Don't it make my blue eyes brown? Keith has many followers in Mexico. As this magazine cover seems to indicate, when he goes to Mexico, just like a chameleon, he begins to transform his appearance to look just like a Mexican.
News NXIVM

Prosecution Responds To Raniere’s Request That Mexican Defense Witnesses Be Allowed To Testify Via Closed-Circuit Television

In the Memorandum-Of-Law that the prosecution filed on December 17th, it was responding to all the unresolved pre-trial motions that have been filed by the various defense attorneys who are representing Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman and Kathy Russell.

One of those pending motions – which was filed by Raniere’s lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo – concerned a request that one or more of the potential defense witnesses who are located in Mexico be allowed to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

According to Agnifilo, the reason why he made this request is because those potential witnesses are afraid they’ll be arrested if they come to the U.S. to testify at the trial.

Although my initial reaction was to dismiss the request as ridiculous and whimsical, further research has indicated there have been a variety of instances in which a federal judge has actually allowed such testimony to occur (Many of these cases involved young witnesses/victims – and older/infirmed witnesses).

Because there is no federal evidentiary rule that directly addresses this type of testimony, most courts that have been asked to allow such testimony have looked to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in making their decision (Rule 15 applies to the use of depositions rather than in-court testimony).

The bottom line, however, is that whether CCTV testimony will be allowed in a particular case is pretty much up to the discretion of the presiding judge.

In ultimately making a decision on this matter, the presiding judge in the pending case against Raniere and some of the other members of his criminal enterprise – U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis – will quite likely follow the standards that have already been established in the 2nd Circuit with respect to such testimony (The 2nd Circuit includes Connecticut, New York State and Vermont).

Thus, he will probably only allow such testimony to occur if:

  1. the prospective witness is unavailable for trial;
  2. the prospective witness’s testimony is material; and
  3. the prospective witness’s testimony is necessary in order to prevent a “failure of justice”.

Obviously, the defense witnesses in this case are only going to be “unavailable” because of their alleged concern that they may be arrested if they come to the U.S. Whether such a voluntary absence will be enough to meet the “unavailable” standard will be up to the judge.   

At this point, the prosecution has correctly pointed out that Raniere has not offered any evidence to substantiate his claim that several potential defense witnesses are afraid they’ll be arrested if they appear at his trial.

And the prosecution has also argued that Judge Garaufis should not even consider this request until Raniere’s attorneys provide the following:

  • the identity of each such proposed witness;
  • the specific reason(s) each such proposed witness believes they will be arrested if they travel to the U.S.;
  • the substance of the evidence to which each such proposed witness will likely  testify;
  • the relationship between the proffered testimony from each such proposed witness and the central aspects of the government’s allegations;
  • whether Mexican law would permit such CCTV testimony in a U.S. criminal trial; and  
  • whether, assuming the Court were to permit CCTV testimony, each such proposed witness would be subject to extradition if they committed perjury.

The likelihood of Agnifilo providing all that information to Judge Garaufis is about the same as the chance that Raniere won’t cry several more time before the trial starts.

And even if Agnifilo does provide all that information for some prospective witnesses, it’s extremely unlikely that Judge Garaufis would allow such testimony to be heard unless there was a way to extradite any witness who was found to have lied under oath.

Raniere’s followers, of course, have been taught that lying is perfectly ethical if it’s done for the right reason.

And if you can lie to protect the Jews who are hiding in your cellar from the Nazi soldiers at your front door – which is one of Raniere’s go-to analogies in his teachings about lying – then you damn well can lie to save a Vanguard who’s cooling his heels at the Metropolitan Detention Center.  

Chances of any Mexican witnesses testifying via CCTV in Raniere’s trial?

Pretty much like Raniere’s preference in women: very, very slim.

***

Now for those of you who never attended Rainbow Cultural Garden, a few Keith Raniere Mexican words might help you learn the Spanish language even without your own illegal foreign nanny:

Mexican word of the day: “Juicy.” March 26, 2018. Use in a sentence: “Allison, tell me if Juicy the cops.”


