This is Part #2 of “Where Is the Collateral?”
Collateral
Collateral in the sense it is used in this article is that which was collected by slave masters of DOS, the sorority created by Keith Raniere.
Collateral included sexually explicit photographs; videos made to look candid in which slaves told damning stories (true or untrue) about themselves, close friends and/or family members; and letters making damaging accusations (true or untrue) against friends and family members.
According to the New York Times, “The women were required to hand over ‘collateral’ — embarrassing and incriminating information, including nude photographs — that would be publicly released if they disclosed the existence of D.O.S.”
Collateral was collected in order to have the ability to destroy five areas of a woman’s life:
- career
- relationship(s)
- reputation
- family
- finances
Prior to Raniere’s arrest, a DOS slave, Jessica Joan, stole collateral from Allison Mack’s computer. That collateral included nude photos of Mack’s slaves and a confession of a slave that she hated a family member.
Mack was careless about safeguarding collateral. She stored it in a Dropbox accessible from her computer. Joan was able to download it.
She testified that she did this to protect herself from the threat of blackmail after she decided not to perform a “seduction assignment” – which required her to seduce Raniere into taking a nude photo of her.
Joan gave the collateral to Mark Vicente who sent it to me. I gave it, through an attorney, to the US Department of Justice.
Allison Mack’s Collateral
On January 18, 2018, the Eastern District of New York US Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak signed a search warrant for the FBI to obtain an email account of Raniere’s [keithraniere@yahoo.com.] . On February 1, 2018, Yahoo! produced the information.
One of these emails was written to Raniere on August 10, 2015 by Allison Mack where she provided her plans for her own collateral. The email subject was “vow 3.” It included an attached letter where Mack used the terms “slave” and ”master” and pledged her “full and complete life” to Raniere.
The letter identified “collateral” to “cement” the vow. Mack’s offered:
(1) a letter regarding Mack’s mother and father that would “destroy their character.”
(2) a contract that transferred custody of any children birthed by Mack to Raniere, if Mack broke her commitment to Raniere.
(3) a contract that transferred ownership of Mack’s home if the commitment to Raniere was broken.
(4) a letter addressed to social services alleging abuse to Mack‘s nephews.
This was in addition to nude photographs Mack provided for her master.
Another Example of Collateral
DOS slave Michele Hatchette provided collateral to Mack. Hers was described by the prosecution.
“For her first collateral, Hatchette provided Mack with naked photographs and several letters about family members. Hatchette stated the letters contained accusations of abuse. Specifically, Hatchette alleged her brother and sister both abused their children. The letters were addressed to local police departments.”
The prosecution also gave their take on Hatchette’s view of the collateral.
“Hatchette described the experience of writing and releasing the letters to Mack as intense. Still, Hatchette believed the experience was good because she knew the letters ensured that she would never disclose information related to DOS.
“Hatchette stated that she was uncomfortable, and, at times, afraid to ask Mack about the location and status of her collateral.
“Hatchette explained the relationship between Hatchette and Mack was of complete servitude.
“Hatchette stated there was a certain level of respect that she was expected to maintain with her Master. Hatchette stated personal questions and certain questions about DOS were off limits when she conversed with Mack.
“At the time Hatchette was given the assignment to seduce Raniere, Hatchette really wanted to please Mack. While Hatchette did not consider the possibility of her collateral being released if she failed to complete the assignment, Hatchette did believe the vow of servitude to Mack required her to undertake the assignments given by Mack. Hatchette stated this vow was almost absolute.
“Hatchette stated collateral served the purpose of solidifying her commitment of servitude to Mack and participation in DOS. Hatchette was obedient to Mack because of this commitment. Hatchette stated there were times when she wanted to leave DOS. These feelings were prominent during the beginning of Hatchette’s involvement in DOS, particularly when Hatchette received the assignment to seduce Raniere.
“Hatchette stated without the existence of collateral, Hatchette would have left DOS.
“Hatchette was not aware of other members of DOS having sexual relations with Raniere or being given the assignment to seduce Raniere.
“Still, Hatchette occasionally wondered if other women from her DOS circle were sexually involved with Raniere. Hatchette stated Mack prohibited her Slaves from speaking about their relationships with Raniere.”
Hatchette’s collateral was among those taken by Jessica Joan.
Government Said It Had a Lead on Collateral but Never Followed Through
Keith Raniere was convicted on June 19, 2019. On October 19, 2020, Raniere filed a Rule 33 motion seeking a new trial, claiming “newly discovered evidence” relating to the government’s alleged intimidation of Hatchette and Nicki Clyne.
In their response the government wrote:
“As trial preparation began, [2019] the government received information that Clyne was in control of DOS-related materials, including collateral and other records, which were in the possession of her attorney.
“Specifically, the government learned that after the existence of DOS became known within the Nxivm community, Clyne instructed DOS ‘slaves,’ including Michele Hatchette and India [Oxenberg], to transfer DOS-related digital materials, including collateral, to hard drives that Clyne provided. After the materials were saved to the hard drives, Clyne instructed the group of DOS ‘slaves’ to delete the DOS materials from their own computers.
“Months later, Clyne told India that she had given the hard drives and other DOS-related materials to Clyne’s attorney.
“As a result, on April 9, 2019, the government served Clyne, through counsel, with a grand jury subpoena seeking ‘any and all records in your possession, custody or control related to “DOS,” “the Vow,” or “the Sorority,” including but not limited to
“(1) audio or video recordings of Keith Raniere and DOS ‘slaves’;
“(2) records identifying current or former members of DOS;
“(3) ‘collateral’ provided by any current or former member of DOS; and
“(4) electronic devices containing such records.”
“An accompanying letter advised Clyne that she was a target of the grand jury’s investigation.
“Later that day, Mr. Sapone acknowledged receipt of the subpoena and sent an email to the government “confirm[ing] that if called to testify” before the grand jury, Clyne would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“At the request of counsel, later that day, the government provided Mr. Sapone with a letter granting Clyne act-of-production immunity with respect to the production of the requested materials.
“The letter advised that, among other things: Nicole Clyne’s act of producing documents pursuant to the subpoena will be not used against her by the Office in any subsequent federal criminal proceeding, except that her act of producing those documents could be used against her in a prosecution for obstruction of justice if she intentionally takes any criminal actions with respect to the production (including, but not limited to, altering documents or intentionally withholding documents).
“In a letter dated April 10, 2019 and emailed to the government, Mr. Sapone stated:
“‘I have explained to Ms. Clyne her Constitutional rights and privileges as they relate to the subpoena. On the advice of counsel, if Ms. Clyne were compelled to appear before the grand jury to give testimony, she would respectfully assert her 5th Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.’
“On April 15, 2019, Mr. Sapone sent a letter to the government stating that Clyne was ‘asserting her act of production privilege with respect to the documents and other materials sought by the April 9, 2019 grand jury subpoena’ and requested that the government seek formal act-of- production immunity from the Court.
“Mr. Sapone noted that he and Clyne were in the process of ‘collecting and logging documents and other materials responsive to the subpoena’ and that Clyne may seek to raise ‘additional potential 5th Amendment arguments’ in response to the subpoena. Ultimately, the government did not seek an order of statutory act-of-production immunity for Clyne and did not obtain the subpoenaed records.”
***
This is astonishing in itself. In 2019, the government claims it had information that Sapone had possession of some or all of the collateral. They had the power to subpoena it but never did subpoena it. How could that be?
It is now late 2021, and they have never made an effort to get the collateral from Sapone.
Why?
Probably because they know Sapone never had any collateral.
The government wrote, arguing against Raniere’s Rule 33 motion, “The government has not ‘press[ed]’ Mr. Sapone for these materials not because it used the subpoena to ‘instill’ a ‘sense of fear’ in Clyne… but because the government did not seek or obtain permission to petition the Court for statutory act-of-production immunity.”
Why not?
The government has professed a keen desire to obtain the collateral.
The sum total of their evidence that Clyne’s attorney has the collateral comes from India, who was in danger of being indicted. She told the government that Nicki told her to collect the collateral. This is very likely true. But what happened to it, as we shall see, is that it did not go to Sapone.
The government had the opportunity to subpoena the collateral from Sapone if it truly believed that the collateral was in Clyne’s attorney’s possession and they truly wanted the collateral destroyed or returned to the victims.
