Keith Alan Raniere was arrested by the FBI on March 26, 2018, in Texas, after being captured in Mexico and removed from the country the same day.
After his arrest, and while in custody at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), Raniere presented a bail package that included his release on condition that he reside in a residence approved by the Pretrial and Probation Department, located near the Brooklyn courthouse, with 24/7 armed guards — who were former U.S. Secret Service agents — to guard him and prevent his escape. He also proposed the use of ankle monitors, restricted phone and computer services, restricted visitation and additional security provisions to prevent his escape. Security was to be overseen by the former head of the U.S. Secret Service.
The judge denied his bail package, and, consequently, Keith Raniere spent the next year and one month in pre-trial detention at the MDC.
Obviously, anyone in pretrial detention, especially at MDC, has almost no chance at defending themselves at trial since it is infinitely more difficult to prepare for trial and meet with attorneys and witnesses while in a prison.
In a recent post, our legal correspondent, K.R. Claviger, made a comment that he believed that a bail package probably should have been granted for Raniere (Claviger proposed that the judge in such cases set a bail package that they think would ensure the defendant did not flee). A commenter who uses the name Pious Bangkok disagreed and argued that Raniere would have fled the jurisdiction had any bail package been granted.
By K.R. Claviger
Pre-trial detention is a very significant burden for all defendants who are in that situation. Fortunately, many states are moving to eliminate — or at least greatly reduce — the imposition of cash bail. Now, I think we need to reconsider the finding of “flight risk” as a reason to detain those defendants who have no history of not showing up for hearings or trials — and move towards releasing defendants who are not charged with crimes involving violence and who have no prior convictions.
I would prefer that judges simply set the terms that a defendant has to meet in order to be released rather than requiring the defendant to come up with a suitable “bail package”. In conjunction with that change, I would also suggest that we impose significant penalties on anyone who actually tries to flee after they are released before a trial (These penalties would be separate and apart from any penalties that would be imposed if the defendant is convicted — kind of like the penalties that are imposed on prisoners who try to escape from prison).
In Keith’s case, the fact that he had gone to Mexico gave the prosecution an easy way to suggest that he was a “flight risk”. And the fact that he was charged with Sex Trafficking meant that the burden of proof had shifted to him to show that he was neither a “flight risk” nor a danger to the general public.
All in all, I still think that a package of sufficient safeguards could have been put together that would have allowed Keith to be released prior to his trial. But this is definitely not an issue that’s going to result in him getting a new trial.
Pious Bangkok
By Pious Bangkok
With all due respect to my good pal and colleague, Mr. Claviger…
Please kindly disclose the “sufficient bail package” you spoke about —– which allegedly contains enough safeguards to deter Keith from getting on a boat (funded by Clare Bear) and disappearing to a new country without extradition treaties.
Hint: No amount of Clare’s bail money (or followers’ money/property) would deter Keith from jumping bail. He doesn’t care about other people losing their money or homes. He’s a sociopath. Haven’t you learned anything on Frank Report?
Hint: Armed guards won’t work either —- BECAUSE ‘deadly force’ is not authorized if he runs away from home detention officers who are monitoring him. It’s not legal for armed guards to shoot him if he starts running away. He can easily have his cult followers — like Nicki Clyne or Suneel the buttkisser — distract the perimeter guard while he runs into a waiting car.
Would Mr. Claviger put up his own home (and life savings) to free Keith on bail? I doubt it. What does that say about his confidence in Keith not running?
Hint: Ankle monitors can be cut away easily —– and it would take less than 2 minutes for Keith to be driven away in a waiting car after he cut his ankle monitor off, long before law enforcement could respond to the signal.
The ONLY reason Clare chose not to run away is BECAUSE she thought she was gonna get a low sentence. The judge departed upward and threw the book at her, which caught her by surprise.
However… Keith was always facing LIFE In prison (or 20 years) so he’d have no reason to stay.
So again, I challenge Claviger to prove what he just said.
If he fails to respond and BACKUP his claim of a ‘sufficient bail package’ —- then we can all conclude that he was just making it up.
Maybe Frank can weigh-in here, if he’s got the balls to disagree with his buddy publicly.
Have a nice day. 🙂
By K.R. Claviger
Sorry for the delay in responding to you, Pious Bangkok, but I’ve had a lot going for the last couple of days.
So, let’s begin with what I wrote that provoked your comment:
Pre-trial detention is a very significant burden for all defendants who are in that situation. Fortunately, many states are moving to eliminate — or at least greatly reduce — the imposition of cash bail. Now, I think we need to reconsider the finding of “flight risk” as a reason to detain those defendants who have no history of not showing up for hearings or trials — and move towards releasing defendants who are not charged with crimes involving violence and who have no prior convictions.
I would prefer that judges simply set the terms that a defendant has to meet in order to be released rather than requiring the defendant to come up with a suitable “bail package”. In conjunction with that change, I would also suggest that we impose significant penalties on anyone who actually tries to flee after they are released before a trial (These penalties would be separate and apart from any penalties that would be imposed if the defendant is convicted — kind of like the penalties that are imposed on prisoners who try to escape from prison).
In Keith’s case, the fact that he had gone to Mexico gave the prosecution an easy way to suggest that he was a “flight risk”. And the fact that he was charged with Sex Trafficking meant that the burden of proof had shifted to him to show that he was neither a “flight risk” nor a danger to the general public.
All in all, I still think that a package of sufficient safeguards could have been put together that would have allowed Keith to be released prior to his trial. But this is definitely not an issue that’s going to result in him getting a new trial.
**********
Your suggestion that there is no “package of sufficient safeguards” that could have guaranteed Keith didn’t flee the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) is absurd on its face. Obviously, with an unlimited amount of money to pay for such a package — which assumes that the Bronfman sisters and/or others would be footing the bill — a judge could get very creative in what they included in Keith’s bail package. But rather than fashion one that included unrealistic components, let me describe one that is, in fact, practical and doable:
– Pledged cash, property, or other authenticated valuables totaling $20 million;
– The implanting of RFID transponder via a microchip implant [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(human)%5D;
– The installation of a pair of ReliAlert XC3 ankle monitors — which would allow the U.S. Probation Department to monitor his whereabouts and, except when he was meeting with his attorneys, to monitor his conversations;
– Requiring him to live in an apartment to be selected by the U.S. Probation Department — with three armed U.S. Marshals to be on duty with him 24/7: one to serve as a guard outside the apartment — and two to serve as guards inside the apartment (Keith would not be allowed out of the apartment except for medical emergencies — and only his attorneys would be allowed to visit with him there);
– No access to the internet and/or to phone service but he would be allowed to have a device that can display the contents of discs on a computer screen (All of the evidence in his case would be downloaded to a set of discs that he could access via this device); and
– A state-of-the-art security system that would allow the U.S. Probation Department to monitor, via sound and live-feed video, all activities within — and outside — the apartment.
If all of the above-listed components were implemented, I would estimate that Keith’s chances of escaping would be well under 1%. And I, for one, would be willing to take that level of risk in order to allow a defendant who has no prior criminal record to prepare for his upcoming trial outside of prison.
Obviously, very few prisoners could afford the cost of this particular “package of sufficient safeguards” — which means that only those with a high net worth (and/or high net worth friends) could take advantage of it. While I think that’s unfortunate, the same can be said about those defendants who can afford to hire high-priced criminal defense attorneys like Marc Agnifilo.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, PB, because I know that’s not your schtick. Especially after all your baseless crowing about your suggestion that a “package of sufficient safeguards” can’t be fashioned to ensure that almost every defendant who is granted bail will not attempt to flee.