This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Capture.jpg
Mexican word of the day: Mushroom. March 26, 2018. Use in a sentence: “When Allison, Nicki, Loretta and Lauren chased the Mexican police, there wasn’t too mushroom in the car.
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Capture.jpg
Mexican word of the day: Chicken Breast. August 2017. “I’m so glad Mariana had my baby so now chicken breast feed me too. “
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Capture.jpg
Mexican word of the day: Herpes. 2009. “We cut the pizza with hot sauce in half so I could have my piece and she could have herpes too.”

Learning languages is easy and fun with Rainbow’s patent-pending methods.

About the author

Artvoice

News and art, national and local. Began as alternative weekly in 1990 in Buffalo, NY. Publishing content online since 1996.

8 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply to Scott Johnson (@ScottTexJohnson) Cancel reply

  • It’s amazing that most Mexican NXIVM members that would have enough information to testify could travel to the US to celebrate Little Lord KAR’S birthday party but LLKar’s attorney says they won’t available to testify for him in the US.

    If they are so fearful of being arrested, does that make them credible witnesses? First question the DOJ should as if they are allowed to testify via CCTV is why they’re fearful of arrest if they testified in person.

    The Jury has a right to know this information when considering their testimony.

  • If you thought the Jews were being given a hard time in an earlier thread, juicy what happens when Heidi get herpes written, there won’t be mushroom for others to provide their input, and OCD, chicken encourage Heidi as she did in the Christmas song thread. Ole!

  • Hey Claviger,

    I like your article but it’s lacking in some basic info that readers like myself are interested in.

    When deciding about permitting CCTV testimony from Mexico, the “extradition” (for perjury) issue is probably the whole ballgame.

    Because without the threat of extradition for perjury, the testimony is legally worthless and the witness can say anything without any repercussions.

    Yet you didn’t tell us anything about how extradition for perjury might work according to Mexican extradition law.

    What I mean is, in some countries people can waive their extradition rights ahead of time by signing a waiver with their government (and agreeing to be extradited if they commit perjury or if some other future condition is met).

    The question is, what does Mexican law or Mexican legal precedent say about this topic?

    I want to know, sir.

    You’re an attorney so kindly GET ON IT and get us some answers, please. You owe it to us. We are your loyal readers. There are plenty of lawyers who know Mexican law that you may consult.

    Mexican law is certainly not a mystery. There is legal precedent in Mexico just like any other country. This type of extradition waiver is either allowed or it’s not.

    If Mexican citizens aren’t allowed to ABSOLUTELY waive their extradition rights ahead of time then it would seem to me that the whole ballgame is over for those pussies trying to hide out in Mexico while testifying from afar to help their Vanguard.

    But since I’m just an ignorant moron when it comes to the law, I’m counting on you to verify this stuff for us.

    If not, then you’ll quickly be taken off of my Christmas card list.

    Hey Frank, if Claviger can’t get these answers then please consult somebody else and get those answers for us. If not, then you’ll also be taken off of my Christmas card list. lol

    • Fear of arrest can’t be a valid reason to allow video testimony. Any mob boss could claim an underling in hiding will video-testify to his innocence, probably by taking the blame upon himself. With perjury charges being unenforceable in such a case, there is no reason not to completely fabricate the testimony.

      Most of the Mexians are rich and idle so they are not “unavailable.” The ones who aren’t rich could have their travel expenses and missed work time compensation paid by the Bronfman defense trust.

      The possibility of extradition for perjury won’t be accepted by the judge as allowing video testimony. Even if the witness signed a waiver agreeing to extradition if perjury is charged, the witness could just go into hiding in Mexico between the fabricated testimony and the perjury charge extradition. With Salinas family money and influence available, the witness would never be found to be extradited.

%d bloggers like this: