Frank Report readers might want to steady themselves and perhaps sit down: Bangkok is leaving us again – and just when he fully recovered from a near-deadly bout of COVID.
He says “duty calls,” and so he leaves us but he will be back again this summer, he promises.
Before he went, he offered some of his latest thoughts. The topics are the battle between Suneel and the rest of the world over the Cami pics used at the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, and the issue of the estate of Pamela Cafritz and some $8 million dollars she left her beloved lord and of which he does not yet have in his possession – it being tied up in estate and IRS issues.
Raniere currently lives in Tucson AZ.
Suneel Doth Not Protest Too Much
In his post Suneel Stands His Ground; Clarifies Why He Believes FBI Tampered With Cami Nude Pics, Suneel said: “For the record, I am NOT claiming that naked pictures of Camila were not ever taken in 2005 or that underage sex did NOT occur. There is no credible basis for me to claim this. ”
I just caught Suneel in a contradiction.
While I understand Suneel’s legal point for making this statement above (that underage sex was not charged in this indictment and has no bearing on Keith’s guilt or innocence of racketeering) ——- I’d like to point out that Suneel has just contradicted his own previous statements about why he still associates with Keith.
Suneel previously said that he would NOT support anybody that, in his own judgment, may have harmed an underage child (which, IMO, would include having underage sex with a child who cannot realistically give consent; regardless of whether or not such sex can be charged as a crime).
Also, Suneel is not screaming — from the top of his lungs — that Keith would never copulate with a 15-year-old child. That puzzles me.
For a man who claims that he’d never associate with anybody who may have harmed a child —– I’d expect Suneel to scream, from the top of his lungs, that Keith would never have engaged in such a perverted, dirty and wanton act.
Suneel previously claimed that he’d stand against anybody who ever harmed a child.
I also interpret this to mean that Suneel would disassociate himself from anybody who likely (or very well may have) engaged in such an act, regardless of whether or not criminal charges can be filed.
Holy Shit! What is Suneel doing?
Holy Cow! Why would Suneel choose to associate with such a man on a social basis?
Even if Keith were wrongfully convicted due to fabricated evidence, as Suneel believes, WHY would Suneel support a man who may have had sex with an underage child?
Suneel’s likely reply…
Suneel will likely respond by saying that, until he can 100% confirm that such sex happened, he’ll continue to give Keith the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, that’s just another way of saying that, until Vanguard admits he’s a pervert, Suneel will continue to support him.
Again, Suneel’s critical thinking ability has fallen down a rabbit hole here.
But I have no doubt that, if Suneel turned his intelligence and energy towards a more worthy project — such as feeding starving kids or helping homeless families — the world would be a better place.
Instead of using his intellect for ‘good’ —– Suneel has chosen to devote his energy into supporting a man that, according to my Lord and Savior, will not be admitted thru the Pearly Gates and will wind up with a pitchfork up his ass for eternity, alongside his former wing-woman who already resides there, Pam Cafritz.
Funny Business With Pam’s Money
According to sources, the $8 million dollars in Pam Cafritz’s estate was sitting in a bank account the whole time.
Nobody gains a financial advantage from having money sit in a low-interest bank account, earning almost nothing, when they could be earning 10% per year in the markets, in relatively safe investments.
Even if the initial gift/inheritance produced tax advantages (which it likely didn’t, since tax advantages are generally based on shielding yearly ROI from taxes until the money is distributed) —— holding that much cash in a bank account, for years, is the same thing as throwing money away each year, which would invalidate & contradict any original tax advantages gained.
You may as well unzip your pants and piss away money each year. That’s what she was doing. Zero advantages to that.
Also, it was a bank account in her name. It wasn’t owned by a trust. I doubt there was any sophisticated ‘trust’ involved with that bank account or the initial deposits… and you can’t inherit money without the estate passing thru the process of having an estate tax return filed.
Also… If somebody is holding that much cash, in a personal bank account for years, it’s a huge red flag for money laundering —– since they are throwing money away by holding that much cash, without earning any real interest from it.
Even for idiots who think that all investing is super risky, there are very safe investments that pay a lot more than a fucken bank account.
There’s absolutely no advantage to holding that much cash in a bank unless the deposits are of risky/illegal origin and you don’t wanna explain to your financial advisor where the money came from. In today’s world, you must explain where the money came from before you can invest it (there’s a federal law requiring this). This isn’t the 1970s anymore.
It’s a suspicious setup which SCREAMS ‘money laundering’.
I’m surprised the Feds didn’t report where the deposits came from.
I can only surmise that they didn’t wanna trash Pamela’s memory (after her death) by listing her as a dead co-conspirator involved in money laundering, especially since the account wasn’t in Keith’s name and they really can’t prove that he was involved in laundering any money thru that account.
Frank probably has an opinion on why the Feds didn’t reveal the source of those deposits. I believe they wanted to keep the jury sympathetic to Pamela, since she’s dead anyway and can’t answer for any crimes which may have been committed.
Was It Pam’s Money?
Estate ‘gifts’ (passed to another person while somebody is still alive) must be accounted for on a ‘gift tax’ return —- in order to itemize how much of the ‘unified credit’ is used up before one’s death.
For instance, if Pam received $20k-$40k per month as gifts from her family, those amounts would be reported by the donor each year — for their whole lives — so the exact amount would be known by the IRS, for the lifetime amount of gifts to Pam. If she received gifts from others while they were still alive, that would be known too. Estates would also be traceable, if she received her money that way. I doubt she received her $8 million legitimately.
Suneel, it’s not personal. I’ve been called a thousand worse things than you.
I’ve had members wish for my death. 🙂
I’ve had members accuse my mom of dropping me on my head when I was a baby, to explain why I’m so mentally fucked up.
Actually, that may have happened cuz I was an unruly little bastard and probably deserved it. 🙂
I am sad to report that I won’t be able to hurl insults at you any longer, for a little while, as duty calls and I won’t be posting here for a little while.
I shall return this summer to continue opposing you.
I must rely on Nice Guy to step up and begin opposing you, in my absence. He needs to prove his manhood again. He needs to assert himself as a vocal opponent of all things NXIVM. If Nice Guy doesn’t step up to fill this role, he’s a pussy.
Have a fine day. 🙂
There’s no contradiction, given Suneel’s premises – though they’re perverse ones.
Like Hubbard’s Scientology that Raniere borrowed from, NXIVM’s worldview is that children are just small adults, and having sex with them isn’t an issue. Pedophiles like Raniere will even claim that it is a good thing, older men educating younger women.
Chakravorty also comes from a culture where child marriage is deeply established, and still persistent:
“My mother was married at 14, and my brother was born when she was 15.”
Critical Intimacy: An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
“In late June, a 15-year-old girl from East Midnapore in West Bengal alerted a non-governmental organization about her impending marriage…The Calcutta High Court noted the “alarming rise” in child marriages in the state during the pandemic. ”
Fixing the legal age of marriage for women in a country as socio-economically unequal as India cannot be a simple matter.
Bhaswati Chakravorty | | Published 27.08.20, 12:10 AM
I’d like to know where Bangkok gets 10% in totally safe investments!
It’s pretty clear Keith had sex with underage girls and also photographed them. That’s illegal, so even if the other charges are bogus, no getting out of that one, guys.
[…] his article, “Bangkok: Why Doesn’t Suneel Condemn Raniere Over Cami”, Bangkok gleefully writes: “I’d like to point out that Suneel has just contradicted his own […]
I — or one of my many aliases — will try and pick up your banner (flag).
You leave behind big shoes to fill.
—my mom of dropping me on my head when I was a baby, to explain why I’m so mentally fucked up.
Actually, we determined 2 years ago that your [redacted] disability was caused by your mother’s Botox™️ and Restylane™️ usage.
Restylane is made from the Streptococcus species of bacteria. The same shit that causes strep-throat and staff infections.
