General

Nancy Salzman Is Starting to Be Noticed Again – and That May Not Be a Good Thing for Her

10/05/2021·

K.R. Claviger

Nancy Salzman always longed to be in the limelight.

That’s one of the reasons she started lying about her credentials so that could she get higher-profile work than her 2-year nursing degree qualified her to do (She also liked the additional money she could earn by claiming credentials and experience she didn’t have).

And it’s the primary reason she agreed to join up with Keith Raniere – and become the public face of the NXIVM/ESP criminal enterprise.

While she was serving as The Prefect within NXIVM/ESP, Nancy loved being in front of a group of people teaching them a new module that she and Keith had dreamed up.

The Prefect’s Parking Sign from NXIVM/ESP’s former headquarters in Albany, NY.

While she served as the President of NXIVM/ESP, Nancy also developed a taste for high-end designer outfits, high-priced birthday parties, nice cars, and expensive wine.

But most of all, she got hooked on the adulation and attention that she garnered from those who signed up to take NXIVM/ESP courses.

**********

Things Changed Quickly for Her

Nancy’s life changed dramatically after Keith Raniere was kicked out of Mexico – and arrested by U.S. law enforcement officials back on March 26, 2018.

Keith Raniere sitting inside a Mexican police vehicle on March 26, 2018. It is our last known photograph of the Vanguard.

Just one day later, FBI agents showed up with a search warrant at her home at 3 Oregon Trail in Waterford, NY.

And before the day was over, those agents had seized more than $520,000 in cash as well numerous computers, cameras, data-storage devices, mobile phones, and documents.

3 Oregon Trail was raided on March 27, 2018. [Photo courtesy Albany Times Union.]

After that, Nancy pretty much disappeared from sight until she was arrested on July 24, 2018 – and charged with one count of Racketeering Conspiracy.

Over the course of the next two years, rumors circulated that Nancy had been diagnosed with breast cancer and had undergone a double radical mastectomy – which many found to be ironic given that Nancy used to preach that women developed breast cancer “as a result of low self-esteem” or “as a means of getting more attention”.

**********

Nancy Was the First Defendant to Plead Guilty

While Keith’s other co-defendants generally appeared with him in person at various pre-trial hearings, Nancy was often allowed to appear by phone because of her ongoing medical treatments.

Perhaps not seeing Keith allowed Nancy to think more clearly than the other co-defendants – or perhaps she was, as usual, just looking out for herself.

Whatever the reason or reasons, Nancy was the first to plead guilty in the case – when on March 13, 2019, she stood before U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and admitted that “…some of the things I did were not just wrong, but sometimes criminal”.

Unlike most of the others who eventually entered into some sort of plea deal agreement with the prosecution, Nancy simply pleaded guilty – and hoped that by being the first to do so, she would be treated leniently.

At the hearing at which she entered her guilty plea, Nancy was forced to make several admissions on the record. This included the fact that she had only earned an Associate’s Degree rather than the Master’s Degree that she previously claimed to have earned.

At the time Nancy pled guilty, the second superseding indictment in the case had not been unveiled. It was in that second superseding indictment that the predicate acts of Possession of Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of a Minor were added to the count of Racketeering against Keith.

In conjunction with her guilty plea, Nancy admitted to committing two racketeering acts: i.e., Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft – and Conspiracy to Alter Records for Use in an Official Proceeding.

Moira Kim Penza

Moira Kim Penza, the lead prosecutor in the case, read into the record the specifics of what Nancy had done in conjunction with each of the predicate acts:

“As to Racketeering Act 2-A, conspiracy to commit identity theft, the government would prove at trial that in or about and between August 2005 and November 2008, in the Northern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant agreed with one or more persons to possess and use, without lawful authority, and in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, one or more means of identification of one or more persons by which – and here, that she agreed to obtain the user names and passwords for email accounts of various people who were perceived to be enemies of the enterprise or NXIVM using the Internet. And, second, that the defendant did so with the intent to commit and to aid and abet and in connection with the activity that constituted one or more violations of federal law and there that she intended to use the usernames and passwords to unlawfully surveil the email accounts of those enemies in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 2511 and Title 18 United States Code Section 2701.

As to Racketeering Act 3, conspiracy to alter records for use in an official proceeding, the government would prove at trial that in or about and between February 2008 and March 2015, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant agreed with one or more persons to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal one or more records, documents and other objects. Here, video recordings of Nancy Salzman teaching NXIVM classes and that the defendant did so with the intent to impair such object’s integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, here so that it would alter the tapes for use that were to be provided in discovery in the NXIVM Corp. versus Ross Institute case.”

At the hearing, Judge Garaufis reviewed the “Plea Penalty Sheet” – which, among other things, listed the penalties that could be imposed on Nancy in conjunction with her guilty plea. These included a prison sentence of up to 20-years; a maximum fine of $250,000; a $100 special assessment; and restitution of each victims’ losses – and criminal forfeiture of assets – as determined by the court.

The “Plea Penalty Sheet” also indicated that per the applicable sentencing guidelines, Nancy could be imprisoned for 33-41 months. It was later determined that an error had been made in the original calculations – and that the correct sentencing range was 41-51 months.

**********

Sentencing Day Brings a Few Surprises

Following a series of delays that were necessitated because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nancy was finally scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Garaufis on September 8, 2021.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis

In the run-up to that date in court, her attorneys attempted to keep the public from knowing what they had recommended for her sentence by filing their entire “Sentencing Memorandum” under seal.

But Judge Garaufis ordered them to file a redacted copy of that document – which they did just the day before she was sentenced (They still redacted large portions of the document – as well all of the letters-of-support that had been submitted by her family members, her friends, and some former NXIVM/ESP students).

Following Nancy’s sentencing, Judge Garaufis ordered her attorneys to file an explanation for every redaction they had made in her Sentencing Memorandum. Following his review of those explanations, Judge Garaufis has now order Nancy’s attorneys to “unredact” large portions of their prior filing – and to file the revised document by Wednesday, October 6th.

As it turns out, Nancy’s attorneys had asked Judge Garaufis to sentence Nancy to two years of home confinement in lieu of any time in prison.

In justifying that recommendation, her attorneys basically blamed Keith for everything that Nancy may have done wrong while she headed up the NXIVM/ESP criminal enterprise for almost two decades.

According to them, Nancy was “…fooled, controlled, humiliated, and ultimately led to engage in criminal conduct” by Keith – whom they described as “…an egotistical, self-important sex fiend”.

And while many expected that Nancy’s sentence would likely not include any prison time – especially after her daughter, Lauren, only received 5-years of probation in conjunction with her guilty plea to one count of Racketeering and one count of Racketeering Conspiracy – Judge Garaufis ordered her to be incarcerated for 42-months.

In addition, he also imposed a $150,000 fine, a $100 special assessment, and 3-years of post-release supervision. And while he did not impose any restitution requirements on her, Judge Garaufis did require Nancy to forfeit all of her ownership interest in several properties, the $520,000 in cash that was seized from her home, and the companies that owned the assets of NXIVM/ESP.

**********

More Surprises May Be on the Way

During her sentencing hearing, Judge Garaufis asked Nancy whether she had violated her original bail conditions by, among things, staying in touch with known members of NXIVM/ESP – or continuing to provide counseling services and conducting Explorations of Meaning (EMs).

And while Nancy denied committing any such violations, it appears that Judge Garaufis may not have believed her.

In the final judgment that he filed on September 28, 2021, Judge Garaufis set the following “Special Conditions” for Nancy while she is under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Department:

THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTACT IN PERSON, OR COMMUNICATE WITH BY LETTER, TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC MEANS, OR THROUGH A THIRD PARTY, ANY INDIVIDUAL (OTHER THAN IMMEDIATE FAMILY) WITH AN AFFILIATION TO EXECUTIVE SUCCESS PROGRAMS, NXIVM, DOS OR ANY OTHER NXIVM-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS; NOR SHALL THE DEFENDANT FREQUENT ANY ESTABLISHMENT, OR OTHER LOCALE WHERE THESE GROUPS MAY MEET PURSUANT, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A PROHIBITION LIST PROVIDED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT; and

THE DEFENDANT SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE U.S. PROBATION DEPARTMENT IN THE INVESTIGATION AND APPROVAL OF ANY POSITION OF SELF-EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING ANY INDEPENDENT, ENTREPRENEURIAL, OR FREELANCE EMPLOYMENT OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF APPROVED FOR SELF-EMPLOYMENT, THE DEFENDANT SHALL PROVIDE THE U.S. PROBATION DEPARTMENT WITH FULL DISCLOSURE OF HER SELF-EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL OF THE RECORDS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROBATION FORM 48F (REQUEST FOR SELF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS), OR AS OTHERWISE REQUESTED BY THE U.S. PROBATION DEPARTMENT.

