The name of this crime is Social Repugnance and it is the basis of most prejudice, wrongful convictions, and improper judicial process. The media is the main wielder of this weapon. Once convicted, anything goes — justice no longer applies. In the United States, the crime of Social Repugnance is used for even darker purposes. We, the citizens of the U.S.A., pride ourselves in being one of the most civilized and proper nations. But Social repugnance has been used as a tool to over-stretch our government, creating a judicial system not for the people, but against them.

How can one say this? This sounds like a conspiracy theory. This sounds Socially repugnant. Oops. Please read just one more sentence and decide if this has merit:

Of all the nations in the world the U.S.A. has — by far — the highest per capita rate of incarceration: by population we are 4% of the planet, our incarcerated population is 25%. Are citizens of the U.S.A. really more criminal than any other nation? Are we a bad people? If the answer is, "no" it points to a serious problem within our government: bad justice.

Our government is fighting a war to incarcerate more people than any other nation, and winning. The main weapon our government uses, in partnership with media, is the crime of Social Repugnance.

I was convicted of Social Repugnance by the media and then faced a trial by the justice system that gained world-wide attention. Could the prosecutors, judge, jury, and peers resist tainting the trial with Social Repugnance? The answer was, "no". I was convicted of all charges, in almost record time, yet I am innocent.

If the Social Repugnance of my media image (which does not match my real image at all) is stripped away, there are no crimes. We are now putting up $25,000, per charge, for anyone who can find the crime.

A person can be innocent of the charges against them, yet the fear of the imperfect nature of our justice system (and a much longer sentence), compels this person to plea, taking a lesser sentence to be done with it. Nearly one out of three pleas may be taken under this type of duress.

There is an important psychological theory called Cognitive Dissonance. This model helps describe actions and motivations during the aftermath of plea and other decisions in criminal proceedings. Take the following innocuous situation: I am presented with two items for the same purchase price — say a toaster and a blender, both $50 — and I rate their desirability identically at five on a scale from one to ten. Once I make a choice, I create an internal dissonance: the uncertainty my choice was best. Cognitive Dissonance theory says as time passes, to resolve this dissonance, I gather data to support the correctness of my decision. I seek, select, and filter data tending to show the option I chose was the better, and the option I did not choose worse. If I am asked to rate these same two items in the future, I will tend to rate my purchase higher — say a six — and the option I did not choose lower, more like a four. If we raise the purchase price to $1000, the effect becomes even stronger: we are no longer merely worried about a $50 mistake, the stakes are much higher. The greater the downside of a wrong decision, the more profound the effect (the motivation and strategies we use to "prove" to ourselves we chose well).

This also means the more we act based on a choice, the less likely we will ever choose the opposite — even if offered the option. This is especially true with destruction: although the receiver of destruction has plenty of motivation to question choices, the doer of destruction has the opposite.

An extreme illustration of this comes to us through the allegory of vampires: One particular variation allows the vampire to switch on and off their humanity (conscience). Once switched off, the rekindling of their humanity requires facing all the conscienceless deeds done thenceforth in the moment it is switched back on. In one instance, a vampire had killed loved ones and relatives in an especially cruel way. How would it be to wake up one day, as if from a dream, to “remember” you had cruelly destroyed those you love? Many people would rather not wake up. This is the sad reality of those who destroy much, yet are incorrect in their assumptions: they have a strong motivation not to see their mistakes.

When people are moral, they must exercise self-doubt with check and balance type practices and thinking. One very essential practice for each important decision is answering, on an ongoing basis, the questions, “Am I wrong?” and “If I am wrong, how will I fix what I have done?” If you do not believe you can fix what you do then you likely should not do it. Once done, if you cannot fix the results, there will be a very strong motivation to not see the possibility you made a wrong decision. As a guideline we teach, you should always care about whom you might be hurting with your decisions and actions — including people you might consider your opponents. You should always seek to redeem, not destroy.

The opposition to our community has destroyed:

• NXIVM, a 20-year old company with over 17,000 past students from 33 countries. It has a full community, 2000+ hours of curriculum, coaches world leaders, and positive studies in ethics, IQ, and self-esteem. NXIVM seeks to inspire more joy in people's lives independent of religion and political beliefs. Our goal is to provide our unique tool-set for people to be more compassionate ethical humanitarians.

• Jness, an international woman's group in 8 countries with 8+ years of monthly curriculum and twelve 80+ hour intensives. Although it comprises women from all walks of life, it also has female international leaders, CEO's, and nationally recognized thinkers. It is time for women to inherit their powerful birthright and contribute to even more to humanity's evolution with their unique world-changing abilities and experience. Jness facilitates this empowerment through a one-in-a-lifetime journey of wisdom.

• Inlak’ech, a Mexican peace movement organizing community alert practices, a weekly national peace pledge, the Santiago transformational community project, the Pan American games peace segment (with associated production awards and nominations: 3 day-time Emmys, 10 Tele), and many other individual events. It's a well-developed experiential model of non-violence transforming societal violence and antagonism into appreciation respect, and an interdependent culture.

• The Tourette's project, which has 12 out of 12 successful outcomes, and an award-winning documentary (first place in the Milan and Harlem film festivals). This is a documented initial study and is the first step to studying the application of the proprietary EM method to a range of syndromes including Autism, OCD, and Crohn's disease.

• Rainbow Cultural Garden has hundreds of multi-cultural children (with many speaking 8 or more languages) creating a world without boundaries through a generation of multi-cultural, compassionate, world-citizen leaders.

• The Knife of Aristotle media site and diagnostic methodology. A new addition to media applying science to journalism providing objective measures and data.

• Additionally, the community itself with the SOP (men’s group), exo|eso, Reverence, Platform 0, The Source acting program, World Audience Productions, Simply Human, Chidren's books, The Ethicist and related studies, and many sub-divisions and sub-groups of these.

What if this opposition is wrong? How could the destruction of these things be undone? Any person participating in this wrongdoing would tend to make excuses and blame rather than face these consequences. The conscience of one person in particular, the organizer and chief active proponent of this opposition, would bear much of this as weight and responsibility.

The destruction is vast: the value of these entities, lost future contributions, and the loss and pain of thousands of people. Can you imagine “waking up” to this? Most people would not want to “wake up” and therefore would not want to evaluate their decisions. The words, "What if I am wrong?" will never be heard in their minds. As with our opponents, if destruction is the method of dealing with conflict (there are other methods), the more damage caused, the stronger the motivation to not re-assess the decisions to destroy. Thereby the damage will continue.

Some of the people in opposition to our community say they “woke up” one day to find they had done horrible things in the name of our community, and must now destroy it — although believing you've done something bad by supporting a community does not mean you must now destroy it. On the most basic level, there has been no stated act of “wrongdoing” or actual things destroyed by our community. The only bad thing allegedly done is wasting time, and contributing to something now not liked. It is one thing to say something is “bad,” it is another to be able to pin-point what is “bad” about it beyond an opinion or dislike.

The opposition aggresses upon us to destroy, and to destroy as globally as possible. This is their guiding principle. Most civilized groups accept instead, in the least, the basic tenets of “retaliatory force in equal measure” and “minimizing damage.” Although I have been incarcerated for 18 months (as of this writing), people within the community are still aggressively pursued and shamed, in their neighborhoods, media, and on the Internet. This is certainly microcosmal of some of the worst activities of humankind from the past. The prosecution, controlled by our opposition, has even stated, “First, we are going to cut the head of the snake off, and then we’re coming for the body.”

My co-defendants have all understandably pled guilty, but all are innocent — actually, most are very innocent. What do I mean by, “very innocent”? It is one thing to be implicated in a crime that you might have done but didn’t (an example of this might be a drug dealer who is charged with a transaction he simply didn’t make), could have done (an innocent man is found at the scene of a murder with the murder weapon in his hand), or the act simply shouldn't be illegal, yet it is, and you did it (a terminally-ill, immobile, patient receives medical marijuana in her final painful days. She resides in a state wherein it is not legal, and receives it from a neighboring state, in which it is legal, literally footsteps away); it is another to be implicated in a crime that simply did not exist — no crimes happened and the people charged were not criminals. Some of what has happened to my co-defendants I cannot address for I do not have full knowledge of the situation (in a number of cases I have no knowledge of the situation). But in a number of cases, there is simply no crime and always the true situation is well intended and often a good thing

Most honest people who plea will strain to believe some theory of guilt to feel better about the untruth of their plea. This is a basic application of Cognitive Dissonance theory. Over time, they might even come to believe themselves truly guilty of a crime and believe other, equally false things to support this view. Imagine the motivational tendency to do this: it's not just a $50 mistake, it's a verdict on their whole self-image! The verdict they must pass upon themselves could be generalized as one of the following: If they believe they are innocent, and plea, then they are the type of person who will lie to the court, and the world, under oath (their word) just to get out of a crime (committing a crime to get out of crime). Or, if they can convince themselves they did actually somehow commit a crime, they are the type of person who can strongly stand up to their guilt and take the consequences. The choice reduces to: are they a weak, deceptive innocent person, or a strong, but guilty by human frailty, person willing to admit their error and take the consequences for their transgression? Which sounds better to you? It is certainly an easier psychological route, in this case, to find guilt in one's self — even if none exists.

When I was first indicted and then, ultimately, my five codefendants were indicted, I felt as though we could — and would — stand against any injustice.

That is not what happened.

