It was no joke that Rhiannon at age 13 had a hard time accepting the sexual desires of Mr. Raniere, age 31. For one thing his tongue would get bruised and almost lacerated by her braces. She later told the Times Union that she reported the matter to the police. They asked her to wear a wire. She was too afraid and they chose not to prosecute Mr. Raniere.
Featured News NXIVM

Judge Rules: Rhiannon Won’t Testify  

Judge Nicholas Garaufis has ruled that Rhiannon [AKA Jane Doe X] won’t be permitted to testify in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.

Readers of Frank Report know Rhiannon was the 12-year-old girl who claimed she was raped by Raniere some 60 times in 1992 when he was operating his earlier enterprise, Consumer’s Buyline, Inc. [CBI].

The Albany Times Union first broke the story of the rape of Rhiannon in their “Secrets of Nxivm” series in February 2012.

A court document unsealed late last week in the case of USA v Raniere, dating back to May 4, three days before commencement of the trial, settled the issue of Rhiannon’s not testifying.

The judge ruled Rhiannon’s testimony may “unfairly influence” the jury in his current trial.  Her alleged rapes occurred 27 years ago and, thus, are well beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

Evidence of Sham Marriages to Get Raniere More Sex 

The judge did approve, however, the prosecution submitting evidence that Raniere’s co-conspirators assisted in procuring sexual partners for him, many of whom did not have legal status, in entering or remaining in the United States.  Included in this is evidence that Raniere and his co-conspirators arranged “sham” marriages for Raniere’s sex partners so they could remain in the United States.

The prosecution intends to prove that the co-conspirators committed “immigration fraud, in order to obtain [cheap] workers or sex partners for Raniere.”

Keith Raniere assumes his “Thinker” pose.

Raniere Punished Women Who Did Not Recruit Sex Partners

The judge also approved the prosecution submitting evidence that Raniere’ s former co-defendants [Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, and Lauren Salzman] and other co-conspirators [not indicted] “recruited and groomed sexual partners for Raniere, including one or more underage girls, and, at Raniere’s direction, actively engaged in efforts to punish others if their efforts [to get him sex partners] failed to satisfy Raniere.”

The prosecution wanted, in support of this, to offer evidence that, while Raniere was running CBI in the 1990s, he engaged in a sexual relationship with Rhiannon, beginning when she was 12 years old and was aided and abetted by at least one of his Nxivm co-conspirators.

Left to right: Nancy Salzman, Keith Alan Raniere, Karen Unterreiner, and Lauren Salzman. While all four are co-conspirators in the criminal conspiracy, one of the four was far smarter than the others. When the feds came to town, Karen Unterreiner quickly became a cooperating witness and avoided prosecution.

Karen Unterreiner Knew About Rhiannon

The prosecution alleged that a certain member of CBI, who is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Nxivm criminal enterprise, knew Rhiannon was underage and that Raniere was having sex with her, and helped Raniere have sex with the child “in order to please Raniere.”

The prosecution has not named this member of CBI, but Frank Report has identified Karen Unterreiner as the likely co-conspirator [and likely witness]. She was with Raniere at CBI and remained with him in Nxivm.  Sources tell Frank Report that Karen [along with the late Pam Cafritz] were known to recruit teens and pre-teens for Raniere to rape.

Sex with Cami Is Admissible

The prosecution has introduced evidence at trial regarding a sexual relationship between Raniere and Cami, a then fifteen-year-old Mexican girl who eventually became a DOS slave.

Raniere allegedly committed crimes of sexual misconduct  with her – sexual exploitation of a child [Cami], and possession of child pornography. This evidence, the judge ruled, will not be “overly inflammatory” to the jury.

Co-conspirator Allison Mack’s Defense: Before she pleaded guilty, Allison Mack argued that the sexual activity involving minors “predated [her] alleged involvement in the crimes charged in the Indictment by many years”.
Raniere argued that evidence of his getting help from Nxivm women is “unfairly prejudicial.” Raniere also challenged the admission of evidence regarding his sexual contact with Cami and Rhiannon.

He seems to have won with Rhiannon.

On the other hand, the judge ruled that evidence regarding his sexual relationship with Cami, which occurred in 2005 [possibly even earlier] is relevant since the prosecution charges that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of Cami when she was 15.

Images of Cami were found on a hard drive in Raniere’s “Library” in Clifton Park NY – at 8 Hale Drive and seized during a raid on March 27, 2018 – one day after Raniere’s arrest in Mexico.

Part of the evidence against Raniere which the prosecution is using is a “journal entry” that reveals Cami was having sex with Raniere when she was under the age of consent [The age of consent in NY is 17].