According to multiple eyewitnesses, Nancy was already violating at least one of those “Special Conditions” within hours after her sentencing (This involved a meeting with several known members of NXIVM/ESP).

The Frank Report has also heard rumors that Nancy has been carrying on her counseling and EM business both before – and after – her sentencing – and we are currently attempting to get eyewitnesses to verify whether those rumors are true.

Based on her sense of self-importance, it is almost inconceivable that Nancy will actually follow either of Judge Garaufis’ “Special Conditions” – both during the period of time before she reports to prison and during the 3-year period after she is released.

She is, after all, The Prefect…

**********

Note: Nancy’s attorneys have already filed notice that they intend to appeal her 42-month sentence to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Exactly what they think is inappropriate about a sentence that is well within the applicable guidelines remains to be seen but it is one more indication that Nancy Salzman still thinks she’s “Special”…

Comments (40)

Add Your Comment

Snorlax10/05/2021

It's actually really good that Nancy is doing this, as one of the absolute best things she can do to prep for her incarceration is to let her colleagues know just how special she is. This will intimidate and subdue her fellow inmates into emotional submission and will lead to her complete dominance for the duration of her incarceration. Or it will just get her ass kicked.

Anonymous10/05/2021

Special people get special units in prison. Viva the old executive thingymabob!

Sex and the Single Prefect10/05/2021

Nancy said to Susan Dones that she expected they would have sex — “because I'm the Prefect” So my question is, did Nancy expect (and get) sex from the many women she EMed, taught and mentored? Many NXers were more attractive than Dones and the younger ones might not have the courage to refuse THE PREFECT'S advances — whether gay or straight or even in a relationship. The NXIVM mind-fucking would work for the goose as well as the gander. If what Nancy told Dones is true, then I'm sure Nancy expected sex with many of her other students. Why would Nancy let such an opportunity go to waste?

Anonymous10/05/2021

Nancy is bi so did she also target male members (!)…and did SOP stand for Service Our Prefect?

Anonymous10/05/2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- KEITH RAINIERE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER 18-CR-204 (S-1) (NGG) (VMS) NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Defendant Nancy Saltzman pleaded guilty to one count of rack- eteering conspiracy and was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. (See J. (Dkt. 1121).) Prior to sentencing, Saltzman filed a par- tially redacted sentencing memorandum, with annexed exhibits under seal,1 in support of her request for a downward variance from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. (See Def.’s Sen- tencing Mem. & Exs. (Dkt. 1107).) After sentencing, nonparty newspaper the Albany Times Union submitted a letter to the court seeking public disclosure of her sentencing submission, subject to reasonably tailored redactions. (See Albany Times Union Letter (Ex. A).) Saltzman asked the court to permit the redacted and sealed information to remain nonpublic, or, in the alternative, to adopt proposed, more limited redactions to the sentencing exhib- its, which she filed separately under seal for the court’s review. (Order (Dkt. 1117); Def.’s Letter (Dkt. 1118); Def.’s Proposed Redactions (Dkt. 1119-1).) 1 The exhibits were in fact filed publicly but were entirely redacted. Be- cause an entirely redacted document may as well be a sealed document, the court refers to the entirely redacted exhibits as sealed exhibits. For the reasons stated below, the Times Union’s application is GRANTED. Saltzman is DIRECTED to file the sentencing memo- randum and exhibits publicly on the docket, with the exception of references to medical conditions, which will remain redacted.2 BACKGROUND On March 13, 2019, Saltzman pleaded guilty to one count of the superseding indictment for racketeering conspiracy. (Minute En- try (Dkt. 474); Superseding Indictment (S-1) (Dkt. 50).) On September 7, 2021, she filed a partially redacted sentencing memorandum, along with sealed Exhibits A through G, seeking a noncustodial sentence of home confinement to be followed by supervised release. (Def.’s Sentencing Mem. & Exs. at 12.) After nonparty newspaper the Albany Times Union submitted a letter to the court contesting the scope of the withheld content, Saltz- man filed a letter arguing that the relevant material should not be publicly disclosed because it contains references to medical and personally identifying information. (See Albany Times Union Letter; Def.’s Letter.) In the alternative, she asks the court to maintain the redactions on the sentencing memorandum; to adopt her more limited proposed redactions to Exhibits A through F; and to permit Exhibit G to remain under seal. (Def.’s Letter.) Saltzman explains that Exhibits A, B, C, and G contain supportive letters, and contends that disclosure of their identities that could harm the authors and have a chilling effect in future litigation. (Id.) She asserts that Exhibits D, E, and F contain tra- ditionally protected medical information. (Id.) She also argues 2 Saltzman’s letter does not identify, and the court is unaware of any, in- formation that falls within the scope of Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a), which protects certain portions of social security numbers, taxpayer-identification numbers, birth dates, names of individuals known to be minors, financial- account numbers, and home addresses from public disclosure. To the ex- tent there is any such information in her sentencing submission, it may be redacted as well. that, even if the court disagrees with her request to maintain seal- ing over the exhibits, Exhibit G should still remain entirely under seal because revealing any portion of its contents would allow the public to identify and target the author. (Id.) LEGAL STANDARD “[C]ourts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 3 This right “appl[ies] in both civil and criminal cases, and stem[s] from the right of the public to hold accounta- ble, and have confidence in, the judiciary.” United States v. Tangorra, 542 F. Supp. 2d 233, 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). Nonparties, including news media interested in obtaining and publishing that information, are among those who may seek to enforce this right. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597-98. “It is uncontested . . . that the right . . . is not absolute.” Id. at 598. This public right of open access arises from both the common law and the First Amendment, and courts have established distinct— but overlapping—analytical frameworks for each doctrine, dis- cussed below. A. The Common Law Framework The Second Circuit has set out a three-step inquiry to determine whether nonpublic records and documents should be unsealed under the common law doctrine of open access. See Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020). First, to determine whether a presumption of open access attaches, the court evalu- ates whether “the documents at issue are indeed judicial documents.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). Second, the court considers the “weight of 3 When quoting cases, and unless otherwise noted, all citations and quota- tion marks are omitted, and all alterations are adopted. that presumption.” Id. Third, the court balances that presumption against countervailing interests, such as “the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. at 120. If the presumption of open access outweighs the relevant competing interests, then the information may be publicly disclosed. Id. B. The First Amendment Framework The First Amendment provides a “qualified . . . right of access” to court proceedings, including sentencing proceedings. United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 196, 199 (2d Cir. 2005). This right of access “permits the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process—an essential component in our structure of self-government.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). It is intended to balance “the pub- lic’s right of access against the privacy and fair trial interests of defendants, witnesses and third parties.” United States v. Gerena, 869 F.2d 82, 85 (2d Cir. 1989). The Second Circuit has “articulated two different approaches for determining whether the public and the press should receive First Amendment protection in their attempts to access certain judicial documents.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Under the first ap- proach—called the “experience and logic” analysis—the court “consider[s] both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particu- lar process in question.” Id. Under the second approach, the court “considers the extent to which the judicial documents are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings.” Id. Under both approaches, the court may seal documents if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. DISCUSSION A. Common Law Analysis It is uncontested that a party’s sentencing submission is a judicial document. (See Def.’s Letter at 2-3.); see also Mirlis, 952 F.3d at 59 (“[A] judicial document is one that has been placed before the court by the parties and that is relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.”). Sentencing memoranda and their accompanying exhibits generally qualify as judicial documents because they are submitted by defendants – as the letters are here – with the “express purpose [] to influ- ence the court’s decisionmaking.” United States v. Munir, 953 F. Supp. 2d 470, 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Saltzman argues that the presumption of public access that at- taches to her sentencing submission is outweighed by her own and by third parties’ compelling privacy concerns. (Def.’s Letter at 2-3.) She contends that disclosure will have a chilling effect on individuals who wish to speak in support of defendants in other high-profile prosecutions and that her supporters will be targeted if their identities are publicly known. (Id.) She also argues that references to her own and others’ medical conditions should be redacted in accordance with the court’s traditional treatment of such materials. (Id.) The court agrees that references to medical conditions will be re- dacted, but declines to withhold the remaining content of her sentencing submission from the public eye. “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”). The presumption is strongest where, as here, the documents at issue have been “used to deter- mine litigants’ substantive rights.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. The materials expressly relied on by defendants are submitted as part and parcel of their legal arguments for a particular sentence to influence the court’s sentencing decision. 4 See Munir, 953 F. Supp. 2d at 475, 477 (explaining that the presumption is at its most compelling “when judicial documents directly affect adju- dication, including a court’s sentencing decision”). The competing concerns identified by Saltzman do not outweigh the heavy presumption of open access applicable here. In Amodeo II, the Second Circuit recognized that courts may consider whether disclosure “is likely to impair in a material way the per- formance of Article III functions” and to weigh the “privacy interests of those resisting disclosure,” among other factors, when deciding whether to seal judicial documents. 71 F.3d at 1050. Saltzman argues that disclosure would have a “chilling ef- fect on those who wish to assist other defendants and courts in future high-profile cases.” (Saltzman Letter at 3.) The court is not persuaded. This is not a case in which a party seeks to seal iden- tities of cooperating witnesses, where unsealing would present a public safety risk and could discourage witnesses from cooperat- ing in other cases. See Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. She submitted her supporters’ letters as exhibits to her own memorandum, in- corporating them into her legal arguments. Cf. United States v. Gotti, 322 F. Supp. 2d 230, 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (sealing inde- pendently submitted sentencing letters that were not part of defendant’s sentencing submissions). Saltzman also argues that significant privacy interests are at stake because the authors of supportive letters may face retribution if their identities are publicly known, given the public attention 4 Motions to compel disclosure of presentence reports, as opposed to the parties’ sentencing submissions, are viewed differently given the distinct function performed by the probation department as “neutral information gatherers for the sentencing judge.” United States v. Cortes, 922 F.2d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Munir, 953 F. Supp. 2d at 475, 477 (explaining and applying that distinction). that has been paid to this case. Specifically, she asserts that “[r]evealing the identities and supportive views memorialized in letters to the court will add little to the record that has not al- ready been stated publicly by the Court and counsel, and will potentially result in harm to those whose aim was to furnish the Court with firsthand information about Saltzman to facilitate a fully informed sentencing proceeding.” (Def.’s Letter at 3.) It is true that “[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. Accordingly, “courts have the power to [e]nsure that their records are not ‘used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ and have ‘refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption.’” Id. at 1051 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The court should “con- sider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public,” and personal matters that lack “public ramifications . . . will weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public.” Id. “The nature and degree of injury must also be weighed.” Id. The court understands that Saltzman’s supporters may have a genuine interest in assisting sentencing while remaining out of the public eye themselves. The content at issue, however, does not involve traditionally private matters. See Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (identifying “[f]inancial records . . . , family affairs, ill- nesses, [and] embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications” as historically private matters). Nor does the po- tential newsworthiness of the letters’ content or of the authors’ relationships with Saltzman establish that publication would in- appropriately “gratify private spite or promote public scandal . . . [or] libel[].” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Accordingly, the court holds that the privacy interests identified by Saltzman, while im- portant, do not outweigh the presumption of open access to materials submitted by the defendant in support of her sentenc- ing arguments. B. The First Amendment Right to Access Disclosure is also appropriate under the First Amendment anal- yses. As an initial matter, the historical principle of open access to criminal matters and its important democratic functions are well established. See, e.g., Munir, 953 F. Supp. 2d at 475; Tangorra, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 235 (Open access to criminal pro- ceedings, including sentencings, allows the public to “hold accountable, and have confidence in, the judiciary.”). This fun- damental principle of criminal law is highlighted by Congress’s directive that sentencing proceedings must be held in “open court.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Relatedly, the documents relied on in sentencing arguments are an essential corollary to the sen- tencing proceedings, and the court views access to such documents the same way that access to the proceedings them- selves are viewed, absent compelling competing concerns. Further, for the reasons explained supra, Saltzman has not shown that such countervailing concerns are pertinent here. Accord- ingly, the public has a right to access nonmedical information relied upon in her sentencing submission. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Saltzman is DIRECTED to file a public version of her sentencing memorandum and supporting exhibits, with the exception of references to medical conditions, which will remain redacted, by Wednesday, October 6, 2021, at 12 pm. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 4, 2021 _/s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis_ NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS United States District Judge

Aristotle’s Sausage10/05/2021

Excellent article. A lot of the Nxians shared Salzman’s sense of privilege, an inflated sense of self importance and a belief that they were destined to do great things. They wanted to “change the world” and for some reason thought they were qualified for the job. Read Sarah Edmondson’s book. She unintentionally reveals her own blind ambition, greed, and lack of awareness amid all her plentiful excuse-making. A person lacking conscience or ethics. And she had plenty of company in that “sisterhood”. This is one reason I don’t buy the argument that they were victims. People who commit crimes in their quest for power and influence and wealth are not victims of anything but their own character flaws. And their own stupidity. Change the world, my arse. They weren’t qualified to run their own lives. The idea that Salzman, who spent 20 years building the Nxivm scam, was led astray solely by the “sex fiend” Raniere is laughable. She’s a lying, self-promoting criminal. Her pretend repentance and reform, and her victimhood narrative, are no more trustworthy than her former claim of having a Masters degree. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Alanzo10/05/2021

AP Klaviger always longed for the limelight. But, alas, she wasn't qualified for the feds, nor even Neil Glazer's team. All she is qualified to do is dwell among the lowest class of the legal community as a PR hack, who is rented out to continually trash people who've already been dealt with by those above her, and rally the worst impulses in humans to torture the condemned. AP Klaviger longs to execute a convict, or maybe someday get enough power and influence to whip up a crowd that will drag an accused prostitute through the streets, hang her on a telephone pole, or stone her to death. But AP is stuck here on the Frank Report. And all she can do is assign intentions to people she can not possibly know, so that one day, she can build up enough influence to get that lynching she's always longed for. Alanzo

K.R. Claviger10/05/2021

Snore…

Alonzo's Famous Sleep of Reason potion10/05/2021

True Clav, its like an anesthetic in that I tend to drop off after 4-5 words…zzzzz

Bankruptzo 500 Internal Server Error10/05/2021

The Notorious KRC has a job, what about you Alanzo? How's that marketing company working out? https://stanfieldagency.com/ So impressive where the links take you: “Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator at to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.”

Pyriel10/05/2021

I guess that using a carrier pigeon is not an option then…🤔😁

Anonymous10/06/2021

Nope, Alanzo ate it – poor little bird!

Pyriel10/06/2021

Anonymous – 😂🤣😂

Nutjob10/05/2021

In no particular order, my thoughts: – Was this article written as a prelude to asking Shivani to the Homecoming Dance? – Lucy in da Sky, Sausage, Shadow, and all other blood-thirsty commenters must be giddy to see that the “Wreck Prefect Tour” didn't end with the sentence. Rubbing a defeated dog's nose in their excrement is fun for all!!! – I was in ESP over 20 years ago. If I reach out to Nancy, maybe I can get her another 10 years!!! – Let's go get Michelle next!!! Even though everyone who knows her thinks she's nice and will vouch for her, let's string her up for having such bad taste in moms & men! And music. Don't forget the bad taste in music. (No offense to niceguy and his pretend attorney wife) – BLOOD! BLOOD!! BLOOD!!! GIMMEE MORE BLOOD!!!!

Joe O'Hara10/05/2021

Why do you think it's wrong to report on Nancy's refusal to abide by the conditions that were set for her to be allowed to stay out of prison for more than 3-years? I know that she was The Prefect in NXIVM but in the real world, she's just another con artist who thinks way too highly of herself. I personally can't wait until she reports to prison because, no matter what else happens in my life after that, I'm going to be laughing every day that heartless bitch is behind bars.

Alanzo10/05/2021

Yes. You've said that before. You will never be satisfied, Joe O'Hara. Unless maybe you can get her beat up in prison like Claviger is seeking to do? Maybe get some gang mob action going against her? Will that satisfy you? I doubt it. Alanzo

Prefect been a very bad girl10/05/2021

Our dear dear Prefect has been a very bad girl. Since Vanguard is available to punish her, it is now up to Judge Garaufis to take care of her bail violations. How will this take place? Maybe he will call her in early & send her off to prison sooner & with more time. Bad girls, Bad girls or is girls just want to have fun?

Questions for Alanzo the Bankrupt10/06/2021

Why are you so obsessed with bloody prison rapes and assaults? Is that something you fantastize about much? Do you prefer the role of the perpetrator, victim or do you swing both ways?

Gabe10/06/2021

Does anyone have the letters to release?