Nxivm Doc 456: Raniere Motion To Dismiss

Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 456 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4729
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 18 Cr. 00204-NGG
NOTICE OF MOTION
- v. -
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,

ALLISON MACK, KATHY RUSSELL,
and LAUREN SALZMAN,
Submitted on March 22, 2019
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Marc Agnifilo, for the
Defendant, KEITH RANIERE, will move the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, for an order granting the following relief:
1. Motion to keep the current trial schedule of April 8, 2019 for jury selection and April
29, 2019 for opening statements, with parties exchanging case-in-chief trial exhibits
and witness lists on April 7, 2019;
2. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for lack of venue and to dismiss the recently added
racketeering acts (as well as joining in co-defendants Bronfman, Allison Mack and
Lauren Salzman’s respective motions);
3. Motion for a Bill of Particulars (as well as joining co-defendant Bronfman’s respective
motions);
4. Motion to preclude the government’s proposed experts;
5. Motion to Obtain Testimony from Foreign Witnesses, or in the alternative, take Rule
15 Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 15.
These motions are based on this Notice of Motion and the accompanying Memorandum of
Law in Support of Raniere’s Motions, and the above-referenced motions on which Raniere is
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 456 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4730
joining. Raniere respectfully requests oral argument at the status conference currently scheduled
for April 4, 2019, on these motions.
Dated: March 22, 2019

New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
Marc A. Agnifilo, Esq.

Teny R. Geragos, Esq.
BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES
767 3rd Avenue, 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 750-7800
Paul DerOhannesian, II, Esq.

Danielle R. Smith, Esq.
DEROHANNESIAN &
DEROHANNESIAN
677 Broadway – Ste. 707
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 465-6420
Attorneys for Defendant

Keith Raniere
2
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 456-1 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 4731
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 18 Cr. 00204-NGG
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

- v. -
KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,

ALLISON MACK, KATHY RUSSELL,
and LAUREN SALZMAN,
Submitted on March 22, 2019
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF KEITH RANIERE’S MOTIONS

RELATED TO THE TRIAL DATE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR A BILL
OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO PRECLUDE AND MOTION FOR CCTV
TESTIMONY
BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 750-7800
Fax: (212) 750-3906

Of Counsel
DEROHANNESIAN &
DEROHANNESIAN
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 465-6420
Fax: (518) 427-0614

Of Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant Keith Raniere

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
MOTIONS RELATED TO THE TRIAL SCHEDULE ..................................................................1
A. April 8, 2019 Date for Jury Selection and April 29, 2019 Date for Opening Statements ..1
B. Motion to Compel Witness Lists and Case-in-Chief Trial Exhibits on April 7, 2019.........4
MOTIONS TO DISMISS ................................................................................................................5
A. Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four Because They Are Neither
Related to a Pattern of Racketeering Activity, Nor Related to the Charged Enterprise ......5
B. Counts Three, Four, Five and Eleven Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Venue....................8
C. In the Alternative, Raniere is Entitled to a Bill of Particulars Because the Second

