder reporting in future cases.” [p. 32] Therefore the logic of the judge’s decision was not supported by the precedent he cited. By calling them victims in need of recovery shows the judge’s bias pretty clearly.
Red Herring wrote: 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.
Suneel: This was not an issue of disclosure but an issue of the jury being affected by prejudice, which is relevant to due process.
Anonymous wrote: 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.
Suneel: I agree that there are circumstances, such as physical safety or safety of loved ones, where the alleged victims should be given anonymity, for their protection. But none of those circumstances were present here, by the prosecution’s admission. The anonymity was about preventing public harassment and embarrassment.
Anonymous: Two women were likely murdered by NXIVM and 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: Allegations of violence need to be backed up by evidence. There was no evidence of even a threat of violence in the entire six-and-a-half week trial, nor did the government allege that such a threat to witnesses existed.
The government had no legitimate basis for arguing witness anonymity was needed in Raniere’s case, especially when several of those anonymous witnesses (Sarah, India, and Jaye) have come out very publicly and are profiting from having been victims in the case.
Two Views of Picture Below
Government: Keith ‘Wolf’ Raniere, a much older predatory male, waiting to groom, then sexually abuse a young victim, ‘Lambie’ [her nickname]. Once she gave shorn photos of herself, she lost her ability to consent to intimacy.
Defense: Laura ‘Sexy Lambie’ D. Jamison, 25, of Poughkeepsie, a college grad, eagerly looked to take a walk with Keith ‘Huckleberry’ Raniere because she was attracted to him and wanted to learn from him. As an adult, she fully consented to intimacy with Huck on his terms and later changed her mind, and became regretful, withdrawing consent after he was arrested and claiming she was abused.
Expanding on the precedent that embarrassment is cause for the use of one name only, the prosecution has asked the judge that the following witnesses, though not victims of sex crimes, be referred to only by their first names because use of their full names might be prejudicial to the prosecution. They are Anita Bath, Harry Cox, Wayne Kerr and Mike Hunt.
Be Proud of Your Surname
Apropos of the trend to use first names, I recall a story, said to be true, of a man named Thomas Dickhout, who petitioned the court to change his name.
Dickhout is an old German name, and a branch of the family came to the USA in the 18th century. One of Thomas’ forbears, Johann Heinrich Dickhout, was a schoolmaster in Stone Arabia, NY, when he wed Anna Catharina Teigert also of Stone Arabia, NY, on 16 Aug 1778.
The judge said, “Your name is Thomas Dickhout. What name do you want to change it to?”
Thomas replied, “James, your honor.”
The judge said, “Thomas James?”
“No,” Thomas replied. “James Dickhout.”
And so the court ordered it entered into the record.
To the NXIVM 5,
Considering Clare Bronfman is financing everything; shouldn’t you all be defending her to?
I wrote the following limerick entitled
Don’t Forget Clare:
There once was a rich girl named Clare
Who hadn’t a single care
She gave up a palace,
to become a legalus
Now she’s the property of Blaire
What are the kiddies going to do once Raniere has exhausted all his appeals, and they are no closer to getting him out of prison than they were on the day he was arrested? Suneel, I hear Joe Exotic is looking for help with his 22-year prison sentence, you know bad witnesses, crappy counsel, etc. Sounds like something right in your wheelhouse. Why don’t you and the kiddos jump on his bandwagon (you might stand a better chance)?….asking for a friend
It has no material impact. It is clutching at straws in my view.
“Clare Bronfman is so cheap—she makes her pussy pay for tampons.”
Suneel, you, in defense of Kieth Raniere and your own beliefs, are grasping at straws blowing away in the wind.
How many more ‘pedestrian’ type analogies from high school and college English literature classes will you be using in the future? I’m curious.
I had the same thought/phrase without reading this, the clutching at straws. It is hard to appeal cases and people have to put everything into the first trial. KR chose not to and thus he is too late to do it now on just about every point. He missed his chance
Jane—No worries. I think “straws” the apt idiom in this case.
BTW I completely agree with your comment.
Suneel seems like a man who knows the truth, but can’t face it.
