NXIVM sex cult members from Mexico dancing for leader Keith Raniere.

Raniere trying to get Mexican witnesses to testify — hopes to have Jane Doe #2 testify she was not 15 when nude photos were taken

Certain Mexican Nxivm members are getting “subpoenas” to appear as witnesses for the Nxivm trial. Sources tell me this is part of a scheme by the Keith Raniere defense team to get Mexican women to “safely” testify for Raniere. Neither the US Government nor Raniere has jurisdiction to subpoena [or legally require as a subpoena […]

Certain Mexican Nxivm members are getting “subpoenas” to appear as witnesses for the Nxivm trial. Sources tell me this is part of a scheme by the Keith Raniere defense team to get Mexican women to “safely” testify for Raniere.

Neither the US Government nor Raniere has jurisdiction to subpoena [or legally require as a subpoena does] anyone in Mexico to come to the US.

The subpoenas are, in effect, mere pieces of paper with no legal force.

They are, however, being served on Mexican women – and an attorney close to the case told Frank Report that this is a step Raniere is taking in order to try to persuade the trial judge (US District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis) to grant his request to have Mexican witnesses for the defense testify via closed-circuit TV, as opposed to their coming to the USA and testifying in person.

Raniere’s argument is that the Mexican women want to testify in support of their Vanguard but are afraid that if they come to the US, the DOJ will arrest them and charge them with Nxivm-related crimes.

Raniere has asked the DOJ to guarantee “safe passage” from the US and back to Mexico for these witnesses since he argues it would be unfair to subject them to possible arrest if they appear for the defense.

In some cases, special clearance from Homeland Security is necessary to get them into the USA – since they do not possess visas.

If the judge and the DOJ do not agree to “safe passage”, Raniere is asking the judge to allow the Mexican women to testify on closed-circuit TV where they could be examined by the defense and cross-examined by the government.

The “subpoenas” are mere show after all – but what Raniere can say – if the Mexican women decline to appear – is that he tried to get “crucial” witness to testify but the government held a blatant threat over their heads – and refused to assure them that, if they came forward and testified, they won’t themselves end up being indicted – as a punitive measure for supporting Raniere.

Raniere suggests witness intimidation on the part of the government.

It might be an issue he can use on appeal if the judge does not grant his request to either compel the prosecution to grant temporary immunity and “safe passage” for Raniere’s Mexican witnesses – or allow them to testify on closed-circuit TV – as they  remain outside the jurisdiction of the US DOJ – if he loses the case.

The Mexicans could be indicted anyway in the US, but since they are Mexican citizens and living in Mexico, it is not as cut and dried concerning extradition to the US as it would be for the extradition of a US citizen living in Mexico. [Ask Raniere about that.]

Some of the women’s families have political influence that might also aid in avoiding extradition.

One of the witnesses Raniere wants to bring forward may be Jane Doe #2, now 29, who, when she was 15 years old, was allegedly photographed nude for Raniere’s so-called “studies.”

This is a damning piece of evidence and forms a major part of the predicate acts – and may form the nucleus of subsequent charges in the Northern District of child porn and sexual exploitation of a minor – after the upcoming trial in the Eastern District.

If Jane Doe #2, who is now in Guadalajara and under the control of a Nxivm leader there, decides to testify for Raniere, Frank Report will likely reveal her identity.

She is now an adult woman, was alleged to be a First Line Slave Master at DOS, and despite her victimization in youth – it is now high time for her to break free of the monster or pay the cost that other adults pay for supporting a madman.

This is especially true if she plans to testify [perjure herself] that she was not 15 at the time the nude pictures were taken but actually 17.  The point of that testimony is that if she was 17, it is no longer child porn.

Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, has retained a forensic computer analyst to cast doubt on the authenticity, age and the chain-of-custody of the Jane Doe #2 images.

If it came down to it, if the government said their expert said the images are from one date and Raniere’s expert said another, later date, and Jane Doe #2 said it was the later date, when she was not underage, much of the case against Raniere and underage claims vanish into air.

That does not mean the other charges go away.

This is part of the reason Raniere wants to call a battery of Mexican women who will testify that the sex trafficking and forced labor charges are nonsense.

They had collateral. They had Allison Mack or Lauren as slave masters. They were not intimidated or threatened and the labor they did as “acts of care” was not coercive.

This may go a long way to rebut the numerous Jane Does who will testify for the prosecution.

Agnifilo also plans some pretty vigorous cross-examination of the Jane Does as the prosecution is well aware.

In addition, Jane Doe #2, being the sister of Jane Doe #4 – the Mexican woman who was allegedly imprisoned for nearly two years – may be expected to testify that her sister, Jane Doe #4, was free to leave at any time and that the room was not locked and hence she was not in any meaningful way imprisoned.

The prosecution has a strong rebuttal to this and Jane Doe #4 testimony will be compelling, but one can see where the defense might squeak up to reasonable doubt – with sister against sister and forensic computer expert against forensic computer expert -and DOS victims versus Mexican DOS women who loved DOS.

In addition, Raniere is expected to call yet another sister of Jane Doe #4 – also a member of DOS – to testify that Jane Doe #4 was not imprisoned but wanted to stay in the room for nearly two years and could have left at any time.

