Eduardo: The Presumption of Innocence Eroding With the Increasing Use of Anonymous Accusers

By Eduardo Asunsolo

A curious aspect of the changing common law is occurring in America.

In the past, accusers and the accused were known to the public based on the old concept of the presumption of innocence.

Scrutiny of the accusers and their claims were as important as scrutiny of the accused, and judges were not carried off by tears of the accusers, the demand of the media, chivalrous notions, or the embarrassment that might come if the name of the accuser is identified with being victims of the crimes they allege.

After all, it was reasoned that a defendant’s liberty is at stake and, in the balance of justice, freedom from prison is weightier than embarrassment caused by public disclosure.

This was based on the dedication to the old ideal of the presumption of innocence. This identification of the accuser publicly permitted the defendant the right to complete and transparent confrontation. Accusers were robustly tested in court.

Presumption of innocence means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or the accused must be acquitted. The opposite is a presumption of guilt. Sure, it has been argued that the defendants will know the full names of their accusers, but the presumption of innocence is eroded nonetheless for four reasons. Perhaps the first three are of lesser importance than the fourth.

The first, and perhaps the least important, is that the public may scrutinize accusers by the complete identification of accusers. Through this, facts may emerge about the truth of the allegations. It is possible that the accusers, subject to the same scrutiny as the accused and not hidden from the public oversight, might adjust the narrative of their accusations, for there are those who may know it not to be accurate or provide evidence that the accuser’s claims should be vetted by the prosecution or the defense as in the example of one with a history of falsely accusing.

The second reason is that anonymity may encourage false accusations. It is easier to accuse when hiding behind the cloak of reduced scrutiny that anonymity affords.

The third reason is based on common fairness. Most alleged crimes where accusers seek anonymity and are routinely granted it by courts are given for the same reason that they should not be granted. The moment these crimes, mainly of the sex crimes variety, is charged, the accused’s reputation is destroyed, whether factually innocent or not.

If one is to be destroyed by the allegation alone, this should not be done with ease and by freedom from scrutiny of the accuser in one’s community.

For instance, if a person is accused of rape, that person becomes a pariah, an outcast. They may lose their employment, business, or spouse; friends will cease to call, and their children will be humiliated based on the accusation alone.

The public rarely evokes the presumption of innocence, and the present state of the media encourages this, to be sure.

Yet, if all citizens are to be considered equal, and if we wish to encourage a brave and truthful society, the accused is as vital as the accuser. If the accused’s reputation is to be shattered, let the accuser be bold.

With the protection of just governance, the alleged victim and the alleged criminal stand equal under the law until the jury’s verdict is rendered.

If the fully transparent disclosure of the accusers were to result in even one in 10 false accusations being made, it would comport with the historic ideal that ten guilty ones should go free rather than one innocent convicted.

But one may argue that these three reasons are irrelevant because many victims, cowed by the horror of the crime committed against them, would not have the courage to come forth and make the complaint if they had to undergo the additional shame of public disclosure.

And this is no doubt true at present. Some victims would not accuse to avoid humiliation. But by permitting this, society reinforces stereotypes that have no place in a fully empowered society of equality for all.

Suppose one can humiliate or ruin the accused’s reputation forever. In that case, the accuser should withstand the simple common fairness of being known as the one who makes the accusation.

As it may discourage some actual victims from coming forward, it may also prevent false accusers from coming forward.

The argument that the latter is far rarer than the former is irrelevant even if there were any proper way to prove it. There is not, for the metrics used to judge false accusers are not based on logic, are variable, and sometimes as frivolous as whether the defendant was convicted or not, factoring zero percentage for the conviction of innocents.

But assuming that one could determine that there would be more truthful accusers that would not come forward than false accusers if the accusers’ identities were to be named equally with the accused, there would still be those who would come forward. These would be the encouragement of others, and soon it would not be considered shameful to make a true accusation for the brave preceded. It is always preferable to encourage the brave and transparency than promote secrecy and shame.

But these too may be of far lesser importance than the one reason that all by itself requires all accusers – or at least all accusers who have reached the age of 18 – should be publicly identified.

The culture of the new order, one driven in part by the media, is one where, in general, all accusers are given the assumption of veracity because if they suffered, they deserve our sympathy.

This is a natural fact of humanity even without the media and is one of the principal reasons for the presumption of innocence so that the accused might get a fair trial and not be tried in the media first and then inevitably – as if in cowering to the voice of the people – the judge must capitulate and leave his role of impartiality and lead the jury to its verdict lest he is blamed for a verdict the public would condemn.

This judicial leading of the jury is occurring more and more in our courtrooms. It is an abdication of the separation of the judge, the neutral referee – and the jury, the finder of fact and the law and the representatives of the people, whose role it is to convict those who breach the standards of society and to keep the government in check by the historical principle that the government may imprison no one without the consent of the jury.

The jury is a sacred institution to our freedom and woe to the country that eliminates it or weakens its force. Without it, that country will drift toward tyranny and corruption, for the independent jury is the palladium of liberty. It has been so since the jury was first invoked to limit the power of kings.

When the court rules that accusers deserve the protection of anonymity, they undercut the historical and priceless defense of tyranny, the presumption of innocence in the courtroom where it matters, and tilts it firmly toward the idea of guilt.

Even if it is subconscious, the shielding of the names of the accusers from the public sends a solid message to the jury, for what is the jury to think other than that the court has deemed the accusers in need of protection from the world, because the judge, their referee, has determined that the accused has undergone foul and humiliating harm, perforce by the accused.

The very naming of accusers by first names only, or by Jane of John Doe, brings instant and irrevocable prejudice to the defendant.

Even in ordinary cases, it is impossible to overcome. The judge may tell the jury that they are not to presume guilt because the first names only are being used, but this will not offset it; a few words spoken over them at the beginning or end of a trial will not overcome the impression that the alleged victim is an actual victim since the judge knows they must be protected from what the accused has done.

However subtle, it resides there in the jury and cannot be easily overcome. It can be compared to the judge who says to the jury, “you must decide who is innocent or guilty, but I have already decided that the accused is guilty – but pay no attention to that.”

Judge Garaufis
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis sent clear messages to the jury about what he thought of the defendant.

It entered a new form in the criminal trial of Keith Raniere, which is now being used as a kind of precedent in other criminal cases.

In the Raniere trial, the judge went to the extraordinary step of categorizing a large group of individuals who did not appear at trial and those who did, who should be named by their full names and who by their first names only.

It reached such absurd proportions that they needed a scorecard of whose last names could be told and who by the first name only, with no discernible reason for the distinction. Indeed, some of those whose names were revealed underwent the same set of circumstances as those with first names only.  The resulting mishmash and hodgepodge of naming boiled down to, in effect, those who were against the accused had their names shielded, and those who supported him or had yet to denounce him were to be named fully even if they did not appear at the trial.

In one instance, the last name of a person – a well-known public figure – was ordered not to be used – while the person she allegedly brought into the alleged racketeering enterprise – was to be named fully – though if the allegations of racketeering and the resultant allegations of coercion and coercive control were true, then the person whose name was shielded was more guilty than the one she recruited.

The only difference was that the one whose name was shielded had denounced the defendant while the one fully named had not.

Of course, the Raniere case is extreme in its full flower of judicial misconduct; it represents the new judicial era of rejecting the idea of the presumption of innocence and where the judge usurps the jury’s role and leads them to conviction.

About the author

Guest View

44 Comments

Click here to post a comment

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

  • Eduardo,

    Are you still dancing in front of a men’s detention center with a glow stick and a freaky look in your eyes as you gaze up reverently hoping to see your cult leader’s dumpy shadow from behind glass?

  • Eduardo-

    Keith Raniere and Larry Ray have so
    much in common:

    Keith once made Clare Bronfman wear a jock strap…

    Cult leader, Larry Ray forced a woman to wear diapers and suck on a pacifier.
    ***
    Both men allegedly photographed their female victims naked.
    ***
    Keith instructed a karate master to kick and punch women, and he ordered a woman to run head long into a tree.
    Cult leader Ray punched his female followers himself. Let’s face Keith was a total pussy.
    ***
    “He [Ray]would tie me up with zip ties at my ankles and wrists … have someone else in the apartment watch over me.

    Kieth would have women locked in cages.
    ****

    Eduardo what’s the difference between Keith Raniere and cult leader Larry Ray? They both have the exact same modus operandi.

    Please explain the difference to Frank Report readers.

    All the women involved with both men according to the cult leaders and other followers, acted out of their own freewill and agency. All the women involved made vows of servitude. All the women had collateral collected on them.

    https://nypost.com/2022/03/28/sex-cult-leader-forced-harvard-grad-to-wear-diapers-court/amp/

  • Eduardo-

    Would you give you virgin kids to Raniere if he demanded it, like one Mexican woman wanted to?

