5.Michael Weniger — Direct (Part 1)
1,431 linesMS. PENZA: Thank you, Your Honor. The Government calls Special Agent Michael Weniger to the stand.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Witness sworn/affirmed.)
COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your full name for the record.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Michael Weniger, M-I-C-H-A-E-L W-E-N-I-G-E-R.
(Continued on the next page.)
MICHAEL WENIGER, called by the Government, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Good afternoon Special Agent Weniger.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Good afternoon.
MS. PENZA: Where do you work?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MS. PENZA: How long have you worked there?
MICHAEL WENIGER: About nine years.
MS. PENZA: Are you part of a specific squad?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I am, yes.
MS. PENZA: And what is that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: My squad is -- is Criminal 2 or C-2 and we work civil rights, hate crimes and occasionally human trafficking.
MS. PENZA: Can you give us a bit of your background from prior to joining the FBI?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. Before coming to the Bureau, I was an officer in the United States Army.
MS. PENZA: And then what did you do there?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I was an attorney -- I was a JAG, an Army JAG. I was a prosecutor at one point. I also did legal assistance and things of that nature.
MS. PENZA: Why did you -- why did you decide to switch careers?
MICHAEL WENIGER: To be honest with you, I had always planned to come to the Bureau assuming things worked out, and I was fortunate enough that they did.
MS. PENZA: You went straight from JAG to the Bureau?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did, yes.
MS. PENZA: Now, have you been involved in a criminal investigation into the defendant Keith Raniere and others?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I have.
MS. PENZA: How long have you been working that investigation?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Since approximately October of 2017.
MS. PENZA: And what has your role in that investigation been?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I, along with Special Agent Lever, and Investigator Fontanelli have been the case agents assigned to the case.
MS. PENZA: What does it mean to be a case agent?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It means we're handling the day-to-day of the investigation; dealing with or interacting with the United States Attorney's Office, conducting surveillance, executing search warrants, executing arrests, you know, receiving records, reviewing records, interviewing witnesses, finding witnesses, all sorts of things.
MS. PENZA: So you've had to deal with me since October of 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I have been that fortunate, yes.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger -- one second. I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 204. Are you familiar with this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I am.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And do you know where this was recovered from?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do.
MS. PENZA: Can you just explain? And I'm going to put it down next to me.
MICHAEL WENIGER: It was recovered from 3 Oregon Trail in Clifton Park or Waterford -- I believe it's Clifton Park which was the residence of Nancy Saltzman.
MS. PENZA: Did you participate in that search?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did not.
MS. PENZA: Why not?
MICHAEL WENIGER: My wife was due that week and, so, I -- I was under strict towards to stay within a two-hour radius of the hospital.
MS. PENZA: And you followed those orders?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did, yes.
MS. PENZA: Have you since reviewed evidence that was recovered from that search?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I have, yes.
MS. PENZA: And have you reviewed the contents of what's marked as Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And can you just explain generally what it is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, there's a number of loose documents located within the box and then there's a great deal of -- a large number of file folders each with labels and names on the top of those folders.
MS. PENZA: So we've looked at -- have you been present in court most days?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I have, yes.
MS. PENZA: So you know that we've looked through a number of those folders at various times?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And so just explain kind of what was in the folders generally?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. I mean, there were various things but there was a common theme amongst them and there were documents that purported to contain financial information for the individuals that were listed or labeled, found within the label of the file folders.
MS. PENZA: And were you able to categorize -- were you able to put any -- the people who -- an entity that there were folders for, were you able to categorize those into any specific groups?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Throughout the course of the investigation as well as conducting some additional research, I was able to determine kind of what -- what -- kind of what category each individual may have fallen into.
MS. PENZA: And did you prepare a PowerPoint to help -- to help show that to the jury?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I did.
MS. PENZA: I'm not going to actually play the PowerPoint. I'm going to show you slides from the PowerPoint on the ELMO. I think it will be a little easier for shifting purposes.
MS. PENZA: I should mark this. I'm sorry, let me ask Mrs. Carby what I should mark it as for identification purposes.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, on consent of the defense I'm going to be showing Special Agent Weniger pages from what has been marked for identification purposes only as Government Exhibit 1830?
THE COURT: 1830 for identification.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I'm showing you the first page of -- is this the first page of the PowerPoint presentation you put together?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, can you explain were two of the categories that you put people into from the box that we're looking at, local press and national press?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. And when I say local press, local to the location upon which the box was and the file folders were located and seized.
MS. PENZA: Can you just walk us through the list, please?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. So the first three -- excuse me, four, names were names that were associated with the Albany Times Union newspaper and the last two names were names of individuals that were associated with Metroland, which is a -- or which was -- I believe it's now defunct, but it was also a periodical in the Albany area.
MS. PENZA: I'm sorry, Special Agent Weniger.
MS. PENZA: May we publish this to the jury on consent of the defense?
MR. AGNIFILO: We consent.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And, so, on the left you were walking through the local press?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And how about the national press?
MICHAEL WENIGER: In that regard, those three names were individuals that worked for Forbes magazine. I should also add that a number of these names were writers that wrote stories that were in relation to or about Mr. -- the defendant and/or Nxivm.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I'm showing you what is a version of what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 608 and this is --
MS. PENZA: Let me put this on the ELMO.
THE COURT: This is for the jury?
MS. PENZA: Yes, Your Honor.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And can you explain what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: This is the Forbes magazine cover that -- I believe that the article has already been discussed to some extent, but that's the cover, the actual cover, of the magazine.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And the date on this was -- can you see?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, October 13 of 2003.
MS. PENZA: And is that the -- is that the defendant that's on the cover?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Turning to page 88 of the hard copy magazine is that the title of the article, Cult of Personality?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And the author's name is Michael Freedman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Mr. Freedman is one of the individuals that's listed on the PowerPoint that we found a folder in relation to Mr. Freedman.
MS. PENZA: So let's look at Michael Freedman's folder as an example. This is the folder and it says "Michael Freedman"?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, can you just walk us through -- is this representative of the types of documents that were inside the folders?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: Can you walk us through this document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: To some extent. As a general matter, it lists particular banking institutions and it also provides account numbers, indicates the type of account and the account balance as well as the signatory and the beneficiary of those accounts. There were similar kind of constructs, but there were other -- other similar documents that cited additional information to include account balances as well as initial deposits.
(Continued on the following page.)
BY MS. PENZA (Continuing):
MS. PENZA: And then there is information here that says "level one"?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. So, there were also -- what we determined was -- yes, the levels of the type of searches appears to be on the left-hand side of these types of the document.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And I'm sorry, did I cut you off?
MS. PENZA: So, for all of the individuals that are going to be on this PowerPoint, were there either folders or other information about them in Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: Let's look at the next page.
Are these two more categories of individuals whose information was found in Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct. There were folders for these individuals and what were purported to be banking information related to these folks.
MS. PENZA: And can you just walk through them for us?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. So, Joseph Bruno, who was a New York State senator; Eliot Spitzer, who at the time was the New York State Attorney General; David Soares, who was the District Attorney in Albany County; Charles Schumer, who is a U.S. senator; Steve Pigeon and Roger Stone, who are both -- I have them listed as political operatives. They were lobbyists.
At one time, I believe Mr. Pigeon was actually a politician and had been elected to office.
MS. PENZA: Do you know whether any of these people were working for NXIVM?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do. Well, based upon our investigation, we determined that there were occasions where NXIVM hired these individuals or certainly had communications with them.
MS. PENZA: Not all of them?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Not all of them.
MS. PENZA: So, which ones on this list?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Mr. Pigeon, Mr. Stone. In terms of hiring, I believe it's those two.
MS. PENZA: Did they also work with Mr. Bruno?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And now on the right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: These are the names of four judges, and these are individuals that we were able to determine at one time or another had oversaw cases involving NXIVM and/or the Defendant.
MS. PENZA: So, within Government Exhibit 204 was what was purported to be banking information for these federal judges?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
On this --
MS. PENZA: Please, go ahead.
MICHAEL WENIGER: On this slide, on the left-hand column, these are individuals that had some relationship to the litigation involving Rick Ross, who I believe you heard from yesterday; obviously, Mr. Ross, Rick Ross Institute. And then Morris Sutton, who was a defendant in that lawsuit.
As well, the final name there is Juval Aviv. Mr. Aviv owned a private investigation firm called Interfor. That particular firm was hired by NXIVM for purposes of conducting investigations in relation to some of the folks that are also in the file base.
MS. PENZA: And if we look on the next page -- the right-hand side of the same page?
MICHAEL WENIGER: These are individuals that are associated with Edgar Bronfman. Edgar Bronfman, obviously, is the first one there -- there's a file folder for him -- as well as Stephen Herbits, who was a witness in this trial, the world Jewish Congress, as well as Israel Singer. Israel Singer is associated with and at one time was part of the World Jewish Congress, played a role, employed by.
MS. PENZA: Showing you Page 4 of what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1830?
MICHAEL WENIGER: On the left-hand column, that is Kristin Snyder. Kristin Snyder, I believe we've heard some information in relation to Kristin Snyder during the course of this trial.
And then Heidi Clifford. Heidi Clifford was Kristin Snyder's partner.
MS. PENZA: Just very briefly, Kristin Snyder, your understanding of how she relates to this case, without going into too much detail.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. Kristin Snyder had taken a number of courses with NXIVM. And at one point, she was taking a course in Alaska and disappeared, leaving information about what her intentions were.
MS. PENZA: Was she ultimately presumed dead by the State of Alaska?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Let me just go back for one second.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, may I have the Elmo just for Special Agent Weniger for a moment?
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, are you familiar with the document that I'm showing you?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And is this the cover page of an Albany Times Union article?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: And can you explain -- and what is the date on this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: February 12, 2012.
MS. PENZA: And the title is: Secrets of NXIVM?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: Can you just explain -- at some point, did the Albany Times Union cover the Defendant and NXIVM around that time?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Frequently. Before 2012 as well.
MS. PENZA: Without going into the details of their coverage, can you just elaborate a little bit more on that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: The Secrets of NXIVM was a six-part series that the Albany Times Union ran, but, again, they had had a number of articles both before and after this particular day.
MS. PENZA: And at this particular point in time, this was the secrets of NXIVM series that were you talking about?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: And fair to say that the Defendant was on the cover?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it ran for basically the entire week?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
Actually, I may have been mistaken. I believe it was a six-part series, but looking at that it may have been a four-part series. Either way, it was a number of days that coverage was provided.
MS. PENZA: Was the topic of Kristin Snyder something that was covered by the Albany Times Union?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it was.
MS. PENZA: Just going back to Page 4, can you explain the right-hand side?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Yuri Plyam, as well as Castle Trading, and I believe his spouse Natalia Plyam, were individuals who had business dealings that did not go particularly well with NXIVM as well as the Defendant, and they were involved in litigation with -- NXIVM was involved in litigation with Yuri Plyam as well as Castle Trading.
MS. PENZA: Showing you Page 5, can you explain who these people are?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. I think as a general matter, all of the individuals -- I shouldn't say that. The vast majority of the individuals that had folders within the box were individuals that had some type of criticism of NXIVM and/or the Defendant.
These individuals, Deke Sharon was an a cappella -- he's famous within the a cappella community and at one time was critical of the Defendant; David Touretzky was a professor at Carnegie Mellon who was critical of the Defendant; Toni Natalie at one point in time dated the Defendant and was involved in litigation with him for a significant period of time; Carlos Rueda was, I believe, a psychologist -- he was a psychologist or psychiatrist, but he was cited in a number of newspaper articles providing opinions as to NXIVM and kind of their curriculum and teachings.
And then there were folders that bore the names of individuals that were representing NXIVM at some point in time, their own lawyers, as well as the attorneys that represented their adversaries -- when I say "their" adversaries, I mean NXIVM adversaries -- in legal proceedings.
MS. PENZA: Do you know approximately how long ago Toni Natalie dated the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe that relationship ended in approximately 1998, somewhere in that time frame. Certainly by the early 2000s it was over.
MS. PENZA: And were any of the individuals who are listed here referenced in the Forbes article?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Mr. Rueda being one of them, but I believe there were a number.
MS. PENZA: Turning to Page 90 of the hard copy version of the Forbes article, up here is there reference to Toni Natalie telling Forbes that she believes Raniere brainwashed her?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And over here, there's a description of a 28-year-old woman, and then it says her psychiatrist Carlos Rueda says in the last three years he has treated two others who have taken a NXIVM class.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Those are two individuals whose purported banking information was found in Nancy Salzman's home in this box?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: In addition to those folders with the banking information, was there anything else of note within Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I mean, there was quite a bit that was of interest. There was -- it appears that they were able to obtain the state police files in relation to the Kristin Snyder disappearance and later determination that she was deceased, there were a number of handwritten notes and things of that nature, and there were also electronic communications that reflected and appeared to be associated with the banking transactions that we've -- not banking transactions, excuse me, banking information that we've taken a look at already.
MS. PENZA: E-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Can you -- after seeing that information, did you take any further investigative steps?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, we did.
Again, we reviewed all of the information within the box. And once we determined that there was some type of connection between the banking information and the electronic e-mail addresses, we requested and received search warrants for two specific e-mail addresses.
MS. PENZA: And what were those two e-mail addresses?
MICHAEL WENIGER: One being oakhaven.haven@gmail.com, the other being thebeacon2009@gmail.com.
MS. PENZA: And those are already in evidence as Government Exhibit 1399 and Government Exhibit 1401, respectively?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And did you receive search warrant returns from those two accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: We did.
MS. PENZA: And did you personally review those returns?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did.
MS. PENZA: Were you able to determine the primary users of those accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Can you explain?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, for thebeacon2009@gmail.com, the subscriber that was actually listed was an individual by the name of Emiliano Salinas, who was part of the Defendant's inner circle.
The oakhaven.haven@gmail.com I believe listed the subscriber as simply oakhaven; however, reviewing the e-mail account it became relatively apparent that the individuals who were using it or was primarily Kristin Keeffe.
MS. PENZA: And was there any interplay between those two e-mail accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, there were communications between those two accounts and they were consistently corresponding with one another.
MS. PENZA: Can you just give us a very high level overview of what you found through your analysis of those two accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Well, the oakhaven account being used by, primarily, Kristin Keeffe was what was utilized in order to acquire the purported banking information that is found within the hard copy files in 1B53, which is -- I forget the Government exhibit number that you're looking at, but the box that is sitting next to you.
MS. PENZA: Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
And that information was then -- was often just used, but then there was communications between oakhaven.haven as well as thebeacon2009 e-mail account in order to what appears to be verify the information that was being received, the banking information that was being received from an outside source, which we determined to be a private investigation firm that's located in Canada.
MS. PENZA: And what is the name of that firm?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Canaprobe, which is owned or was owned -- it may still be in existence, I'm not quite sure, but was operated by an individual named Richard Marier.
MS. PENZA: Now, as part of this PowerPoint did you put together e-mails and other portions of these two accounts to kind of walk the jury through how these accounts were used?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did.
MS. PENZA: So let's look at Government -- at Page 6 of what's marked for identification purposes as Government Exhibit 1830.
Can you explain what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. As mentioned a little bit ago, the oakhaven.haven account was often utilized in order to contact Richard Marier, who was operating the private investigation firm in Canada called Canaprobe. And this is a reflection as to the type of requests that would be made by, again, what we deemed to be Kristin Keeffe using the oakhaven.haven e-mail address to request the particular banking information from the private investigation firm.
And in this instance -- oftentimes she would attach or attached to these e-mails would be spreadsheets, but in this instance in the body of the e-mail maple it just shows how the request would be made and it would provide what we would call pedigree or biological information or kind of just particular information that's relevant to the individual and may be of assistance to the private investigation firm in terms of identifying their bank account.
MS. PENZA: So, here this is for Carlos Rueda?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, there is an address, a date of birth, his license number, and his position as chairman of the department of psychiatry at Our Lady of Mercy Hospital in New York City?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: As well as some other information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, that information is sent by oakhaven.haven@gmail.com to Richard Marier?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Then what is this next page?
This is Page 7 of what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1830.
MICHAEL WENIGER: This is just a reflection of what would oftentimes come back, the type of information that would be received. So, in this instance, for purposes of Mr. Rueda, it reflects that there was a Safra Bank account, it has the account number, and it indicates the date it was open as well as the initial deposit.
So, this is just, again -- we've reviewed kind of one of these, these type of documents already, but I just included this to try to show the jury the type of document that would be received back.
MS. PENZA: So, fair to say for all of these documents which look similar, there would be this request and then receipt of information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, that's right.
MS. PENZA: And you would see it in both the e-mail account and in Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, the hard copies.
MS. PENZA: And it says at the bottom: Investigate further accounts and levels at your discretion.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is another page?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: And this says: Inadvertent or deliberate premature disclosure of or informal attempts to validate this information is likely to fatally compromise the continued existence of this information, may result in civil and/or criminal liability, and must be strictly and absolutely avoided.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Was that at the back of most of these returns that were received?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I think most of them, yes.
MS. PENZA: Can you explain what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: A lot of times, this is just a reflection of what would be received in response. So, two slides back, I believe, or three slides back was the request. This slide shows the response and how it's received. And, so, oftentimes it would come in via fax, and that fax would be sent to the e-mail account of oakhaven, and that, again, being an account that we believe to be associated with Kristin Keeffe.
MS. PENZA: Now, in your review of the oakhaven account, were you able to determine who was paying for Canaprobe?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, we were.
MS. PENZA: And who was that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Clare Bronfman.
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's Page 10 of Government Exhibit 1830, marked for identification, can you explain this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. So, what's highlighted here and the reason I identified this particular e-mail was because it reflects the individual that was receiving the invoices. And, so, we saw a number of these types of e-mails, but this particular one was sent directly to Ms. Bronfman.
And it does reflect some of the names I think that we've already discussed early on in terms of the names of the file folders. So, here you see Plyam, you see Ross, presumably Rick Ross -- Yuri Plyam being the other one -- and then O'Hara, which is a name that -- there were also documents associated with O'Hara, Joseph O'Hara, in the file box.
MS. PENZA: Just to be clear, this is an e-mail from Richard Marier, richard@canaprobe.com, to clarewebb21@aol.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: Do you know that to be an e-mail address associated with Clare Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do, yes.
MS. PENZA: And it's copying oakhaven.haven@gmail.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: It says: Hi. I hope you are well. The invoice for services rendered addressed to Ms. Bronfman will be in the amount of $39,750.
Is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: As agreed, no hard copy will be made and it will not be detailed.
And then it breaks down the invoice.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, it says 53 searches at $750, $39,750?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, fair to say it looks like each search cost $750?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Math is not my forte, but that would appear correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: And just to -- so, some of these e-mails that we're looking at, were there also copies of the same -- some of the same e-mails in Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, that's how we identified the e-mail addresses that I indicated we requested search warrants for.
MS. PENZA: So, as we're going through this PowerPoint, the e-mails are either in Government Exhibit 204 or in 1399 or 1401, all of which are in evidence?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, yes.
MS. PENZA: Now, is this an e-mail sending another invoice?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I think the next few slides reflect that.
So, this just indicates that there's an invoice, but, in this instance, the invoice is being sent to oakhaven, as opposed to Clare Bronfman; however, the invoice or at least the PDF attached to it was in the name of Clare Bronfman.
MS. PENZA: And the attachment says Bronfman3950, correct?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this was the invoice?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, that's right.
MS. PENZA: This is September 11, 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And customer, Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Ms. Clare Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: In Clifton Park, New York?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then it's not a detailed invoice; is that fair to say?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Simply services rendered, yes.
MS. PENZA: It says services rendered and then it says $134,250?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
THE COURT: Are you aware of how much money Ms. Bronfman paid in all to this investigative firm?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Your Honor, I have a general idea. I believe that it was upwards of $400,000.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. PENZA: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. PENZA: And October 29, 2009, is this another invoice?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is. And I --
MS. PENZA: I'm sorry.
MICHAEL WENIGER: We'll see it on the next slide.
I pulled this particular slide or I created this particular slide because this one does provide at least a little bit more detail in relation to the services that were rendered. So, as you can see on the left-hand side, it reflects that banking sweep services in relation to Rick A. Ross and Al were conducted.
MS. PENZA: Again, it's to customer Clare Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it's: Re: Rick A. Ross?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is March 3, 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: And, so, did this repeat throughout the oakhaven account, both these requests and returns and invoices?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: You reviewed the whole account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did, yes.
MS. PENZA: Now, did you make this slide that explains the interplay between the oakhaven and thebeacon2009 accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did, yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm going to put that down, and this is Page 15 of Government Exhibit 1830, what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1830.
Can you just explain?
And if it's helpful to walk through what you've written, feel free toe do so.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Certainly.
So, there was -- what we found, before I kind of get into the slide, what we found was that the information being received from Canaprobe was then being vetted and/or verified through communications that were between NXIVM or Kristin Keeffe and another private investigation firm; however, there were layers of communication between Kristin Keeffe and that private investigation firm. But the account information that NXIVM was receiving from Canaprobe was being forwarded down the chain and vetted.
So, the first bullet there just reflects that a request would be sent with similar names and account information that was being received from Canaprobe and that information was being sent to thebeacon2009 account, which was being used by Emiliano Salinas. In turn, Emiliano Salinas or that account was forwarding the requests to an individual by the name of Federico Valenzuela Pena at Vinko Capital.
MS. PENZA: Do you know where that's located, Vinko Capital?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe Mexico.
MS. PENZA: Okay.
MICHAEL WENIGER: And then we were able to determine that Pena was forwarding those requests to an individual named James Mulvaney and Mulvaney was acquiring information, the requested information.
Once that information was received, it was then forwarded back up that chain as a general matter.
MS. PENZA: So, it goes from Kristin Keeffe to Emiliano to Frederico Pena to Mulvaney and then back up the chain from Mulvaney to Pena to Emiliano Salinas back to Keith?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears so, yes.
MS. PENZA: In your training and experience, do you have any understanding as to the reason for all of these levels?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It certainly seemed as though it was an effort to, you know, skew the source and kind of create some various layers to the requests, information requests.
MS. PENZA: By "skew," does it mean it's harder to kind of trace the source?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm going to object to this testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: You can cross-examine on it.
Continue.
MS. PENZA: Mr. Mulvaney, where is Mr. Mulvaney located?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears that he was located in New York.
MS. PENZA: Is there any reason that you know of why the requests would have to go from Kristin Keeffe in Albany to Mr. Mulvaney in New York City by way of Mexico?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Not that I know of, no.
MS. PENZA: So, then, can you explain what happens after that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Once the information is acquired, it appears to move back up that chain and eventually ending up in response e-mails from Emiliano Salinas to Kristen Keeffe as well as, at least in some instances, the Defendant and Nancy Salzman.
(Continued on the following page.)
EXAMINATION CONTINUES BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Okay. We'll go into detail later, but was there any other evidence that the information would be given to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Could you clarify? I'm sorry.
MS. PENZA: And rather than just looking at The Beacon account and looking at Government Exhibit 204, reviewing the other evidence in this case, were there other indications that the information from Canaprobe went to the defendant?
MR. AGNIFILO: I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: You may answer.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I mean I think there were. There were outside e-mails, if that's what you're referring to.
There were e-mails that were -- that reflected that the defendant was aware of Mr. Marier, Canaprobe, and he specifically discusses with Kristin Keeffe the relationship that NXIVM had with -- with Canaprobe.
MS. PENZA: Anything else we need to go over on this slide?
MICHAEL WENIGER: No, I don't believe so.
MS. PENZA: Now, showing you page 16 of what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1830, and can you explain this page, please?
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: This is just the subscriber information that we received in relation to the search warrant for TheBeacon2009@gmail.com.
And, again, it reflects that the individual or subscriber is Emiliano Salinas and it also reflects, I believe, an e-mail address -- yes, recovery e-mail as EmilianoSalinas@gmail.com.
MS. PENZA: That's right there (indicating)?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So name Emiliano Salinas and recovery e-mail EmilianoSalinas@gmail.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
It's also worth noting there on -- that this particular account was created on June 12th of 2009, and that surrounds the same time period that -- that these communications were had -- were occurring.
MS. PENZA: Thank you.
Showing you page 17 of what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit 1830.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Can you explain what this is? I'll show you the left-hand side first.
MICHAEL WENIGER: So this is -- this is a request for information. And this identifies bank accounts that I believe were received or banking information that I believe was received by Kristin Keeffe at the Oak Haven address from Canaprobe, and then it also reflects account numbers.
As I said at the beginning, what it appeared to be happening was Kristin Keeffe was receiving information from Canaprobe, banking information from Canaprobe, and then attempting to verify that information through a separate private investigative firm. This e-mail reflects that the banking information received from Canaprobe was then sent to Emiliano Salinas starting the chain to get to the next private investigator to verify.
MS. PENZA: Okay, so let's just look at a few things.
So the date of this e-mail is June 13th, 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So that's the day after the account was created?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yeah. I believe so, yes.
MS. PENZA: And the subject line is "19 total love your e-mail address..."?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then let's just walk through some of the names.
Are these names that are similar to the names that we saw in the box?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: So we see Rick Ross Institute, Rick A. Ross, and Harry Separpho, do you know who that is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do not.
MS. PENZA: Deke Sharon, do you know who that is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, he's the --
MS. PENZA: You mentioned him?
MICHAEL WENIGER: He is a prominent name, apparently, in the acapella world.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And we won't go through all of them, but we see Joe O'Hara, Chet Hardin, and there are multiple -- for some of these people appear twice. So there's, I guess, Citibank Bahamas for Rick A. Ross Institute and then a UBS Geneva for Rick Ross Institute?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then Chet Hardin, Dennis Yusko, Joe O'Hara, Kristen Snyder?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, correct.
MS. PENZA: And then showing you slide 18, this is the forward to Federico Pena that you described?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So this is the same e-mail we just looked at; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It's the same e-mail with the exception of the sender and the recipient.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So if we look up here (indicating), so this was -- this was Oak Haven to The Beacon on June 12th, 2009, the 19 total love your e-mail address?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And then it's forwarded by TheBeacon2009@gmail.com to Federico Pena, the next day?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Showing you slide 20.
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: I simply included this slide because it appears that the original list was paired down by -- by the Oak Haven address. So they just kind of limited the number of names and banking information that they were requesting.
MS. PENZA: And it says six most important?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Including Rick Ross and Joe O'Hara and Kristen Snyder?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And was that also forwarded to Mr. Pena?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It was, yes.
MS. PENZA: I don't speak Spanish, but do these seem to be saying they're the most important ones?
MICHAEL WENIGER: He seems to be, yes.
MS. PENZA: You do speak a little Spanish, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Very minimal.
