It seems to me with all the recent discussion about the legality of the conviction of Keith Raniere AKA Vanguard, one would think he committed nothing more than a statutory rape against a willing teenager.
So, for all of you who don’t know the whole story about Keith – and that obviously includes Suneel Chakravorty – let’s take a brief trip down memory lane.
Part 1: Getting to Know Raniere
KEITH RANIERE IS A LIAR.
And not just your average liar.
Keith is a pathological, compulsive, and farcical liar.
I have never been able to understand how adults who society has judged to be competent could fall for his complete and total bullshit.
Here’s a little test for Frank Report readers:
Guess which things Raniere really claimed:
A. He was his Pre-school Class Judo Champion at the age of 3.
B. He was East Coast Judo Champion at age 12.
Frank, in your recent post, once again it’s ad hominem ad infinitum. What I am concerned in this debate with you is not whether he took pictures of Cami when she was 15, but whether or not agents of the FBI and other officials in the government, such as federal prosecutors, proved he took contraband photos with true, unaltered photographs, or whether they planted, falsified, and tampered with the evidence as a last-ditch effort to ensure a conviction in a case that otherwise could have been well-argued, was comprised of victims who were really all consenting adults, however misguided or well-guided – or even women who changed their minds and sought to blame it on him. I agree with you, Frank, that what I have presented so far is entirely circumstantial evidence or coincidences.
Here are a few more circumstances for you to consider.
FBI Examiner Brian Booth testified that the camera card, which was essential for linking the photographs to Raniere as the producer of them, was delivered to him by FBI Special Agent Michael Lever just 2 days before he took the stand and five weeks into the case. If I were a prosecutor and I knew that my lead expert got one of the two critical pieces of evidence just days before trial, I would find that suspicious. Even more so because it arrived in an unsealed, cellophane bag.
Here is an amazing bit of Paul DerOhanessian’s cross-examination of Brian Booth:
Q And with respect to Government Exhibit 524, the LEXAR card, was that submitted to you in a bag of some sort?
A Yeah, it was a cellophane bag.
Q Was it a sealed cellophane bag?
A No, it was not.
Someone posted the following comment concerning the post Bronfman Appeal: Never in DOS, While Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman Were ‘Elbow Deep in DOS’, and Got Lighter Sentences: “She got 7 years for being a mean S.O.B. Payback from Garaufis for the victims of Raniere? I have no love for Clare Bronfman, but the sentence appears highly vindictive.”
And it’s true. Clare Bronfman did get sentenced for crimes she was not charged with – and crimes she did not plead guilty to.
Here is what K.R. Claviger, our legal correspondent, had to say:
All plea deals must be approved by the presiding judge (Judge Garaufis held a separate plea hearing for Nancy, Lauren, Allison, Clare, and Kathy — all of whom chose to take Charge Agreements or Count Charge Agreements). As a result, all five of them agreed to be sentenced to whatever punishment the judge thought was appropriate in their case.
I don’t know:
(a) whether Mark Geragos explained all this to Clare;
(b) whether the prosecution would have agreed to a Sentence Agreement deal; or
(c) whether Judge Garaufis would have approved a proposed Sentence Agreement (Given that Clare had agreed to forfeit $6 million in lieu of being liable for restitution and spend up to 27 months in federal prison, I’m inclined to think the prosecution and the judge would have gone along with some sort of Sentence Agreement). But I do know that I would never allow a federal defendant to take any type of plea deal before I explained all of this to them.
Bronfman Appeal: Never in DOS, While Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman Were ‘Elbow Deep in DOS’, and Got Lighter Sentences
In a recent article in the Insider, Clare Bronfman’s attorney, Duncan Levin, argued on behalf of his client that she deserves to have her six year, 9 month sentence reduced because she got punished for DOS, something she never participated.
Bronfman has appealed her sentence, and a recent filing by another of Bronfman’s attorneys, Daniel Koffman, argues that her sentence should not be longer than Allison Mack [three years] and Lauren Salzman [probation] who pled to more serious crimes and were integral members of DOS. Her lawyers argue even though she had nothing to do with DOS, she was punished heavily for its existence – and that the judge, while acknowledging she knew nothing about DOS until after it was publicly exposed, gave her extra years in prison for “willful blindness.”
Willful blindness imposes culpability on someone who lacked actual knowledge of a fact – in this case the existence of DOS – but only if the person suspects the fact, realized its high probability, but refrained from obtaining the final confirmation because they wanted to be able to deny knowledge.
“Clare Bronfman never knowingly funded a sex cult,” Levin told Insider. “And that is what the judge himself said at sentencing.” Bronfman is “categorically against sex trafficking of any kind,” he added.
I recently wrote, Parlato to Suneel: ‘Put up or Shut up!’. Suneel Chakravorty responded with what was one of the most incredible posts in recent memory: Suneel Fires Back: How Do We Know the Photos Are of Cami?
