Quick Recap
In Part 1 of this series of posts, I outlined some parts of the overall process for handling direct appeals in federal criminal trials – which is the type of appeal that Jennifer Bonjean filed on behalf of Keith Raniere on May 7, 2021.
In Part 2, I outlined the remainder of that appeals process – and explained the concept of “preservation” as it relates to the types of issues that can be raised via a direct appeal. I also listed some of the other things that a convicted defendant can do to challenge their conviction and/or sentence.
In Part 3, I summarized the five legal issues that form the basis of Keith’s appeal – and began a detailed analysis of the first of those issues. Those five legal issues are as follows:
(1) Whether the government proved the Defendant guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following offenses: all sex trafficking offenses (Counts 5-7 and Act 10A); conspiracy to commit forced labor and forced labor of Nicole (Count 3 and Act 10B); sexual exploitation of a child (Acts 2 & 3); conspiracy to alter records in an official proceeding (Act 6); and conspiracy to commit identify [sic] theft of Pam Cafritz. (Act 11).
(2) Whether the government proved the Defendant guilty of RICO and conspiracy to commit RICO due to insufficient evidence of: (1) an enterprise; and (2) a pattern of racketeering.
(3) Whether Defendant was deprived of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment constitutional guarantees where the government swamped the jury with a mass of minimally probative yet highly prejudicial evidence related to Defendant’s controversial sex life.
(4) Whether Defendant was denied his constitutional guarantees under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments where the District Court prematurely terminated defense counsel’s cross-examination of the government’s key cooperating witness.
(5) Whether Defendant was denied his constitutional guarantees under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments where the District Court required the parties and the witnesses to refer to individuals designated by the government as “victims” only by their first names or pseudonyms, signaling to the jury that Defendant should be presumed guilty.
In Part 4, I finished my detailed analysis of the first of the five legal issues that are described in Bonjean’s appellant brief.
In Part 5, I analyzed the portion of Bonjean’s appellant brief that focuses on the second legal issue: i.e., whether the government proved Keith guilty of Racketeering and Racketeering Conspiracy – which were the first two counts in the second superseding indictment in his case.
In this Part 6, I will be analyzing the portion of the appellant brief that focuses on the third legal issue that Bonjean believes warrants Keith’s convictions being overturned – and him getting a new trial: i.e., was he deprived of his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights because the prosecution “swamped the jury with a mass of minimally probative yet highly prejudicial evidence related to Defendant’s controversial sex life”.
For those Frank Report readers who want to able to refer back to the appellant brief, you can find a link to it HERE.
**********
Did the Prosecution Unfairly Focus Too Much Attention on Keith’s Sex Life?
Bonjean’s contention with respect to this legal issue is that the prosecution should not have been allowed to introduce so much evidence concerning what she refers to as Keith’s “consensual sex life” – and that “the vast majority of this evidence served no legitimate purpose and was designed to breed disgust and contempt for [him].”
She then goes on to list four specific types of evidence that she asserts the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, should have barred the prosecution from introducing:
- Thousands of chat communications between Keith and Camila when Camila was in her mid-20s, including several graphic sexual exchanges;
- Evidence that Camila, Daniela, Mariana – and other intimate partners of Keith – had abortions after becoming pregnant with his child;
- Medical records and testimony about Daniela and Camila’s abortions – including ultrasound photos of the fetuses; and
- Numerous photos of women’s genitalia that were taken during consensual sexual activities.
As Bonjean correctly points out, Keith’s lead trial attorney, Marc Agnifilo, did raise timely objections when all the above-listed evidence was offered by the prosecution. Thus, it appears that these issues have been properly “preserved” for purposes of this direct appeal.
**********
The Chat Communications Between Keith and Camila
In fairness to Bonjean – and to Keith – it did seem to me during the course of the trial that some of the evidence that the prosecution was allowed to introduce had more to do with belittling Keith rather than proving any element of any of the crimes he was charged with committing.
Few Frank Report readers will ever forget the reciting of the conversation between Camila and Keith in which she pointed out it had been a long time since he had been able to achieve a full erection.
Nor will they ever forget Keith plaintively asking Camila if she liked the taste of another’s man’s seminal fluid more than his.
Or his assertion that his penis was at least a quarter-inch longer than another man’s penis.
Once again, however, my concern is that Bonjean’s approach will almost force all three appellate judges to read every word of the testimony that she asserts should not have been introduced.
And, once again, I don’t think that’s going to be very helpful to Keith or his appeal.
I don’t know if there was any way to avoid this conundrum once Bonjean decided – or, maybe more accurately, Keith decided – to make this one of the issues that were included in his appeal (I’ll have more to say about what role I think Keith had in deciding what issues to raise on appeal – and how to do so – when I’ve finished reviewing all five “legal issues”).
I do know, however, that Bonjean’s feeble attempt to include several references to Keith’s “consensual sex life” in this section of the appeal is likely not going to go unchallenged by the prosecution in its response.
As was clearly proven at the trial – at least proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the judgment of 12 jurors – the “consensual” part of Keith’s sex life only applied to his side of things.
For the women who were part of DOS and who testified during the trial, their sexual relationships with Keith were always overshadowed by the threat that the collateral they had provided to their “masters” might be released if they did not initiate – and maintain – those relationships.
Perhaps Bonjean was trying to subtly sway the three appellate judges into thinking that all the women who had a sexual relationship with Keith were, in fact, consensual participants.
But whatever her motivation was for making several references to Keith’s “consensual sex life” in this section, I think it was a bad decision.
**********
Should the Abortion Evidence Have Been Excluded?
If there is any part of the appeal in which I think Bonjean didn’t do enough, it’s this issue.
I frankly never understood why the prosecution even chose to raise this topic as part of its presentation during the trial.
Abortions are a “hot button” topic for many Americans – and except for portraying just how much control Keith exercised over some of his female minions, this topic had little, if anything, to do with any of the crimes he was charged with committing.
I get that introducing evidence which indicated that the three sisters – Daniella, Mariana and Camila – all got pregnant via Keith and subsequently had abortions demonstrated that he is a total asshole but that is not one of the charges he was facing during the trial.
I don’t think this potential faux pas on the part of the prosecution is going to lead to an acquittal but it is a classic example of just how much the playing field is tilted in favor of the prosecution when a criminal defendant chooses to go to trial rather than take a plea deal.
As Bonjean correctly cites in her brief, there are Federal Rules of Evidence that are directly relevant to the overall issue she has raised in this section of her brief.
Federal Rule 401, for example, defines “relevant evidence” as that which “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”, provided that “the fact is of consequence in determining the action”.
Federal Rule 403 then authorizes the exclusion of “relevant evidence” when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury…”.
In my opinion, the outcome of Keith’s trial would have been exactly the same if the prosecution had not introduced any evidence about abortions.
And the fact that the prosecution was allowed to solicit third-party testimony about abortions – e.g., Lauren Salzman was allowed to testify that Keith told her that Mariana had several abortions and Daniela was allowed to testify that Keith told her Pam Cafritz had an abortion – only underscores just how much latitude Judge Garaufis gave the prosecution on this issue.
Even more egregious is the fact that the prosecution was allowed to discuss the abortion evidence in much greater detail by having a retired nurse practitioner testify about the different types of medical abortions – and what women experience when undergoing such procedures.
And to top things off, the prosecution was also allowed to introduce medical records for Daniela and Camila that detailed their abortions – and that included ultrasound images of their fetuses.
Although I do not think Keith is going to be acquitted of any charges because Judge Garaufis allowed all this testimony and evidence about abortions to be part of the trial, I do think Bonjean has a valid point in raising questions about the impact of this non-essential evidence on the outcome of the trial.
I also think that this issue – and other issues that will be discussed in later posts – should have been the core of the appeal and discussed in much more detail in the appellant brief.
**********
Should the “Vulva Photos” Have Been Excluded?
In this section of the brief, Bonjean argues that the prosecution should not have been allowed to introduce what she refers to as “Binders of Vulva Photos”.
And while she concedes that it was appropriate for the prosecution to be allowed to introduce photos that helped established certain timeframes – e.g., Camila’s age at the time some of her photos were taken – she argues that it was simply unnecessary to provide the jury members with binders that contained “167 images of nude women and their vulvas”.
But just as she did in other sections of the brief, Bonjean undercuts her own arguments by making statements that are simply not true.
I do not understand, for example, why Bonjean asserts that “none of the women assert that the photos were taken under duress or without consent” – which is clearly not true and which is going to allow the prosecution to attack her overall credibility with the three appellate judges.
Once again, I think this is an issue that should have been omitted from the appellant brief.
Although it likely won’t happen, the mere thought that including this issue in the appeal might cause any of the appellate judges to review one of those binders is reason enough to have left it out.
**********
Where Are We – and What’s Next?
We have now finished looking at the first three “legal issues” that are the basis for Keith’s appeal – and, in my opinion, things are not looking too good for his chances of being acquitted on any of the seven charges of which he was convicted.
But there are two more “legal issues” to be looked at – and although I think they are misplaced and underrepresented in the brief, I do think those issues offer more hope for Keith than the first three.
When I’m done looking at the other two “legal issues”, I’ll also offer my opinion as to why Bonjean chose the five issues she did – and why she ordered them the way they are in the appellant brief.
As always, feel free to ask any questions you may have about anything I’ve written in this post – and/or to point out anything you think I’ve misstated. As time permits, I will respond to your questions and/or criticisms.
**********
Most of these things shouldn’t have been in the case but are they reversal worthy? Most likely not. I don’t think Keith should have been convicted of anything other than underage sex with Cami but he was and he ain’t getting out.
Just wanted to add how much I appreciate Clavinger’s contributions and the thoughtful, well-researched comments on this thread.
I enthusiastically agree with those who note that KAR continues to mentally manipulate and torment the leftover likes of Nicki Clyne, down to his new hottie attorney.
Whoever is funding or sustaining Keith’s apparent ongoing criminal activity from behind bars – for SHAME on you. You are supplying a narcissist as surely as a drug dealer smuggling in narcotics.
I hope those prison guards with a “side-hustle” Nicki Clyne so extortingly speaks of get Keith hustled into the SHU or that subterranean supermax before another NXIVM victim is buried.
The abortions and what they signify are central to the entire NXIVM case.
Procreation of the prized Avatar baby – Keith’s world-saviour successor, and repressed competition among the women over that highest honor, motivated much of the abusive activity that went on. IMO.
I know, for example, Pam Cafritz’s failure to cure her disintegrations (in Keith’s estimation), to be a worthy Avatar vessel, was used to justify her multiple abortions. Her hope to posthumously bear the true Avatar may have been why she willed her ovaries to Keith.
Toni Natalie once told me that Nancy and Keith tried to lure her back to the fold on the same promise though she was medically unable to bear a child.
Kris Snyder was convinced she was and, indeed, may have been impregnated by Keith upon her disappearance and there’s strong evidence my sister Gina had an abortion arranged by NX leaders within months prior to her death.
Rosa Laura Junco offered her virgin daughter to Keith for this reason and reportedly imported over a dozen LeBaron virgins to Albany when her own daughter opted out.
Lauren Salzman testified that she joined DOS bc Keith finally agreed to allow her to bear his child after forcing prior abortions on her.
DOS slaves were branded with KAR’s monogram directly atop their ovaries.
These facts are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the drive and power of procreation was abused and used within NXIVM to manipulate the entire community. Especially the psyche’s of these women in their lost child bearing years.
I don’t see how the prosecution could have avoided the abortion topic if they tried and neither, in fact, could the defence team that – as Clav points out – opened the door to it with their “harmless playboy” cover story.
That one, btw, the idea Keith was just another lyin’, cheatin’ girl gamer, was what blindsided me to the reality of KAR’s ghastly destructiveness for many years prior to Gina’s death, myself.
K.R. Claviger-
I have greatly enjoyed this series. Thanks!
Here’s why that binder is relevant:
“A plaintiff in a RICO action must allege either an “’open-ended’ pattern of racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct coupled with a threat of future criminal conduct) or a ‘closed-ended’ pattern of racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct ‘extending over a substantial period of time’).” Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op. Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., L.L.C. 202 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D.Fla.,2002), citing H.J. Inc., supra, 492 U.S. at 241.
If that “pattern” evidence deals with twisted sexual thoughts, photos and texts, that’s Vanguard’s problem and no one else’s.
It shows to the jury the alleged conduct has been going on a long time, and there is a threat it will continue.
My opinion.
Ah ha! Thank you FMN.
I’m sure you’ll be interested to hear this, too. It’s difficult to find out what the penalties are for forced or coerced abortion (so much of the internet deals more with a woman’s right to choose) but forced and coerced abortions are definitely a thing and so far as I could learn, a crime in all 50 states.
“A forced abortion may occur when the perpetrator causes abortion by force, threat or coercion, or by taking advantage of a situation where a pregnant individual is unable to give consent, or when valid consent is in question due to duress … Like forced sterilization, forced abortion may include a physical invasion of female reproductive organs.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion
So, naturally, the abortion evidence and Pam’s role in it are highly relevant, too.
None of this evidence was to “dirty up keith”. I believe the evidence was justifiably presented to shed light on how depraved this man really was and to establish, as you made so clear, the pattern of criminal conduct.
My2Cents, IDK who you are but your comments are priceless.
