Nancy Salzman may be in hot water – again.  Her lawyer might be in trouble too.

Some of her letters of support look suspicious. At least two letter writers tell Frank Report they had no idea their letters, written years ago, would be used in her sentencing in September. One other letter writer told Frank Report that she would not have consented to having her name used.

No wonder Nancy tried so hard to keep those letters under seal.

She succeeded until after sentencing in keeping them secret, pulling essentially a fast one over on the judge, or so she thought.

She filed her sentencing memorandum on August 30th with the entire memorandum, including all the letters of support, under seal.

The judge ordered her to file the document unsealed on the eve of sentencing, but her cagy lawyers refiled, unsealing the body of the sentencing memorandum (with redactions throughout), but keeping the letters sealed – at least until after sentencing.

The following day, September 8th, the judge having had the benefit of being the only one to see the letters of support, sentenced her to a lenient sentence of 42 months.

Nancy Salzman, as clever as ever

After the sentencing, the judge ordered her to make the letters of support public. His argument was that the public has the right to see them since in the USA we do not conduct secret trials.

Nancy Salzman, with her lawyers David Stern [l] and Robert Soloway [r].

Her lawyer, Robert A Soloway, argued vehemently against allowing the public to see the letters. He said that Nancy’s supporters were in danger of that vicious publication the Frank Report, writing to the judge, “As this Court is aware, the Frank Report weaponizes statements made in support of the Nxivm defendants, and exists for virtually no purpose other than to damage the reputation and fortunes of remaining ‘loyalists.’”

But the judge’s word is final and Soloway had to publicly file Salzman’s sentencing memorandum – including all her letters of support.

That is when the Salzman hit the fan.

It seems that it may not have been Frank Report that was the cause of the urgent need for the letters to be filed under seal.

The reasons are that a number of the letters may not have been written for her sentencing. A number of letter writers apparently did not know their letters were going to be submitted as part of Nancy’s sentencing memorandum. Some of the letters may have been altered. A number of writers wrote letters years ago when Nancy first took her plea deal. At least three of them have since changed their opinion of Salzman because revelations that became public during the trial of Keith Raniere showed them a truer light about the man called Vanguard and his Prefect.

Nancy Salzman and Keith Raniere

They would not have given permission to use their old letters had they been asked. But they were not asked.

Did Nancy Pull a Fraud on the Court?

Susan Dones uncovered this story for Frank Report.

She texted me, “Two people we know so far didn’t write letters of support that Nancy is claiming they did.”

Dones named them. I confirmed it is true.

“Crazy isn’t it? I knew there was a reason why she was hell-bent on keeping them a secret,” Dones wrote.

Joe O’Hara told Frank Report, “Isn’t this very similar to the criminal conduct she pleaded guilty to?”

He might have a point: Salzman pled guilty to participation in a racketeering conspiracy and admitted to two racketeering acts: conspiring to commit identity theft and conspiring to alter court records in a federal civil proceeding.

Her lawyers tried to excuse her old conduct, writing in her sentencing memo, “It bears noting that at the time of these acts, which occurred well over a decade ago, she was deeply under Raniere’s influence, and wrongly believed that whatever she did on his behalf was for the greater good. These facts are neither a defense nor a legal excuse for her wrongdoing, but are pertinent to the severity of the sentence merited.”

What’s her excuse now? By her own admission, she is no longer under Raniere’s influence.

If these letters have been altered, one wonders who she will blame. Her attorneys? Perhaps she can blame the Frank Report.

Her lawyers wrote, “Nancy was… victimized by Raniere’s cruelty”, who “took Ms. Salzman on a terrible decades-Iong journey which even today she struggles to fully understand.”

She must understand today that doctoring letters, or failing to inform writers of years-old letters or to inform the judge that some of the writers had other intentions when they first wrote the letters is not honest, ethical. It may not be illegal.

Susan Dones does not think much of Nancy Salzman or her latest ploy — submitting a hodgepodge of letters of support some of which are clearly dubious.

Dones wrote on Twitter, “We’re not even sure all the letter[s] were written by the people who Nancy Salzman says were meant to be her letter of support for her sentencing memorandum. Maybe they were older letters about NXIVM’s programs and Nancy took them, switched them up a bit to support her. Come on now,”

“The truth is going to come out,” Dones wrote. “Nancy Salzman files letter[s] of support that were not meant to be filed in her defense for her sentencing…  Judge Garaufis is going to be notified. So bad, Nancy Salzman. Will he blow a fuss over fake letters?”

All told, Nancy offered the judge 39 letters — 7 from family letters, 9 from a so-called group of Nancy’s friends, and 23 from members of the Nxivm community.

As her lawyer wrote, they “…have written to tell their personal stories of Nancy’s kindness and compassion, and how those traits have positively impacted, and in some cases, profoundly altered the course of their lives for the better… They sing Nancy’s praises as a communicator, a facilitator of positive change in troubled lives, and an extraordinarily compassionate and effective life coach.”

As for singing her praises, were all of them apprised that Nancy was going to use them to vocalize support for her at her sentencing?

Her lawyers wrote, “Despite the crimes of which she is guilty — committed after she catastrophically became involved with Raniere, the letters stand as a testament to how she has consistently touched and inspired scores of ordinary people for decades, and how in return, they have not forgotten or abandoned her.”

They may not have forgotten, but at least some have abandoned her and others would have appreciated being asked before having their letters written in 2019, as being filed as bona fide letters of support for her sentencing.

Of her 39 letters: 20 are dated in 2021; 1 is dated in 2020;  12 are dated in 2019; 5 have no date; and 1 is curiously dated 2014.

RE: The 2021 Letters

The 2021 letters seem the least suspicious, but we are dealing with Nancy Salzman so we cannot be too sure.

Rene Krul [cousin]; June 6, 2021.

Milton Loshin [father, died Aug. 15,  age 93] July 4.

Lorraine Loshin, [mother] July 4

Antonio Cervantes; July 9

Steven Messing DMD Aug. 2, [Nancy’s boyfriend.]

Wende S. Irick; Aug. 7

Natalia Gaviria; Aug. 12

Enrique Martin-Moreno; Aug 12

Michael Chernitzky, Aug. 13

Gabriel Delgado; Aug. 14

Ben Myers; son-in-law; Aug. 15.

Mariana Colignon; Aug 16

Carolina Mora; Aug. 18

Jacqueline Ronay; Aug. 18

Jorhe Waisburg Chayet; Aug. 18

Kim Constable; Aug. 20

Sandy Padilla, Aug 22. Introduced Nancy to Keith; married to Nancy’s ex husband.

Christopher Fulton; Aug. 27

Mariana Velásquez; Aug, 29

Lauren Salzman [daughter] Sept. 29.

RE: The No Date Letters

Michelle Salzman-Myers [daughter].

Marc Elliot. He told Frank Report he wrote it years ago but continues to support her.

Matt Wakelin [addressed to “To whom it may concern,” not the judge.

Brett Diamond; addressed “Dear Your Honor.”

Elizabeth Leon Madrid, wrote in pen “Not for publication” addressed as To Whom it may Concern. [not a sentencing letter]

Michelle’s letter seems authentic. But I would certainly check with Brett, Matt and Elizabeth.

Brett Diamond included a picture of Nancy and him in his undated letter that was submitted to Judge Garaufis as a letter of support for her sentencing.

RE: The 2020 Letters

One letter from Geddy Krul M.D; dated July 11, 2020. Dr. Krul is the husband of Nancy’s first cousin, Rene Krul. It is likely authentic and perhaps was dated wrongly.

RE: The 2019 Letters

The letters dated in 2019, starting right after Nancy took her plea deal on March 13, are the most curious.

They seem to have been solicited as character references. Some refer to sentencing. Most do not. How many of these people knew that Nancy was going to hand them into the judge some two and a half years after they were written? And how many consented to Nancy doing just that?

Robert Younis. March 17; Not addressed to judge but “To whom it may concern”

Sean M. Sweeney; March 17 ‘Dear Your Honor’

Lucas Roberts; March 19, Does not address the judge. “Re: Letter of Character Reference for Nancy Salzman”

David G. Garza Perez; March 19,  addressed to Judge Garuafis.

Leah E. L. Mottishaw March 22; member of the Dossier project

Veronica Collignon March 28 “Dear Judge Garaufis”; letter does not mention her legal troubles.

Brandon B. Porter, M.D., March 30 [Porter lost his medical license August 2019.]

Virginia McIntosh March 30; addressed to David Stern [Nancy’s lawyer]

Dolores Wilson; March 31 “To: Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis: “Re: Character reference for Nancy Salzman” refers to her sentencing.

Luis Sandoval April 1 — “To whom it may concern”

Alayne Curtis; April 4  “Dear Judge Garaufis”

David Ashen; June 8 [mid trial]

Brandon Porter was an MD when he wrote the letter.

RE: The 2014 Letter

Jack Levy’s letter is dated 2014. It says “Not for publication.”  The letter is addressed to Judge Garaufis, who was not involved in the case way back then because there was no case. Did Salzman alter the letter to add Judge Garaufis’ name? or is the date a mistake?

Both Levy and Madrid use similar language:

Levy writes, “I don’t understand how someone like her can be in the situation that she is now.”

Madrid writes, “it is a pity that she is going through this situation since all she has done is help and improve the lives of many people.”

Questionable

Nancy’s father, Milton Loshin. passed away on August 15, at age 93. His letter is dated July 4, 2021.  We will perhaps never know if the late Mr. Loshin wrote the letter, dictated it, or even knew about it. Or if it was written after his death.

Nancy’s mother’s letter is also suspicious. Lorraine Loshin, 92, wrote a letter on July 4, the same day as her husband. But her husband’s letter cast some doubt on her ability to write such a letter; “My wife’s needs have increased due to increasing forgetfulness.”

Lauren’s letter adds more suspicion that it was Nancy who wrote her parents’ letters.

Lauren wrote: “My grandma is in the midst of declining mental health. She has lit fires in her home several times. She has fallen and cut her head open twice. She requires round the clock care and can’t be left unsupervised. She now often forgets who we are and how we’re related to her.”

So did she write the letter?

It is curious how similar both parents letters are as to writing style:

Nancy Salzman’s father.
1. Nancy has been helping my wife and myself for the last 2 years, living with us more than in her own home.
2. Nancy … made herself totally available to me arranging every aspect of care available.
3. She personally provided 24 hour a day care for months
4. Nancy shopped and cooked our meals, did our laundry and administrated my medications, treatments and handled my business matters.
5. There is no possible way I could have been provided better care
6. None of my doctors or healthcare providers predicted that I would still be alive today or anywhere near this amount of time.
7. As my wife’s needs have increased due to increasing forgetfulness, Nancy was here to notice and has made sure we are never alone.
8. But for Nancy, I could not.
9. I am so grateful for all she has done and it is my request your honor, that you allow her to continue to be at home with us, caring for us and loving us.
10. My daughter is a constant source of hope and joy for me.
11. She never complains or acts like we are a burden.
12. She is a kind and loving daughter and I am proud to be her father.

Nancy’s mother
1. From the time Nancy was a little girl she was a caring person who always wanted to help those around her.
2. She started caring for me when she was 6 years old and I was bedridden for 3 weeks.
3. In the last 3 years, as we began to age and things started to slip around the house, Nancy noticed and stepped in.
4. She began shopping with me and cooking for us, taking both of us to our doctor’s appointments helping with medical decisions and doing our book keeping.
5. Nancy spent more and more time with us
6. Nancy was here in those critical moments
7. This decision actually saved his life.
8. Nancy has been with us almost continuously for the last 18 months.
9. When my husband feels anxious he calls for her
10. She takes care of all of our needs, shopping, cooking, giving my husband nursing care and she provides all the information that we wouldn’t know how to do.
11. She solves all of our problems.
12. We wouldn’t have been about to stay in our home of 70 years if not for Nancy and all she has done.
13. I do not believe we can survive without her help at this juncture of our lives.
14. I believe my Nancy is one in a million.

The 2019 Batch

Perhaps most troubling are the 2019 letters which are marked as character reference. Some are addressed “To Whom It May Concern.”

Were they intended for sentencing? Were the writers informed that their letters would be used? Some say “Not for publication”.

It would certainly be like Salzman to not bother to ask if these people still offered support. Did she dictate any of the letters?

Would every one of the letter writers still affirm their support?

Why did Nancy and her lawyers fight so hard to keep these letters anonymous?

Was it Frank Report or was it that she did not want to tell the 2019 letter writers that she was using their names to support her request for a no-jail-tile sentence?

In other words, who was she keeping the letters a secret from — Frank Report or the letter writers themselves?

[We will be examining the letter more carefully in subsequent posts. The language and some of the content are well worth evaluating.]