Danielle Roberts: Penza’s Actions Were ‘the Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back,’ Intimidating Me From Testifying for Raniere

Danielle Roberts, DO, MS, lives in St. Francis, Wisconsin. She graduated from Binghamton University Cum Laude in 2003 with a degree in Psychobiology. In 2008, she completed a dual degree as a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine with a Master in Clinical Nutrition.

In 2011, she completed her Family Practice Residency. From 2012-2017, she worked as a hospitalist in four different hospitals and as a medical director of Integrative Medical Practice from 2011-2013.

Working sometimes with Keith Raniere, she “created and developed four different movement and wellness systems and certifications for prevention from 2013-2018, one of which was implemented in three countries.”

In 2016, Roberts added to her resume: Branding Artist.

In 2021, a New York State Department of Health officials found Roberts used a cauterizing pen to write “KR” on the pelvic region of at least 17 women. The women were told the brand was a they were getting the initials of Keith Raniere on their groin.

A hearing committee sustained multiple counts of professional misconduct against Dr. Roberts, and her medical license was revoked.

As a DOS slave her master was Allison Mack and her grandmaster Keith Raniere. Both are serving time in federal prison.

Roberts was in the same slave pod as India Oxenberg and Nicole, the victim of sex trafficking in the federal trial of Keith Raniere.

Here is Danielle Roberts Statement

Danielle Roberts

I was a second-line member of DOS and was invited by Allison Mack. I served as the primary branding artist for those who got a brand.

I have key information I could have offered to the defense counsel in Keith Raniere’s case to dispel much of the testimony that was given at trial about how DOS worked, its procedures and practices, the branding process, and my experiences in DOS with Allison Mack, and India and Nicole who were in my circle.

I could have given direct testimony that would have challenged Nicole’s narrative in general, and specifically about her spending a few hours
transcribing videos with me for Pamela Cafritz’s memorial service, which the Government argued was “forced labor.”

As a second-line member of DOS, I directly experienced the processes and protocols being developed and implemented by the first line.

My testimony would have attested to the rigorous and thoughtful enrollment process each woman would have undergone who decided to join, and the conditions surrounding the collateral.   This would have clearly illustrated that the collateral was used as a tool to back our promises to ourselves, like surety, not as a tool of fear, force, or blackmail as was alleged by the Government and by Nicole.

I believe much of my testimony would have helped to dispel, if not completely dismantle, the Government’s theory of sex trafficking and forced labor. I was similarly situated to Nicole, both of us being in the same circle of DOS.

In addition, I have been a close friend and business partner of Mr. Raniere. I had known him for approximately six years at the time of the trial.  I had worked very closely with him for four years building our company exo|eso, and I worked very closely with him and his closest chosen family in caring for Ms. Pamela Cafritz in her two-year struggle with metastatic renal cancer before she passed away in 2016.

I cared for Ms. Cafritz in their home and, at the end, around the clock. As such a close friend, I could have offered essential and reliable testimony to the consistency of Mr. Raniere’s character and conduct.

I believe my testimony would have strongly contradicted the handful of Government witnesses’ narrative of Mr. Raniere’s alleged sinister intent.

Instead of being afforded an uninfluenced right to testify under oath as to the nature and purpose of DOS and my experience, I was threatened and intimidated into silence by the actions of U.S. Governmental agencies, including the EDNY… and significant media pressure.

In and around Oct. 2017… the New York Times published an article that criticized NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo for choosing not to investigate my medical license.

In the summer of 2017, the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), part of the NYS Health Department, issued a written decision in response to a complaint from Ms. Sarah Edmondson, stating that my actions as a branding artist for DOS were NOT the practice of medicine.

Two days after the New York Times article, the OPMC, in contravention of their prior decision, launched an investigation into my private and
professional life.

This decision …. cost me my contract as a hospitalist at Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital (which I had served loyally for five years) and every other job I tried to pursue over the next two years in the medical field. This was the beginning of dismantling my reputation, credibility, and financial stability.

The OPMC threatened me with a salacious, highly exaggerated statement of charges to subpoena information from me, and other women (not related to the practice of medicine and quite possibly to try to collect further information in relation to Mr. Raniere’s criminal case).

These initial allegations are very different from the allegations the Health Dept. finally published against me about three years later. The Health Dept. continually found ways to try to intimidate me to surrender my license….

I may state as testimony to defend my medical license and livelihood, as grounds for criminal charges. Clearly discouraging me from testifying in any way in relation to the federal case.

OPMC prosecutor, Jeffery Conklin indicated that any testimony I gave in my medical hearing could be used to support a criminal indictment, thus inextricably linking the federal case and my medical hearing. Therefore, any evidence uncovered or testimony given by me (or others) in my hearing could have been used in the federal case to challenge the prosecutors narrative.

The women that were subpoenaed through my case, also pleaded the 5th amendment for fear of prosecutorial retaliation, reputational damage, and financial consequence.

Seeing I was not amendable to surrendering my license (and that I would likely testify at my own hearing), my hearing was held in abeyance for approximately two years, until September 2019, when the federal trial was complete (June 2019) and convictions made.

It is precatory that the OPMC present a case to the state board no more than 90 days after an initial interview is offered to a physician/defendant.

It was two years before the OPMC moved my hearing forward. In order to justify their delay, and divergence from their standard, they offered
another “initial” interview so that the hearing would be within the “90 day window”. This was a severe deviation from the standard, during which I was unable to work, and timed exactly with the progression of the criminal trial.

The consequences of these unjustified tactics and actions led to the loss of my livelihood.

I had to sell my home and most of my possessions and eventually had to change careers to support myself and pay legal fees.

In addition to the significant intimidation and financial duress I was placed under, the Federal Government invaded and threatened our community, followed us in our cars, sat outside our homes in their vehicles, and raided Ms. Salzman’s home just a few blocks from my home.

 

 

As a gesture of cooperation, NXIVM had closed their offices and I was sufficiently intimidated that I closed my company, exo|eso™ as well.

I sought legal representation and was represented by attorney Michael Kelton, Esq. of Abrams Fensterman, LLP for my matters with the OPMC and attorney Daniel Stein, Esq. of Mayer Brown, LLP for any matters pertaining to possible criminal charges.

In April 2018, the prosectutor’s in Mr. Raniere’s case informed Mr. Stein that they wanted to speak with me. Mr. Stein offered that I comply, if they offered me protection from prosecution.

Then-Assistant US Attorney Moira Kim Penza, the lead prosecutor, granted limited immunity. The limited protections of the proffer agreement stated that the proffer agreement did not constitute a cooperation agreement.

Should there be any criminal exposure for me discovered in the course of the interview, that my participation in the proffer and continued cooperation would be helpful in resolving such issues.   However, Ms. Penza stated that she was not making any promises to resolve any matter in any particular fashion.

It became clear to me that if I was of help to the prosecution, it would be beneficial to me.

There were many moments over the course of the two, full eight-hour-long proffer sessions that Ms. Penza seemed very fixed in her viewpoints about NXIVM and DOS; especially pertaining to my experience and perspectives regarding the collateral I voluntarily gave in exchange for mentorship (however unconventional), and the incorporation of Mr. Raniere’s initials into the meanings of the brand.

When I shared my viewpoints, based on my personal experiences, she often seemed to get visibly upset and perseverated on those specific points and others that offered a different motivation other than coercion.

I recall one instance … where for around 15 minutes, she argued with me about… collateral.

I explained that collateral was a tool I chose to use to build self-trust and self-reliance, to back my promises,  and that it was not, nor was it intended to be, a tool of coercion or extortion. My attorney eventually needed to step in to point out her behavior and redirect her.

She displayed the same behavior when discussing the intent and meaning behind what I was told the incorporation of Mr. Raniere’s initials meant in the symbol that was created by the 1st line members. She again was insistent the meaning was related to control, possession, and coercion, when that was not my opinion at all.

By the end of the interview on May 11, 2018, it became clear to me that Ms. Penza had solely two possible viewpoints:

1) I was a co-conspirator of a massive criminal enterprise, or

2) I was a victim of the situation that had been brainwashed and couldn’t think for myself.

It did not seem to me that she was open to the possibility, which I believe to be the truth, that this group of people, including Keith Raniere, was innocent and well-intended, even if some mistakes were made.

Consistent with my observation, at the end of the first interview ,she offered me victim support services so that I could be properly treated for the abuse that she decreed that I had undergone, even though I did not, and do not feel, I was abused nor can I measure objectively any destruction of my life or life’s work by the practices I engaged in in DOS.

In fact, I experienced quite the opposite and I conveyed that in my proffer interviews.

Ms. Penza’s comments to me at the end of the first interview indicated to me that she had dismissed my testimony, my positive experience, and rendered me incompetent in her mind in order to maintain her theory of the case and the foundation she needed to “win.”

At the end of the second interview, she threatened to subpoena me to testify in the trial against Mr. Raniere. I made it clear I was not interested in helping her.

I also knew that if I were to testify in support of the defense, Mr. Raniere, she may change her mind about me, if it served her, and I could then become a co-conspirator in her assessment, open to indictment, even though I had done nothing wrong or criminal.

Based on my initial direct experiences with Ms. Penza, she seemed disinterested in the truth and unwilling to examine any contrary perspective to one of abuse and coercion.

I was effectively intimidated from giving crucial testimony to the case.  Ms. Penza did not choose to call me to testify.

The actions of Ms. Penza were the straw that broke the camel’s back and successfully intimidated me from testifying in the criminal proceedings.