Raniere Says He Knows Nothing About the Collateral
Keith Raniere was sentenced on October 27, 2020 to 120 years in prison. On July 20, 2021, a restitution hearing was held at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn. AUSA Tanya Hajjar appeared for the government. Marc Fernich and Jeff Lichtman appeared for the defendant, Raniere, who also appeared by videoconference.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis was presiding.
The hearing was held so that the judge could determine the sum of money each victim of Raniere was to receive. Most of the 21 victims were DOS members who had given collateral.
During the hearing, the issue of collateral loomed large.
It began with a discussion over whether the judge can order Raniere to return the collateral.
MS. HAJJAR: … With respect to…. the Defendant’s objection to your Honor’s ability to order the return of collateral… because such an order would violate the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the Government notes that the MVRA [Mandatory Restitution to Victims Act] explicitly provides that the Court may issue such an order…. [citing the USA v Mitchell] the Supreme Court concluded that that defendant retained her privilege against compelled self-incrimination, but the Court went on to conclude that where there can be no further incrimination – in other words, in cases in which the sentence has been fixed and the judgment of conviction has become final, such as this one – the [5th Amendment] privilege no longer attaches and there are no adverse consequences that can be visited upon the convicted person by reason of further testimony.
So, here, your Honor, the sentence has been fixed, the judgment of conviction is final. The Court is authorized by the relevant statute here to require Mr. Raniere to return or destroy collateral. And the Government submits that that’s appropriate.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. HAJJAR: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me hear from the defense.
MR. FERNICH:… I’d suggest to the Court that my friend [Tanya Hajjar] is reading the [Mitchell] case right but misinterpreting the meaning of “finality,” which typically, in our field, is at the conclusion of direct appeal.
And that’s — the particular passage that my friend is referring to is 526 U.S. — it looks like at 326, and says that the possibility of incrimination exists in cases — it only disappears in cases in which the sentence has been fixed and the judgment of conviction has become final. Finality — and it cites to the Reina case in 1960, “finality” means at the conclusion of direct appellate proceedings to the U.S. Supreme Court…. my suggestion was as follows: To table this, this issue. And in the event that the conviction does become final, we could joint issue on that at that point….
I’ve not consulted with Mr. Raniere about this, but plainly the concern is, right, under the act of production issue, we have victim statements saying they don’t know where the collateral is, they don’t know its location, they don’t know its custody or control. I don’t believe the Government can establish that it’s a foregone conclusion that the Government knows who has custody or control or authenticity, or even the continued existence of this collateral.
So, there are active production implications here. And those implications could theoretically extend to other crimes, even beyond what’s been charged here, depending upon the disposition of the collateral.
So, under Hoffman, it’s a link in the chain, potentially. And my respectful proposal is that this particular issue, the issue of the identification, production, and disgorgement — there’s another word I put in the papers that I forgot, identifying the location, marshaling the assets, and telling the Government where they are, that this await the potential finality of the conviction.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. Before I proceed with reaching some conclusions here regarding restitution, is there anything, Mr. Raniere, that you want to say on the subject of the issue of mandatory restitution to the victims of the offenses for which you were found guilty by a jury?
RANIERE: I don’t understand enough of the law and the constraints to make an intelligent response to that. I would need to speak to my attorneys to understand that. I would like to make a note that I have never handled the collateral, do not know anything about it, do not have it. So, I’m not quite sure also the consequences of that.
MR. FERNICH: Judge, if he’s going to make statements like this, could we have an arrangement to consult with him before he continues? I don’t want him just extemporizing about this stuff on the record in a public court proceeding.
RANIERE: I’ll remain silent.
***
Stay tuned for Part #3.
Speaking of Part Two: What happened with The Vow Part Two?
Who the heck is Jack Levy ?
Also, didn’t Nicki Clyne claim some collateral somehow mysteriously wound up on her phone, too?
Stop calling it “Collateral”.
It is blackmail pure and simple.
Could you go into a bank and secure a home loan using nude pictures and videos?
EXACTLY!!!
“The letter advised that, among other things: Nicole Clyne’s act of producing documents pursuant to the subpoena will be not used against her by the Office in any subsequent federal criminal proceeding, except that her act of producing those documents could be used against her in a prosecution for obstruction of justice if she intentionally takes any criminal actions with respect to the production (including, but not limited to, altering documents or intentionally withholding documents).