Botox as everyone knows comes from Botulism, the most toxic bacteria on earth.
That’s right, affluent women are so desperate to fit society’s definition of beauty, they inject themselves with poison.
Jenny Diver …. Another troglodyte enters the comment section. SMH!
There’s nothing for Suneel to condemn. There is no evidence that Cami is a victim.
Keith is the victim big time of a lot of angry mean women. Stop thinking of Cami as a child. She is 31 and what she did to Keith is terrible. This is pure hatred
I don’t follow your logic? Keith raped Cami at 15 and took pornographic photos of her but that is her fault because she is 31 NOW?
Your NXIVM “logic” is sound. Now that Cami is 31, nothing that happened to her when she was 13 and started being groomed for sex which she had a few years later at 15 with the smelly one when he was 45 can apply anymore. Why? Because there are no ultimate victims.
Well, except when it is Keith who has the special status of being the only victim in the whole wide world, whose current situation must be a result of pissing powerful people off, a corrupt justice system, the FBI, the Illuminati, Edgar Bronfman, the stock market fairies, the fake media, professional victims (who can’t possibly exist according to the remaining NXIVM dead-enders, but let’s ignore this fact for now) like Frank Parlato, Sarah Edmondson, Heidi, Susan Dones, Cami, Dani, Mark Vicente, Bonnie Piesse, all women who can’t keep their word in general whether they are lied to or not, it doesn’t matter, etc.
The list could go on but my fingers are getting tired, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because every possible other is responsible for Keith’s predicament except himself due to his own beliefs and actions. Why? Because he is the Vanguard, the smartest and most ethical man in the whole wide world (according to himself), and he couldn’t possibly have any motivation to lie, nor any desire whatsoever to get out of prison. It is all about due process and “we the people” and justice.
It has to be because of Vanguard.
Interesting choice of monikers. Jenny Diver (Mary Young) was an Irish born orphan that moved to London at a young age and became perhaps their most notorious pickpocket. She was eventually caught and executed in London. You are using the name of a thief and liar condemned to die to argue on behalf of another thief and liar condemned to die. Just as it did not work out well for poor Jenny, it shall too be a similar fortune for vanguard. The End.
Oh look, “Jenny Diver”. I guess “Lucy Brown” was already taken.
It sounds like Bangkok is forced to go to a place with no online connection, no access to sunlight and no contact with humans.
Where could that be?
Why would he be dragged to such a place?
I thought Babcock was clear about where he’ll be. He’s gotta drop a long deuce.
Alex- Bangkok’s parents are divorced and have shared/split custody. Roughly every
3-months Bangkok switches residences. One of the parents is strict as f**k or at the very least bat-shit crazy; that parent has Bangkok under a microscope.
I figured this all out a while ago. I seriously need to get a life.
Bangkok, my friend, most people have fucked up childhoods, myself included. You’re in the norm! Trust me you’re better off. The experience makes you mentally- tough and prepares you for the fucked up world that awaits you — once you move out of home!
Suneel has the perfect excuse: He knows nothing about that which he speaks.
What the Mexican Lady said. This waste of flesh enables pedophilia. Simple as that.
Great post. I have a lot of follow-up questions about why a person has to be off-line completely. But I totally respect people’s privacy and would prefer to make up my own reasons. Spy? Astronaut? National security issue? Parents are putting you on restriction? Haha.
Suneel will continue to move the goal post.
Suneel has also probably bought into Keith’s belief system about “adult-like children” who have no problem being molested, or even incest victims who are “perfectly happy” being sexually assaulted, “until someone told them it was wrong and that they had been abused”.
You know Keith’s “rapeable babies” and made-up tales of moms giving their infant sons blow jobs to soothe them. These followers had no objection to the Nxivm curriculum. Misogyny, pro-pedophilia, pro-incest and all.
The leftovers all most likely believe such loathsome things to be true, but are just too cowardly to admit it.
These are true believers. Their beliefs are disgusting to society so they gin up whoever they can with broad popular notions about personal freedom, cancel culture, criminal justice reform, and the “lying media”.
They are really self-righteous for people supporting a known pedophile and child pornographer.
Suneel puts the ‘F’ in “Friends till the end.”
More like puts the ‘F’ in fool, like all of the remaining dead-enders.
Suneel is not shouting from the rooftops that Keith is innocent of statutory rape because he doesn’t know that for certain, but he’s giving Keith the benefit of the doubt.
What readers here have to remember is that one of the hallmarks of this case on both sides is that every piece of evidence will automatically slot into your confirmation bias. In Suneel and Nicki’s case, the broken chain of custody on the memory card calls into question everything about the child pornography evidence, which calls into question everything about claiming he had sex with Cami when she was legally unable to consent. (I’m sure he’s claiming that he didn’t). When Cami confirmed it was true, I’m sure Keith said she was coerced to do so, or there were financial incentives, or it’s part of a broader conspiracy. (Or all of the above.)
The problem I, and many other people here face, is this case includes a history of circumstantial evidence that, at a minimum, Keith had a number of relationships with girls when they were very young, some of whom may have been under the age of consent. Leaving aside the stories of Rhiannon, Gina M, and Heidi’s sister, Gina, for a moment, there’s also Dani who was barely 18 when she first had sex with Keith, but by sworn testimony had been groomed for sex while underage. I believe in the recorded phone call between Barbara Bouchey and Kristen Keefe, Kristen commented on observing Cami being groomed for sex as an underage teenager, and she suspected they were already having sex while Cami was underage. There’s also the email between Keith and Rosa Laura Junco during DOS, entered into trial evidence, where Rosa Laura suggests her teenage daughter, Lauris, as a possible sexual partner for Keith.
At its core, the problem is that one side is lying. Suneel and friends believe the lying is happening on the side of the prosecution. I think as long as Keith tells them that he didn’t do it and that all the evidence to the contrary is part of a grand conspiracy to thwart a brilliant mind who got too close to changing the world for the better, that’s how they’ll perceive it.
Great points, Anonymous. I think what Suneel and the others are experiencing is far worse than just confirmation bias. I find myself wondering how they can be so certain their perspective is correct in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. And I think it has to do with how NXIVM was structured to make Keith’s ideas seem more plausible and more convincing than they are.
For example, painting Keith as a scientist or a philosopher gives him credibility far beyond his qualifications. But since there were no scientists or philosophers to refute his views and the structure of NXIVM did not allow criticism from below and required constant praise of Keith, I think after a while, you would come to think Keith’s views were clearly true. Yet, Keith didn’t follow common practices of either science or philosophy where your work is subject to scrutiny by those in your field and you have to respond to criticism rather than ignore it. So, imagine you are Suneel and attend the trial and suddenly the way Keith is being described is so completely opposed to how he was presented inside NXIVM.
That must have been disorienting, to say the least. Also, when you discuss the case with people outside NXIVM, their perspective is nothing like the people left on the inside. This might drive you closer to the dead-enders into a closed info loop because it is less disorienting. I am not sure what the solution to this is because I think arguing with them might make the situation worse for them and they would be better off getting some space from each other and the topic of NXIVM altogether.
At the same time, there are victims who don’t need to have their abuse trivialized by these folks publicly so not arguing is problematic as well. Another concern is the given Keith’s history of abuse in relationships, some of the women of the Dossier Project might very well be victims themselves but also victimizers for Keith.
Of course, Keith is unconcerned about anyone so he isn’t going to admit what he did in order to let people move on. He will keep trying to circle the wagons and keep the dead-enders busy defending him, so they don’t have the time and space necessary to move on.
No Name: Great comment. I liked this: “At the same time, there are victims who don’t need to have their abuse trivialized by these folks publicly so not arguing is problematic as well.”
I think that is my motivation for commenting. Suneel is trivializing pedophilia. Pedophilia Victims don’t need their experiences trivialized. Suneel is normalizing pedophilia and doesn’t even see it.
Hey Mexican Lady, I agree with you. Suneel is absolutely minimizing the abuse.
I don’t understand why he wants an appeal on the photograph. It’s not like the photo was the only one of its kind. It’s only more evidence of Keith’s abject depravity. He had no qualms obtaining these pictures from all kinds of women. Even 15-year-old girls.
I am so sad about it, really. What Cami suffered is bad enough. The least they could be doing is working to sort the issue so that it was proven Cami actually was 15 (which actually doesn’t need to be done) instead of trying to disprove it, calling her a liar and trying to reduce her perpetrator’s sentence. It’s so cruel.
My heart aches for all of them. It’s so messed up. Abuse like this should never be minimized or trivialized.
Probably. His excuse is the blinders on his eyes. He certainly hitched his wagon to the wrong horse and should be working on an exit strategy.
No, I don’t think so.
Keith was convicted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT on multiple charges.
That makes the evidence against him non-circumstantial. The latter type of evidence is inference based, which leaves room for reasonable doubt because there is the possibility for some other reasonable inference, by definition.
Also, direct witnesses’ testimony that claims that Keith slept with them while underage is NOT circumstantial either. Such testimony may not have happened under oath in a trial situation, but that makes it neither less truthful nor false IN ITSELF. Testifying under oath only theoretically makes it a stronger case due to the possibility of perjury charges being brought against the one testifying, because a witness who has nothing to gain (if they aren’t in a plea bargain situation) has less motivation to lie due to the fear of a threat, i.e., a permanent criminal record, jail time, and a fine. The determination of the credibility of the witness can be done independently of a courtroom scenario.
I don’t like Bangkok. But he hits the money in his post. Suneel is normalizing pedophilia. He wants us to think that because the FBI supposedly tampered with the evidence (which he has not proven happened), we should be outraged and disregard the fact that Keith is a pedo. This is normalizing pedophilia and Suneel does not even see it.
Suneel Chakravorty believes the cause of fighting for FBI tampering (which he has not even proved is true) is greater than being a pedo.
Personally, I think Suneel is lazy and is just trying to see what theory of false imprisonment works best. He is lazy and has not analyzed how pushing forward certain theories hurts him and his reputation more. Right now, he is gaining the reputation of being a man who supports pedophilia. He is fighting for a cause for which he has not shown there is evidence. That obviously outweighs supporting a pedo
If he were not lazy, he would have analyzed that the best thing to do was to NEVER accept that Keith is a pedophile and prepare much better evidence about the FBI’s supposed evidence tampering. Right now, all he has shown is that the FBI accessed the photos at a later date. But he did not prove the photos were tampered with (e.g., dates changed, photoshopped to remove the scar).
If Suneel were not lazy, he would have taken the time to present a much deeper analysis of how Keith DID not possess the pictures of Cami, and also did NOT have sex with underage girls. If he were not laz,y he would have realized he was hurting his reputation by showing support for pedophilia by not showing that Keith was NOT a pedo.
But he is lazy. He wants to see what sticks in a fast way and hasn’t even analyzed how it’s hurting his own image. Suneel is not a great independent thinker. He is just a lazy guy.
You know those round, donut-shaped things that get thrown at drowning people? The drowning whoevers are supposed to latch onto those donut things and to be able, maybe, to stay above water.
Before going off to duty land, Bangy, would you please see if you could rustle up a donut raft for me? I will even tell you where to send it.
Before I die from laughing. Oh God, hurry! This is getting to be rather too much breathlessness. I need a goddamn donut thingy. And this was your article, after all.
There’s nothing much funnier than those two illustrations of Pam Cafritz being grappled into her other side of the Mirror, via two hellacious fiery pitstops and with a few ugly men handling whatever the hell was left of her.
It is so All in the Family. Magnificently and ribaldly unsettling photography is incredibly enjoyable, whether you caused it or not. Aah ah ah ah ah!
But this giggly shit has gotten quite out of hand. Again. Send in the donuts. Au secours!