Have you ever noticed that Keith and Nancy’s hardest hit, youngest targets were from more conservative bg’s, religions and cultures (Mormon and Catholic) that traditionally eschew pre-marital sex and abortion?
GUILT and shame of one kind or another were what they proudly played on. With the Bronfmans and Salinas, it was more the money guilt trip but they worked the sex and abortion guilt on the “good” girls – though they were coerced into both.
Good to hear forced abortion is illegal in the US. Gives Pro-CHOICE a whole new meaning for me.
And I believe Keith was/is trying to dirty-up the victims not vice-versa.
Hi, Heidi! This is an interesting comment.
On the one hand, of course, Keith probably used every form of guilt to work his mind control (the “I piss on your family” lecture springs to mind) but I didn’t realize he actually had any very conservative people in his midst.
See, I always perceived that he was working a sort of “alt” angle, convincing everyone his so-called scientific teachings were more liberal and radical and superior to other kinds and ways of knowing.
The DOS women seem to be a prime example. They even claim they are/were very bad-ass. Lots of talk about pushing boundaries and such. I sense a strange pride that their lifestyles were “counter-culture”.
But Heidi, you were there before the existence of DOS and would be more familiar with the earlier demographic.
It’s just another of my weird thoughts, but if what you’re saying is true. What if Keith actively decided to target a different group of people? Those without strong religious leanings? I mean, the guy isn’t exactly different from Warren Jeffs (Mormon cult leader and child rapist) but maybe it was easier to sway the folks who didn’t present with very many pre-existing beliefs? It would seem easier to insert one’s ideas on a blank slate rather than challenge someone with pre-existing ones.
After all, by many accounts, the dude was pretty lazy.
A trial is an adversarial process. Juries understand this. When the prosecution brings damaging evidence against the defendant, it can serve two purposes: prove facts, and have emotional appeal. The defense is free to do the same.
The abortion material wasn’t solely for emotional appeal. It showed the extent of control, nay dominance, that Raniere exerted over his organization and the women he victimized. It showed he was in charge, and that there was in fact an organization, with a single purpose, that he led. These are two points the prosecution needed to prove in the racketeering charge.
Daniela testified that Nxivm had a well-oiled machine, run by Pam Cafritz, that “handled” abortions. Cafritz coached the girls, told them what to say at the clinic. They were warned not to name Raniere as the daddy. They were instructed to lie.
Not a crime, but it sure is suspicious. And it proves organization, it proves conspiracy.
One point Raniere’s appeal still tries to make is that there was no organization, no common purpose, no conspiracy. In fact there was organization for a common purpose. Raniere’s abortion machine helps demonstrate that.
I’d say the evidence is admissible.
Same goes for the sexcapades and BDSM gear. Since the crime was sex trafficking it’s kind hard to claim that the sex stuff is irrelevant.
It’s all admissible. That it makes Raniere look like an asshole is just frosting on the cupcake.
I agree with others here that the abortions, text messages and vulva photos were admissible and probative.
Look at the Exhibit of Vanguard in the center, surrounded by photos of his harem. Whatever can be gathered by that chart is free game.
His attorneys were very loud about portraying Vanguard as having “open, consensual relationships.” This ” open and consensual” was played hard by the defense to the media.
They opened that door, and the prosecution had every right to challenge if those relationships truly were open and consensual.
In the appellate brief, one of the first words mentioned: “poly”. The defense wants everyone, including the judges, to say, ” Wow, just a fun group of swingers.”
BULLSHIT.
Vanguard exercised control over the harem: the abortions, the photos collected like baseball cards, the text messages. That evidence doesn’t support “poly”, or ” open and consensual.”
These women were coerced, starved, sleep deprived, collateralized and denigrated to his satisfaction, without any freedom, open or poly of their own.
They were there to serve.
Spot on, FMN!!!
Throughout AntiCultism there is an ignorance of the line between illegal activity and activity which is merely perceived as immoral, but which is entirely legal. Many AntiCultists are manipulated using this illegal/immoral confusion.
If someone does something that is legal – no matter how morally outrageous you think it is – and you try to stop them, then you are the one who is arrested. People have a right to behave legally.
The presentation of legal behavior as evidence to support violations of criminal statutes is clearly meant to prejudice a jury by blurring the lines between legal behavior and that which they will perceive as immoral. It is an emotional manipulation of the jury by presenting irrelevant evidence, and the judge should have thrown it out.
Apparently, AntiCultists aren’t the only ones confused about this illegal vs immoral line: the federal prosecutors and the federal judge in this case were, too.
