Well, kids, we don’t have to worry about Keith Raniere coming after anyone for revealing the top-secret Nxivm tech.
It no longer belongs to him. He has no standing to sue you anymore. Reveal away!
He does not even own his claimed 10 percent of First Principles, Inc. – the company that owns the Nxivm tech.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis has ruled that the government can seize it – and the legal [on paper] owner, Nancy ‘Prefect’ Salzman, has already agreed not to contest the seizure.
Salzman pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy on March 13, 2019 – and since then, she has chosen not to fight anything the government wanted – obviously in the hopes that she will get a lenient sentence.
But Raniere did contest. He wants his 10 percent.
On September 9, 2019, Raniere filed a third-party petition challenging Judge Nicholas Garaufis’ forfeiture order claiming it wrongly “embraces all rights and assets” in First Principles Inc., a Delaware corporation in which Raniere claims to hold a 10% interest.
.
Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman always were such an adorable pair. But Nancy was the first to turn on her lordly Keith “Wet Kisses Vanguard” Raniere. She was first to take a plea deal – almost knocking her daughter Lauren over to get the first seat on the plea deal bus. And Nancy, smart enough to protect herself, was quick to let the Nxivm company [First Principles] go. That smarty-pants Keith put the company in her name but claimed to own 10% of it.
The government opposed it and made a motion for the judge to dismiss Raniere’s petition and, hence, extinguish his claim.
The problem for the bright lad is that there is no record of his ownership, none in the world. All we have is his good word for it.
The judge considered both Raniere’s and the government’s filings and made a decision to strip Raniere of his claimed asset, just as Raniere stripped so many people of their assets, and women of their clothing.
Judge’s Complete Letter here: Document 840 – Order Regarding Forfeiture (01.17.2020)
Here is a truncated version of the judge’ ruling on the fine boy’s claim of 10 percent ownership of First Principles, Inc.:
…. Third-party petitions challenging criminal forfeiture orders are governed by the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure …. {Raniere] … must set forth…. “the nature and extent of the petitioner’s [Raniere’s] . . . interest in the property, [and] the time and circumstances of the petitioner’s acquisition of … [that] interest.”
To satisfy this requirement, it is “not enough … to simply allege ownership.” …. “… the law requires more than a bare assertion of legal title to establish the nature and extent of petitioner’s right, title, or interest in the subject property.”….
Motions to dismiss such petitions…. are “evaluated on the same standard as a civil complaint on a motion…. “a petition must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face….
…. Additionally… the court … when adjudicating a motion to dismiss,… may consider “any documents attached to the [petition] as an exhibit….
Read in the light most favorable to Raniere, the Petition fails to satisfy … [the] requirement that it set forth the nature of Mr. Raniere’s alleged interest in First Principles and the time and circumstances of his acquisition of that interest. The Petition contains numerous conclusory assertions concerning the nature and scope of Mr. Raniere’s interest….. [such as] “Keith Raniere’ s title and interest in the property is superior to any other interest claimed by the Defendants [Salzman] or [sic] third party”….
However, setting aside these bare legal conclusions, the Petition contains only one allegation that could be construed as attempting to set forth a factual basis for Mr. Raniere’ s alleged interest, to wit: “First Principles, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation in which Mr. Raniere has by agreement a 10% interest in the assets, proceeds and property of First Principles, Inc.”….
As the Government notes, this allegation …. is bereft of details “that could be used to determine [the purported agreement’s] validity-for example, whether the agreement was oral or written, whether it was authorized by a corporate resolution or recorded in a corporate ledger, or whether it resulted in the issuance of 10% of [First Principle]’s shares to Raniere in his own name.”…
This defect is fatal to the Petition…..
Equally unavailing is Mr. Raniere’s attempt to rely on an email summary of commissions for the “Reverence May 2016 Intensive,” which is attached as an exhibit to the Petition. The only explicit reference to First Principles contained in the exhibit is a $4,000 line item under the “Commissions Summary” attributable to “First Principles (KR). “
Even assuming, as Mr. Raniere contends, that this item refers to his “royalties from First Principles” … the fact that Mr. Raniere may have had an unspecified agreement to receive royalties from First Principles does not, in and of itself, translate to Mr. Raniere holding a 10% ownership interest in First Principles itself.
In any event, nothing in the exhibit speaks to the time and circumstances of Mr. Raniere’s acquisition of the ownership interest that he purports to assert.
As already discussed, this independently necessitates dismissal of the Petition.
Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Raniere’s Petition is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New Y’ ork
January 17, 2020
NICHOLAS G. GARAIFIS
Ah Keith, hoisted by your own petard. You never wanted to sign anything, never put anything in your name. You fucked people over by this technique for years and now your are fucked yourself.
****
The judge ruled that Raniere had nothing but his assertion that he owned 10 percent of First Principles, Inc., which is the corporate entity that owns the Nxivm “tech”.
And because there is strong legal precedent that a criminal – or a Vanguard – simply saying he owns something is not proof.
Something in writing – a contract, corporate minutes, stock or even a history of getting 10 percent royalties would have gone a long way.
But Raniere presented nothing other than a single document – that First Principles once paid somebody $4,000 in commissions.
Keith claimed that it was he who got the $4,000 – which he claimed proved he got it all the time – that and his good word.
You have to wonder who is advising Keith to make these motions. They can’t possibly sit well with the judge who is going to sentence him.
Someone should have told him – and perhaps they did – that he had no chance of winning this. Someone should have known – and perhaps they did – that without some proof of ownership, legal precedent clearly states that the court will not rule in your favor – not just by your word alone – even if you are an ethicist, a Vanguard and the world’s smartest man.
The once imperial Vanguard
When he was the Vanguard, it was a given that his followers would obey him, since he was the smartest, most ethical man in the world. Now that he is prisoner #57005-177, his Nxivm co-defendants seem not eager to please at all.
Such was the case when Nancy Salzman did not even consult with Keith about allowing the government to seize First Principles – his 10 percent be damned.
In the past, Nancy did not even get hemorrhoid ointment without his permission.
This change in attitude, of course, might be expected for except for his colossal stupidity, and criminal instincts, she and, in fact, none of the other co-defendants would be where they are today – facing prison.
Viva Executive Success!
