I want to clarify for Frank Report readers that Keith Raniere was not charged with the crime of possession of child pornography or with the crime of sexually exploiting a child. Instead, those were just some of the “predicate acts” that were cited as part of the charge that he committed the crime of Racketeering.
This is a major distinction – especially as it relates to what may happen regarding Keith’s appeal of his conviction. It might also impact his Rule 33 motion.
The prosecution alleged a total of 16 predicate acts with regard to the Racketeering charge against Keith – and the jury found that all of those were “Proved” during the course of his trial (The minimum number of such acts that needed to be “Proved” in order to sustain the Racketeering charge was two). Thus, even if the two predicate acts that you believe were based on evidence that had been tampered with by the FBI were thrown out, that may not be enough for Keith to get a new trial or to have his sentence reduced.
More Than Racketeering
I think the very best that Keith can hope for, if his attorneys can prove that the evidence regarding the photos of Cami was tampered with, is that his conviction for Racketeering would get thrown out – and he would get a new trial on that one charge.
But because I don’t see any connection between the alleged tampered evidence and the six other charges of which Keith was convicted (i.e., Racketeering Conspiracy, Forced Labor Conspiracy, Wire Fraud Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy, Sex Trafficking of Nicole, and Attempted Sex Trafficking of Jay), I think those convictions will likely stand unless his attorneys can convince the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that there are other reasons to overturn those convictions or unless the Court just finds the issue of the tampered evidence to be so abhorrent and egregious that it orders a new trial on all the charges, which is extremely unlikely.
The bottom line is, even if Keith’s attorneys can prove that the nude pictures of Cami were transferred to the hard drive after the hard drive was in the FBI’s possession – which will be an extremely difficult thing to do – that will not ensure that his Rule 33 motion succeeds.
He would still be convicted on all seven charges he was convicted of, and he will still be serving a 120-year sentence.
The Cami Photos Are Only Part of the Racketeering Charge
Let me start by reviewing some basic facts regarding Keith’s case – and then move on to some other options that the EDNY prosecutors could have utilized in putting together his indictment:
– As I previously noted, federal prosecutors included 16 predicate acts to support the charge of Racketeering – and the jury unanimously determined that the prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed all 16 of those acts (“Proved” is the box that was actually checked on the “Verdict Sheet” that the jury handed in after its deliberations).
– Three of those predicate acts – i.e., Racketeering Act 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 2, 2005; Racketeering Act 3: Sexual Exploitation of A Child on November 24, 2005; and Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography – are the ones that Suneel and other NXIVM diehards believe involved evidence that was tampered with.
– Had those three acts not been included in the second superseding indictment – or had Keith’s attorneys successfully challenged them during the trial – the jury would still have found that prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed the other 13 predicate acts – which would have been more than enough for him to have been convicted of Racketeering (The minimum number for such a conviction is two predicate acts).
Difference Between Exploitation and Possession Charges
It should also be noted that the elements of Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography are very different than the elements of Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3. That’s because Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3 have to do with Keith’s alleged taking of the pictures of Cami on the indicated dates. Regardless of what Keith did with them afterward – and regardless of whether they were transferred to some other device – merely taking nude pictures of a child in the way that Cami was posed constituted Sexual Exploitation of a Child.
The prosecutors could have also omitted the predicate act of “possession” of child pornography – and replaced it with the predicate act of “distributing” child porn – in which case the mere fact that Keith moved around the naked pictures of Cami from one electronic device to another would likely have resulted in the jury finding that the prosecution had also “Proved” that predicate act.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether the Prosecution “Proved” that Keith committed 16 predicate acts, 14 predicate acts, or even as few as 2 predicate acts, all those outcomes would have been sufficient for the jury to have convicted Keith of the crime of Racketeering.
That is why I think this whole kerfuffle over the pictures of Cami is a waste of time.
For the 10th time – the hard drive image included in all these posts about tampered evidence and noted as a “Western Digital hard drive” is, in fact, a Seagate hard drive. The brand logo is clearly on the product. I recommend you pull a WD stock photo from Google images that is likely free – I am happy to email you one.
Honestly, it just looks like sloppy journalism during a time when a whole bunch of eyes are paying close attention to what is posted here. If a court document says the Frank Report is weaponizing information, then perhaps we should make sure that the images/info shared is correct.
No disrespect – I’ve been a FR reader for several years and applaud all that Frank and the rest of the team has done to put a stop to a full-on racketeering enterprise. But we can at least get the facts straight, right?
K.R. Claviger,
As always top-notch prose! I have no questions, whatsoever!
You should have been a law professor!
They can’t even argue that the discovery of the photos ‘forced’ the other 5 to plead guilty, and in the case of A.Mack, hand over an incriminating tape (That’s what I understood, anyway). If the women were 100% sure that Raniere was not guilty, they would have carried on with their cases jointly with his. The fact that they immediately chose to sever their connection and be tried separately speaks volumes. Maybe, as KR is wont to say, it’s all his fault because “he didn’t work hard enough on their loyalty” or some such word salad (Remember his passive-aggressive rants about how these women are innocent, he takes all responsibility for it because he didn’t work hard enough on them, etc., thereby reducing these women to “objects” to be worked on to his satisfaction, women without a mind of their own. Ironic, when the stated aim of the “courses” was to make women self-reliant and responsible. Viva Executive Success, indeed.
Nicki Clyne got roasted so handily after she harassed Wikipedia founder to change the Keith Raniere narrative to what she demanded on HIS creation.
How many times do you think she’s read that entry and cried?
Lol. And then dum a lum a ding ding tried to turn her salivating incel twitter sad sacks against him. I didn’t even know you could donate. Now I will. A lot. And I will make note of why.
The best part is that the whole thing reflected really poorly on her.
Cannot stand people who instigate a one-on-one conversation with someone privately online and then post the conversation publicly. Scum of the earth.
And they always selectively share snippets they believe are favorable to them. Seriously. The. Worst. Kind. Of. Person.
Utter trash.
Maybe Nicki is the one woman that Keith was thinking of when he called women gossips? When Keith said women expected all the men around them to rescue them, come to their defense, and protect them? When Keith said women can’t keep confidences?
One can totally see all of the immature, negative things that Keith claimed about all women but those traits are only in Nicki Clyne.
Ultimate manipulative victim, Nicki the drama queen, who fights on Twitter like a child and drags whoever she can bring to the skirmish alongside her…
Nicki really is that awful-sounding woman that Keith Raniere described.
I finally get it now. Wow!
What are you talking about? Link to the roast?
Can you share a link to what happened?
I was able to get Wikipedia to remove Camila’s last name 💪💪
Frank Report was using that claim (that Wikipedia used her last name) to argue for why it was still using her last name on this site.
Wikipedia is actually pretty fair and will listen, especially in sex abuse cases. I would say they are more neutral than Frank Report where certain victims do not get any privacy 😭, even when they are victims of extreme crimes (Frank Report now started posting the face sketches of Daniela and Cami, even when the judge asked for them not to be shown).
Maybe given Nicki’s manipulation success with Frank Report on being able to start changing the narrative, she thought she could do the same on Wikipedia.
Tough luck, Nikci . Wikipedia is more neutral.
I do not recall ever claiming that Wikipedia used her last name as far as I can recall. I said that the Camila, Daniela Mariana, Hector, Fluffy, Adriane last name has been published in Mexican media. You wrote implying it was not true. And asked me to name one Mexican media implying I could not name one. I sent you links to 20.
The last name is known. It is no secret. I also believe that people should stand for what they say and use their own names.
DOSA JISM stand stands in solidarity with you, Frank. People who don’t use their own names don’t truly stand for what they say.
I am referring to this article: https://frankreport.com/2020/10/10/she-renounced-raniere-so-should-camilas-last-name-and-photo-be-published-what-do-you-think/
You stated: “A simple online search will reveal Camila’s name outside of Frank Report. In fact, she is named, first name and last, in Wikipedia on “Nxivm.”
I honestly think you do it just to feel like a rebel: “Wow, I am so bad and rebellious I use the sketches and last names of sex assault victims. Something that other journalists respect and do not do”
It feels like you are stealing candy from babies. Anyone can do it. But I mean, is there any merit to stealing candy from babies?
You are lucky you can afford to NOT be anonymous. Not everyone has that position. You have never been a sexual victim. You do not know what that would mean or do your willingness of being anonymous or not.
Why not stop stealing candy from babies? What do you gain? To feel rebellious?
It is not rebellious.
I want to mention: I don’t really care. Having these online discussions is kinda entertaining. But I don’t really care what is decided. If you want to continue stealing candy from babies, it’s OK.
It was on Twitter, Mexican Lady.
Nicki Clyne thought that because she once talked Lauren Salzman into an upcoming group blow job for Keith that she could also convince the Wikipedia founder to bow down to Nicki’s Keith Raniere narrative – and change the entry.
No dice!
—Nicki Clyne got roasted so handily after she harassed Wikipedia founder to change the Keith Raniere narrative
Please, please, please with cherries on top-
post the link to the Nicki Clyne roast!
Nicely played, I looked all over for the roast. You got me… ha ha!!!!
It’s on Twitter.
Nicki tried to get the Wikipedia page changed. The response to Nicki was “I think I will believe the FBI over (paraphrasing now) a pedo cult leader apologist”.
Then, at some point, he blocked Nicki.
Nicki tweeted only a select part of the exchange and announced that he had blocked her.
Nicki gets blocked regularly for this pattern of behavior.
Nicki tweeted only a curated portion of the exchange knowing (and wanting) her loyal follower base would harass the man.
Nicki sucks.
And she needs to stop using her cult tactics to try and intimidate people who resist her trying to manipulate them.
Anon-
I greatly appreciate you taking the time to answer. Thanks!
Thanks for the write-up. Continues to confirm some assumptions I have on it not really changing the overall trial since it’s only a small component of the whole. Didn’t know about being part of proving Racketeering and just being a small fragment of that, which was interesting. That is a thought exercise Suneel hasn’t bothered with – what if we toss the entire Cami aspect of the case, does it change the results? The answer continues to look like “No, it doesn’t”.
Notorious KRC
Why does Suneel post his repetitive missives here? I truly am puzzled. The dead-enders have created other outlets to vent. He cannot possibly believe that there is any actual legal influence in posting on Frank Report. Is it to workshop his Keith rhetoric? This is an honest question. Keith has a legal fund. He has lawyers. He has cheerleading dancers. What does Suneel hope to gain saying the same thing on Frank Report over and over? In your opinion?
Thank you.
—Why does Suneel post his repetitive missives here? I truly am puzzled.
He’s attempting to convince himself……..
As always, FANTASTIC WRITING AND AMAZING ARTICLE CLAVIGER!
Really well explained. Thanks!
Perfectly said
So sad for Raniere’s followers
Hand them a box of tissues and there’s gotta be a book on how to move on with your life when your Cult Leader Daddy isn’t gonna get out of prison
Well, practically everything associated with NXIVM was a waste of time.
I don’t believe they did, but let’s suppose the FBI did the unthinkable. And there is credible evidence that they did tamper. In such a scenario, would all of your arguments matter? I would assume an appellate court would not take this lightly. Could they invalidate the verdict and set him free? Like what happened with Cosby. Everybody knows Cosby is guilty, but they still set him free, on a technicality basically. In the case of KR, would evidence tampering be a reason for the appellate court to free KR. Is it even possible according to the law?
Yes, it does appear that Cosby was guilty. It was not a technicality. Cosby’s civil rights were violated. Cosby was told he would not be prosecuted, so he testified in a civil case. The civil case tainted his criminal case, and thus violated Cosby’s rights to do process. In short, the government tried to cheat, and Cosby is free because of it.
You need to go back and study the Cosby case. The technicality was not what you think it was.
Why would Raniere fire the Cosby attorney if you think this would get him off?
Raniere is playing the same games in the court system he has for decades. He’s just on the other side of the fence this time.
No, at most it would just mean that aspect of the case could be tossed. The entire case was not built on that one act. It was a branch of the “poisonous tree”, not the tree or roots so to speak. Really, the more I hear about it, the testimony on EXIF data is more of a leaf than it is on a branch that is an offshoot of a larger branch that is connected to the tree. Usually, to get an entire case tossed based on bad evidence, everything that followed had to come from that one piece.
So, in this case, that would mean the order of events would have to be something like the case was started because they found the drive, saw the pictures on it, which then caused them to investigate NXIVM, which lead to the additional charges. Instead, the hard drive and the photos just made the prosecutor’s job easier but even if they didn’t exist, it wouldn’t have prevented the charges from being filed and based on above, being found “Proven”.
Really, if the hard drive didn’t exist, then likely the only thing it likely would have done is prevent any evidence regarding how Camilla was treated from being put into the trial record since most of the treatment occurred in Mexico and, therefore, outside of US jurisdiction.
Goes back to issues I have with Suneel. He focuses on one aspect of the case, ignoring everything else, and really if you remove this one aspect of the case, it does nothing to change the case, the charges and the other, non-pedo, immoral behavior Keith engaged in. Behavior Suneel continues to ignore and refuses to address.
Thanks for explaining. Your entries are always a pleasure to read: factual and intelligent.
Cosby was released because the prosecutor basically tricked him into violating his fifth amendment’s rights to not self-incriminate. It wasn’t a “technicality”, not even close to one. You don’t have to like that Cosby was released, but it was the right call legally.
While we have a deep appreciation for the legal acumen of K.R. Claviger, after consultation with our legal counsel, Two Lawyers, Esq., it is our duty to note that the principle of “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” applies in the case of Keith Raniere as it does in every case. The Western Digital hard drive pictures here at the Frank Report clearly will not fit into any PC tower, let alone laptop, case.
Ergo, Raniere must be freed post haste and all those involved in his malicious prosecution must face jail time and disbarment.
Q.E.D.
Excellent point. It is a matter of the law……
You had me laugh on that one!
😂😊😊😊
That made me spit out my tea! Cheeky bastard.