Has a NXIVM loyalist altered or tampered with this evidence?
Pyriel:
Look for NXIVM members who frequently travel to Mexico and might serve as couriers.
“MR. FERNICH: Judge, if he’s going to make statements like this, could we have an arrangement to consult with him before he continues? I don’t want him just extemporizing about this stuff on the record in a public court proceeding.”
What is Mr. Fernich trying to say here? Did he cotton on fast to the fact the KR is a windbag ‘extemporizing’ at the first opportunity and inadvertently incriminating himself?
Was Mr. F. at the receiving end of such ‘extemporizing’ in his dealings with his client? He can count himself lucky, if he was, as he could charge by the hour but, oh wait … he might not have been paid, hence why he quit. Having to listen to KR’s waffle without being paid for it is adding insult to injury.
The government’s memorandum to the article 33 motion (link in the text) contains lots of information.
For instance, that Hachette was directed by Mack to seduce Keith, just after Hachette was enrolment in DOS.
KRC, I’m starting to get the impression that you want us all to “Read more carefully because Frank has just dropped a major piece of previously unknown info in this post.”
But I’m not sure.
Can you please clarify?
Asking for a friend…
[…] Part 2 Where Is the Collateral? Raniere Claims He Doesn’t Know Where It Is — Neither Does the Governmen… […]
For all the talk of “hard drives”, remind people that most of the collateral were pictures taken on older phones, some sound, documents and a few videos. We are likely talking less than 5 GB of data or enough for a free Dropbox account or any $5 thumb drive. That can still represent thousands of files but the main takeaway is hiding the data, keeping copies of the data, etc. would border on effortless.
So while this series gets dragged out, just keep in mind that likely part of the reason the government didn’t pursue anything regarding the collateral is without something absolutely concrete, almost as specific as “person X has Y device located at Z” via confession from say, Clyne, they would have had difficulty trying to get a subpoena that would allow them to start searching belongings, computer files, online accounts or any drive they found. Lawyers being especially sticky area due to privilege (subpoena would have to be laser-focused to get signed off on). Net result is aggressively pursuing the collateral would have been fruitless without concrete information pointing to a specific owner of it.
Making things even stickier is it’s not known if mixed in those files was the pictures of Camilla as a minor. Even if someone wanted to come forward with the data, they would, in effect, be confessing to ownership of child pornography even if ignorant of the contents. Doing that for no reason when secrecy would do the job would just be flat-out stupid.
At this point, the data only exists if it’s still in Raniere’s hands in some form or fashion or if he specifically ordered one of his acolytes (say Clyne) to not destroy it. Considering how dumb Raniere has proven to be, both of these are real possibilities. Of note is the fact thumb drives and other physical storage decay over time (10 or so generally), so by the time Raniere has any chance to get out of jail to enjoy the material, good chance it will be gone due to ravages of time. Unless he used cloud services to store it. Then, it could last for a very long time (zip, encrypt, password protect it) and could stay in the cloud for decades if business remains open (likely if dropbox, onedrive or google drive) and file size small enough for a free account. I am less inclined to think this is possible because it would concede control to third parties and I doubt he could have resisted trying to access the data in the last 3 years.
More than likely, the data has been destroyed, and if not, the person is foolish for not destroying it. To me, the person that had it would be idiotic to admit they a) had it and b) destroyed it. Such information would still be considered a confession of child pornography (even if unable to prove since data destroyed) and definitely up for felony charges of destroying evidence, interfering with a federal investigation, possibly lying to investigators, and whatever else the prosecutor decides to be creative about.
I hit send too soon. My money is on “the vault” being in Rosa Laura. It was the safe in her house in Albany and presumably she took whatever was in it to Mexico and she may or may not have its contents now.
LAUREN: I kept it for a period of time and then — but the — the intent was that it would be held by someone who was in charge of securing the collateral, which was Rosa Laura, so eventually I transferred most of it to Rosa Laura either in person or on a locked hard drive and then at one point my hard drive was given back to me and the last I saw it was in Mexico. I had it last in Mexico with — after Keith was arrested and then I came back to the States without it.
THE COURT: How did you end up having a hard copy of it on paper?
THE WITNESS: Went to Rosa Laura.
THE COURT: And to your knowledge where did she keep it?
THE WITNESS: In her safe, but then I don’t know what she did with it after that.
THE COURT: The safe —
THE WITNESS: In her home.
THE COURT: — in Albany?
THE WITNESS: Yes, in Albany was, understanding, but then at some point she left Albany, went back to Mexico, so I don’t know if she took it with her or where it ended up.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I think the intent was that it would be secure so that nobody would know where it was, so that it wouldn’t be released.
THE COURT: Or who had it?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. HAJJAR: Thank you, Your Honor.
I’m not sure where the “vault” is, but I think I can make guesses on a lot of the other questions about the collateral based on the trial transcripts.
Keith asked them to edit Sarah’s branding video with the potential to release it to the media. This was done by Lauren and Nicki.
Lauren: We discussed among first-line DOS masters and Keith the idea of possibly releasing the branding video or showing it to — Keith was debating whether we should show it to possibly reporters or release it publicly to discredit from the allegations that were being made concerning what took place during the branding ceremony.
Q Were there discussions about editing the video?
A Yes.
Q Can you explain those?
A Yes. We edited out the — Keith said that he was considering whether we should show it to the media reporters or release it publicly. And I asked, What about, like, all of it, all the dialogue back and forth? And he said, Well, that part could be edited out and the — it could be blurred. The nudity parts of it could be blurred, and so he instructed us to do that. And in the fall of 2017, so like around September, Nicki and I did that. We edited out the dialogue portions of the branding ceremony from Sarah’s branding video specifically.
Later, Lauren testifies: “Sarah’s branding I left on a hard drive in Mexico.”
Lauren also testifies that Rosa Laura was broadly in charge of collateral:
A. Like, the collateral craft — Rosa Laura was head of the collateral craft, so, like, the committee that dealt with collateral, so she was responsible for reviewing and cataloging and storing and rating the effectiveness or legitimacy of each of the collaterals.
The prosecution asks her:
Q. Do you know where those videos are now?
A. I don’t. I assume they’re either with the top of the DOS masters or with Rosa Laura, who held all the collateral, as mine were with me, which is why I said that.
Lauren testifies that Nicki was helping Raniere transfer collateral via email prior to leaving for Mexico.
Q. Before the defendant left for Mexico that second time, did you have an opportunity to observe him?
A I did, yes. […]
Q. Was there anything else that he did with respect to his electronic devices at that time?
A Yes. He had Nicki forward him from one e-mail account to another e-mail account a number of naked pictures and collaterals.
Q Which account to which account?
A I had heard from Nicki that there was an account that — she called it the Stevie account. I’m not sure of the address on it, but that’s what she referred to it as. And she forwarded them from that account to Keith’s Yahoo! mail account. She was sharing this because she was concerned about it because she felt it was a breach of security, and the idea had always been those things really need to be locked down and not made public. But he instructed her to do it and she did it.
Lauren testifies that she left a hard drive in Mexico with Nicki, which Nicki then left with Jack Levy, plus additional materials left with Rosa Laura.
Q. Ms. Salzman, you testified that at some point in the fall of 2017 there were efforts to aggregate DOS related materials?
A Yes, correct.
Q The original copies of physical collateral and DOS materials, do you know where those are?
A I don’t, no. I had some materials, some collaterals on a hard drive that I left in Mexico with Nicki Clyne that I believe she left with Jack Levy and that I’ve requested have back and have not been returned to me. There were additional materials, collateral that I gave to Rosa Laura that I don’t know what she did with, and I am not sure if all the DOS masters gave their collateral and materials to Rosa Laura or they have them themselves somewhere or what happened to them when they left Albany. […]
Q.Did Jack Levy at any point acknowledge that he had your electronic devices?
A At one point in time he did or at least had access to them. And you had made a request through your lawyers for the return of this material?
A Yes, correct.
Q Have you received these devices back?
A I have not, no.
So my money is on Jack Levy and Rosa Laura Junco having the collateral, although honorable mention should be given to Nicki.
Rose Laura Junco is in Mexico and she is NOT coming back to the United States.
I’m not sure how I stumbled across this other than following the trail of breadcrumbs looking into Richard Mays Jr.’s wife that just so happens to be running for Arkansas governor. But, after reading this, the two obvious things that stick out to me is the timeline is huge and the other email, the Steve account …?
Although the collateral was possibly on old phones. I’m intrigued and want to keep digging. The only fear is this all ties back to the Clintons and that’s reason enough for me to know why Cline had Mr. Sapone enter a plea to the 5th for her. She’s scared of being suicided.
The defense attorney calling the assistant DA his “friend” in a court proceeding, is that how they normally adres each other? It comes across as very disrespectful.
Little tip to Nicki Clyne. This also applies to anyone who keeps the blackmail material, even if it’s an attorney. Possession of child pornography is a crime, and Camila’s so-called collateral likely contains pornographic material of a minor. If found, they are likely to go to prison for up to 10 years.
Hot air. Or just a lukewarm breeze. Nothing enlightening and nothing I don’t already know. You don’t miss anything if you don’t read the article.
Read more carefully because Frank has just dropped a major piece of previously unknown info in this post.
If Nicki Clyne’s lawyer didn’t get it from Nicki Clyne, then Nicki Clyne never turned it over to her lawyer. And that means that it is Nicki Clyne who has the blackmail material and has it under her control. Is that supposed to be a new finding. I don’t think it is. That’s an old finding. If Sapone has sifted through the material and cataloged it, but it is not under his control, then it is Nicki Clyne where to find it, if she still has it.
Prior to this post, what information did you have that caused you to believe that Nicki Clyne’s attorney did not have the collateral?
I’d just suspect by common that either Nicki or the lawyer had it. It’s very obvious she has something to do with it and/or at the very least has knowledge of it’s location. It’s not that hard to defer. But I don’t want to be lead on. Just give us the answer for certain already!
I don’t have the answer. But I agree with your sense that Nicki was involved with the collateral in the past – and I would not be shocked if she’s the one who ended up with it. And just like you (and everyone else who reads Frank Report), I’m very interested in finding out who does have it.
BTW, when I read about Nicki ordering all the other First-Line slaves to download all their collateral onto “hard drives” and give them to her, I assume that she really meant “thumb drives” or some similar data storage device. I’ve often wondered the same thing about the “hard drive” that the FBI seized from Keith’s library.
So, Frank tells us the collateral did not go to Sapone.
Did India not hand it over to Clyne, as she purportedly told the Feds?
Is Frank’s conclusion that India was lying to the Feds when she said she handed over the collateral to Clyne and Clyne handed it over to Sapone?
First, India knows if she has given the drives with collateral to Clyne or not, but she can’t know if Clyne passed it through to Sapone. Clyne might have told her she did.
My take on this is that Frank thinks India was lying and, thus, India is in possession of the collateral. A bombshell indeed. However, there may be other reasons for the government not to ask the court for immunity (for Clyne) that Frank has no knowledge of. So let’s not draw conclusions too quickly.
KR, this is speculation on my part, but is it possible Nicki collected this material to attempt to protect Keith, but once she saw he was going to jail changed her mind and decided to protect herself?
They better get that collateral back to the women ASAP.
I don’t want to hear any more about Brian Booth, Suneel, or Marc until all of that collateral is returned.
I think most will agree…
Frank,
Stop teasing us! Reveal the “scoundrel” who took and stop playing games! I thought that you’d reveal it in this post, but you just said a whole bunch of shit that we already know! Give us the name and do your obligation as a the press and stop teasing!
Fuck these people! Stop “giving them time” to destroy it or hand it over! Flush these mother-fuckers out! NOW!
Exactly there’s nothing in here at all that isn’t already out there and public knowledge
This actually reads like a revisit of old information with the hopes of putting the new spin on it
Read more carefully because Frank has just dropped a major piece of previously unknown info in this post.
Read more carefully because Frank has just dropped a major piece of previously unknown info in this post.
I think I might have caught that, KR. I’ll have to wait and see though, to be sure. Suffice it to say, I’m definitely very interested in this mysterious collateral … this story almost reads like fiction … its all just so crazy!
I believe I might have caught it too. If so, it might put certain books and docuseries into context.
Nancy will know.