I do believe at the end of the day Suneel is a good person.
Suneel, are you the second coming of the author James Joyce?
You definitely like to take classical literature and rewrite it into parallel stories.
AUDIO: Hijo de Salinas de Gortari sabía que había esclavas sexuales en NXIVM
AUDIO: HIJO DE SALINAS DE GORTARI SABÍA QUE HABÍA ESCLAVAS SEXUALES EN NXIVM
Emiliano Salinas, hijo del expresidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari, sabía de los presuntos abusos que se cometían en contra de mujeres dentro de la secta NXIVM, cuya filial en México se encargó de dirigir por más de 10 años.
De acuerdo con un reporte publicado por el portal Buzzfeed, semanas antes de que The New York Times publicara un artículo en el que diera a conocer los detalles sobre los supuestos abusos perpetrados al interior de la organización, que incluía acciones como “marcar” con acero caliente a mujeres, Salinas Occelli sostuvo una llamada telefónica con otro miembro de ESP, mismo ante quien reconoció que sabía de fenómenos como el “branding” (marcas).
Los audios de las llamadas fueron obtenidos por Buzzfeed, quien los reveló en su portal y a través de su cuenta de Twitter. En una de las conversaciones, Emiliano Salinas cuenta a su interlocutor, Antonio Zarattini, que con su padre tuvo algún intercambio sobre las cosas que ocurrían dentro de la organización.
AUDIO: Salinas de Gortari’s son knew there were sex slaves at NXIVM
AUDIO: SALINAS DE GORTARI’S SON KNEW THERE WERE SEX SLAVES AT NXIVM
Emiliano Salinas, son of former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, knew about the alleged abuses committed against women within the NXIVM sect, whose Mexican branch he was in charge of directing for more than 10 years.
According to a report published by the portal Buzzfeed, weeks before The New York Times published an article in which it disclosed details about the alleged abuses perpetrated within the organization, which included actions such as “branding” women with hot steel, Salinas Occelli had a phone call with another member of ESP, to whom he acknowledged that he knew about phenomena such as “branding”.
The audios of the calls were obtained by Buzzfeed, which revealed them on its website and through its Twitter account. In one of the conversations, Emiliano Salinas tells his interlocutor, Antonio Zarattini, that he had some exchange with his father about things that happened within the organization.
ELECCIONES 2021¡Ahora le descubren a Clara Luz fotos con el líder de G4N$IVM!
Clara Luz no sólo habló con Keith Raniere de NXIVM, ¡imágenes la ligan con otro poderoso líder! Oigan, ¿entonces cómo querían que le dieran candidatura?
ELECTIONS 2021 Now Clara Luz is discovered in photos with the leader of G4N$IVM!
Clara Luz not only talked to Keith Raniere of NXIVM, pictures link her to another powerful leader! Hey, so how did they want her to be given candidacy?
03/24/2021By Massimo Clara Luz not only talked to Keith Raniere of NXIVM, images link her to another powerful leader! Hey, so how did they want to give her candidacy?
Clara Luz Flores not only talked to the leader of NXIVM, she is already being accused of asking for advice and help from another powerful leader. What are they freaking out, if they don’t talk to the guru, there is no candidacy!
The current gubernatorial candidate in Nuevo Leon was recently exposed for appearing in a video where she talks with Keith Raniere, the leader of NXIVM.
And while she denied this meeting or even knowing Raniere… there is a meeting with another leader that she cannot, nor wants to deny.
With the leader of Morena! No, it is not Mario Delgado, the real leader of the National Regeneration Movement, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
With whom, surely, he also talked about populism and about giving the people what they want and not necessarily what they need.
And it seems that he convinced her to join the movement that would put an end to all evil in the national public life… and the conversion was so strong that the 22 year old Priista left the party only 18 days after talking to the guide of the moral transformation.
Is sectarianism not surprising in Morena?
Evil tongues say that inside Morena it is not surprising, frightening or distressing that Clara Luz Flores has had contact with the leader of a renowned sect… How did they want her to be a candidate?
