Not 120 Years: How the Raniere Trial Rewrote the Law

A reader, Wehrmacht Sturm, asked the following question:

“Frank, do you really believe Raniere deserves 100+ years in prison? I’m throwing you a softball question, and I hope you can respond seriously.

“I believe he’s a liar, a fraud, a manipulator, a criminal who scammed people, an a-hole that tried screwing you, and by others turning the legal system against you, and that he had sex with a 15-year-old girl; but what has he done to deserve 100+? Most people would have received a maximum of 10 to 25 years for the crimes he committed, and the sentences would not have been stacked.

“I realize you take great fun in satirizing the plight of Raniere but I’d appreciate an honest appraisal of the situation. Thanks.”

Not 120 Years — Not Even Close

The answer is no. I do not believe Keith Raniere deserves a century in prison—especially considering he was not charged with murder or violent crimes.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, sex trafficking requires a “commercial sex act,” meaning sex in exchange for something “of value”—traditionally understood as money, goods, drugs, or housing. In Raniere’s case, the judge expanded the law, directing the jury that “enhanced status” inside NXIVM counted as value. That departs from decades of precedent, where “value” meant something tangible or cash-equivalent, not social prestige.

Ten years would have been a fairer sentence—still punitive. But it avoids rewriting the sex trafficking law on the fly, a legal hazard that invites abuse.

Stretching jury instructions to include abstract “benefits” like status doesn’t just hurt one defendant—it opens the door for sex trafficking prosecutions in cases where no real commercial exchange occurred.

Did the FBI Plant the Photos?

I have some grave reservations about how the evidence of then-underage Camila’s photos ended up on a hard drive. I suspect, even though he may have sexually abused Camilla when she was under the age of consent, the FBI planting photographs on his hard drive is a violation of due process. Federal courts have long held that convictions based on fabricated evidence violate the Constitution, no matter how unsympathetic the defendant.

Due process means that the government does not frame even guilty men. Chain of custody and forensic integrity matter. If drives are swapped or metadata manipulated without proper logging and hashing, the entire evidentiary foundation collapses.

When you add the fact that the agent who conducted the raid is the same agent who cheated in the investigation of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, it begins to smell. I know that many people want Raniere to be guilty, and I believe he’s guilty of numerous vicious acts. But I think the FBI likely planted evidence. FBI Agent Elliot McGinnis’s misconduct was not disclosed to the defense and  that itself raises Brady and Giglio issues.

Nobody’s interested in the proof, just as they weren’t interested in how FBI agent McGinnis collaborated with a witness to fabricate a journal and backdate it in the Daedone and Cherwitz case. That is not a minor error — it is the knowing use of false evidence, which the Supreme Court has long held violates due process.

Or how he handled an attorney-client privileged document by hiding it from the prosecutors so he could use it, not have it sequestered from him. That strikes at the core of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Using privileged material secretly is the very definition of government misconduct.

He’s a man who cheats. And he was the man who led the Raniere raid and swapped out hard drives. He falsely described them. He moved around pictures at the raid at Raniere’s library at 8 Hale to create a false scene to cover the crime he (not Raniere) committed. Under federal evidence rules, chain of custody exists to prevent exactly this kind of tampering. If drives are swapped or evidence staged, the authentication requirement of Rule 901 is not met.

If an FBI agent cheats once, you question the case. If he cheats twice, you question the system. And when a pattern emerges, the law demands suppression or reversal — because convictions cannot rest on fabricated or tainted evidence.

Abuser? Yes. Framed? Maybe.

I think it’s very likely that Raniere abused Camilla. However, it’s one thing to commit a crime, but another thing to have law enforcement plant the evidence. The Supreme Court has held that convictions obtained with fabricated evidence cannot stand, no matter how guilty the defendant

I suspect the contraband photographs of Camilla, which Raniere likely took, were provided to the FBI by her sister, Daniela and not found on his hard drive without some help from her and/or the FBI.

I believe that the metadata for the digital pictures was manipulated and altered, either by Daniela or by the FBI. If metadata was changed or chain of custody broken, then under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence those files were never properly authenticated. Digital forensics exists to test this, and when courts refuse to examine it, as tney have here, due process is denied.

There have been experts , like Dr. J. Richard Kiper, who have produced compelling forensic reports. However, the judges and appellate judges showed no interest in this.

I’ve also witnessed how the FBI intimidates some of the judges in the Eastern District of New York. It was shocking to see how terrified Judge Diane Gujarati was of the FBI in the Daedone and Cherwitz case. When judges fear the FBI, defendants don’t get justice. Judges are meant to be a check on federal power, not a subordinate to it.

The judicial section of the Eastern District is not well-equipped to confront the FBI in New York and its aggressive behavior.

Sex Trafficking — Or Legal Fiction?

I also think that the sex trafficking was a ridiculous charge. It’s not sex trafficking.

It was a one-time sexual incident done with, at least by the alleged victim’s own admission, with her verbal consent. It wasn’t commercial sex. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a commercial sex act means sex in exchange for “anything of value.” Traditionally that meant money, rent, gifts, or drugs — not intangible status inside a private group. It was some purported bizarre teaching experiment under the umbrella of DOS, Raniere’s secret master-slave group.

It may have been extortion or blackmail. It may have been coercion. But it wasn’t sex trafficking. Those other crimes have statutes designed to cover such misconduct without stretching trafficking law beyond recognition. I think it is interesting that Nicole, by her own admission, had sex with Raniere consensually after the supposed sex trafficking.

To shoehorn sex trafficking, the judge in Raniere’s case had to change the pattern jury instructions — to rewrite the law for the jury — to get around the fact that it wasn’t commercial sex. The benefit required of a third party, in this case Allison Mack, was not money, but rather an enhancement of her social status within the NXIVM group. That expansion of “value” to include social status was unprecedented and dangerous. If “status” counts, almost any manipulative relationship could be federalized as trafficking. That’s not sex trafficking.

Convicted Without Camila

Camilla tilted the case into a surefire conviction since the alleged victims, other than her, were all adults. Yet the government chose not to call Camila. The entire case was about Camila, but she never appeared in court until after the conviction, at sentencing. That choice deprived the defense of the constitutional right to confront its most important accuser. The Sixth Amendment promises confrontation, not substitution.

Instead, the government relied on the prosecutor and an FBI agent reading selected excerpts of their texts. Those texts became the centerpiece of the trial, but without Camila on the stand, the defense had no chance to test their accuracy, context, or authenticity. Hearsay took the place of cross-examination.

Don’t get me wrong. Raniere’s a fool, and he’s a man who uses and abuses people. And he may have committed far worse crimes. However, if we adhere to due process, he didn’t receive a fair deal. Convictions cannot rest on theatrics when the critical witness is absent. If the government’s strongest evidence is too fragile to survive cross-examination, then the trial is suspect.

Jujitsu and the Final Lesson

I have to say I was glad the government indicted and convicted him, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do to me. And he’s a master of jujitsu — or so he claims — and I did a little jujitsu in reverse. As he attempted to throw me to the ground or into prison for decades, I did the same to him.

But 120 years – a life sentence? No. It was too much.

Glad Tidings:

Mk10Art is back. Here is her latest – in commoration of the grand master’s 65th birthday.

Just an exquisite piece. So yes, I do have a little fun in satirizing the plight of Raniere. Viva Executive Success!

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio