Ed. Note: Rumors persist that Bangkok is Dennis K. Burke, the former US Attorney of Arizona, now a premier lawyer with Ballard Spahr. Bangkok will neither confirm nor deny it.
Is former US Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke really Bangkok?
Suneel Can Dance
A lot of people believe Suneel Chakravorty started his dancing career outside the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center in the summer of 2020, where, he and others danced to show support for their friend, Keith Raniere, who was in custody, protest the abominable conditions there, and perhaps bring joy to suffering detainees, most of whom were awaiting trial or sentencing.
Suneel with other dancers
Suneel [l] Danielle Roberts back and Eduardo Asunsolo [r]
What few people know is Suneel was once a competitive ballroom dancer, capable of doing sublime steps such as the Cha-Cha, Foxtrot, Mambo, Rumba, and the Tango.
As a competitive dancer, Suneel Chakravorty is alternately crawling, leaping, slithering, jumping, and spinning and potentially other verbs, adverbs, and adjectives.
Suneel may have gotten less attention from the male prisoners at MDC than the comely Nicki Clyne, Michele Hatchette or Danielle Roberts, but his technical and expressive abilities were sharp, deliberate, focused, rhythmic, energetic, at times explosive, and capable of evoking an emotional response and potentially other descriptors.
***
How to Handle the Mob:
The Pickwickians had no sooner dismounted than they were surrounded by a branch mob of the honest and independent, who forthwith set up three deafening cheers, which being responded to by the main body (for it’s not at all necessary for a crowd to know what they are cheering about), swelled into a tremendous roar of triumph, which stopped even the red-faced man in the balcony.
‘Hurrah!’ shouted the mob, in conclusion.
‘One cheer more,’ screamed the little fugleman in the balcony, and out shouted the mob again, as if lungs were cast-iron, with steel works.
‘Slumkey for ever!’ roared the honest and independent.
‘Slumkey for ever!’ echoed Mr. Pickwick, taking off his hat. ‘No Fizkin!’ roared the crowd.
‘Certainly not!’ shouted Mr. Pickwick. ‘Hurrah!’ And then there was another roaring, like that of a whole menagerie when the elephant has rung the bell for the cold meat.
‘Who is Slumkey?’ whispered Mr. Tupman.
‘I don’t know,’ replied Mr. Pickwick, in the same tone. ‘Hush. Don’t ask any questions. It’s always best on these occasions to do what the mob do.’
‘But suppose there are two mobs?’ suggested Mr. Snodgrass.
‘Shout with the largest,’ replied Mr. Pickwick.
Volumes could not have said more.
Bangkok
Now for Bangkok’s latest commentary:
By Bangkok
I have to agree with Suneel in his article Message to Jury in USA v. Raniere: ‘One Name Good, Two Names Bad’
He does make logical arguments.
Only people who think with their emotions — rather than pure logic — could disagree (read: flaming liberals).
Why is Frank too chickenshit to weigh in on this issue?
Suneel is not afraid to stand up against the mob. You gotta respect that.
However… Suneel seems to have forgotten that Ivy Nevares has repudiated Keith in the harshest terms, so why is he citing her plight as though she’s on Keith’s side?
Ivy’s victim impact statement was likely the best one.
Her emails showed that Keith has major issues with feelings of sexual inadequacy. Keith got very jealous because she dreamed about other faceless men at night. Also, Keith said she was not ‘ethical’ because she wouldn’t lose more weight for him. That’s the language of a very controlling and insecure man, not a great leader looking to help humanity.
Ivy Nevares writes, “I was: an idealistic 25-year-old woman, advocating for free expression and human rights with PEN, the world’s first NGO. There he was: ‘the world’s smartest, most ethical man’ asking me, of all people, to spend the rest of my life with him. Little did I know, he was a 42-year-old manipulative narcissist and sexual predator.”
Frank, maybe you can send Suneel a copy of Ivy’s statement to the court (about Keith) and ask him to write an article defending his Vanguard’s behavior in those emails. How can Suneel defend a man who wrote such emails?
Be a journalist. Do your job. Asshole.
It’s easy to say you disagree with Suneel, especially when you have nothing at stake and nothing to lose.
Any COWARD can give an opinion when he’s got no “skin in the game”.
Let’s have somebody come forward and LOGICALLY refute Suneel’s points without using emotion and insults to help make their point.
Does anybody here have the BALLS?
No? That’s what I thought. 🙂
***
If Claviger was defending a real client, would he be okay with this kinda witness treatment for all prosecution witnesses?
Will Claviger respond?
Or is he afraid of the ‘mob’ along with their fearless leader, Mr. Stank Farlato, Jr., a Sicilian migrant who seems to cave to the mob?
This is a legit issue, yet Frank and Claviger — 2 of the biggest JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM advocates — have gone radio silent.
When I say ‘witnesses’ — I actually mean all parties spoken about by witnesses to the jury. Not just actual witnesses.
*If a case requires that one person be addressed by their first name only, then all parties (of that same case) should automatically be addressed in the same manner, to keep the trial fair.
***
My fellow Frank Report readers, you’re all thinking with your EMOTIONS, not your brains.
You’re thinking with pure EMOTIONS, not logic.
Not a single person here has even attempted to LOGICALLY rebut Suneel’s points.
Some of you just create a ‘strawman’ argument, then pretend as though you’ve rebutted Suneel’s points.
Especially RED HERRING’s argument. He doesn’t even address Suneel’s true point. Instead, he just tears down his own straw man argument.
The truth must be told here.
I must speak the truth.
While it’s okay to wanna protect certain witnesses who may feel vulnerable after an alleged sex crime, it’s not okay for the JURY to PERCEIVE that the judge is giving EXTRA CREDIBILITY to any particular witnesses.
Anybody with an IQ over 75 (retard level) would understand that you can’t give more ‘credibility’ to certain witnesses AND STILL have a fair trial.
It’s NOT okay for certain witnesses to be PRESUMED ‘truthful’ by the judge (to be perceived as ‘true’ victims of the defendant) —– because that’s tantamount to PRESUMING that the defendant is GUILTY before the trial is even over.
A person’s FREEDOM and LIFE are at stake during a trial.
Thus, the law says that he must be PRESUMED INNOCENT until he’s convicted, which means the judge shouldn’t be giving the jury any perception that certain witnesses are 100% legit ‘victims’ of this defendant.
I realize that sex crime victims are granted certain anonymity (and that won’t change, mostly for political reasons).
Thus, the only real solution (to help EQUALIZE the credibility of ALL witnesses at sex crime trials) is to refer to ALL witnesses using their first names only, so that the jury doesn’t perceive ANY difference between how the judge views each witness
***
Editor’s Note on Ivy
The “Inner Circle” of NXIVM/ESPEditor’s note: I suspect the use of Ivy Nevares’s first and last name during the Raniere trial tends to supports Suneel’s theory that the prosecution’s intent was to make the jury believe that two names were bad, one name was good.
I believe that at the time of the investigation, Ivy, like many others, did not cooperate with the prosecution. She left Raniere around the time he was arrested but did so quietly at first.
It is my understanding that the prosecution, after calling her before the grand jury, assumed she was still a Raniere supporter. They included her – first name and last – on their chart of Keith Raniere’s inner circle and made no effort to protect her anonymity.
Maybe someone can explain why that was the case. Why was Ivy’s first and last name used, when Sarah’s or India’s wasn’t? Who made up the rules as to who got first-name-only status and who was revealed publicly by their first and last name?
