Frank Report readers might want to steady themselves and perhaps sit down: Bangkok is leaving us again – and just when he fully recovered from a near-deadly bout of COVID.
He says “duty calls,” and so he leaves us but he will be back again this summer, he promises.
Before he went, he offered some of his latest thoughts. The topics are the battle between Suneel and the rest of the world over the Cami pics used at the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, and the issue of the estate of Pamela Cafritz and some $8 million dollars she left her beloved lord and of which he does not yet have in his possession – it being tied up in estate and IRS issues.
Raniere currently lives in Tucson AZ.
Keith Raniere resides in this gated community in warm and sunny Tucson AZ.
By Bangkok
Suneel Doth Not Protest Too Much
In his post Suneel Stands His Ground; Clarifies Why He Believes FBI Tampered With Cami Nude Pics, Suneel said: “For the record, I am NOT claiming that naked pictures of Camila were not ever taken in 2005 or that underage sex did NOT occur. There is no credible basis for me to claim this. ”
I just caught Suneel in a contradiction.
While I understand Suneel’s legal point for making this statement above (that underage sex was not charged in this indictment and has no bearing on Keith’s guilt or innocence of racketeering) ——- I’d like to point out that Suneel has just contradicted his own previous statements about why he still associates with Keith.
Will Suneel Chakravorty stand by his friend, Keith Raniere, if he finds out that Raniere did have sex with 15-year-old Cami in 2005?
Suneel previously said that he would NOT support anybody that, in his own judgment, may have harmed an underage child (which, IMO, would include having underage sex with a child who cannot realistically give consent; regardless of whether or not such sex can be charged as a crime).
Also, Suneel is not screaming — from the top of his lungs — that Keith would never copulate with a 15-year-old child. That puzzles me.
Why isn’t Suneel screaming?, Bangkok asks.
Keith Alan Raniere may or may not have had sex with underage females. There are however several who have said he did.
1983: Gina M. said Keith Raniere and she had sex when she was 15 and he was about 23.
1983: Gina Hutchinson did not live to tell her story, but her sister Heidi said she was 14 or 15 when Keith started having sex with her He was 23.
1992: Rhiannon was 12 when she claims Keith Raniere first started having sex with her. He was 32. To line her up for rape, Pam Cafritz hired Rhiannon to come to the house where she and Raniere lived to walk her dog.
2005: Cami claims Keith Raniere started having sex with her when she was 15. He was 45. MK10ART’s sketch of Camila.
For a man who claims that he’d never associate with anybody who may have harmed a child —– I’d expect Suneel to scream, from the top of his lungs, that Keith would never have engaged in such a perverted, dirty and wanton act.
Suneel previously claimed that he’d stand against anybody who ever harmed a child.
I also interpret this to mean that Suneel would disassociate himself from anybody who likely (or very well may have) engaged in such an act, regardless of whether or not criminal charges can be filed.
Holy Shit! What is Suneel doing?
Holy Cow! Why would Suneel choose to associate with such a man on a social basis?
Even if Keith were wrongfully convicted due to fabricated evidence, as Suneel believes, WHY would Suneel support a man who may have had sex with an underage child?
Suneel’s likely reply…
Suneel will likely respond by saying that, until he can 100% confirm that such sex happened, he’ll continue to give Keith the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, that’s just another way of saying that, until Vanguard admits he’s a pervert, Suneel will continue to support him.
Again, Suneel’s critical thinking ability has fallen down a rabbit hole here.
But I have no doubt that, if Suneel turned his intelligence and energy towards a more worthy project — such as feeding starving kids or helping homeless families — the world would be a better place.
Instead of using his intellect for ‘good’ —– Suneel has chosen to devote his energy into supporting a man that, according to my Lord and Savior, will not be admitted thru the Pearly Gates and will wind up with a pitchfork up his ass for eternity, alongside his former wing-woman who already resides there, Pam Cafritz.
The late Pamela Cafritz had a dog named Jack, a black and white Cocker Spaniel. Cafritz hired 12-year-old Rhiannon to walk Jack.
According to Bangkok, the place where Pam is now residing, and where he fears Suneel might one day also live, has a relatively warm climate. This recent picture shows the temperature to be 240. It is unclear if this is Fahrenheit or Celsius. Photo provided.
Pam arrives at her new home on November 7, 2016
Pam is escorted in and made comfortable, at least as comfortable as she made Rhiannon and numerous other women and girls in her quest to take care of the needs of her adorable husband and master, who is also expected to take up residence with her once he moves out of his home in Tucson, which is also located in a warm climate.
Funny Business With Pam’s Money
According to sources, the $8 million dollars in Pam Cafritz’s estate was sitting in a bank account the whole time.
Nobody gains a financial advantage from having money sit in a low-interest bank account, earning almost nothing, when they could be earning 10% per year in the markets, in relatively safe investments.
Even if the initial gift/inheritance produced tax advantages (which it likely didn’t, since tax advantages are generally based on shielding yearly ROI from taxes until the money is distributed) —— holding that much cash in a bank account, for years, is the same thing as throwing money away each year, which would invalidate & contradict any original tax advantages gained.
You may as well unzip your pants and piss away money each year. That’s what she was doing. Zero advantages to that.
Also, it was a bank account in her name. It wasn’t owned by a trust. I doubt there was any sophisticated ‘trust’ involved with that bank account or the initial deposits… and you can’t inherit money without the estate passing thru the process of having an estate tax return filed.
Also… If somebody is holding that much cash, in a personal bank account for years, it’s a huge red flag for money laundering —– since they are throwing money away by holding that much cash, without earning any real interest from it.
Even for idiots who think that all investing is super risky, there are very safe investments that pay a lot more than a fucken bank account.
Genius: Keith Raniere came up with a better plan than keeping money in low-interest bank accounts. He put other people’s money into the commodities market. He invested $1.5 for Barbara Bouchey, $8 million for Michael Sutton, and $65.6 million for Sara and Clare Bronfman. He would have made them a spectacular sum of profits except that the Illuminati, he said, along with Clare and Sara’s father, Edgar Bronfman, worked together to foil the investment plan.
There’s absolutely no advantage to holding that much cash in a bank unless the deposits are of risky/illegal origin and you don’t wanna explain to your financial advisor where the money came from. In today’s world, you must explain where the money came from before you can invest it (there’s a federal law requiring this). This isn’t the 1970s anymore.
It’s a suspicious setup which SCREAMS ‘money laundering’.
I’m surprised the Feds didn’t report where the deposits came from.
I can only surmise that they didn’t wanna trash Pamela’s memory (after her death) by listing her as a dead co-conspirator involved in money laundering, especially since the account wasn’t in Keith’s name and they really can’t prove that he was involved in laundering any money thru that account.
Frank probably has an opinion on why the Feds didn’t reveal the source of those deposits. I believe they wanted to keep the jury sympathetic to Pamela, since she’s dead anyway and can’t answer for any crimes which may have been committed.
Was It Pam’s Money?
Estate ‘gifts’ (passed to another person while somebody is still alive) must be accounted for on a ‘gift tax’ return —- in order to itemize how much of the ‘unified credit’ is used up before one’s death.
For instance, if Pam received $20k-$40k per month as gifts from her family, those amounts would be reported by the donor each year — for their whole lives — so the exact amount would be known by the IRS, for the lifetime amount of gifts to Pam. If she received gifts from others while they were still alive, that would be known too. Estates would also be traceable, if she received her money that way. I doubt she received her $8 million legitimately.
Finally…
Suneel, it’s not personal. I’ve been called a thousand worse things than you.
I’ve had members wish for my death. 🙂
I’ve had members accuse my mom of dropping me on my head when I was a baby, to explain why I’m so mentally fucked up.
Actually, that may have happened cuz I was an unruly little bastard and probably deserved it. 🙂
I am sad to report that I won’t be able to hurl insults at you any longer, for a little while, as duty calls and I won’t be posting here for a little while.
I shall return this summer to continue opposing you.
Nice Guy offers a bouquet of plastic flowers to his domineering wife. Photo provided.
I must rely on Nice Guy to step up and begin opposing you, in my absence. He needs to prove his manhood again. He needs to assert himself as a vocal opponent of all things NXIVM. If Nice Guy doesn’t step up to fill this role, he’s a pussy.
Have a fine day. 🙂