    I am curious how f’king nuts you are.

  • I have not read Eduardo Asunsolo’s article, but I am commenting anyway. I believe all the arguments have been made before or more than once. No new evidence or arguments have been presented in a long time.

    Rather, no evidence has ever been presented as to what these NXIVM and Raniere supporters have ever claimed. And since I am not a regurgitator of old and false arguments and claims, nor am I a trash receptacle in which Asunolo and the other cult followers can dump their garbage, I refrain from reading anything more from them.

    The laws must protect everyone. The stupid as well as the intelligent. The weak as well as the strong. Those with life experience as well as those who lack such life experience. All people, regardless of gender, origin, social status, rich or poor, disabled, from minorities, criminals, mentally ill or drug addicts, if they are victims of crime or have private law claims.

    Raniere had the best legal counsel, the best attorneys money could buy, because Raniere had unlimited funds to do so. Raniere was defeated in the criminal trial, not because he was disadvantaged or treated unfairly, but because the crimes he was charged with were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Therefore, not the best and most expensive attorneys are of any use to him, because the evidence was so numerous and conclusive. The hope of his followers and Raniere himself is that you can corrupt the legal system to your own ends, just as you have corrupted it against enemies and adversaries.

    Raniere and his followers are not about justice but about power over others and power over the legal system because, in their delusion, they put themselves above everything else and all other people and they also see themselves as untouchable before the laws. Raniere and NXIVM had fantasies of omnipotence, which they imparted and instilled in their followers.

  • The “presumption of veracity” comes from well-tuned common sense and a basic functioning internal BS detector.

  • I am happy to see that Keith has nothing better to do with his time than keep writing pointless articles that won’t stop him from rotting in jail until he dies or change his public image.

    I am happy to see that his closeted gay lap dogs don’t have anything else productive to do either. You enjoying your new beard, Eduardo? Good job convincing the immigration authorities that you are heterosexual.

    Going to be funny to see the Rule 33 appeal, if Keith’s attorney ever files it. Until then, none of this is worth the time to actually read.

  • Eduardo? Are you kidding me? You think criminals or suspected criminals are best left to run free until a trial has run its course and a verdict has been reached? This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

    You do realize that you can’t just order the police to go to someone’s home and have them arrested because you make an accusation about them?

    And furthermore, they would have to accuse this would-be arrested person of something that society at large has agreed is a crime?

    For example, I can call the police and tell them that I believe my neighbor is guilty of theft because I saw them moving a TV into their house at 3am. And guess what? The police will do nothing other than maybe record my call.

    However? If every neighbor on the block was calling at different times of the day, the police might start watching that house and begin an investigation.

    Let’s be honest. The neighbors already think something suspicious is happening. They are concerned citizens and residents of the block. You say they are biased and of course they are! Why wouldn’t they be?

    But let’s pretend! The neighbor was actually collecting old TVs and sound systems and computers in order to repair and give to the less advantaged and the drop offs weren’t by thieves but by friendly volunteers?

    If this were the situation and everything was really good and nice and above board, the investigation would be finished. And probably (other than that 1 Karen in the neighborhood?), everyone would be cool and probably find an old cell phone or something to donate!

    This is not the case with your friend Keith. He got brought down because what he was doing isn’t nice at all.

    In my world, nobody; man, woman or child, will ever believe in the power exchange of slavery or practice the branding and cataloging of human beings.

    Eduardo? I find myself commenting all the time because I don’t understand why you guys can’t see that these ideas are bad.

    • “Eduardo? Are you kidding me? You think criminals or suspected criminals are best left to run free until a trial has run its course and a verdict has been reached? This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.”

      Actually, 2cents, it’s called bail reform and that is exactly what happens in NYS…

      • Well, Clifton Parker? I’m pretty sure Keith might have been as nearly-free as his co-defendants were before the trial had he not decided to run away to Mexico and hide in a closet.

        In the real world, we just call this actions and consequence. If you act like a criminal and behave like a flight risk, you get treated like one.

        It’s simple.

      • Oh also? Bail reform?

        Cry me river for keith raniere who put on no defense whatsoever instead of the best he could just like everyone else does! No, no, no, no, no! Same standards shouldn’t apply to the venerated keith raniere. Wahh wahh!