MS. PENZA: I am showing you slide 22.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: And can you explain this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So I included this particular slide just to show that -- that Kristin Keeffe was aware that the -- these e-mails were being forwarded.
It simply just reads: Okay, data forwarded to the pertinent person. Love E.
And I included this e-mail simply to show that the forwards -- not only were the forwards happening, not only was the information that Kristin Keeffe was providing to Emiliano Salinas being forwarded by Emiliano Salinas, but that Kristin Keeffe was aware of it. And -- and that is seen by virtue of the -- the fact that, you know, it's being -- the content of the e-mail, itself.
MS. PENZA: And showing this e-mail from Federico Pena to Emiliano Salinas.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: Can you just generally what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So this is the information that was being received back from Mr. Pena.
MS. PENZA: And this would be the information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's the type of information that was being received in response.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So there would say, that's an example where it says Chet Hardin, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And provides that information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And would he actually send screenshots?
MICHAEL WENIGER: These are -- these are pulled from the actual e-mails, yes.
MS. PENZA: Page 24, is this -- ah, yes.
MICHAEL WENIGER: I included these -- I'm sorry.
MS. PENZA: Nope, go ahead.
MICHAEL WENIGER: I included this particular e-mail because not only was the information being forwarded to the Oak Haven e-mail address, but it was also being sent to an e-mail address associated with the defendant.
MS. PENZA: Okay, so this was an e-mail sent directly from The Beacon 2009 to both the Oak Haven account, which is Kristin Keeffe and KeithRaniere@yahoo.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is Pena's information being forwarded by Emiliano to them?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay, I am showing you this e-mail. This is page 25 of the exhibit. It's referring to Government Exhibit 1399 at page 100.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: Can you explain this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Well, as I mentioned it, in terms of the overall premise or what I believe to be the premise as to what was being done, this e-mail kind of demonstrates that to some extent. I can read the content.
MS. PENZA: Yes, please do.
MICHAEL WENIGER: This is the one that bounced yesterday. It wasn't the Luxembourg one, but the Citibank Bahamas one -- in parentheses -- (Rick Ross Institute.) This is a commercial bank and my friend is of the opinion that this is a checking account. Apparently, the account exists and everything matches, so either it's closed or the recipient did not accept the funds.
(He says probably the second one.)
MS. PENZA: And did the defendant reply to that e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: He does reply to particular e-mails. I'm not quite sure if it was this e-mail or not.
MS. PENZA: Well, let me show you the next slide.
Is this the response from the defendant?
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: And so how did the defendant respond?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did not receive the image with this... Only a blank...
MS. PENZA: But he is responding, acknowledging receipt of this e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's why I included it, yes.
MS. PENZA: Showing you slide 27. And this is referencing Government Exhibit 1399, Page 116.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Go ahead, please.
MICHAEL WENIGER: This entire e-mail is relatively relevant. However, I did pull a particular line out, and that does -- that -- that is in relation to kind of the purpose behind this or what I believe to be.
MS. PENZA: So let's go through the e-mail and maybe I should get --
MS. PENZA: Sorry, one second, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
MS. PENZA: We can start reading. I just noted that part of it will be cut off at the end.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure.
Would you like me to start reading?
MS. PENZA: Yes, please.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Dear K. Again, this is an e-mail from Emiliano Salinas sent on July 6th, 2009 to Keith Raniere, the Oak Haven e-mail address, which we believe to be associated with Kristin Keeffe and to Nancy@nxivm.com, which we believe to be associated with Nancy Salzman. The subject being a forward: Records.
MS. PENZA: I am actually just going to swap this out for a second so that you have the full e-mail in front you, courtesy of Mr. Agnifilo.
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: Dear K. Here is an update on the legal projects I am involved in.
With respect to the info on the Luxembourg bank and Ross' personal account there. This is a privately owned bank specializing in private banking and wealth management that is of difficult access, especially for someone with the profile of the person we are investigating, or rather very in line with his profile (professional defrauder and blackmailer.) My friend is of the opinion that due to the type of bank this is, the amount deposited is probably not small and something he probably wants to keep out of reach and knowledge.
(Luxembourg is a semi-regulated fiscal paradise that asks very few questions when it comes to the origin of funds.) He is
MICHAEL WENIGER: looking for more detailed information.
Next paragraph.
That is the only refund that has not bounced yet. On Friday we sent a request for confirmation that the funds arrived in the account. It can take up to 21 days for that confirmation to happen.
MS. PENZA: Okay, so let me stop you there.
Can you explain what your understanding is of the first two paragraphs?
MICHAEL WENIGER: My understanding, and, again, my limited understanding, but what it does appear is happening is that certain small amounts or, what I would say, kind of testers are being sent to the accounts that have been identified by Canaprobe to determine whether, in fact, they are accounts associated with the people that Canaprobe claims that they are associated.
MS. PENZA: And let me just ask you at this point:
Do you know whether all of this information that Canaprobe was actually providing was, in fact, true information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Do I -- do I know whether it was true?
MS. PENZA: Yes.
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe the vast majority, if not all of it, was not true, but I'm not certain.
MS. PENZA: Okay, there ended up sometime -- is it fair to say sometime later there ended up being a dispute about whether this was real information or not?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Is your impression at this time -- what is your impression at this time about whether the -- I'm sorry.
Based on your review of the documents, were you able to glean an understanding of whether the participants at this time believed that the information from Canaprobe was true?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Well, they certainly -- it -- the documents reflect that they seemed to believe it was. However, they also were, again, conducting verification-type activities to determine whether it was true. In my review.
MS. PENZA: They were -- is it your understanding from your review that they were seeking real banking information on these individuals?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Absolutely.
MS. PENZA: Okay, so can you just continue, please?
MICHAEL WENIGER: With respect to the legal cases, here is an update of where we stand. O'Hara, I sent a list of questions to Kristin to clarify some points that are needed to determine if we can proceed legally against him in Mexico. I --
MS. PENZA: Let me just stop you right there.
What is your understanding of that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I mean we have seen that NXIVM was -- was attempting to take legal action, both civil and criminally, against defectors and critics in Mexico.
MS. PENZA: Now this was in 2009, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: Was that practice something that was limited to 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: No, it was not.
MS. PENZA: Do you know whether there were any indications of that recently?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. In regards to -- to DOS, I think we saw it with Jay as well, and also some additional folks, not to just simply include Jay.
MS. PENZA: Can you continue? I'm sorry for interrupting you.
MICHAEL WENIGER: You didn't interrupt. I'm done.
MS. PENZA: Oh, I'm sorry, continue reading. I interrupted your reading.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Barbara, the lawyers say that it is possible to sue here in Mexico (in Monterey specifically since Edgar has his residence there) for blackmail. He will sent me an appropriate cost by the end of the week (Friday, July 10th.)
MS. PENZA: Do you have an understanding of who the "Barbara" is there?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I suspect that this is Barbara Bouchey, yes.
MS. PENZA: Based on your investigation and your experience in this case, do you know of any relationship between Barbara Bouchey and Edgar Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe this is a reference to Edgar Bronfman.
MS. PENZA: Oh, excuse me, sorry.
And then can you continue after here (indicating)?
MICHAEL WENIGER: He -- he will send me an appropriate -- an approximate cost by the end of week (Friday, July 10th.)
Ross, et al. The lawyers are still trying to figure out how to legitimize the banking information we have in the Ross, et al case in case we need our lawyers in Albany to present it. This is still pending.
MS. PENZA: Okay, now, that I think was the part that you had called out in the PowerPoint?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And why was that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Because it's in relation -- it appears that it's in relation to the banking information that -- that they were receiving from both Canaprobe and other sources.
MS. PENZA: And so from your review of these documents and others, did you have an understanding of whether there was any -- whether lawyers in Albany were -- were aware of the details of what was happening with the Canaprobe -- with Canaprobe?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe they were, yes.
MS. PENZA: In Albany?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then there is -- then it continues on. And can you explain this e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I just included this. It does include -- the "to" line includes the defendant, as well as an e-mail address associated with Nancy Salzman, as well as Kristin Keeffe.
And I included it simply because it discusses compensation or what -- what was being quoted to -- to those three individuals, or at least the people you see in those accounts.
MS. PENZA: Okay, so these were accounts, though, that you were familiar with, correct?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So Emiliano to the defendant, Nancy and Kristin Keeffe at the Oak Haven account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says here: The quotes from our friend. I'm translating and explaining his e-mail.
The cost for each operation is $1,200 for the first operation in a given U.S. state, plus 300 to 600 depending on the bank per additional operation in the state; and then there is a price of 3,000 for the Bahamas and 4,000 for Europe and the amount of time it will take?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And this is an e-mail from Jim Mulvaney to Federico Pena?
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. I think the full e-mail is below it, but this kind of completes the link between, or at least the chain.
Obviously, we were able to acquire Mr. Salinas's e-mail, as well as the e-mail associated with Kristin Keeffe.
We weren't able to or we did not request a search warrant for purposes of the e-mail account of Mr. Pena. However, I included this, and this is included in the forward, just to show -- show that Mr. Mulvaney was the end kind of -- was the end recipient of the request.
MS. PENZA: And it says: If the operatives simply visit the institutions demanding immediate response, they may find themselves being served by bankers less experienced who will not take the time to carefully evaluate the records to identify the useful information. A quick answer is not always the right answer?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Were they looking -- do you know whether they were looking to go to specific people?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I don't. I mean what I can say is that it appears that they were -- they were using banking insiders in order to acquire information. That's what it appears. I can't say that definitively.
MS. PENZA: Are you aware of another way that that information could have been provided?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Another way that what information?
MS. PENZA: That information would have been provided other than a bank insider, if it were true?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I mean through a legal process.
MS. PENZA: But without, outside of legal process?
MICHAEL WENIGER: (No response.)
MS. PENZA: Outside of a subpoena or search warrant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: No, I don't -- I don't believe so.
MS. PENZA: And is this the full chain that you were talking about?
(Exhibit published.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: It is. So this, again, the relevance here is that it shows the -- the line of communication or the chain of communication, and it also includes the e-mail account for the defendant.
MS. PENZA: So Federico Pena forwards that e-mail from Jim Mulvaney to Emiliano Salinas at The Beacon 2009 and says: I'll reply as soon as you tell me.
And then Emiliano forwards that to the defendant and to Kristin Keeffe and says: Apparently, there was another misunderstanding. This is Jim 's reply to our mail asking for the results?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And is this an e-mail from -- this is slide 32 and it references Government Exhibit 1399, page 158.
And this is from Emiliano Salinas to the defendant, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: It says: Here is the name and position of Jim. Check out these links to have more data on who he is. Love, E?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: And were these -- did you -- did you check out these links?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I -- I tried to, yes. I think I did. Yes, I did.
MS. PENZA: And you ended up -- you explained earlier who Jim Mulvaney is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Slide 33, and this references Government Exhibit 1399, page 169.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: This is --
MICHAEL WENIGER: So if you -- if you -- if you take a look at the bottom of the e-mail or, excuse me, the document, you will see that that's the beginning of the -- the original e-mail we were discussing where Mr. Mulvaney speaks of -- of banking insiders.
There's additional pages to this particular e-mail, but it is a forward of that -- of that -- that e-mail, the banking insiders e-mail, which goes up and -- and through Mr. Salinas and eventually gets to Oak Haven, as well as the defendant.
I pulled this particular e-mail because of Kristin Keeffe's response; and that response being: Never send to Keith. Ever. Please don't forget this again. XO.
(Continued on the following page.)
BY MS. PENZA: (Continuing.)
MS. PENZA: Are you aware of communications between Kristin Keefe and the defendant about this process?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. I mean, he's on prior e-mails in relation to it.
MS. PENZA: And is he on other e-mails as well?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, this was the e-mail we just looked at. This was the one that was forwarded to the defendant and then, fair to say, here Kristin is telling Emiliano "never send to Keith ever"?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: Last -- lastly, showing you slide 34 and this is a reference to Government Exhibit 1399 at page 194. And this is from Emiliano to Kristin at the Oak Haven account and the subject line is, "Judicial order in Mexico. Hey, K, we are moving on and trying to get a judicial order in Mexico on the Ross case. Could we have a talk about the potential charges that will be involved? I will call you later. Take care, E."
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Remind us, who -- what is Emiliano Salinas' position in Mexico?
MICHAEL WENIGER: He's the son of a former president in Mexico. He's also Harvard-educated. He's a bright man and played a large role in both Nxivm/ESP Mexico as well as Nxivm/ESP in the United States.
MS. PENZA: Were there -- within the e-mails that you -- I think that's the end of your PowerPoint, but within the e-mails that you reviewed was there ever discussion of different levels of information?
MICHAEL WENIGER: There were, yes. So Cannaprobe would send -- and we referenced to one at a certain point, but the banking documents and the requests often were made for purposes or by Kristin Keefe for level one or level two or level three or level four information. I wasn't initially aware as to what that was, but what it appeared is that, depending upon kind of the specificity and, I guess for lack of a better term, intrusiveness of the requested information, the level -- the levels would increase. I believe the price would also increase, too.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, at this time the Government moves into evidence Government Exhibit 1822 without objection, I believe.
MR. AGNIFILO: Correct.
THE COURT: 1822 is received in evidence.
(Government Exhibit 1822 received in evidence.)
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I'm showing you what's marked in evidence as Government Exhibit 1822. And it's a 22-page document. Are you familiar with this?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I am.
