Ineffective Assistance Claimed: Raniere Challenges Legal Representation (with art by MK10ART)
If only he could fly away to Fiji and not bother with all this legal nonsense.
FR continues to analyze Keith Raniere’s last surviving motion before Judge Garaufis: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Raniere, who is acting pro se in this motion, addresses the sex trafficking of Nicole – a singular act of oral sex between two women with no financial transaction. Raniere blindfolded Nicole, who was naked and tied her to a table. He asked if she agreed to do this act, and she said yes, according to her testimony.
Camila snuck in and began performing oral sex on Nicole, without her knowing who it was as Raniere watched and made observations.
He says his lawyers blundered because they did not challenge jurisdiction and other essential elements.
Despite Raniere being the smartest man in the world and having the fortune of Clare Bronfman at his disposal, he can’t seem to catch a break.
Legal Argument: Venue Dispute
The sex act with Nicole did not occur in the Eastern District of NY but in the Northern District of NY.
Citing United States v. Purcell (2d Cir. 2020), Raniere argues that “Venue is proper only where the acts constituting the offense – the crimes – took place.”
The only way the EDNY could have charged him, he says, is if he brought Nicole from the EDNY to the NDNY on the day the sex act occurred.
Raniere wrote, “Nicole was already in the Northern District of New York, where the allegations of sex trafficking occurred.”
The DOJ’s justification for the EDNY’s jurisdiction over the sex trafficking charge surfaced during their closing argument at trial when a prosecutor said, “Nicole took either Amtrak or Greyhound to and from Albany the day of that assignment – Amtrak or a bus, a commercial bus. The use of these modes of transportation affects interstate commerce.”
The reason for all this ingenious paperwork is that Raniere is behind bars and wants to be in front of bars and put other people behind bars.
Contradictory Testimony
The government’s assertion hinged on the claim that Nicole’s use of Amtrak or Greyhound to travel to and from Albany on the day of the alleged act affected interstate commerce.
However, Nicole testified she did not travel on the day of the ‘sex act.’ A day before the incident, she was already in Albany, at Allison Mack’s residence, contradicting the government’s timeline.
The government’s assertion hinged on the claim that Nicole’s use of Amtrak or Greyhound to travel to and from Albany on the day of the alleged act affected interstate commerce. However, Nicole testified she did not travel on the day of the ‘sex act.’ A day before the incident, she was already in Albany, at Allison Mack’s residence, contradicting the government’s timeline.
One of the people he tried to put behind bars is the author, but it did not work out as Raniere expected.
Surprise and Lack of Foreknowledge
In addition, Nicole testified she was surprised by the unplanned blindfold-table act. She also testified Mack was surprised when she found out after the incident.
Raniere argues that “lack of foreknowledge about the act by Nicole or Allison, who orchestrated Nicole’s trips to Albany, disconnects the travel from the alleged sex act.”
In other words, Nicole did not travel to the NDNY for commercial sex, and hence, the EDNY does not have jurisdiction to charge him.
Raniere further argues the government does not know how Nicole traveled to the NDNY, guessing it was either Amtrak or Greyhound, but not sure which.
Raniere wrote, “Nicole’s frequent travels to Albany, encompassing various modes of transportation, further undermine the government’s argument, especially considering the absence of direct evidence specifying the mode of transportation used for this particular trip.”
All he ever wanted was to live comfortably, and brand his slaves, and look what the government did to him.
Further Legal Challenges
Raniere also points out that Brooklyn and Albany are in the same state, and so there was no interstate commerce to effect.
He writes, “The intra-state nature of travel from Brooklyn to Albany challenges the assertion that such movement impacts interstate commerce.
He also challenges the prosecution’s argument for commercial sex, another requirement in sex trafficking.
Raniere says the government’s argument that the blindfold event, which Mack did not attend, was commercial sex because Mack, who was Raniere’s “slave,” derived something of value for providing her “slave” Nicole for the blindfolded sex.
The argument was that the blindfold incident made Raniere ‘happy’; therefore, by making her master happy, she would secure economic benefits within DOS’s hierarchical structure.
He’s been framed and he knows it, But do you?
Raniere argues the government was merely wildly speculative and failed to provide any “concrete evidence linking Mack’s position in DOS to this specific act.”
He also implies foul play, adding that the government relied on “Mack’s state of mind during the trial at which she did not testify.
Raniere adds, “The timing of Mack’s discussions with the government post-indictment undermines the credibility of this claim.”
Raniere concludes this part of his 200-plus page motion with, “After an extensive 18-month investigation and multiple indictments, the government’s failure to substantiate the elements of commercial sex and interstate commerce exposes a critical jurisdictional flaw.
“This deficiency underlines the government’s lack of legal standing to initiate the sex trafficking case against Keith Raniere, eroding the legitimacy of the charges and the appropriateness of the Eastern District of New York’s jurisdiction in this matter.”
Raniere has appealed the sex trafficking of Nicole post-conviction and lost with Judge Garaufis and again at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
He is now challenging it, because he argues his attorneys should have challenged jurisdiction before the trial and not after it.
He blames his attorneys for not doing a good job defending him.
