By K. R. Claviger
Although Frank is going to be doing his own response to each of Suneel Chakravorty’s posts concerning the trial of Keith Raniere, I cannot allow some parts of what Suneel has included in his first post Suneel: Only a Gullible Fool Can Ignore the Cami Tampering Evidence: Part 1 -Why Didn’t FBI Agents Find the Cami Photos Sooner? to pass by without some comment.
In this regard, however, I will limit my comments to legal-related issues in order to avoid, as much as possible, any overlap with Frank’s response.
First, every delay in Keith Raniere’s trial was approved by his lawyers – and presumably by Keith himself. That’s because there was so much evidence involved in the case that both sides needed extra time to prepare for the trial.
Second, non-specific claims are meaningless. Thus, claiming that Keith was “denied due process” without identifying the specific actions, inactions, or decisions behind that claim has no merit whatsoever. In this regard, the term “denied due process” is not some magical phrase with infinite possible meanings.
On the contrary, that term is inextricably bound to the specific rules, statutes and case law that determine what specific “due process” is due in any specific circumstance – and what constitutes a violation of that constitutional right.
Third, asserting that something is possible is not the same as providing evidence that the something actually happened. Thus, asserting that one or more witnesses in Keith’s trial may have lied is totally meaningless. In order to make a valid point with respect to this matter, Suneel would need to provide compelling evidence that a specific witness lied about one or more specific issues – and that the lie(s) in question had a direct impact on the jury’s verdict.
Fourth, even if Suneel’s assertion that Keith’s lawyers should have done more than they did were true, that has nothing to do with due process. The reality is that Keith had an exceptionally good defense team – and that they were not constrained in terms of cross-examining prosecution witnesses, nor prevented from calling whatever defense witnesses they wanted to call to testify on Keith’s behalf. And, once again, Suneel has failed to provide any specifics in terms of what Keith’s lawyers should have done – or should not have done – during the course of the trial.
Fifth, Suneel’s assertion that Judge Nicholas Garaufis erred during the trial “…for not intervening to some degree and overlooking substantial procedural errors” indicates that he does not truly understand the role of a judge who is overseeing a criminal trial. In addition, Suneel, once again, failed to provide any specifics as to what exactly these alleged errors were.
I could go on and on in terms of other legal principles that Suneel either doesn’t understand or decided to ignore in his post – but I will hold off doing so until Frank has had a chance to post his full response.
In closing, let me just say that wishing our criminal justice system worked differently is not the same as proving that specific errors were made with respect to a case that didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to turn out.
We wish her was acquirer because he is innocent. Weep not for vanguard but for your criminal justice system. It’s wrong and it’s evil and you should be more fearful of that than Vanguard.
Pea Onyu- I weep for you, for love is blind, and you have been blinded by Keith’s love. It happens. It is hard to comprehend when someone treats us so well, that others may have a drastically different experience.
You may be blind, but the neighbors and the court system are not. I wish you peace of mind when your heart is finally able to comprehend all the horrific, reckless damage that Keith left in his wake for decades. Where there is smoke, there is fire my friend. Your heart may love him unconditionally, but your intelligent mind has got to know that Keith needed to be stopped before he did any further damage.
Peace to you.
Pea is most likely a troll.
K.R. Claviger has explained the law and legal procedure as it pertains to the Keith Raniere criminal trial dozens of times.
Suneel is either too arrogant or delusional to listen. There is absolutely no doubt that Suneel understands the legal concepts at play in Raniere’s criminal case.
It’s been 2 years and Suneel still makes the same arguments and only one outsider, who happens to be a deranged cult-chunky, agrees.
Suneel is no different than a man who flaps his arms every day and expects at some point to fly — Suneel is delusional.
Good luck, Suneel!
What does Suneel fear more: NASA or Alanzo?
Both want to keep Suneel captive and rigorously examine his body.
I saw a flying pig today. I have no evidence but it is true!
That was Alonzo flying!
Upon, consuming a box of RingDings®️ Alonzo gains the power of flight.
Tom Welling jokes about Allison’s lack of availability.
Thanks for the link. I’m actually glad Welling and Durance are making jokes at Mack’s expense. That bitch was actively trying to recruit on set, trying to lure her co-workers and supposed friends into Raniere’s web. It was unconscionable. Decent human beings don’t pull shit like that.
Welling has got both feet on the ground. I’ve heard him on a couple of podcasts and he seems like a sensible, regular guy. He’s not a Hollywood airhead like Mack, Kreuk, or India Oxenberg. Durance had a hard-knocks working class upbringing, has some common sense, and never went near Nxivm.
Observe the type who join cults, and the type that doesn’t. It ain’t rocket science. Air headed fools, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, perennial spoiled brats without a lick of common sense are suckers for this demented perverted shit. Them, and the just plain stupid and immoral.
Anyway, good to know a national magazine like Us is keeping Mack’s humiliation in the public eye. Ensures she’ll never have a job that pays above minimum wage once she’s out of prison. Be a chance for her to learn some humility. She said she’s sorry, and sorry-ass she’s going to be.
I can’t see Kreuk like Mack or India, i.e., as an “airhead”. Kreuk left in 2013 and didn’t get anywhere near involved with DOS. She didn’t move to Clifton Park, and had at least the common sense to never give up control of her money or her career for NXIVM. She also stayed physically away from Raniere.
She joined because she was a naive actor with no higher education, trusted her boyfriend at the time who she is no longer with about its alleged professional services, and stayed for the relationships she made. The fact that she left before shit hit the fan means she was still functioning intellectually. If anything, I think she gave NXIVM too much credence because we sometimes lose our objectivity when it comes to relationships, and she’s sometimes too nice and agreeable.
Not sure you should be so quick to gloat and revel in what you hope will be Mack’s future as she will probably earn more money selling her story than Tom Welling and Erica Durance are earning on their current trajectories.
And that’s not true that Durance “never went near NXIVM.” She may lie about it if anyone ever asks her. Just like she lied on Rosenbaum’s podcast about The Howard Stern show and her nudist parties.
And I guess you could call Tom Welling a regular non-Hollywood guy if a regular guy to you is one with some alcohol, drug and anger/attitude issues — which, if you believe those who worked up there, are just some of the reasons he and Durance wanted nothing to do with each other after the show ended and why he left that Vancouver set friendless.
Of course, now both Durance and Welling are desperate enough so they play nice knowing they can milk those sad, warped aging Smallville groupies for all the dollars they can. Maybe not a scam in the NXIVM sense but still selling of something fake to delusional suckers.
— Mack’s future as she will probably earn more money selling her story than Tom Welling and Erica Durance are earning on their current trajectories.
I feel sorry for how Mack’s life turned, but I doubt anyone is going to care, nor want to read about how a naive, desperate for validation actress, fell for a conman almost twice her age, gave up a relatively lucrative acting career, lost most of her money, and turned into — to put it mildly — a deceptive, blackmailing, sex-cult recruiting, arse.
My favorite part is when the cohost is even laughing and chimes in. They must be disgusted after looking at Allison Mack’s roll. Mack blackmailed women into having sex with Raniere, which is tantamount to being raped. Freewill doesn’t exist when blackmail is involved.
Shadow is too busy with the Trump app to add his two cents.
Hmm, sounds like Claviger’s points directly apply to the “stop the steal” MAGA crowd.
I’m with Suneel. Nobody understands him. Next to Keith, he is the smartest in NXIVM
Pea, did Suneel “help” you in the bathroom like he did Clare? Tell the truth now.
Claviger is wasting time trying to make Suneel grasp the concept that wishful thinking and opinions have no bearing on the law, however flawed the justice system may be. Hard evidence and specifics and how they relate to the case is what matters. The fact that a witness might have lied about what they had for breakfast is irrelevant (unless you are trying a substance abuse case, possibly).
Suneel is of the generation who was brought up to believe that MY truth is the truth, MY opinion is as valid as a judge’s (without having access to all the info), MY viewpoint is what matters, and MY voice should be heard, however much bs (bovine excretion) I spout, because MY bs (belief system) makes me automatically right, so who are you to ask me for hard evidence. If you doubt ME, even on the basis of good evidence, you’re a hater. Objectivity is seen as a threat to their very identity.
In SC’s case it looks like a sad combination of KR’s indoctrination and the educational/cultural system that has flipped from hard-headed (sometimes too much so) to touchy-feely, MY feelings and MY truth is all that matters.
No quick cure, I’m afraid.
Suneel Chakravorty hasn’t provided any proof of any kind.
Instead, he attempts to gaslight the Frank Report readers with what he believes should have, could have or would have happened if things in “Raniere’s World” were in proper alignment.
Chakravorty’s is an armchair legal investigator wannabe.
He makes believe in his fantasy world that he knows the law and how our court systems work.
If one has studied any of Raniere’s lawsuits, this magical thinking is the same way Raniere previously lost every one of his legal battles.
It seems Raniere is feeding Chakravorty information somehow. Suneel doesn’t have permission to talk to Raniere personally, but Chakravorty’s writings sound pretty much just like Raniere’s other rants with a little Chakravorty peppered into them.
Clare Bronfman’s attorney Duncan Levin gives online media ‘Insider’ interview.
NXIVM financier Clare Bronfman wants out of prison, saying in new court papers that she shouldn’t spend more time behind bars than “Smallville” actress Allison Mack.
Laura Italiano Feb 26, 2022, 12:30 AM
Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in April 2019. Prosecutors also accused her of procuring women for cult leader Keith Raniere.
Unlike Mack, “Ms. Bronfman never participated in DOS,” her lawyers argue in an appellate filing, referring to the cult’s secret sex slave sorority. DOS was an acronym for Dominus Obsequious Sororium, Latin for “master over slave women.”
Bronfman “knew nothing about it, and cannot in any legitimate way be said to be culpable for it,” the filing continued.
Bronfman, heiress to the multi-billion-dollar Seagram’s liquor fortune, is serving a 6 year, 9 month sentence for her role in the Albany-based cult.
That’s more time, even, than the five years federal prosecutors in Brooklyn requested. They said Bronfman spent at least $116 million of her fortune funding the cult and lawsuits against its enemies.
Mack, meanwhile, was sentenced last year to three years prison, less than half of Bronfman’s term.
In her appellate filing, Bronfman quotes Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who in sentencing Bronfman accused her of turning a blind eye to DOS and its humiliation and abuse of women.
“She maintains that she was an innocent bystander to Raniere’s abhorrent conduct,” the judge said at Bronfman’s sentencing.
“As I have said, I find that any such blindness was willful and cultivated,” the judge continued, saying Bronfman should serve as an example to those who “avert their gaze” from wrongdoing.
But the judge offered no evidence that Bronfman’s ignorance was willful, and also conceded that there was no evidence she directly participated in DOS, her filing argues.
“Clare Bronfman never knowingly funded a sex cult,” her attorney Duncan Levin told Insider. “And that is what the judge himself said at sentencing.”
Bronfman is “categorically against sex trafficking of any kind,” he added.
In contrast, Mack and co-defendant Lauren Salzman were “elbow-deep in DOS,” but were shown “extraordinary lenience,” Bronfman’s filing complains.
Salzman was a high-ranking NXIVM member who dodged a prison sentence entirely after testifying for the feds against Raniere.
Bronfman has asked a federal appellate court to vacate her old sentence and order she be resentenced.
Raniere is serving a term of life in prison after being convicted at trial of child sex trafficking and conspiracy. Despite the evidence against him — including the trial testimony of 15 women who were his victims — he has called his conviction “a horrible injustice.”
Claviger = a human with infinite reserves of patience. I wish I could be like that.
I’m always willing to discuss legal issues — and to try to explain them in layman’s terms. And I certainly don’t mind if it takes several explanations on my part before the other person/people understand(s).
I do, however, have limits — as witnessed by the fact that I stop trying to explain legal issues to anyone who is really not looking to understand — but rather to find someone who agrees with their viewpoint.
“… as witnessed by the fact… ”
Isn’t it true that you are not able to discuss legal issues that may expose a hole in the government’s case or conduct?
Isn’t that the reason you are so biased with your “legal expertise” here on the Frank Report?
What might be the consequence for you if you should end up criticizing the prosecution in this case?
“Isn’t it true that you are not able to discuss legal issues that may expose a hole in the government’s case or conduct?”
….And pray tell, Alanzo, why would that be?
Alanzo is crazier than Kayne West.
@K.R. Claviger: In reference to your generous offer to explain legal concepts to the layperson, could you please briefly explain the “one bite at the apple” principle with regard to criminal cases?
I fully understand the “double jeopardy” doctrine. But what’s to prevent a DA or other prosecutor from charging new violations after an indictment or superceding indictment has already been filed and tried? Say Defendant A has been tried, convicted, and sentenced on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
But later post-trial investigation reveals suspected violations of additional statutes not included in the original indictment or superceding indictment that could’ve potentially constituted counts 8 and 9. Is it automatically “game over”? I guess it’s a bit like “beating a dead horse,” but there must be examples of cases where new information came to light years after an original prosecution. Thank you for your contributions to FR.
The “one bite at the apple” principle is essentially the same as the concept of double jeopardy: i.e., once a jury has been impaneled, the accused cannot be tried for the same crimes they are being tried for in the current trial. Similarly, if the defendant took a plea deal, double jeopardy starts when the judge has accepted their plea.
Regardless of the outcome of a trial, defendants may generally be prosecuted for other crimes that were not part of the charges they faced at the trial (There are a few exceptions to that general rule but not enough to warrant a discussion right now). It is also possible that a defendant may face different charges in state court versus federal court for the same act (That is exactly what happened with regard to the four officers who were involved with the death of George Floyd).
Tell us then, Claviger: What is the role of a judge in overseeing a criminal trial?
With all your encyclopedic knowledge, you don’t need to list out all the roles and duties, just this one:
When a substantial procedural error has occurred – what is the role of a judge in a criminal trial?
The role of the judge is to say, “Hail Alanzo”. This is the sole purpose of the judge, to service the whims of his master, Jedi Alanzo.
Don’t answer him until he tells us why he had, “personal interactions” with Neil Glazer.
Please. People who won’t answer a simple question themselves deserve NO response.
People who post anonymously have no value.
People who make claims that they cannot answer for have no credibility.
People post anonymously so that you won’t stalk them like you did Neil Glazer.
Most people are like Claviger, and have lives and careers, and don’t want a mentally ill individual harassing them.
You and Scott Johnson, using Google, both attempted to find me. “Nice Guy” is actually attached to my name in a periodical.
Additionally, Scott and you tried to figure out who Claviger is.
Alonzo did you know it’s possible to do a search of Google searches?
I bet you didn’t. 😉
The same value as your blog?
Alanzo’s blog is almost as worthless as he is.
If you say so.
“Polar Bare Alonzo”
Once there was a man named Aloonzo
He look like a bear from a bathhouse zoo
This bear loved eating pastries,
and wore tasseled pasties
Poor, furry, chap die in a *Amish Igloo
*Amish Igloo is slang.
Reading through comments of current and recent past, it seems that folks are talking through each other’s points that only twist and convolute the issues at hand regarding judicial reform; duties of a judge; analysis of our current legal proceedings and requirements of judges/lawyers and what meets current legal ethics versus constitutional rights or simply human rights.
As for the NXIVM 5 and Suneel, specifically, the underage sexual exploitation of Cami is one issue and government judicial prosecution corruption is another. His proclamations made it hard to even want to examine other possibilities.
Once upon a time, analytical and original thought processes were attributed to Ivy League educations, such as Harvard. We now, as FR readers, have to evaluate not only government prosecutorial misconduct as a possibility in this case and others; judicial reform; penal reform; cults and law enforcement in America; but the influence of limited or biased cognitive processes taught in the US education system, especially advance Ivy League teachings previously glorified within their rarity.
We should be asking ourselves why Clargiver can’t be absolutely correct and if this definition of how justice is navigated sits well with us culturally or constitutionally. We should also be asking if anything Alanzo says has merit to the higher cause of protecting individual freedoms.
Most of us already know, KR isn’t worth the effort or unintended good deeds to judicial and penal systems.
Better yet, we could all just walk away, pour a glass of wine, and settle down with a good book. Namaste, friend!
Alanzo, your question is based on the assumption of a substantial procedural error having occurred… But was there such an error — and, if so, what was it?
Anything K.R. Claviger says is something you’ll surely disagree with. Claviger shouldn’t waste the time.
Get back to eating your ‘Brazilian Twinkies’ and RingDings®️.
—With all your encyclopedic knowledge
Alonzo go and look it up dummy. That’s why legal “encyclopedias” exist.
Or as you would say “legal constructs.”
You’re such a buffoon!
Suneel wishes that Raniere is innocent, and he is demanding that others agree with him. Suneel must see Frank as the key to getting others to believe his fantasies.