K.R. Claviger’s assessment of Keith Alan Raniere’s appeal has the appeal of raw, unadulterated crap.
He pretty much took target practice at Raniere’s attorney Jennifer Bonjean and her legal abilities.
Yet he wound up giving her a 50% chance of having oral arguments scheduled, which means her appeal is TWICE as strong as the average appeal.
He claims that Bonjean’s chances of having oral arguments scheduled aren’t based on legal merits —- but ONLY because of the ‘salacious’ nature of the case.
But that’s BULLSHIT because appellate judges aren’t gonna waste their time scheduling oral arguments IF the appeal has NO MERIT WHATSOEVER like Claviger claims.
If it had no merit whatsoever, they’d just SHIT ON Bonjean and dismiss every point she makes without oral arguments.
Nobody likes to waste time for nothing. Judges included.
Thus, Claviger’s basically admitting (indirectly) that Bonjean’s appeal may actually succeed and has some pretty good merit —— else he wouldn’t have said it had a 50% chance of having oral arguments scheduled (which is DOUBLE the rate of the average appeal).
Also, there’s no way that G. Robert Blakely taught Claviger at law school for two reasons…
1) Claviger went to law school back before WWII.
2) G. Robert Blakely never taught at the NON-PRESTIGIOUS Brooklyn Academy of Law (where both Claviger, and Cousin Vinny, graduated from).
The truth about Bonjean’s appeal is that her arguments are meant to gain traction with judges who feel that the RICO statute was TWISTED & CONTORTED in this case —— and was used to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.
The RICO statute was meant for mafia leaders, drug cartels and other street gangs (prostitution rings, etc.).
It wasn’t necessarily meant to prosecute one horny guy, where the statute of limitations had run out on everything but RICO.
Bonjean is just trying to offer a legal ‘PRETEXT’ for any judges who may think that the RICO statute was used inappropriately here.
You see, judges can’t overturn a RICO case just because they are pissed off at the ‘motivations’ of prosecutors —– even if they secretly wanna do that.
However, if Bonjean offers them ‘legal grounds’ to overturn the conviction —— then they may use those legal grounds as a PRETEXT for doing what they secretly wanna do anyway (i.e., to shit on the government for twisting RICO on its head in this case).
We all act on PRETEXTS. So do judges.
Have a wonderful day.
The lawyers tend to know the law. That was KR’s mistake in the first place – trying to be his own lawyer.
Is there such a thing as a Godfather Complex? Banger’s shrink might wanna look into it,
Judges do not need pretexts, they can act based on existing laws and precedents. The RICO statute is not as restrictive as you believe it is. That is why it is so valuable to law enforcement and the courts. Appellate judges will not adopt a more restrictive interpretation of the Rico statute. To do so, you have to bury hopes. Prosecuting with the Rico paragraphs was the right way for prosecutors to go and very successful in holding Raniere accountable with his accomplices to his racket.
Ties between the Bronfmans and crack smoking Presidential son Hunter Biden.
From Crazy Days and Nights
Blind Items Revealed #1
December 17, 2020
I find it interesting that for the second time in two weeks that the family who financed the sex cult is involved once again in political theatre. The father to the daughter mentioned last time, personally guaranteed he would purchase multiple works of art in an upcoming gallery exhibit in 2021. One that is getting a lot of press right now. The father is the gallery’s biggest customer and is always given private showings involving the gallerist and the artists.
Edgar Bronfman/Hannah Bronfman/Georges Berges Gallery/Hunter Biden
How much do Hunter Biden’s paintings cost?
They start at 75,000 dollars and go up, up, up.
Could paintings include Presidential pardons in the price?
Hunter Biden’s New Gig is Unbelievably Insane – And So are the Prices
Comparisons and similarities between NXIVM and Scientology at Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker.
I love this!
Again, the hard link between Scientology and NXIVM is through the Mexican Elites and their associates like JoLo’s Dad and the Duran law firm –Jeffrey Peterson revealed this to the FBI in 2018 when Duran owned NX corp. and Dennis Burke AND “Frontier” represented Clare Bronfman.
Again, I also believe Bob Crocket, LATHAM & Watkins Los Angeles, is involved. One reason is that they requested my private medical records behind my back in 2016 that the court-ordered sealed and vaulted. Another reason is that Crocket discussed Scientology (and Landmark) in favorable terms during the Precision trial and I finally ascertained recently that some of my 2018 stalkers are Scientologists who also appeared at the Precision trial in 2011. Crocket went after Frank in those proceedings – to deflect blame from his clients for terrorizing the Plyams and he’s still at a loss for 11M.
One thing that puzzles me:
No where, anywhere, does anyone say what a ” great guy” Vanguard is.
This case IS about him, his organization, and ultimately, his credentials. Yet, there’s not one good thing written to present to the judges. ” hey, he’s not bad. He’s a scientist with great credentials trying to help people. Some of his accomplishments include…..”
Like, why was he even leading this company? He just appears as the head of it. No lead in as to “why him”.
NOTHING nice is said about him. World’s smartest man, cured Tourette etc. I don’t know if this was even in the record, but there must be something positive in the record as a lead in.
Honestly, all of those accomplishments fall short when you have him linked to child pornography and the trafficking of women. From the judge’s perspective, it is irrelevant if he won an Oscar, an Emmy, or the Nobel Peace Prize. Just like Phil Spector. He was a musical genius. He murdered a woman. His hits meant nothing when talking about murder. It’s the same with Keith (who doesn’t even have the type of fame that Spector has)
Mexican lady, interestingly, I’m not convinced the Vanguard did do anything positive.
But I would think someone, somewhere, arguing on his behalf, would try and pump him up a bit😁.
Congratulations, Bangkok, once again you have destroyed any credibility that you have with your arguments by leveling personal attacks and your choice of words. If you want anyone to take you seriously ever, how about you using your brain (if you have one) to calmly debate the points you disagree with. Claviger presented his arguments calmly and distinctly while you once again whine and cry and throw a temper tantrum because he didn’t say what you wanted him to say. I think it might be your nap time. Come back and present your points in an intelligent manner and I guarantee you people might take you a little bit more seriously.
This case presents an interesting application of RICO, I’ll give you that. But I don’t think it is putting a round peg in a square hole. Since its inception, RICO has been expanded to include many type of actions under ” depriving someone the intangible right to honest services.”
If that doesn’t signal congressional intent to expand beyond organized crime, I don’t know what does.
Honestly, I think its a brilliant application for Vanguard. He had a pyramid chain of accomplished, pretty women, leading up to him. Throw in slaves, sleep deprivation, bowing, smartest man, on and on, the RICO enterprise to me seems crystal clear. RICO is perfect for this time of crime, where there’s complex, twisted facts.
The World’s Smartest Man wasn’t smart enough and got checkmated.
This is not an easy case to defend, and its an even harder case to appeal. Always remember: bad facts make bad law.
Reading the brief, I don’t see one single NICE or complimentary statement about Vanguard.
He has great defense teams, much better than a lot of defendants, and it is what it is.
I think that the conspiracy is much clearer when you look at coordinating with others to create fake documents to bring a person over the border illegally, and then house them as a “maid” who gives you blow jobs up to twice per day.
And then threaten her with deportation if she gets out of line.
It is classic exploitation of undocumented workers, a form of real slavery, actually, which is practiced on a much wider scale in the hospitality and agricultural industries in the US.
Wonder why the feds don’t go after them?
Solid point, Alanzo.
Good to see you are questioning such behavior.
Ever see The Hand Maid’s Tale?
— Honestly, I think its a brilliant application for Vanguard.
Not it wasn’t. It was manipulative and conniving, something someone without a conscience would do. In the past, they called people like this devils and demons. Now they call them sociopaths and psychopaths. His machinations worked on a few trusting people who were generally good natured, but had self-esteem or other issues, and were possibly seeking some change or validation in their lives and thought there was something wrong with themselves which was holding them back. He effectively took advantage of the temporarily weak and downtrodden. I remember reading several comments on reddit or some other popular website by a person who admitted to being an attractive sociopath. She boasted about how she found satisfaction in the breaking up relationships just because she could. These type of people don’t care how much suffering or pain they inflict on others because they are spiritually stunted and all they relish in doing is what satisfies themselves. You cannot help nor change them. THEY DO NOT CARE.
Just like what is said about trolls — don’t feed a narcissist, even indirectly.
I think you read my comment wrong. The prosecutor brilliantly applied RICO to take Vanguard down. It was a great strategic use of RICO.
I agree with the rest — Vanguard is a sociopath who took advantage of women.
Your math/statistics is flawed.
Your error: 50% of 50% is 50%.
Correction: 50% of 50% is .25 or 25%
Even Moe, Larry and Curly understand that.
I understand your rage….
…..What’s really going on, is Claviger mentioned the nubile Lauren Salzman, in a shameful way, besmirching her honor.
….And you are merely defending her honor. It’s all kind of ridiculous, but sometimes a man’s testicles get the better of him.
BTW: If Keith can score Lauren, you’ll be a shoe-in.
As usual, the non-lawyers confusing their emotional take on a case with the facts of the case. The jury part is done. The emotional component, while still there, now takes a back seat to the facts of the case as presented in court. Key part there is “in court.” Again they do not look at online hot takes, “evidence” found after the fact and other nonsense. They look at the transcripts of the case itself, the evidence presented at the trial and the briefs presented. Later, if they choose, there will be oral arguments. Reading a thing is FAR FAR different from hearing a thing for instance (read literally any Trump speech as proof).
“The truth about Bonjean’s appeal is that her arguments are meant to gain traction with judges who feel that the RICO statute was TWISTED & CONTORTED in this case —— and was used to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.” That assumes they are already approaching the case on the assumption its “twisted and contorted”. Just because you reached that conclusion doesn’t mean the judges have BEFORE seeing the case. The arguments she made do little to help the judges arrive at that conclusion either.
One take is based on legal analysis and standards on how judges typically approach cases, the other analysis is based on “I think this way, so they do too” nonsense. I will stick with the one that makes more sense and actually argued coherently beyond “RICO sucks!”
yet he does make some serious hay of Claviger as per the usual but I disagree that Keith has any shot whatsoever at appeal. Claviger has it right regarding Bojangles
— I thought Bangkok was on hiatus
He/she never truly leaves. Every year, biannually, he/she goes into a
quasi-state of hibernation.
I use he/she because we don’t know Bangkok’s true gender sex. Frank has asked me on several occasions to be respectful of other people’s genders.
I have been told by Bangkok that he identifies with being a male type person.
Thanks for clearing that up.
He identifies as male type person 🌈
😂 NG. He doth protest too much. Off with his head!
Very enlightening. We can now focus on which type of a person Clav and Del Negro identify with.
What each person was thinking as they read this:
Claviger – “While I’m sad I’m being interupted while watching SNL reruns of “Pat”, I’m stoked I get to ruin this Babcock punk – ONCE AGAIN! (I just hope Shivani likes my upcoming evisceration of poor Babcock) YOU WANT SOME,TOO, SCOOTER JOHNSON???”
Niceguy – “WEEEEEEEE! My hero is BAAAAAAACK! ME LOVEY BABCOCK!!!”
Everyone else – “No fair. This a-hole keeps promising to leave, and yet he is ALWAYS here. Keep your drama queen sabbaticals to yourself if you can’t stay away from FR for a calendar month!!!”
—Niceguy – “WEEEEEEEE! My hero is BAAAAAAACK! ME LOVEY BABCOCK!!!”
I do enjoy trading-barbs with Bangkok. I definitely wouldn’t categorize it as banter. He’s my protégé and nemesis.
Nutjob, you know Bangkok. You must see things the way Bangkok sees things and realize the duress he is under. Bangkok’s sugarbanana is about to be sentenced and this is causing a great deal of stress for Bangkok. It might literally kill him. Bangkok is hoping that one day soon Lauren Salzman becomes Mrs. Lauren Salzman-Bangkok, but he knows this might be years away and it is out of his control. Therefore Bangkok returns to his only sort of release (other than porn) and comes to FrankReport to yell at people. So he comes here and just spews shit no matter how fucking stupid it is. Just let Bangkok be.
btw – you are correct, what we think is a funny SNL skit, Claviger calls a way of life and his (or is it her, or possibly a their?) role model.
Once again you said exactly what I was thinking. Maybe that’s why NutJob asked if you were me.
NutJob, maybe you guessed right. 😉
“Just let Bangcok be.” Great advice for all who don’t want to get dragged down to his shit-spewing level.
9 hours ago
The moral over the story
I get a lot of messages from people wanting to hear my story, and I’m eager to tell it. But not in some scripted, Hollywood produced spectacle kind of way. More like a hanging out with friends getting to know each other kind of way. That’s why I created this Locals community. I’m interested in having a conversation — many conversations! — about the difference between illegal and immoral conduct, for example, and who gets to decide. Or what happens to society when the utterance of certain ideas is off limits. I believe it is a moral imperative we outgrow this culture of condemnation and become a culture of progress and forgiveness. And you know what’s necessary for progress? Mistakes. This community is for anyone who’s ever made a mistake.
My story may have a huge spotlight because it involves celebrities, heiresses, secrecy, sex, and branding, but the process of oppression, prejudice and injustice is far from unique. Millions of people sit in prisons as a result of wrongful …
It’s weird that Clyne has joined the culture wars on the conservative side. She’s a big online pal with Scott Adams now. Going for the old “uttering certain beliefs gets you cancelled” whine. Weird, because conservatives used to uphold the idea of law and order. And the ideal, now mocked by Clyne, that law upholds morality.
She wants to separate law and morality now. She wants to open the prison gates. She seems to have the attitude, formerly that of “bleeding heart liberals”, that the prison population are a bunch of nice guys, oppressed by The Man, who should be set free. All we need are love and forgiveness, for after all, we have all made mistakes.
“Mistakes” like blackmailing and branding women with our initials.
One of the nobler ideals of traditional conservatism was that the law upheld morality. Clyne wants to separate the two. As in, having naked pictures of a 15 year old girl on your computer may be immoral, but is it illegal? Let’s discuss!
I don’t know how many times I have said this here and elsewhere, but I’ll say it here once again.
— One of the nobler ideals of traditional conservatism was that the law upheld morality.
That’s not even an ideal. That’s, in fact, what the law is. It’s the explicit delineation enforcement of morality.
Thus, this mutually exclusive separation of law and morality is just conceptually wrong. A person can have a STRICTER morality than the encompassing one of the society in which he lives, but they can never have a LOOSER one. Otherwise, they can be found guilty of breaking the law.
“Thus, this mutually exclusive separation of law and morality is just conceptually wrong. ”
No one said it was mutually exclusive. There is your sense of what is moral, or not moral, and then there is the law. They are two different things, but not mutually exclusive.
It’s quite naïve to think that your sense of morality is always expressed in the law. This is how anticultists are manipulated into “taking out” Scientology, for instance, while never providing law enforcement anything they can act on. It’s a trick that has resulted in the complete derailment of Scientology criticism in the last 10 years and David Miscavige being more secure in his position at the top of Scientology than he ever has been.
This is the reason that 3 seasons of a TV Show and 3 years of a podcast run by the former head of the Office of Special Affairs has not resulted in one criminal indictment, or even a review of Scientology’s tax exempt status.
Moral outrage gets the blood boiling, but never the subpeonae flying.
As with what happened with Keith Raniere, you have to cough up a crime to get governments to act.
“She wants to separate law and morality now.”
Separation is exclusion. Now, if you are denying that Nicki actually believes or wants to do this, then that is a different proposition.
“There is your sense of what is moral, or not moral, and then there is the law.”
I know. That’s the entire point of my statement concerning STRICTER and LOOSER morality as it comes to INDIVIDUALS.
“It’s quite naïve to think that your sense of morality is always expressed in the law.”
No one said or implied this at all. I talked about the purpose of law in principle — it is a delineation and enforcement of the moral code of the SOCIETY in which a person lives. Practically, there is no distinction between law and morality in this context. Raniere, et al, can believe that sleeping with a twelve year old girl is not immoral, but the society in which he lives has determined it to be immoral precisely because it is illegal.
Morality is what regulates human behavior and presupposes two things: 1) free will, which is necessary for personal responsibility 2) the concepts of right and wrong as it comes to human behavior. In other words, a human being cannot be a moral animal if he does not have the ability to choose, nor if there is any notion of what one ought to do between two alternatives — right and wrong. Of course, there can be degrees as to what is right or wrong. Without these two things you can’t even speak of the concept.
What is the law if not for the regulation of right and wrong human behavior in society?
Morality and the law are not one of the same. They overlap to significant degrees but they are not 100% in alignment and can never be. The law can be immoral (see all aspect of the justice system and all of human history at various times), and immoral behavior can be legal (Scientology is a good example, fact that branding woman despite the blackmail isn’t illegal and more).
In general, society as a whole decides what is moral and the law takes time to catch up.to that determination. Before then, it takes individuals to push society to shift their definition of moral to encompass new paradigms. Big examples for the US includes slavery, suffragette movement, equal rights, gay rights, and now all of LGBQT (a true list was be extensive). All these things we now consider acts of evil or necessary good where all outlawed or legalized at one time or other.
“No one said it was mutually exclusive.”
Separation implies exclusivity. Now, if you think that Nicki didn’t say this, that is a different issue.
“There is your sense of what is moral, or not moral, and then there is the law. They are two different things, but not mutually exclusive.”
I know that people can have different moral codes. This much is obvious because people have free will and can choose what they do. This was never the point, but the fact that the law IN PRINCIPLE is a reflection of the moral code of the encompassing society which governs it through its enforcers. You can’t separate the law and morality within this context. Laws regulate human behavior and human behavior is dictated by morality. So what is deemed illegal in society is also considered immoral. That is why an individual can have a moral code that is stricter than the society in which he lives, but he can never have a looser one because he can be tried, convicted, and sent to jail to pay off his debt to society for breaking it.
Morality is fundamentally what DRIVES the creation of the law and why it exists.
Raniere is in jail precisely because he has been deemed immoral according to the society in which he lives through its delegates — a jury of his peers selected and agreed upon by both his defense and the prosecution.
“It’s quite naïve to think that your sense of morality is always expressed in the law.”
I never said, implied, nor believed this.
“Laws regulate human behavior and human behavior is dictated by morality. So what is deemed illegal in society is also considered immoral.”
Your statement implies that there is only one standard when it comes to morality and laws. if that’s the case, then how do you explain the inconsistencies between what’s legal and illegal in different states?
Some states have legalized marijuana but others haven’t. Same with gambling, etc., etc.
So, are the people in Colorado immoral because they legalized marijuana early on? Or is it the people in Mississippi that are immoral?
“Your statement implies that there is only one standard when it comes to morality and laws.”
No it doesn’t. Not at all.
This is an implication of a moral ontology that asserts morality is objective. That is an entirely different claim — that there is only one objectively correct set of ethics. This is the assertion of most religions. Its contrary position is that of a moral ontology that is relative, but that is ultimately self-defeating. If you believe the former, then no person’s relative morality can ever be better or worse than another person’s relative morality, and philosophically speaking, it’s relatively easy to see why.
“So what is deemed illegal in society is also considered immoral.”
Yada, yada, yada…
Now answer the question I asked rather than giving me a Ranieresque word salad response.
If, as you claim, what is deemed illegal in society is also considered immoral — those are your words, not mine — then how do you reconcile us having different laws in different states unless there’s a difference in the morality of the people living in those states?
Mr. Ontology is none other than…..
….Sultan of Six.
I know Sultan’s diction anywhere.
….So you have time to bicker with Sultan, but you don’t have time to answer my questions. So sad.
“If, as you claim, what is deemed illegal in society is also considered immoral — those are your words, not mine — then how do you reconcile us having different laws in different states unless there’s a difference in the morality of the people living in those states?”
Don’t make me laugh by comparing what I write to Raniere’s use of word salad. It was simply a very basic explanation of the underpinning of moral philosophy.
First you state: “Your statement implies that there is only one standard when it comes to morality and laws”
No it doesn’t. What I implied is that what is considered illegal in the governing politic of a society is also considered implicitly immoral within it. That is not even remotely similar to what you wrote above. That is in fact a claim of moral objectivity.
“then how do you reconcile us having different laws in different states unless there’s a difference in the morality of the people living in those states?”
I don’t have to “reconcile” anything because that’s exactly what was implied:
“…but the fact that the law IN PRINCIPLE is a reflection of the moral code of the ENCOMPASSING SOCIETY which governs it through its ENFORCERS.”
You presume that the phrase encompassing society covers two different states. It doesn’t. Society and its enforcers implies the governing politic, i.e., the jurisdiction where the particular laws are enforced. If two states have two different laws governing the age of consent — one where it is 18 and the other where it is 16 — then both states have different standards of morality governing what they believe is right or wrong sexual behavior. That is precisely the point of the law.
It IS weird.
The people Nicki now “traffics” with (get it?) are all about “Save the children” and “Close the borders” and yet Nicki is devoted to a child pornographer and a group (Nxivm) that was rife with immigration fraud and over-the-border money laundering and other antics.
And this “canceling” Nicki claims is so silly. What is she being denied? She was Clare’s assistant. She lost that job when Clare went to prison. Nicki’s legal fees are paid by a trust. She is all over social media. Nicki was interviewed on Dateline NBC. Were you? Or anyone you know personally?
So I ask, again, What has Nicki actually lost? A 15 dollar an hour job because Clare is incarcerated? Or did she? Maybe she is still being paid by Clare? Or supported through that trust? How does Nicki pay her bills?
For Nicki to portray herself as “canceled” is an insult to our intelligence.
Yeah Nicki forgets to get “cancelled” you have to first have something to lose. She stopped acting over a decade ago. Her jobs skills are “assistant” and “whatever you will pay me”. Sadly because she was not able to develop meaningful career skills in NXIVM. She is in some form of limbo with nowhere to go. Likely hoping her protest of all things prison will somehow lead to something but on this road she is very much alone.
The nonsense of “defund the police” (god that is the dumbest slogan every created) aside, no one in either party is particularly interested in Justice System reform of any kind. The politicians, again from both parties, benefit way to much from it as is, being most are lawyers and all. They are fine with pretending to care depending on local conditions but if pay attention, actual reform is just talk, never action. I suspect her slide into GQP land is only going to accelerate as her frustration grows as she realizes no one really cares and no one is listening and those Q-Anoners being of unsound mind, will be a welcome home for someone as desperate to be heard and agreed with.
” As in, having naked pictures of a 15 year old girl on your computer may be immoral, but is it illegal? Let’s discuss!”
I’ve never seen her say anything like this..
Are you just making this up?
“I’m interested in having a conversation — many conversations! — about the difference between illegal and immoral conduct”
Looks like Clyne’s head first dive into the far right end of the political spectrum is paying off. She takes what she knows is a fundamental weakness of anything she does, the inherent immorality of it, and turns it into a strength by claiming falsely a wiliness to confront that question directly while of course always avoiding it. She really can’t have a moral conversation and she knows it because it all falls apart. Her arguments of personal responsibility, victim-hood, pseudo woman rights, etc. all becomes irrelevant once hit that morality discussion. After all engaging in moral behavior would mean the things she, Keith and others did would have never happened to begin with.
Even better, what she claims what matters most, “process of oppression, prejudice and injustice”, it is behavior Keith and co engaged in on the regular. Injustice isn’t limited to just the legal system but even within something as small as a family unit or say a cult. Ultimately she continues to show an inability to truly confront her part in things and just keeps deflecting. I get the feeling what she is turning into is going to be even uglier and more amoral than the NXIVM version had become.
June 12, 2021 at 2:57 pm
I doubt it. He is out of office. I am getting mixed reports from sources on Biden’s competence, with some who have access saying he is sharp mentally, though a step slower than he was not long ago and others saying he is slipping badly. I am far more interested in Biden and if I get anything substantial, I will report it.”
Joe Biden is rapidly losing whatever cognitive ability he has.
His brains are scrambled.
Canadian PM Told Staff, ‘Kamala Will Be President By 2022’
After Joe Biden’s laughably pathetic G7 performance has world leaders telling their staff Joe-mentia is not long for the office of President.
Trudeau overheard telling staffers he expects Kamala Harris to be President by the end of 2022 per WH official attending G7
I wish Bangkok, the cult shill, would just piss off and leave like he said he would. His racist intolerance, misogynistic meanderings, and just general assholish-ness reek from everything he writes.
It’s funny to see the commonalities in cult vs anti-cult discourse.
Here, an “anonymous” poster, showing disagreement with Bangkok, calls him a “cult shill”.
I don’t know the years of disagreement here, but I certainly do know the rhetorical tactic – if you can’t address the argument, accuse your target of working for the enemy. Let’s call it the adhom RINO argument.
Most comments here on the Frank Report are smart, and relevant, and don’t play this dumbass adhom game. Which is refreshing, and challenging, and helps me to learn.
I think Bangkok is Bang-On, btw regarding the RICO overreach in this case.
Was Allison Mack REALLY paid for the Nicole incident, for instance, just like the pimps who run UN Brothels are?
One is sex trafficking, the other is simply not.
Next, every wing man in the world is headed for a RICO prosecution if his client buys him a drink afterward.
Just another example of how tribalism makes you stupid.
Oh just zip it with your “cult vs anti-cult” nonsensical bifurcating discourse.
Bangkok has been commenting like this literally for years now. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s likely a duck.
“I don’t know the years of disagreement here”
Yes, you don’t.
“I think Bangkok is Bang-On”.
I’m shocked. Not.
Bangkok’s argument is just weak. You and Bangkok think it’s an overreach of RICO because it’s “not as bad” as other sex trafficking cases. This is an error of relative privation. The prosecution argued that it was set up with the underhanded intent to be a sex trafficking organization for mostly one man. Just because it wasn’t as obvious as explicit sex trafficking, that doesn’t mean it can’t be more subtly sinister. Keith gambled and lost. Just like he gambled the money of others in the stock market and lost. He thought he was clever with secrecy, promises of rewards (financial or otherwise), playing loose with the concept of consent, and trying to hide coercion through “collateral”, seduction “assignments”, and various other disciplinary mechanisms to enforce his will. All of the current cult shills ignore the detailed evidence of Keith’s past and current sexual behavior as well as the required recurring sexual content of the “collateral” and the purchase of sex toys and other items that go to motive.
If there are no “ultimate victims” like he says, then he isn’t one either. There is no special pleading for his case. He’s no longer at the top of the pyramid of his little cult and put himself where he is now by breaking the law.
“Next, every wingman in the world is headed for a RICO prosecution if his client buys him a drink afterward.”
Another silly, inaccurate, sliding down the slope, comparison. Similar to your Olympic athlete example.
Bangkok is the mentally challenged version of Alonzo.
Oh, Sultan! My dear fellow, don’t be such a dreaded bore, spouting off poppycock.
Indeed, Bangkok is an atrocious racist, but you should take the high road. Go smoke your hookah and chill out.