Superseding Indictment Omits Critical Information Necessary for Him to Prepare His
Defense ..............................................................................................................................10
MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED EXPERTS ..........................12
MOTION TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY FROM FOREIGN WITNESSES ...................................15
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16
i
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Keith Raniere respectfully seeks the following relief: (1) to keep the current trial
schedule of April 8, 2019 for jury selection and April 29, 2019 for opening statements; (2) to
compel the parties to exchange case-in-chief trial exhibits and witness lists on April 7, 2019; (3)
to dismiss Counts Three, Four, Five and Eleven for lack of venue, and to dismiss racketeering acts
Two, Three and Four due to the timing of the recent Superseding Indictment; (4) for a Bill of
Particulars for the acts and counts included in the First Superseding Indictment; (5) to preclude the
government’s proposed experts due to the government’s failure to provide sufficient notice
pursuant to the agreed-upon deadline; and (6) to order CCTV testimony for material witnesses
located abroad.
Raniere also joins in the following motions filed by his co-defendants:
• Clare Bronfman’s Motions to Dismiss Counts One, Two and Eleven, Motion to
Dismiss the S-1 Indictment, and Motion for a Bill of Particulars.
• Allison Mack’s Motions to Dismiss Counts One, Two, Six, Eight, Nine and Ten,
Motion to Strike Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four, or in the alternative, a Rule
104 Hearing, and Motion to Preclude Experts as Untimely and Insufficient.
• Lauren Salzman’s Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Acts Ten and Thirteen. (Dkt. 455.)
In the interests of time, rather than asking for a reply to the government’s responsive
papers, which would ordinarily be granted, Raniere instead asks only for oral argument on these
motions in advance of a decision by the Court.
MOTIONS RELATED TO THE TRIAL SCHEDULE
A. April 8, 2019 Date for Jury Selection and April 29, 2019 Date for Opening
Statements
Raniere reiterates his statutory and constitutional right to a prompt trial, a right that the
government has steadfastly denied him for almost a year. At the last court conference, the
1
government searched for ways to yet again adjourn the Court’s firm trial date. It gratuitously stated,
for example, that is was in active plea negotiations with three defendants, (3/18/19 Tr. at 18), and
suggested that may delay the trial. The government also expressed concern that its last-minute
superseding indictment might spawn motion practice, stating “the government has an additional
concern given the current trial date if the defendants have additional motions to raise”. 1 But none
of these things should stand in the way of the Court’s firm trial date, especially when the
government has already caused extensive pretrial delay of an incarcerated defendant who has been
demanding a trial for almost a year. That the government is “in active plea negotiations with three
additional defendants” is not a basis to continue to infringe on Raniere’s right to trial. Whether or
not a co-defendant pleads guilty can have no impact on a firm trial date. Raniere is not pleading
guilty. He wants a trial. He wants a trial immediately. Moreover, he has been demanding a prompt
trial for a year.
Moreover, the government’s eleventh-hour indictment should not serve to keep a defendant
in jail longer. It should serve rather as a wake-up call to the prosecution that it will have to work
harder and devote additional resources to ensure that the defendants have a fair trial given the last-
minute charges and the large amount of discovery that has yet to be turned over. The answer is
never delay. The answer is always to work hard and get the job done.
Also, when this Court sets a firm trial date, which it has done repeatedly in this case, it is
the obligation of the parties, especially the Department of Justice, to respect that date and to meet
it. Indeed, this Court stated its intention to begin the trial with jury selection on April 8th and begin
1
That Raniere was contemplating additional motions to raise “regarding evidence that was
produced pursuant to a court order” (3/18/19 Tr. at 24) was, once again, a problem of the
government’s own making. This should not be a basis to continue the trial date. Raniere is no
longer filing a motion related to the evidence produced pursuant to the Court Order.
2
Opening Statements on April 29th. (See 3/18/19 Tr. at 20.) We are ready. This Court has set several
firm trial dates in this case, and Raniere’s counsel has been ready to commence this trial on every
date that the Court has set. This continues to be true, even though the government has superseded
the indictment, adding serious additional counts last week requiring the defense to conduct a
forensic examination of the new material.
Because the trial date in this case has moved several times and because this Court issued
an order barring trial counsel from taking on other trials between January 1, 2019 and June 30,
2019, counsel for Raniere has scheduled a series of other large, complex multi-defendant trials for
after the June 30th date in the Court’s order. The Court will recall that in September 2018, this
Court ordered that “[n]o attorney who has appeared…on behalf of, any party in this case may
commit to participating in any other trial between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, without
first requesting (in writing) and receiving specific permission from this court.” (Dkt. 138, Order
Granting Complex Case.) Both Mr. Agnifilo and Ms. Geragos have abided by this Order and set
their trial calendar accordingly. Therefore, if this Court moves the trial date, counsel will not be
available to try the Raniere case until March of 2020 due to the following series of cases that have
been scheduled around the Raniere trial schedule and around this Court’s order:
• On July 29, 2019, Mr. Agnifilo and Ms. Geragos commence a multiple week jury trial
before the Honorable Jill Parrish in the District of Utah in United States v. Kingston, et al.,
18 Cr. 365 (JNP). (See Ex. 1, March 14, 2019 Order.)2 In this case, brought by the U.S.
DOJ Tax Division, the Government alleges a massive $1.2 billion tax fraud scheme
involving allegations that over $130 million was laundered to business interests in Turkey.
Raniere’s counsel here represent the lead defendant, who has been incarcerated awaiting
trial since his arrest in August 2018. The Kingston trial was recently adjourned from a date
in May 2019 to July 29, 2019 solely because this Court adjourned the Raniere trial, over
our objection, from March 2019 to April 2019. Finally, it bears noting that three of the five
defendants in the Kingston matter are incarcerated and two have significant health
concerns. Because Judge Parrish has already adjourned the Kingston trial once due to the
2
Mark J. Geragos, lead trial counsel for Ms. Clare Bronfman is lead trial counsel for co-
defendant Lev Dermen in that matter.
3
latest adjournment of the Raniere trial, she has stated on the record that she is not moving
the trial date again and that July 29, 2019 is a firm date.
• In September 2019, immediately following the Kingston trial, Mr. Agnifilo is scheduled to
commence a several-month, multiple defendant trial in New York County Supreme Court
in the case of People v. Dilber Kukic, Ind. No. 74/2016. This case involves homicide
charges related to a natural gas explosion which leveled three Manhattan buildings, killing
two people and severely injuring dozens more. This Court will recall that in October 2018,
Raniere’s counsel requested permission from this court, as required by its order, to
commence the Kukic case on May 6, 2019. (Dkt. 174.) This Court denied that request (see
Ex. 2, Dkt. 176). Accordingly, this trial has been set to begin in September 2019.
• On November 4, 2019, Mr. Agnifilo is scheduled to begin trial in the Southern District of
New York in United States v. Goldstein, 18 Cr. 217 (KMW). (See Ex. 3, KMW Sept. 25,
2018 Order.) This is a date that Judge Kimba Wood specifically chose due to counsel’s
unavailability arising from the Raniere and Kukic trials. Counsel has been ordered to
inform Judge Wood “of any adjournments or guilty pleas in his cases set for trial between
October 15, 2018 and November 4, 2019.” (Ex. 4, KMW Oct. 17, 2018 Order.)
• Finally, Mr. Agnifilo and Ms. Geragos are scheduled to begin trial in New York Supreme
Court in People v. Pierides, Ind. No. 732/2018 on January 6, 2020. This trial has been
scheduled by the Administrative Judge in New York County and was set based on the trials
in Raniere, Kingston, Kukic and Goldstein.
In closing, counsel for Raniere has abided by this Court’s Order and has not scheduled a
trial in another matter between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019, causing the trial schedule
outlined above. It would not be fair to Raniere, who has been requesting a prompt trial since the
inception of this case, to have to wait another year while incarcerated in MDC due to the
government’s superseding indictment from last week. Therefore, Raniere respectfully requests that
the Court keep the dates for the current trial schedule.
B. Motion to Compel Witness Lists and Case-in-Chief Trial Exhibits on April 7, 2019
Raniere renews his request, originally made in Docket 422, for the Court to set April 7,
2019 as the deadline to exchange case-in-chief trial exhibits and witness lists. (Ex. 5, Dkt. 422.)
The government has argued that they should defer this discussion until they “have more clarity as
to who the parties are going to be and what counts are being charged.” (3/18/19 Tr. at 34.) This
4
argument does not have merit, as Raniere is not engaged in plea negotiations with the government
and is charged in virtually every racketeering act and count. Therefore, many exhibits that will be
admitted against Raniere will not change based on “who the parties are going to be.” (Id.)
Counsel realizes that this Court’s March 20, 2019 Minute Order states that the Court will
address these deadlines at the next status conference scheduled for April 4, 2019. However,
Raniere’s concern is that if the Court is inclined to grant our request for exhibit lists and witness
lists on April 7th, April 4th will be too short notice for the government to produce these materials
to the defense. Counsel believes that in light of the lateness of the superseding indictment, it is fair
and reasonable to have a deadline of April 7, 2019 for witness lists and case-in-chief trial exhibits.
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
A. Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four Because They Are
Neither Related to a Pattern of Racketeering Activity, Nor Related to the
Charged Enterprise
Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four are neither related to the other racketeering acts
so as to be part of a pattern of racketeering activity, nor are they related to the charged enterprise.
The evidence consists of two sets of photographs that the government contends were taken by
Raniere on November 5, 2005 and November 24, 2005
There is also no indication from the
photographs who took them or even whether they were taken by another person or rather from a
self-timing function on a camera. Based on the purported dates on which the photographs were
taken, the government contends that Jane Doe 2 was fifteen years of age at the time of the
photographs.
The government maintains that these photographs were among upwards of 35,000 files
recovered from a hard drive that was seized from 8 Hale Drive, in Halfmoon, New York, a location
5
that the government alleges was a library where Raniere spent a great deal of time and which was
also open to other members of the community. A cursory review of electronic data accompanying
the images indicates that the photos were never accessed after being taken. In other words, the
cursory review reveals that the photos were obviously taken with a camera device, loaded onto a
computer of some sort and then saved, likely as part of an automatic backup, to a hard drive which,
according to the government, was inside 8 Hale Drive. However, at no time, according to the
electronic information associated with these images, were these photographs ever accessed
electronically or reviewed by anyone.
That these photographs were taken allegedly on November 2 and November 24 and then
never looked at by anyone for fourteen years raises a serious question about what role these
unreviewed photographs can possibly have on the affairs of the charged enterprise. Simply put,
there is no role that these unreviewed photographs could possibly have in the affairs of the
enterprise. In this regard, there is no connection or nexus between these photos and the enterprise
for the simple reason that no one aside from the person photographed or allegedly Raniere, whom
the government claims took the photos, even knows of their existence.
Therefore, in addition to the tremendous prejudice caused by the last-minute addition of
these highly inflammatory charges carrying mandatory minimum fifteen-year jail sentences, the
racketeering acts corresponding to these photos are not sufficiently connected to either the
enterprise or the other racketeering acts.
In terms of the relationship between racketeering acts and the enterprise, while the RICO
statute allows this relationship to take diverse forms, there must nonetheless be some relationship.
For instance, cases have found that racketeering acts are related to the enterprise where: (1) the
racketeering acts furthered the goals or benefited the enterprise, see United States v. Polanco, 145
6
F.3d 536, 541 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Irizarry, 341 F.3d 273, 301 (3d Cir. 2003); (2) the
enterprise or the defendant’s role in the enterprise enabled the defendant to commit, or facilitated
the commission of, the racketeering act, see United States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 65, 84 (2d Cir. 2004);
(3) the racketeering acts were committed at the behest of, or on behalf of, the enterprise, see United
States v. Daidone, 471 F.3d 371, 373 (2d Cir. 2006); or (4) the racketeering acts had the same or
similar purposes, results, participants, victims or methods of commission.
In regard to the two unreviewed photographs from 2005, none of these factors apply. First,
being secret, the photographs did not further the goals of or benefit the enterprise. Indeed, it is
apparent that none of the enterprise’s members (save allegedly Raniere) even knew of the photos’
existence. Therefore, the government is hard-pressed to show how secret photos benefitted the
enterprise. Second, to the extent that the government’s theory is that Raniere took the photos,
without any evidence that this is in fact the case, there is no reason related to the alleged enterprise
for the photos being taken. Third, there is no theory that the enterprise caused the photos to be
taken insofar as there is no indication anyone in the enterprise (again, aside from Raniere, as
alleged) knew of the photos’ existence. Fourth, to the extent that the government would attempt
to connect the 2005 photographs to the concept of collateral in DOS, it must be remembered that
DOS was not created until 2015, a full ten years after these photographs were allegedly taken.
Therefore, any connection between the DOS collateral and the 2005 photographs is too remote to
be relevant, while being highly prejudicial.
To be clear, Raniere’s first argument that racketeering acts two, three and four be severed
from the rest of the indictment is the immense prejudicial impact of returning these charges twenty-
six days before jury selection when the defense lacks sufficient time to conduct an adequate
examination of this evidence and investigation of the circumstances surrounding this evidence. As
7
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 456-1 Filed 03/22/19 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:
4740
stated on the record on March 18, 2019, the defense must launch a rushed forensic examination to
determine what can be learned from the metadata and other circumstances related to these
electronic images. Moreover, the defense must also conduct a significant investigation in another
country that may shed light on this evidence. By returning these charges twenty-six days before
jury selection, the government has created tremendous prejudice to Raniere and his counsel.
In this regard, the government has created a tension between two serious due process rights
of a defendant. The first right is to be tried promptly, especially when the defendant is in jail. The
second right is to be able to prepare a defense to serious charges. The government has virtually
ensured that one of these significant due process rights will, in effect lose out to the other.
However, if the Court dismisses the racketeering acts added to this indictment eight days ago, it
removes the due process dilemma the government has caused. If the Court dismisses the three
racketeering acts, the Court preserves both the defendant’s right to a prompt trial and his right to
prepare defenses to all the charges in the indictment.
Given the history of this case, where Raniere’s trial has been repeatedly delayed, and where
the government has returned significant charges twenty-six days before jury selection, the
admittedly unusual remedy of dismissal of particular racketeering acts is appropriate and indeed
is necessary to avoid a problem of constitutional dimension. Therefore, under the facts of this case,
the Court should dismiss these racketeering acts from the superseding indictment.
B. Counts Three, Four, Five and Eleven Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Venue
Counts Three, Four, Five and Eleven allege crimes that did not take place in the Eastern
District of New York and must be dismissed. The government indicting crimes occurring wholly
in another District has been an ongoing problem in this case, and despite saying that it would cure
the problem, the government has only exacerbated it in the most recent indictment. Specifically,
8
4741
in response to defense counsel’s argument that Count Seven of the First Superseding Indictment
must be dismissed for lack of venue,3 “[t]he government agree[d] that the Indictment alleges that
Count Seven is venued in the Northern District of New York . . . [and that] if a superseding
indictment is not returned to cure the venue defect, the government will consent to the severance
of Count Seven and its transfer for trial in the Northern District of New York.” (Dkt. 248 at 56.)
However, instead of curing the fatal flaw with the Second Superseding Indictment, the
government chose to repeat the venue defect from Count Seven (which is now Count Eleven) and
also charge three additional Counts venued entirely within the Northern District of New York:
Counts Three, Four and Five. The government has never – not in their opposition to defense
counsel’s original motion to dismiss, during oral argument on that motion, or during the court
conference held before Your Honor on March 18, 2019 – articulated a basis on which they could
prosecute these four improperly venued Counts beyond Raniere waiving venue. (See 3/18/19 Tr.
at 12.)4 Nor could the prosecution articulate such a basis as the Federal Rules make clear that “the
government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed,” which the
government alleges is entirely within the Northern District for Counts Three, Four, Five and
Eleven. Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (emphasis added). To be clear, Raniere does not consent to the change
in venue.
3
Raniere joined in Defendant Bronfman’s Motion to Dismiss Count Seven. Dkt. Nos. Dkt. 194,
196, 201.
4
THE COURT: . . . as Mr. Agnifilo pointed out in his letter, you had indicated that that
was a charge that could be or should be, I’m not sure which, sent up to the Northern District of
New York if the government sought to proceed on it, is that a fair statement?
MS. PENZA: That is correct, Your Honor, . . . and certainly if the defendant chooses not
to waive venue regarding the child pornography substantive counts, we will seek to have those
brought in the Northern District of New York.
9
4742
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in defense counsel’s original motion to
dismiss Count Seven (now Count Eleven), Dkts. 194, 99. Raniere respectfully requests that Counts
Three, Four, Five and Eleven of the Second Superseding Indictment be dismissed for lack of
venue.5
C. In the Alternative, Raniere is Entitled to a Bill of Particulars Because the