I ask for evidence, hard evidence, and Suneel provides rank conjecture: “How do we know the photos shown in court were of Cami?”
It’s incredible to assert the photos were not Cami, or that the prosecution would knowingly present photos of someone else thinking they could get away with it.
Here is the press release from Warner: Rich & Shameless; Does Fame, Power, Success, and Money Really Buy Happiness?TNT Announces Summer 2022 Launch of Original True Crime Anthology, “Rich & Shameless”From Girls Gone Wild to Pharma Bro to Pam & Tommy, This Eight-Hour Unscripted Series Tells the Shocking Stories of Fame, Fortune and the Problems That Follow TNT Airs Sneak Peek Episode, “Pam & Tommy: The Tape That Changed America” on Saturday, February 19 FollowingState Farm All-Star Saturday Night
LOS ANGELES (January 27, 2022) – TNT announces its new, original true crime anthology series “Rich & Shameless,” documenting the shocking real stories of the problems that befall great wealth in seven unique films that will launch summer 2022. TNT will air an early sneak episode of the series, “Pam & Tommy: The Tape That Changed America” on Saturday, February 19, 2022, following the conclusion of the State Farm All-Star Saturday Night.
After publishing Despite Suneel’s Bizarre Claims, Evidence Shows Raniere Abused Cami at Age 15, attorney Neil Glazer wrote to me seeking a correction of the facts.
He had written to me in an email seeking to prevent me from writing an article about Camila back in April 2019,
“Cami has been interviewed. She is not testifying for Raniere. FBI victim services are in contact with her to make sure she knows they will help her to get help. No, she has not fully come forward, but she has been willing to stay in contact with them and the fact is they don’t need her testimony to prosecute and convict Raniere for what he did to her. Moira [Penza] told me, and this is a quote, “we have all the evidence we need.”
Correction by Glazer
After reading the article, and what he wrote back in 2019, just prior to the trial of Keith Raniere, Glazer wrote:
“Frank: I read your most recent blog post on Cami, and I appreciate not just that you have finally and firmly concluded that Raniere’s supporters have it tragically wrong, but that you dug into court records and other materials on which to base your conclusion.
“I need to correct one thing in one of the emails I wrote to you asking that you not misreport her status and say on your blog that she was still in and supporting Raniere. Please understand that, at the time, I did not have any access to Cami at all.
By K. R. Claviger
Although Frank is going to be doing his own response to each of Suneel Chakravorty’s posts concerning the trial of Keith Raniere, I cannot allow some parts of what Suneel has included in his first post Suneel: Only a Gullible Fool Can Ignore the Cami Tampering Evidence: Part 1 -Why Didn’t FBI Agents Find the Cami Photos Sooner? to pass by without some comment.
In this regard, however, I will limit my comments to legal-related issues in order to avoid, as much as possible, any overlap with Frank’s response.
First, every delay in Keith Raniere’s trial was approved by his lawyers – and presumably by Keith himself. That’s because there was so much evidence involved in the case that both sides needed extra time to prepare for the trial.
Second, non-specific claims are meaningless. Thus, claiming that Keith was “denied due process” without identifying the specific actions, inactions, or decisions behind that claim has no merit whatsoever. In this regard, the term “denied due process” is not some magical phrase with infinite possible meanings.
On the contrary, that term is inextricably bound to the specific rules, statutes and case law that determine what specific “due process” is due in any specific circumstance – and what constitutes a violation of that constitutional right.
The civil case, Sarah Edmondson, et al against Keith Raniere et al, is moving apace – which is to say moving as it should for a civil case of this magnitude – slowly.
It began to develop in 2017. It first took legs in 2018, was put on hold in 2020 until every defendant in the criminal case was sentenced and now is headed for its destiny – settlement, dismissal, or trial. Judge Eric Komitee directed the plaintiffs at a November 30, 2021 status conference to provide a letter in support of their motion for a protective order for anonymity [for some plaintiffs] and to include circumstances of each plaintiff who requests anonymity. It is to be understood that anonymity is for the public only and that the defendants would know their identities.
Lead attorney, Philadelphia lawyer, Neil Glazer, filed this letter in December segregating the important plaintiffs with the most serious claims who seek anonymity from those whose arguments for anonymity in a civil lawsuit are less persuasive. They were given the choice to be named or drop out of the suit. Most apparently chose to be named.
Though the lawsuit previously named most plaintiffs as Jane or John Does – as of now most of them are identified – and not by Suneel Chakravorty or Michele Hatchette – but by Glazer himself.
Glazer has named 59 formerly anonymous plaintiffs in his recent filing and sought to preserve anonymity only for 12.
In what some might see as a blow to the case – two of the 12 women he sought anonymity for – Amanda and Audrey – both DOS victims – both awarded restitution by Judge Nicholas Garaufis – have just dropped out.
Amanda is an attorney and Audrey a business professional. Audrey was awarded $142,017.96 and Amanda $257,617.51 in restitution by Judge Garaufis as victims of Raniere.