Nancy Salzman Blames Frank Report for Redactions on Sentencing Memo

Nancy Salzman, as cl;ever as ever

First she blamed Keith Raniere.  Now Nancy Salzman is blaming me.  Not for all her woes in life — that was the fault of the devil Raniere, who made her do every crime she committed over 20 years of working with him.

Nancy looks down on her lover and business partner, Keith Raniere, who she worked with and fronted for, for 20 years. Though she admitted to having an intimate sexual relationship with Raniere, she claims she stepped aside when he took up with her daughter.  Over the years, she counseled dozens of women who Raniere was having sexual affairs with, encouraging these women to continue to have sexual relations with Raniere.

Salzman is blaming me for writing about NXIVM-related topics and people involved in supporting it, accusing me of trying to ruin them.

It is for this very reason that she chose to redact every one of her letters of support from friends, family and NXIVM associates that were submitted to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis as part of her sentencing memorandum.

Nancy does not want Frank Report to find out who wrote the letters or what was written in them.

Her attorney, Robert Soloway [pictured above], wrote, “Frank Report weaponizes statements made in support of the Nxivm defendants, and exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining ‘loyalists.’”

Salzman filed her sentencing memorandum under seal on or about August 30th, without following court procedures which includes getting the judge’s permission to file documents under seal.

On September 5, I wrote to Judge Garaufis “Nancy Salzman will be the fifth defendant to be sentenced in this case – the others being, in chronological order, Keith Raniere, Clare Bronfman, Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman. With regard to each of those other sentencings, the defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum – or, with respect to Clare Bronfman, her Response to the government’s Sentencing Memorandum – was filed openly on PACER and available for review by the respective victims of those defendants and the general public.”

The following day, Judge Garaufis ordered her attorneys to make the memorandum public by noon the next day, September 7th.

Her attorneys, in compliance with the order, filed her sentencing memorandum publicly, redacting portions of it, including all of her letters of support.

Nancy Salzman [l] was only too pleased to hand her daughter, Lauren Salzman, [third from left] over to Keith Raniere [4th from left] for his teachings.
On September 8th, Salzman was sentenced to 42 months in prison and was ordered to report to prison in January.

On September 20th, the judge directed that Salzman explain her “legal justification” for redacting sections of her sentencing memorandum.

On September 27th, her attorney, Robert Solloway, filed the explanation, blaming it on me.

He wrote in part:

“Generally, the defense redactions [for Salzman] are based upon the privacy rights of the innocent third parties who have come forward to support Ms. Salzman, but who wish their support to remain outside the public domain to prevent injury to their commercial interests and livelihoods, and to also avoid vexatious publicity and public scorn if their statements become public.

“We seek to maintain the sealing of both the content of the letters submitted, and the identities of the authors. Should the Court, however, deny our application for complete redaction of the exhibits, we submit under cover of a separate sealed letter to be filed contemporaneously with the instant filing, as Exhibit 1, redacted versions of each supporting letter with highlighting to enable the Court to visualize those sections we seek to redact for the purpose only of protecting the identity of each writer, if not the content.

“Exhibit G to our submission we respectfully submit should remain entirely under seal, because any portion of its content will reveal the identity of the letter writer. In support of continued sealing, we rely upon judicial principles which endorse the protection of privacy rights of innocent third parties who came forward in support of Ms. Salzman, but who would suffer avoidable injury were their statements and identities revealed.

“Founded on such principles, we urge that the three categories of letters presented — family members, close friends, and Nxivm associates — are all subject to complete sealing…

“In this case, many of those who wrote letters on behalf of Ms. Salzman did so fearfully, not because of any reluctance whatsoever to support her, but because of the scandalous, hurtful uses to which their sentiments, if made public, would likely be put.

“As this Court is aware, the Frank Report weaponizes statements made in support of the Nxivm defendants, and exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining ‘loyalists.’

“Revealing the identities and supportive views memorialized in letters to the Court will add little to the record that has not already been stated publicly by the Court and counsel, and will potentially result in harm to those whose aim was to furnish the Court with firsthand information about Ms. Salzman to facilitate a fully informed sentencing proceeding.

“Revealing the content of the letters and names of such individuals will likely have a chilling effect on those who wish to assist other defendants and courts in future high-profile cases.”

Soloway also mentions that a portion of the redactions concern Salzman’s medical condition, writing:

“As to Ms. Salzman’s privacy rights in her own medical conditions, this is information traditionally considered private. While her need for medical care has been publicly discussed in general as a §3553 [sentencing] factor, medical details have been kept private through redaction. Such details in no way affect any portion of the public, much less a substantial portion.”


The question at hand is “Does a defendant and her supporters have the right to privacy for their letters to a judge in sentencing?”

This may be an interesting question for the judge, as he weighs the constitutional prohibition against secret trials, with its inherent right to inspect and copy public records, versus any extraordinary circumstances justifying restrictions of public access.

Will there be a Frank Report precedent?

In her daughter, Lauren Salzman’s sentencing memorandum, she redacted the names of the letter writers but most of the content was not redacted. This passed muster with the same judge.

In a future post, I will address, the three-part conclusory allegation made by Salzman’s attorney about Frank Report.


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Hey, Frank! Wish we had the next documentary out about the cult. I think I enjoyed your part when Catherine came to stay with you as one of my favorite parts of the first series. I watched that episode many times. I thought it was so cute the way her mother admired your strength in fighting them! Wish there was more interaction about y’all on film. I guess they are doing a part 2 on the initial series they released, not India’s but the other one.

    Of course, I also loved the documentary you did on the murders of those women, come on we all know he poisoned them or caused some accident to happen. I think maybe that one woman in Alaska that disappeared was pregnant, and he didn’t want people to know since he was supposed to be a celibate guru. I hope you stay on that like a Cajun year dog.

    And find out the evidence that he indeed murdered all those poor women by poisoning them. No way they all died of cancer, too much of a coincidence. Plus love to know what his mother’s hair and autopsy showed up, since he was her caregiver. Made me shiver.

    I can’t believe that lawyer is defending cult loyalists. Uh does that not mean people are still in the cult and therefore loyal to it?! Like that one person said I thought ex-cult members like Lauren and Alison were not allowed To associate with cult me members or loyalists! Because of the fact they support an illegal and damaging cult that physically and mentally and financially harmed people! I know you don’t let that get to you!

  • Nice Guy predicted why Nancy’s Lawyers filed sealed letters, i.e. Redactions on Sentencing Memo:

    September 22, 2021 at 9:52 am
    Re Nancy Salzman’s Legal Filings:
    Obviously, Nancy and her attorneys do not want prying eyes ie the Frank Report

    Nice Guy does not need any compliments or acknowledgements. 😉

  • Frank, why don’t you post the documents of Nancy Salzman’s rulings?
    What she can and cannot do?

    Condition # 4 states Nancy is to not be in contact via phone, in person, email, letter, or through a third party with anyone in NXIVM or any of their programs

    This way all NXIVM members and the public know what the Judge told her in court. Nancy Salzman isn’t allowed to talk to them even if they took one day.

    David Ashen, a former NXIVM member, talks to Nancy Salzman almost every day, thereby breaking one of the conditions of her bail, but neither of them gives a shit about what the Judge says to them.

    David Ashen of Dash Design, a New York-based interior design firm, was at Nancy’s sentencing and later at the Marriott later when Nancy was checking out

    This was within four hours of the Judge telling Nancy Salzman she was not to be in contact with Ex-NX members. Both gave the Judge their middle finger.

    Wendy Irick, (Wendel, her birth name) from Anchorage Alaska, is a hairdresser at Wendel Hair Design, and is another Ex-NX member who was with Nancy Salzman and David Ashen at the sentencing.

    Both Wendy/Wendle Irick and David Ashen were at the Marriott at Brooklyn Bridge four hours later with Nancy Salzman (without her attorney present). All three were flipping the Judge off by ignoring his order that Nancy is not to be in contract with members of NXIVM programs.

    Wendle/Wendy has been calling ExNxs to get EMs for Nancy. How do we know? People talk to the Ex-Nx grapevine.

    David has been by Nancy’s side and calling her almost every day. How do we know? The same grapevine?

    On the day of Lauren’s sentencing, David Ashen (who was at Lauren’s sentencing) called Nancy to give her the good news that Lauren wasn’t going to prison.

    The Judge could pull Nancy Salzman in, throw her in prison right now, and add time to her prison sentence for such a violation.

    Let’s be real, she is the Pampered Perfect. It is rumored her foot has a bad bunion and needs some surgery before she goes to prison.

    Why would the Judge, out of the goodness of his heart, hold her accountable for flipping him off just four hours later? Is her foot that big of a deal? Nancy was moving pretty fast when the press was looking for a comment from her after her sentencing while she made a fast dash to her car.

    We are all sure she won’t do it again. Right?

    Yeah, you can bet your sweet donkey’s butt. She’s been on the phone every day because she needs attention and validation. There are people out there willing to be by her side even if they are throwing the Judge the middle finger.

    How are they going to know anyway? She’s smart enough to get a burner phone. She was taught by the best how to get away with such BS.

    Does the EDNY have bigger fish to fry at this point and they just don’t care?

    They don’t know about all the people she was in contact with before her sentencing, so why now after her sentencing? They have been informed about the contact in the hotel with David Ashen and Wendy Irick.

    • Hi Alanzo or ASO,

      I’m fairly certain according to Alanzo’s pattern — that you are, in fact, Alanzo. The second sock-puppet account with little account activity. I’m going to enjoy investigating you. I find people like yourself remarkably fascinating.

      Thank you for giving me something interesting to do, besides living out my humdrum life in suburbia.

      Bless you! 😉

  • If this Robert Soloway citizen has the IQ to issue such statements about the Frank Report, it is most reasonable to assume he’s already started having unprotected sex with both Nancy and at least one of her daughters.

    Wonder if an arrangement could be made with the Court to allow Raniere to join them on a semesterly basis.

  • To the Judge & Everyone

    Please remember that Nancy Salzman turned her own daughter over to Raniere, to be branded and used as a master/slave in a sex harem.

    Nancy didn’t know about her daughter’s relationship with Raniere and the baby he was promising her daughter, Lauren?

    I wonder what Nancy believed was going on; when she went to her daughter’s home and saw a fully-FURNISHED BABY room?

    Nancy knew all about Raniere’s promises and lies to her daughter. She chose a position of power and money over her child.

    • That is a good statement. You know you are horrible when you pick greed and power and lust for that weirdino Keith Raniere over your own daughter, who you carried in your own body. And who you are supposed to protect. Some women though have no maternal instincts although I think Nancy damn well knew what your role is a parent is as far as protecting your child, even when your child is an adult but it’s still your job to protect them if you can, and look out for their best interest and well fare.
      It’s also so incestuous to have a relationship with a man who is also having a sexual relationship with your daughter. It is at the very least emotional incest. Which is hugely damaging. That’s inappropriate talk or behaviors with your child, like discussing your sex life or asking them for advice about your dating life. Things like that. Or being jealous of your child’s spouse because you want the attention to be on you. I have seen older women do that with their adult sons which messes the sons up unless they realize what the mother is doing. As 8d the mother wants to be the girlfriend or wife. Or they compete with their daughter like Lauren for the same man. Or dress and act like a peer. Instead of a parental figure.

    • Nut Job

      Can you argue the logic of my “Baby Room” theory or will you hide your head in the sand when confronted with logic?

      FYI: Nancy positively knew about the “Baby Room” in Lauren’s home. Nancy’s hung out it when Lauren had a male suitor in another bedroom, according to the suitor’s post on Frank Report.

        • Virtually everything in your post was inaccurate.

          Lauren wanted a baby. She made a baby room. If I was to throw out a guess, I’d say she did it around the time the movie “The Secret” came out.

          It’s not that Nancy never knew about Lauren’s relationship with Keith. They kept the relationship hidden from Nancy for a awhile, but not forever.

          • Nut Job

            OK I’ll shut the hell up! You do know best! I wasn’t around so I’m taking out my butt. 😉

            Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! I Appreciate it sincerely

  • If you essentially want to stand up in court and testify towards someone’s character — then who you are, and what the nature of your relationship is with that person in the dock, are inseparable from your evidence.

    And this all needs to be out in the open, or you don’t have a proper trial.

    If you want to publicly defend the top protagonist of NXIVM after Keith Raniere himself, then you can’t claim that your own words are “weaponized” just because someone quotes them. The whole point is that if you want your words to be heard, you should sincerely thank Frank for the publicity.

  • – Nancy played the victim card by blaming everything on Keith.

    – Nancy is blaming Frank Report for making it difficult to have people write letters of support for her.

    – Frank says he considered Nancy to be completely under Keith’s control and she’d do whatever he wanted her to do. I’d pile on by saying it was already this way in autumn of 1998.

    – Some Nancy supporters were probably dissuaded from writing letters of support because of the fear of having their letter dissected on Frank Report.

    Is it possible that all four of these things are accurate? I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

    Yeah, it’s ironic that the mission statement made everyone chant that there are no victims. But, don’t forget, the only reason this was part of Keith’s mission statement, was because he intended to victimize NXIVM members and he wanted to preempt their thoughts.

  • How come this wasn’t an issue with the other co-defendants?

    Salzman’s lawyers defied the Court’s explicit instructions in order to show contempt for it. And to paint their client as a victim. It’s a power play, nothing more.

    Isn’t it a strange world we live in, where playing the victim is a means to power?

    Nancy Salzman, career criminal and convicted racketeer, is a victim deserving special treatment.

    Keith Raniere, racketeer and sex trafficker and all-around lying scumbag, is a victim of a (nonexistent) FBI plot and deserves a new trial.


    And didn’t these clowns spend the last 20 years peddling the dogma that “There are no victims”?

    • How come this wasn’t an issue with the other co-defendants? It was. It surely influenced how Nancy’s attorneys tried handling it.

      Salzman’s lawyers defied the Court’s explicit instructions in order to show contempt for it. And to paint their client as a victim. It’s a power play, nothing more. Power play by the women going to prison? Or was she just rying to get support and protect her supporters? It’s a cigar, not a power play. It ain’t hockey.

      Isn’t it a strange world we live in, where playing the victim is a means to power? How exactly is Nancy in power? How did playing the victim add to her power? Or, is she powerless and flailing in the wind trying to save what’s left of her life?

      Nancy Salzman, career criminal and convicted racketeer, is a victim deserving special treatment. There’s a judge for a reason.

      Keith Raniere, racketeer and sex trafficker and all-around lying scumbag, is a victim of a (nonexistent) FBI plot and deserves a new trial.

      Bullshit. Agree – Bullshit.

      And didn’t these clowns spend the last 20 years peddling the dogma that “There are no victims”? I commented on this in the above post.

  • I do also think that Nancy is a great manipulator. She accused of trouble the one source who put into evidence her wrongdoings. She turned the blame on Frank Report instead of owning up that she was taking liberties nobody else had done.

    If Nancy actually cared about the wellbeing of her letter writers and others, we would have heard about the steps Nancy took to apologize to her victims or help in their recovery

    Nancy is manipulating the situation to appear to be a victim and a thoughtful person and attack who is asking for her accountability

  • It’s because Nancy’s family wrote in support. Other nxivm members who still do nxivm under different names wrote in support. Some famous person probably did too.. or a prominent community member. Here’s my take, if you can’t publicly support the president of a sex cult, then you shouldn’t be allowed to write the letter. And if nancy claims that what she was doing wasn’t so bad, what has she or her followers got to hide? What’s the point of believability if anyone could write a fictitious letter because it won’t be scrutinized publically? If you are truly supporting a good morale innocent person, why would you be scared to have your name exposed? There has to be some sort of accountability for the letter writers. Public accountability and validity. if you actually believe in a disgusting person like Nancy and don’t want to be associated with her, then I can see why you wouldn’t want your name or information exposed. But if after learning all the bad things Nancy and her daughters did to others, why would you actually put your name on something to support them? Oh wait, I forgot, your name is redacted. you can say whatever you want.

  • I think this shows why it can be important to have clear guidelines into how victims and involved actors will be treated on Frank Report.

    Frank Report started sharing the sketches of Cami and Daniela. The judge had requested they not be shared and other newspapers respected that. Frank Report decided to NOT respect that and started posting sketches of the sisters.

    It is unpredictable to know what rank report will respect and not respect. That can bring trouble to individuals and I think Nancy is right that it was better for the letters to not be made public.

    Will Frank Report stop bullying women?

    One thing I found interesting: Frank Report did NOT share sketches of the other victims that testified in Keith’s trial. Frank did not share sketches of Laura Junco’s daughter either.

    Why are the Mexican victims not given the same treatment as the white women victims? Why does Frank Report respect the privacy of Laura Junco’s daughter but not Daniela and Cami? Is it because they have less power and are people of color?

    Frank Report is unpredictable in who it will support and whose privacy will suddenly be violated.

    I agree with Nancy’s decision. Despite considering Nancy an evil person

    • Nancy is a predator, as are Lauren and Michelle. Anyone who supports a predator should be required to put their name to something. Otherwise the veracity of the claims are severely diminished. As one point, you think the ceo of tofutti wants his name and who he supports out there? the shareholders of tofutti would be angry that they are supporting an organized criminal sex cult. nxivm will live on if their supporters are continually protected and given anonymity. expose the cult.

  • Re Nancy’s Letters:

    The Frank Report has not “weaponized” any of the letters. If anything, Frank has handled the letters for the NXIVM defendants with “kid gloves” and deference.

    Frank has not attacked a single letter writer.

  • Yeah Nancy over-reacted.

    Nothing against Frank, but I doubt he has the number of eyeballs to make her efforts worthwhile when compare to risking a Streisand Effect that the redaction could have potentially caused. I don’t think it did in this case because the star attractions (Keith and pretty famous blonde) are sentenced so the press has moved on but still a risky move.

    Would he had reported on all the letters anyway? Yeah probably but I doubt he would have got nearly as good cannon fodder from it if she had not tried to play dodgeball. It would have just come and gone in a few articles. Instead she provided fuel for around half dozen or more, gave impression she was hiding things, and generally just annoyed her judge on the eve of her sentencing (no I don’t think this had any effect on her sentencing) to ultimately accomplish nothing.

    When your actions reach the point where its all really for an audience of one (the judge), don’t pay attention to the hecklers in the back (Frank Report and its readers). Its just dumb.

    • Agree. Also if Nancy truly cared about the well-being of others (as she claims for why she redacted their letters), she could have been actively searching for the collateral of DOS women or helping the family of Kristen Snyder find their missing daughter.

      • And let’s not forget that Nancy’s attorneys have also redacted her responses to two of the Victim Impact Statements that were filed in her case – and offered no legal rationale for doing so. The only person who Nancy Salzman cares about is Nancy Salzman.

  • “As this Court is aware, the Frank Report weaponizes statements made in support of the Nxivm defendants, and exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining ‘loyalists.’

    How dare you!

    Frank is wonderfully insightful, honest and intelligent.

    He has that old-time private detective vibe…Frank is Steely Dan level cool.

    IF…and that’s a pretty big IF, Frank did ‘weaponize’ stuff…He’d be awesome and righteous in his doing so. Ha!

    They’re grasping (@) even the shortest of misaligned straws.

    Frank, did you have much ‘facetime’ with the ‘Prefect’?

    • Though Keith invented Face time, according to his lawsuit against Microsoft and AT&T, somehow we never face time’s. But we spent time face to face – at her house, at her office and at a restaurant. I considered Nancy to be completely under Raniere who would do anything he told her to do.

      • I meant face-to-face. Your humor slays me!

        Thanks for replying and for all of your efforts in truth-busting the ‘truth-busters’.


  • Nicki and Suneel (at least) should give Frank copies of their support letters for Nancy. They both profess to believe deeply in standing up publicly for the worst of humanity. And Frank admires Nicki “bravely” standing loudly and visibly by her “beliefs” however misguided they may be.

    Surely, they will provide Frank (who has so generously hosted them here on his blog) unredacted copies of their support letters for Nancy Salzman.

  • “exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining ‘loyalists” I disagree with this statement. But, isn’t there a lot of truth to the rest of it?

    Frank wants the court system to be fair. Shouldn’t people be able to write letters of support without risking the backlash? Or rather, shouldn’t someone be able to solicit letters of support without putting the letter writer in peril? I vote for a Frank Report precedent.

    I know I’m the resident Nancy lover, but I even had these feelings when Keith was struggling to get any support from his dead-enders.

    • I mean this sincerely.

      Flip it around. Ask yourself: What is the harm in setting that precedent? Should ALL plaintiffs be treated exactly the same? Does the public have a right to know in what manner a judge was possibly influenced regarding a sentence? Do the victims? The lawyers? Is their right to know more or less important than the privacy of the letter writers? What if the letters are factually untrue? And so forth. You get the drift.

      I know you can think of better questions (and their answers) whenever I question these things I like to look at everybody’s role and point of view. Especially those that oppose my own.

      Sometimes my opinion changes. Often it does not but I am more informed. There are factors I may not have considered.

      It also is beneficial to ask an expert in that field. – good thing there’s one on FR.

      KAR, can you weigh in, please?

    • I don’t think that Frank is suggesting that the names of the letter-writers be revealed. What he is saying is that the content of their letters be made public so that if they contain misinformation – or, as is more likely with respect to Nancy Salzman, outright lies – people can respond to that. And I agree with him 100% on that.

      As for those people who have filed “Victim Impact Statements”, the general rule is that the prosecution will only agree to make their letters public is if the author agrees with that request. In my experience, the vast majority of people who write such letters/statements will readily agree to such a request.

  • So her own attorney categorizes people who would speak up in letters positively on Salzman’s behalf as loyalists?

    Loyal to whom? Loyal to what?

    I thought Nancy repudiated vanguard?

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083