Second Superseding Indictment Omits Critical Information Necessary for
Him to Prepare His Defense
At the outset, Raniere renews his motion for a Bill of Particulars insofar as the Racketeering
Acts and Substantive Counts included in the First Superseding Indictment are now encompassed
by the Second Superseding Indictment. (See Dkts. 193, 194.) Raniere further submits that this
Court should Order the government to provide a Bill of Particulars as to the new Racketeering
Acts – namely Acts Two, Three and Four.6 With respect to the interstate element, the Second
Superseding Indictment merely tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for Racketeering Acts
Two and Three 7 and 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) for Racketeering Act Four. 8 In so doing, the
government fails to provide the facts and information necessary to permit Raniere to prepare a
meaningful defense with only three weeks before the commencement of jury selection. See United
States v. Hillie, 227 F Supp. 3d 57 [D.D.C. 2017) (dismissing child pornography charges where
the “indictment . . . is, for the most part, a verbatim recitation of the broad and varied statutory
5
As argued in defense counsel’s Letter Motion of March 17, 2019 (Dkt. 436), as well as
during the March 18, 2019 Court Conference, Raniere maintains that this Court did not have the
authority to arraign him on the Northern District Counts. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c)(3).
6
At this time, Raniere is not moving for a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Three, Four and
Five as he anticipates those Counts will be dismissed for lack of venue.
7
The government alleges that the “visual depictions were produced and transmitted using
materials that had been mailed, shipped and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce by any means.” (Dkt. 430, ¶¶ 21, 22.)
8
The prosecution alleges that the visual depictions “were produced using materials which
had been mailed, and shipped and transported using a means and facility of interstate and foreign
commerce and in and affecting interstate commerce.” (Dkt. 430, ¶23.)
10
4743
elements of the offenses that are charged . . . [and] fail[s] to provide adequate notice of the factual
bases for the myriad, manifestly indistinguishable charges that the government has brought.”).
Indeed, the Second Superseding Indictment fails to set forth any information demonstrating
how the prosecution could prove the interstate element of an act committed approximately 14 years
ago, such as: 1) the type of recording device used to create the images; 2) where the recording
device was manufactured; and 3) the means by which the images were transmitted. Although the
prosecution has made the images available for inspection by defense counsel, the government has
not provided any discovery materials establishing the interstate element. Courts have routinely
ordered the Government to provide this crucial information in the form of a Bill of Particulars
where the Indictment is silent as to that element and the discovery fails to provide the necessary
information. See United States v. Salemme, No. CR. 94-10287 (MLW), 1997 WL 37530, at *4
(D. Mass. Jan. 13, 1997) (“To eliminate any possible confusion or unfairness, . . . the court is
requiring the government to file a bill of particulars to identify and clarify the allegations in Counts
1 and 2 of the 4SI concerning the interstate or foreign commerce jurisdictional element.”); United
States v. Ard, No. 10-40108-01 (RDR), 2011 WL 686178, at *3 (D. Kan. Feb. 18, 2011) (ordering
a Bill of Particulars where “[i]t is not clear from the Indictment what the government’s theory is
regarding how defendant’s conduct satisfied . . . the interstate commerce element of the statute. . .
. [and] the discovery provided by the government has not clarified the government’s theory
either”); See United States v. Williams, 679 F.2d 504, 510 (5th Cir. 1982) (finding no error in the
trial court’s refusal to order a bill or particulars where “[t]he parties agree that all of the evidence
relied upon by the government to establish the interstate commerce element of the offense was
made available to the defense prior to trial” including “a raft of discovery documents and
stipulations”).
11
4744
Accordingly, Raniere respectfully requests that this Court Order the government to provide
a Bill of Particulars as set forth in his original motion for a Bill of Particulars (Dkts. 193, 194) as
well as to Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four of the Second Superseding Indictment.
MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED EXPERTS
Raniere respectfully requests that the Court preclude the government’s proposed experts
as (1) the experts were not disclosed by the Court’s February 25, 2019 deadline and (2) they have
offered no more than the experts’ curricula vitae (“CV”) and a broad generalization of the topics
on which the experts would testify; (3) the government has still not noticed an expert for the third
topic it intends to seek an opinion. The government has no excuse for waiting until this stage of
the proceeding to notice experts, as the government has had over a year to plan its case, which has
always included allegations of “social isolation” (see, e.g., Dkt. 4 at at 3; Dkt. 44 at 6; Dkt. 52 at
3-4), “victims of sex crimes” (same); and “extreme calorie restriction and sleep deprivation” (see,
e.g., Dkt. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 22, 26, 46 56; Dkt. 4 at 2).
On February 19, 2019, after briefing by both the government (Dkt. 347) and the defendants
(Dkt. 349), this Court directed the government to make its expert disclosures pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G) by no later than February 25, 2019.” (Ex. 6, Court Order.)
On February 25, 2019, the government filed a bare bones four-page letter disclosing Dr. Michael
Welner as a government expert—dedicating three pages to points of proposed testimony—and
three bullet points to experts it “also anticipates offering.” (Ex. 7, Dkt. 378, Gov’t Initial Expert
Ltr.) The government filed Dr. Welner’s CV, but did not disclose (i) any report prepared by Dr.
12
4745
Welner; (ii) the names of the experts it intended to call on its three vague bullet points; or (iii) any
reports generated on any of the proposed topics.9
Nearly three weeks later, on March 15, 2019—the date the defense was originally supposed
to disclose rebuttal experts to the government’s proposed experts—the government filed a letter
“to update the Court regarding its expert disclosures.” (Ex. 8, Dkt. 429, Gov’t Expert Update.) For
the first time, the government disclosed the names of two experts it was “in the process of
retaining” to offer testimony “on the subject of social isolation” and “the behavior of victims of
sex crimes.” (Id. at 1.)10 The government also notified the Court that it is “still in the process of
evaluating who it will offer to testify regarding the health effects of extreme calorie restriction and
sleep deprivation.” (Id.)
As the Advisory Committee notes to Rule 16 explain, the disclosure requirement “is
intended to minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need
for continuances, and to provide the opponent with fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert’s
testimony through focused cross-examination.” United States v. Ferguson, 3:06 Cr. 137 (CFD),
2007 WL 4539646, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 12, 2007); Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, advisory committee’s
note to 1993 amendment. Under Rule 16, if a party fails to comply with a court-imposed deadline,
this Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy, including “ordering the exclusion of
evidence.” United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 158 (2d. Cir. 2016); United States v. Mahaffy, 2007
9
This is so even when the “government [] proposed that the government and defense
counsel simultaneously disclose experts that they intend to rely upon in their cases-in-chief on
February 25, 2019.” (Dkt. 347 at 1.) In other words, this date for disclosures was first proposed by
the government.
10
The government notified the Court it does not intend to call Dr. Welner as a witness
based on the current trial date. (Dkt. 429 at 1.)
13
4746
WL 1213738, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007) (citing United States v. Wilson, No. 04 Cr. 1016
(NGG), 493 F. Supp. 2d 484, 2006 WL 3694550, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2006).)
This Court should preclude the government’s experts because “[n]ot only were the
disclosures late, more importantly, they were plainly inadequate. Both disclosures merely listed
general and in some cases extremely broad topics on which the experts might opine.” United States
v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 82 (2d. Cir. 2017). Here, on the ordered date to provide expert disclosure,
the government noticed an expert that it now does not intend to call and three broad topics on
which they have belatedly disclosed experts on two of those topics. The government has not
disclosed any expert reports or opinions. Moreover, the government has not even disclosed an
expert on which it will seek to opine on the third topic. As the purpose of the expert disclosure
requirement is to “minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce
the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of
the expert’s testimony through focused crossexamination,” Mahaffy, 2007 WL 1213738, at *2,
this is exactly the type of the notice that Rule 16 contemplates.
If the prosecution’s letter purports to be “notice” of expert testimony, it does not conform
to the requirements of Rule 16(a)(1)(G). That rule requires that the notice contain a “summary” of
the witness’ testimony, and, “[t]he summary provided . . . must describe the witness’s opinions,
the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
16(a)(1)(G). The prosecution’s letter merely provides topics that the expert will address. The letter
does not tell us what the expert’s opinion is with regard to any of the topics. Thus, without these
required details it is impossible for the court to exercise its gatekeeper function, and it is equally
impossible for the defense to prepare any Daubert challenge and questioning of the expert or seek
an expert. The proposed experts’ opinions on the topics is necessary for the defense to determine
14
4747
whether to call an expert and effectively prepare objections to and cross-examination of any of the
prosecution experts.
Therefore, the government’s proposed experts and their not-yet-selected-experts should be
precluded. Put simply, the government failed to comply by a date which they themselves
suggested—February 25th—and Raniere should not be punished for that.
MOTION TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY FROM FOREIGN WITNESSES
Raniere renews and reasserts his Motion to Obtain Testimony from Foreign Witnesses via
Closed Caption Television. (Dkts. 196-198, 258.) Specifically, Raniere sought testimony from
three categories of defense witnesses: (1) members of Jane Doe 4’s family; (2) first-line DOS
masters; and (3) DOS slaves.” (Dkt. 197 ¶ 32.) In his reply, Raniere stated that Raniere could not
“commit to calling certain witnesses through live video conferencing or Rule 15 deposition”
because the government would use that selection and then “proceed into the grand jury to procure
a superseding indictment…[which] would be unfair and unconstitutional.” (Dkt. 258 at 9.) Raniere
stated that “as soon as the government indicates that a particular indictment is the final indictment
on which this trial will be held, the defense will produce its final list of witnesses as to whom it
seeks video conferencing or a Rule 15 deposition.” (Id.) The government prefers to categorize this
as Raniere “punt[ing]” the issue. (3/18/19 Tr. at 24.)
In light of the new Superseding Indictment returned a week ago, counsel is considering
making changes to our potential witness base, some of whom are in Mexico. (See Affirmation of
Marc Agnifilo at ¶¶30-45.) The government’s recent charges enhances the materiality of witnesses
located abroad. In the event that the government confirms that this is the final indictment on which
it will proceed to trial,, we will advise the government in advance of our April 4th status conference
the witnesses we intend to call via CCTV.
15
4748
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Raniere asks the Court to grant the relief requested herein.
Dated: March 22, 2019

New York, NY

BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 750-7800

DEROHANNESIAN &
DEROHANNESIAN
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 465-6420
Attorneys for Defendant

Keith Raniere
16
EXHIBIT 1
Teny Geragos
From: utd_enotice@utd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:15 PM
To: ecf_notice@utd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 2:18-cr-00365-JNP-BCW USA v. Kingston et al Order on Motion to
Continue
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. If you need assistance, call the Help Desk at
(801)524-6100
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions.
US District Court Electronic Case Filing System
District of Utah
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 3/14/2019 at 1:15 PM MDT and filed on 3/14/2019
Case Name: USA v. Kingston et al
Case Number: 2:18-cr-00365-JNP-BCW
Filer:
Document Number: 234
Docket Text:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Continuing Trial and Denying Motions for Review of
Detention. The court ORDERS as follows: (1) Rachel and Sallys motion to continue the trial
[185] is GRANTED. A firm Jury Trial is reset for 7/29/2019 at 08:30 AM in Rm 8.200 before
Judge Jill N. Parrish. ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Jacob O. Kingston, Isaiah
Elden Kingston, Lev Aslan Dermen, Rachel Ann Kingston, Sally Louise Kingston Time
excluded from 5/13/2019 until 7/29/2019. (2) The motions for review of detention filed by Isaiah
and Lev are DENIED (Docket [189], [208], [226]). (3)The court finds that Jacob, Isiah, and Lev
are not entitled to review of their detention status under 18 U.S.C. § 3164. Signed by Judge Jill
N. Parrish on 3/14/2019.(jds)
1
EXHIBIT 2
Case
Case1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS
1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document
Document456-3
176 Filed
Filed10/18/18
03/22/19 Page
Page12ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:1148
4752
Brafman & Associates, RC.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
767 THIRD AVENUE. 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOOI7
TELEPHONE:(2121 750-7S00
FACSIMILE:(212) 750-3906
E-MAIL: BBRAFMAN@BRAFLAW.COM
BENJAMIN BRAFMAN MARK M. BAKER

OF COUNSEL
ANDREA ZELLAN MARC AGNIFILO

JOSHUA D. KIRSHNER OF COUNSEL
JACOB KAPLAN
TENY R. GERAGOS
ADMITTED IN NY AND CA
October 16, 2018
MA Ec:v
Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis
United States District Judge
I Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza liast
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: United States v. Keith Raniere. et al.. 18 Cr. 204(NGG)
Dearjudge Garaufis;
I represent the defendant Keith Raniere in above-captioned matter. On October 15,

2018, I appeared before the Honorable A. Kirke Bardey, Justice of the New York County^
Supreme Coun,in the matter ofPeople v. Dilber Kukic. et al.. Ind. No. 74/2016. I explained
to Justice Bartley that Your Honor has set a date for opening statements and trial in
the Raniere case for March 18, 2019 preceded by jury selection. In light of the Government's
statement that its direct case would last about four weeks and allowing for a possible defense
case and holidays in jVpril,Justice Bardey scheduled the Kukic case to proceed to trial on May
6, 2019. The District Attorney's Office estimates that the People's (direct case will last three
months. Therefore, the Kukic matter is likely to proceed until well into August 2019.
I advise Your Honor of this development for two reasons. First, as the Courtis aware,
it has ordered that no counsel in die Raniere matter shall schedule any matter for trial between
January 1,2019 and June 30,2019, without permission of this Court.(See Dkt. No. 138, Order
on Complex Case Designation at p. 3-4.) Therefore, this letter seeks permission to commence
the Kukic trial according to the above schedule. Second, if the Court allows the undersigned
to commence the Kukic on May 6, 2019,1 would want this Court and all parties to know that
the Kukic trial would last throughout die summer and would end likely in August 2019.
Case
Document456-3
176 Filed
Filed10/18/18
03/22/19 Page
Page23ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:1149
4753
Brafman & Associates, RC.

I thank the Court for its attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Marc Agnifilo
cc: All Counsel (via KCh')
iLo
s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
EXHIBIT 3
Teny Geragos
From: NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:34 AM
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:18-cr-00217-KMW USA v. Freedman et al Pretrial Conference
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail
because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and
parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if
receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges,
download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the
free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
The following transaction was entered on 9/25/2018 at 11:33 AM EDT and filed on 9/20/2018
Case Name: USA v. Freedman et al
Case Number: 1:18-cr-00217-KMW
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kimba M. Wood: Pretrial Conference as to
Gordon Freedman, Jeffrey Goldstein, Todd Schlifstein, Dialecti Voudouris, Alexandru
Burducea held on 9/20/2018. Defendant Gordon Freedman is present with his attorney Samuel
Braverman. Defendant Jeffrey Goldstein is present with his attorney Marc Agnifilo. Defendant
Todd Schlifstein is present with attorney Alex Spiro. Defendant Dialecti Voudouris is present
with her attorney Susan Hoffinger. Defendant Alexandru Burducea is present with his attorney
Richard Levitt. Court reporter Rebecca Foreman is present. Pretrial conference is held (see
transcript.) Defendant's motions are due by January 22, 2019. Government opposition is due
by February 27, 2019, and any defense reply is due by March 20, 2019. Trial is scheduled for
November 4, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Joint voir dire and requests to charge are due by October 15,
2019. Time is excluded through November 4, 2019. (Jury Trial set for 11/4/2019 at 09:30 AM
before Judge Kimba M. Wood.) (jbo)
1
EXHIBIT 4
Teny Geragos
From: NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:03 PM
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:18-cr-00217-KMW USA v. Freedman et al Order
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
The following transaction was entered on 10/17/2018 at 12:02 PM EDT and filed on 10/17/2018
Case Name: USA v. Freedman et al
Case Number: 1:18-cr-00217-KMW
Filer:
Document Number: 52
Docket Text:
ORDER as to Gordon Freedman, Jeffrey Goldstein, Todd Schlifstein, Dialecti Voudouris,
Alexandru Burducea. At the September 20, 2018 conference, the Court set the following
schedule for this case, which is still in effect: Defendants' pretrial motions are due to the
Court by January 22, 2019; The Government's opposition is due to the Court by February 27,
2019; Any replies by the defendants are due to the Court by March 20, 2019; By October 14,
2019, the parties shall submit their joint proposed requests to charge and joint voir dire on the
same disc, redlining defendants' different language, right after the text of each Government
charge, and setting forth authorities relied upon; If the parties wish to use a written juror
questionnaire, they shall submit a joint proposed written questionnaire to the Court by
September 30, 2019, on a disc. Mr. Agnifilo must inform the Court of any adjournments or
guilty pleas in his cases set for trial between October 15, 2018 and November 4, 2019. SO
ORDERED. (Motions due by 1/22/2019, Replies due by 3/20/2019, Responses due by 2/27/2019)
(Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 10/16/2018)(ft)
1
EXHIBIT 5
Case
Document456-6
422 Filed
Filed03/13/19
03/22/19 Page
Page12ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:4177
4759
March 13, 2019
BY HAND and ECF
The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis

United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: United States v. Keith Raniere, et al., 18 Cr. 204 (NGG)
Dear Judge Garaufis:
Defendant Keith Raniere respectfully writes in response to the government’s letter

requesting that the Court set April 15, 2019 as the deadline by which both the government and the
defendants will submit their proposed jury charges, exchange witness lists, and exchange trial
exhibits, final transcripts and translations.1 (Dkt. 386.) We agree on April 15, 2019 as the date to
exchange proposed jury charges, final transcripts and translations, but propose a date prior to the
start of jury selection for witness lists and case-in-chief trial exhibits. Specifically, we ask for April
1, 2019 as the deadline for all parties to meet-and-confer regarding exhibits so that the parties do
not duplicate efforts, and April 7, 2019 as the deadline to exchange trial exhibits.2 These dates are
appropriate for a case of this magnitude and is consistent with other scheduling orders in this
district.
First, April 7, 2019 is the appropriate date to exchange exhibits and witness lists because
this Court will call potential jurors to fill out questionnaires on April 8 and April 9, 2019. (See
Dkt. 287; February 15, 2019 Minute Order.) On that date, the venire will be introduced to the
parties, so that the venire can “make note of it [if they recognize anyone] on their questionnaire.”
1
The government proposed April 8, 2019 as a date to “begin providing” 18 U.S.C. § 3500 material, but this request
is now rendered moot by this Court’s February 28, 2019 Order.
2
We expect, as in all trials, that the defense exhibit list may need to be supplemented based on the government’s
proposed exhibits and its presentation of the evidence.
Case
Document456-6
422 Filed
Filed03/13/19
03/22/19 Page
Page23ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:4178
4760
(See 2/28/19 Tr. at 14.) It logically follows that the Court will likely read the names of witnesses
as well, so that the potential jurors can make note of whether they are familiar with any of the
potential witnesses on their questionnaire. However, without the parties’ witness list, it will make
selection in this manner impossible.
Second, the Court ordered that by April 11th, the parties must submit a list of “strikes by
consent” for the first 150 potential jurors and that the Court “will need proposed follow-up
questions from both sides.” (2/28/19 Tr. at 15.) Again, without the parties’ exhibit lists, this
exercise will be futile for the parties. The parties may need to propose questions to the potential
jurors to ask if admission of certain exhibits would make them unable to be fair. However, we will
not be able to propose follow up questions without knowledge of what the government’s intended
exhibits are.
Third, exchange of exhibits three to four weeks before trial will allow the parties to move
in limine if necessary with sufficient time for the Court to rule on such motions.
Finally, witness lists and exhibit lists four weeks before trial are consistent with recent
trials that counsel has tried in this district. In United States v. Shkreli, where the parties picked a
jury in the ceremonial courtroom from a venire of several hundred potential jurors, the parties
exchanged exhibit lists, witness lists, voir dire requests, and requests to charge two months before
trial. (United States v. Shkreli, 15 Cr. 637 (KAM) at Dkt. 147.) Similarly, in United States v.
Venditto, the parties exchanged witness lists in advance of the venire filling out jury
questionnaires.
Therefore, it would be practical, for the parties to meet-and-confer regarding witness and
exhibit lists on April 1, 2019 and exchange witness lists and exhibit lists on April 7, 2019.
/s/
Marc A. Agnifilo
Teny R. Geragos
cc: All Counsel (via ECF)
2
EXHIBIT 6
Teny Geragos
From: ecf_bounces@nyed.uscourts.gov
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:38 PM
To: nobody@nyed.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS USA v. Raniere et al Set/Reset Deadlines
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York
The following transaction was entered on 2/19/2019 at 4:38 PM EST and filed on 2/19/2019
Case Name: USA v. Raniere et al
Case Number: 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
ORDER re: the [347], [349] Letters Regarding Expert Disclosures: The Government is
DIRECTED to make its expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(a)(1)(G) by no later than February 25, 2019. Defendants are DIRECTED to make their expert
disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by no later than March
15, 2019. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/19/2019. (Haddad, Andrew)
1
EXHIBIT 7
Case
Document456-8
378 Filed
Filed02/25/19
03/22/19 Page
Page12ofof45PageID
PageID#:#:3639
4764
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney

MKM:MKP/TH/MJL 271 Cadman Plaza East
F. #2017R01840 Brooklyn, New York 11201
February 25, 2019
By Email and ECF
Marc Agnifilo, Esq. Susan R. Necheles, Esq.

Brafman & Associates Hafetz & Necheles LLP
767 Third Avenue 10 E 40th St, 48th Fl
New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10016
William F. McGovern, Esq. Justine Harris, Esq.

Kobre & Kim LLP Sher Tremonte LLP
800 Third Avenue 90 Broad St., 23rd floor
New York, NY 10022 New York, NY 10004
David Stern, Esq. Hector Diaz, Esq.

Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Quarles & Brady, LLP
Stern, LLP Renaissance One
100 Lafayette Street, Suite 501 Two North Central Avenue
New York, NY 10013 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Re: United States v. Keith Raniere, et al.

Criminal Docket No. 18-204 (NGG) (S-1)
Dear Counsel:
Pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the

government hereby notifies you that it intends to call Michael Welner, M.D., as an expert
witness in the trial of the above-captioned case. His CV is attached to this letter.
Dr. Welner has been a board-certified psychiatrist since 1993, and a board-
certified forensic psychiatrist since 1996. He is both a clinical and forensic psychiatrist. From
1995 to 2011, he was on the teaching faculty of NYU School of Medicine as a Clinical Associate
Professor of Psychiatry. In 2016, Dr. Welner joined the teaching faculty of Mt. Sinai School of
Medicine as a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry where he has since taught and supervised senior
psychiatry residents in case practice of forensic psychiatry and supervised graduate psychology
students in research activities.
In 1998, Dr. Welner founded, and has since chaired, The Forensic Panel, a multi-
specialty practice of the behavioral sciences, pathology, toxicology, medicine, and radiology. He
Case
Document456-8
378 Filed
Filed02/25/19
03/22/19 Page
Page23ofof45PageID
PageID#:#:3640
4765
is a Fellow in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Dr. Welner has published numerous
articles in behavioral, forensic, and social science journals and has lectured on a range of topics.
Since 1992, Dr. Welner has examined hundreds of criminal defendants facing a range of charges.
For approximately two decades, he has been part of the panel of ‘Highly Qualified Independent
Psychiatrists’ maintained by the New York State Supreme Court, to whom judges refer criminal
and civil commitment matters for independent assessment.
In his capacity as a consulting forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Welner has studied and
applied the topics and relevant literature of cult-like organizations, large-group awareness
trainings, the “human potential movement,” religious sects and chain-marketing organizations
(the “comparative groups”), including financial and sexual exploitation and the psychological
dynamics within the comparative groups. This includes the techniques of how intense attention
and recruitment contributes to special relationships within which such exploitation takes place,
and then to isolation through which recruits are controlled and exploitation perpetuates. As a
clinical psychiatrist, Dr. Welner also has experience treating people who have left organizations
like those described above.
He has also conducted extensive research, yet to be submitted for publication, on

polygamous sect leaders and their followers, and has presented findings of this research at
national forensic science meetings. This research illustrates the qualities of leaders and how they
relate to their organizations and followers, how they relate to the outside world and prevent
scrutiny, how the ideals of the organizations as set up by leaders enable the absolute power
through which sexual and financial exploitation can happen. In the same research, Dr. Welner
explored the followers of such organizations, what makes them vulnerable, and what makes it
difficult for them to extricate themselves.
Dr. Welner has also conducted original published research on drug-facilitated sex
assault perpetrators and their modus operandi (including the way they relate to their victims after
the fact), as well as their victimology. In particular, he has examined the various ways in which
some, including people with no criminal background or history of sexual offending, manipulate
power differential and opportunism to sexually exploit employees in what would otherwise be
ordinary encounters.
He has also extensively studied the topics and relevant literature on situations of
coercive influence, including within school and employment settings. Dr. Welner has also
published on educator sex abuse and how the power differential in scholastic settings is
manipulated by teachers and mentors to sexually exploit the emotionally vulnerable, including
those less mature. This involves an understanding of how, within such relationships, the
mentor/teacher is able to cultivate silence and even complicity. He has consulted on a number of
cases in which grooming behavior is alleged to have taken place, in both criminal and civil
context, and to both those accusing others of grooming and themselves accused.
In addition, Dr. Welner has presented before national meetings and other
professional audiences on financial exploitation, the assessment of populations vulnerable to
financial exploitation, and the vectors of such exploitation. This work is notable for its
concentration on how intelligent and informed people can be taken advantage of because of
emotional vulnerabilities that play out in the relationship between victim and victimizer.
2
Case
Document456-8
378 Filed
Filed02/25/19
03/22/19 Page
Page34ofof45PageID
PageID#:#:3641
4766
Dr. Welner’s proposed testimony concerns issues that are outside the average
juror’s knowledge and would assist the jury in understanding the evidence. The topics of Dr.
Welner’s proposed testimony include the following:
 How the actions of the alleged perpetrators within Nxivm and DOS compare to traits and
practices of certain of the comparative groups and how such action can facilitate financial
and sexual exploitation, including by:
o Using aggressive recruiting tactics to lure recruits and foster their dependence,
o Grooming the moral and value systems of members to conform with the
objectives of the organization and undermining their senses of self in order to
submit to control and exploitation,
o Cultivating total deference and grooming towards a charismatic leader who has no
meaningful accountability,
o Leveraging emotional vulnerability and intimate trust to control followers,
o Creating extreme power imbalances,
o Not tolerating dissent, and emotionally manipulating followers to remain
absolutely obedient, through an accusatory atmosphere in which betrayal is
suspected and charged, withholding their connection to a group on which they are
dependent, shunning, and other techniques,
o Isolating members from friends and family,
o Demonizing critics as “suppressives” and shunning of defectors,
o Limiting the beliefs, behaviors and emotions that members are allowed to exhibit,
o Creating financial dependence,
o Gathering compromising material on members and exploiting it to create
compliance out of fear,
o Controlling the emotional attachments of members, and
o Controlling the sex lives of members.
 How families who are invested in the belief system of a group are affected and may lose
their independence.
 How abuse of the dynamics of relationships of supervisor-supervisee, teacher-student and
other relationships of authority facilitate financial and sexual exploitation.
The government also anticipates offering experts to testify as to the following

topics.
 Psychiatric and physiological effects of social, perceptual and occupational

isolation including deleterious effects on mental functioning, such as depression,
obsessive thoughts, agitation, confusion and suicidal ideation and behavior;
3
Case
Document456-8
378 Filed
Filed02/25/19
03/22/19 Page
Page45ofof45PageID
PageID#:#:3642
4767
 Behavior of victims of sex crimes including common misconceptions about

victim behavior, such as why victims often delay reporting to law enforcement
and others, why victims continue to communicate and maintain relationships with
their assailants and why victims often do not physically attack their assailants; and
 Psychiatric and physiological effects of lack of sleep and severe calorie

restriction.
None of the experts called to testify by the government will state an opinion about whether a
defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of any of the
crimes charged.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE
By: /s/
Moira Kim Penza
Tanya Hajjar
Mark J. Lesko
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
(718) 254-7000
cc: Clerk of the Court (NGG) (VMS) (by ECF)
4
EXHIBIT 8
Case
Document456-9
429 Filed
Filed03/15/19
03/22/19 Page
Page12ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:4287
4769
U.S. Department of Justice

MKM:MKP/TH/MJL 271 Cadman Plaza East
F. #2017R01840 Brooklyn, New York 11201
March 15, 2019
By ECF
The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis

United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: United States v. Keith Raniere, et al.

Criminal Docket No. 18-204 (NGG)
Dear Judge Garaufis:
The government respectfully submits this letter to update the Court regarding
its expert disclosures. The government is in the process of retaining Dr. Stuart Grassian to
offer testimony on the subject of social isolation, and Dr. Dawn Hughes to offer testimony on
the subject of the behavior of victims of sex crimes, as further described in the government’s
disclosure, dated February 25, 2019. The doctors’ CVs are separately being emailed to
defense counsel and each doctor has been qualified as an expert by various courts on the
same general topics as to which the government will seek to have them testify. The
government is also still in the process of evaluating who it will offer to testify regarding the
health effects of extreme calorie restriction and sleep deprivation.
Because the procurement process is incomplete, the government respectfully

requests that a deadline for any supplementary disclosures as to these witnesses be discussed
at the status conference on Monday, March 18. Moreover, based on the current trial date, the
government does not intend to call Dr. Welner as a witness; however, the government
Case
Document456-9
429 Filed
Filed03/15/19
03/22/19 Page
Page23ofof23PageID
PageID#:#:4288
4770
reserves its right to move the Court at a later date to offer testimony from Dr. Welner if the
trial date moves.
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE
By: /s/
Moira Kim Penza
Tanya Hajjar
Mark J. Lesko
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
(718) 254-7000
cc: Clerk of Court (NGG) (by ECF)

Counsel of Record (by ECF)

Nxivm Doc 456: Raniere Motion To Dismiss

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Nxivm Doc 456: Raniere Motion To Dismiss

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 456 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4729

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 18 Cr. 00204-NGG

KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,

4. Motion to preclude the government’s proposed experts;

for April 4, 2019, on these motions.

Dated: March 22, 2019

Marc A. Agnifilo, Esq.

Paul DerOhannesian, II, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 18 Cr. 00204-NGG

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF KEITH RANIERE’S MOTIONS

BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Marc A. Agnifilo, Esq.

Paul DerOhannesian, II, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant Keith Raniere

MOTIONS RELATED TO THE TRIAL SCHEDULE ..................................................................1

MOTIONS TO DISMISS ................................................................................................................5

C. In the Alternative, Raniere is Entitled to a Bill of Particulars Because the Second

MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED EXPERTS ..........................12

MOTION TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY FROM FOREIGN WITNESSES ...................................15

Raniere also joins in the following motions filed by his co-defendants:

motions in advance of a decision by the Court.

MOTIONS RELATED TO THE TRIAL SCHEDULE

trial for a year.

forensic examination of the new material.

Raniere on November 5, 2005 and November 24, 2005

There is also no indication from the

electronically or reviewed by anyone.

Therefore, in addition to the tremendous prejudice caused by the last-minute addition of

enterprise or the other racketeering acts.

similar purposes, results, participants, victims or methods of commission.

be relevant, while being highly prejudicial.

prepare defenses to all the charges in the indictment.

C. In the Alternative, Raniere is Entitled to a Bill of Particulars Because the

MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED EXPERTS

e.g., Dkt. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 22, 26, 46 56; Dkt. 4 at 2).

Welner as a government expert—dedicating three pages to points of proposed testimony—and

reports generated on any of the proposed topics.9

sleep deprivation.” (Id.)

this is exactly the type of the notice that Rule 16 contemplates.

Therefore, the government’s proposed experts and their not-yet-selected-experts should be

suggested—February 25th—and Raniere should not be punished for that.

MOTION TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY FROM FOREIGN WITNESSES

as Raniere “punt[ing]” the issue. (3/18/19 Tr. at 24.)

the witnesses we intend to call via CCTV.

Dated: March 22, 2019

Marc A. Agnifilo, Esq.

Paul DerOhannesian, II, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

US District Court Electronic Case Filing System

Notice of Electronic Filing

Brafman & Associates, RC.

767 THIRD AVENUE. 26TH FLOOR

NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOOI7

BENJAMIN BRAFMAN MARK M. BAKER

ANDREA ZELLAN MARC AGNIFILO

October 16, 2018

Re: United States v. Keith Raniere. et al.. 18 Cr. 204(NGG)

I represent the defendant Keith Raniere in above-captioned matter. On October 15,

Brafman & Associates, RC.

cc: All Counsel (via KCh')

U.S. District Court