General

Glazer Lists Camila Sex Offense Crime Allegations Against Raniere in Civil Suit; Includes Forcible [Not Statutory] Rape in the First Degree

·
by
Frank Parlato
Frank Parlato
Nxivm Camila

Camila, the sole underage victim identified in the criminal case against Keith Raniere, has joined the civil suit against him, the deep-pocketed Bronfman sisters, and other former NXIVM leaders.

Attorney Neil Glazer represents Camila along with about 80 other former NXIVM members who are now suing for damages associated with their membership in NXIVM and interaction with its various leaders.

While Camila never testified under oath at the trial of Raniere, by joining the civil lawsuit, she signals she is ready to be deposed and to testify under oath about the sexual relationship she had with Raniere starting, she has said, when she was 15, which was in 2005.

Camila is now 31.

Raniere was convicted in federal court for racketeering which included predicate acts, among others, of sexual offenses against Camila in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2251(a), sexual exploitation of a minor, and 18 U.S.C. section 2252(a)(4)(B), knowingly possessing visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct (possession of child pornography).

In the lawsuit, Glazer does not detail any of the specifics incidents or Raniere’s alleged abuse. He does, however, catalog the state and federal laws he alleges were violated. Many, if not most, of these alleged crimes are beyond the statute of limitations.

One particularly troubling one is Glazer’s allegation that Raniere committed one or more acts of rape in the first degree – which means, if true, there was “forcible compulsion” to have intercourse. It is unclear if she was an adult at the time.

Raniere continued his relationship with Camila from her teen years up until the time of his arrest in 2018, when she was 28.  She is reported to have stayed loyal to him as one of his many “sister-wives” until after his conviction in 2019.

Glazer alleges that Raniere’s acts “caused and continues to cause Camila to suffer physical, psychological and emotional injuries or conditions.”

Among the allegations are:

Raniere engaged in sexual intercourse with Camila without her consent [rape]

Raniere’s intentional bodily contact with Camila was offensive in nature and constituted acts of battery.

Raniere’s intentional or reckless, extreme and outrageous conduct was intended to cause and did cause Camila to suffer severe emotional distress.

Neil Glazer

Neil GlazerGazer wrote:  “Keith Raniere repeatedly engaged in conduct against Camila while she was a child under eighteen years of age that constituted sexual offenses.”

He lists them:

New York State penal law,

130.25, rape in the third degree;

130.40, criminal sexual act in the third degree;

130.55, sexual abuse in the third degree

130.20, sexual misconduct.

Not specifying whether she was under the age of 18 when the alleged incidents occurred, Glazer also alleges Raniere committed [130.35] rape in the first degree. By not specifying her age, it suggests to me that the allegation is he raped her as an adult.

Raniere is also alleged to have engaged in conduct against Camila when she was a child under 17 in violation of New York penal law section 263.05, use of a child in a sexual performance.

Exploring some of the crimes Glazer alleges we get an idea of the alleged conduct.

Rape Third and Criminal Sexual Act Third Degree

Rape in the Third Degree and Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree share the same factors except that rape constitutes sexual intercourse and a “sexual act” includes oral or anal sexual conduct. Both are Class-E felonies in New York.

It is rape or a criminal sexual act in the third degree when non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person under 17 [the legal age of consent in New York] or when the person is over the age of 21.

Raniere is 30 years older than Camila. If he began having sex with her when she was 15, he was 45 at the time.

Another provision of rape/criminal sexual act in the third degree is if someone has sex with another person without their consent because the victim is incapable of consent for a variety of reasons other than being under the age of 17.

A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is, for instance, mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, such as drugged or sleeping. Camila had some mental troubles which included suicide attempts. It is not known if this is how the element of incapacity is alleged.

Sexual Abuse Third Degree

This relates strictly to the fact that Camila was under the age of consent and Raniere was more than five years older.

It is a Class-B misdemeanor.

Sexual Misconduct

This is a Class-A misdemeanor – and it relates to having sex with someone without their consent, without respect to age, or forcible compulsion, which suggests that Raniere is alleged to have had sex with Camila when she was not able to consent, such as when she was asleep or drugged.

The violation also includes two other types of sex where the other party cannot consent: with “an animal or a dead human.”

Rape in the First Degree

This is, by far, the most serious sexual-related charge – and in New York, it is a Class-B F

felony.

Unless Camila was under 13 when the sexual conduct took place, rape in the first degree requires that she was physically helpless or that there was forcible compulsion.

Forcible compulsion requires physical force or a threat of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immediately be kidnapped.

Physically helpless means the person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.

Sexual Performance

The use of a child in a sexual performance allegation almost certainly relates to the allegation that Raniere took graphic nude photos of Camila when she was under the age of 17.

It is a Class-C felony.

At Raniere’s sentencing hearing, Camila said he started taking pictures of her when she was 15. Her statement was not under oath. She will have to make the same claim under oath in the civil case.

Apparently, she is prepared to do so.