Alanzo
Your argument ignores several things:
1) That both the defense and prosecution select the jurors.
2) That jurors can’t distinguish between what is subjectively immoral and what is objectively illegal.
3) That all jurors have the same moral compass and it is always predisposed against the defendant.
4) That a good defense team would never repetitively emphasize these differences. To my knowledge, Agnifilo did in fact do this.
Remember, it takes BEYOND REASONABLE doubt to convict a defendant and it only takes ONE juror (out of 12) to cause a hung jury.
“Throughout AntiCultism there is an ignorance of the line between illegal activity and activity which is merely perceived as immoral, but which is entirely legal. Many AntiCultists are manipulated using this illegal/immoral confusion.”-Alonzo
Alonzo sounds like the author of the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Hariri.
Foolishly, both men believe they possess arcane knowledge when, in fact, they are just dabbling in common sense and scientific jargon.
The good news is that they both have excellent self-esteem.
To KR Clavigwe
I have information indicating that one of Raniere’s fellow prisoners in Tucson is Ross Ulbricht.
Ulbricht ran the Dark Net site The Silk Road.
Over the course of a few Years Ulbricht helped traffic a billion dollars of narcotics.
Ulbricht also conspired to murder witnesses.
Do you know if Raniere and Ulbricht are in contact with each other in USP Tucson?
Ross William Ulbricht, Federal Prisoner Number 18870-111, is indeed serving his life sentence at USP Tucson. We do not have any information as to whether he and Keith have been in touch with one another but since they are both in general population, that is certainly possible.
So the USP Tucson could be a school for crime where psychopaths collaborate and home their skills.
That’s reassuring to know (!?!?).
Hey Shadow, I find the idea worrisome, too. But I hold hope that the prison authorities are well aware of who they are dealing with and that prison life isn’t exactly a social club, either. Fingers crossed! Last thing the world needs is more men (or women) believing in this vanguard’s warped ideas about gender differences. Or any more of his crazed terrorist mind control and surveillance BS.
I’m sincerely hoping the best for Lauren since (according to her testimony) she seems to have finally pierced through the veil of control this sick guy had over her. I’m a little more worried about Allison. Because she was actually involved in the sex trafficking of women to a known hebephile, I doubt many of the inmates will take very kindly to her.
Honestly, it makes me feel really sad. If only she could have found the strength to fight against his sickness and control, perhaps she wouldn’t be in this position. She probably won’t be the only one in jail who ever fell prey to such a man or committed such acts but I’m still guessing that she won’t have too many of those peers.
She demanded and held blackmail material on many women and could have taken all of it to the authorities. But despite all this personal growth work she was supposedly doing, she still sold her “sisters” into pornography, blackmail, life-long contracts of obedience, and sexual servitude.
I hope she can turn it around.
“Could be a school for crime where psychopaths collaborate and home their skills.” -Shadowstate1958
Prisons have always provided higher-education for criminals. It’s their version of university.
Oh, man. This binder of vulvas …To be honest, I don’t understand why there weren’t MORE charges laid on MORE people over this.
I consulted the criminal code of Canada and it’s pretty clear. If the women of DOS shared these photos of their slaves with keith against the knowledge of the slave, it’s absolutely punishable. And the more frequently one engages in such behavior, the stiffer the sentence will be.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162.1.html
So, anyone complicit in lying to the slave women about what was being done with their so-called collateral should be charged. Not really sure where/how this applies to keith since he, as the grandmaster, was the one demanding these acts? (Maybe that’s how it became a RICO charge?) But definitely, the prosecution was right to show them!
I’d venture that some portion of those pictures were obtained in a way that is totally illegal. Therefore, they do belong as evidence and not just the ones that prove cami was 15.
Yeah, she should have led her brief with this and hammered it more. Considering the charges, the sex life and abortions were irrelevant evidence that was included for one reason only – to encourage the jury to hate Keith Raniere.
Juries, being made up of dumbasses, tend to make decisions based more on emotion than evidence. Knowing this, a driving force of any prosecution is to lean on emotion and attempt to get a jury to dislike the defendant. Their defense, of course, does the opposite and tries to get them to like the person. Human nature though is such that it’s quick to dislike a person, much much slower to like a person. So to facilitate that you have to dress nice and conservative in court, not show emotion, not react to what people say about you even though human nature screams to do the opposite.
It’s all really stupid theatre forced into the process because most juries are made up of dumbasses. Before you ask, yes I think a fundamental problem with our justice system is the jury system and it should be eliminated with protections added to prevent judges from abusing their positions (eliminating all of them as elected positions and lifetime appointments being a starting point).
In short, what the prosecutor did was par the course. It’s practically a requirement of the theater that is a trial. (Unfortunately) being a normal and regular part of the process means this part of the appeal has a snowball’s chance of working but she did have to try.
I disagree. It all goes to showing a pattern of behavior and motive to the establishment of a racketeering enterprise and a coercive sextortion ring, the illegal activities of which he was convicted of. This wasn’t a man who wanted to just engage in polyamory or BDSM role play. This was a man who wanted to emotionally manipulate and coercively control women using a front for the empowerment of women and a distorted version of consent. That some women engaged in it freely doesn’t mean others weren’t victimized and illegally wronged by it. Even legitimate consent does not give one free reign to break laws. If someone asked you to help him commit suicide and they consent to you doing it, you’re not off the hook for manslaughter. There was a reason why all this shameful behavior was kept secret, and it surely wasn’t because society wasn’t quite yet ready for this group of women — the only superhero feminine ambassadors of personal responsibility and agency — to lead the society of the future, or some other similar horse manure reason.
https://twitter.com/TeamBrittana/status/1403498085041516546
“Appreciate the comment, but I worked for Allison in 2007-2008. She and Kristin Kreuk sucked my (ex) gf and her two friends into NXIVM. I kept screaming cult, nobody listened, I left and moved back home. My ex is currently on a billboard in Hollywood bc she was in the Seduced doc”.
The “ex” is possibly Tabby Chapman.
Naughty Kristin Crooked and Ally Wack.
Kristin Crooked recruited her “BFF” Allison into the cult almost fifteen years ago. Everyone who knows anything about the acting scene from the Vancouver area knows Kristin Crooked was a diehard recruiter and proponent for the NXIVM cult, referring people to its courses on the set of Smallville, even holding Jness meetings at her house and travelling frequently to the Tacoma NXIVM center in Seattle and flying to Knox Woods on occasion to further entrench herself in cult teachings. She was brought into the cult by her presumed to be actor boyfriend Mark Hildreth around 2006. Frank said she was in the cult until 2016 so she was in it for ten years despite her lying statement where she said she only joined to take courses in a self-help group, pretending like she didn’t know it was a cult and hiding the fact that she was a yellow sashed coach. It was only after the news of DOS became public here on the Frank Report and she was linked to the sex cult in other media outlets that she was forced to make her public and weak PR statement. It was also only after this time she started to sever relationships from her mostly NXIVM friends who were still linked to her on her private social media accounts. Kristin Crooked slithered away from the cult that was a big part of her life for ten years and left her “BFF” Allison in the arms of a disgusting conman to fend for herself and have her life and career ruined. Despite being NXIVM’s number one selling face in Vancouver and being heavily involved in the cult, she kept her mouth shut about her involvement after recruiting people into it for years and it negatively affecting the lives of people. Kristin Crooked likes to play strong women on television, but she is meek and wimpy in real life, and like other liberal and privileged female actors, only cares about her lucrative and frivolous career and maintaining her false good girl image.
Careful, the “creature” may come out from under its rock and give you a jolly good scolding for daring to say such things about his spank princess…
“Everyone who knows anything about the acting scene from the Vancouver area knows Kristin Crooked was a diehard recruiter and proponent for the NXIVM cult”.
What do you know about the Vancouver acting scene? All one needs is an internet connection and you can learn about anything. An example, SultanOfSix drives a Lexus and has secreted more than three pounds of weenies nectar over around fifteen years of stroking his small husk to Kristin Crooked.
You will also find that all actors are pieces of shit. Does acting make them liberals, or does acting attract liberals? Both have low self-esteem and a need for external validation. No wonder actors are overwhelmingly liberals who like [redacted] and illegal migration.
Anyone who says “all [such and such] people” are pieces of shit is a real piece of shit. But everyone already knows that from the way you comment.
Awww, triggered? Actors are more then not pieces of shit. They are privileged little fucks who talk down to everyone like they have a higher knowledge. You must really like either actors or an individual actor to be so triggered.
A Lexus has little of interest to anything. Why do people not wake up to the true excitement and the design BEAUTIES coming out of Italy? Or at the very least, the total pleasure of the older models from Jaguar, even though it does come from an oddball monarchy.
Sexus, Nexus and Plexus were never going to pull up to the bumper, (baby) in a Lexus. Kreuk, too would never want to be known as recruitment tool for the Rosy Crucifixion. Wood she? Woodshed? Would Chuck?
How ’bout just finish up sentencing the remaining Nxivm, etc. hagbags, and let’s call it the end of the four horsey asses of the Apocalypse?
Celebrate maybe with coffee ice cream with some chocolate on top. This day is hot, it has insomnia already and it is good to switch up one’s breakfast during heat waves.
Hopefully my brief comment has ended all violence between nonconsensual semi-adults forever after the fact, during or before. Then reading would regain a more substantial audience.
Reading material is what must now be quoted in an attempt to honor Bonjean, thanks to a famous line from the great SNL lady, Ms. Swan.
Regrettably, Ms Swan only had one classic line, so there was no possible selection from which to choose this singular quote. Hopefully this will explain what Ms. Swan, after undue concentration, has said about Bonjean. By some bit of magic it really does seem to suit the occasion ideally.
“She looka like a man.”
Trigged? How old are you? Fifteen?
No — I don’t have to like actors in general or even an actor in particular to know that someone who negatively stereotypes certain groups of people is likely a piece of shit.
Personally, I don’t find actors to be more special or worse than other types of people. I think most of the famous ones are overpaid like athletes, but that’s just luck of the draw, skill, and a capitalistic market based on mass media that they are taking advantage and reaping the rewards of. There *are* classifications of people that may deserve such ire like pedophiles, murderers — even cult leaders — and so on, but that is because they are inclusive of people who engage in morally reprehensible behavior.
But actors in general? Not at all. The spectrum of people who classify themselves as such is large and spans theater, commercial, extras, movie stars, Broadway, etc., inclusive of people who are of different races, world views, religions, cultures, and sexual orientations.
That was a long essay Hasif. Still waiting to pop that [redacted] cherry? 🍒
He’s never leaving Tucson and hopefully he realizes this by now and is no longer holding out the false hope perpetuated by the NX dead Enders and Bojeeen. Cya Vangone.
If each piece of evidence is a brick building a foundation of proof – then it is my opinion the abortions & vulva photos were relevant.
Some evidence serves to reinforce the other “bricks” and hold them up. That is why a pattern of the defendant’s behavior or conversely an aberration in their actions can be very illuminating.
Cami’s abortion is relevant in establishing her age when Raniere sexually exploited her. The pattern of Keith’s partners frequently getting abortions is reinforcing his M.O. Regarding an irresponsibility in both birth control and using abortion frequently to control females. Medical records make this factual and not just gossip.
In a jury room anticipating a juror questioning any one “brick” of evidence an overabundance of evidence is preferable rather than a shortage of proof.
The vulva photos share some of this purpose. They clearly establish Keith’s preferred porn like a fingerprint. It makes it very difficult to assert anyone but Keith took Cami’s picture. It is so similar to so many, many other “studies”.
As a juror, this information would not prejudice me about Keith. It would just make me more confident in the prosecution’s case. There’s a difference.
All of the evidence introduced during a trial is supposed to be relevant to at least one element of at least one of the charges. In this regard, I do not believe the abortion evidence met that criteria.
As for the vulva photos, I agree that several of them should have been introduced for all the reasons you mentioned. I just don’t think 167 of them were necessary.
K.R. while I so respect all your knowledge and thank you deeply for everything you share with us, I do think the complete collection of 167 is totally relevant.
Without seeing them all, I assume many of the vagina pictures were given directly to him by some of his “lovers”. But because some were illegally obtained, and yet all were made to be the same, it illustrates a very dark intent. It shows how none of this was a brave little one time thing you did in a safe space to challenge some little fear, nor just something you do only with your lovers.
Instead there is a pattern of lies and criminality and sexual perversion.
Nobody wants to see the polyamorous kinky people going to jail just for being themselves. Few really even want to see these private pictures at all!
But most will want to see those who coerce others and commit acts of criminality in order to satisfy their established pattern of desire brought to justice.
It goes to pattern, practice and continuity.
Claviger – you are missing the point and you know this. Everything keith does is to torment, humiliate, and destroy.
If he can find a way to keep this in public, he will do it, no matter how stupid it is legally. He wants everyone to be reminded of all the shit he put them through and how he humiliated them. Anyone that knows them will be reminded of this now. He’s deliberately putting them through more mental anguish.
And if he can make his super hot lawyer look foolish doing it too, that’s a bonus. I’d imagine keith being able to talk to her about vulvas and how he fucked all these women and branded them, and then making his lawyer write about it, gets his 1/4 longer, disease infected, flaccid penis off just a little.
So anywhere you see something that is serving no legal purpose, ask yourself, “is this humiliating, tormenting, and destroying someone?” And likely that answer will be yes.
I kind of agree of with ice-nine.
It’s not very hard to imagine keith getting very excited about the prospect of that binder being revealed to the world. And if it could cause further humiliation to the women, all the better, since it was the reason those photos exist, anyway.
I think its known as “keeping trophies” and both sexual offenders and killers are known to do it. Here’s a quote from the Encyclopedia of Murder and Violent Crime:
“A trophy is in essence a souvenir. In the context of violent behavior or murder, keeping a part of the victim as a trophy represents power over that individual … Ritualistic trophy taking, as is found with serial offenders, acts as a signature.”
I’d say 167 identical vagina photos is pretty strong evidence of such a signature.
100% my2cents
Excellent point.
He does have the point, it’s you that do not.
Keith was not on trial for attempting to “torment, humiliate, and destroy”. The things we dislike him most, the abuse of women, was not something he was convicted for. Nor was he technically on trial for it. Seems everyone forgets this. The reason why is keep hitting that wall that the women involved DID volunteer for the abuse, like it or not. Collateral or not. They had ample opportunity to say no at any time and chose not to. We may understand, sorta, all the pressure and reasons why they didn’t, but from a legal perspective, their active participation in their own abuse means that prosecuting him legally for it is a nonstarter. All his defense attorney would have to do is keep getting them to admit, over and over and over, how they chose to stay, chose to participate, chose to allow branding, etc. This is why so few DOS victims actually testified – they would only hurt the case both for the prosecutor (muddying the waters of the main points they were trying to make) and the defense (doing even more to show Keith was a monster). No one at that trial wanted them on the stand.
That is why the argument about his sexual proclivities being relevant is an interesting question for appeal – the charges were really not about his legal, consensual sex so introducing all that evidence demonstrating that legal consensual sex really only served one purpose – to get the jury to hate Keith. On this, the NXIVM folks are right. Having said all that, strategically, the prosecutor’s job is to play on emotion as much (if not more so) than evidence because juries are dumbasses. So she did her job correctly, legally, and within the bounds of the trial. If the appeal could make the argument that he was convicted only because he was an abusive sexual predator and nothing else, then it might work but that argument cannot be made here. It definitely didn’t help, but all the other evidence lends itself to the story of an “inevitable” conviction that provides cover for the overkill use of abortions and vulva pics.
Erasend, go back and look at the defense: they portrayed to the media over and over that this was ” legal, consensual sex”. Appellate brief, right off the bat: “poly”.
FMN. 100%
Keith’s defense team even argued “intent” as in: Keith did NOT have bad intent. In fact, Keith’s intent was positive.
Again, they opened that door. The prosecution is then going to work to show that Keith did have bad intent.
This might help some readers have confidence in Raniere’s conviction not being overturned on appeal.
To add to Claviger’s excellent analysis, standards of review involve the various degrees of deference the appellate court will give the findings and ruling in the lower court. The most difficult standard of review for an appellant is “abuse of discretion” since it requires the appellate court to give a high degree of deference to the decision below. Unfortunately for Raniere, the standard of review for arguments challenging the admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion. Unless there are demonstrable errors in other areas such that counsel can argue, “And in addition to all these other errors, the court allowed all this junk evidence to be heard by the jury,” it is rare for abuse of discretion arguments to lead to a reversal on appeal.
As Claviger points out, some of the evidence had minimal probative value, but was demonstrating that Raniere “is a total asshole” enough for reversal? The majority of the time, after concluding the evidence had minimal probative value, the court will do a weighing analysis and conclude it was not prejudicial to the extent that it denied the defendant a fair trial. Claviger nails this: “In my opinion, the outcome of Keith’s trial would have been exactly the same if the prosecution had not introduced any evidence about abortions.”
Note that every trial has arguable mistakes adverse to one or both parties. The appellate courts are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Put another way, an appellate court must reverse a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it finds no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307. None of the arguments in Raniere’s appellate brief demonstrate that his conviction was unlawful, or that without the challenged evidence, no rational trier of fact would have convicted him. Statistics show that 5% of all appeals result in some ruling favorable to the appellant, whether correcting a fine, eliminating counts of conviction, modifying the sentence or outright acquittal. When this appeal runs it course, Keith will still be in prison for the rest of his natural life.
It is similar here in the UK. I don’t think KR realises in a sense you get one bite at the cherry at a trial and appeals are not a chance to redo everything. He also is probably the sort of client who thinks he knows better than his lawyers.
Excellent information!