Later on, many must have found out that it was not about AMLO, but about Keith Raniere and CHIN, who ran out of data to publish something in networks!
But as soon as the balance comes back to them, they will tell us that the daughter of the Reforma owner and the son of Salinas are in deep, while Clarita may have lied, but her conscience is clear.
But leaving aside the sectarianism, which is very rare in national politics, shouldn’t they be more surprised by the little lie she made by denying everything?
This select group of politicians and transformers originated in the middle of this century, it is known that this movement gained strength among the political class in search of success and fortune regardless. Among the ubiquitous members who left everything with the promise of G4N$IVM, are: Manuel Bartlett, the always sectarian Mario Delgado or the young Antonio Attolini.
LMAO, the use of names as cause to overturn. Suneel is just desperately hanging on to that ledge for his hero, Raniere. As he continues to ignore the whole branding, child sex aspect of his behavior of his hero. We are well beyond grasping at straws. Bringing this up just highlights that the prosecutors’ very smart trial tactic (juries are less about facts and evidence and more about emotion) but is virtually meaningless for an appeal. Sure, throw it on the pile when they attempt to appear before a judge but if think this will move the needle, then hit me up for this winning lottery ticket I want to sell you.
Years Sunneel, years. Can you keep this nonsense up that long?
An example: https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/ex-south-carolina-police-officer-in-prison-for-fatally-shooting-walter-scott-appeals-20-year-sentence/ Guy tried to appeal on defense incompetence. Denied. Took 3 years. That was likely “fast-tracked” due to being a police officer. Also important to note most appeals are not like on TV. Most of it is done in written form, very little is verbal and actually speaking before a judge is a long process.
Dude, really move on. Your efforts are amusing but wasted. There is nothing Raniere followers can do at this point. It’s in the province of judges and lawyers and all the website stories, videos, and more will do nothing because that isn’t what they are looking at. None of that is admissible in the appeal unless it’s actually new evidence, new facts for the case. Your opinions, your theories, your beliefs do not qualify.
I’m not 100% sure about this but I imagine that the FBI is pretty well staffed with professional psychologists who may well have made informed recommendations to the judge.
Given that raniere subjected both men and women of the organization to psychological abuse and manipulation, I think there is an argument to be made that the protection of witnesses’ surnames protected them from further psychological harm.
Suneel needs to stop minimizing emotional and psychological abuse.
Maybe also stop drawing comparisons between works of fiction and real life.
(Although it is funny he chooses Animal Farm and strikes out the word animals to be replaced by witnesses or victims, whichever it was. After all, Raniere did order humans to branded just like cattle. Sounds to me like another of Raniere’s sick jokes and the whole argument sounds exactly like it came straight from Raniere’s mouth.)
I think Suneel is being played and just another of Keith’s animal/human toys.
Suneel, dude, you are hitching your wagon to a losing pony. And wasting your time bitching about it on Frank Report is not going to matter one fucking bit to anyone in the criminal justice system. No matter how much you don’t agree with it, you are not going to get Keith out.
You are wasting your life away, dog. Why aren’t you doing something else with your life? How are you going to feel 20 years from now when all you’ve done is dance around with a few girls that have another man’s initials branded next to their pussies? You have to know that there is more to your life than that.
Perhaps you should talk to one of your friends that has left the cult and just give it a chance. Might just save your life.
Even worse for Suneel – Imagine if he gets the outcome he’s striving for…
Blood will be on his hands, and it ain’t like he wasn’t warned. (Luckily for him, that pony he hitched up to is a L-7 weenie.)
Other than giving feedback on Keith’s impressive resume, Suneel has kept to his agenda and has not shared his opinions. Since Suneel is the one bringing up the violence topic, how about some thoughts on Vanguard’s unlucky fortune of having so many close females to him die? And how about thoughts on Keith’s pattern of warning others that he’s had people killed for his beliefs?
The prosecution got a 120-year verdict without much effort. Because they didn’t need to prove Keith’s violent behavior doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It also doesn’t mean others (including the judge) don’t know the facts surrounding Vanguard. Stick to your agenda, if you must, but I’d like you (Suneel) to share your opinion on this elephant in Keith’s room.
Suneel is still desperately attempting to talk himself into believing Keith Raniere is innocent. If Keith Raniere is not innocent,
Suneel would have to face the grim reality he followed a charlatan and false prophet for the better of a decade.
I understand and sympathize with him. When you pull the curtain back and someone you loved, respected, and idolized turns out to be a huckster, it most definitely stings and is heartbreaking.
What a tiresome fellow. The dead-enders are like the proverbial dog with a bone, they never let it go.
One name good, two names bad? Since when? We gives dogs one name, people get two. I could construct an equally foolish argument that the court was demeaning the female victims in the case by not using their full names. Were they dogs in this scenario?
Raniere got a fair trial. He was convicted by a jury of his peers because the evidence against him was overwhelming. He had women branded with his initials for chrissake. Even the dead-enders don’t dispute this damning piece of evidence.
Take any 12 random people off the street, present them with the evidence of what Raniere was up to, and you’ll get a guilty verdict. The man committed outrages. He built an entire organization to facilitate his outrages. That’s why he’s in prison.
Suneel is definitely getting the better of his FrankReport debate adversaries.
…And while I agree with Claviger that this particular issue, while certainly unfair, will not be enough to sway the appeals court to overturn Keith’s conviction —– Claviger is HUGELY MISTAKEN when he tells Frank Report readers that Keith’s conviction will not be overturned for “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” (due to Agnifilo’s HUGE MISTAKE of not trying to call Lauren back to the witness stand the next morning).
Claviger keeps referring to how ‘expensive’ an attorney Agnifilo is (and how much Keith paid him) —- pretending as though the appeals court will care about the issue of attorney fees.
Nope. It’s not an issue they’ll even look at.
When evaluating whether Keith’s attorney was ‘ineffective’ or not, the appeals court will look at 2 things only:
1) Whether a ‘reasonable’ (or DUNCE) attorney would have made a motion to call Lauren back to the witness stand the very next day.
2) Whether Lauren’s testimony was critical enough that it amounted to a material part of Keith’s conviction (She wasn’t some immaterial witness; she was the STAR witness).
The answer to both questions is YES.
Thus, Keith’s conviction cannot stand for this reason.
It’s a done deal. Keith will be free soon.
I’m not sure that Frank truly understands how likely this is.
Claviger KNOWS this is true but his loyalties to Frank are very strong.
Oh, and Keith is likely to win his first appeal — which has nothing to do with how his lawyers performed.
The issue of the JUDGE cutting off Lauren’s testimony is reason enough to reverse his conviction all by itself.
If he loses that first appeal, then his post-conviction appeal (ineffective assistance of counsel) will be launched.
Keith, therefore, has 2 separate appeals which can reverse his conviction.
Let’s not forget, after a deep investigation, I’ve uncovered that Claviger took 6 tries to pass the BAR exam back in 1961.
The law has changed a lot since he’s graduated from law school, back in the dark ages.
When Claviger took the BAR exam, the Pony Express was still a viable organization for delivering mail.
In evaluating the likelihood that Keith might be able to win an appeal based on “ineffective counsel”, I have emphasized Marc Agnifilo’s experience and the fact that Keith had a 4-person defense team — not that Keith spent a lot of Clare Bronfman’s money on his defense, although that is certainly also true. I have also emphasized that the standard for proving “ineffective counsel” is very difficult to meet.
That standard — which was set in the landmark decision in Strickland v. Washington — makes it very hard for defendants to establish ineffectiveness. In that case, the Supreme Court set a two‐prong test to determine if the defendant’s attorney was ineffective: first, the attorney’s representation must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness — and second, there must be a reasonable probability that, but for attorney’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Although “Bang-tard” correctly noted the two-prong standard from the Strickland case, he failed to note the specific language from that case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated that in evaluating the performance of an attorney, courts “must be highly deferential…A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”
Bang-tard also claims — once again without offering any facts to back up the claim — that Lauren was the “STAR witness” in the case and that her testimony “amounted to a material part of Keith’s conviction” — whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean (BTW, have you noticed that whenever Bang-tard has no facts to back up one of his specious arguments, he relies on ALL CAPS to fill in the blanks?). Seriously, does any clear-thinking person believe that calling Lauren back to the witness stand would have changed the outcome of the trial?
Finally, Bang-tard once again asserts that “Keith will be free soon” — which even if Keith were to win an appeal is simply not true. Perhaps, Bang-tard has forgotten that Keith was denied bail on three separate occasions because he was considered a flight-risk — or maybe he thinks that a guy who was handed a 120-year sentence in his first trial would be considered less of a flight-risk the second time around.
In the end, Bang-tard’s pronouncements on these matters are just as baseless as his claimed research on my career.
I’ve always felt about Lauren’s testimony that the best thing for Keith was to get her out of there. The longer she talked and wailed away, the worse for Keith.
I’m sure the jurors had each determined by then that Keith was a dirty, rotten to the core, lying, scumbag. She just made him look worse and worse – and his gerbil-ing around passing the lawyers a post-it note every 20 seconds made it look like he was enjoying it and just trying to pile on. He was causing her misery and he loved it.
Ineffective counsel is incredibly difficult to prove.
Just read up on White Boy Rick.
Both of Rick’s original defense attorneys gave a subpar legal defense and were corrupt and he still couldn’t get a second trial.
Ineffective Counsel would be true if they’d called Lauren back to the stand and gotten anything significant out of her mouth. They had her on the stand. They watched her bury Keith. They passed sticky notes. They made Lauren cry. They got warned by the judge. They passed more notes. Agnifilo had nothing and he knew it. He tossed more and more blind darts at Lauren as the judge kept warning him to shape up. He crossed the line and Lauren was finally free to get up. If Agnifilo actually had anything whatsoever to ask Lauren that could have made any sort of difference and he DIDN’T ask it, that’s where the ineffective counsel would be.
Assuming Agnifilo isn’t inept, why the fuck would he call Lauren back to the stand the next morning???? He’d emptied his arsenal. He’d been sticky noted to death. He’d been thoroughly scolded by the judge. He had watched Lauren solidify Vanguard’s guilt. Why would he want more of that????
The real question is this: If Agnifilo had ANYTHING up his sleeve to ask Lauren, why hadn’t it already been asked?????
Totally – and also just think about using emotional breakdown as a courtroom tactic? What Suneel is suggesting is that it should be allowed for an attorney to destroy a witness without end or mercy; a judge that stops it is being unfair and it is, therefore, grounds for a mistrial. If this were to be allowed, trial lawyers would hammer on witnesses relentlessly and according to Suneel, it should have no end and the lawyers have carte blanche to go on like that forever.
This would be a terrible tactic allowed in courtroom testimony. Instead, as you have noted, once all pursuit of meaningful testimony had expired, the judge was right to put an end to it.
Thank you, Perry Mason!
Last time I checked, Claviger & Nice Guy’s wife were the only lawyers around.
Babcock, after reading your comment, I was going to ask why Keith would be a free man after winning an appeal and point a few obvious facts out but the fantastic Mr Claviger did this in a much more articulated manner and saved me the time. I will ask though why you think next time round he would be granted bail?
Whilst I am here can I ask why your feel so threatened by Mr Claviger? It might be worth getting to the root cause of such feelings, as I think he is merely a trigger to something much deeper. With this for you to ponder, I wish you well Babby.
The My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell, is trying to use the Frank Report’s popularity by calling his just launched website “Frank” but it crashed opening day:
Lindell said on Parler that the Frank website was “having a massive attack against it currently.”
He said Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer advising him on his countersuit against Dominion Voting Systems, would appear on his broadcast alongside Diamond and Silk, the Trump-supporting right-wing vloggers.
Lindell didn’t provide any details about an attack, saying only that it was “probably the biggest ever” and adding, “I don’t know if it was bots or what.” Lindell has said he spent millions of dollars on the site’s security because he expected it to be the victim of cyberattacks.
QUESION: Did Frank Parlato sabotage the My Pillow site?