It would become apparent the lawyers in the case had a different agenda. Instinctively, as well as rationally, they must build a wall protect their client from all potential criminal liability. Which side of the wall do you think I would be on considering I am the leader and the source of all the problems? From this natural perspective it makes sense, almost as a highest priority, to isolate their clients from me, and convince their clients to distance themselves as much as possible — especially if their clients are innocent! I am a liability with no “upside” because all things are seen to stem from me. I am portrayed as a “crime boss” — so getting, and keeping, their clients as far away from me as possible is safest. All accusations of their client's potential wrongdoing are best seen as stemming from me. Ideally, they can convince their clients they are actually a victim of my doings.

This is short-sighted and inherently not good. It presupposes crime, guilt, and also eliminates the possibility of a “united we stand” posture against false accusation, by availing ourselves to the prosecutorial objective of “divided they fall.”

Note: It is true that all things within this case do stem from me. Our community and its success stem from my odd way of looking at the world and creations different from the societal norm. It is also these very things that led to this down-fall. Although one needs to accept the good with the bad, it is true I feel responsible for all of this injustice. None of my co-defendants did anything wrong to my knowledge. The charges against them should have been dismissed and, if anyone should have to face any charges, it should be me. (This would provide a problem for the prosecution for I am innocent.)

I firmly believe, as does my legal team, had we stood together strongly, and pushed the case quickly, we all would have been shown to be innocent. After all, we are all innocent! Our community would have been much more steadfast, our businesses would have had a second life, and light would have prevailed over darkness; good over evil.

If you are not getting fonder of all people from your past, you are doing something backwards — likely you have a vested interest in making them bad — probably you are wrong. Why ruin real or potential beauty?

If you know a person, and you no longer see them, do you take your memories of them —even the good ones — and look for sinister things, making this person bad or distasteful to you? Or, do you cherish the good memories and come to compassionately understand the memories where you felt hurt?

How we relate to our past helps determine how we feel about the present and future. This affects our gratitude learning and wisdom. Do we see our past as part of the cumulative journey and lessons which have created ourselves? We have the power to make our pasts an object of suffering — and thereby suffer in the present or a perfected puzzle inter-relating to teach us and build us towards love and joy?

There is a concept brought forth from Eastern philosophy and explained in the book, Conversations with God (l am not recommending this or any book or philosophy but this explanation is edifying): we have an agreement with each significant person in our lives. This includes the people we think of as wronging us. This agreement has both participants playing whatever role they do fully and vigorously to help each other learn a lesson. With even a case like a torturer and the person being tortured, each has a lesson to experience and hopefully learn: the former experiences power and the abuse of it through a lack of compassion and moral compass, the latter experiences dealing with hate, insurmountable adversity, suffering, and physical pain. Quite an agreement! If it is truly essential to learn these hardest, ugliest lessons, it would take a person of great love to truly execute it. This does not mean the torturer is really torturing out of love. That it does say is the highest part of the soul of the torturer — it be a concept of Higher self or God or Over-soul — is acting out of love. If that part is truly love-based, then agreeing to such a horrible role to temper the soul of the recipient is a very transcendent type of love. The beauty of this idea is not to take away the reality that there are terrible worldly things and people. It does not justify the actions of the terrible people (for it is their lesson to get the consequences of their actions or worse, be consigned to live in a treacherous world which allows such things unpunished).

Our community stresses mindfulness, honor, and compassionate fairness. We make great efforts and do everything we can to affect these things and not abuse power. In our community we have processes to review such things so they are far less likely to happen than in a typical community: we have procedures for arbitration, ethical breach work, value-ethics discussions, and people have coaches of their choosing as resources. Our highest priorities are to help people and do the right thing. We are a rare group who labor vigorously with each decision to do these things. We did not commit any of these alleged crimes 

I raise these concepts for I am about to discuss each of my co-defendants individually and personally. I have heard some of them have greatly lowered their opinion of me, and some of them greatly raised it. The injustice that we have gone through, and continue to face, has brought us all forward ultimately. I view all of my codefendants as wiser, even if I do not agree with their actions or opinions. So far, this has certainly been an intense, unique journey.

I feel each of my codefendants have great souls, and I hope to honor that with everything I say. I am deeply sorry for the pain and destruction of all this for I am either directly or indirectly responsible. I am also deeply grateful for all they have given me and their participation in my life.

I believe my co-defendants, and l, are innocent, good, and should never have been pursued or charged. This is a great injustice.

Nancy Salzman

Background:

Men I first met Nancy she thought I was a stock-boy. I was working in one of my businesses, a health network store, so there I was, barefoot and in shorts, moving boxes of product in the summer heat 

I searched for many years, through many professionals, to find a potential collaborator. When I met Nancy, and started to know her, I began to feel she was the one for whom I sought.

Nancy is a person of both extreme skill and experience. As a self-proclaimed information junkie, she studied under some of the top proponents in the human potential field. She started life as a typical Jewish girl from New Jersey, becoming a registered nurse (RN), marrying young (to a doctor), and having two daughters soon thereafter.

Through nursing she specialized in chronic pain management, studied hypnosis, then Eriksonian hypnosis, Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) (including studying with one of its founders), and diligently studied any other modality or method she could find. She went on to train many thousands of people: doctors, therapists, CEOs, families, and other people of all types.

Nancy watched me apply my methodology and experienced it as different than anything she had ever seen and highly effective. Ultimately, we came to know, trust, and care for each other deeply: enough to devote our lives to bringing forth this body of knowledge together.

Nancy is a wonderful woman. During the years (decades) I was her lifework partner she was known as the “energizer bunny” with a zest and joy of people. Nancy could blend with almost anyone being enjoyed and socially savvy in all situations: from meeting with the most down-trodden person, to conversations with world leaders. Nancy and always had an exuberantly positive relationship, never fought, and I could always rely upon her during the toughest times. She was the essential start of many of my days by warmly welcoming me into her home (and life), making me the breakfast I always needed, and providing endless supportive, loving, care. I will always love her dearly.

Motivation to Plea:

1. (Health) Nancy has a grave health challenge. From the beginning her attorneys stated she would not go to trial (this means she would plea). Nancy pled but did not cooperate with the prosecution. Why would Nancy not go to trial? I can think of a number of strong reasons. I do not necessarily agree with these reasons, but that does not make them wrongful, or any less valid.

2. (Destruction) For the past 20 years Nancy has built many things with me. She would frequently thank me for her life. During the last few years of our relationship Nancy began to hear concerns and complaints about the sorority. At times she asked me about it and I reported to her honestly, but did not violate any confidences. From Nancy’s perspective, I started this odd thing, outside of her vision, causing problems, and disturbing our mission. Once the bad press started, she saw 20 years of work and a joyful community being destroyed. Although I do not know her current opinion of me. I believe it is simplest for her to think I am bad and did not care.

3. (Lawyers) I also believe Nancy’s lawyers, considering Nancy's condition and remote participation in the alleged acts, deeply believed I was the problem in Nancy’s life. I think they began to systematically steer her away from me and towards a plea. Although, Nancy’s team was part of the larger defense team, during the year or more before she plea, I never spoke to her or her attorneys (l met one of them in passing), and they apparently never expressed an interest in active participation. 

Plea:

Nancy’s plea was false. Neither she nor her attorneys may have had the information to know this. Instead of Nancy defining the RICO enterprise, she essentially said, “it is whatever the prosecution says it is.” In truth, the government's claimed RICO enterprise had no consistent purpose and simply did not exist. As one example of several, the prosecution defined the purpose of the enterprise as promoting me. They also claimed part of the crimes of the enterprise was effectively deceiving people by not promoting me. There are several other more compelling reasons, which will not discuss here. In the end, not only is the enterprise false, so is the alleged criminal activity.

Nancy’s allocution was very general in addressing the charge against her relating to spying on alleged opponents. At times, when we were attacked, we took security measures to protect ourselves. Sometimes this involved identifying attackers etc. These operations were always “white hat,” meaning moral. Most of the time we had top level consultants, obtained from our attorney firms, helping us assess our actions. The alleged crimes are not true.

Nancy also pled guilty to conspiring to tamper with discovery evidence in a case. She actually had no way of knowing what actually happened, for any production of evidence for a case is very remote from her. I think Nancy was being a good leader and taking responsibility for all things within her charge (all of NXIVM’s doings), but the alleged crime is not true.

Cooperation with the Prosecution:

Nancy did not cooperate with the prosecution which I think is very good considering the prosecution has used hate extensively in their case against us. I believe one must never participate in any prosecution or process which uses hate. Even if the process is against the devil himself, you are simply joining him if you participate in hate. Not participating in hate is a higher value than convicting anyone

Effects:

1. (First to Plea) Nancy was the first to plea, and by splitting interests with the defense she said, seemingly, there was some sort of crime within the case. For the first time, someone (who is very important) said to the world, in effect, “yes, there was crime and there is some virtue to these proceedings.”

2. (Raising Issues) Unfortunately, Nancy's pleading guilty to some of the allegations. and agreeing to the RICO charge, raises issues not existing before her plea.

3. (Criminalization) To many her plea made NXIVM criminal.

4. (Opinions) It affected the opinions of the public, our community (who for the first time in its existence saw a divide Nancy and myself), and the judge.

5. (Embolden Prosecution) It also emboldened the wrongful prosecution.

6. (Patents) I may lose over 100 of my patents because First Principles Inc., custodian of them with use rights, is under forfeiture.

7. (Justifying Hate) More abstractly it helped to justify a hate campaign: allegations right, wrong, or indifferent, this campaign is full of hate. By supporting it you cannot help but fortify hate.

8. (Against Lauren) Nancy's plea also placed more weight on another co-defendant, Lauren, her daughter. I will discuss next my beliefs of Lauren's motivations; but certainty this plea lent validity to the charges against Lauren.

I suspect Nancy was merely looking to mitigate the incredible forces against her. I doubt she intended any of these resulting effects. Many very good people, with similar health concerns, facing charges truly not relevant to their conduct, would do the same thing to preserve quality of life and outcome. I believe the prosecution was acutely aware of these things and rejoiced at the plea of an innocent, health-challenged woman.

My participation:

I believe that everything both Nancy and I did was well intended and actually quite good. It is some of the things I didn’t do, or might have done more, wherein I could have been better.

1. (Contact) I should have pushed harder and/or protested to the point of exhaustion so I could speak to Nancy after her arrest. It was both of our rights. By not doing this I let Nancy down: she was faced with a terrible decision, completely without warning, and caused by me. Nancy was innocent, but now she is being inappropriately sentenced. If she went to trial, and were convicted of the alleged crimes, she could end up dying in prison. Why might she think she could be convicted when innocent? Because she was charged, while innocent, in an absurd way, with conduct of which she was unaware. It was my responsibility to step in, give her the data, and assure her. She had no way of predicting what would happen in such an irrational situation. From her legitimate perspective: who was I (Keith) to conduct myself in such a way that this could happen? Of course she would plea — to save her life! If I had been better and stronger in that I believe Nancy would not have felt the necessity to plea.

2. (My Lifestyle) My lifestyle and thinking are quite different than the norm. This can bring many good things, but also intense negativity. Over a 20-year period, we had been lulled into a certain comfort. Even though there was controversy, we continued to develop and prosper. I should have continually prepared her for the potential dangers of my lifestyle especially when one of the executive board members had threatened, and ultimately caused, this type of destruction.

3. (Authority) In our community we study the nature of accountability as a balance of responsibility and authority. If there is too much authority without responsibility then there is no accountability (people blame others). If there is too much responsibility and not enough authority then the person does not have the resources to do the job. I indirectly gave Nancy extra responsibility without the matching authority for her needs.

   By not informing and connecting with Nancy more, this blind-sided her. I decided since the sorority was forming and changing (which happened on almost a daily basis) it was better not to try to discuss it. I was concerned about violating confidences, and making her insecure because of the extreme nature of it. Once Lauren, her daughter, was involved, it added even more complexity and reasons to not discuss its workings. Additionally, some of the founding sisters did not want Nancy to know. Nancy knew superficially of the existence of the group, but she knew little of its nature or its extent. Both before and after her arrest, I put her in the impossible situation of having more responsibility than authority — she could not do the necessary things to succeed. In the case of her plea, she did not have the information needed to handle the situation, and her attorneys, differently; and

4. (Trust) I should have not trusted people as easily, and been so accessible to them, to put her at risk. To trust someone is to believe you know how they will act. It is not necessarily the people I trusted were bad (although some might have been). It is a problem with me that I believed I understood their morality and behavior better than I did and I did not test them enough for whatever place I had hoped they would fill. It is easy to blame another by saying, “l shouldn’t have trusted them.” Even if it is true, and that other person made direct representations — maybe even knew he or she might not come through — I was the one who granted the trust and relied upon them. Ultimately it is my failing. It is possible the other person was perfectly clear and I misunderstood, or deceptive and I misjudged, either way it is me who decided and acted on that decision

I wrote an essay about this which I intended to release generally, but read to the 20+ people visiting my family and me, right before my kidnapping.

Lauren Salzman

Background:

I met Lauren through her Mom, Nancy Salzman, about 20 years ago. She was bald.

Well, almost bald. She had shaved her head after college and gone on a “road-trip” with friends across Europe, staying in youth hostels and the like. She was now allowing a thin layer of fuzz to grow back. From the very beginning she had some values I did not share, but many that I did, and she exhibited a humor and mental "funness" that was contagious. At one point early on, during a walk, she said she imagined we would end up together with children. It was interesting because we were not involved, it was said almost as an aside; it felt very gentle and almost true. After this, it was not mentioned again. She dated other people but we did eventually form a romantic relationship. I am not quite sure if either of us know exactly why, except we shared certain values in a very strong way and Lauren is quite personally irresistible — humorously our anniversary was April 1st.

Lauren's relationship with me is very old, well-traveled and important; from what I gather from discovery and testimony, I recognize the relationship may have been a valiant effort to force a square peg into a round hole. The exquisite beauty of some unions do not make them good working life partnerships. Lauren has a wonderful intellect, an infectious sense of humor, and is a good soul. She will be a wonderful partner for the appropriate, lucky person.

Motivation to Plea:

Lauren faced several adversities especially after her mother plead:

1. (Nancy’s Plea) Her mother's plea cast a potential guilt upon the organization and a type of validation of the charges. This went directly against the position of Lauren (innocence and no crime) if she were trying to win at trial;

2. (Nancy's Health) Nancy, Lauren's mom, faces serious health challenges which may shorten her life. Lauren did not want to potentially be in prison if her mom went into critical condition or died; and

3. (Children) Lauren wants children and she is over 40 years old. If she even goes to prison for 5 years, the hope of having children will be greatly diminished. During her testimony, it was evident to me the confusion and separation this caused. With someone like me, who is non-traditional and with an intensely singular life purpose, having children is not a given or planned. At one point, I told her I would have to step down from my position in order to live the life I perceived she wanted. I asked her if she would choose that? I believe I was not clear with what I was illustrating. I think with the force of my conviction and personality, persuaded Lauren to put aside her life wishes. This was never my intent; it saddens me for I was blind to my effects, and caused her pain. Lauren. if you ever read this I am so truly sorry.

I had a dream after Lauren plead guilty: Within the dream she was lying flat on a mattress on the floor of a very stark, bare room. She was staring at the ceiling. I kissed her and told her although I thought what she was doing was very bad (see below) I loved her and wished her well. At first she looked stunned, then returned my kiss. A voice, which normally represents my subconscious said to me internally, “she is better off without you.”

Plea:

Lauren’s plea was also false. Like her mother, she stipulated to the enterprise in the prosecution's indictment. That's an easy way to make sure you get it in, when no one can actually define it. Lauren did try to define the purpose of the enterprise and it was subjective and different than what was charged. The enterprise was false and there were no criminal actions in the sorority.

My cross-examining attorney knew this well. He was an experienced high-level prosecutor, considered an authority on RICO (which he teaches at law school), and is now a defense attorney with an extraordinary record. He knows we are all innocent, and that certainly there was no RICO enterprise. At one point, he posed a question to Lauren; the prosecution objected; he rephrased the question; and the court said to the witness, "You may answer." In the middle of the answer, which revealed Lauren's plea to be false, the judge interrupted and cut off the cross-examination. Here was a key part of his later explanation: “l have to sentence this defendant and what you did was, basically, ask her to make legal judgments about whether what she did in pleading was farcical that she took somebody else's advice, some lawyer, so she could get out from under a trial. I thought that went pretty far beyond the pale, frankly.”

Lauren actually admitted, in effect, her innocence. Often the court reporters do not transcribe every utterance into the record. There are many instances of this in my case. At this particular juncture, I believe Lauren actually ended by saying specifically her intent was good and to help people. The pledged surety (collateral) for the vow of sorority was completely voluntary with safe-guards, and ethical procedures, to assure the proper care of this mutual trust. In Lauren's plea she ignored all of this assuming coercion and knowing bad intent. This was certainly not true. Without this broad assumption. none of Lauren's plea is true or even makes sense. If my attorney was allowed to continue his cross-examination of Lauren, I am confident this would have been abundantly clear.

Cooperation with the Prosecution:

Lauren cooperated with the prosecution and testified against me.

Effects:

1. (Life in Prison) I will probably be sentenced to life in prison, and likely need to spend it in solitary confinement. No matter what Lauren feels did to her or others, this is what she is voting for and supporting. I do not think she has fully thought this through;

2. (Supporting Hate see Nancy Effect 7 (Justifying Hate)) Supporting hate is a major moral issue: A valid prosecution does not need or use hate to inspire prejudice to convict — a conviction should come strictly from factual truth without prejudice. By cooperating (and testifying for) this prosecution, who used hate, one supports it. It is better to release a criminal then to support hate in his or her trial. Supporting hate supports the essence of crime;

3. (Effect on Supporters) Our community was deeply affected by the act of Lauren cooperating and her testimony. This led many remaining supporters to either outright leave and become negative, or pull away in fear;

4. (Our Relationship) By testifying Lauren used the credibility of our 20-year partnership to support something bad. This hurts the concept of long-term relationships and, in particular, my long-term relationships. Using that credibility amplifies the weight of her opinions and if she is even partially incorrect, amplifies the and wrongness of them. This is a position from which one must be absolutely sure one is precisely and completely correct;

5. (Criminalization see Nancy Effects 3 (Criminalization)) Testifying (and pleading) is a form of certifying the charges, and that there was crime. It taints NXIVM and all we have done with criminality. This is not true and the charges are false;

6. (Breaking Vow) By breaking her sorority vows she betrayed all other sisters, threatened the trust she had with them, and upheld the lies of others who broke their vows before her;

7. (Founding Sister) Lauren was a founding sister (also see Allison Effects 5 (Sorority) for a different but relevant perspective). By breaking her vows she betrayed the concept of the sorority and this type of secret society for women. She dishonored all of the sorority and all of the sisters effectively destroying the sorority, as we know it, for all others;

8. (Breaking Promises) A number of her actions break her admitted, personal, promises to me. This erodes at her word and also the concept of life vows. The more people that visibly break the less meaningful life-vows becomes. It does appear Lauren had been breaking our life-vows throughout the relationship which is my fault also (see below);

9. (Breaking Confidences) She disclosed, to the detriment of others, and also inaccurately, two direct things told to her in absolute confidence: Lauren identified Cami as the participant in Nicole's test (this hurt Cami publicly), and claimed Dany Padilla told her I kicked her once (which makes me appear violent); and

10. (Speaking with Dishonor) Lauren's testimony contained what we would consider dishonorable speaking. Dishonorable speaking, by definition, creates unnecessary damages through the use of hateful prejudice. Additionally, this lessens the virtue of speaking with honor and, if a top member of our community could speak with dishonor so publicly, it lessens everything the community built and creates the thought that our community members are only virtuous when not under pressure. We believe one should always ask his or her self, “What if I am wrong?” “How would I ever undo it?” How can anyone be sure he or she is right? To hear someone speak publicly with dishonor, who has upheld speaking with honor for so long, is chilling and disheartening.

My participation:

1. (Contact) As in the first four sentences of item one above under "My participation (Contact)" With Nancy, the same is true here;

2. (Environment) It is evident to me I created an environment within our relationship wherein Lauren felt she could not keep her promise to me of full disclosure. She was too scared of me, or losing our relationship, to disclose a number of things. This is my fault. I did not provide what Lauren considered a safe enough caring place for her to tell me everything. When I exchange promises with a partner it is incumbent upon me to provide the safety for the full disclosure required. I failed and need to improve all my relationships from now forth and I will live with these consequences for the rest of my life. I am sad this mistake (likely a series of mistakes and a way of being lasting over many years) was so hard on Lauren;

3. (Values) I didn't focus enough on the differences in values I saw. Since aspects of our relationship were extraordinary, and we did not fight, I thought we would grow together and our lives would align. What I did not do was take it a step further and recognize if my values were set and not going to change, I was counting on Lauren's changing which is unfair to her. If someone has to change (or sacrifice) their values in order to in a life-partnership, then the life-partnership is probably not meant to be;

4. (Signals) From my perspective, I would see Lauren change her position with respect to very important things: at one point she told me if faced with the decision of staying with me and not having children, or leaving me and having children, she would rather stay with me. This position seemed to change at times. I should have seen this as a signal to either thoroughly resolve the issue, or end the relationship. I am very reluctant to end relationships. In this case, it was not being healthy or fair to her;

5. (Connection) There were long periods of time I did not connect deeply with Lauren — I just let the relationship “be.” Because she is an independent woman, I did not weight this separation through non-connection enough. In effect. I took Lauren's beauty, tolerance, and independence within the relationship for granted.

6. (Sharing Myself) For Lauren to believe she did not know who I was after 20 years of a relationship means I did not share myself enough, nor give her the opportunity to know me deeply enough, so she would be unshakable in who I am — for better or for worse. It is always our responsibility to show, and allow people to know, who we are — especially our loved ones. We should not think it is their job to somehow figure us out and then be upset if they don't or can't;

7. (Compensation) There were people close to me who had difficult relationships with Lauren. I should have moved more strongly to arbitrate these situations instead of compensating for them. An example is Lauren being invited into the sorority many months after all the other founding sisters. Had I arbitrated these situations, I suspect Lauren would have either been invited in the beginning (and felt differently now) or not have been invited at all; and

8. (Unfinished Work) Lauren had certain specializations within the sorority. I did not spend enough time finishing the special therapeutic techniques which were to be under her auspices so they were never released. I suspect her with them would have deepened her experience with the sorority, given her participation even greater meaning, and given her a more directed purpose. I feel these techniques are truly beneficial, healing, and quite extraordinary.

    

Allison Mack

Background:

Allison is a very talented actress and a true student of her craft. I had known Allison a number of years before she became involved with the sorority. We had worked together building an acting curriculum; she studied voice with me; I had helped her with relationships and with her career. When I gave her voice coaching I was careful to say (as I do with all students who have a regular teacher) anything I taught that conflicted or interfered with her instructor should be ignored; she should always follow most closely what her instructor said. This advice is given for a number of reasons, but one of the more important reasons is the methodology I know is very different, often going against, typical voice instruction. I was fortunate to have studied with some very top coaches and, through much trial and error, found a very rare, exceptional methodology I could build upon. Note: Allison's father is an opera singer and a voice instructor although Allison was not a student of his. 

One day, Allison took a voice lesson from her father and had me listen to the recording: I was shocked. Her father used many of the exact same techniques, even examples, I used. As the smallness of the world would have it, my foremost teacher is good friends with the woman (also a voice teacher) Allison's dad dated before he got married. Additionally, the very exclusive, elite, professional choral group in which her father had sung in the 60's in Los Angeles (later moved to New York), was the same group in which my second most important teacher currently sang. This odd coincidence gave Allison even more confidence in my coaching.

I invited Allison (after gaining the permission of the then founding sisters) into the sorority because of what I saw as a very virtuous act: She is very close to someone with a type of addiction. In order to uphold this person's efforts to remove the addiction, and to show solidarity with this person, Allison chose to give up chocolate (something she dearly loves) as a show of strength and support. This abstinence meant whether the person indulged in the troubled behavior or not, Allison would never eat chocolate for the rest of her life. She gave up a substance most dear, to set a positive example giving strength, for someone trying to give up something most compelling. I thought (and think) this is beautiful, I admire her so much for this act and type of thinking. I felt Alison embodied many of the traits intended to be fostered within the sorority. She is strong, independent, devoted, diligent, persistent, and truly works at being virtuous.

My relationship with Allison, from my perspective, was wonderfully clear, honest, connected, and unencumbered. It was mutually purposeful and highly proactive. It was a most beautiful connection — one of the greatest young relationships I have ever had — it was so moving for me that someone was like her. I admire her greatly and I love her very much. 

Motivation to Plea:

Allison is 36 years old and at the height (so far) of her career- She has studied Shakespeare with of the best Shakespeare coaches in the world (this is a privilege earned by her capability), and is a stage performer as well as a film actor. She works as hard as anyone in the industry, and it is my opinion (as well as the opinions of many far more qualified than me), that she can be one of the exceptional actors of her generation.

This all potentially ended the day she was arrested.

Allison faced a 15-year minimum prison term for something(s) she do not do. She is innocent, although she plead guilty and cooperated. This is understandable when you think of the following:

1. (Potential Sentence) If she went to trial and lost, especially with someone like me who has several, very prejudicial allegations, she could risk spending many years in prison. I make her look very bad;

2. (Children) If she were found guilty, she would likely never have children — and this is something she wants. It is very different decision for a 35+ year old man who might have a family at 50. A woman has a more determining clock;

3. (Career) Going to prison for an extended period of time would likely destroy her career opportunities; and

4. (Social Pressure) Because of the combination of charges, friends and family pressures, and her fame, there was a lot of social upside to pleading — especially if she could pull away from the 15-year minimum. With cooperation, this was possible.

Allison is innocent. Everything she did had good intent. At times we all have frailties, but never was anything Allison did from a mean spirit and certainly not criminal. The charges against Allison are absolutely false. Unfortunately, because she plead, it is likely she wiII convince herself of some guilt. After all, compassionate people can always take responsibility especially when it comes to another's pain or suffering.

I do hope the people that care for Allison (and Allison herself) know deep inside she is innocent no matter the outcome.

Plea:

Allison's plea was very similar, almost paragraph by paragraph by content (not wording), to Lauren's. Her plea appears to have taken Lauren's as a basis and edited it. Some relevant paragraphs even start the same. This cannot be a coincidence. Not only are the alleged crimes untrue, her stated purpose of the enterprise simply was not the same as that which was charged and is identical to Lauren's “inaccuracy”! The charge said, “the purpose of the enterprise was to promote Keith Raniere.” Allison said, “the enterprise I joined was to further and promote the objectives of Keith Raniere” — very different and much more subjective. Anything that appeared to serve my interest, or benefit me, or even hypothetically benefit me — even if only something I might want — fits this criteria. For example, if eats at a vegetarian restaurant, because I am pro-vegetarianism, it could be said that this meal was carrying out my objectives. But this would not be considered promoting me.

If two people are indicted with burglary and cooperate (both pleading guilty to the burglary) then, in their elocution, each only admits to knowing the location of the crime, if that defective plea is accepted by the prosecution, and the court, suspicion is cast on the whole situation: the prosecution, court, and potentially attorneys, for creating and accepting such a plea. The plea is inaccurate and does not address the indictment, yet is accepted as an admission of guilt to that very indictment.

How can the prosecution state in court the Grand Jury accepted purpose of the RICO enterprise, have the defendant give a different purpose, and not insist the defendant agree to the Grand Jury accepted purpose? How could the court accept this as valid? With other elements of charges both the prosecution and the court insist on precision.

It is because the RICO enterprise fails, but the politics of the case want to unjustly convict.

Cooperation with the Prosecution:

Allison cooperated with the prosecution. but did not testify against me. I do not know why, but I hope it was because she truly felt conflicted.

Effects:

1. Read Lauren's “Effects” numbered 2 (Supporting Hate), and 5 (Criminalization);

2. (Life in Prison) (Read Lauren's “Effects” number 1 (Life in Prison)): I am facing life in prison likely in solitary confinement (in a cell alone, 23 hours a day, with one hour per day to potentially exercise alone, in an outdoor cage, for the rest of my life — and my family has long lives). I do not believe, no matter how bad Allison might have convinced herself I am, she would ever want to participate in creating that for me -- no matter what the cost. I do not believe she has thought this through;

3. (Love) Allison sadly betrayed her concept of love. I believed Allison loved me.

4. (Fame) Allison's fame, good-will, and fan-base, will either move towards my cause, philosophies, and the cause of the sorority or against based on her plea or fight. Since a spotlight is on this case, it shapes and amplifies what Allison stands for in the world, and how strong she is in that stance;

5. (Sorority) (Read Lauren's “Effects: 7 (Founding Sister)) All the sisters of the sorority depended on the founding sisters to be the strongest, and best examples. Allison's plea disheartened many sisters, taking away a dream and also taking away the safety and the surety of the vow;

6. (Breaking a vow) (Read Lauren's “Effects” 6 (Breaking Vow)) I believe for Allison, the breaking of a vow destroys the purity of her inner word. If you break a vow, and are apostate to its intent, no matter what the circumstance, you now know under certain conditions you will craft an excuse (disguised as a reason) to break a vow. She broke the deepest, most sincere, complete vow without being able to speak to me. This is different than breaking a vow, because you were simply not strong enough to uphold it, and then wishing forever more you had upheld it. The reason I suggested Allison be in the sorority was because of a vow she took and how she kept it;

7. (Pressure) Of all people involved in this, I believe Allison has the most internal pressure to change her mind and make me bad. On one hand she has what she knows of me, her innocence, love, and the truth. (Keep in mind, Allison practiced the Joan of Arc character for a year; she wanted to live to uphold the right against alt hate.) On the other hand, there are all the reasons to plea, and many people (including her attorneys) who wanted her out of this unjust situation seeing me and my life as the problem. When you are surrounded, not by hate, but by people who love and care for you edging you away from something, it is the most difficult force to resist. The support of the prosecution's unjust hate came afterwards; and

8. (Career) This plea, and associated record, will unfortunately follow her and be relevant. She is a guilty person that is actually innocent. Over time, when the truth comes out, it may be very sad and difficult for her. I do intend to exonerate Allison and all of my codefendants.

My Participation:

I had a dream with Allison the same night I had the above mentioned dream with Lauren: I dreamt I kissed and connected with Alison standing in her apartment against the wall. In this dream, it felt as though we were still connected in our very beautiful soulful way.

1. (Communication) I refer to Nancy’s “My Participation” number 1 (Contact). I believe if I pushed harder, and had spoken to Allison, she might have made a different decision. I needed to be far more firm with the attorneys, possibly with a well-crafted protest to make this happen. Maybe I could have caused a meeting if I had refused to speak to anyone, including the court, until I could exercise my right to either meet with my codefendants, or have them (not their lawyers) directly refuse me;

2. (Trust) Through this I have learned many new distinctions here is one; when we trust someone, we are unfair to them, ourselves, and anyone else relying on the transaction, if it is not a tested trust (my term). I did not provide Allison, or other people, the opportunity to prove the trust I placed in them. This is my fault. Often we do not know if we can live up to a trust in extreme circumstances. For example, I wonder if I could maintain my values and honor in the face of torture or death, My experience over the past months has affirmed that strength in me to a greater extent, but without the test, I simply do not know. I did not provide Allison, or any of the sorority. I was responsible to train and test, the opportunity to strengthen their vows with challenges. I have always been the type of coach who does not push people to the physical limit. This is in part because I enjoy pushing myself very hard — harder than most — and I am concerned of imposing my standard over theirs. By not testing the most sacred vow of the sorority, when the external tests came, the sisters in my charge were unprepared. As many religions, military. and community organizations understand, we must practice character with challenges to uphold our word: an unchallenged word might be well intentioned, but one cannot reply upon it;

3. (Mixed Relationship) Allison wanted me to work with her using my tools and understanding to help her evolve personally. This is difficult when you are personally involved with the person with whom you are working. It can be difficult for them or yourself to separate what is personal and what is issue. Some of the romantic and sexual issues became mixed. This is my failing. I have heard, since my arrest, there were times Allison questioned sexual aspects of my conduct relating to her and her actions. This rumor might be true. Unfortunately, I was blind to this and focusing on her desired as well as my personal relationship with her. The mixture of these two things can certainly create doubts;

   Allison did nothing wrong, improper, and certainly nothing illegal. My actions (and personhood) were motivated as she understood them with nothing deceptive or inappropriate. The intensity of issues worked (sexual and romantic), mixed with such an intense personal relationship, might only work with supreme trust and clarity. But this trust (see number 2 above) needs to be tested trust. I did not test Allison enough and build this trust for either of us. I was therefore requiring her to make an unreasonable leap both in the sorority untested vow and our new untested relationship. I have only come to more deeply      the distinction of "trust" compared to "tested trust" recently;

4. (Sharing Myself) Because of number 3 above, I also did not give Allison the opportunity to know me even more fully. My relationship with Allison was so young compared to my other relationships. I did not respect this, making assumptions only valid for a relationship spanning a much greater time involving many more incidents. Allison was forced to trust me as if she had been with me decades, not months; and

5. (Lawyers) When I first read the legal papers from Allison's attorneys I had grave concerns about their understanding and confidence of her innocence. I alerted my team for I found the papers off-point, meandering, and in general poor. I suspect Allison's immediate attorney, a recent prosecutor, had a different philosophical base than my team. If I had pushed the issue of Alison's innocence harder, and been able to communicate directly with her attorney, I may have been either able to change his understanding or reveal this philosophical difference. I simply defaulted to the inertia of circumstances and, to the detriment of everyone, stepped away from the driver's seat of my life.

Kathy Russell

Background:

Kathy is an exceptionally one-pointed and devoted person. Over the many years of our relationship Kathy has always been there: supportive. Immovable, solid and caring. She is loyal, embodying these traits, for all people she loves. At one paint, she learned her ex-boyfriend, who was much older than her, was in his final days in Florida. She traveled to Florida to be with him and care for him during his final time on this earth. I greatly admire her for that level of consideration and care, even for a person with whom she had not communicated for a very long time. She honored their past time together, and demonstrated the essence of what it means to truly bond with another person in life: they become part of you forever, and you never forget them even though the years may pass.

Kathy is also a devoted ballet dancer, often studying in classes with people a third of her age; some going on to professional dancing careers. Her success in dance beyond her years comes in part from her daring nature. In the most positive way, Kathy has a well developed sense of dare and play.

When I first met her, she had discovered (through our intensive) she had a fear of failure. I remember in one instance, while pushing against this limitation, she found a failure within her conduct and wrote in large letters on a pad in front of the room, “l failed” and gave the task and her name: she wanted to push, break-through, and do whatever it took to go beyond the fear by doing the thing. I think she might have joked that the last thing she wanted to do was fail at getting rid of her fear of failure!

Most importantly, although I had neglected my relationship with Kathy (see My Participation below), when my partner (and Kathy's friend) Pam Cafritz was dying, Kathy stepped up and helped tremendously including being there during her final hours at home, and supporting Pam and me during her final hours in the hospital. With Kathy, there was no doubt of her support, caring, and love. 

Motivation to Plea:

Kathy waited until the last minute to plea. This was very considerate and also, with Nancy, Lauren, and Allison already pleading, I believe the best thing to do. This process had already revealed itself to be improper and destined to convict me. Had she not plead, she would have likely gotten caught in the hate and convicted also.

Plea:

Kathy is innocent. Her plea was for unrelated activity and she was not required to plea to any of the charges in the indictment. She was therefore not required to plea to RICO (l suspect the prosecution also wanted to focus on just me so wanted her out of the case). During my trial, the alleged crimes with which she was initially indicted were presented. It is hard to believe Kathy would have been found guilty (although with this hateful process, I believe it could have happened).

The first crime accused Kathy of participating in improperly capturing a person's keystrokes on their computer, thus stealing their password, and improperly accessing their account through the internet. This person testified. He not only could not certify the alleged password was his (he said it “could have been” his), there was no data presented of improperly accessing his account or using the internet whatsoever.

In the second alleged crime, Kathy allegedly traveled to Canada give a fake Sheriff’s ID to a Mexican woman whose visa had expired. She allegedly crossed the border with the Mexican woman using this fake ID. This testified at trial to this scenario. Unfortunately for the prosecution there were no records of Kathy crossing the border either way — only a record of a person with information similar to what was on the fake ID crossing into the US by car alone. Either there were two separate mistakes at different times so that Kathy crossed the border undetected twice (very unlikely) or the story is not true. Additionally, the Mexican woman testified Kathy was in the car with her, driving, and her papers were processed. None of this is consistent. The Mexican woman was caught in a number of critical inconsistencies throughout her testimony.

The only crime to which Kathy did plea was omitting information on an immigration report relating to a person working for NXIVM. The person did everything (and more) sited in the immigration document, but this person's work and ownership within another company (which I believe is a Mexican company), was not stated. I certainly do not see the relevance of specifying this project, for the work and position specified within the documentation was accurate and true. Additionally, this person was not paid for her other work within her company, only from NXIVM as documented. From the law’s perspective, she could have been doing charity work. In the least, no one was hurt, no monies were misappropriated, and no one was even indirectly slighted. Should such a thing really be considered a crime? I am at a disadvantage for I do not know the full circumstances, but her plea, combined with what I do know of the person's performance and job, would render the alleged crime moot if not untrue.

Effects:

1. (Career) Kathy is innocent. Her career is in accounting. A felony conviction will greatly diminish her possibilities of employment in her field of expertise. She plead guilty, to minimize damages, because of a coercive corrupt system, and was able to plea to considerably less than what she was charged. Additionally, the courts often penalize a person for going to trial if they are found guilty. With all risks considered, including my highly inflammatory case, she picked the best of multiple bad worlds.

2. (Quality of life) It is likely Kathy will not have to be incarcerated. This allow her to continue her life, be with her son, and not suffer the problems of spending time in prison.

3. (Trial) Her plea allowed my attorneys to present whatever defense I had without distraction. Although the result was not good, the expected fair result would have allowed for a more focused trial for me. The unprecedented inappropriateness of my trial could not have been anticipated.

My Participation:

1. (See also Lauren's “Participation” numbers 5 (Connection) and 6 (Sharing Self) In general, I did not connect with Kathy as I should have. I did not maintain a good balance between my life, my other relationships, and my relationship with Kathy. As a result, I was often separate from Kathy, relying on her virtues to compensate lack of attention. To honor Kathy appropriately, I needed to spend far more time and effort directly within the relationship and also brought her into my life more deeply.

2. (Separation) Kathy and I had issues that separated us. Because she was steadfast, I allowed the resolution of these issues to always be on a back burner. In this way I took her virtues for granted.

3. (No Complaints) Kathy is not the type to complain. This is a virtue for she does not want to add to other problems especially with someone like myself who faces many challenges. She is the best teammate in this way. Here again, by not connecting with her, assuming all was acceptable (this does not mean good), I abused her virtue of patience and moral of not complaining. In my beliefs, it is the non-complainers who should often be rewarded.

Clare Bronfman

Background:

Clare was the first friend I ever had with an authentic British accent. She was an equestrian jumper and came to me for coaching. Although I have never “jumped horses,” I model athletics from a physics and psychological perspective with a unique toolset. I believe I did aid in her success and ultimately, before she retired, she ranked eighth in the United States. Much of her success is her diligence and mature, independent pursuit of her goals.

When I met her she also lead her personal equestrian team, ran her horse farm with full staff, and was a self-made capable manager. Once she retired, she became more active in NXIVM eventually over-seeing all of the attorneys, investigators, and consultants. As a lay-legal student she excelled to the point of admiration from a number of accomplished attorneys. She has had little formal education yet she has the ability to learn almost any subject and direct and guide multifarious professionals.

As a philanthropist, she took the responsibility of her inherited wealth very seriously. She has strong moral values and refuses to invest in things which do not support them. She has been a vegan for many years and is mindful of participating in only non-violent causes and investments. When it comes to causes in which she believes she is generous; when the initial arrests occurred, she created a defense fund and irrevocably donated a very large sum of money (a notable portion of her wealth) for use by a large list of people.

Clare is one of the most trustworthy people I have ever met. We developed the deepest of relationships over time and of ail people, strategically, she thinks the most like me. Even in this case, I would come up with an idea, express it to my attorneys, and Clare would express the exact same thing. She is both noble and caring; strong and efficient; yet thoughtful and generous. She has been my greatest support in many ways and throughout this process. I think of all people, in tested trust, thinking, and sharing, she is closest to me, and I to her. During the hardest times of my life she provided unwavering support, care, and love. She is a great example of strength and toughness — but always with a deep, sensitive, interior. I love her and respect her, but in addition I am grateful for all she has done in my life. She has helped make what light I have show brighter.

Motivation to Plea:

Clare stands to lose a lot of material wealth. The victims. although they denied any thoughts of any civil actions the stand, are represented by a civil class-action lawyer who has stated he will be filing a civil suit for the victims. Although Clare is innocent, she is also a main target of hate. Before Clare was indicted, because she was a target, she would inform the prosecution when she left town, where she was going, and when she was coming back. The guidelines for her pled offenses are between 22 and 27 months — none of the charged offenses involved violence, drugs, or weapons. Here is the telling result: with all this considered, the court required her to post a $100 million dollar bail bond, an ankle bracelet, be restricted to home confinement, and have no contact with anyone, including family, but her attorneys. I believe Clare has reason to think, as I do, circumstances are political and unjust.

Since she was able to plead guilty to strictly non-RICO charges, she minimized her material exposure. It was my opinion before she plead, that if she could plead she should.

Plea:

Clare's plea was very well crafted. It is based on a superseding information for her alone. There are two counts. In both counts the prosecution puts in extra information to bolster the case proper. Count one is Conspiracy to harbor an illegal alien for financial gain. It is my understanding Clare hired this person and the person did not do the work required; instead of firing her, Clare kept her on but didn’t pay her. Clare should have fired her and that have forced her to go back to Mexico. She was a community member and friends with a number of people in the US, so she wanted to stay very much. Shortly thereafter, she married another community member. The prosecution was sure to state that this charge was based on the core conduct of their RICO enterprise in Act 11 — that is a matter of opinion and irrelevant to the plea.

Clare's second charge was use of false identification facilitating tax evasion. Here the prosecution said I was trying to evade taxes through use of a credit card, and it is related to the RICO charge. They stated “which is based on the same core conduct as Racketeering Act 14 of count two,” “that by facilitating Keith Raniere's use of Jane Doe 7’s credit card, Bronfman aided and abetted tax evasion by Keith Raniere” (and they also added, “as part of a scheme to allow him to falsely portray himself as a renunciate” this statement has nothing to do with any charge, is defamatory, and is not true). What Clare said in her plea was much different and true. "l knowingly facilitated the use by another person of a deceased person's credit card,” “and the person using the credit card did not intend to pay taxes on the income received in the form of payment for goods purchased on the credit card.”

Here is the underlying situation; I suspect you will find the prosecution's conduct as objectionable, and fraudulent, as we do: 

Pam Cafritz was my life-partner for almost 30 years. About 15 years into the relationship we took on third partner and the three of us have been together for well over a decade. Pam gave this partner unfettered use of her credit cards and I believe some were labeled with this partner's name. I was the sole beneficiary of Pam's will, and her executor, trustee, and health proxy. I had to make the inconsolable, irreconcilable decision to disconnect Pam from life-support — the most sad and difficult decision of my life. All of Pam's money and property are supposed to go to me. The estate and trust were set up, but not completely executed (unbeknownst to us). Both my remaining partner from this union, and myself, continued to live and pay expenses from the estate. There were no taxes due yet, and any taxes due would be paid on Pam's personal income and the gross of the estate. Expenses are not taxable; they are post-tax. use of the credit card is not taxable, it is post-tax (because those moneys are accounted for and taxed before the credit card is paid). I never used the credit card — not even once. The living partner from this union would not owe taxes on the credit card expenditures no matter what (in addition she is a Mexican citizen). There could never be any taxes due, and the prosecution knows this. Imagine having your 30-year life-partner die, having sole control over all the estate, hiring a top accounting firm (including one of the past commissioners of the I.R.S.) to work out any mis-steps, and pay any potential taxes due, and having the prosecution charge you with tax evasion. It is deeply disturbing the government would be so ugly, abusive, and fraudulent: this is consistent with the tone of the whole case.

Clare's plea was accurate (“l knowingly facilitated the use by another person of a deceased person's credit card,” “and the person using the credit card did not intent to pay taxes on the income received in the form of payment for goods purchased on the credit card”), but consider the nature (and knowing untruth) of the prosecution's charge: To evade taxes the taxes are supposed to be assessed, and due. Not only the taxes not assessed, there could never be any due. Normally with such a charge the prosecution brings in an I.R.S. agent who testifies about the taxes assessed, and thereby evaded. Obviously this could never happen. How did the court, and prosecution (including the prosecutorial office of the district), allow this?

It is also important to note the unjust, prejudicial nature of the prosecution's approach: the prosecution brings in irrelevant uncharged, accusations during a plea. This only serves to influence the public, media, and the judge with hate. No legitimate prosecution would ever do this or need to do this.

Effects:

1. (Forfeiture) Clare paid $6 million in forfeiture. This might be used for “crime victims” which is of course sad if there is actually no crime. Although with any action of this destructive size there are victims, crime or not, in our case there are many opportunists. Most of the witnesses in my case are represented by the same, civil, class-action lawyer.

2. (Innocence) Clare is innocent. Although I do not know of the first crime of which she was charged, I do know the person involved. I think this person was anxious to stay in the community (she ultimately married a man from the community). I heard Clare paid her a good deal of money as restitution. This seems very wrongful for, although Clare supposedly did not pay her for the time she was employed, this person insisted on not working for the pay. Clare should have just fired her.

   Clare plead honestly to the second charge, not echoing or agreeing to what the prosecution said they would have to prove in court. This charge is not only untrue, but completely unfounded and does not meet several of the basic elements. It is stunning this charge was posed by the prosecution or allowed by the court.

3. (Exposure) I hope Clare has minimized her exposure with this plea. She will live to do many positive things in the world with her wealth. She is far more conscientious, and mindful of social outcomes, than many with her resources. The world would be better if more people of substance were more like Clare.

4. (Coercion) Clare was forced by a coercive, wrongful situation, to plea to charges that never should have been charged. I believe she did the best she could against terrible abuses of power. She plead precisely, and intelligently, against wrongfully charged crimes. She avoided telling any untruths as much as possible.

5. (Our Meeting) It increased risk to Clare's outcome for her and I to meet, so we did not.

My Participation:

1. This prosecution stems mainly from my actions, unorthodox lifestyle, and prejudicial hate built up over decades. Although the allegedly criminal activity is absolutely false, and all the people accused are mindful, considerate, and good, this whole situation stems from my life decisions. The tragic, wrongful, results of even rightful actions, in this case, are still my responsibility.

2. Over the years, because of a full agenda and many relationships, I at times forced Clare to fend for herself in difficult situations. Instead of taking our same values for granted, thereby spending less time with her, I know now to rejoice in the similarity of values and celebrate them with more together time.

In Summary

For my codefendants personally, each is faced with terrible forces of coercion. Some of the most difficult of such forces do not from directed hate but from mis-directed love. Hate easily misdirects the deepest feelings of love and care through fear. For example, the family of one of my codefendants sees a loved one caught in this conflict. The loved one supports the side which is widely hated in and community. The family, and my codefendants know if they could only rescue this loved one from the side which is hated, the loved one no longer be hated. This is simple, safe, and worthwhile if the loved one is to have a bright future. So a progressive “convincing” is started out of love and care — convince the codefendant to re-evaluate their position so they can come to safety.

Internally, this re-evaluation takes the form of cognitive dissonance: the loved one convinces herself she was wrong (and guilty) and her family and lawyers are correct.

Al of my codefendants. and many people from my community are faced with a hateful, improper, forces of media, politics and corrupt justice. This situation extends well beyond my case and effects many unrelated people. In most situations, competitive forces are relatively invisible because high profile entities are pitted against one another — because of the intense scrutiny the corruption must remain more behind the scenes and can also hide behind the opposition's often equally corrupt approach. This situation is different: it is truly a David versus Goliath contest. As such the corruption is very apparent if only someone would look. The opposition has firm control of the public dialogue and media message but what is needed is some powerful advocate or group of advocates to turn the public monologue of hate to a conversation of truth. This can be most fruitful for underneath the obscuring hate is a thinly veiled corruption affecting us all. If the prosecution, judge, FBI agents, and media are carefully, rationally examined, I believe it will be quite productive for many.

Prejudice.

Hate.

PART 1

This is a call to action for all who place civil liberties above politics and social norm, honor above prejudice, and virtue above hate. It is also a call for steadfast activists of justice, and those in media willing to take the unpopular risk of upholding investigative journalism over cultural sensationalism.

I come to this situation very biased. I have a strong personal motive, but also find myself in a place of high visibility that may shed a more global light, and do some greater good.

For almost 30 years, I have been an object of hate and prejudice. I have created numerous businesses and movements of varying success, yet my alternative lifestyle and beliefs have lead to intense, international political ill-will, prejudice, and hate. This has been a challenge. Some analysts have called me a "philosopher king" (I don't think "king" really applies) and say I am a threat to powers beyond my view.

My name is Keith Raniere. On March 25, 2018, I was kidnapped in Mexico after visiting my seven-month old son and his mother, a life-partner of mine whom had just left. Six men in masks, wearing full body armor and armed with machine guns, kidnapped 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. Note: It took almost two months in total to indict me, during which there were grand jury hearings, and a lot of investigation. Shouldn't a person be ready to be indicted if incarcerated? Shouldn't the privilege of arresting by information be honored by the subsequent indictment being the first action the grand jury takes? If not, was the complaint sufficient?

I am pledged to non-violence, lead a peace movement in Mexico, and the peace segment of the Pan-American games we produced reached an estimated 25 million people. For this we were nominated for three daytime Emmy Awards and won several Tele Awards. I have never owned a weapon, used any drugs (including smoking and recreational drinking), or had a criminal history. For a bail package, my attorneys offered two armed guards with a supervisor (guarding me 24/7), in a well-vetted apartment, all overseen by the former head of the Secret Service who appeared at my bail hearing to affirm this. I would also wear an ankle monitor and only have contact with my attorneys. Additionally, we posted a $10 million bond. My bail application was denied.

I have five co-defendants: All are women. One has a grave illness; another is her 40-year old daughter. There is also a well-known actress, an heiress, and another who is a long-term partner of mine. The heiress had to post $100 million bond, wear an ankle monitor, and see no one but her attorneys in order to not be remanded into custody. All are innocent, but all plead guilty; two even cooperated, with one of them testifying.

Ultimately, because I was charged with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — created to prevent and punish financial infiltration and corrupt operation of legitimate businesses) and, in my specific case, any friend or associate could be charged as a co- conspirator, I could not see or contact any of my family, friends, or co-defendants for the fifteen months before my trial. The experience of anyone who knew me was: one day I was arrested, and then never directly heard from again. As of this writing, I have not spoken to any of my loved ones or friends. As you might imagine, this is torturous and prohibits presenting a defense. Additionally, at trial it was impossible to call any defense witnesses I knew, for they could be considered co-conspirators in RICO and would strongly be advised to use their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The jurors were good people — at least as far as I know. Three hundred potential jurors were screened by a questionnaire prepared by both sides. From about 150 remaining candidates, the judge interviewed them in front of us, allowing our input. They seemed earnest, although a surprising percentage voiced very conservative views towards things like abortions and taxation.

On June 19, after six weeks of a trial based on prejudice and hate, with no true opportunity for a defense, I was found guilty of crimes, all of which I did not commit. That day, the very start of jury deliberation, the jury came uncharacteristically dressed-up and literally took less time to reach a verdict than it took the judge to read the jury instructions. They came prepared to reach a verdict with little or no deliberation.

How can this be? Innocent defendants — very innocent — pleading guilty, cooperating, and being convicted?

The answer is simple: hate.

I am innocent. Sadly, in the end, the jurors accepted the hate of the prosecutors who, in turn, had taken up the hate of the opposition. That oppositional force, which now seems so large and strong, including media, gossip, and social culture, was started by a handful of hate in the souls of a very small number of people. Like all hateful movements of the world and history, from Nazi Germany down to the smallest group of children on a playground, hate is a multiplicative contagion passed from one to many. We must not accept hate — we must never embrace it as acceptable.

Justice is where a society, or jury, will treat someone they desperately and condemningly want to convict, identically to someone they intensely and protectively want to acquit.

The term "pyramid organization" is an example of hate. This is possibly the least offensive hate conduit in my case, yet its innocuous nature serves to illustrate the hate's subtlety: Is the Sovereign (in this case, the United States Government) — our Sovereign — a scientific investigator of truth, or a fear-mongering gatherer of hate looking to "win"? I supposedly create "pyramid organizations" — different from normal "organizations." The implication is somehow "pyramid" is improper: I am at the "top" or "apex," control everything unchecked, in some "sinister" and unspecified way. How is "pyramid" different than a restaurant, private corporation, or even the US Attorney's office? Some will say each of these likely answer to some check and balance system so even with a small, sole proprietorship — a restaurant for example — that owner must answer to the Health Department. If it were true I created businesses wherein I answer to no one, I still, in the least, answer to the law. (If I didn't, I would not be incarcerated.)

Whether the subject is great like Steve Jobs, or tiny such as a local sole proprietor business: within one's creation, one often has unbridled authority yet, more globally, all must answer to others such as customers, employees, vendors, and in the highest sense, the law. So why label organizations I create "pyramid" which imparts undefined, vague, negativity?

The answer is simple: hate.

This label, "pyramid," is a raw conduit for hate. The prosecution believes they "need" to apply this hate because it increases their chance of "winning". Shouldn't the application of hate be abhorrent? Should the prosecution even be concerned about "winning"? What does the application of the hate-label "pyramid" have to do with the pursuit of truth? Doesn't hate obscure the truth? Don't I, as the defendant, deserve an approach free of hate or mockery? Doesn't every defendant in a civilized justice system deserve that as a minimum?

The following is a more extreme example of how hate, through prejudice, was allowed in my case: The abortion records of several of my past and present partners were allowed into evidence and presented to the jury. These are confidential records of adult women voluntarily choosing this legal option. Note: abortions have nothing to do with my charges. The majority of the members of my jury stated they believe abortion is murder. This evidential allowance violates, in the least, the intent of the HIPPA laws, shames people associated with me, and generates tremendous anger, hate, and prejudice towards me, my community, and my actions.

If using hate is part of a conviction, then the defendant is likely innocent. A legitimate conviction wouldn't permit the use of hate. An impartial party, or person, would find hate both obscuring and repugnant to justice. If the defendant was guilty as charged, strictly the facts and the law would suffice: hate would not be allowed.

In contrast to the over-permissiveness of the above is a decision relating to the sex trafficking charge. An essential witness for the prosecution (and an alleged victim) lives a double life: On the normal, plain side, she presents herself as child-like, family loving, and innocent. On the alternative side, she has had a significant partner with an international reputation as a sexual "bad boy" with both civil and criminal challenges relating to sex. Her alleged sex trafficking experience was a self-styled enactment of a fantasy relating directly to her past, more extreme, sexual experiences. All of her alternative activities, fantasies, and proof of these things were barred from my trial. This was allegedly to "protect" the prosecution's witness, but was done at the expense of justice.

Even with this extreme bias, there was no evidence presented of commercial sex — a required element of this charge — yet, I was found guilty of this contemptible crime which carries a fifteen year minimum sentence.

Here is a summary of two more of my charges which lacked the appropriate elements: Firstly, the charge of forced labor. My life partner of 30 years died of cancer in November 2016. She was a prominent community leader, founder of an international women's movement, and a beloved friend and mentor to thousands of people. The community was helping put together a memorial service for her. One person in the community, who was also in the now infamous sorority, told me she would do anything to help. She was a person to whom I had given access to as much cash as she needed to pay for things like rent, courses, and expenses incurred in traveling to and from Albany. Unbeknownst to me, she worked five to six hours to transcribe a video of my deceased partner for that memorial: the prosecution is calling this "forced labor". If this person believed she should have been paid, she could have just taken the money from the cash made available to her. This "forced labor" charge, in the minimum, does not meet the "knowingness" or "coercion" elements of the crime. Considering the deep sorrow surrounding the death of my well-loved, 30-year partner, it is cruel to charge this baseless count. It is also insulting to all victims who have actually experienced the raw ugliness of true "forced labor."

Secondly, the charge of tax evasion. In short, there was no tax imposed, due, or potentially due, on any of the transactions shown by the prosecution. All transactions were straight forward, signed by the relevant party, and all transactions and monies were examined and processed by an accounting firm run by the past commissioner of the IRS. How could there possibly be tax evasion? Answer: it is not possible, and the elements of the crime were not even possible. The prosecution used hate and created prejudice by showing large expenditures on a credit card to imply taxes were being "evaded." The prosecution should be ashamed for this is a sleight-of-hand obscuring the truth and destroying innocence; all for the satisfaction of winning.

Why would the prosecution build a case with direct lies, using coercion, prejudicial strategies and tactics to "win", while destroying lives, relationships, and businesses?

The answer is simple: hate.

When I was a little boy, I wanted to be a hero. I think many little kids do. But as a little boy, I was to save the world. As I grew older, I found saving the world was not simple — and often the practicalities of life (cleaning my room, going to school, and the struggles of being a little kid) just seemed to get in the way. Still, in the back of my mind, I held the knowledge I could be a hero.

I matured further, gaining the responsibilities of an older boy. When I learned about historic events — like the American Revolution, or the struggles for racial equality — I believed all the great opportunities to do something meaningful had passed, and I wished I could have been born earlier in history so I could have stepped up, and stood with the forefathers of yesterday, to make a difference.

PART 2

Then came the thought: I bet some child, about my age, generations from now, will look back and wish he were in my shoes, with my opportunities for the future. I had been seeing opportunities for greatness in retrospect. The people of the past, who later became heroes, did not see their present-times, or lives, as anything great or special -- most of the time they saw themselves in the middle of struggles, often disasters. Their natures were heroic, and therefore their lives became heroic. Heroism was not earned from seeking heroic opportunities: heroism was a state of character and compassionate being. It was from this recognition, at the ripe old age of about twelve, I decided to deliberately and mindfully seek to be a good, caring, considerate person in each moment, for the rest of my life. This indeed would take a bit of practice: practices I still observe and hold sacred to this day yet have not been able to perfect.

Sometimes I would fail completely yet other times, as if by miraculous chance, I would have the presence of mind to succeed. My eighteenth birthday was such an occasion: I had been my mother's sole care-giver since I was eight. My parents were divorced, I was an only child, and my mother had a progressively debilitating heart condition. For my eighteenth birthday, the day before I left for my sophomore year of college, I recognized and became very grateful for my life, and all that my mother had given me. After all, my birthday should really be a celebration of her giving me this life, and the heroism of motherhood: Through the years of her illness, both my mother and I struggled with each other, but in spite of her condition, she had provided me with the support I needed to not only survive, but to have a great deal of joy. I really didn't have much to do with my birth — and thereby my birthday — I was merely a passenger.

On my eighteenth birthday, I created a celebration of my mother, and not only expressed my gratitude for the life she gave me, but also a celebration of her as a person. This was one of those times in my life when I truly saw beyond the day-to-day struggles and rose appropriately to the occasion.

Here is the bittersweetness of life: This incident forever uplifted me and my awareness. I left for college the next day, and never saw my mother in our home again. Although she came to visit me once, briefly, that semester during Parents' Day, she died suddenly on December 13, the week before final exams.

Beware of what you wish for — you might just get it. In this case, a seeming opportunity to do something important for the greater good. And so my "opportunity" did come.

Ultimately, during my current legal struggle, I was presented with a choice: Plead guilty to certain charges (of which I am innocent) and potentially spend the next sixteen years (best scenario) in a low-security prison with the comparatively nice benefits of a track, baseball field, recreation center, library, two to four days a week of multi-hour visitation (almost full days in certain facilities), face-to-face visits with loved ones, and access to making phone calls every day; or go to trial, in what seemed a very biased, unfair situation, and face living in a maximum security facility, potentially, in solitary confinement with one optional hour per day alone, outside in a cage for exercise, extremely limited one-hour visits allowed though a glass window, with a phone for sound, and one fifteen-minute phone call per month, for the rest of my days. Essentially live, and eventually die, alone in a single cell.

If I pled guilty, I would have to lie to the court and the world, betraying myself, my actions, and even my co-defendants who had already plead guilty to lesser, sometimes different, charges. I would also waive my rights to continue fighting, protesting the truth, and worst of all: I would be obeying and feeding hate. Hate loves when we fear it so much, we cower before it and abandon the light of truth. The question resolved to "How strong in the truth was I? How brave was I?" I further examined the question by pretending the choice was between immediate freedom (but having to plead guilty to crimes I did not do, and waiving all legal rights to fight for truth) or solitary confinement forever. For seven days I imagined I was pleading guilty in exchange for freedom. During that week, I felt like the conflict would relax, but it was the relaxation of death: I had died. I then imagined fighting for the rest of my life, losing each and every contest, from solitary confinement. When I imagined fighting for the truth, under these oppressive conditions, alone until the end of my days, I felt a deep sense of adversarial darkness, but I felt alive! (Throughout this whole conflict, no matter how dark the times, when I focus on the light of truth, I feel strong and alive.) If this were not my fight, or about the truth relating me, my life, and my life's work (as with many innocent people who plead guilty), I might have felt differently, but I felt completely committed that this was what I needed to do. How could I ever be free if I betrayed myself to hate? The struggle of life is to fight for our truth. If we deny ourselves this basic motivation, we have died in our soul.

I had two other people I morally needed to consult through my attorneys: My partner of fifteen years, with whom I have a 21-month old son, and one of my co-defendants who has always supported me, and still does. This co-defendant said she would totally support whatever decision I made, and my fifteen-year partner said she knew I would not plead guilty: this is what I was born to do. With these affirmations, I held up the sword of truth and entered the darkness of hate.

Was I being a hero? Some might say I was, but for me there was nothing heroic about it: I simply had no living choice — to choose the escape of a plea was to die personally; my conscience would allow no other experience. I would rather die in the physical world than betray the truth, my life's work, and everyone who ever knew me.

That was the small, selfish reason I made the choice. Beyond that, there was another important benefit: There have been many wrongs done to my community, friends, loved ones, co-defendants, and myself. Although my very experienced, reputable legal team acknowledges these wrongs, saying they are truly terrible and improper (and I have a good number of these all rolled into my case), they accept many of these injustices today because they are so common! The founders of our justice system would roll over in their graves, yet these destroyed rights have become "acceptable" and even routine. Transgressions like: the Government intentionally lying, the utilization of irrelevant hate to obscure the truth in order to win, intentional and malicious corruption of witnesses and exonerating evidence, and coercion used to force people to lie and/or plea — are all the ugly tactics of the very criminals that are supposed to be brought to justice! There have been many books written about this, but the only way this horrible progression will ever stop is some incident or event must abruptly change this course. It will not change by itself! Hopefully, my case is visible enough, my treatment wrongful enough, and I am innocent enough, so this is that event.

For justice, and the multitudes of people who've been victimized by the sickness of hate within our compromised justice system, please help this be the turning point. (Yes, a criminal handled improperly by, amongst other things, being over-charged, or coerced into a plea, is a victim — no criminal is so much a criminal that we abandon justice.) We are witness to a diseased ambition changing the pursuit of truth into the narcissistic glory of winning, and virtuous power into thuggish bullying and coercion. The Sovereign should be as eager to exonerate an indicted defendant through innocence as to convict though guilt: how its representatives conduct themselves within the process of justice is a direct measure of our compassion and humanity.

As a metaphor, I find myself a non-violent soldier on a battlefield: my sole weapon is my character. I am not the lowest ranking foot soldier, but certainly I am not a high-ranking officer. Our ranks represent our contribution to team humanity, and our earned right to lead that team. The battle we are fighting is for virtuous justice, and our opponent: hate. In particular, this battle is waged over the conduct of the Sovereign: Is it dedicated to truth (virtuous) or to winning (hateful)? Are the accused upheld (virtuous) or is punishment and damage inflicted upon the accused, his or her loved ones, friends, associates, and businesses (hateful)? In short, is our Sovereign virtuous or hateful? There is no gray area, in-between, or part-time!

Here I stand in the middle of this massive conflict which affects so many people and the very notion of freedom. Suddenly, I find myself alone, in a fortuitous clearing, where I can potentially make a global difference. I don't know why I've been granted this visibility or potential power, but here I am. Yes, I can, and should, potentially reverse my trial verdict, but just as importantly — even more so — something good can be done!

As I am caught amidst a swirling miasma of prejudicial hate, much of which is flat-out untrue, but none of which relates, or even should relate, to the law of my case, will this hate win? Will the prejudice infect justice so the law is ignored and innocence not upheld?

I need at least one experienced, vociferous, unrelenting justice advocate to join this effort, bring meaning and social value to this dark time, and turn the monologue of hate about my case into a dialog — a conversation — about truth. Although my personal situation is wrongful and inhumane, it has even greater consequences for anyone who is affected by our justice system — hopefully all people under the sun who would recite the pledge, "for liberty and justice for all"!

For me, as a chance, nationally visible figure, immersed in an amplified, hateful, injustice: I am innocent, but can I be free?