Editors’ Note: K.R. Claviger has taken the role of the defender of the prosecution and that due process was done in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere. He was assigned this task because as Frank Report publishes the opposing viewpoint, written largely by supporters of Raniere, and Raniere himself, it is important to have checks and balance, and an honest and robust debate as we examine the issues.
If the supporters of Raniere are biased, or rather are presenting their arguments in the best light possible, it is important that we have a counterbalance and a man who is biased against or certainly not biased in favor of Raniere. He also needs to be someone familiar with the law as Claviger is.
One of the arguments Raniere made in the post, ‘Call to Action’, which was, in effect, Part 1 of this series, was that he was denied due process concerning his apprehension in Mexico and his arrest in the USA. Here is Claviger’s rebuttal to Raniere’s argument.
By K. R. Claviger
One of the first legal issues that Keith Raniere raised in his recent “Call To Action” is his assertion that on March 25, 2018, he was “…kidnapped in Mexico after visiting [his] seven-month-old son and his mother, a life-partner of [his] who had just left”.
He goes on to elaborate on what happened to him in Mexico on that fateful day and afterward.
“Six men in masks, wearing full body armor and armed with machine guns, arrested me. Within twelve hours I was thrown out of the country without legal representation or extradition. I was turned over to the US authorities and isolated from family, friends, and attorneys, for almost a month, pre-indictment.”
Before I delve into the legal questions surrounding this alleged kidnapping and expulsion from Mexico, I want to review whatever evidence is available regarding the incident that was described by Keith.
In this regard, the only person who testified at Keith’s trial about the incident was Lauren Salzman.
There were others with Keith beside Lauren when he was grabbed up in Mexico – Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne, Loreta Garza, and Dani Padilla to be exact – but none of them has testified, under oath or otherwise, about the incident.
Nicki Clyne & Allison Mack
So, let’s see what Lauren Salzman had to say about what happened on March 25, 2018.
[Side note: During her testimony at Keith’s trial, Lauren revealed that Keith’s nickname for her was “Forlorn” or “Lorn” – and that he gave her that nickname because, as she put it, “I was sad and suffering”. She also revealed that in the NXIVM/ESP community “suffering” was considered to be indulgent. Here’s how she put it: “Suffering is like a pity party, or like it’s when you’re generating an upset over something, it was seen as – suffering was seen as being indulging in sadness to make yourself feel better about something that shouldn’t feel good, or to get attention or something, or to get off the hook for something”.]
Ms. ‘Forlorn’ Salzman
During her third day on the witness stand, Lauren testified that Keith had decided to hold a “recommitment ceremony” while he was in Mexico in March 2015.
According to Lauren’s testimony, this “recommitment ceremony” was to include several of the original DOS masters: Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne, Loreta Garza, Daniella Padilla, and Lauren – and the highlight of the “recommitment ceremony” was going to be a group blow-job for Keith.
Loretta Garza was supposed to be one of the women giving Keith a group blow-job
And so it was that Lauren, Allison, Nicki, Loreta and Daniella joined Keith at the villa where he was staying in Chacala, Mexico – which is a small fishing village about an hour-and-a-half outside of Puerto Vallarta.
Chacala, Mexico
For several days, Keith presided over work sessions that were focused on how to rebuild the NXIVM/ESP business. Those sessions included several other high-ranking members of the cult (e.g., Clare Bronfman) – and Mariana, the mother of Keith’s second child, Kemar.
But a week before Easter, everyone who was not going to be part of the “recommitment ceremony” was sent away.
That included Mariana – who, according to Lauren, did not know that several women were going to stay behind with Keith at the villa after everyone else left.
Mariana Fernandez and Keith Raniere taking their son, Kemar, for a stroll in Mexico
Shortly after everyone left, Lauren and Keith took a nap together. When he woke up, Keith indicated he wasn’t feeling well – and asked Lauren to bring him some food.
After bringing him some food, Lauren went back to the kitchen to make herself a smoothie. That’s when Loreta came running in to tell her that there were police at the front door who were looking for Keith.
Lauren dashed back to Keith’s room – and tried to convince him to escape through one of the windows.
Rather than do that, Keith told Lauren to call [redacted], one of the cult’s highest-ranking members in Mexico.
But because neither of them knew how to use Keith’s phone, the phone call to [redacted] never happened.
Instead, Lauren started securing the room she and Keith were in. She closed and locked all the doors – and then she closed all the blinds.
But as she was closing the blinds, she could see what was going on outside.
As Lauren testified, “…I could see outside the window that federal police with machine guns and bulletproof vests, some of them wearing masks, were like surrounding the property…”
She continued, “…basically, they surrounded the whole property and they searched the whole property until they found the only place they weren’t able to search was the room we were in – and they came to the door and they were banging on the door and Keith was going to leave to go into…another room like a walk-in closet”.
As he was exiting, Keith told her to ask them if they had a warrant.
When Lauren asked about the warrant, they told her they would show it to her if she let them in. But after she refused to do that, they simply kicked in the door, held her to the floor with machine guns pointed at her, and asked her if anyone else was with her.
Afraid that she was about to be assaulted, Lauren called out Keith’s name in the direction of the adjacent room.
Several of the police immediately kicked in the adjoining door, dragged out Keith, put him on the floor, and handcuffed him. When they were done doing that, they stood him up – and let him read the piece of paper they had with them.
As Keith was being hauled away, Lauren testified that “…he called out to me what the allegations were, that they were out of the Eastern District of New York, that he was being accused of sex trafficking and I can’t remember what else…”
So, there we have it.
Keith Raniere was picked up in Chacala, Mexico by a group of what appeared to be Mexican Federal Police.
At the time that he was picked up, Keith was presented with some sort of document that indicated he was facing charges for sex trafficking – and perhaps several other charges – in the Eastern District of New York.
Setting aside the obvious misstatements and exaggerations in Keith’s claim – e.g., he was not visiting with his seven-month-old son at the time of his arrest, not all the Mexican police were wearing masks, and none of them appear to have been in full body armor – it appears to me that, based on the known facts and circumstances, there are three legal questions regarding what happened to him in Mexico and immediately afterward:
First, was Keith illegally apprehended and expelled from Mexico?
Second, was Keith illegally arrested in the United States?
Third, was Keith illegally isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for almost a month before he was indicted?
Let’s take a look at each of those questions – and see if we can come up with fact-based answers to them.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Apprehended & Expelled From Mexico?
Although Keith claims that he was “arrested” in Mexico, I do not believe that was the case.
Had he been arrested, he would have been held by the Mexican authorities – and the U.S. Embassy would have been notified of his arrest. Thereafter, a Consular Officer would have visited him, checked on his well-being and the circumstances surrounding his arrest, provided him with a list of local attorneys who are experienced in representing American citizens who have been charged with a crime, and asked the Mexican authorities for permission to be in contact with others regarding the arrest.
Instead, I think that Keith was simply apprehended by the Mexican police – and immediately expelled from the country.
Under Mexican law, the rights and obligations of foreigners – and Keith was definitely a foreigner throughout the time he was there – are not codified in one place. Instead, those rights and obligations are sprinkled throughout the Mexican Federal Constitution and in a variety of codes, regulations, and statutes.
Thus, for example, Article 33 of the Federal Constitution empowers authorities to expel from the United Mexican States “…immediately and without any previous legal action” any foreigner who the Mexican immigration authorities or agents deemed to have been engaged in any type of political activity.
Given Keith’s previous actions in Mexico, it would have been easy for Mexican authorities to have concluded that he had been involved in “political activity”. Even Keith acknowledges this in his “Call To Action” when he notes “I… lead a peace movement in Mexico”.
Indeed, Keith’s own attorneys argued in their “Sentencing Memorandum” that “He remains proud to have been permitted to play a part in helping citizens and residents of Mexico strive to bring peace to a country beset by violent gangs, kidnappings, and murders, a struggle that continues to the present and that will continue to the future” (See HERE for more details regarding Keith’s “political activity” in Mexico).
Regardless of how well-intentioned Keith may have been, the simple reality is that he had been engaged in political activity in Mexico – which made his apprehension and expulsion totally legitimate under Mexican law.
The fact that he was not engaged in political activity at the time of his apprehension – assuming, of course, that a group blow-job is not considered to be a political act – is irrelevant.
Keith’s prior involvement in political activity in Mexico – and his likely involvement in such activity in the future – was sufficient grounds for his apprehension and expulsion from the country on March 25, 2018.
Thus, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Arrested in the United States?
Now that we have established that Keith was properly apprehended in – and expelled from – Mexico, the next question becomes whether his arrest on the U.S. side of the border was proper.
While it is true that the U.S. could have sought to have Keith extradited back from Mexico, it was able to avoid that sometimes long and tedious process by simply picking him up when the Mexican Federal Police summarily dumped him at the border.
To be sure, that was not a fortuitous event.
Clearly, the Mexican authorities had tipped off the U.S. authorities exactly where and when they would be forcing Keith to cross back into the U.S.
So, is there anything wrong with that?
Unfortunately for Keith, the answer is “No”.
Mexican and U.S. authorities engage in a wide variety of cross-border cooperative efforts on law enforcement matters all the time.
Indeed, the U.S. Marshals Service – which has a Task Force that is dedicated to finding and capturing U.S. citizens who are trying to avoid arrest – even maintains a Field Office in Mexico to coordinate their joint activities with Mexican authorities.
So, while it may seem a little strange that a U.S. citizen was arrested after being forced by armed Mexican Federal police to leave their country, there is nothing illegal about it – especially since there was a warrant out for Keith’s arrest.
One of the things that Keith neglected to mention in his “Call To Action” is the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York had issued a Complaint and an Arrest Warrant against him sometime on or after February 14, 2018.
In reviewing the various filings in Keith’s case, we know that FBI Agent Michael Lever filed a “Complaint And Affidavit In Support Of Arrest Warrant” against Keith on February 14, 2018. That, in fact, became Document #1 in the filings for Keith’s case (That filing was done “Under Seal”).
We also know that on March 26, 2018, the EDNY U.S. District Court ordered the unsealing of the Complaint and Arrest Warrant in Keith’s case. This order was registered as Document #3 in case filings.
With both of the above-referenced documents in hand, it’s pretty easy to figure out that Document #2 – which was also filed “Under Seal” – was, in fact, the Complaint and Arrest Warrant against Keith.
Thus, when the FBI agents saw Keith coming across the U.S./Mexican border on March 25, 2018, they had a legitimate, court-authorized Complaint and Arrest Warrant regarding Keith.
As a result, they had a perfectly sound basis for arresting and detaining Keith on that date.
Once again, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Was Keith Raniere Illegally Isolated From His Family, Friends and Attorneys for Almost a Month Before He Was Indicted?
Keith’s next point in his “Call To Action” is that after he was arrested on March 25, 2018, he was isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for almost a month.
Even if that assertion were true – and parts of it clearly are – what he fails to understand and/or admit is that he was treated exactly the same way as any other U.S. citizen who is arrested far away from the jurisdiction that issued their arrest warrant.
Keith was preliminarily arraigned in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 27, 2018 – just two days after he was arrested.
At that preliminary arraignment, Keith was represented by Brian D. Poe, a criminal defense attorney whose office is in Fort Worth, TX.
As noted in the record by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton, who presided over the preliminary hearing, Keith waived his right to have a separate hearing to confirm his identity – and requested a detention hearing back in the EDNY.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Keith was remanded into custody – and ordered to be “removed forthwith to the district in which he is charged”.
Keith’s next court appearance – which took place in the EDNY – was on April 13, 2018.
That means he was in transit from Texas to New York City for no more than 17 days: i.e., from March 25, 2018 through April 11, 2018 (He first showed up on the Federal Prisoner Locator System at the Metropolitan Detention Center on the later date).
Although we are uncertain as to the exact date Keith left Texas, we do know that he arrived at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, OK on or about April 1st.
FTC Oklahoma City, OK
Unfortunately for Keith, the Bureau of Prisons does not offer private jet service for those prisoners who must be moved from one district to another.
Thus, it appears that Keith was likely held in Oklahoma City for about 10-days – which, according to several criminal defense attorneys who practice in federal courts, is about average.
So, while a portion of Keith’s claim about being isolated from his family, friends and attorneys for a period of time is true, the reality is that he was treated just like every other federal prisoner in similar circumstances would have been treated.
Once again, I do not see this as a winning issue for Keith when he appeals his case.
Nor do I think that he and/or his followers are likley to come up with any “new evidence” regarding this issue that would be enough for the court to grant him a new trial.
**********
Stay Tuned as We Evaluate Keith’s Other Claims
In the next post in this series, we’ll evaluate some more of the claims that Keith put forth in his “Call To Action”.
Hopefully, those who support Keith will respond to each of these posts with questions and/or counter-evidence.
That will help all of Frank Report’s readers to hear from both sides – and to form their own conclusions about each of Keith’s claims.
