Thanks to our good friend, Allen ‘Alanzo’ Stanfield, who unearthed Moira Penza’s exact quote relative to the “storming of the office.”

In yesterday’s post, Exclusive Footage of Raniere Supporters ‘Storming’ Penza’s Office, we reviewed videos of the ‘storming’ of Penza’s office by staunch followers of Keith Raniere.

Let us now review what Penza said in an interview with Anthony ‘Nippy’ Ames and Sarah Edmondson on their lovely podcast, “A Little Bit Culty.”

Clip of Moira Penza on November 22, 2021 on “A Little Bit Culty“:

It Was Frightening

Here is the audio, where one can hear Ms. Penza’s voice as she describes her concern when the supporters of Raniere showed up.

“Anthony Ames 45:16:
Okay, here’s one and it doesn’t chap my ass because it’s not offensive. It’s funny. The day or the week of Keith’s sentencing. I guess the group is https://MakeJusticeBlind.com, or whatever it is. They give an affidavit to the judge to sign right before the sentencing of Keith Raniere under the assumption that justice isn’t blind, it just seems to me like ‘Way to insult the people who are about to decide your fate!”. In a lot of ways. I wonder what that’s like for you and then they go to your office?’

Moira Penza 45:49:
“They did go to my office. And that was frightening.”

Anthony Ames 45:52:
“It is a little bit frightening because you’re dealing with people that are unstable. I totally agree. Sorry…”

Moira Penza 45:58:
“I wasn’t actually at my office that day. My law firm has a DC office and a New York office. And so I actually wasn’t at the New York office that day, but it was frightening that they would come to my work. And you know, these are people who I did believe were in touch with Keith Raniere, who I did believe were acting at his behest, and who I believe, you know, I have no idea why they were there.”

“And so that was startling and I immediately did contact Keith Raniere’s lawyer and made clear that if anything like that were to happen again that I would take additional steps to protect myself. But you know, thankfully, there’s been nothing since then. But you know, the whole thing was just total nonsense.”

“I mean, my integrity has been on the line since day one, right? I’m an officer of the court. Everything I do is with the knowledge that I am there as a representative of the government. You know, my entire mission, the whole reason I’m doing that job is to seek justice. And so, you know, really, it’s just so pathetic to think that you know, you’re going to come in and try and impugn my integrity when you’re standing up for this person who has literally committed these heinous crimes. Who has lied over and over and over again, and, you know, in demonstrable ways, you know, it just really isn’t worth a lot of energy.

***

Alanzo’s Comment on Penza

Alanzo’s comment suggests he thinks it wasn’t as frightening an experience as Moira suggests.

In fact, he went so far as to say that Penza is a “drama llama.”

Frank Report has been able to obtain more exclusive video of the day they stormed Penza’s office, and, on the same day, they stormed the DOJ offices in Brooklyn.

Granted, most of the so-called “Dead-Enders” were wearing masks, which added possibly to the fear factor. But, at that time, [September 2020] even as it is now in vogue, it was pandemic mask, not a bank robber or terrorist mask.

Although it should be noted that on front of their masks was printed the word ‘Silenced’.

What was the reason for the word ‘Silenced’ on their mask?

According to Eduardo Asunsolo, the reason for the word ‘Silenced’…”was to express how anyone who countered the government’s narrative was terrorized into silence.”

***

Who’s the Terrorist?

Just how terrifying were/are the supporters of Raniere?

Penza suggests she was frightened because she knew we were in touch with Raniere.

Followers of cult leaders, such as Raniere is alleged to be, can do some pretty damn crazy things.

Penza was, in a sense, evoking some of the following in her concern and maybe she is right:

***

More Footage of the Storming

Frank Report obtained more exclusive video to show the mood of Raniere followers on that fateful day they stormed Penza’s office and the DOJ.

I’ll leave it to the viewer to judge how menacing they appear.

In fairness, Penza was not at her NYC office at the time. Instead, she was several hundred miles away in Washington, DC.

She probably got a phone call from her NYC office saying some followers of Raniere were there with cameras seeking entry to present some document to her.

Her imagination may have made more of the incident than perhaps it really was. Still, no one likes to be surprised by a group of people uninvited with a cameraman, a sound guy, and a producer in tow.

***

What Was the Purpose of the Visit Anyway?

Raniere supporters brought an affidavit to be signed, something they wanted Penza to sign.

It was a questionnaire where they wanted Penza, the lead prosecutor, now in private practice as a lawyer, to swear concerning her purpose, intent, and process in prosecuting Raniere.

Let’s look at the affidavit, they asked Penza to sign.

[My comments are in brackets and in bold]

***

Affidavit

[Here is the intro:]

We the Prosecutors of the United States vs. Raniere et al, specifically Richard Donoghue, Mark Lesko, Tanya Hajjar, Moira Kim Penza, and Seth DuCharme, in upholding our vow of office, and sacred duty to the people of the United States, do hereby affirm and personally initial all that are true with respect to this case (if any of these are denied, please initial, write “denied” next to your initials and, optionally, attach an explanation):

1. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make any false or misleading statements to the public or media. RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[What the Raniere supporters are suggesting with their opening statement is that the prosecutors did try to taint the jury, and the judge by slanting the truth. That they made attempts to “dirty him [Raniere] up.” The whole affidavit is kind of reverse psychology, suggesting that everything they are asked to sign is what they indeed allegedly did.]

2. We the Prosecutors did not knowingly make, or allow any federal agents to make, any false statements to the court.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[Again, clearly intimation that the Raniere followers believe the opposite is true: i.e., that federal agents made false statements.  I think that the big false statement they have been alleging is that the Cami photos were doctored, tampered, falsely dated, or obtained, or illegally presented. If this is true, their argument would be that naturally they won’t sign the affidavit. It is good as far as it goes, but as we shall see ,there could be other reasons not to sign the affidavit, such as it would be one hell of a precedent.]

3. We the Prosecutors handled all potential witnesses properly. No witness was in any way intentionally challenged to augment or change his or her opinions or beliefs by us.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[Probably no prosecutor in the world could ever sign such a statement since prosecutors always either intimidate, coach, and help witnesses shift narratives to comport with the prosecution’s theory. When defense lawyers have access to witnesses, they do approximately the same thing. The advantage that prosecutors have is they have force of law, intimidation and potentially the ability to charge witnesses with perjury, which exerts a subtle influence on witnesses to please the prosecution. Every prosecutor knows this and uses it in their favor, most hopefully, just this side of suborning perjury and any prosecutor who denies they understand that advantage is an untrustworthy liar.

Both Nicki Clyne and Michele Hatchette signed affidavits, somewhat exaggerated in my opinion, saying they were intimidated into not testifying. Other Raniere supporters alleged that Nicole, the sex trafficking victim, Daniela, the lass kept in the room, and other witnesses were encouraged to fictionalize testimony.

The point that Raniere supporters are making here is that everything they’re asking prosecutors to sign, they believe they cannot sign.]

4. We the Prosecutors never threatened any potential witness with indictment in an attempt to dissuade him or her from participating in, or supporting, the defense.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[We heard from Danielle Roberts, Nicki Clyne, Marc Elliot, and Michele Hatchette that they felt they were threatened with being indicted if they did testify. Others wanted to testify but were afraid if they did, that they would be charged with RICO.]

5. We the Prosecutors either had no reason to suspect collusion or hidden financial motives amongst our witnesses, or we made sure our suspicions were properly investigated. We did not object to any evidence, including cross- examination, that might realistically show collusion amongst our witnesses.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[Again, this is something that supporters of Raniere say DID NOT happen. They believe that Nicole and Daniela lied about not having intentions to join in a civil suit with Neil Glazer, which they did wind up joining.

***

Nicole’s Testimony from the trial  of Raniere, 6/10/19

AGNIFILO: And your lawyer, Mr. Glazer is here today, right? He is the gentleman, my colleague here to my left, right?

NICOLE: Yes.

AGNIFILO: Are you intending to bring a civil suit?

NICOLE: No.

AGNIFILO: No?

NICOLE: No.

AGNIFILO: You have no intention of bringing a civil suit?

NICOLE: Like me, personally?

AGNIFILO: You and other people.

NICOLE: Not me, personally.

AGNIFILO: Do you intend to be part of a class-action lawsuit?

NICOLE: No.

AGNIFILO: I’m not — I am going to ask you the question, I’m not asking you for anything that you and Mr. Glazer discussed, okay, so when I ask you this question, it is not conversations between you and Mr. Glazer, okay?

NICOLE: Okay.

AGNIFILO: Have you discussed with anybody else the prospect of bringing a class-action lawsuit against NXIVM?

NICOLE: No.

***

Daniela’s Testimony from the Trial, 5/30/19

AGNIFILO: Because you are going to bring a civil lawsuit, aren’t you?

DANIELA: No.

AGNIFILO: You have no intention of bringing a civil lawsuit against Keith Raniere or NXTVM or anyone else?

DANIELA: That’s not something that I have done or decided, no.

AGNIFILO: I know you haven’t done it, but you plan on doing it, don’t you?

DANIELA: No.

AGNIFILO: Why do you have Neil Glazer as your lawyer?

DANIELA: I initially — I needed counsel to handle the precarious situation with my little sister Camila and after that, I needed counsel to interact with officials from the government.

AGNIFILO: Mr. Glazer is not a criminal lawyer, right?

DANIELA: I don’t know.

Raniere later filed a Rule 33 motion seeking a new trial based on the fact that Daniela and Nicole subsequently joined the Glazer civil suit. Judge Nicholas Garaufis denied the motion.

Whether or not Daniela and Nicole discussed or planned to join the civil suit prior to the trial is an interesting question, and probably could be proven one way or the other.]

6. We the Prosecutors have stated in open court we have victims who feared for their lives. We made sure that these representations were properly investigated and, in each case, we discovered that there were legitimate threats to the life of the witness.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[This is another question the supporters of Raniere felt they knew the prosecutors would not – or could not- sign, as there might be more than a little exaggeration here.

***

Fear Factor

During the Criminal Cause For Status Conference on June 12, 2018, Moira Kim Penza said, “There is a real danger to witnesses, to victims if the defendant is released,” and, “people are truly petrified of the defendant.”

May 15, 2019, trial

Vicente [testifying] “So I realized my life could be in physical danger, my wife’s life, my mother’s life. Because they were, you know, in some way they were like terror cells.”

Cross examination

Agnifilo: “You brought a film crew with you to Vermont?”

Vicente: “I actually asked because I was afraid for my life; I wanted to some kind of protection.”]

7. We the Prosecutors did not allow any of our witnesses to commit perjury about events and/or evidence known to, or possessed, by us.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[The followers of Raniere believe witnesses committed perjury and the Government supported, maybe suborned it. They’ve been unable to prove this at all thus far.]

8. We the Prosecutors have never tampered with evidence. All evidence presented had a well-documented chain of custody, with no gaps. All evidence was secure and there were no unrecorded accesses. No evidence presented was modified before or during forensic analysis.

RD: ____ ML: ____ TH: ____ MKP: ____ SD: ____

[This is reference to the Cami photographs.

It’s obvious the followers of Raniere didn’t believe prosecutors would sign this affidavit, and this was for show.

They also believed that the fact prosecutors would not sign it would somehow prove their points – that everything they did not sign meant they did it.

Obviously, the prosecutors didn’t sign the document. They could easily justify not signing for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they’re not required to sign affidavits of supporters of a convicted person.  Was this a quixotic gesture on behalf of followers, or did it have a point?]

***

Scary Raniere

Finally, a video submitted by Suneel Chakravorty that he says is a visual representation of the terror Mark Vicente allegedly experienced from scary Raniere.

“Vicente in the video is depicted as the fair-haired child. Raniere is the dark haired, scary creature in the cage,” Suneel said.

While Frank Report objects to this trivialization of Vicente’s fear, in the spirit of presenting all sides of an issue, we present this video as the clear attempt on Chakravorty’s part to minimize the fear that Vicente experienced during the harrowing time Raniere was after anyone who stood against him.

Maybe this video says as much about Chakravorty as it does about Raniere or Vicente.

Frank Parlato