        I mean? Seriously? Come on!! He had expensive lawyers and the same amount of time anyone else in his position gets. And he decides not to present any defense at all. It’s not really the sign of an innocent person or a person that is thinking straight at all.

  • Ha ha! Good one! You almost fooled me into thinking this was serious. Until I got a couple of paragraphs into it and the absurdities piled up. Then I looked at the date it was posted: April 1!

    April Fools!

  • —In the past, accusers and the accused were known to the public based on the old concept of the presumption of innocence.

    Nothing has changed in 100 years. If you’re not famous or have a media sensationalized case, you still can get a fair shake as long as you have a good attorney.
    ***

    Eduardo makes some good points. I’ll give him credit for that, but his perspective is CULLED from the last 10 years not the last 100 years.

  • So now the media is bad too? I would say that a free press is essential for a healthy society. If you have a mass murderer, and his awful deeds are objectively described in the news, you can’t seriously say that his trial was unfair because of this reporting.

    Raniere’s trial worst ever in juridical misconduct? I disagree. He had lawyers other defendants can only dream about.

    I’m getting tired of Eduardo…….

    Another highlight in the judicial system: On Friday Ghislaine Maxwell was denied a re-trial. At her sentencing on June 29th there will be so many victims to speak (yes Eduardo, victims!), there will be a line waiting out of the courthouse….

  • Frank,

    Do you (still) truly believe that Keith Raniere poisoned multiple women and it led to their cancer and/or some of their deaths?

    That’s what you’ve previously stated on, “The Lost Women of Nxivm” and in some articles

    Thanks for answering.

  • Wow, the BS started with the 2nd sentence…

    What Eduardo thinks it means: In the past, accusers and the accused were known to the public based on the old concept of the presumption of innocence.

    What it means according to Wikipedia: The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges.

    Why do you allow that BS here, Frank? This is just a strawman argument and a pretty poor one to be honest.

    • I agree with Eduardo that the presumption of innocence is being eroded. I think it is worthwhile discussing it. I am not sure why you think this is a straw man argument. Some legal scholars agree with him. The prosecution has too much power. The judiciary is becoming irrelevant with the vanishing trial. That has a lot to do with the presumption of guilt in the public and in the courtroom, where most judges were former prosecutors.

      • In that case, he should not set the tone for his article by opening up with gibberish. There are relevant things he could discuss, like the fact that cases get chosen by the prosecution only if they believe they can win, as their future career depends on it.

        Just my 2 cents about fair trials: Make sure that experts are not part or paid by the prosecution or defense. In that case, their livelihood would not depend on actually finding evidence for a certain narrative, but the truth. This would help in many future cases, but it would not help Raniere.

        Keeping the names out of the media is neither new nor wrong. People do not have to be shamed for being in a court room, as the sentence is the only punishment. Just make sure the paper trail is paper only and nothing leaves the building.

      • Eduardo-

        Keith Raniere and Larry Ray have so
        much in common:

        Keith once made Clare Bronfman wear a jock strap…

        Cult leader, Larry Ray forced a woman to wear diapers and suck on a pacifier.
        ***
        Both men allegedly photographed their female victims naked.
        ***
        Keith instructed a karate master to kick and punch women, and he ordered a woman to run head long into a tree.
        Cult leader Ray punched his female followers himself. Let’s face Keith was a total pussy.
        ***
        “He [Ray]would tie me up with zip ties at my ankles and wrists … have someone else in the apartment watch over me.

        Kieth would have women locked in cages.
        ****

        Eduardo what’s the difference between Keith Raniere and cult leader Larry Ray? They both have the exact same modus operandi.

        Please explain the difference to Frank Report readers.

        All the women involved with both men according to the cult leaders and other followers, acted out of their own freewill and agency. All the women involved made vows of servitude. All the women had collateral collected on them.

        https://nypost.com/2022/03/28/sex-cult-leader-forced-harvard-grad-to-wear-diapers-court/amp/

  • It’s no secret that Ice-nine is a fan of “A Little Bit Culty” podcast. Sarah and Nippy recently published an excellent episode that has some crossover connection to NXIVM that I found worthy of mentioning.

    From the podcast “Sarma Speaks: A ‘Bad Vegan’ Exclusive”:
    https://www.instagram.com/p/CbPr-64Fyo1/
    https://play.acast.com/s/a-little-bit-culty/sarma-speaks-a-bad-vegan-exclusive

    Sarma’s story is so compelling that the producers of Tiger King made a Netflix hit series about it called “Bad Vegan”.

    Netflix trailer (it’s amazing):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTf7iViYUI

    Pure Food and Wine – A vegan restaurant owned by a woman named Sarma that was apparently frequented by NXIANs. The Manhattan hotspot was a world class restaurant and quite the place to be seen where you’d often find guests such as Owen Wilson, Tom Brady, Gisele, Bill Clinton, and Alec Baldwin (he’s an important part of the story – pre Hilaria). Sarma is a Wharton grad and is quite a looker too, I must say.

    So Sarma met some dude called Mr. Fox and got mind fucked, vanguard style. He’s fat, hairy, apparently very smelly, thinks he’s a God, and over time, his mindfuckery convinced her of similar shit that vanguard pulled off. A dog that will live forever, special powers that will provide eternal youth whilst she saves the world, and a bunch of nonsense like that. Only if he got to cum on her face and down her throat though, which was for her own good, of course.

    She was forced to scam millions from friends and family and lost it all. They were both eventually arrested after going on the lam.

    For those wondering how the NXIVM people got mindfucked, it’s basically the same thing here. Hopefully the loyalists will recognize what happened to Sarma and start waking up themselves.

    She’s recovered now thankfully and rants in great detail about how she was mindfucked on her blog, and she holds nothing back:
    https://www.sarmaraw.com/writing/2022/3/27/dear-mr-fox

    “You claimed to be my savior, temporarily stuck in your expanding smelly fat “meat suit” rescuing me from my private pain and suffering. Giving me my power back….I would change the world, you said. It’s what I was meant to do, you said. And I would do it with everlasting youth and Leon [her dog] by my side, forever….”

    Ice-nine recommends!

    • Ice-Nine-

      I’ve listened to the show and it’s good. However, I have trouble getting past the fact Sarah Edmondson is a wee-bit of a narcissist, who made a ton of money conning suckers to take BS courses. I’ll still probably listen if they have an interesting guest.

      I do have some respect for Nippy because when he found out his wife’s pussy was branded, he flipped out and was done; that’s more than I can say about any other man in NXIVM.
      ***
      I can’t watch The Vow because every time I see Mark Vicente I want to go full Elvis, and shoot my TV set.

      Nice to see you back. 👍🏼

      • Glad you enjoyed the podcast. I’ve been around, just haven’t posted. It’s good to be missed though, thanks! I read your comments though I can’t keep up with all the ones you don’t use your moniker, it makes it hard for everyone and that’s not nice.

        I disagree about Sarah though, dude. Con? No. She was selling something she thought had legitimate value. A con deliberates scams people, there’s a big difference (keith, trump). And narcissist? I think you are way off there. A narcissist cares only about how they are perceived, and they do so at the expense of others without regard for them in any way. I don’t know where you are seeing that. Without her, there is no “keith raniere the prisoner”, only “keith raniere the child raping, blackmailing asshole” that is still branding people. Moira said as much; she saw the NY times story and that got her attention.

        Anywho – Ice-nine will endeavor to post more, thanks for your support!

        • I flip flop on how I view the ex-Nexers with the one exception being Vincente.

          Ice- you make some salient points.

          Take it easy!

  • Asunsolo’s sole highly sensitive nerve is that Raniere is festering.

    To be convincing he must address the charges and much more importantly present Court admissible evidence. What does he do instead? Dances on the side of the ring: Keith had a scrotal rash and Asunsolo couldn’t use his tongue hence he had to take half a pack of Paracetamol in 7 hours… etc…

    But, as someone else said, this is not Asunsolo talking. It’s the “most massively highly intelligent world’s most ethical shockingly amazing karate kicker… ” etc, etc.

    • Alex-

      I had to look this one up, Paracetamol, nice analogy. 👍🏼
      ***

      I bet the RingDing King knew what that is from having ‘adult‘ diaper rash.

  • Some of it makes sense – in a general context. Let’s not forget, though, that in certain cultures and strata of society, the mere fact that you were raped, for example – or that you were foolish enough to join a ‘cult’ – can bring shame on yourself and the wider family. Muck will be racked over by lawyers, even incidents which might not be relevant to the case. Often, the woman is still – even now – considered to be somehow at fault if she is raped (she shouldn’t go out at night, she was asking for it, her skirt was too short, etc. …) This can deter accusers with possibly a good case from bringing it to court, lest they and their families/communities be tainted with the same brush.

    I would agree though that there are people who make false accusations for gain or revenge, and these should be ‘outed’ – but only after a verdict of ‘false/frivolous accusation’.

  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    ……………………………………………………………………X

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CR 18-0204
    Plaintiff(s),
    v. NOTICE OF MOTION
    KEITH RANIERE, et al TO ADMIT
    Defendant(s) COUNSEL PRO HAC
    …………………………………………………………………..X VICE

    TO: Opposing Counsel
    Tanya Hajjar
    Kevin Trowel

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of movant in support of this motion and the Certificate(s) of Good Standing annexed thereto, I Joseph M. Tully, will move this Court pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York for an order allowing the admission of movant, a member of the firm of Tully & Weiss Attorneys at Law and a member in good standing of the bar of the State of , as attorney pro hac vice to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel for Keith Raniere. There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Dated: 3/30/2022 _________________________
    Firm name: Tully & Weiss Attorneys at Law
    Adress: Main Street 713, Martinez, CA 94553
    Email: Joseph@Tully-Weiss.com
    Phone: (925) 229-9700

  • Eduardo, throwing tears and the horrors of such injustice of are legal system which convicted your Vanguard, onto public as the result of lying victims, witnesses, evil investigators, a simple disingenuous jury (sure they had to answer questions by the lawyers and judge) and a foul judge is the same bad form you are accusing others of. And if anyone of the jury members, government agents, or judge thought he was innocent, they would have spoken up and derailed the conviction. BUT NONE DID!

    Why – because he was guilty.

    All the million-dollar lawyers could not keep him out of prison. Nor his disciples, harem, or fan club.

    KAR is a dirt bag. He raped a child! He may have killed women. He had other women rape women. Your community is safer now that he is in prison for life. Even you are safer.

    Eduardo, wise up. You write too well to prove yourself a fool.

  • Presumption of innocence sure – understood. But after a 6wk trial, a jury found KAR guilty, and he was sentenced to 120-yrs in prison.

    Full stop.

    Let’s move on now.

  • Eduardo Asunsolo is not part of the NXIVM case. Desire to know is not the same as right to know. He doesn’t have a right to know. Nor does the public.

    Being anonymous to the public is much different than being anonymous to the justice process. The “scrutiny of the accusers and their claims were as important as scrutiny of the accused” is the role for the lawyers, investigators, etc. of the justice system. What he describes is what the jury is for. The public really have no place in it despite the press and the public’s constant desire to think otherwise.

    Before the internet, few cases actually reached even local level notoriety. Even less reach state level “fame”. It was a rare case that would reach national attention. With few exceptions the case would come and go in the public consciousness, forgotten with about the same time as the newspaper was put in the trash. To find out if someone has a “past” would require some real effort to find (the word microfiche mean anything to you?).

    Thanks to the internet, someone’s victimhood can be as simple as searching their name. A horrible or embarrassing moment in time doesn’t just follow them for the duration of a case. You do not get the right to know if someone joined a cult and regretted it. You do not get the right to know if someone was the victim of a rape, assault or other vicious crimes be it one year ago or 20 years ago. If they want to tell you their story, that is their choice.

    They didn’t commit a crime and it shouldn’t follow them for the rest of their lives as if they did because someone at some point made them a victim. The choice to be known to the public shouldn’t be stripped from them because assholes think they have a right to know.

    Turning victims into lifelong victims because a few may lie is a solution looking for a problem. Eduardo wants to harass victims because he thinks it will help the NIXVM case (it will not). He is fine with being public with his love of a cult. That his choice. He doesn’t get to strip that choice away from others. Hopefully the defendants in this case will be not be foolish and give him names.

  • Blah blah blah. Free my pedophile cult leader. Blah blah blah. I want my child pornography making mentor out of sex offender prison. Wah! Wah!

    If Keith Raniere is NOT a sex offender but still requested a sex offender prison assignment – what does that make the world’s most ethical man? A liar? A coward? Both?

    Is Keith a sex criminal? Or is Keith just taking up another sex offender’s spot and denying them a chance for a program that could possibly benefit them and build a safer society? Because Keith is a lying chicken shit?

    Or is Keith, in fact, a child pornographer and rapist who is right where he belongs for 120 years?

    A really good idea would be for you loyalists to find another convicted criminal incarcerated with Keith Raniere and then wire him $700,000 to make a movie about vanguard.

    If the conman uses the money to buy boats and pay off his own debt, then just wire them more money.

    A real “criminal justice advocate” or “justice reform activist” would have spent that quite large sum to benefit some of the many, many prisoners who do not have access to millions and millions for a defense like Keith Raniere. But, hey, a vanity movie project for an asshole like Keith Raniere, would have been great too.

    Technically, you did “help” one convicted criminal by letting him rip you all off for hundreds of thousands of dollars and get away with it. But you also got that same guy into a lot of trouble for lying and violating his parole. And he went back to prison.

    Ultimately helping no one.

    Viva Executive Success!

  • First names for some, first and last names for others…
    Preposterous determinations of who is worthy of full protection and who receives only partial protection?

    If a first name is rare the last name will likely be found, but if you have a common first name anonymity granted by ‘first name status’ will serve to protect as intended? Where does the judge stand on middle names and generational suffixes? Is the judge protecting or not protecting?

    What are the no-name release victims being protected from? What are the first name release victims being protected from?

    Are their lives in danger or simply in danger of looking like idiots because, like a bad romance, they were “taken” by the powers of persuasion?

    The vulnerable fell prey and bought the bullshit, while those less scrupulous adopted the role of predator. Forced into the light of day – either giving collateral or soliciting collateral, either committing to be a lifelong slave and asking no questions, or soliciting such slaves – doesn’t really matter.

    The question remains – What the fuck were you thinking?

    They don’t answer. They cast blame and now, in hiding of victim hood status and blame, They seem financial payback for their own stupidity.

    Compensation for the time they chose to spend living as a slave- for the choices they made as competent adults. They need money for therapy but they needed therapy long before they thought handing over collateral and lifelong servitude was a good idea.

    And if a first name release is harmed, can they sue Judge Garaufis- on the grounds that he recklessly put them on the first name only list? Caselaw anywhere?

  • Frank, I still can’t see comments or post comments when logged into the WordPress reader. I have so many sad feelz.

    Sadly yours,

    Anonymiss

  • Yeah, Eduardo didn’t write this, Raniere did.

    Stop giving a platform to a convicted child pornographer, extortionist, and alleged statutory rapist just because it’s paying some of the bills.

      • Eduardo is confusing the presumption of innocence with an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confront their accuser. Every person is presumed innocent. Every criminal defendant has the right to confront their accuser. What Eduardo is frustrated with is the Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which allows the prosecution to keep the identity of the victim hidden from the public for certain types of crimes. But what Eduardo doesn’t address is the fact that the defendant and defense counsel know the identity of the accuser, otherwise there couldn’t be a trial. Because of the Sixth Amendment.

      • Why?

        Because Raniere is guilty as shit. Proven in a court of law. Beyond reasonable doubt. Convicted in three hours. By a jury of his peers that his legal defense team affirmed.

        This site is giving him another soapbox to once again exploit higher principles for his own self-interest. Of course, this is nothing surprising coming from someone who found a predilection in Randian philosophy, her novel characters and her coined “virtue of selfishness”, the latter a phrase that is just word salad in combining two long before her considered oxymoronic terms. It’s appalling because it’s utterly hypocritical, the ultimate reason as to why he’s in prison in the first place. He must have committed many actual “ethical breaches” against others throughout his life within Reality and this is his “Karmaic” end result.

        Also, these articles are never going to free him. They’re never going to lead to any public outrage like they helped to spark when the near vaginal branding and slavery of DOS was revealed in the worldwide conducive milieu of the “Me too” movement. He’s nothing more than any other fraudulent, cult leader who abused ethics for control and to get into the pants of women and screw around. Nobody outside of his dead-end followers care because of this. The only interest most people have is on the other side of the coin, a kind of “morbid” curiosity as to how someone like him could fool so many people.

        • Thank you another anon truth teller, no truer words have EVER been spoken here. Have you all not figured out the Emperor Frank (and his “socks” ) has no clothes!!!

          Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

          • “Frank has no clothes on!!!”‘

            I never figured it out — but I did fantasize about it. Mmmh!

    • I wholeheartedly agree. I once thought Frank “sank” to this level, but now realize he lives there.

Frank Parlato

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.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

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 premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com

Archives