More to Come, Be Assured, on the Death of Pamela Cafritz
Allison Mack with the ailing Pamela Cafritz
Keith Raniere’s greatest wing woman, Pamela Ann Cafritz, died under suspicious circumstances in November 2016 – date uncertain but said to have been on November 7th. She may not have died on the date listed on her death certificate.
We will explore what happened to Pam and whether she was released from the hospital alive or dead – and whether she was being cooled down alive – for preparation for cryogenic entombment.
Raniere did not tell the NXIVM community about Pam’s death until several weeks after she died. After he announced her death, he was reported to have told members of his community that he would keep the house they shared together in the exact same condition – right down to the decorations – as it was on the day she died so that when he brought her back to life – quite possibly through his own invention – which he would be sure to patent – she would come back to the home she knew and was accustomed to living in.
Raniere was always considerate of others.
Pam Cafritz and Keith Raniere
Raniere last lived in the house he shared with Cafritz in November 2017 – a year after she died. He then went to Mexico and never returned to the Albany area again. He may never return there. He is now housed at USP Tucson – in his third year of a 120-year sentence.
Unless he is successful on appeal and gets freedom, based on the average life expectancy of a 60-year-old man, it is unlikely that Raniere will live to walk the streets of Knox Woods again.
But what if – at the time or near the time of his death – he was cryogenically frozen like Cafritz and brought back to life in the future?
While there are some esteemed medical experts who say that cryogenics is pure bullshit – since the freezing process will ruin the cadaver – think freezing meat – these challenges have not yet met with the mind of a genius such as Raniere.
He may solve this challenge as he has done for so many challenges – using that raw brainpower that was known to create snowstorms and set off radar detectors.
We checked with our legal experts to understand the ramifications of Raniere dying, entering a cryogenic tomb, and then being restored.
If Judge Garaufis had given Raniere life instead of 120 years, our experts agree, when he dies, he would complete his sentence. When he came back to life – through one of his patented inventions – he would be a free man.
As it stands now – his sentence is completed on June 6, 2120 – just about one year shy of a century from now (This assumes that he doesn’t lose any of the “good time credits” he will otherwise earn during his incarceration).
Our experts are divided on what will happen if, for instance, he lives another 25 years, until 2046. If he went to a cryogenic tomb and was restored, would he have to go back to serve the last 74 years of his sentence?
Or does the sentence end with his death. Would the fact that he was restored to life prior to his release date of 2021 require him to go back to Tucson or will he be a free man?
This might be one of Raniere’s greatest lawsuits – and I think it might wind up before the Supreme Court.
For we cannot doubt that Raniere has the brainpower to do it to invent a way for him and Pam to return to life once again to team up for the empowerment of women.
In fact, it would surprise no one to learn that his supporters might believe he will join Pam in a cryogenic tomb, and leave instructions on his resurrection – setting it for June 7, 2121 – and emerge in a brand new century where people will really appreciate him.
Will Make an Appearance
Meantime, a very much alive and unfrozen Keith Raniere evidently will appear by video conference technology rather than in person at his upcoming restitution hearings.
I do not blame him for consenting. If he insisted on being there in person – as is his right – he would then travel from Tucson to Brooklyn’s MDC and in the most uncomfortable style imaginable – a trip via Con Air in shackles, handcuffs, and waist chains, and likely in a paper uniform.
An air safety officer stands guard with a shotgun as federal prisoners are loaded onto a Con-Air flight in Montana. Credit: Billings Gazette
Cabin shot of a “Con Air” flight.
Credit; http://www.usmarshals.gov
He might land somewhere short of Brooklyn, then forced to go on an arduous trip by bus in handcuffs, shackles, waist chains – and probably in the same paper suit. It will not be a pleasant trip.
But, as we learn from the judge’s order, Raniere wisely chose to do video conferencing:
The Judge’s order: The court has been advised by Defendant Keith Raniere’s counsel that Mr. Raniere gives his consent for the court to hold the forthcoming restitution hearing in his case by videoconference. The parties are DIRECTED to contact the court’s Deputy at Joseph_Reccoppa@nyed.uscourts.gov to schedule the hearing. Counsel is advised to direct all correspondence regarding procedural matters to the court’s Deputy, Mr. Reccoppa. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/1/2021. (Freund, Zachary)
It is ironic. Shortly before being arrested, Raniere sued Microsoft and AT&T for infringement on one of his patents. He claimed he invented video conferencing and that AT&T and Microsoft stole it from him.
It was a complicated and tangled litigation and it appears the patent Raniere claims gave the world video conferencing was not in his name. He had put it in the name of his old girlfriend, Toni Natalie, and she would not give it back to him.
A forged document, a little perjury, the judge’s discovery of it, and a sanction for attorneys fees and an appeal which he lost, ended up with a clear verdict against him.
Keith gets hit with $444,000 fine for his bogus AT&T/Microsoft lawsuit
US Appeals Court upholds lower court: Raniere has to pay Microsoft and AT&T’s legal fees
Meantime, AT&T and Microsoft continue to use the technology. Not to take anything away from the world’s smartest man, or his claim to have invented video conferencing, but there are some who argue that the development of video conferencing started in the late 19th century, and the technology became available to the public in the 1930s – about 25 years before Raniere was born.
These early demonstrations of Raniere’s claimed technology were installed at “booths” in post offices and shown at various world expositions prior to his birth. Then in 1970 – when Raniere was 10 years old – AT&T launched the first true video conferencing system, wherein anyone could subscribe to the service and have the technology in their home or office.
How they managed to swipe this from the child Raniere is anybody’s guess and we may never know since before all the matters of the trial were settled, Raniere was arrested and failed to pursue the civil case.
As the optics appear now, Raniere sued AT&T for stealing their own invention from him.
Perhaps when he appears via video conference at the restitution hearings, the world will note the irony of this much maligned and benighted man who said his only thought was to make the world a better place appearing on technology that he says he invented.
This primitive video conferencing device was available about 40 years before the birth of the man who invented it.
Raniere Will File Sensitive Documents With New Evidence
Another court order from Judge Garaufis tells us plenty:
ORDER: Defendant’s [1034] Motion for Leave to File Documents Ex Parte is GRANTED. Defendant’s [1033] Motion to Treat a Document as a Highly Sensitive Document is DISMISSED as erroneously filed. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/4/2021. (Freund, Zachary)
OK. Let’s read into this: Sometime in April or May, Keith filed two ex parte motions (They are Document #1033 and Document #1034 but have never been made public).
Document 1033 was a motion to treat another document – maybe Document #1034 – as a “Highly Sensitive Document”.
Document #1034 was a motion for leave to file other documents on an ex parte basis (Note that the word “documents” is plural in Judge Garaufis’ June 4, 2021 Order).
So, Keith has been approved to file documents ex parte – which suggests he may have new evidence to present to the judge and he doesn’t want the prosecution to see some or all of it.
Ex parte is from Latin and is a legal term. The Latin means literally “Out of the party” or less literally “on behalf of”. An ex parte motion is a request for a decision by the judge without requiring all of the parties [i.e., the prosecution] to the dispute to be present.
In short, Raniere wants to present something for the judge to rule on without the prosecution knowing what it is.
The judge granted this motion.
So what is it?
Given that these filings took place in Case 1:18-cr-00204 – which is his original criminal case – and not Case 20-3520 – which is the pending appeal in the Second Circuit, this suggests it has to do with a Rule 33 Motion, which is a motion before the trial judge for reconsideration based on new evidence unavailable at the trial.
Is there new evidence?
Too bad no one is looking at the federal level…
The Albany Times Union reports that New York State Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, a former criminal defense attorney, is pushing legislation that would enable the release of grand jury minutes detailing the charging information that prosecutors present to the grand jurors when they meet behind closed doors and decide whether there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.
The idea is a good one, but not entirely for the right reasons – although it does prove a point – that grand juries, comprised of at least 18 and at most 24 citizens – do whatever prosecutors want.
They have no independence.
O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat, said the origin of the legislation took shape after a Staten Island grand jury voted against bringing any charges against a New York police officer who used an apparent chokehold to subdue Eric Garner, who died in 2014.
Eric Garner did no survive some pretty rough treatment by police. A grand jury was convened and was led by the nose by prosecutors not to indict the officers involved with the choking,
Of course, it is bad when prosecutors decide to selectively present information to a grand jury to exonerate one of their own [which may have happened in the Garner case], but far too often it is the opposite. The now toothless and hapless American grand jury is used to indict anyone on even the flimsiest evidence imaginable. They are merely the prosecutors’ playground.
Grand jury proceedings in New York and elsewhere, including the federal system, are conducted in secret which gives prosecutors tremendous leeway to selectively present evidence and withhold evidence that might exonerate an innocent target without anyone being the wiser – since the entire proceeding is done secretly. Even the judge usually doesn’t know what goes on behind those closed doors.
The tremendous burden of being indicted and the oftentimes overcharging of defendants as a coercive tool to persuade them to avoid trial and take a plea deal often results in innocent people taking plea deals rather than risk trial. This is the reason for the so-called “vanishing trial” in America.
The unnecessary secrecy of the grand jury helps keep this system in play. That secrecy results in the public often never knowing what evidence grand juries were presented or what criminal charges a prosecutor may have asked them to consider.
This is grotesquely ironic since the grand jury was originally conceived as a paragon of protection against over-zealous prosecutors – not as their useful idiots which it is now.
The grand jury – even today – has the right and the power to decide what evidence it wishes to hear and only with their consent can a person be indicted, much like the trial jury must give consent to the government to put a citizen in prison.
But grand jurors do not know their rights or their responsibilities. Hence, a sleepy public rests as their freedoms are snatched from them.
Chances are the DAs and prosecutors in New York will fight this proposed law hard and quite possibly defeat it.
Why would anyone want to let others peer into their private playground?
NXIVM Mobile?
Back in Dec. 2019 and again in Nov. 2020 we published pictures of a Range Rover sporting the much-vaunted NXIVM vanity license plate.
Some of our readers thought the picture was photoshopped because “NXIVM” on the license plate was not centered.
One of our readers wrote, “Actually saw this car in West Hollywood last night. The license plate definitely appears just as it does in the photo with nothing in the place of the last two digits, for what that’s worth. I took a photo if it from within my car and didn’t think anything of the fact that it wasn’t centered or I would have looked up close.”
Well evidently it has been spotted again by one of our readers – and I received these photos a week ago by text.
According to the person who sent me the most recent photos, “Just saw this at a grocery store in Los Angeles called Erewhon, the Beverly location. People in the comments section of your earlier post think the photo is doctored. It’s a 100 percent real plate. The men who got in were young with tattoos and gold chains and Nike sneakers. They looked like LA hipsters.
The source continued, “young LA hipster guys who did not strike me as NXIVM. And showing it off so loudly, as if to rattle people and be the point of conversation.”
***
New Readers
Frank Report continues to find new readers as it grows into a nationally recognized website.
I’d like to be the first to report that not only have we broken news stories but we have apparently broken into the huge opportunities for non-human readership as this 100 percent un-doctored photo of a dear, deer reader, who found the Frank Report a fascinating read proves.