In addition, the prosecution has time-dated, nude pictures of 15-year-old Cami – whichconstitutes child pornography, and evidence that the pictures were taken by Raniere. They also have electronic communications between Cami and Raniere which indicates the sexual nature of their relationship and that it occurred when she was under the age of consent.

What About Rhiannon?

The judge ruled that Raniere’s alleged sexual relationship with the then-12-year-old Rhiannon is “much less relevant to the [racketeering] enterprise as a whole, given that it appears to have occurred in the early 1990s.… years before the alleged enterprise was formed (and years before any of the charged crimes or predicate acts allegedly occurred).”

Quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence, he wrote, that Rhiannon’s testimony is “inadmissible because its ‘probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.’”

The prosecution argued that Rhiannon’s testimony concerning her rape is relevant to its charges that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of Cami because it is evidence of “other child molestation”.

The prosecution said Rhiannon’s evidence shows Raniere had “a propensity” to commit the charged crimes against Cami by showing he did similar things to Rhiannon.

Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled Rhiannon will not testify

The Judge’s Five Tests 

Judge Nicholas Garaufis considered five tests in deciding whether to exclude Rhiannon from testifying.

(1) the similarity of what Raniere purportedly did to Rhiannon [for which he is not charged] to what he allegedly did to Cami [for which he is charged];

(2) the closeness in time of the prior acts to the acts charged;

(3) the frequency of the prior acts;

(4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances; and

(5) the necessity of the evidence beyond the testimonies already offered at trial.

The judge also considered “the potential for unfair prejudice, including the possibility that prior act evidence will lead the jury to convict out of passion or bias or because they believe the defendant is a bad person deserving of punishment – a particular risk with this sort of evidence.”

How The Judge Decided on Each of the Five Tests:

The similarity of Crimes – Rhiannon and Cami:
The judge determined that the prior [Rhiannon] and charged [Cami] acts are “somewhat similar”. The prior acts show Raniere’s “attraction to children, thus providing evidence of his motive to make pornography.”
However, the charged acts regarding Cami do not actually involve allegations of physical sexual contact with an underage person, the judge wrote.

[There is little doubt that Raniere had sex with underage Cami, but he is not being charged for that. Cami is in Guadalajara, Mexico and a follower of Raniere. She works for Raniere’s childhood experiment Rainbow Cultural Gardens and is not likely to testify at his trial.]

Closeness in Time
The prior and charged acts appear to have taken place more than 10 years apart, the judge observed.

Frequency of Prior Acts
The prior acts involve sexual intercourse with only one victim [Rhiannon] – and the judge ruled that the prosecution has provided no indication of the ‘frequency of the prior acts or how that should factor into the court’s analysis.”
Intervening Circumstances

The judge wrote that he was not aware of any relevant “intervening circumstances” between the prior and charged acts.

Necessity of Evidence
The judge decided that “perhaps most significantly,” Rhiannon’s testimony about her rape in the early 1990s is “not necessary to prove that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of [Cami] in 2005.”

He noted that the prosecution has the nude photographs of Cami and claims to have evidence that they were taken and possessed by Raniere.

{The prosecution also plans to introduce evidence that Raniere had sexual intercourse with Cami before she was eighteen.

Unfair Prejudice to Raniere
The judge wrote of Rhiannon’s proposed testimony, that it would be “cumulative…. has little probative value as to the charged acts…. would likely cause unfair prejudice to Raniere… [and] could ‘confus[e] the issues’ or ‘mislead[] the jury…”

The judge further ruled, “As the prior acts took place 27 years ago and Raniere was never charged in relation with them, allowing Jane Doe X [Rhiannon] to testify would risk creating a trial within a trial regarding [Raniere’ s] prior bad conduct.”

Adult DOS Women
The judge made one further point: that “there is a risk that jurors would consider Raniere’s alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe X when evaluating Raniere’s guilt as to the sex trafficking counts, which involve adult woman legally capable of consent.”

Conclusion of Judge Garaufis
“In conclusion,’ the judge ruled that he would exclude Jane Doe X’s testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 because Rhiannon’s testimony’s “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, … or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

 

 

About the author

Frank Parlato

40 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

    • Righto, Scotty. And ‘tis why perchance Agnifilo is not permitted to disclose his former US prosecutors role to the jury.

    • So true. When all of the books, and documentaries, and movies, and podcasts (ad nauseum) come out, I hope some will focus on the lack of action by the states, local, and federal authorities. Bravo to the EDNY!

  • The picture of douchenozzle Raniere sitting at the table, he looks like such a putz. I can’t wrap my head around the attraction women had for him. Speaking of head, his head looks abnormally large in relation to his body and the little T. rex arms. That head is like a stop sign. Huge.

    Unkempt, out of shape, older than many of these women. The transcripts and audio of him speaking has shown me nothing that was impressive or could be mistaken for high intelligence. Not someone I’d say talks a good game.

    That there are those that still talk about the “good of the tech”. Any Barnes & Noble has “for dummie” books that are greater than or equal to what NXIVM was selling. Man, low self esteem or not I can not see how he had people, women, following him.

    • Mitch, I have wondered the same thing. Also, I got a good laugh from “stop sign head” and “t Rex arms”.

    • — I can’t wrap my head around the attraction women had for him.

      Some women just aren’t good at choosing men. They’ll give obvious douchebags the time of the day over and over again – fooled by their bullshit air of confidence – while they ignore good guys and/or take them for granted. By the time they realize their stupidity, all the of the latter are gone and so are their choices.

    • I also cannot understand just how much sex a normal person could desire – I mean, every single, bloody day and with multiple partners to boot. It’s got to signal something deep, disturbing, and pathological. Even “horny” guys enjoy other diversions that life has to offer. (Well maybe in Keith’s limited sphere he enjoyed volleyball.) Sex on Raniere’s schedule has got to get old. Seriously. It sickens me.

    • “The transcripts and audio of him speaking…”
      I know. That’s what gets me the most. He doesn’t make logical points and his grasp of language is embarrassing. He makes up his own grammar. It’s laughable.
      Not to mention he is unattractive and does resemble a cartoon T.Rex. Lol!

    • I wholeheartedly agree. Soft voice? He sounds like a whiny little shit, with a face only a mother could love.

    • BINGO!
      I have been saying the same thing.
      Spend 20 bucks on a self help book and save yourself from a cult.

  • It’s a real shame that Rhiannon won’t get the justice owed to her, but I hope she will feel some sense of justice when Little Keith becomes inmate #5105743 for the rest of his life.

    • Rhiannon is going to get the justice long owed to her, Paul. We all are. Wasn’t only “little Keith” who stuck it to her back in the day when his wiener was a-working over time.

      I think the Trowel investigation might turn-up a few more culprits and I don’t mean the slaves. Gonna be some swamp drainage going on left and right up North and down South too, if I’m reading this right.

      Btw, do you mean “little Keith” as in that Mexican chap — who does bear and uncanny resemblance, don’t you think?

      Seems “little Keith” was being groomed as the new messiah once KAR and/or KAR-in’ (Karen is it? The fallback for fall girl Allison Mack?)

      Gee, and I heard Keith chose Mark Vicente to pass his magic wand onto.

  • “…needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Judge is saying the defendant is already boned.

    There are commenters here who could show Judge Garaufis some direct news about Raniere’s “frequency of prior acts.” Unintroduced as evidentiary in Brooklyn but referred to the northern district’s attention, it’s a backhand hit back up north, where nobody has wanted to prosecute the sperminator and his culties.

    Twenty years of “pull up to the bumper, baby” can get to be a habit.

      • I’m getting a redirect to an ad for legal services on that link. FYI. I’m always a bit worried about those “redirects” Lyin’ Lauren whimpered about. 10,000 x’s bit…5000 times shy.

        How do we show Judge Garufis our evidence? Is this the right district for that?

        • the link worked for me….

          “Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
          The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

          Notes
          (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

          Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

          The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence which is of unquestioned relevance. These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting time, at the other extreme. Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission. Slough, Relevancy Unraveled, 5 Kan. L. Rev. 1, 12–15 (1956); Trautman, Logical or Legal Relevancy—A Conflict in Theory, 5 Van. L. Rev. 385, 392 (1952); McCormick §152, pp. 319–321. The rules which follow in this Article are concrete applications evolved for particular situations. However, they reflect the policies underlying the present rule, which is designed as a guide for the handling of situations for which no specific rules have been formulated.

          Exclusion for risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time, all find ample support in the authorities. “Unfair prejudice” within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.

          The rule does not enumerate surprise as a ground for exclusion, in this respect following Wigmore’s view of the common law. 6 Wigmore §1849. Cf. McCormick §152, p. 320, n. 29, listing unfair surprise as a ground for exclusion but stating that it is usually “coupled with the danger of prejudice and confusion of issues.” While Uniform Rule 45 incorporates surprise as a ground and is followed in Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–445, surprise is not included in California Evidence Code §352 or New Jersey Rule 4, though both the latter otherwise substantially embody Uniform Rule 45. While it can scarcely be doubted that claims of unfair surprise may still be justified despite procedural requirements of notice and instrumentalities of discovery, the granting of a continuance is a more appropriate remedy than exclusion of the evidence. Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. VI. Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility), Cal. Law Revision Comm’n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 612 (1964). Moreover, the impact of a rule excluding evidence on the ground of surprise would be difficult to estimate.

          In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. See Rule 106 [now 105] and Advisory Committee’s Note thereunder. The availability of other means of proof may also be an appropriate factor.

          Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

          The language of Rule 403 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

          ‹ Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence up Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts ›

  • Take it to the streets, Rhianon.

    Sure, it’s risky business but far more so if you “co-produced” a Secret Service, CIA, etc. Federally approved projects with an ego-maniac “programmed” take all the credit for every drop of blood, sweat and tears you poured into those projects — including your sister’s head.

    These details are important — the self-inflicted pain while he raped you. Gina looked like the tattooed lady. She was beheaded just like all those headless manikins that are popping up everywhere!

    Be Aware — you have nothing to beware of at this point. I hope.

  • Ok so the statute of limitations has passed, but can someone with US law knowledge, please quantify this. She can still tell her story on say Frank Report freely under your ammendment rules and people are still also free to listen?

  • As regards “Evidence of Sham Marriages,” what will be done about Nickvi Clyne and Allison Mackvi? Surely there is a case to answer.

    • I assume that the IRS and ICE are watching and waiting for the trial to end, and then are going to go after quite a few people for a variety of offenses – including the sham marriages that we are apparently going to hear about.

      I believe that such actions are almost certain, compared to possible future criminal prosecutions, because they are fairly straightforward, and should readily result in the levying of significant fines and penalties – and possibly even a few simple criminal charges.

      It would be very interesting to hear some of the legal eagles weigh in, though.

    • First, there is no prove that her marriage is “sham”…there is enough to support the idea that the marriage was realistic and plausible…
      Second , how about getting a life and stopping to focus exclusively on Allison, Mr shadow2

      • ‘realistic and plausible’ – How authentically romantic. Not.

        “Darling, will you marry me? I want to spend the rest of my life in a realistic and plausible relationship with you”

        -Said no suitor, ever.

  • Well it gets more interesting the Times Union was in Knoxwoods today great guy when does this end when i bought my condo 19 years ago, I loved this place not anymore will it ever go back to being a nice neighborhood again Alison was my worst neighbor cars go by it not the sane peaceful place anymore I don’t feel safe

    • It sounds like the Knox Woods residents are another interested group that should also be pushing for Albany-area authorities to pursue NXIVM criminals, and finally put an end to the nefarious activity. Those NXIVM members still running around the neighborhood may well have been involved in at least the financial crimes such as money laundering, and tax and customs evasion, and their remaining properties may well be candidates for forfeiture.

    • Allison’s antics of all night singing and having visitors all through the day and night were too much for any neighbor to bear.
      And I remember you saying that you could hear people in her townhouse taking cold showers through the night presumably as punishment for some infraction.

      And while Allison now plays the doe-eyed fawn, you said that she always seemed a confident person. Hardly the naive waif.

  • I wish Rhiannon received her day in court, however, I do not want Raniere to ever be granted an appeal and receive a second trial.

    Hopefully, the federal prosecutors from the other district will move forward with the additional outstanding charges.

  • Rhiannon had no business testifying in this trial.

    As for Heidi’s claim that Rhiannon will one day get justice for what Keith did to her, that’s just NOT in the cards cuz the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS has fucken expired.

    There’s nothing to prosecute there.

    Also, I doubt that Keith has any assets in his name. Thus suing him won’t win JACK SHIT. I doubt Pam’s $8 million has been placed in Keith’s name.

    Get a clue, Heidi.

    As for Kristin Snyder, she fucken wrote a suicide note and was making crazy statements to her family.

    Kristin wasn’t murdered, she was a BATSHIT CRAZY and LONELY woman who simply OFF’d herself.

    There is no real investigation into Snyder’s case at this juncture. Heidi just likes blabbing.

    As for the other NY suicide that Heidi mentioned, it was tragic but the victim took her own life with her own hand. That’s just not murder. The worst that could happen is manslaughter, just like Michelle Carter.

    Frank needs to stop these false rumors and keep his site full of FACTS.

    I challenge somebody to prove me wrong on any of these things. I want FACTS or STFU.

    • wow someone seems really triggered by some sister trying to find justice and truth …..ps time for you to STFU

    • Greetings Cock,

      Why so fearful of the prospect of suicide being a form of murder that could be incited by external forces? It seems to me that very often with all the -cides (regicide, matri-/patricide, genocide etc.) there are culpable enablers/driving forces

      Are you guilty of driving someone to such a terrible end? I work with someone implicated thus in the death of one of my students, interestingly, he gets as wound up and craven on this subject as you do.

    • NYS Child Victims Act, 2/14/19. There may be justice available for Rhiannon after all. And for Gina M. And for all the remaining girls he went after. And that may apply to his complicit harpies as well.

%d bloggers like this: