Assistant US Attorneys Moira Kim Penza and Tanya Hajjar filed their opposition to Keith Raniere’s second bail motion. Their opposition papers are addressed to the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis.
Raniere previously sought bail, proposing a bond of $10 million, with home detention in Brooklyn, NY to be supervised by a private team of 24-hour armed guards. The Court denied his motion, finding that Raniere posed a substantial risk of flight and that there was a risk that if he were released, he may “unlawfully exploit women or obstruct justice.”
Since the Court’s order denying bail, Raniere was charged, via a superseding indictment, with racketeering conspiracy that included identity theft, encouraging aliens to enter the United States illegally, forced labor, document servitude, extortion, forced labor conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, as well as sex trafficking conspiracy, sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit identity theft for the purpose of tax evasion.
Although he is now facing more charges, Raniere’s new bail proposal is significantly weaker than the one already rejected by the Court. He now proposes no guards to watch him, just an ankle monitor – and he wants to live in Clifton Park, which is several hours closer to the Canadian border than Brooklyn (Canada is where he first tried to flee when he learned that the feds were investigating him). And the proposed bail bond dropped from $10 million [of Clare Bronfman’s money] to purportedly $1 million in real estate co-signed by three individuals.
Yet, it is even less than that. We find out that there is nowhere near $1 million in equity in the three properties. They all have mortgages on them and the total equity in all three properties is – according to the government – about $170,000.
So, for the record, Raniere’s bail bond shrunk from $10 million to $170,000.
Here are some of the salient points of the government’s opposition with observations of my own [in brackets and in bold].
I. The Defendant’s Second Motion for Bail
The majority of the defendant’s thirteen-page motion for bail consists of arguments that have already been advanced and rejected by the Court or do not merit a
response. For example, the first three pages of the defendant’s motion for bail consists of a description of the defendant’s “teachings” punctuated by footnoted quotations from Bertrand Russell, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche that bear no relation to the substance of the defendant’s motion for bond. The twenty-four-minute promotional video posted to YouTube and submitted to the Court is also entirely irrelevant.
… A number of the individuals who appear in the video…. have since left the organization and have indicated that their experiences in Nxivm were traumatic. The defendant’s inclusion of video footage of them in his motion for pretrial release is misleading at best…
The defendant also reiterates his claim that he and his supporters have been the target of “blatant false statements” and that certain individuals “…deleted data, stole ESP
student profiles and documentation” and “…canceled credit card payments” by Nxivm clients.
[He was referring to Sarah Edmondson and Jen Kobelt]
…Nxivm and Clare Bronfman sought to have criminal charges brought against these individuals, but the Vancouver Police Department declined to recommend that any charges be brought…
II. The Defendant Presents A Risk of Flight
In denying the defendant’s prior application for bail, the Court found that his history and characteristics “strongly support the conclusion” that the defendant posed a risk
of flight…particularly persuasive [was] the defendant’s abrupt relocation to Mexico prior to his arrest, his “lack of an ordinary job or personal financial resources that could secure a meaningful bond, and his apparent access to extensive financial resources supplied by anonymous third parties.”…
The defendant concedes that he enjoys the “support of people with substantial means,” including what he describes as an “unknown contingent interest” in a multi-million
dollar estate…
[Pam Cafritz’s estate]
… The defendant fails to note that he voluntarily relinquished executorship of the estate to a person, who…is a “firstline” DOS “slave” who is herself a person of significant wealth.
{This, I believe, is Rosa Laura Junco, daughter of Mexican publishing magnate Alejandro Junco. Rosa Laura had authorization to sign checks for Cafritz’s bank account after Cafritz died.]
…The government…obtained evidence that, notwithstanding his purported lack of any financial assets, the defendant receives a percentage of the profits of many, if not all, Nxivm-affiliated companies, which he does not keep in his name…For example, emails dated from August 2015, including an email sent to the defendant, reflect an anticipated payment of a nearly $190,000 fee for the defendant in connection with an Anima, Inc. project in Mexico.
[He told Pretrial Services he had no income.]
III. The Charges Are Serious and Government’s Case Against the Defendant is Strong
…The defendant claims that the weight of the evidence against the defendant does not favor detention because the “overwhelming majority of women in DOS did not,
were not asked to, and certainly were not required to, have sex with Mr. Raniere.”…
The government has alleged that women who joined DOS provided “collateral,” such as sexually explicit photographs and letters making damaging accusations against their
loved ones, on the false premise that they were joining a women’s empowerment group and that it consisted solely of women. The collateral was meant to ensure compliance and prevent DOS “slaves” from leaving the organization or speaking about it publicly. Multiple witnesses have indicated that they would not have provided collateral had they known the truth of the defendant’s involvement and that they remained in DOS because they had provided collateral. Having provided this collateral, a number of DOS “slaves” were tasked with engaging in sexual activity with the defendant and providing him with additional collateral, such as sexually explicit photographs, with the understanding that their collateral could be released if they did not do so. The fact that not all DOS “slaves” had direct sexual interactions with the defendant says nothing about the strength of the evidence against him.
IV. The Defendant Poses a Serious Danger to the Community
…. The defendant’s claim that he does not pose a danger because there are no allegations of “violence, guns, knives, or weapons of any time.”… ignores the very real and significant consequences of psychological abuse, economic abuse, and sexual abuse.
For example, it was on the defendant’s orders that Jane Doe 4 remained in a bedroom for nearly two years. The defendant ordered her confined to the room not because she had stolen “from people in the community,” Def. Mot. at 12, but specifically in order to exercise power and control over her. For instance, in an email dated November 9, 2010, Lauren Salzman emailed the defendant to inform him that Jane Doe 4 had written a letter that begged to be “let out” of the room because she was “coming undone.” Salzman also told the defendant that Jane Doe 4’s letter had been intercepted and was not shown to Jane Doe 4’s parents because they were “so reactionary.” The defendant wrote back: “You might try asking [Jane Doe 4] the difference between being in the room for a day…or as long as she has.”
Jane Doe 4 remained confined to the bedroom for another fifteen months after she wrote the letter stating that she was “coming undone.” The defendant’s claim that Jane Doe stayed in the room “entirely of her own volition”…is belied by the fact that the day she left the room, she was punished—as she had been threatened she would be—by
being driven to Mexico and left without any identification.
{The government also alleges that Raniere likely statutorily raped a 15 year old girl about 12 years ago, who I suspect is Camila Fernandez. See related post
V. The Defendant’s New Proposed Bail Package Is Insufficient to Address These Concerns
…The defendant proposes a $1,000,000 bond secured by three properties owned by three different individuals whose relation to him is not clear. The defendant has not
provided…any information regarding the owners of these properties and what, if any, relationship he has with them.
Although the defendant has not yet provided the government with complete information regarding the value of the properties to be posted, two of the properties appear to be almost entirely mortgaged (97.6% and 95%) and the third has equity of approximately $100,000. The total secured portion of the bond, therefore, appears to be approximately $170,000…
[He was denied bail when he proposed posting $10 million and now he is proposing $170,000]
The defendant notes that the owners of the properties will sign on to the bond as well as “several” unidentified others. (Id. at 4.) The owners of the properties appear to be
Nxivm clients with no personal relationship to the defendant, and one of them is not a United States citizen.
[Three people – as yet unnamed – evidently NXIVM members, one a foreigner, with little equity in their properties – is the new proposal. It is characteristic of Executive Success Programs that no one has money – unless they inherited it – and Raniere hasn’t gobbled it up. It makes sense that all he could muster up is two nearly fully mortgaged properties and one property with $100,000 in equity. Why isn’t Clare or Sara Bronfman putting up property for Vanguard?]
V. Conclusion
The defendant poses a considerable flight risk and danger, and his proposed bail package is weaker than that already considered and rejected by the Court. Under these
circumstances, the government respectfully submits that the defendant’s motion for bail should be denied without further hearing.
[The government is asking the judge to rule without oral argument. Because the motion by Raniere is so much weaker than the one that the judge already rejected and that Raniere is now charged with many more crimes than before, it seems that there is almost no chance of his getting out on bail. The judge, however, may allow a hearing and give the attorneys for the defense a chance to make their best arguments. I would rate it about a one in a million that Raniere gets bail. I think the government knows it. I suspect the judge already knows it. My guess is that Raniere’s attorneys know it.
The only question is”Does Raniere know he won’t get bail?” Even after all that fancy word salad at the beginning of his bail package, does he know that this is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time?
If he doesn’t, it’s likely a sign that he is now delusional. The motion itself showed signs of delusional behavior with the comparison of him to Socrates and the other ridiculous fluff about NXIVM, plus the inclusion of the bizarre NXIVM YouTube video.
Perhaps our Vanguard has lost it.]