MS. PENZA: And the final -- and this is a long e-mail chain?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It is.
MS. PENZA: And who is this e-mail chain between?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Kristin Keefe and the defendant.
MS. PENZA: And this e-mail chain, it begins on August 26, 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, the e-mail we looked at from Kristin Keefe to Emiliano saying, "Never to send the information to Keith," that was on August 30, 2009?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: So right in the middle of this chain?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Let's walk through some of this. So, starting -- starting at the bottom of page 21 is there an e-mail from the defendant to Kristin Keefe saying, "What's going on with Richard. Write back so I know you received this"?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And from your review of this chain, is it clear to you who Richard is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears to be Richard Marier from Cannaprobe.
MS. PENZA: And then Kristin writes back, is that correct?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then the defendant writes, "What did he say about the two-level explorations that came in, et cetera?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this discussion of the two levels, two-level, is that -- is that what you were explaining before?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, correct.
MS. PENZA: And so there's different levels of how much information you're going to get or it appears?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears so, yes.
MS. PENZA: And on August 26, 2009, does the subject line switch to Happy Birthday?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It does, yes.
MS. PENZA: Is that the defendant's birthday?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: From this chain, are you able to tell where the defendant and Kristin Keefe are?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, they're at Vanguard Week at a lake. I believe Lake George.
MS. PENZA: We won't go through all of this. On August 26, 2009 there's more back and forth and then she asks the defendant to call her and says, I have news from him on a related matter and this is another what gives with Richard."
So that's in response to what gives with Richard from the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And the defendant writes back, I am not sure, but I will try. Kristin writes, It's not an emergency or anything, just interesting, possible helpful data from Rich about our resort-hopping friend.
Do you have a belief as to who the resort-hopping friend is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, there was a belief amongst -- it appears that there was a belief that Ms. -- that the defendant as well as others thought Kristin Snyder was still alive and that she was moving from place to place. I can't say for certain that that's who they're referencing, but I do know that they sent private investigators to Key West and I believe Palm Springs in California.
MS. PENZA: And were there other --
MICHAEL WENIGER: Looking for her under the --
MS. PENZA: And this reference to our resort-hopping friend, were there ever codes used by the defendant and Kristin Keefe?
MICHAEL WENIGER: In this e-mail in particular, it does appear to be a coded language, yes.
MS. PENZA: Kristin Keefe, here is another e-mail from the defendant, What about the second level, which ones? Results?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. Skipping ahead to page 14 on August 27, 2009, there's a long e-mail from Kristin that starts at the bottom of this page; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And so it says, "First, I got a little nervous for three little reasons. First, Knoxwoods painters happened to be here beginning the 27th and going through the week. Coincidence?
Do you have an understanding of what that meant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, Knoxwoods is the development that the defendant as well as Kristin Keefe lived in at that time and, you know, there's a Homeowners Association there. So I'm assuming that there was painting going on in the neighborhood and maybe it appears to their particular kind of stretch of townhouses.
MS. PENZA: And it says, They are painting the windows so they can study everything in our house. They're doing 3 Flintlock too. They started this morning?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: From your review of this case, can you describe any kind of paranoia that seemed to exits?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I think just this paragraph, and as we go even the following paragraphs, kind of reflect that there was a certain level of paranoia. There was also certain times during the investigation that we learned that when there were vehicles in Knoxwoods that were unfamiliar, oftentimes that would be reported to the defendant. And, again, what we're seeing here is kind of similar concern for people that were unknown in terms of them being in the community.
MS. PENZA: The next paragraph talks about a strange man and a car driving by?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then she provides some information about her son with the defendant; correct?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then -- and here it says, Steve called me back and wants to know where we are at. I was on the other line so called him and haven't heard yet. I'm inclined to tell him we are considering his suggestions, but I am having a hard time reaching my people because of the communications limitations. I spoke to Andy. Steve's trial will be over Friday through Monday. He has not heard back from Dones' alleged attorney and has called him three times. I told him keep trying. We want confirmation on that before we respond to her.
Do you know who Dones is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Susan Dones was a member of the Nxivm 9, a group of women -- a group of people that left Nxivm as a group that included also Barbara Bouchey and others.
MS. PENZA: Coffey is prepared to meet with us post-trial to discuss taking us to the state police?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Richard called me at 12:30. I was on both lines. It went to voicemail, but he wouldn't call unless he had data. I'm working on preparing for the O'Hara depo.
Do you know what that means?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe that it's in reference to a deposition that was to occur that -- where Jeff O'Hara would be deposed in a civil litigation.
MS. PENZA: And was that supposed to be happening right around this time?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It was.
MS. PENZA: And then it says, There's a charity called Sinai Charities. Peter Skolnik is a very well-known attorney in some circles, although its Ross and his corps. that are his bread and butter at the end of the day, even if there are efforts on behalf of certain charities in between.
Then: Rich says Pigeon will be calling me shortly with a layered opinion and Rich has interesting thoughts about Snyder's disappearance. He thinks she might have emigrated to another country/island country or at least inquired about doing so.
I want to be clear that Alaska had found that she was dead; correct?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: They determined she had committed suicide?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And you said that the police file on Kristin Snyder was within Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: At least a portion of it, yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is from the defendant saying, Might be fascinating question to ask about --
This is the defendant to Kristin Keefe: Might be a fascinating question to ask about conversations to Sinai to see if smokes twitches.
Do you have an understanding of that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Not entirely, although if you look at the e-mail below, it's referencing Skolnik. Skolnik was an attorney that represented Mr. Ross in the litigation between Nxivm and Rick Ross and, so, Skolnik is relevant in that regard. And kind of what the prior e-mails were suggesting was that Skolnik had some type of interface with Sinai charities and so it's not entirely clear.
MS. PENZA: Okay. But Kristin says, I agree! And then the defendant responds, I'm getting worried. Any more news from R? And then Kristin says, Yes, sending hard copy of what mentioned today and I received verbal on Snyder?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then the defendant responds, And Pigeon's song?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. I will say that that appears to be, you know, somewhat coded language in relation to Steve Pigeon, one of the individuals that's found within the box.
MS. PENZA: And she responded, Nothing specific about Pigeon's song?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And he says, "What about all the other stuff?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, here Kristin Keefe says, Little Richard has nothing new, but their temporary problem is over.
This is on August 28th. The defendant responds, If R is leaving on Sunday, when/how will we get his products? We need them for V Week. What about the two-layer products he said he had from his distributor?
Does that again appear to be coded language?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it does.
MS. PENZA: About the same type of information that we've been discussing?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, the banking sweeps that they were -- they were utilizing with Cannaprobe.
MS. PENZA: And there's more back and forth and then it says -- Keith Raniere to Kristin Keefe: I don't know if you will get this.
Is it fair to say it looks like they may be having some cell service difficulties by the lake during this e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I don't know if you will get this. I looked at the R thingy on his two new quote creations, did not finish his second layer. No topping, but both have an explicit middle eastern feel. When are you back?
Do you have any understanding of what that is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Not entirely. I do -- it does appear to be referencing kind of the layering or the level of bank sweeps.
MS. PENZA: And again it seems to be in code?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And Kristin writes: Yeah, I know I'm checking on the toppings. FYI, I reminded Richard yesterday to make us only one layer dishes if the topping is different than the layer; to do two layers only when the first topping is the same. He's erred so far and cooked two layers each time no matter what. It's turning out pretty tasty. Maybe we should stick to the two-layer, two-topping dish across the board. I'll be back tonight. Want to meet?
And the defendant responds, Yes, although the middle eastern recipes seem obvious. I might want to be sure of what goes into each of the dishes. Maybe our Mexican chef will tell us.
Did you have an understanding of who the Mexican chef was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: What I suspect is that the Mexican chef is in relation to the e-mails that we've already looked at in relation to Emiliano Salinas, Mr. Federico Pena and that kind of lead.
MS. PENZA: And then Kristin says, Okay. I will confirm that recipe with R. I hear our Mexican chef will have some dishes ready today. If that's the case, I'll come back sooner.
Just -- I won't go through too much more of this, but from Kristin to Keith on August 29, 2009, I'm putting together additional docs on O'Hara and on my way to pick up the O'Hara criminal presentation?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Page five, Keith is writing on -- the defendant is writing on August 29, 2009: Any more R? M? Kristin writes back, "Nope, although expecting more from R." And then the defendant writes back, "Cool. Is M going to tell us more about his kidney beans and liver mix. Why can't he get that published? If they come up with as good a recipe will we be able to publish. Again, does this appear to be code?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it does?
MS. PENZA: And you don't know exactly what this means?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I don't, no.
MS. PENZA: Kristin writes, his supplier is out of town till Monday and has been all week. I think if we have a better recipe we can arrange to collaborate with his supplier directly?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And this e-mail from Keith Raniere to Kristin Keefe, I will tell you when I see you in Ohio. On another note, did you notice how little news coverage the deal thing is getting?
Do you know what that's a reference to?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Again, I don't -- I want to make clear I don't know definitively what it's a reference to. I can tell you that around this time Morris Sutton, who lived in the Deal, New Jersey area and we did find actually in the box as well an article in relation to the Sephardic community and arrests that had been made in that community.
THE COURT: Ms. Penza, I'm going to want to take a break soon.
MS. PENZA: Yes, Your Honor. I'm finished with this document in one minute and I think that will be a perfect time, if that's okay.
THE COURT: That is fine.
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And, so, I'll skip ahead to the second page and looking here the defendant writes on August 31, 2009, Hey, what's going on with O'Hara, birthright, Bob, goodies for Mr. O'Hara, Mike, little R's kitchen, et cetera?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Do you know what some of those things are or do you have a belief as to what some of those things are?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, O'Hara again is another reference to Joseph O'Hara and the litigation related to him. Birthright is also -- is a charity that's associated with Edgar Bronfman. Bob, I'm not entirely certain. Goodies for Mr. O'Hara, again it seems to be a reference to Joseph O'Hara. Little R's kitchen seems to be the quote unquote dishes, or levels of banking sweeps that were being conducted by Richard Marier and Cannaprobe, but I think what --
One of the things that was important from my review of this was it showed that the legal -- while Kristin Keefe was the head of the legal department in Nxivm, the actions that were being taken were communicated to the defendant by Kristin and being requested by the defendant.
MS. PENZA: And this just goes on for a little bit more back and forth?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, I think this would be a good point to take a break.
THE COURT: All right. Let's take an afternoon break. All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits.)
(In open court.)
THE COURT: How much more do you have for this witness?
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, I still think approximately an hour, maybe a little bit more, but I will enter the rest of the exhibits and I will only show them if absolutely necessary.
THE COURT: All right. And how long is your cross going to be? Just tell me.
MR. AGNIFILO: I don't know because we still have another hour of direct. I'll try to get done by the end of the day.
THE COURT: Well, it is not going to happen.
MR. AGNIFILO: Well, it could, it could.
THE COURT: It could?
MR. AGNIFILO: Well, it probably won't, but I will try. I know it would make the jury's life easier if I did. Let me see what the hour of direct is like and then I'll do what I can.
THE COURT: Otherwise, I will bring the jury in tomorrow morning and we will just continue. So work your magic.
MS. PENZA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may stand down.
(Witness stands down.)
THE COURT: Take your ten minutes.
(Recess taken.)
(Continued on the following page.)
(Continuing)
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, may we be heard?
THE COURT: Not until the Defendant is here. If both sides are smiling, I'm in trouble. Let's wait for the Defendant.
(Defendant enters.)
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, I think one thing I've learned during this trial is I'm very bad at estimating how long my directs are.
THE COURT: Oh, I hadn't noticed.
MS. PENZA: So, I think, having reviewed over the break, it is unlikely I will finish today, probably go slightly over tomorrow.
In light of that, we've spoken -- and I don't think it makes sense to really try to rush through. I looked to see if it would be possible, but I don't think it will be.
In light of that, I think the parties are jointly hoping that we would go tomorrow and then have the charge conference on Monday and close on Tuesday, if that would be amenable to your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, tell me about tomorrow.
What will we accomplish tomorrow?
Is it a full day? Is it a partial day.
MS. PENZA: Yes, it will be a partial day. I expect at most to need a half-hour tomorrow.
MR. AGNIFILO: I would imagine if Ms. Penza goes a half an hour I can probably finish around the time of the break. Maybe I'd go over a little past the break, but definitely finished by lunch.
THE COURT: And you would be resting tomorrow?
MS. PENZA: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: After this witness?
MS. PENZA: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And then we have to -- at that point, we have to have a Rule 29.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: And then you have to tell me whether you're putting on a case and whether the Defendant wishes to testify, as is his Constitutional right. We have a process to go through even if you don't put on a case.
So, I need the jury here until the middle of the day, is what we're saying. At least until noon, I would imagine.
MR. AGNIFILO: I would imagine somewhere around noon, I think that's right, but I think before lunch. I think we'll be done with the jury before lunch.
THE COURT: We'll work out the issue of lunch with the jury.
MR. AGNIFILO: And would the Court be open to the charge conference on Monday rather than tomorrow?
THE COURT: Yes, of course. I think that works out fine.
MS. PENZA: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: What I'll do, can I e-mail the charge to you?
MR. AGNIFILO: That would be great, Judge.
MS. PENZA: Yes, that would be great.
THE COURT: We'll e-mail it. It's ready in draft.
If we do this, I would appreciate it, since we have so much extra time, that the parties, after they look at the charge, if they can discuss possible modifications of the charge to which they would agree, rather than raising everything at the charge conference initially.
But where you can't agree, of course we'll discuss it.
MR. AGNIFILO: What might make sense if we end up getting the charge at some point later today and we'll have some time after we let the jury out tomorrow --
THE COURT: You're going to get it tonight.
MR. AGNIFILO: That's great, Judge.
MS. PENZA: Thank you.
MR. AGNIFILO: Perfect.
THE COURT: I will tell the jury that we're doing a half-day tomorrow, they are off on Monday, and we'll have closing arguments on Tuesday.
About how long is your closing expected to be?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Lesko, how long is the closing expected to be?
MR. LESKO: No more than four hours.
THE COURT: And your closing, about the same?
MR. AGNIFILO: I imagine it would be a little bit less.
THE COURT: So, we're going to have a full day of closings and we may even have the rebuttal on Wednesday before I give the jury charge.
MR. AGNIFILO: Can I throw something out?
THE COURT: You've been throwing something out since I walked in the door.
What else?
MR. AGNIFILO: Have you ever charged first and summed up after?
THE COURT: You know, I've spoken to judges about that, and there are judges who feel very strongly about it. But I've been charging juries for a long time. I'm more comfortable charging after the closing arguments because when the parties give their closings and say, "You're likely to hear from the judge that..." and maybe it's a little off. I want to be the one to speak last.
And, in fact, I would also point out that what I may do -- it's a very long charge -- I may share the honors with my law clerks and have them read parts of the charge, selected portions of the charge, to the jury.
How many pages is it, 100?
COURT STAFF: 140.
THE COURT: 140 pages. So, it's a lot of talking. So, depending on how I feel at the time, we'll make those -- I just wanted to let you know about that. Judges do it all the time, I know. We have some judges here in our courthouse who do it. I've never done it before, but I think this is the right case for it.
Anything else? Is there more?
Then I have a letter from the defense about an item to put in the charge. You should discuss that among yourselves.
MR. AGNIFILO: Very good. We will.
THE COURT: I have the letter dated June 9; have you seen it?
MS. HAJJAR: Yes, with respect to the good faith charge, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, exactly.
MS. HAJJAR: We've seen it.
THE COURT: You have something else?
I want to bring the jury back.
MS. PENZA: I just want to put exhibits on the record.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. PENZA: Ms. Geragos made a photocopy of my list. It's my handwritten list, but it may be helpful as I read through them because they're not in order, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. PENZA: The Government moves into evidence Government Exhibits 58, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1814, 669, 18 --
THE COURT: 668, it says.
MS. PENZA: I know. I realize that's the Times Union article, sorry.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. PENZA: 669, 670 over the defense objection, 1383, 1827, 1829, 1267, 1071, 1005, 548 -- sorry, 548 is already in, 1822, 1214, 1491 through 96, 1427, 1429, 1433, 1443, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1435, 1445, 1480, 374, 373, 376, 1820, 1821 over objection, 1392, 1482, 1327, 1326, 1803, 1805, 1287, 1817, 1818, 671, 1828, 1801, 59, 9, and 38.
THE COURT: Noting objections.
MR. AGNIFILO: That's correct, that's consistent with our understanding, Judge.
THE COURT: Those exhibits are received in evidence.
(Government Exhibits 58, 1806, 1807, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1814, 669, 670, 1383, 1827, 1829, 1267, 1071, 1005, 1822, 1214, 1491 through 96, 1427, 1429, 1433, 1443, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1435, 1445, 1480, 374, 373, 376, 1820, 1821, 1392, 1482, 1327, 1326, 1803, 1805, 1287, 1817, 1818, 671, 1828, 1801, 59, 9, and 38 so marked.)
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. PENZA: I'm sorry, your Honor, one brief moment.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, 1819, if I didn't read it out, the Government moves in.
And then I'll check out one other thing, but I can do it at the time.
THE COURT: I don't have it here. Okay. 1819.
MS. PENZA: It's on the top left under Forbes.
THE COURT: I see.
MS. GERAGOS: I don't think 1816 was read either, which was an objection Mr. Agnifilo withdrew. It was the Michele e-mail, if I remember correctly.
MS. PENZA: Yes I'm sorry.
THE COURT: All right. They will be added to that list that you have provided. Thank you very much for the help.
(Government Exhibits 1816 and 1819 so marked.)
MS. SMITH: You're very welcome.
THE COURT: Then we have a plan. What I will tell the jurors is that we're going to have a half-day tomorrow, that Monday will be a day off, and Tuesday we expect that we will have closing arguments.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, do you have a time for Monday for the charge conference in mind?
THE COURT: No. 10 o'clock would be good.
MS. HAJJAR: Mr. Trowel expects to join us.
Would that be okay with your Honor?
THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Trowel, the phantom. That's fine.
MS. HAJJAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: What I'd like you to do, as I said before, is to have discussions about potential changes to the jury instructions so that if there's something that you all can agree on, revisions that you can agree on, you can present them, and, if they seem reasonable, we can just implement them.
MS. HAJJAR: We'll do that. Thank you.
THE COURT: And then we'll discuss areas where you have fundamental disagreement.
MS. PENZA: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's bring in the jury. Let's bring in the witness too.
(Witness resumes the stand; jury enters.)
THE COURT: Please be seated, everybody.
Members of the jury, thank you very much for your patience. We've been trying to work out the schedule for the rest of the trial. Let me inform you as follows:
Tomorrow, we will have half a day of trial. Hopefully, that will complete the period of testimony that we've been having. And then you'll have lunch and that will be it for the day.
On Monday, we will be busy here going over the draft charge as to the law. I'll be meeting with the lawyers for both sides to review the draft that I'm providing to the parties as to the jury charge, which I will give you later in the week. So, you won't be here on Monday.
Tuesday, we will have closing arguments. The Government will go first, then the defense will go, and then there will be rebuttal by the Government. That's the process. If it spills over into Wednesday morning, it just means that I'll start charging the jury a little later in the day on Wednesday.
I'll charge the jury as to the law on Wednesday, and you will retire to consider your verdict on Wednesday afternoon. And then your deliberations, obviously, will be secret.
That's the process that we have sketched out. Is it finalized? I think it's likely to occur that way. We've thought a lot about it and we very much appreciate the time that you're giving to this case. So, we wanted to tell you what to anticipate for next week so that you can make your plans accordingly.
So, that said, we're going to go until five, Ms. Penza is examining the witness, and then most likely we'll have the cross-examination tomorrow morning.
As I understand it, this is the Government's last witness.
MS. PENZA: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's go forward then.
I remind the witness he is still under oath.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, your Honor.
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, there are some individuals -- we talked about various individuals when we went through Government Exhibit 204 and through thebeacon, oakhaven accounts.
One of those individuals was Toni Natalie; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And one was Barbara Bouchey?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And we also talked about Kristin Keeffe.
MICHAEL WENIGER: We did, yes.
MS. PENZA: Do you know whether -- did Kristin Keeffe at some point leave the NXIVM community?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. I believe it was approximately 2014.
MS. PENZA: I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government exhibit 374.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Do you see that document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do.
MS. PENZA: And are you familiar with this e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is an e-mail from Ricardo M. Olmedo Gaxiola, and the subject line is re Kristin Keeffe to Clare Bronfman; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: Do you know who this person is, Ricardo?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe he appeared on some of the kind of cease and desist letters that we've seen in the case.
MS. PENZA: Do you understand him to be an attorney in Mexico?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, he has appeared in other places in this case?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is an e-mail from Alejandro Betancourt -- I mean to Alejandro Betancourt.
Do you know who Alejandro Betancourt is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Alex Betancourt was -- I'm sorry.
MS. PENZA: Go on.
MICHAEL WENIGER: He was kind of a senior member within NXIVM ESP.
MS. PENZA: So, this is to Alejandro Betancourt from Clare Bronfman on May 29, 2017, and it says: Forward Kristin Keeffe.
And it says: Most recent I have on KK.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And there's a picture here?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Can you just -- do you have an understanding of what this type of picture is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears to be a surveillance photo, either taken -- it appears to be taken with a video recording device and that's just a still frame.
MS. PENZA: Does it appear from this picture that she knows she's being photographed?
MS. PENZA: It appears she does not?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And this is on January -- the time on this photo is January 18, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, this e-mail is May 29, 2017. I'm showing you -- and I think -- I'm sorry, you said she had left the community about three years prior; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I think it was 2014, yes.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 373, this is an e-mail from Clare Bronfman to Ricardo Olmedo Gaxiola again?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: It says: This is what she looked like about eight months ago.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is forwarded then to Alejandro Betancourt, and it says: Forward, Barbara Bouchey. Most recent on BB.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Is this a picture of Barbara Bouchey?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It is a picture of Barbara Bouchey.
MS. PENZA: At this point in time, in 2017, approximately how long had Barbara Bouchey been gone from the NXIVM community?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I am not -- I think she left in 2009, if I'm correct. I'm not certain, but I think it was 2009.
MS. PENZA: Quite a bit of time?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 376. This is another e-mail from May 8, 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it's also from Clare Bronfman to Olmedo Gaxiola -- to Ricardo?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says: This is from a few years ago. Her hair is naturally very dark.
And the subject line is: Toni Natalie.
MICHAEL WENIGER: It is, yes.
MS. PENZA: And there is an e-mail to Alejandro Betancourt from Clare Bronfman, and it says: Forward, Toni Natalie. Most recent on her. Her hair could be blonde or dark.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: How long -- this is now May 8, 2017.
How long had it been since Toni Natalie had been with the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Approximately 20 years, almost 20 years.
MS. PENZA: During the course of your investigation, did you have occasion to look into whether there had been any political contributions by members of NXIVM?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I did.
MS. PENZA: Can you just explain why you did that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, during the course of interviews with individuals in this case, we obtained information that there was kind of the bundling of campaign contributions, meaning that individuals were making individual donations and being reimbursed for those individual donations for a larger holding. And, so, we located that and we did see evidence of that, yes.
MS. PENZA: And did you do that work yourself?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And is there something called the Federal Election Commission?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And can you just generally explain what that is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: The Federal Election Commission tracks donations, so individual donations as well as group donations.
So, you can -- it has a searchable site that the anyone, myself or anyone in this room, could go to and take a look as to who has donated and to whom.
MS. PENZA: Without going into the details, what is your understanding about whether there are specific limits as to how much someone can contribute to a campaign?
MICHAEL WENIGER: There are individual campaign limitations or -- yes, throughout.
MS. PENZA: So, I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1482.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Are you familiar with this document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And first I'm going to turn to the last page of the document, which is a screen shot. And it's a little difficult to see, but maybe you can just explain the interface of the FEC website?
MICHAEL WENIGER: So, you can provide search terms on the left-hand side there and you can also then search individual names. So, the individual donor names, on the left-hand side you see the names of people that have been searched, and then it also reflects the campaign and/or candidate that the donation was provided to.
(Continued on the following page.)
EXAMINATION CONTINUES BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: So this is where you would enter the -- it's called contributor name?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And so this was the results for those people that you entered?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct. Then also on the bottom left-hand side you can search a particular timeframe.
MS. PENZA: And is that something you did?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And so we'll just -- so the names that you searched here, Mark Vicente, Nancy Salzman, Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman, Pam Cafritz, Barbara Bouchey, Kristin Keeffe, Michelle Salzman, Sheryl Ose, Nina Cowell, Dazzle Ekblad, John Bartolomei, Ben Myers and Rebecca Freeman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I think the jury is very familiar with some of these individuals, but who is Sheryl Ose?
MICHAEL WENIGER: She was also a member of the NXIVM community for a time period.
MS. PENZA: Nina Cowell?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Same. She was part of the NXIVM nine that left, I believe, in 2009.
MS. PENZA: John Bartolomei?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, John Bartolomei was an attorney that also had dealings with NXIVM.
MS. PENZA: Dazzle Ekblad?
MICHAEL WENIGER: She was a member of the NXIVM community for a period.
MS. PENZA: And Rebecca Freeman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Same.
MS. PENZA: And so just walking through these, so there is a contribution from Clare Bronfman to Hillary Clinton for president on March 14th, 2017 [sic] and it's $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Once Ms. Bronfman, if we assume for the minute that that would be the maximum, would she be able to contribute another $2300 in her own name directly?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I don't believe so, no.
MS. PENZA: And so then there's Pam Cafritz, Hillary Clinton for president, same receipt date and same amount?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
I do want to make one caveat. I think, and my understanding is that in the primary that the individual donation is limited in the primary, and then once the general election comes, I think you can donate again. I'm not certain on that, but that's my understanding.
MS. PENZA: Okay. But whatever time -- whatever point in time you are where there is a maximum donation, you can only make that maximum donation once, is that --
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: -- correct? Okay.
And then Rebecca Freeman, with the same amount?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Kristin Keeffe, same amount?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Do you have an understanding from your review of e-mails and other documents in this case what Kristin Keeffe's finances were like?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe that they were limited.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: A few one for Sheryl Ose, but Michelle Salzman, March 14th, 2007, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Nancy Salzman, same date, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And same campaign.
And then there is a blank spot, there is a redaction. Is this because there was a different Ben Myers?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then John Bartolomei, this is now April 13th, 2007, there is a different date?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And it's $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Barbara Bouchey, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Sara Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Nina Cowell, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Dazzle Ekblad, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Ben Myers, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And Mark Vicente, $2,300?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: And those are all on the same date as well?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And the same campaign?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: This is the Ben Myers this --
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: -- we're familiar with?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That is correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: All right, I am going to turn to some e-mails that are to or from the kunterre@nycap.rr.com account.
Are you familiar with that account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I am, yes.
MS. PENZA: And whose account was that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That was -- the name is Karen Unterreiner, but the account was utilized by the defendant.
MS. PENZA: So just showing you an e-mail that's in evidence, Government's Exhibit 1435, this is an e-mail from that account to someone named Eric, and it says: Rereconnect. And it says: Hi, it's me, Keith Raniere. Is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then it says: It would be nice to here from you. Still at the same address, phone number and e-mail. This e-mail account is kunterre@ at nycap dot rr.com. Kunterre is a standard contraction of Karen Unterreiner, no funny jokes, at least said out loud. I don't know if we are on a love-and-wet-kisses basis. So regards, Keith?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And there were a number of other e-mails that made clear -- many other e-mails that made clear that this account was the defendant's?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Through the course of your investigation, did you review e-mails related to Clare Bronfman's relationship with her father?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I did, yes.
MS. PENZA: And can you just explain generally those e-mails and -- and what their nexus was to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: In terms -- in terms of the e-mails, there was definitely appeared to be a strained relationship in relation to Edgar Bronfman and Clare Bronfman. And the defendant's guidance and advice was frequently sought by -- by Clare Bronfman, in terms of her relationship with her father.
MS. PENZA: Did the e-mails also -- did -- did the e-mails give you any insight into the nature of Clare Bronfman's relationship with the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay, can you explain that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appeared to be an intimate relationship based upon some of the things that were discussed.
MS. PENZA: Sexual?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: At times, at least?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I am showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1427.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Okay, and this is an e-mail from clarewebb21@aol.com to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says: Dear Keith. Thank you. So I've been thinking about your question. As I begin to open my eyes, I am recognizing the responsibility I hold in the position I am in. When I combine that with the knowledge I have learned from you, I feel like I have this huge responsibility. I would like your help in fully understanding it and in the best ways to go about using the position I am in to have a forward-moving and positive effect in the world.
I am very unlearned in business and would love some help in that area. I feel that my family is walking into some very large business deals with their eyes closed and I do not hold sufficient credibility, and certainly not the knowledge to help. I would like you to teach and advise me in these areas and in exchange? Love, Clare.
And this is sent on May 29th, 2003?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And the defendant responds: A slave for eternity...?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Read the end of your last correspondence below. Actually, why me? What specifically do you want to achieve through and by the end of this life? Love Keith.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And would Clare Bronfman continue to remain loyal to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I am showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1429.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And this is an e-mail from Clare to the defendant.
I'm not sure where things are with my father and I. Yes, he walked out. I acted impulsively and extremely mindlessly. This is where my recognition of just how mindless I can be came from.
And then it says: I am seeing how I act in the world. I am also seeing the reality of how my father reacts, which I was unwilling to look at before. I will never know the extent of the damage I have caused to my father, myself, you, Nancy, the organization, or the world. I would really appreciate your help in starting to heal the damage. I would like to apologize.
And then it says -- the defendant responds?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And he says: With respect to the damage, any way I can help, I will. I think the healing must come from you and your father. I think for you, because of age, status and personality type, it is simpler. For your father because he is a world leader, it is much more complicated.
And then it goes on: Your father would need to come to term with how his postulates and actions in general relate to the rest of his life and position. Let me know what you think is appropriate to repair the damage from your position. I will help you as much as I can. You may want to understand speaking with honor and thought objects better. Ask Michelle or Nancy to help you better understand these things and how they relate to ethical breaches.
That's June 3rd, 2003?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And that's a few months before the Forbes article comes out?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: And so I am showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1433.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And this is a forward from Clare to -- is Prefect@nxivm.com, whose e-mail address is that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Nancy Salzman.
MS. PENZA: It says: Subject forward: Letter, and it says: This is the latest and my proposed response?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And does this e-mail attach a letter from Edgar Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It does.
MS. PENZA: So let's turn to that.
And so June 26th, 2003, this is from -- this is from -- Clare is saying this is from Edgar Bronfman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Would you like me to read it?
MS. PENZA: Sure, please.
MICHAEL WENIGER: My dear Clare. I don't -- I don't know what you're up to, but it's very destructive. I have a hunch that you think you are doing God's work in trying to get me back to, quote/unquote, the course. Perhaps, from where you stand you are, but I have tried to tell you that I don't trust where Nancy is coming from or where she's going as far as this family is concerned. I will not renew my studies with her, nor will I shill for her. There seems to be a conspiracy to turn me away from Jan.
MS. PENZA: Can I just stop you for a second?
Who is Jan?
MICHAEL WENIGER: His spouse.
MS. PENZA: Okay. Continue, please.
MICHAEL WENIGER: That will not happen. She, like everyone else, is not perfect, but our relationship is solid and even if someone as strong and willful, as well as capable, as Nancy tries to do it harm, we will not be sundered. My health is good. She watched -- she watched what I eat and encourages me to diet without making a crusade of it. I am dieting successfully, as well as working out at the gym with Pete, the best trainer I ever encountered.
I am busy absorbing all the interviews I did for my book, which I hope will be as important as the subject, the Jewish future. That's who I am and that's what I do. I care enormously about the Jewish future and I think it's in dire straights. I hope my book will make -- will help make a difference.
I regret your inability to have a relationship. I nonetheless love you. Pops.
MS. PENZA: And this is -- this e-mail -- that -- the attachment to the first page that we looked at is actually a letter-EML, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Right.
MS. PENZA: So it actually attached the e-mail from Edgar Bronfman, and then the letter that was attached to that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So let's just look at that for one second.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And it's from Y-E-H-I-E-L-M?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm not sure I pronounced that right. Yehielm@aol.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And it's June 26th, 2003 to clarewebb21@aol.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Right.
MS. PENZA: Subject line: Letter?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says: I wrote this after we had our abysmal conversation. Love, pops.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then turning back to the first page, Clare says:
Dear Nancy. This is the latest and my proposed response.
And then it says: Dear Dad. You say I'm not listening to you. Do you remember projection?
And then it goes on. Did you not tell me you were going to write to Nancy? Is it not normal that I ask? You never told me otherwise. I find it interesting how you persistently come up with ways to blame Nancy and punish Sara and I.
And then it goes on.
So fair to say this was a draft letter Clare was writing?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: And then it says -- so in this e-mail from Clare to Nancy, she says: Please let me know what you think. I am trying to be more inductive. Although I'm not even sure if I should respond. I'm really learning about love and all the meaning attached to it. I also want to thank you, Nancy. I would be a mess right now if it was not for your help.
Is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And then Nancy forwards this e-mail to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And says: My darling Vanguard, I received this from Clare after no communication since her last visit.
For some period of time did Clare Bronfman live in New York City --
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: -- before moving up to Albany full-time?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm at a loss. What do you think? Things here are good, lots of ups and downs in the mission. Love and kisses in all the right places. Your P.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: So Nancy is forwarding that that we saw to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And were there a number of these communications where there would be a forward to the defendant about Nancy's communications with Clare?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government's Exhibit 1443. Again, from the Yehielm@aol.com. This is a forwarded message from Nancy to the defendant.
Is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And forward: IDB?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Is there a bank called Israeli Discount Bank?
MICHAEL WENIGER: There is.
MS. PENZA: And it says -- and it's a forward, and it says: I got this copy of the letter from Clare. What do you think? Love and wet kisses, P.
And this is on June 27th, 2004.
And then the message below is from Yehielm@aol.com to queserasera76@hotmail.com and clarewebb21@aol.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Right.
MS. PENZA: Do you have an understanding of whose e-mail address that is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I'm uncertain, it potentially is Sara Bronfman.
MS. PENZA: I had a meeting this morning with Matthew. Who is Matthew?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Matthew Bronfman is -- is Clare's stepbrother, excuse me. Brother, I believe a half-brother.
MS. PENZA: Okay.
And it says: Yesterday afternoon with the two of you was very important to me. I have a few issues with Albany, which we should discuss. For instance, this claim of saving the world is extreme and not credible. The fact that Nancy was set to borrow money from Clare at well below the market still bothers me. A young woman died in Alaska and some people blame Nancy's diagnosis. I have no idea how much money you've put into Albany, nor will I ask, but that too is a minor issue. Having the sessions go from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. is extreme and it's what cults do to gain dominance over their victims. A group led by two people who call themselves Vanguard and Prefect certainly sounds like a cult.
I'd like to get those issues cleared up and I hope I'm not expected to be an advocate. I have assumed a neutral position and I shall maintain it unless there is some reason for me not to. I'm not sure whether or not Nancy was aware of our meeting and whether or not she's guiding you in your relationship with me. That may sound harsh, but you do understand my unease or, at least, I hope you do. You have both written me ghastly letters. You both seem to be doing extremely well and I'm happy for you. Tons of love. Pops.
From your review of the e-mails, did you have an understanding about whether Nancy was guiding the relationship between Clare and her father?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, she was.
MS. PENZA: Yes, she was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And so that was forwarded to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It was.
MS. PENZA: And showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1455.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Is this another example of an e-mail from Clare to the defendant where she talks about -- where she talks about her father?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And she says that she met with him?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And that's October 25th, 2005?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: November 9th, 2005, an e-mail from Clare Bronfman to the defendant.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: And it says: Dear Keith. I was happy to see you last night. I'm excited to be on the team.
THE COURT: Just slow down a little.
MS. PENZA: Yes, Your Honor, I'm sorry.
MS. PENZA: I was a little emotional last night during the meeting with the strategy team with regards to dad. I -- I feel -- I feel conflicted in seeing the data and thought object of him being dad. I was thinking about it today and a recent conversation we had and I think it represents an inner conflict in my struggle of might is right versus civilization. And it goes on.
And so at this point in time, what is your understanding about this -- this description of the meeting with the strategy team with regards to dad?
MICHAEL WENIGER: As to who it consisted of, I'm sorry?
MS. PENZA: No, just generally.
MICHAEL WENIGER: That there was -- there was group decision-making being done in regards to Clare Bronfman's relationship with her father and her interactions with her father.
MS. PENZA: And this is November 9th, 2005?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And showing you Government Exhibit 1457, December 29th, 2005.
(Exhibit published.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Is this another e-mail where Clare Bronfman is reporting to her father -- reporting to the defendant regarding her father?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I am showing you what are in evidence already as Government Exhibits 1491-R, 1492-R, 1493-R, 1494-R, 1495-R, as well as Government Exhibits 1214, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1494 and 1495.
Can you just take a look at those for a second?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Certainly. (Witness complies.)
MS. PENZA: And I am just going to ask you some questions about those generally. I just wanted to show them all to you first.
Thank you.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Thank you.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, the documents that were Government Exhibits 1491-R through 1496-R, were those all admitted by Steve Herbits?
MICHAEL WENIGER: They were.
MS. PENZA: You were present for his testimony?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And can you just generally describe kind of how those exhibits relate to Government Exhibits 1214 and then 1491, 1492 -- 1491 through 1496?
MICHAEL WENIGER: They're interactions between -- generally the vast majority of those e-mails were interactions between Mr. Herbits and Clare Bronfman, and then also oftentimes including or being forwarded then to the defendant for purposes of guidance.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So the e-mails that were redacted, that were shown to Mr. Herbits, those included the back-and-forth between -- between Clare Bronfman and Mr. Herbits, is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Generally, yes.
MS. PENZA: And then if we look at the other documents, so Government Exhibit 1214 I don't think we introduced a redacted version with Mr. Herbits, but if you look at the e-mail we start in November 2008. This is the e-mail. It starts November 2008 and it's Clare Bronfman to Steve Herbits:
Steve, I'm confused. I was under the impression that dad had asked you to come in and help resolve this situation, that he wanted to help us turn things around and confided in you to do so. If you do not want to or feel that you are not able to, just tell me and I can find someone who is able to.
And then we looked at -- we did look at this e-mail before, typical friend or enemy. And then it continues from Mr. Herbits.
And then this was the e-mail we had looked at from Clare Bronfman to Mr. Herbits saying: Steve, I apologize if I have offended you any way -- in any way, and then it goes on. I certainly do not consider you a puppet and your feeling this way points only to my misuse of your help. There is evidence on a lot of things and you are correct, there is someone involved in a different way. Your observations were very astute. We also have evidence of clear prejudice, wrongdoing and intent to destroy NXIVM's reputation by a different party.
The times union has written many front-page stories all supporting those who have damaged us with their criminal acts. They have failed to seek any of the facts, even to the point that they have published Hochman's work without his permission.
Who is Hochman?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Dr. Hochman has been discussed in prior testimony and wrote a critical report in relation to NXIVM.
(Continued on the following page.)
BY MS. PENZA: (Continuing.)
MS. PENZA: And published several articles with false evidence and then refused to meet with or interview the company's president. The owner of this entity is George Hearst.
Is George Hearst one of the individuals whose purported banking information was in Government Exhibit 204?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm sure you recollect the situation back in the '70s with Patty Hearst. In the case brought against her, she defended herself through accusations of brainwashing.
Who's Patty Hearst?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Just as explained.
MS. PENZA: As any person who values their intelligence is aware brainwashing implies a lack of free will and has been scientifically debunked. Then it goes on: I do believe that if Hearst were to understand we do not brainwash people, we teach tools of logic and critical thinking, things might be different. I do know that Bill Clinton in his last day in office pardoned Patty. He might be able to help.
And then, As it relates to the funding of Rick Ross, I do not need to know who is doing what. I just want this to stop. I'm sorry if I mistakenly attempted to direct you. I also believe you can rapidly facilitate the proper indictment and conviction of Rick Ross and Joseph O'Hara?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then, Mr. Herbitz responds, Including a detective with no leads is blind. You guys have everything to gain and a lot to lose done badly. Others are not so at risk.
Then is this an example of Clare Bronfman sending to the defendant an example of a response?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So she's sending a draft?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: And the other e-mails, let's look quickly, she would be forwarding those e-mails to the defendant in some instances?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm sorry. That was Government Exhibit 1491 that I just showed?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It was.
MS. PENZA: I'm going to show you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1480.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: And this is an e-mail from Clare Bronfman to Loreta Garza with the subject line Docs; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it has two attachments?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And one is an Excel sheet and then there's another attachment?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm going to go to the other attachment. And is this letter written from Clare?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It appears to be, yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. Would you read it, please?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. Hola, Ale. Okay, here is a link to the head of the Department of Justice, the link being http://en --
MS. PENZA: You don't have to read the link.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Okay. Current position held by Eric Holder. This is clearly the best connection and best process. However, I believe there are other options. There is also the head of the department of each state or region in each state. A lot of the time they need quote, unquote jurisdiction. However, I believe with the right connections we can create jurisdiction and make things happen. Our case affects so many people from all over the world. It is not hard to find jurisdiction if they are not trying to use it as an excuse to not prosecute. So other options are Southern District of New York or Northern which is not so easy. This guy is lazy and prejudiced but, again, with the right relationship... and, again, the link to the Northern District of New York.
These are two, but if someone has a relationship with someone of this position, we can figure things out... also there are politicians who put them into power who if they tell them to jump, they say how high, so there are options like those. Also, good to know our opposition is Steve Herbits who is very close to Clinton, D'Amato and the Jewish mafia. His power, which predominantly was acquired from my father is not to be taken for granted. This is why we are where we are. He and his connections are Goliath. Let me know if you need more. Thank you. Love, Cx.
MS. PENZA: In your review of e-mails does Clare Bronfman often sign things as Cx?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And do you know who Ale is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I do not.
MS. PENZA: But it's being forwarded by Loreta Garza?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Do you know what Loreta Garza's position was in Mexico?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Loreta Garza was responsible for Rainbow Cultural Gardens and she also owned -- was one of the higher-ranking members of the organization. She was also a member of DOS.
MS. PENZA: Would she also have connections within Mexico as far as --
MICHAEL WENIGER: Oh, yes. Loreta Garza comes from a family that is very well-connected in terms of the media, the media industry in Mexico.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And, so here if they are trying -- if they are not -- so, first of all, let me just start with this idea of jurisdiction. Can you explain that a little bit?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I mean, it's in quotes so when you say explain, I think it -- there's an idea that jurisdiction can essentially be -- the sense I'm getting from this is that jurisdiction can be made wherever it needs to be made.
MS. PENZA: Just generally looking at these things, references to the Attorney General, the Southern District of New York, is that the U.S. Attorneys Office's counterpart in Manhattan?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: You work with them sometimes?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then the Northern District of New York, that would be our counterpart up in the Northern District of New York?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, which covers Albany.
MS. PENZA: Sir, are these references to prosecutor's offices?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, in general, what is your sense of this e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It's just -- it's -- it seems to be an idea or kind of a concept as to how enemies of Nxivm can be prosecuted, how they can find ways to prosecute enemies.
MS. PENZA: And in your understanding and review of this case, was there -- were there attempts to have various critics or people who were perceived as enemies indicted criminally?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I'm going to switch topics and ask you some questions about some of the documents related to DOS. If that's okay?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Certainly.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, may I approach Special Agent Weniger?
THE COURT: Yes you may.
(Counsel approaches.)
BY MS. PENZA:
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1327. Are you familiar with that document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I am, yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And it's hefty. I wanted to bring it over to you. And is this an e-mail -- I'll go back to the podium. Give me one second, please.
And what is this document? Can you just explain very generally what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. It's the DOS book that we've heard a bit about in terms of being drafted by the first line of DOS.
MS. PENZA: And, so, we went through a lot of the DOS book during Lauren Salzman's testimony; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: We did, yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so, this is -- on this cover e-mail on January 13, 2017 Rosa Laura Junco -- could you remind us who Rosa Laura Junco is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Rosa Laura Junco is a first-line DOS slave and also master of a number of women.
MS. PENZA: And she sends to the defendant, Find below the eight chapters each in a separate document for easy access. Thank you for this opportunity, XO.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And there are eight chapters that are attached to this document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this document is sent from the defendant's Yahoo account to keithraniere@protonmail.com; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's correct.
MS. PENZA: Can you explain what Protonmail is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Protonmail is -- it's a highly secure e-mail service and it's located outside of the U.S. So it's difficult for U.S. law enforcement and other countries' law enforcements to acquire.
MS. PENZA: Around this time, November 25, 2017, were you -- were you trying to determine where the defendant's location was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: At that time?
MS. PENZA: Yes.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, we were.
MS. PENZA: And that would continue for several months?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: During that time did you attempt to -- what types of things did you do to try to locate him?
MICHAEL WENIGER: We did a number of things. First, we were looking on the phone records and things of that nature. We were also looking for -- at one point we attempted to get his own e-mails and see if there was an up-to-date use. And then we looked at other people's phone records to see if there was other contact with the defendant. We noticed at a certain point he began to stop using his normal electronic means as well as his telephone number.
MS. PENZA: And did that make it more difficult for you to locate him?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It did.
MS. PENZA: And so you were able to -- if you contact Yahoo, is there information -- typically if somebody is using a Yahoo account, that could help law enforcement figure out where their location is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, yes.
MS. PENZA: Now Protonmail, when someone is using Protonmail is law enforcement able to get information from Protonmail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: No, generally not.
MS. PENZA: Do you know where they're located?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I want to say Sweden, but I'm under oath. I'm not certain of that.
MS. PENZA: Okay. But not -- typical process doesn't work?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And, so, around this time, November 25, 2017, was there something going on with -- was there a pattern between the defendant's Yahoo account and this Protonmail account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. He seemed to forward a large number of his e-mails from the Yahoo account to the Proton account and when I say a large amount, the vast majority of the e-mails that he sent were sensitive in nature, either related to DOS or otherwise.
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1326, this is an e-mail. Again this is an e-mail that starts from Rosa Laura Junco and on October 15, 2016; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then again is this another one of these e-mails where we see it being forwarded from Keith Raniere at Yahoo.com to Keith Raniere at protonmail.com in November of 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And the e-mail from Rosa Laura Junco says, Find attached the document promised. The letter S stands for what you can imagine!! What did the S stand for?
MICHAEL WENIGER: S was typically used for -- S was used for slave and M was used for master.
MS. PENZA: And this is a document describing something called The Game?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: We have heard testimony about The Game before?
MICHAEL WENIGER: We have, yes.
MS. PENZA: And, so at the bottom there's different levels about The Game; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: There are, yes.
MS. PENZA: And I just one to look at some of these levels. This says, Psychological profile, collateral obtained, personal ethics/life issue questions answered?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And then there's Level 5, Vulnerability profile. Collateral obtained: Dare questionnaires, answered vulnerability, testing their boundaries, rules indoctrination, their willingness to be vulnerable?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then at the bottom this says, Measurement of collateral; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It does, yes.
MS. PENZA: It says, Collateral can be assessed and measured in the following scales. Areas: A collateral is submitted affecting a specific area or areas. The more areas are affected, the stronger it is. Each area affected is worth five points; work, family, social credibility, important people affected, assets, wealth, possessions, rights.
And then there's, Proof of authenticity. How much can we prove the collateral is authentic? This determines how much the collateral is actionable.
Right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's what it says, yes.
MS. PENZA: And then it says, To strengthen a collateral, review how you can take it to higher levels based on the below. Level 1, electronic information, typed information. Level 2, information with a signature, information in their own handwriting, photo. Level 3, information notarized, audio stating the information. Level 4, legal document including checks, titles, et cetera or video"?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then, Depth of collateral. How much would revealing the collateral affect their life? For final measurement of collateral, add the above points --
So each of those things have a level of points; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And multiply as follows: Becomes an inconvenience the, numbers of points times .5. Loses an important comfort, number of points, times 1. Affects by limiting options temporary, number points times 2. Affects by limiting options permanently, number of points times 3. Affects freedom and all experience of self, number of points times 4?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Showing what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1803, is this a series of e-mails between -- again, is this an e-mail from Keith Raniere at Yahoo.com to a Protonmail account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: To karateairlinehen@protonmail.com?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Right.
MS. PENZA: And that was a Protonmail account that the defendant uses?
MICHAEL WENIGER: We believe so, yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is an e-mail sent on March 4, 2016 to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And it says, Source payments? Hey you, I am so sorry to bug you but I have not been paid --
Sorry, this is from Allison Mack to the defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right, yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says: Hey you. I'm so sorry to bug you but I have not been paid as a head trainer for The Source since last year and I'm struggling a little with income. Clare says she cannot approve the payments until you review them. Is there some way you can review them sooner than later? I know you are slammed, so if there is any way that I can help make this simpler, please let me know. I will try to figure out how to be more streamlined with this too. I love you master XO, A.
And the defendant responds, Yes. Any news on India?
And I think we've heard a lot of testimony that India was one of Allison Mack's slaves?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, she was.
MS. PENZA: And, so, the defendant -- the defendant is responding to Allison Mack's e-mail about The Source money with this question: Any news on India?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And Allison Mack writes back, She is here with me now working on changing her flight?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And then Allison writes back, she has changed her flight. Is really emotional as money is tight, but totally see the value in what the lesson is and how it is moving her ahead. She sees how this relates to her whole life. It is good. She should reach out to you re meeting again to complete the assignment. XO, A?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And so that e-mail was on March 4th?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, of 2016.
MS. PENZA: And then this is -- this is another -- showing you Government Exhibit 1805.
(Exhibit published.)
MS. PENZA: This is another one of those forwards to Protonmail in November of 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And just skipping ahead to the middle part. It says, Got in touch with Steve Heyworth's assistant.
Do you know who Steve Heyworth is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Who was Steve Heyworth?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe he was an individual that was contacted by the first line for the purposes of looking for branding and branding information or, like, a seminar on branding, but also to actually conduct branding.
MS. PENZA: And then there is a statement, As well I've been thinking lots about, quote, The Program. I am so looking forward to getting started. Is there something I can do to move it ahead? And then here is an e-mail from the defendant. And he says, "Does India know to complete her, she needs to take all of her clothes off while I am clothed, pose in the most revealing way and have me take a picture of her with her phone to be immediately sent to you as proof?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And Allison Mack response, Wahoo, with a smiley face?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And that was one day before the e-mail about India changing her flights?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1287, are you familiar with this document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And, so, fair to say there is -- it starts with a back and forth between Nicole and Allison -- and Allison Mack?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And turning here, on October -- so on October 20th Allison forwards the back and forth to -- sorry, let me just show you this. On October 20, 2016 Allison forwards the chain to the defendant and writes: I am not sure what to do?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then the defendant writes back, what aren't you sure of? What are your options? What bothers you the most?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Okay. And Allison -- and this is -- and Allison writes back on October 21, 2016 at 11:40 a.m.?
MICHAEL WENIGER: She does.
MS. PENZA: October 21, 2016, where -- you were present for Nicole's testimony?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I was.
MS. PENZA: Okay. Where does October 21st fit in?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe this is -- this is where -- is this the meeting in -- I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you. I think this is the meeting where she's met in New York City by Allison Mack.
(Continued on the following page.)
BY MS. PENZA (Continuing):
MS. PENZA: October 21, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I'm not quite certain.
MS. PENZA: So, can you read this e-mail, please?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I don't know how to help her see the value of what we are doing when she seems so committed to not. I feel I have to force her into believing this is good, all the while she is screaming and yelling how much it is not.
It bothers me that she is stilling working with another life coach. I didn't know she was doing this until she mentioned her, quote/unquote, coach in the letter, and, yet, it doesn't feel okay for me to tell her she can't do that.
Her tantrums are working on me and I don't know how to make it better, as part of me wants to let her go, she seems so unhappy, like we are killing her dreams, her spirit, her life. It is rough and her need to believe this is true makes it seem unresolvable. She seems like she refuses to change her perspective. I don't know what to do about that.
I question my approach with her. I feel like maybe if I was more integrated, more loving, more present, more attentive she wouldn't feel this way. My impulse is to just give her more of what she wants, but I know this isn't good either.
Options: One, spend more time with her. Connect with her hourly to check in and make sure she is okay.
Two, be more hard on her, more force. Tell her to leave her coach, stop complaining, give her a challenging task she has to do in order to break her.
Three, command her to move here. Bring her close so I can keep a better eye on her and work with her more directly/intimately.
Four, let her out of The Vow. Let her go completely.
Five, back off all together. Don't let her out of Vow but let her struggle without chasing her and see how she does.
Six, be honest with her re my experience of her struggle and how it effects her and me and you. Teach her the effects of her behavior in a loving/nonpunishing way so she can see what she is doing and, hopefully, be inspired to change it herself.
Are there things I am not seeing?
Thank you for your guidance in this, M. She is a toughy.
XO, A.
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1816.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Is this an e-mail change between Michele and Allison?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: This is November 19, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it says -- why don't I read the first part and then you can read the second part?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Before we move forward, I apologize, if we could go back to the last e-mail. I just want to check a date, because you had asked me a question...
MS. PENZA: I did ask you a question.
MICHAEL WENIGER: You did.
MS. PENZA: Are you recollecting when this was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It's shortly -- I am not, actually. My apologies.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, do you remember when Nicole had the table assignment?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, I'm sorry. This is right immediately -- I believe this is immediately -- no, I'm not recollecting. My apologies.
MS. PENZA: Okay. So, we'll go back to 1816, Michele to Allison Mack.
Hi, M. I forgot two things from my list that I already submitted. Here's the update for mine. Already submitted -- what you have -- sexual child abuse accusation, there are two of those; child abuse/statutory rape letter; flash drive with nude photos and sex tape; and a notarized letter turning over an inheritance to my dad's house in Sheffield.
Is that where the Berkshires house was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, correct.
MS. PENZA: Nude photos of myself and a sexual video of me.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then created but not yet submitted -- I'll just go over -- a letter to someone saying I got pregnant, cheated on him and ended up having an abortion; a video of me to my mother, telling her that my dad sexually abused me as a child. It goes on.
And then at the bottom, it says: And from Souki.
Who was Souki in relation to Michele?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Souki was Michele's slave.
MS. PENZA: And this has things that she submitted?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And there are certain letters, there's a renunciation of inheritance, there is another letter about sexual abuse.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And it goes on, and then at the bottom, Michele writes: I told her she still owes me five more pieces in addition to what has not been submitted and then there will be another piece that needs to be submitted in December.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government 1817, can you read this e-mail and explain the from and to?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. This e-mail is from Allison Mack, the date is November 23, 2016, and it is to her -- all of her slaves, her direct slaves. The subject is: Assignments.
Note: When you submit your monthly collateral to me, you will upload it to a Dropbox file I just shared with you called, quote, collateral. You will label it in a file which includes your initials and the date submitted, e.g., IO11.27.16. You will tell me right when you have uploaded the file. I will then go into the file and download the data on to a secure external drive. Please do not send anything in any other form, e-mail, or format.
Copy?
XO, A.
MS. PENZA: That's Allison sending it to all four of her slaves?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: So, that was November 23, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1818, this is on November 24, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Here, is Allison requesting certain questions about collateral?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: Asks to list the collateral, a description of the collateral, who has the collateral, what area of your life is effected. And this list, work, family, social credibility, important people effects, assets, rights, other, were those similar to what we saw in the game e-mail?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. Also, number six as well.
MS. PENZA: Number six, can you explain that?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Proof of authenticity in terms of level.
Level 1: A, electronic info; B, typed.
Level 2: A, photo; B, signed; C, in your own handwriting.
Level 3: A, notarized; B, audio recording.
Level 4: A, legal document; B, video.
And then number seven, depth of effect: Creates an inconvenience; loses an important comfort; temporarily limits options; D, permanently limits options E, damages freedom an all experience of self.
We saw that as well in the game e-mail.
MS. PENZA: And then it says: I need this information before tomorrow at 7:00 p.m.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Closing doors, making commitments, building trust. Let's get strong. XO, A.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, this is sent on November 24, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: That's a little more than a month after Rosa Laura Junco sent the game document to the Defendant; is that right?
MICHAEL WENIGER: That's right.
MS. PENZA: May I just have one moment, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Pause in proceedings.)
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1801, is this another one of the e-mails forwarded from the Defendant to his protonmail account?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Who is this an e-mail chain between?
MICHAEL WENIGER: This is an e-mail chain between Valerie, who is a DOS slave, and Keith Raniere.
MS. PENZA: Can you just remind us how Valerie fits in in the chain?
MICHAEL WENIGER: She's in Allison Mack's line.
MS. PENZA: Do you remember who her master --
MICHAEL WENIGER: What's that?
MS. PENZA: I'm going to show you what's in evidence as Defense Exhibit 941.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Is Valerie in that picture?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, she is.
MS. PENZA: Can you just circle on your screen who she is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure.
MS. PENZA: Not working?
Is this her?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: And, so, this is an e-mail chain between the Defendant and Valerie?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Starting on March 4, 2017, the Defendant says: Instead of your having to rearrange your schedule, maybe we can walk on Sunday later, after the intensive if you like. I'm not absolutely sure I'll be available, but it is likely.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Valerie writes: Yes, I would love to walk with you. Just in case you need to reach me quicker, here's my number.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: The Defendant responds: Where are you staying?
She says: Checking in about tonight. Do you have an idea of time?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: The Defendant responds: Are you available at all hours of the night? I suspect I will be up all night and I often walk in the middle of the night and early morning.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then it goes on. And then reading here, can you read Valerie's e-mail on March 5, 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Heading to get some sleep. Setting my alarm for 4:00 a.m. I will check my e-mail then. Not sure how to coordinate specific meeting place, but I am at India's. And if you set a time in this response, at 4:00 a.m. I will check and I will be outside ready at the time you give. Here is my number again. If you want to meet in the middle of the night, I'm a light sleeper so a text will wake me and I will come meet. Signed, Valerie.
MS. PENZA: How did the Defendant respond?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I'll text you and meet you outside; likely, more around 4:15 a.m. or later.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1267, can you explain what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. This is a e-mail from Rosa Laura Junco to Keith Raniere, the Defendant, on September 10, 2015. And it reads: Find below the schedule and costs of the program I propose.
It's in relation to the girls school that Rosa Laura Junco was starting.
MS. PENZA: Can you explain what this is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: This appears to be the schedule that she was proposing. It includes the names Lauris and Carlotta's schedule.
MS. PENZA: Do you know who they are?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I'm familiar with Lauris. I believe Lauris is Rosa Laura Junco's daughter.
MS. PENZA: Do you know how old she is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Presently, I'm not sure, but she's a teenager.
MS. PENZA: She's a teenager and a teenager on September 10, 2015?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Not 18 yet?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Not 18 yet.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1325, this is another e-mail that the Defendant forwarded to himself on November 25, 2017?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: To one of his two protonmail accounts that we've looked at?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it forwards an e-mail from October 4, 2015, from Rosa Laura Junco?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Can you read this e-mail, please?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
Hello, M. I fear I may be affecting Lauris and your possibility for success. I used to easily feel inspired and alive. I feel now crippled to operate my daily life. I am being a crappy SL.
MS. PENZA: Can you tell what "SL" is an abbreviation for?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Slave.
I can't find the inspiration to become uplifting, regaining some hope.
What triggered this state has been experiencing the complexity of your life and commitments and knowing intuitively that it will only get more complex and complicated. I love you and have enough of a conscience to want only what's best for you and serve you. I don't want to add more to your burdens.
Wanting anything from you automatically makes me a burden, so I can't allow that. Part of me feels love, but the other part of me feels neglected, doomed to miss out. I should know better than to want petty things.
I humbly share this because it may be affecting Lauris, keeping her away from you. If I don't experience my commitment to you joyfully, I cannot genuinely projectively want that for my daughter, and she probably feels that. Personally, I feel it's a phase that I will outgrow, but we don't have time. I have failed to overcome it and I want your thoughts before I do more damage.
I am 100 percent clear that you are what I want for my daughter and, obviously, for myself.
I am sorry for my shortcomings. Frown face. RL.
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, in the course of your investigation, did you review various items that indicated whether or not the members of the first line were sexually involved with the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And can you just explain?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. So, we were able to -- during the course of our investigation, we were able to review e-mails and correspondence, and, also, just photographs that were exchanged between the first-line DOS slaves and the Defendant. And they were sexually -- suggestive of a sexual relationship.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1828, this is, again, an e-mail forwarded from a protonmail account, from one of his protonmail accounts?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And it's a forward from Allison Mack on March 4, 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: I won't ask you the date where it goes in relation to Nicole, but maybe we can talk about that in the morning.
Here, it says: I wanted to reach out to you both and thank you for this morning.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: I arrived home and looked at myself in the mirror, and what I saw was such beauty and grace. I am new to this, to being with more than one person, to exploring and experimenting with my body and others in a free and open way, to sharing and releasing and relaxing and enjoying.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: The level of vulnerability is high and I feel nervous and insecure.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And then just skipping -- were you able to tell from this e-mail who Allison sent this to other than the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I believe Daniela Padilla.
MS. PENZA: And at the bottom, it says: I love that I smell like a mixture of you both.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: So, at least as of March 4, 2016, does this show something about Allison's Mack's sexual relationship with the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct, yes.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, may I have the Elmo?
Maybe I can ask everyone to move their screens and just have the Elmo for the parties and the jury.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: Special Agent Weniger, I'm showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 671.
Can you describe what this picture is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. This would be what was termed a "family photograph" that was -- were typically conducted at the beginning of meetings amongst the DOS first line.
MS. PENZA: And the does the Government have family photographs other than of the first line in its possession?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Of other than the first line?
MICHAEL WENIGER: I'm sorry.
MS. PENZA: Does the Government have family photographs of any other of the circles, other than the first line?
MICHAEL WENIGER: No, but we are aware that others did conduct family photographs.
MS. PENZA: And is this, what is described as a, quote, family photograph, how does this compare to what has been described as a family photograph for lower ranking slaves?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It's consistent.
MS. PENZA: Can you just describe who everyone is and just generally what they look like?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. So, beginning on the left-hand side of the photo is Daniela Padilla, after her is Loretta Garza, Allison Mack, Monica Duran, Nicki Clyne, and Rosa Laura Junco.
From the first line, there do appear to be two individuals missing, one being Camila and the second being Lauren Salzman.
MS. PENZA: And was this photo dated November 2016?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes. So, it predated the involvement of Lauren Salzman.
MS. PENZA: So, Lauren Salzman was not yet a first-line DOS slave?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Correct.
MS. PENZA: I know there are black bars covering here, but, in general, would it be fair to describe all of the individuals as having a fair amount of pubic hair showing?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: One last topic. Showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 669, are you familiar with this document?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: Fair to say that as of when you became involved in this case, in October 2017, that this was on a NXIVM website?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes.
MS. PENZA: And this is a biography of the Defendant?
MICHAEL WENIGER: It is.
MS. PENZA: I want to bring you to right here. Can you read starting with the second paragraph starting here?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure.
Keith Raniere entered Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, RPI, at age 16. From his first semester onward, he began taking Ph.D.-level mathematics courses, ultimately taking most of the graduate level physics and mathematics courses available at the time. Upon graduating, he became RPI's first triple major, earning degrees in mathematics, biology, and physics, with minors in philosophy and psychology and an expertise in computer science.
(Exhibit published to the jury.)
MS. PENZA: And we'll look at this a little bit more in the morning, but showing you what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 670 and turning to the second page, can you tell me what this document is?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Sure. This is Mr. Raniere's transcript from RPI.
MS. PENZA: And, again, we'll go over it a little bit more tomorrow because we're getting to the end of the day, but is this Mr. Raniere's final GPA?
MICHAEL WENIGER: Yes, it is.
MS. PENZA: Can you read what it was?
MICHAEL WENIGER: 2.26.
MS. PENZA: Your Honor, I think this would be a good place to end for the day.
THE COURT: All right.
Members of the jury, we're going to adjourn for the day and we're going to return again tomorrow morning at 9:30 and we'll have half-day of testimony.
I remind you that it's important that you follow my instruction that you not discuss the case with anybody; not your family, friends, business associates, and not your fellow jurors.
Also, you must not read, listen to, watch, or access any accounts of this case on any form of media, such as newspaper, TV, radio, podcast, or the internet, or research or seek outside information about any aspect of the case.
And do not communicate with anyone about the case on your phone, whether through e-mail, text messaging, or any other means, by any blog or website or by way of any social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, or other similar sites.
Also, remember you should not consider anything you may have read or heard about the case outside of this courtroom previously, whether you read it before or during jury selection or the trial, and do not visit any of the locations identified during the course of the jury selection and trial.
If you are taking notes, please leave them in the jury deliberation room. We'll see you tomorrow morning at 9:30. Thank you for your attention.
All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits.)
(Continued on the following page.)
(Continuing.)
(In open court - jury not present.)
THE COURT: All right, Special Agent, you may step down.
MICHAEL WENIGER: Thank you, sir.
(Witness steps down.)
THE COURT: Anything else from the Government for tonight?
MS. HAJJAR: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else from the defense?
MR. AGNIFILO: Nothing from us, Your Honor.
MS. GERAGOS: Just one thing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Everyone in the back may be seated.
MS. GERAGOS: Ms. Penza read from Government Exhibit --
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MS. GERAGOS: Ms. Penza read from Government Exhibit 1325, but we didn't admit that one before. So I just --
MS. PENZA: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: But you didn't --
MS. GERAGOS: She didn't admit it before.
THE COURT: Is there an objection?
MS. GERAGOS: No, we consented.
MS. PENZA: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. So the Government moves 1325 into evidence.
THE COURT: Right. 1325 is receives in evidence.
(Government's Exhibit 1325 was received in evidence.)
THE COURT: And I will get an updated list of all of the exhibits tomorrow morning, which I am very much looking forward to. It is now on two pages, single-spaced.
MS. SMITH: Yes, it is getting long.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
MS. PENZA: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: See you tomorrow morning.
Thank you, everybody.
(The defendant exited the courtroom.)
(Judge NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS exited the courtroom.)
(Matter adjourned to Friday, June 14, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. )
ooo0ooo