In this post, our esteemed and loyal opposition, Suneel Chakravorty — [who I am trying to deprogram from a suspected severe case of brainwashing, which he denies, which is typical of brainwashed individuals, as cult experts maintain] — has taken some of his valuable time to address certain comments made by readers of his latest post, Government Misled Jury About Camila’s Age When Reading Raniere Text Messages”
Suneel makes the argument that the government chose to shine a false light for the jury, rather more or less tricking them into thinking that Camila was 18 years old when she was receiving and sending texts to Raniere, who is 30 years older than her. Cami was actually 24. at the time of the texts.
According to cult experts, brainwashing occurs when a cult leader begins to send vibrational waves [see illustration below] to enter unbidden the subconscious mind and alter the thinking of the individuals who follow him (or her) so they can no longer think for themselves but think instead whatever the leader wants them to think. For most cult experts, who usually bill at an hourly rate, it is a long and expensive process to deprogram a brainwashed individual.
Suneel, on the other hand, does not think he is brainwashed. He claims he escaped being brainwashed at Harvard and then later at NXIVM. He works in the teaching field [Not NXIVM], supports himself, does not take money from Clare Bronfman or Keith Raniere or anyone connected to NXIVM, he says and he says he genuinely thinks Keith Raniere had an unfair trial.
Let us hear his rebuttal to some piquant and persuasive comments:
Penn Station 195 wrote:
Raniere has hired the best attorneys and, thus far, none of them has used anything resembling your thoughts or opinions on this matter.
Admittedly, Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar’s ‘sleight of hand’ with Camila’s passport before performing the Keith-Cami texts is a minor point. The attorneys have to focus on the strongest points for the appeal. I have the latitude to make whatever points as I want, whether they are major points or not. My goal is to show enough examples of prosecutorial misconduct in Keith Raniere’s case that eventually even those who hate Raniere will acknowledge it.
Suneel’s entire essay is beyond absurd, asinine, and o$ensive. I did not believe that he was a misogynist. Suneel is a total misogynist. Suneel is defending a pedophile’s filth and I am mocking him.
First, if you are going to accuse me of being a misogynist, please provide specific evidence. I believe that men and women are equal, which means equal in their capacity to make decisions and be held accountable for those decisions, which is a core and consistent assumption in my arguments. If I am giving the impression of anything other than an advocate for true equality, then please point them out to me and be specific, so I can correct the mistake — as that is the last impression I want to give.
To be clear, I don’t and would never condone the exploitation of minors. It is my contention that the child porn evidence was planted and backdated, as the file system data suggests. If Raniere or anyone else were guilty of abuse of minors, I would support that being charged and prosecuted.
Blaming the jury when you lose in court is as lame as when comedians blame the audience for not getting a joke.
I don’t blame the jury. I hold the prosecutors responsible, as my contention is that they cheated to win a conviction.
Who’s Not the Smartest? wrote:
I’d put my faith on the jury being able to see the truth more clearly than a follower who believes the ludicrous, totally improbable and unverifiable claims Keith Raniere has made.
You can read my breakdown of Keith’s infamous biography on FrankReport. I have no problem calling out false or improbable claims, no matter the source.
Sigh. Suneel keeps revealing how dumb he is about the justice system. He has a child’s view on it. Expecting fairness and honesty and all that. Even if this story is 100% true, the prosecutor isn’t required to give context, that is up to the defense’s job.
I’m not under the false impression that prosecutors are concerned with truth, honesty and fairness. I understand the culture of prosecutors these days is about winning at all costs.
My point is that the role of a prosecutor is to search for truth. This is what the average citizen has been led to believe is still the case.
Taking things out of context or imposing a false context is antithetical to the search for truth.
I’m a realist, but not yet a cynic. I believe we should try to rectify the fundamental flaws in our justice system.
You and Keith should work together to solve any one of the six remaining Millennium Problems. I’m guessing you know what these are. It’s a challenge put up by Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts. CMI selected seven of the most di#cult math problems ever conceived. There is a $1 million dollar prize to solve any one of them (six of the seven remain unsolved). You are a Harvard educated Mathematician. Keith is purportedly one of the top three problem solvers in the world, the world’s smartest man, and, as I understand it, an inventor of his own math (I would like to know more about it).”
Collaborating with Keith on a Millennium Problem would be fantastic. Unfortunately, Keith is very limited right now, so my best bet for making this happen is to help exonerate him (because his due process rights were violated and he is innocent of the charges), which I am trying to do.
No matter her age, it’s disgusting.
It’s your right to be disgusted by anything and everything, but in this country we have laws, and age matters as far as whether certain conduct is considered unlawful or not.
Aristotle’s Sausage wrote:
To suggest that prosecution misdirection is responsible for the jury finding against Raniere on this point is…bizarre and absurd. Equally absurd is the implication that the trial was unfair because the prosecution painted an unflattering picture of the defendant. News flash: the trial system is an adversarial process. The prosecution paints the defendant as a demon. The defense paints him as an angel.
I’m not suggesting that misdirection is responsible for the verdict. Where did I assert or imply that?
Also, ideally the adversarial nature of the process has nothing to do with portraying the defendant inaccurately in either direction but rather whether or not the elements of the charges were met and the due process rights of the defendant were upheld. I understand in practice, this is not the case.
Just Sayin’ wrote:
Suneel, Suneel, Suneel. It’s actually come to this level of desperation? The jury isn’t stupid and neither is the public. Aren’t you embarrassed? I bet your poor family is. You’re a laughing stock at this point.
I did not claim the jury was stupid. We are all susceptible to being misled. For example, many of the commenters think I am at times intelligent but for some reason appear to be misled (brainwashed?) by Raniere.
Also, I’m not embarrassed by anything I’ve written. I stand by it and if I’m proven wrong about any particular point, I’d be glad to admit it and learn from it.
KR Claviger wrote:
All you’re doing is looking at game film two years after the game was played and bitching about the refereeing. Guess what… even if you’re right, it’s not going to change the outcome of the game.
My intention is to point out each and every example of prosecutorial impropriety, misconduct or corruption I come across. In my opinion, no instance is too trivial. Whether it affects the outcome of the ‘game’ or not, I believe it is important to not let any bad behavior from our civil servants go unexposed.
I am thinking Suneel took his SAT untimed.
My SAT math and verbal scores were perfect 800s 🙂
Suneel – this claim is meritless. Also, if Agnifilo did not object, and I do not remember him doing so at trial, it is unpreserved for appellate review. That means that the appellate court will not entertain the issue.
I agree this instance alone is not strong enough to reverse a conviction. I never claimed it was. But I do not believe we, as citizens, should allow our prosecutors to use any dirty tricks. They are, after all, supposed to serve us as honest stewards of the law.