There is an armory of information in the exhibits of Keith Raniere’s pro se Rule 33 motion for a new trial. Among them is this affidavit from Sahajo Haertel. She blames two villains for a lot of misery: the FBI and me.
Sahajo, 39, was a DOS slave and member of the Dossier Project. She lives in Berlin, Germany. Frank Report wrote about her during the summer of 2017.
It was between the time I broke the story of DOS and the fall. The New York Times became the second publication to report on DOS.
Sahajo Haertel is a fusion tribal belly dancer.
The Times made Keith Raniere famous around the world. I first wrote about Sahajo on June 30, 2017. I was trying to shatter DOS and NXIVM – and land the rascal Raniere in prison.
Sahajo Haertel: Describes herself as a “Humanitarian, Entrepreneur, seeker and promoter of heightened Awareness, Consciousness and Joy.” She does not mention she is a slave to Mr. Raniere. Sources say she is a member of DOS and lives in Albany.”
I published her picture.
Now here is Prem Sahajo Haertel Affidavit for the Court
I have a Bachelor’s degree in European Politics and a Master’s degree in Post-colonial Politics (focusing on Poststructuralist Philosophy). I have worked in Education, Counseling, Research, and Management.
I participated in, and worked with various NXIVM companies over a 10-year period. I was also a member of DOS for two-and-a-half years.
My overall experience with NXIVM and DOS, and their respective leaderships and participants, was positive, and I did not personally experience any abuse or ever witness anyone being abused.
During my time in DOS, I personally knew and interacted with most of the former DOS members who now claimed to have had negative experiences during that time. I do not believe that any DOS members were the victims of a criminal offense, nor that anyone was coerced or abused.
During happy times in NXIVM- Sahajo in the back row with red sweater.
On June 30, 2017, Frank Parlato publicly posted my name, picture, and bio on a list of women he speculated might be “sex slaves” of Keith.
I have never been a sex slave, nor have I ever, to my knowledge, met a sex slave. I believe sex slavery is a heinous crime.
The Frank Report continued to make very serious and false accusations against the sorority and its members, including me. Because of this contorted and false media narrative, my membership and association with DOS, my private and personal choices, and my lifestyle (both true and false) were being misrepresented, judged, and attacked in the public domain.
Over the next six months, I lost my work, my community, and many of my friends. Many of my friends and family were either trying to “save me” from something I did not participate in, or harass me and accuse me of doing something I did not do.
On October 17, 2017, The New York Times published an article about the sorority, DOS, making it an overnight international story, and inferring that every woman in DOS was either a victim or a perpetrator. I was neither.
Those who did not denounce Keith Raniere or DOS were followed and harassed by media, the public, and former
In the fall of 2017, the FBI began investigating DOS and its members in relation to charges of sex trafficking and forced labor.
I have never been a victim of, or witnessed, sex trafficking or forced labor of any kind, nor have I ever, to my knowledge, met a victim of these egregious crimes.
In the Spring of 2018, two FBI agents visited me at my residence in Clifton Park, NY, and told me they wanted to ask me some questions. They informed me that if I did not speak to them then, they would serve me with a subpoena. I was nervous and scared as I had never seen, let alone spoken to, FBI agents. I was a foreigner and guest in the USA, and I did not know what rights I had. I told them that I would not speak with them without an attorney present and they handed me a subpoena.
I hired an attorney whom I met once in person for about an hour to tell him about my experiences and answer whatever questions he had for me.
My attorney communicated with the Government concerning the Grand Jury Subpoena and then informed me of my legal rights and what options I had.
Ultimately, I decided to assert my Fifth Amendment privilege, not because I believed I had done anything wrong – I did not do anything wrong – but rather because it was clear that the Government was proceeding on the premise that any woman who was a member in DOS that either had recruited members or considered doing so was a potential co-conspirator and therefore could also be charged.
Because it was a RICO case, it was my understanding that anyone associated with either Keith Raniere or DOS could become a target in a federal investigation. My attorney told me that the Government had agreed that any further contact with me would need to go through my attorney My lawyer then informed me that I would likely not need to speak to them or testify.
Leading up to the public trial of Keith Raniere, I had not been contacted by my attorney again and believed the matter to be settled as over a year had passed since receiving the initial subpoena and the trial was about to start.
On May 8, 2019, I decided to attend the second day of Keith Raniere’s trial since it was open to members of the public, of which I am one.
The Eastern District of New York Courthouse where the Raniere trial was held.
At the end of that day, when the doors opened and I went to exit the courtroom with all the other attendees, an FBI agent, who I believe to have been FBI Special Agent Michael Lever, was waiting outside and immediately handed me a subpoena the moment I stepped out of the courtroom. I felt reprimanded for no other reason than showing up that day.
The subpoena did not contain a date or time for when I was commanded to appear in court. It looked like it was hand-written in haste that day, after spotting me at the trial because it had no specificity and, to my knowledge, they have not followed up on that subpoena to this very day, over three years later.
I do not believe this subpoena was in good faith with the intent to call me as a trial witness, based on the last-minute timing of the subpoena and the fact that the Government was aware I did not wish to speak to I believe the subpoena was given to me because I was attending the trial, as an attempt to threaten and punish me.
I wanted to attend as much of the trial as possible to show my support for my friend Mr. Raniere, and to see and hear for myself (firsthand) what evidence was being presented. However, after receiving the subpoena, I chose not to go back again because I was afraid of what additional punitive measures the Government might My attorney strongly advised me not to attend the trial further as I would only be, in his words, “poking the bear.”
In serving me this hastily drafted, undated subpoena, the Government succeeded in intimidating me and scaring me off from further attending this public trial.
Before the trial, they had agreed that all further communication would go through my lawyer. I believe by publicly handing me this subpoena, in plain sight of everyone, including journalists leaving the courtroom, who would report on it, the prosecution sent a warning to other friends or fellow supporters who merely wanted to attend the trial, for fear that they too may be reprimanded and served a subpoena while they attended the proceedings. If just attending the trial was met this way, it also sent a message that anyone supportive of the defense should stay away from this case. They should not express any kind of support or help, whether they considered testifying or merely wanting to show solidarity.
After I got the subpoena in front of everyone, I hurried away from the building, press, and many bystanders. Once I was far away enough and alone, I broke down and cried for a good 20 minutes before calling my lawyer. I was in shock. I felt bullied, intimidated, and punished by the FBI and prosecution, not for doing anything bad or wrong, but merely for showing up at the trial.
I personally know of three other individuals who were further deterred from attending the trial based on what they heard had happened to me.
I believe giving me the subpoena that day was an intimidation tactic because, to my knowledge, the prosecution has not to this day ever followed up on the un-dated subpoena they handed me three years ago when I left court that day.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information and As to those matters, I believe them to be true.