It is not known if any of the Mexican women will testify and my sources say they are afraid to come to the USA and likely will not come to the US under any circumstances.

The entire Raniere defense may hinge on whether the judge allows them to testify by closed-circuit TV.


About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment
  • I don’t see how this can be allowed, though I don’t know what the precedents might be. it seems to me that there’d be no way to know, for instance, that someone wasn’t standing on the other side of the camera with a gun and script, unless the prosecutors could send their own representatives to Mexico – which then really illuminates the point that the witnesses ought to just come to court in the US, if their testimony is above-board and should be allowed in to the case. Fugitives from justice within US borders don’t get to testify by video, either.

    But I think we will see all sorts of unusual and even unprecedented things out of Raniere’s and Bronfman’s, defenses, as part of a resource-heavy legal strategy intended to do everything from confusing the jury, to setting up multiple grounds for appeal. This is what Bronfman is paying for, to be catered to by lawyers willing to try anything and everything.

  • Let’s look at it from a financial standpoint: how much has this trial cost so far? I am not talking about lawyer fees, but the actual cost to taxpayers and US citizens. When Raniere was extradited, who paid for the transportation, the guards, all of that? Who is now footing the bill for his current housing situaion? And now, he wants to incur more charges by “guaranteeing safe passage” for his potential witnesses? Or having them testify by camera — in which case, won’t someone have to go there to oversee the testimony? (more $$$) Seems to me that Mr. Raniere is having a lot of fun spending other people’s money.

    Bring the witnesses here and charge it to Raniere. Whatever it costs, put it on his bill.

  • The text/email exchange will have a date stamp as does her DNA to determine her age without question. No closed TV at late 20’s, she needs to turn up in person and they can work it out from physical factual info thereafter.

  • That’s a great defense idea. Call upon Mexicans who are afraid to come to America in fear that they will be indicted. Hmmm these Mexicans are admitting they are guilty of something, Keith wants criminals to testify on his behalf. This takes credibility away from the potential witnesses before the trail even begins.

  • I predict KAR will get off on a technicality, find religion, move to Texas, start a radio show protesting MLMs and cults…and get higher ratings than Scott.

  • Hey Frank.

    You keep avoiding the REAL information we want.

    Whether or not to grant ‘safe passage’ or to allow ‘video testimony’ (or to deny them both) is an issue already backed up by FEDERAL CASE LAW. It’s not some mystery issue. It’s been decided already.

    Yet you’re TOO LAZY to research the CASE LAW — and tell us exactly how federal appeals courts have ruled on this issue.

    We want to know:

    1) If safe passage isn’t granted then how can an appellate court overturn a guilty verdict on that issue —- WHEN the government can’t be forced to allow potential ‘criminals’ into the country with ‘carte blanche’ against being charged. Otherwise, judges would be forced to allow drug cartel bosses to have ‘safe passage’ to testify on behalf of their minions who get caught smuggling for them LOL.

    I want to see CASE LAW on this issue, not your own guesses.

    2) If video testimony isn’t granted then how can an appellate court overturn a guilty verdict on that issue —— WHEN the government can’t be forced to allow testimony that isn’t backed up by the threat of perjury charges if the witness lies during their testimony.

    i.e. If they’re testifying from a foreign land and don’t agree to waive extradition for perjury, they can’t be charged or extradited for perjury and their testimony is meaningless since there’s no threat of perjury for lying to the court. They’d have carte blanche to LIE to the court with impunity.

    Such testimony can’t be ‘forced’, can it?

    I realize that video testimony can be granted at the judge’s discretion — but I’m asking if an appeals court can overturn a guilty verdict if the judge and government don’t consent to allowing video testimony where the witness has impunity to lie?

    I want to see CASE LAW to back up your conclusions.

    Ask your resident attorney (Claviger) to tell us the answers.

    If not, then why the fuck are you even writing about these topics? 🙂

  • If she testifies. no doubt Jane Doe #2 will tell us what a great experience it all was.

    I wonder if the Mexican women Raniere wants beneficial testimony from are all still fully indoctrinated. Or are they being coerced by the richer, more powerful Mexican members, as a form of damage control.

  • Judge has to allow them to testify, plain and simple. Not doing so will certainly open the case to appeal and more.

    And, I want them to testify and be cross-examined by the prosecution so that all the information is out there for the jury to decide the case fairly.

  • Legal hair splitting aside, at the end of the day it still comes down to an older white guy exploiting a teen of color for sex. Dress that up any way you want, it still wont play well.

    • Snorlax, not all Mexicans are people of color. I believe that many, particularly in the upper classes, are of purely European descent. I’ve heard them referred to as “white Mexicans.”

    • Will mean absolutely nothing except to the goofballs pushing identity politics.

  • Everybody should be glad now that those plea deals were made!!!!!!

    Thank God!!!!!!!!

  • ……If the judge decides to allow fugitives to testify from closed circuit television in Mexico it will be a dark day for the American Justice System…..

    The prosecution could of course appeal such a decision….which could take years to filter through the appellate courts.

    Will the judge open Pandora’s box ?

    • Joan,
      Excellent point but I think Keith will clam the “rumor” was true and say the girl’s brother filmed her.

%d bloggers like this: