2.Closing Argument — Prosecution

MS. PENZA: Thank you, your Honor.

Knoxwood, Clifton Park, New York. At first glance it looks like an ordinary subdivision in an ordinary suburb. Manicured lawns, tree-lined streets, scenic train ride from New York City.

At the beginning of this trial Mr. Agnifilio, he called it idyllic. Yes. It looked like the American dream, but if we've learned anything from this trial, it's that looks can be deceiving. And it's what is the inside that counts.

127 Grenadier Court, a naked woman, held down, her arms above her head like a sacrifice, screaming, while the defendant's initials are branded into her body.

2 Flintlock Lane, newly married Sylvie ordered to open her legs for the defendant before she could be intimate with her husband.

8 Hale Drive, the defendant's executive library. A library with a sauna, a hot tub, a loft bed, and a collection of sexually explicit photos including of 15-year-old Camila. His trophy, his sexual conquest.

120 Victory Way, Nicole, lying naked on a cold wooden table. Her wrists, her ankles bound, blind-folded, not knowing that a video camera is pointed at her.

And 12 Wilton Court, Daniela, alone in her room for the 700th day in a row, with a pen, a piece of paper, and a foam pad on the verge of suicide.

The closed doors of these cookie-cutter homes had seemed straight out of a horror movie, but for the defendant's victims this was all too real.

Sex trafficking, child exploitation, forced labor, and so many more crimes. Over the past six weeks you were given a look behind these doors and into the inner workings of the defendant's criminal enterprise. Strict but carefully constructed image the defendant's inner circle made for him, humanitarian, leader, mentor, guru. You saw him for what he, was a conman, a predator, a crime boss.

The crimes he's charged with span nearly 15 years and include sex trafficking, forced labor, sexual exploitation of a child, possession of child pornography, identity theft, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice.

It's been a long trial. And you've heard a lot of evidence. Among other things, you heard testimony from former members of the defendant's inner circle like Lauren Salzman and Mark Vicente. Those people committed crimes with him and for him. You met Daniela, who went from hacking e-mail accounts for the defendant to being imprisoned in her own home on his orders. You met some of the defendant's most recent victims, Sylvie, Nicole, Jay, who were groomed to be the defendant's sex slaves. You saw the pictures of 15-year-old Camila's private parts. You saw the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash that was kept for the defendant at Nancy Salzman's house. You heard recordings in the defendant's own voice directing his crimes.

It's been clear how carefully you paid attention through this trial, and we thank you for that. Now we're almost done. My job is to help you go through the process of putting all the evidence you've heard together in a methodical way and show you how to prove the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of each of the charged crimes.

The defendant is charged with seven crimes in this case. Racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, forced labor conspiracy, sex trafficking conspiracy, sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking.

We're going to talk about racketeering first. Now, when you hear racketeering, or RICO as it's sometimes called, you might think of the mafia. But under the law other types of organized crime are also racketeering. That's because the law recognizes that when people commit crimes as part of a group they are more powerful and more dangerous. Put simply, racketeering means that the defendant was part of a group of people who were working towards a common goal. Under the law, we say he was part of an enterprise; and as part of his involvement in that enterprise he committed crimes. Here as you've learned in this trial, the defendant and his inner circle were the enterprise for which he committed crimes.

Now that's the who and the purpose of the enterprise, but there is also the why and the how.

Now why would they all be part of this enterprise? Because they all benefited. The whys in this case are as old as time, sex, money, power. As head of the enterprise, the defendant tapped into a never-ending flow of women and money. He also gained power and influence and means of control and protection. Alone he would just have been a man; with his inner circle he was the ruler in his universe in Clifton Park, New York. A crime boss with no limits and no checks on his power. To the defendant's most trusted insiders, his word was the law and no one acted except on his say-so.

For their roles in the enterprise, the members of the inner circle gained special privileges with their boss along with the financial benefits of being close to him.

Let's talk about Lauren Salzman for a moment. Ms. Salzman testified that she was part of the defendant's criminal enterprise, part of his inner circle. She admitted to you the crimes she committed on the account defendant's behalf. Her imprisonment of Daniela. Her fraud and her extortion of the DOS victims. And she told you the benefits she received from the enterprise. A job making over $100,000 a year that allowed her to own two homes and travel all over the world. As well as her personal sexual relationship with the defendant and her dream of having his child. All of which she would have lost if she stopped doing his bidding.

That brings to us the how. How did this enterprise work? You'll see many examples as we discuss the charges in this case; but in a nutshell, through abuse and control. Grooming women for the defendant, collecting sensitive information and naked photographs, and humiliation by creating financial dependence, isolating people from their friends and family, and by building an us-against-them mentality, and waging war on anyone who challenged the enterprise's power. Thereby instilling fear of reprisal in anyone who thought about challenging the defendant or his inner circle.

In short, the defendant and his inner circle used tactics that destroyed his victim's sense of self and ability to trust. Making them compliant and vulnerable to being used in whatever way the members of the enterprise chose.

And the enterprise was set up to last. First, the enterprise grew itself and furthered its aim by turning its victims into victimizers. As just a few examples,we saw this with Daniela who was groomed for the defendant at an age of 16 and then ended up facilitating the defendant's relationship with her under-age sister, Camila. We saw with Camila, who was sexually abused by the defendant at age 15, and then ended up sexually abusing Nicole as the defendant watched. We saw what Nicole, who was assigned to spy on Robbie Chiappone and turn him over to some unknown person not knowing he was the defendant's romantic rival. Even Lauren Salzman was abused for years by the defendant before she made the choice to commit the crimes she pled guilty to. She testified, if she had ever spoken up or said no to the defendant, she would have been ostracized, lost her career, and lost her relationship.

Second, is the importance of secrecy as an essential part of the enterprise. Some of the defendant's goals he could achieve through NXIVM and the other public organizations, but for his criminal ambitions he needed the enterprise: The naked pictures of 15-year-old Camila; the confinement of Daniela; the operation of DOS; the recruitment of virgin successors for him; the illegal surveillance of his enterprise.

It's important to remember too, that not everyone within the enterprise needs to know everything. Different people serve different purposes for the defendant.

For example, Pam Cafrtiz and Lauren Salzman, they were the defendant's fixers, when one of his many girlfriends was acting prideful or defiant. Nancy Salzman, she performed that role as well. But she and Kristin Keeffe were also at the forefront of efforts to protect the enterprise through surveillance measures and other tactics meant to destroy.

That's how criminal organizations work, secrecy. Even among members of the enterprise, it helps protect it and keep it strong.

Let's turn to the law. At the end of closing arguments Judge Garaufis will instruct you on the law that applies in this case. I'm only going give you an overview. When you go back to deliberate, it's what Judge Garaufis says that controls. If anything that I say differs from what Judge Garaufis says, you must listen to the Judge. I expect the Judge Garaufis will instruct you that these are the elements of racketeering. The first element, is that an enterprise existed. This is the enterprise. You heard and saw throughout trial overwhelming evidence that these people were associated in fact, which is what is required to find that an enterprise existed.

The second element is that the enterprise engaged in or its activities affected interstate or foreign commerce. This just means that the operations of the defendant and his inner circle involved movements between states or between the United States and another country. You heard overwhelming evidence of this element, including that members of the inner circle recruited new followers for the defendant from all over the country and all over the world, and that people traveled from these places to New York.

You can see this element when you look at racketeering act too. Daniela being driven to Mexico in order to walk across the border on the defendant's orders. DOS slaves being recruited from Canada and Mexico. And you heard about cash being transported over the Mexican border. These are some the examples of how the enterprise operated across state lines and across the country's borders.

Once you find that the enterprise existed, elements three and four that the defendant was associated with the enterprise and participated in the affairs of the enterprise, are simple. Keith Raniere was the center of the enterprise. Everything else revolved around him. So of course he was associated. He was the boss. And he also participated in the enterprise's affairs. He ran it. He was the one calling the shots.

And that brings us to the fifth and final element of racketeering, the defendant's participation in a pattern of racketeering activity. In order to find that the defendant participated in a pattern of racketeering activity, you must find that he committed at least two of the racketeering acts that are alleged in this case. As we go through the evidence this morning you'll see that for each racketeering act, the defendant either committed the act himself or commanded it to happen.

As I expect Judge Garaufis will tell you, under the law even if you don't personally commit a crime, if you command it or you help it happen, that's the same as committing it yourself. That makes sense, that's how crime bosses operate. Sometimes the defendant was at the scene of a crime, but sometimes he wasn't. When he wasn't, that doesn't make him any less guilty.

You must also unanimously agree on whichever acts that you find. You must find that the most recent act proven was committed within ten years of a prior act. I submit to you that you're going to find that we proved all of the alleged acts were committed, not just two. In any event, in this case most combinations of acts would satisfy this requirement.

These last requirements of nexus and relatedness and that the enterprise lasted for a substantial period of time, we'll cover at the end of the presentation.

Now we're going to take a brief look at each of the racketeering acts alleged in this case, as well as the stand alone counts.

Before we do that, I want to talk about the legal concept called conspiracy. A number of the racketeering acts and stand alone counts are conspiracy counts, which means you must prove there was an agreement between the defendant and at least one other person to commit the crime at issue. When you hear the word conspiracy, you should remember that the criminal act is the agreement itself, it makes no difference whether the crime was actually committed. Judge Garaufis will instruct you that defining an you, just find to that the defendant came to a mutual understanding, if even if passibly, to carry out a crime through a joint plan or common scheme. You certainly don't need to find that the defendant sat a table and drew up a formal plan to commit a crime. That's not how criminals work.

Now there is four categories that the racketeering acts fit into. They are also common threads through the pattern as a whole.

For racketeering act one, we'll look at the proof we presented that the defendant agreed with others to transport Daniela across the Canadian border into the United States using someone else's name and birthday. Now there is two ways that the defendant could have committed that act. In spots like this, where there are two or more options, under the Racketeering Act you only need to find one of them in order to find that the defendant committed the act. For Racketeering Acts two, three, four we'll look at the proof we presented that the defendant took graphic photos of Camila when she was 15 and kept those photos for more than a decade in the executive library, hidden in a folder called studies, along with photos of his adult lovers in the same poses all around the same time period. For Racketeering Act five, we'll look at the proof that the defendant agreed to obtain usernames and passwords of people he deemed to be enemies of enterprise. That he was directly involved in obtaining Edgar Bronfman and James Loperfido's e-mail usernames and passwords in order to monitor their e-mail accounts.

For Racketeering Act six we'll look at the proof of the defendants role in agreeing to alter the video that would be produced in the Franco litigation.

For Racketeering Act seven we'll look at the proof of the defendant's agreement to obtain the username and password for his lover, Marianna's e-mail account.

For Racketeering eight we'll look at the proof of the defendant's trafficking of Daniela, to have her perform work for him, including his imprisonment of her in a room for nearly two years in an effort to extract work from her, as well as the defendant's role in keeping Daniela's birth certificate from her.

Racketeering nine and ten, both relate to the Government's proof regarding DOS.

For Racketeering nine, we'll look at the proof of the defendant's role in extorting property from DOS slaves under the threat of release of the initial collateral they provided.

Racketeering Act ten is another one of the places where there are two ways to prove that the Government proved the act. The forced slave of Nicole and the sex trafficking of Nicole. As to forced labor, we'll look at the proof that Nicole was coerced to providing labor and services including editing and transcription work, taking naked photographs, and engaging in sex acts with the defendant under threat of her release of her collateral.

As to sex trafficking, we'll look at the proof of that Nicole was coerced in in engaging in a sex act; in this instance, being tied to a table while Camila performed oral sex on her. And that Allison Mack by offering Nicole up to the defendant in this way, maintained the personal and financial benefits that went with satisfying the defendant and maintaining her role as a first line master.

Within DOS there were also stand alone counts -- there are also stand alone counts that relate to DOS.

When we talk about the DOS related Racketeering Acts, we'll talk about the stand alone count at the same time because most of the proof will be the same for all of them.

The stand alone counts cover the sex trafficking of Nicole and attempted sex trafficking of Jay, but they also include three conspiracy counts, which we'll walk through. For those counts we'll discuss the proof the Government has presented, that the defendant agreed with others to defraud lower-ranking DOS slaves by concealing his involvement in DOS; to obtain a labor and services from lower-ranking DOS slaves through coercion; and to commit sex trafficking more generally.

For Racketeering 11, we'll look at the defendant's agreement that Pam Cafritz's credit card would be used after her death at a time when he claimed that he did not have the right to access her money. And in an effort to continue to hide the facts of his assets from the IRS and keep his self-judgment free.

MS. PENZA: Now, let's take a look at the verdict form that Judge Garaufis is going to give us.

Here on Page 1, you can see that the first count is racketeering. It says "Count Two" because in the indictment racketeering was listed as Count Two. But the Court and the parties all thought it would be easier for you to first determine that the defendant committed racketeering.

On Pages 2 and 3 are the individual racketeering acts, and those are the ones we just touched on. So if I had the slide that had them on there, you would have seen all of the different acts and here you'll have for each one what you'll be able to check off whether that act was proved or not proved.

And this is what I was explaining before is that for certain of the acts there are two ways to find that that racketeering act was proved. So, for example, for Racketeering Act 1, you'll find Racketeering Act 1 was proved if you find that either that we proved conspiracy to commit identity theft or conspiracy to unlawfully possess identification documents or both.

Once you check yes to two of the acts, two of the underlying acts, then you can go ahead and you can check guilty on the first page because finding the defendant guilty of racketeering, you need to find at least two racketeering acts proven. But you should go on to consider the other racketeering acts once you found that we've proven two of them.

Now, if we turn to the third page of the verdict form, you'll see that it says "Racketeering Conspiracy." And that just has one place to check, guilty or not guilty. That's because to be guilty of racketeering conspiracy, the defendant only has to have agreed with another person that they would commit racketeering. No part of the plan has to have come to fruition, not the enterprise and not the racketeering acts.

So let's hypothetically I found that the defendant and Allison Mack had some great master plan to form the enterprise and that they had planned that someone would carry out at least two racketeering acts in furtherance of that enterprise but they never succeeded. That agreement alone would be enough to check guilty as to Count One on Page 3.

In this case, though, the defendant not only agreed to commit crimes for the enterprise but he actually did so and was successful for a long time until he was arrested. That's why we submit he is guilty of both Count One and Count Two, racketeering and racketeering conspiracy.

And because racketeering conspiracy doesn't require any completed racketeering acts, there's no list of predicate acts under Count Two on the verdict form. What the Government must prove here is that the defendant agreed that he or a co-conspirator would commit two or more racketeering acts and the crimes charged in the indictment and you must be unanimous as to those types.

So here are the types of racketeering acts listed in the indictment. Once you've checked off two racketeering acts as proven, if you find that the defendant agreed to commit those acts as part of the enterprise, then you can go ahead and check off guilty on both racketeering and racketeering conspiracy. But you can also find the defendant guilty of racketeering conspiracy if you find he agreed with -- that he or another person would commit two acts in any of these categories.

For example, if you find that the defendant agreed that two DAS slaves would be defrauded you're there. If you find the defendant agreed that two DAS slaves would be extorted, you're there. If you find the defendant agreed that one DAS slave would be extorted and one DAS slave would be defrauded, you're there and so on.

Now, finally, on the end of Page 3 and Page 4, you'll see the standalone counts. And when we talk about the racketeering acts that relate to DAS, we'll talk about those as well because a lot of them will overlap.

So let's turn to talking about the evidence you heard at trial and we'll start with Daniela.

Let's travel far away from Clifton Park, New York for a minute to the small ranching town in Central Mexico where Daniela is from. She told you what you would have seen if you had looked behind the closed doors of her childhood home: A happy family, successful, joyful. From Daniela's testimony, her family was the type of close, tight-knit family everyone yearns for. But then her parents were introduced to NXIVM. Daniela testified that she set to attend a prestigious Swiss High School on scholarship when her parents gave her the NXIVM 16-day Intensive as a going away present. This is Daniela's family and this is a picture from Daniela's first Intensive in Monterey. A fresh-faced teenager. In front of her is Lauren Salzman, the one, who, eight years later, would become her captor at the defendant's direction. Daniela testified that she wasn't impressed with much of the course, but she was completely taken by the Mission Module.

She went into the course hoping to change the world through Green Peace or something similar. But in that module, the defendant's curriculum taught her that all those things were worthless. That the only way to save the world was through his Tech. And that if people didn't get integrated, the world was going to end. She was even taught that the defendant who's billing as the smartest man in the word she believed had come up with a mathematical formula for the End Times. Her testimony about this can be found at Page 2305 through 306.

After taking that first class, Daniela testified that she came to believe that all of her dreams were worthless. And when she was given the opportunity to forego her scholarship and work for the Mission, as she called to, the mission in Albany, she thought hard, sought the advice of her parents who, I submit, had already been sucked in by the defendant's teachings and the parade of wealthy and influential Mexicans who were taking these courses and changed her plans. Within a few months, Daniela was in Albany, 16 about to 17 turn without her family, without any friends, without, and she's handed a data entry job in the admin office. It was not the life she expected and it certainly wasn't the life she had given up her fancy Swiss school for.

But one day, the defendant took an interest in her after she solved a series of difficult brain teasers and that changed things. He promised he would tutor her, give her an education that would surpass the Ivy League education she dreamt of. But rather than tutoring her, the defendant began grooming her.

Now, around that time, something very important -- something happened that is very important that would later change her life. Daniela testified that at one point when she was 17, she stole $6,000 in cash from the admin office. She put the money back a day after, but she ended up confessing this to the defendant. Although the defendant acted as if the incident was over and forgotten when she confessed, the next day she was berated by Nancy Salzman and humiliated to learn that everyone in the Intensive that was going on knew what she had done.

This is Daniela's testimony about that incident. She said: "At the time, he felt like the only person who was on my side. In fact, because of that hell I went through everybody thought I was bad and he didn't adopt that stance, I thought he was understanding." When asked what she thought about the incident looking back Daniela said, "I think he set it up." "I think he set me up." I submit the defendant made himself the hero of that story to get closer to Daniela.

Eventually, though this incident faded, it was dredged up years later as pretense to punish her but we'll talk about that in a bit.

So going back. One night, Daniela was in a NXIVM education center and she confided in the defendant that her parents were going through a divorce. How did the defendant react? He kissed her. Daniela was 17, he was 43. That was her first kiss. Daniela testified that when she got home that night, the defendant called her and told her she should keep it a secret.

Here's her testimony. You might remember when I asked her, "Daniela would you keep additional secrets after that?" And she said, "Everything about my personal life was a secret from then on."

This background provides important context that explains Daniela's mental state years later when the defendant and the Inner Circle convinced her that she had committed an ethical breach that was threatening to destroy them all. And after that kiss, the defendant's sexual behavior towards Daniela escalated. He was asking her personal questions about her sexual background of which there was none, which he liked. And he asked her about her pubic hair. She didn't even know that grooming it was a thing. Her testimony about this is at Page 2376 to 77. Then, a week after Daniela's 18th birthday, the defendant performed oral sex on her on a dirty mattress on the floor of the offices of the defendant's old company, CBI. But did he have intercourse with her? You might remember how Daniela testified that she was confused for years because Daniela knew the defendant hadn't penetrated her that night, yet he insisted he had. For years. This is an example, the first example, of many that fit the definition of what Dr. Hughes testified is called "gas lighting," a method of coercive control in relationships. Her testimony about the effects of these crazy-making techniques is at 3,720 to 21.

Daniela also testified she later observed the defendant use similar crazy-making techniques on other women. Regardless of whether there was intercourse that night or not, though, at that point things changed.

From some time around then, until the infamous Ben Meyers kiss, Daniela was part of the defendant's inner circle. Allowed to be present for the most sensitive meetings and expected to take on sensitive criminal tasks. During that time, though, something else happened, like the stealing and returning of the $6,000, that marks a key point in her story and this one is the first racketeering act. The defendant's agreement to have Daniela cross into the country.

Now, at the time she entered the United States, Daniela was making that choice voluntarily knowing that it was wrong, but her illegal status in the United States would become a major tool of leverage used by the defendant.

Racketeering Act1. On October 26, 2004, Daniela was denied entry into the United States and was told she would have to wait another year to reenter. On April 10th in the United States Daniela, returned to hometown. Daniela wanted to return to Albany and the defendant wanted her to return to Albany. After all, he was used to her providing him with sex and with work. Daniela was in regular phone contact with the defendant and eventually defendant Daniela testified the defendant came up with a plan which he explained to her over the phone. He told Daniela she should fly to Toronto, Canada on Christmas Eve where Kristin Keeffe would meet her with a fake Sheriff's I.D. in the name of an Alaskan woman who died but who, according to the defendant, looked similar to Daniela. Daniela would do some shopping and she and Kristin would cross over the border making it look like they had popped over to do some Christmas shopping.

Daniela flew to Canada as planned but when she got there, Kristin Keeffe was not. Instead, Kathy Russell met her and handed her the fake I.D. that the defendant -- handed her the fake I.D. that the defendant and Kristin Keeffe had arranged for her to have. She and Kathy Russell crossed over the border with Daniela distracting the officer who was looking at her I.D. and drove down to the Christmas get together in Clifton Park.

Now, when she was on the stand, Daniela could not remember if Daniela and Kathy picked Kristin up on the United States side of the border before heading to Clifton Park. But you heard from Special Agent Wenninger's testimony about the evidence that Kristin was on the United States side of Niagara Falls on December 24, 2004.

So, as I mentioned earlier, this racketeering act can be found in one of two ways. The first is conspiracy to committed identify identity theft.

Now, right way, you remember that because this is a conspiracy what matters is the defendant's agreement that the crime he did committed.

These are the elements of conspiracy to commit identity theft. Here, the Government proved that the defendant greed with at least Daniela, Kristin, and Kathy that Daniela would possess the means of I.D. of another person knowing that the means would belong to another person without lawful authority in connection with unlawful activity, and that this affect interstate commerce. The Government proved through Daniela's testimony that she held, that is, possessed the sheriff's I.D. which itself contained a means of identification of a person and used it by presenting it to a border officer.

Judge Garaufis will instruct you that a means of I.D. can include a last name or a birth date. Here Daniela testified that the I.D. contained both Ashana Chenoa's last name and her date of birth. And if we look at the next slide, you can see that the Government's prove that Ashana Chenoa was a real person, meaning, a real person living or dead. Her driver's license and a death certificate. Then, on the next slide, is Ashana Chenoa's death certificate and her driver's license and a CBP record showing that Ashana Chenoa crossed the Canadian border on 12/24/04. Daniela also testified that the defendant told her that Ashana Chenoa was a real person who had died. Special Agent Wenninger told you that there is no Kathy Russell crossing the border the same day as Daniela. Daniela as Chenoa. No one knows why that might be, but it doesn't change the Government's proof. Daniela gave specific details about Kathy Russell's involvement including Kathy Russell's frequent retelling of the adventure especially when Kathy Russell, who is also in her 40s, was trying to persuade Daniela to participate in a threesome with her and the defendant.

So let's turn back to the elements.

Number three. Without lawful authority means without an official authorization to use the I.D. Here, this element is proven because there is no way for someone to be authorized to cross the border on another person's I.D. In addition, Ashana Chenoa was dead by the time Daniela crossed using her I.D. I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that the fourth element, the use of the I.D. in connection with unlawful activity can be proven in one of two ways. Here, we've proven both.

First, the I.D. was used in connection with transporting Daniela, an illegal alien, within the United States from the Canadian border to Clifton Park. Second, the I.D. was used in connection with efforts to ultimately harbor her in the United States and to facilitate her presence in the United States.

Finally, the Government has proven the fifth element because Daniela's border crossing had an effect on interstate commerce because it involved the moment of people, Daniela and Kathy Russell, as well as the Christmas presents they bought, among other things, from Canada into the United States.

So that is one racketeering act proven. Racketeering Act 1, 1-A. Proved. But there's still one more way to prove that act: Conspiracy to unlawfully possess an identification document.

Now, here are the elements of that. This one is fairly self-explanatory and similar in many ways to the identity theft elements we looked at. Again this is another conspiracy, and the question is: Did the defendant agree that this crime would be committed. Here, the Government proved that the defendant agreed with Daniela and others that she would possess a false identification document, in this case, a fake sheriff's I.D.

Special Agent Wenninger testified that sheriff's I.D. is something that is intended as a form of I.D. and is commonly accepted in various counties in New York State. Similar to the New York City I.D. card that's available.

Finally, the Government has proven that the defendant intended that Daniela use the sheriff's I.D. to defraud the United States because it was supposed to trick the United States official at the border. So the evidence has established that that subpart in Racketeering Act 1 has also been proved.

Let's turn back now to what happened when Daniela returns to Clifton Park. The very night she is bought back across the border, the defendant tries to persuade her and her sister Marianna, with whom she knows he was having a sexual relationship, to engage in a threesome with her. It ends with the defendant naked and Daniela and Marianna crying.

After that Daniela, is left all alone on her first night back in the United States. With no legal status in the United States, Daniela is now beholden to the enterprise in a way that she didn't come to appreciate until her fight with the defendant in fall 2006. We'll get there, but from December 2004 until fall 2006, Daniela was the defendant's workhorse. That testimony is at Page 2511. She did everything the defendant desired from organizing his library to working on book reports. And she also had to sexually perform on the defendant's command giving him oral sex up to two times a day.

Now, Daniela, she was a very productive member of the enterprise: She recorded the defendant's words for posterity; she organized his book collection; she digitized his music collection; she cleaned; she taught herself to hack into e-mail accounts of NXIVM's enemies.

She did whatever was asked her for all from her perch 3 FlintLock Lane where the defendant lived with Pam, Marianna, Kristin, and Karen Unterreiner. Daniela testified about the way the defendant controlled and manipulated her during that time. Her weight, for example, was constant focus of the defendant and he would tell her that she was hurting him by not dieting. She was given book reports on graduate level topics that she had never studied and was not paid if she couldn't complete them. Even if she got 75 or 90 percent of the way there. In fact, she was never paid for a book report at all. And she wasn't allowed to make money accept by working for the enterprise. They never paid her. Always one excuse after another.

She was in a state of financial dependence. Economic control. Notably, Daniela also spent her first years of young adulthood in a world where other women were treated that way. Oinked at when they went to the fridge. Spied on. Groped in front of her women. And you heard this type of talk from the defendant's own mouth.

You'll remember the clip where the defendant says that calling a woman a pig but that's something that's, you know, very -- women don't like that. But then he goes on to say what's even worse than calling a woman a pig is talking about her odor. And then he goes on to joke that when somebody says it's official at a wedding that what he thinks of it's a fish hole. That's the clip that you probably remember.

Now, when the defendant impregnated Daniela at age 20 after not allowing her to use birth control, Pam Cafritz paid for Daniela's abortion. And I submit she monitored her at the clinic to make sure Daniela delivered the coverup story that would protect the defendant. She said she'd only been in the United States for two to three months and that she was considering college in the United States.

You saw the records from the clinic that documented the coverup as well. After her job protecting the defendant was done, Pam left Daniela to experience the abortion alone despite instructions from the clinic that Daniela should be monitored throughout the process.

Then, in fall 2006, Daniela will kissed Ben Myers and that was the beginning of the darkest turn she had at the defendant's hands. With Ben, Daniela finally experienced actual romantic interest. Actual sexual desire. Something she never had for the defendant.

And nave Daniela, she made the mistake of telling this to the defendant. She actually thought he'd be happy for her. But he lost it. You heard he locked himself in the bathroom. He threw her across a room. After that night, they never spoke in person again.

After that fight, once again, Daniela's world was shaken. From then on Daniela, had an ethical breach and was under strict monitoring by the inner circle. Karen Unterreiner, Nancy Salzman started monitoring her program which, of course, again, focused on her weight and having her complete book reports for the defendant's benefit as well as breaking what was termed her "pride" and her defiance. For the next two years, e-mails between Daniela and the defendant showed the never-ending abuse and manipulation she suffered after that kiss. Some of those e-mails can be found at Government Exhibit 1578, 1535, 1534, 1563 and 1603.

You might remember the graphic questioning about what she had done sexually with Ben. The defendant commenting that she was making him appear to be an ogre, keeping her locked in a castle. And during this time, Daniela was threatened with being sent back to Mexico. Mexico without any contact with her family. Mexico with no identification documents. Mexico with no money.

These pictures and the scribbling from her journal from that time perhaps give the best insight into her mind. On the left, a note saying: "I don't want to be alone anymore. I want to kill myself." On the right a self-portrait captioned "Horror Story of Failure."

Then, in March 2010, the defendant ordered Daniela confined to a room or otherwise she would be sent to Mexico. Perhaps the saddest part of this episode is that Daniela's parents were turned into co-conspirators, too. And they're at fault. At fault for letting that man convince them to help hurt their daughter. But make no mistakes, it was the defendant who was in charge. Take a look at Lauren Salzman's testimony. After that point, the defendant approached her with a plan regarding Daniela. Yes, he did. Okay. What was the plan as to Daniela? He proposed that Dani be given an ultimatum that she go in her room with no distractions and come up with a plan for how to fix this or be sent back to Mexico. The defendant also made clear to Lauren Salzman that this was to be kept a secret. He didn't even want her to discuss it on the phone. This is at Page 1927. It's okay, we'll read it.

You remember the conversation between the defendant and Daniela's mom, Adriana. And the whole time, Marianna, Daniela's sister, who is also in a sexual relationship with the defendant is translating. The defendant says, "If you killed someone's child, is it right that the family comes and begs you to do something about it or apologizes to you for being so bad to you.' Her mother says, "No." "If the world were like that, it would be very beneficial to kill other people's children, and as they would help make you into a monster." "If I went and spoke to Dani, I would be doing my part in helping make her monster." "If I was Danny's parents, and going back to Mexico, I would make her choose between doing the right thing and staying here or losing communication with me or whatever." "Sometimes it has it be that strict."

Now, Lauren Salzman, she's a cooperator. She's accepted responsibility for her crimes and she's agreed to testify. But she is hoping for leniency at sentencing. You can consider her testimony with that in mind. But when you analyze her testimony, you should also consider what we call corroborating evidence that indicates she's been truthful. As to Daniela's confinement, you have that corroborating evidence including hundreds of letters Daniela wrote to Keith as a recipient, and also e-mails exchanged between Lauren and the defendant which I'll discuss more in a minute.

Now, Daniela's confinement in the room brings us to Racketeering Act 8.

At issue in Racketeering Act 8 is the defendant's efforts to make Daniela work for the enterprise and for the defendant personally by keeping her in that room for 23 months and threatening with being taken to Mexico and having her identification documents kept from her. This is another one where there are two ways you can find the act proven so let's talk about the first one: Trafficking Daniela for labor and services.

Now, remember you don't have to find that the defendant personally committed the crime. It's enough that he commanded it to happen. The first element is that Daniela was harbored, transported, provided, or obtained. Harbored simply means that the person was given shelter.

Now, the Government has proven this element beyond a reasonable doubt with the proof that she was in the room for two years. And we've also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was transported when Kristin Keeffe and her father, at the defendant's direction, drove her to Mexico.

The second element is that Daniela was harbored or transported for the purpose of providing or obtaining her labor or services and in violation of the Forced Labor Statute. You don't have to find that any of the labor or services were ultimately provided.

Let's start with the first part of the second element.

Labor and services means anything that causes physical or mental effort. Labor means anything that causes physical or mental effort, and services means conduct that assists or benefits someone. The labor and services here are Daniela's letters to the defendant while she was in the room.

The Government also has proven that Daniela was harbored for labor and was services.

First, she was in the room to create a written program. And so, the hundreds of hours she spent crafting hundreds of letters to the defendant with various proposals -- this is Government Exhibit 907 -- was clearly labor. The mental effort in those letters is evident on their face and Daniela testified about it as well.

Second, the Government has proven that Daniela's confinement to the room was part of a larger scheme to make her a productive member of the enterprise again, to break her pride, and get her back to her regular work performing labor such as documenting the defendant, writing books reports for him, and satisfying him sexually. This is further supported by the fact that when Daniela was driven back to Mexico, the defendant and the members of the Inner Circle through Daniela's family immediately began demanding book reports.

Now, I should note there is no requirement that you find labor and services, only that that is his purpose in harboring her.

As to the second part, the Government has proven that Daniela harbored and transported for labor and services in violation of the Forced Labor Statute because she faced threats of serious harm, or because there was a scheme to make her believe that she would suffer serious natural if she did not perform labor and services.

I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that when someone is in the country illegally, the threat of deportation or being forced to leaving the country may constitute serious harm. Serious harm can also include psychological harm.

Now, Lauren and Daniela both testified that the defendant did threaten to send Daniela back to Mexico. When you're looking at how threats of serious harm would impact someone, I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that serious harm involved looking at all the surrounding circumstances.

For Daniela, almost all of these factors are met. Verbal abuse. Daniela's was constantly being told she was pride and destructive. Isolation. Daniela went months without any human contact. Poor living conditions. She had a phone foam pad on the floor and nothing else. Blacked out curtains, dirty clothes, denial of adequate food. You saw in her newsletter that sometimes the food was old or moldy.

Daniela testified that she was on the verge of suicide before she left her room. So you must consider the circumstances when evaluating how susceptible she would have been to the defendant's threat of threat deportation.

Additionally, writing those letters was the only way Daniela knew to try and avoid being in the room any longer and bearing additional psychological harm.

One last thing on this element. I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that the opportunity to escape is irrelevant to determining whether someone was being trafficked for labor and services. So Judge Garaufis will tell you the opportunity to escape is irrelevant. Now, here Daniela testified about all of the reasons why she couldn't leave the room but that is not what matters here.

The third element is that the defendant acted knowingly.

The evidence of the defendant's knowing involvement in Daniela's trafficking includes e-mails with Lauren during Daniela's confinement such as when she reported that Daniela said she was coming undone. The picture the defendant demanded when Daniela cut her hair, and the defendant's role in keeping her from going to the dentist.

There were also the text messages that you saw just late last week where the defendant exchanged with Kristin Keeffe while Daniela was being driven to the Mexican border after the defendant made good on his threat. Those can be found at Government Exhibit 1353.

And there were the letters, hundreds of them. So many of them where she drafts a program. So many of them where she begs to be let out. All addressed to the defendant.

With that, Racketeering Act 8, Racketeering Act 8-A is proven.

Now, that actually means you found two racketeering acts. And once you found two racketeering acts proven, that's enough to establish a pattern of racketeering activity and it find the defendant guilty of Counts One and Two.

Now, even though Racketeering Act 8 will be satisfied on that trafficking charge alone, there's another way to find that Racketeering Act 8 is proven. And that's if you find the defendant committed document servitude. Again, he may not have personally committed it but it was on his orders that it happen.

Document servitude has two elements. Here, the Government has proven it first that the defendant commanded the concealment of Daniela's birth certificate. And the second, that the defendant did so with the intent to commit forced labor or trafficking. Notably, there is no requirement that the defendant violated the forced labor or trafficking statutes. Here, the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that once Daniela with a deported to Mexico, the defendant directed that her birth certificate be withheld from her with the intent of making her complete book reports by certain deadlines or else be stuck without her identification documents in Mexico. The proof of this act is correspondence between Daniela and her family and members of the inner circle discussing withholding her papers at the defendant's direction of which we showed you some examples.

This is one of the examples here, Government Exhibit 1579. You can see in the middle the e-mail from Kristin Keeffe, "Hi, all here is the final e-mail. Everyone is in agreement and has reviewed it including L," Lauren Salzman, and K, the defendant, Keith Raniere, "I think this should come from the family."

And I'll just read it. "Please send a book report and I'll e-mail account password you had access to in the last year to me within 48 hours. This book report must be based on a book that is 250 pages or more and must be a minimum of 10,000 words. Thereafter, you will need to send one new book by midnight every seven days. If you do not complete these tasks without exception or excuse, it will demonstrate to all of us a lack of care for the family and, therefore, we cannot support such different in values.

Additionally, you need to legitimately return to Clifton Park, New York by Wednesday, April 4, 2012. Unfortunately, we cannot consider sending you any of your requested documents."

MS. PENZA: Daniela testified about this as well on page 2994. She explained that after she was in Mexico, her family (which the emails evidence was at the direction of the defendant and the members of the inner circle) kept her birth certificate from her and tied it to her completion of book reports. She also explained that in Mexico without a birth certificate you cannot get an official ID or passport so you're essentially identity-less.

Daniela went on to explain that a lawyer friend who worked for a human rights group ultimately helped her get her birth certificate and Daniela explained, "Having an identity is everything."

And, therefore, Racketeering Act 8B is proven as well.

Daniela was in that room for 100 weeks. There were no locks on the doors but there were security cameras and, as Daniela explained, as someone illegally in the country, there were a number of fences keeping her where she was as well and all that time she was writing hundreds of letters to the defendant as she was ordered to until finally on the 705th day, having stored up enough cleaning supplies to kill herself, Daniela decided she was going to live and she did and she testified before you about how she survived the defendant's crimes.

Now we're going to turn to the category of crimes placed under the category of deception and there was deception in all of them but they're also all similar because they were ways in which the enterprise operated to surveil enemies and protect itself and, of course, to protect the defendant.

First we're going to discuss two racketeering acts related to identity theft by way of hacking computers. So, just like we looked at the identity theft in Racketeering Act 1 that was in relation to a different crime, here we're talking about identity theft where the purpose is to surveil somebody else's email communications.

Daniela testified that when she was on her perch at 3 Flintlock she was shocked that the defendant and Nancy Salzman were paying $24,000 to purchase email passwords. After the defendant challenged her to see if she could, Daniela ended up successfully obtaining three user names and passwords. Let's walk through each of them.

Now, before we turn to the individuals involved, I think the motive behind the conspiracy is simple, the defendant perceived -- we'll talk about Marianna later, but certainly Edgar Bronfman and James Loperfido and his connection to James O'Hara -- Joseph O'Hara, he viewed them through paranoia and surveillance. You saw the box and we went through this in pretty great detail about the documents from Canaprobe. And you also saw the correspondence with Kristin Keeffe where she and the defendant were using coded language in their efforts to obtain personal banking information on individuals.

Now, Racketeering Acts 5A, 5B, 5C and Racketeering Act 7 have to do with the monitoring of electronic accounts belonging first as a general conspiracy and then belonging to Edgar Bronfman, James Loperfido and Marianna, and Daniela helped the defendant commit all of these crimes.

First, let's look at the hacking of the Edgar Bronfman account. The story is relatively simple. Daniela accessed Edgar Bronfman's email account at the direction of the defendant and with the assistance of Clare Bronfman. Daniela explained to you how a keylogger works and how it picks up all of the key strokes that somebody is using on their computer. Daniela accessed Edgar's email and then would regularly provide the content of the email account to the defendant. As I said, the motive behind this conspiracy was simple, the defendant perceived Edgar Bronfman as an enemy.

Now, throughout the trial you heard about Clare Bronfman and her unwavering commitment to the defendant. Even up until now she paid -- she put in $14 million to finance the defense in this case for both the defendant and other parties. You've also learned about Clare Bronfman's father, Edgar Bronfman. Edgar Bronfman was an international name that had connections in powerful circles throughout the world. In June 2003 Edgar Bronfman informed his daughter, Clare Bronfman, of his distrust of ESP and the defendant. In fact, Edgar refused to take any ESP curriculum in the future. Moreover, Edgar Bronfman said that he refused to shill for the organization. Only a few months later Edgar Bronfman publicly condemned the defendant and ESP in a Forbes Magazine article published in October 2003. Edgar Bronfman told Forbes Magazine, "I think ESP is a cult." With this statement Edgar Bronfman officially became an enemy and although the defendant and ESP considered him an enemy, Edgar Bronfman intended to remain neutral in order to preserve his relationship with Clare Bronfman.

In June 2004 Edgar informed Clare that he would not be an advocate for ESP. Nonetheless, Edgar Bronfman agreed to refrain from criticizing the organization and assumed a neutral position. Still the defendant would not accept the truce. In communications with Edgar Bronfman and the defendant in the fall and winter of 2005 the focus on Edgar was clear. In fact, in November 2005 in an email that's on the screen as Government Exhibit 1456 from November 9th, 2005, in that email Clare Bronfman discusses with the defendant that she was emotional last night during the meeting with the strategy team with regards to her father.

Now, Daniela told you that Edgar Bronfman's status as an enemy of ESP drove the defendant's desire to obtain access to his emails. As a result, Daniela was put to the task. You saw many emails that this was just -- this was at the exact same time, November 2005, that Daniela started researching keyloggers; Government Exhibit 1516, Government Exhibit 1517, that was the one that attached the white dress jpeg that she said was a tester for the keylogger.

On November 6, 2005 she sent the defendant keylogging sites, different websites about keylogging, and that's Government Exhibit 1518. So, that's only three days prior to this email about the strategy team meeting regarding Edgar Bronfman.

During her testimony Daniela explained she created a keylogger file and embedded it on an image. Daniela provided the image on a USB drive to Clare Bronfman. Ultimately Clare Bronfman visited her father and physically inserted the USB drive into his computer. The file was then opened and deployed. The hack was successful and soon the keylogger revealed Edgar's email password. After Daniela acquired Edgar Bronfman's password she began to access his emails. Daniela testified that she was instructed to look for information relative to ESP and ESP's legal cases. Once found, this information was expected to be passed to the defendant.

For years -- page 2556 and 2557 Daniela explained her role in the hacking of Edgar Bronfman's email account. For years Daniela monitored Edgar Bronfman's account and reported the results to the defendant. Now, in November 2008, and this is even when he and Daniela have not been speaking in person for years, the defendant inquired about the content of Edgar Bronfman's email accounts. These communications included coded language similar to other instances we've seen in this case such as when the defendant and Kristin Keeffe were communicating about Canaprobe.

Now, despite the use of coded language, we know that Edgar Bronfman was a subject of this conversation because Daniela testified to that fact. So, in this one, and we'll pop it up: We'll talk about -- it says KLG for our close friend -- who Daniela testified was Marianna and we'll talk about in a minute -- I will check later today, will let you know. Keylogger for our not so close friend I will also check today and will also let you know.

And then in the follow-up email the defendant writes: By the way, with regard to the keylog is there any additional ones, you gave me one file.

And then it goes on about Marianna's account. But then it says: What about the other keylog from the test, there's some potentially important things recently.

And so we knew that right around this time, November 2008, the defendant had reason to be curious about Edgar Bronfman's communications. If you recall, this was the exact period of time when Clare Bronfman was in contact with her father and with Stephen Herbits. You heard from Mr. Herbits in this courtroom. We also offered emails describing the contentious relationship between Clare Bronfman and Mr. Herbits, particularly during November 2008. Here you can see two days after the email asking -- talking about where the defendant writes to Daniela inquiring about the keylogger for their not so close friend, you can see that Stephen Herbits and Clare Bronfman are in a back and forth and you saw this email and Mr. Herbits testified about it as well where Mr. Herbits writes: Typical -- where first Clare Bronfman has written: I was under the impression that dad had asked you to come in and help us resolve this situation, that he wanted to help us turn things around and confided in you to do so.

And that's when Mr. Herbits responds: Typical friend or enemy when your father calls me, he said that you and Sara had specifically asked him to ask me if I would be willing to help you, not him.

So, right here it is very clear who the defendant is referencing and that it is he who is concerned about Edgar Bronfman's email. And then you also saw how all of these emails between Edgar Bronfman -- between Stephen Herbits and Clare Bronfman would all be forwarded to the defendant for his reaction and for him to help draft them as well.

Now, you heard throughout the trial testimony that Edgar Bronfman was only one of the many people that the defendant and his inner circle considered an enemy. You saw a whole box full. Another person who eventually fell into that category was James Loperfido. James Loperfido testified that he was introduced to NXIVM and ESP through Joseph O'Hara. Mr. Loperfido told you that he was hired to perform accounting-related duties. In this capacity, Mr. Loperfido worked closely with Kathy Russell.

Now, if you recall, Kathy Russell handled most of the accounting and bookkeeping for the defendant, ESP and ESP-related companies. Government Exhibit 801 from January 9th, 2005 shows the interplay of all of these individuals. So, Mr. Loperfido, when he was or the stand Mr. Agnifilo asked him about Mr. Loperfido's personal interactions with the defendant and so this email is an example of Kathy Russell communicating with the defendant about Mr. Loperfido -- about her communications with Mr. Loperfido and Mr. O'Hara and trying to get his buy in on their communications.

Now, at a certain point after this Mr. O'Hara and ESP had a falling out and at that point in time O'Hara was labeled as an enemy by the defendant. At that point O'Hara became the target of a hacking campaign and you heard that Daniela and the defendant, they tried to gain access to Mr. O'Hara's email account but they were unsuccessful. So, as a result, the defendant set his sights on the unassuming accountant referred to ESP by O'Hara and soon the defendant had devised a plan concerning Mr. Loperfido.

According to the plan, Kathy Russell was tasked with occupying Mr. Loperfido while Daniela went in and manually installed the keylogger into his computer and she was successful. This is Government Exhibit 1527 and we went through this document when Daniela was on the stand.

And you know that the results found in Government Exhibit 1527 are accurate because of Mr. Loperfido's testimony. He confirmed his use of certain passwords found on the raw files discovered in Daniela's email account. Once these results were obtained they were passed to the defendant for his review. And so, here you can see, this is Daniela's testimony on page 2545 where she describes what she would do, she would go into the email, she would read it, see if it was relevant, copy/paste it into a text file and then she would bring them to the defendant and she also testified that she would observe the defendant reading and reviewing them.

Now, the defendant also used these hacking efforts to control the women in his life. In fact, Daniela was directed to obtain access to her own sister's electronic devices. This occurred after Marianna was found to be having issues and throwing tantrums. Daniela told you that the defendant and Pam Cafritz expected -- and this was on page 2560 -- that Marianna was rekindling a relationship with an ex-boyfriend. This created jealousy in the defendant and, of course, Pam Cafritz came in as well to be the fixer. Now, in email communications there is evidence that Daniela, Pam Cafritz and the defendant all separately were discussing how to install keyloggers on the devices that Marianna was using so they could monitor communications. Daniela testified that she was able to obtain the necessary password for Marianna's Facebook account. In an email sent by Daniela to the defendant on November 3rd, 2008, Daniela provided the requested information to the defendant. Additionally, Daniela entered in the raw results of the keylogger in the form of a text file.

So, here we see again emails going back and forth with the defendant. First she says: Bad news about the -- about the keylogger, I can no longer get through. Kristin will give you details and options.

And Daniela testified that was as to the Edgar Bronfman account. But the one in closer proximity, Marianna's account, I have not checked, apparently the machine is not being used. Already talked to Pam but do not think she will make it happen.

And then the defendant writes back: The closer proximity machine I think is in use.

Here you can see that Daniela actually attached again the raw data file to the defendant providing the information on her sister's account and you can see she writes: My sister's Facebook info, user name, email as always, password ohmy8god. I don't really want to look into it, this is between you and her. I have the latest raw text file I am attaching. I don't read through it. I just look to find user name password zones. I haven't found the one for gmail. There's a bunch of different combos I need to try. I will let you know. Didn't find anyone to drive either a distant location today to try the other keyloggers.

So, here Daniela and the defendant clearly are communicating about the keyloggers. So, I submit that based on this, the government has proven three additional racketeering acts. So, here you can see this was the raw results and where you can find where it has her email account and the password and Daniela walked us through how she would use the raw data and actually extract out those user names and passwords.

So, what we just went through covers Racketeering Act 5 which has three subparts; 5A, conspiracy to commit identity theft, and so that relates to the general agreement of the defendant with other members of the enterprise, Nancy Salzman, Kristin Keeffe, Daniela, to obtain user names and passwords generally, so Kim Snyder's password, Joseph O'Hara's password and all of the other passwords that we talked about. And then there's two additional subparts, identity theft of James Loperfido because they actually did obtain his user name and password, and identity theft of Edgar Bronfman because they actually did obtain his user name and password.

And then Racketeering Act 7 is conspiracy to commit identity theft as to Marianna and there the defendant's agreement with Daniela, with Pam Cafritz to obtain the user name and password for Marianna in order to surveil her communications is what we're talking about there.

And so, the elements here of identity theft are the same as we looked at in the very first racketeering act when we looked at conspiracy to commit identity theft as to Ashana Chenoa. The difference is that for the fourth element where before we had the -- before the identity theft was in connection with various immigration-related offenses of transporting aliens across the border, here the unlawful activity that it is in connection with is the interception of wire and electronic communications and so for each of these, again we're talking about conspiracy as to Racketeering Act 5A and Racketeering Act 7 but as to the other ones it is enough that the defendant commanded or helped to put in place what happened. And so for each of these you know that Daniela, either in agreement with the defendant or at his command, possessed a means of ID of another person, and a user name and a password to your computer is in fact a means of ID of a person, and that they knew that the means of ID belonged to another person, these were all real people that they knew and understood. There's no lawful authority to go into another person's email account. And that they acted in connection with the desire to read these people's email addresses intercepting wired electronic communications. Additionally, that this affected interstate or foreign commerce. Here Daniela was using the internet, was using various materials and people were in different states at different times.

And so, I submit that this proved an additional two racketeering acts, Racketeering Act 5, and there's three subparts there, so the general conspiracy to commit identity theft, the general agreement that they were going to hack into people's emails accounts using their user names and passwords, proved; that they were going to do this specifically as to James Loperfido, proved; and that they were going to do this specifically as to Edgar Bronfman, proved; and then for Racketeering Act 7, that there was this agreement to do the same process in regards to Marianna, also proved.

Now we're going to turn to Racketeering Act 6, again in that deception category, and Racketeering Act 6 alleges that the defendant conspired to alter videotapes for use in the Stephanie Franco case in federal court in New Jersey. The goal of the conspiracy was clear, to protect against the release of damaging statements included in the videotapes particularly to the parties in the lawsuit who included many of the defendants' enemies.

To do this the defendant and his co-conspirators had to corrupt the integrity of the videotapes and their availability in the case by altering them. The defendant and his co-conspirators altered the videotapes with the corrupt intent to obstruct the administration of justice and in doing so not only submitted the altered videotapes to the parties but lied to a federal magistrate judge, a federal magistrate judge whose purported bank records were within the box, Government Exhibit 204 that we've looked at, and by telling him that the videotapes were, quote unquote, unedited.

So, let's discuss the alteration of the videotapes. In June 2008 the defendant asked Mark Vicente if there was any way to remove stuff from a videotape in such a way that doesn't make it look like it was removed. Mark Vicente testified to that on page 653.

The defendant further asked if there was a way to do it so that it looked like a glitch or that it was part of a natural process to remove something. Mr. Vicente told you that he knew how to create glitches and that it could be done by moving from a digital version to the analog or VHS version. Mr. Vicente specifically told the defendant that there were ways to create glitches on analog VHS tapes and that there were ways to hide the removal of portions of a videotape with certain kinds of glitches. Mr. Vicente explained that when he used the term "glitches," he was referring to alterations of a videotape that created interferences in the tape itself. He further explained that VHS did not contain the same information as digital formats and that when a videotape moved from a digital to a VHS you can't see things like missing time code -- you can't look at things like time code information and see if there's something missing.

And so, what was the defendant's reaction, he said, "Oh, that's good. There's some things we need removed." And the defendant asked if -- and the defendant said that it had to do with the legal department and needing to have some things removed from tapes to do with the case where the methodology is -- their methodology, the ESP tech methodology is being evaluated and the patent is being looked at. The defendant asked Mr. Vicente to alter the videotapes and to remove segments from them and Mr. Vicente knew that the videotapes would be produced in some litigation, some legal case. Mr. Vicente also recalled that the segments that were to be removed involved Nancy Salzman making claims that the NXIVM curriculum could affect a person's health like curing a disease or removing headaches. Mr. Vicente explained that he believed the patent would be at risk if the tapes were handed over. And Mr. Vicente agreed to alter the videotapes as requested by the defendant. So, all of the information that I just provided are between pages 664 and 670 in the transcript.

And ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Vicente told you that altering the videotapes was illegal and you heard about the process of altering the videotapes. The legal department had to determine what needed to be removed from the videotapes. Mr. Vicente explained that the people he worked with in the legal department were not lawyers and that he primarily worked on the project with Kristin Keeffe and Clare Bronfman. Mr. Vicente also told you that the legal department gave the video department a list of time code segments that needed to be removed. He told you that he saw the handwritten notes with time codes on the desk. The video department then used those various processes to create the glitches and multiple copies of each videotape were made to make them appear older.

Mr.Vicente told you that while he oversaw the project, other people in the video department also worked on editing the videotapes. He explained in some detail the actual procedures that were involved in altering the videotapes. He mentioned moving the videotapes into a computer editing system and removing segments and sometimes putting static in the videotape. He recalled that sometimes they used machine-to-machine dubbing and jiggled the cables between the machines to create interference. He explained that they randomized the procedures to make it seem natural or organic, so there might be a glitch in a place where they weren't really looking to cut anything out but just to make it look like the glitches were appearing naturally. And, of course, all of the time codes and metadata was removed.

Mr. Vicente further described to you why the types of glitches that were created were not natural because there was no consistent pattern to the glitches, like a consistent line or a wave that you would see if there had been a power outage. Mr. Vicente then wrote down for you four different types of edits or glitches that were used to alter the videotapes.

The first he talked about was called a static cut-in where a segment would be removed and static was used to replace it. The second was a jiggle which was done machine-to-machine and the connecting cables would be jiggled or pulled out for a minute and that would create glitches. And Mr. Vicente explained that the jiggle was used to suggest that there was something wrong with the tape and that it could also be used to hide the static glitch. The third he talked about was the pause cut which was also machine-to-machine and the recording machine would be paused. The fourth type was another stop cut machine-to-machine where instead of pausing, the recording machine was stopped.

Mr. Vicente showed you examples of some of these methods and the actual videotapes themselves, Government Exhibit 605 A through D, and he recognized the methods as being consistent with the methods he used to alter the videotapes in 2008.

MS. PENZA: That's okay, I'll let your memory serve.

And so, Mr. Vicente walked us through various different types of these cuts, if you remember, and so 605-C showed the jiggling and the static insert, 605-B showed three types of glitches, the static insert, the jiggling and the pause cut and those are the examples I was going to show you now.

Mr. Vicente also testified that the initial dubbing to create the master tapes occurred at 13 Twilight Drive and that the multiple copying of the videotapes happened at Apropos. He recalled that several VHS or combo DVD/VHS machines were purchased for the project, that they laid around for years afterwards. All of this is at page 682.

Mr. Vicente didn't watch all of the videotapes because he was focused on the alterations or the glitches. You learned that at the end Mr. Vicente had boxed the videotapes that were delivered back to the legal department.

Now, you saw emails where the alteration of the videotapes were discussed. This is Government Exhibit 1397R and it is from June 30th, 2008, and it says: The duplication -- it talks about the duplication of tapes Keith has asked me for and the aging and weathering of the masters.

There was also an email in 1396R on June 21st to Nancy -- from Chris to Nancy Salzman copying Kristin Keeffe, Clare Bronfman and Mark Vicente where reviewing and editing the videotapes was discussed and purchasing a VCR was discussed. And so this, what we were just looking at, is a memo that Mark Vicente had wrote about the "project that never seemed to end" and in it he discussed the new machines and cleaning up the house -- that was where it was also discussed cleaning up the house, but also discussing the new machines as well and the duplication of tapes for Keith.

Now, you saw another email, Government Exhibit 1395R, a July 12, 2008 email from Mark, Mr. Vicente, when the project was going to be completed and then there's a response where he talks about the copying of videotapes and Nancy Salzman's review of the videotapes. So, all of this is going on in July 2008.

So, where did the videos go? You know where the videotapes went because Anthony Valenziano, Stephanie Franco's attorney, testified last week and told you where they went. He told you that the altered videotapes were produced by NXIVM's attorneys to Stephanie Franco's attorneys in the federal civil cause brought against Stephanie Franco by NXIVM, the case initially filed in federal court in Albany, New York that was later transferred to federal court in New Jersey. You'll recall that Mr. Valenziano explained the facts of the case including Ms. Franco's being startled by some of the representations that the intensive include -- representations of the intensive.

Now, Mr. Valenziano told you that the main issue was a binder of Stephanie Franco's that ultimately made its way to Rick Ross, who also testified before you last week, and that professors wrote articles about the binder and that those articles were published on Mr. Ross's website. Mr. Ross also told you about this in significant detail. And Mr. Valenziano explained the long, tortured procedural history of the case which I will not go into in detail right now.

Now, he testified that the case was transferred to federal court in New Jersey in 2006 and that Judge Cavanagh was the judge in the case until 2013 and that Judge Falk was the assigned magistrate judge. You'll recall that there were files on both Judge Cavanagh and Magistrate Judge Falk in the Canaprobe box recovered from Nancy Salzman's home.

And you also know the case originally brought by NXIVM against Ms. Franco lasted for 14 and a half years where NXIVM had ten or eleven law firms and eventually settled in 2018 for a dollar all because of Stephanie Franco's binder.

Mr. Valenziano also told you that Ms. Franco's attorneys requested the production of the videotapes in 2007 or 2008 because they believed the videotapes included false statements and that one of the videotapes related to the Forbes article about NXIVM. Another reason they wanted to see the videotapes was because they wanted to see some of the statements that had startled Ms. Franco, like the statements about not paying taxes. At this point Ms. Franco was considering and ultimately did bring her own countersuit. Mr. Valenziano testified that the 35 videotapes were eventually produced on July 1st, 2008 and that later another 22 videotapes were produced for a total of 57 videotapes and he identified those videotapes for you which are in evidence as Government Exhibit 605. And this scattered production of the altered videotapes is entirely within the timeline established by the emails that you looked at from Mark Vicente and his memo and those were -- the videotapes that he identified were the same ones that Mark Vicente said that although he hadn't paid attention to what the videos themselves were, that he could identify the various glitches as being consistent with the types of glitches that he did to the videos that were produced in the Franco litigation.

Now, this is the email -- there was an email from NXIVM's attorney producing the initial videotapes at Government Exhibit 619 where the attorney said that the initial 35 videotapes were being produced exactly as they were kept in the ordinary course and the cover letter dated July 1st, 2008 producing the videotapes, which is in evidence as Government Exhibit 618, and you saw the letter from Ms. Franco's attorney to Magistrate Judge Falk also dated July 1st, 2008 which quoted NXIVM's attorneys falsely saying that the 35 videotapes were produced in unedited fashion as requested, and that's Government Exhibit 617 which is on the screen right now.

Mr. Valenziano also testified that he had concerns about the videotapes because they didn't seem to include the statements that had startled Ms. Franco, they didn't appear to be complete, they appeared to have jump cuts and seemed to be skipping around. Mr. Valenziano testified to this on page 4527. Mr. Valenziano explained that they actually considered retaining an expert to look at this but that it was too expensive.

So, Racketeering Act 6 charges the defendant with conspiracy to alter records for use in an official proceeding. Racketeering Act 6 is another one of the racketeering acts that charges the defendant with conspiracy. So, here the concern is whether the defendant agreed with others to commit the crime.

Now, to prove that the defendant is guilty of this conspiracy, here the elements -- these are the elements of conspiracy to obstruct justice and so here the defendant has to have agreed with at least one other person, here it could be Kristin Keeffe, it could be Mark Vicente, to commit this crime and here the elements are the altered or mutilated video recordings, that they acted with the intent of impairing the recording's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, and that they acted corruptly.

Now, as I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that the Franco case in federal court in New Jersey was an official proceeding, there really is no doubt about that. And here, although there is no need for us to prove it, you know that the object of the conspiracy actually was completed, the videotapes were altered as instructed by the defendant and produced to the parties in the Franco case.

I also expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that to act corruptly means to act with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly and with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence the due administration of justice, in this case the Franco federal case.

We don't have to prove with certainty that the conduct would actually affect the Franco case, only that he acted corruptly in the manner described. I'd also note that we do not have to prove that the defendant's conduct actually obstructed justice or that the altered videotapes contained particularly material evidence related to the Franco case. Instead, the defendant's conduct must only have had the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice in the Franco case, in other words, the fair, impartial, uncorrupted and unimpeded investigation, prosecution, or disposition of any matter in the Franco case. And, lastly, the due administration of justice includes every step in the Franco case to assure the just consideration and determination of the rights of the parties. Here we more than meet our burden on this racketeering act and there's no doubt that the defendant conspired with Mark Vicente and others to alter the videotapes and that he did so corruptly and with the intent that the edited portions of the videotapes not be provided to the parties. The production of the altered videotapes in the Franco case deprived the parties of particularly material evidence, as explained by Mr. Valenziano, and clearly interfered with the due administration of justice by impeding the parties' ability to examine the complete, unedited videotapes. Therefore, there's overwhelming proof that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to alter the videotapes in the Franco case. That brings us to Racketeering Act 6 as also having been proved.

MS. PENZA: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.

So we fixed a few things. So this is the slide that I originally wanted to show you at the beginning of my presentation; I think it's still worth showing now.

So as we've been going through the various Racketeering Acts, so far we've gone through what I categorized under trafficking of Daniela. And that's when we went through Racketeering Act 1, related to her crossing over the border. Then Racketeering Act 8, which related to labor and services starting when she was in the room and then following through until she was in Mexico. Then we moved on to the deception category, and so far first we went over Racketeering Act 5 and the three different ways that Racketeering Act 5 could be proven. And then we went to Racketeering Act 7, because those go together.

Now we just went over the conspiracy to alter records in an official proceeding.

We're going to move on now to Racketeering Act 11, which was related to the use of Pam Cafritz's credit card after her death, which is another form of identity theft. Then after that, we'll cover the exploitation of Camila. Then we'll cover DOS.

As you can see with DOS, what I was trying to explain earlier but it was difficult without a visual, is that for DOS we're covering two Racketeering Acts. But we'll also be talking through the five different stand alone counts.

Now you can kind of see the way we were moving. So we went diagonally, then back up to Camila, then we'll finish off with DOS.

I think the videos are working too. I think there is some that you remember but we're going to go over one of the video alterations because it's been a while since we've watched that.

MS. PENZA: That was an example of a jiggle static.

So now we'll move on to Racketeering Act 11. Again, this is one that we have in the deception bracket. Racketeering Act 11 is conspiracy to commit identity theft of Pamela Cafritz. This act is straight forward as it involves unauthorized use of Pam Cafritz's credit card after she died.

So you know that Pam Cafritz died on November 7, 2016, because you saw the death certificate, this is Government's Exhibit 1108. You saw document relating to Pam Cafritz's estate that told that you Ms. Cafritz's will dominated the defendant the sole beneficiary and executor of her estate. That the defendant renounced his appointment as the executor on December 20, 2017, while he was in Mexico. That was Government's Exhibit 724.

Then Government's Exhibit 722 were the full American Express records that were put into evidence. Government's Exhibit 725 was the schedule that Investigator Guerci put together which summarized all of those records and made them more digestible.

And so you heard from Investigator Guerci, when he walked through his schedule of the Cafritz American Express statements after her death that basically start with the charge for an ambulance on the date of her death. Then Investigator Guerci pointed out a number of charges on the American Express after Ms. Cafritz died. Charges to Amazon Marketplace, a number of charges to Keith Donato. Those charges used a Square device. To Restoration Hardware for thousands of dollars; a pet shop, a Dominoes Pizza; sock store in Brooklyn; other pizza parlors; Neiman Marcus for $4,457; a charge to Bergdorf Goodman for 11,350; a charge to Saks Direct for $1,159; a National Grid utility bill; a Netflix bill; a Satellite radio bill; a charge for Executive Success Programs for $3,140; and charges to baby companies. All together you saw a total of $135,000 in charges on the Cafritz American Express from November 7, 2016, the date of Pam's death, until February 8, 2018.

You'll hear that Investigator Guerci determined there was no authorized user of the Cafritz American Express card; only Pam Cafritz and she was dead.

The American Express records also showed payments received from Ms. Cafritz's Key bank account. You saw the checks from the Key bank contact that paid the American Express bills, checks that were signed by the defendant. Like a check signed by the defendant a few weeks after Pam died. And another check signed by the defendant for $29,390 on January 19, 2017, a little over two months after Pam Cafritz died, government's Exhibit 723.

Now, we also put into evidence Key bank records, Government's Exhibit 721. The Key bank records, 726, the summary. And then Government's Exhibit 727, which were the summary of the checks signed by the defendant.

On page -- Government's Exhibit page -- Government's Exhibit 721 pages 343 and 371, we saw something curious. On page 343 you saw check signed by Pam Cafritz on November 18, 2016, 11 days after she died. On page 371 you saw a check Buyer's Advocate signed by Pam Cafritz on November 7, 2016, the day she died.

As I mentioned, you saw checks drawn on the Cafritz Key bank account that were signed by the defendant. Investigator Guerci explained to you that defendant did not have signing authority or signature card for the Cafritz Key bank account, but that didn't stop the defendant. He just kept signing check after check. You saw these checks on Investigator Guerci's schedule.

Checks paid the Cafritz American Express bill; a check for insurance; to a plumber; and for work on a house and for water bill; and Audi car payments; pool and tennis dues. Checks for Siobhan and Samantha for personal assistance. A $60,847 check to Clare Bronfman. The defendant signed $320,305 worth of checks out of Ms. Cafritz's Key bank account months and months after she died, without signature authority, and none of the payments had anything to do with being the executor of Ms. Cafritz's estate.

We listed all of Ms. Cafritz's Key bank account after she died, which Investigator Guerci summarized in a schedule, Government's Exhibit 726.

We looked at any anumber of payments. Payments to Danielle Roberts, Juliana Vicente, Kathy Russell. A payment of $1,700 to Edgarda, a first line DOS slave and master to reimburse her for surveillance cameras. Mortgage payments, Knoxwood association dues. Trips to the movies, and pizza, Dunkin Donuts, Cracker Barrel, and more pizza. You heard That investigator Guerci tallied all the disbursements, all of this disbursements out of this account totaled $736,856.

You also saw the deposits into bank account by primarily from another Cafritz Key bank account totaling $695,661. Hundreds of thousands of dollars passing through the Cafritz Key bank account, most of it coming from another Cafritz Key bank account, all without authority, all months and even years after Pam Cafritz died.

You also saw e-mails that were ultimately forwarded from Clare Bronfman to the defendant. You saw one of these e-mails, one of the first e-mails, in November 22, 2016, about 2 weeks after Pam died, where Michelle Tarzia tells Clare Bronfman that she needs to pay the American Express bill and the card is still being used. What is Clare Bronfman's response: Oh, shit, okay. Let me figure this out.

Then she forwards the e-mail chain to the defendant and says: Hey, I'm just forwarding these to you for your review and approval.

We saw an e-mail chain requesting approval for the American Express bill in June 2017, government's Exhibit 734-35, seven months after Pam's death. What was the defendant's response: Yup, pay it.

You saw an e-mail chain requesting permission to pay the Cafritz American Express bill, all forwarded to the defendant. How do you know the defendant participated in the use of the Cafritz American Express card after she died without authority? Well, you heard from Keith Donato, the chiropractor.

Dr. Donato treated the defendant and a number of other members of the NXIVM community for many years. He testified that he treated the defendant starting in 2008 and then into 2017, so about ten years. Dr. Donato explained that he was prepared to meet the defendant by Clare Bronfman or Nancy Salzman, that he was told the defendant was like a monk and did not drive and did not pay for himself. Dr. Donato told you that he was advised that someone else would be paying for the defendant. And that in all the years he treated the defendant, the defendant may have only paid for himself once.

Dr. Donato explained that he saw the defendant often, weekly sometimes. And that most of the time he was accompanied by Pam Cafritz and Marianna.

He also recalled that before she died, Pam Cafritz always paid for the defendant's visits. She paid with a credit card. Dr. Donato started using the Square reader. He explained that customers could swipe their card on the device attached to the phone or they could manually enter their card number.

Dr. Donato started using Nancy Salzman's house to treat members of the NXIVM community in August 2016, to accommodate Pam Cafritz's health problems. He received payments by credit card using his Square reader; until she died, Pam Cafritz paid for the defendant. Pam's health was declining. She started forgetting her credit card. She stopped swiping her card and started keying in her number. We saw that happened in October 2016 in Dr. Donato's receipts.

After Pam died, Dr. Donato recalled that Marianna took over responsibility for paying for the defendant's visits. She always manually keyed in the number of Pam Cafritz's American Express card. You saw the Square receipts, they show the number was always keyed in.

Government's Exhibit 710 is Dr. Donato receipts for the payments received from the Cafritz credit card. He testified that each receipt involved the treatment of the defendant. Sometimes they also reflected treatment of Marianna also, but on each of those days the defendant was definitely treated.

Dr. Donato reviewed the receipts and testified from November 16, 2016, nine days after Pam died, until November 8, 2017, he treated the defendant 35 times. There were 35 receipts during that time period, ranging in payment amounts from $145 to $285.

So based on Dr. Donato's testimony you know without a doubt that the defendant was actively involved in using the Cafritz American Express card for his own benefit after she died. Let's discuss the law related to Racketeering Act 11. Again, this is a conspiracy and so here the crime is the agreement. And here the Government must prove that the defendant knowingly transferred or possessed or used a means of identification of Pam Cafritz. That he knew the means of identification belonged to Pam Cafritz. That the defendant acted without lawful authority. That the defendant acted with the intent to commit or to aid and abet or in connection with an unlawful activity that violates federal law. And that the transfer or possession or use of the means of identification occurred in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

There can be no doubt that the defendant conspired to use the Cafritz American Express card after she died. That he knew the card belonged to Pam. And that he did not have lawful authority to use the card. There is no doubt that the card affected interstate commerce.

So let's discuss the fourth element, which requires us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or transferred or possessed the means of identification with the intent to commit or to aid and abet in connection with the crime of tax evasion.

The crime of tax evasion prohibits the willful attempt to evade or eschew any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. And to act willfully requires that we prove that the law impose a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty and that he voluntarily violated that duty.

I would suggest to you that we all have a duty to pay tax, and we certainly know that the defendant knew about this duty.

It's also important to note that the Government does not need to prove that the defendant actually committed tax evasion. It's enough if the defendant used or transferred or possessed the means of identification or conspired to do so with the intent to commit, aid and abet, or in this connection with the crime of tax evasion.

So you how do you know that the defendant conspired to use the Cafritz American Express card without authority to evade having to pay taxes? Well, you heard from Investigator Guerci that he was unaware that the defendant had any assets, you heard from Mark Vicente that the defendant denounced it, someone who had no connection. And the quotes from Mark Vicente can be found from pages 585 through 610.

He also told you that the defendant was concerned about bankruptcy, that he created so many companies to be bankruptcy remote so that he could not be destroyed by the forces against him.

And you know that the defendant had another company, CBI, that had drawn the attention of Attorneys Generals and was shut down.

Additionally, you had seen a lot of cash in this case. There was cash -- you saw cash going to Nicole. Lauren Salzman testified that she received from Dawn Morrison an envelope of cash containing royalties that were owed to the defendant.

Just last week we saw an XOSO document indicating that the defendant was entitled to 10 percent of the XOSO overall.

There was over $500,000 of cash in Nancy Salzman's home. I submit that given the defendant's not keeping assets in his name that you can infer that that money did belong to him. Here is a picture of the $550,000 in cash that had been secreted in Nancy Salzman's house. Remember there was two shoe boxes of cash that were in a crawl space behind a closet door. And then behind in a walk-in closet there was a crawl space in the walk-in closet. There was an additional bag of cash in another closet.

Remember that when Officer Fontanelli testified regarding the search of Nancy Salzman's house, he identified multiple pictures of the defendant throughout the house on her mantle piece, that was one example. On the second floor of the house. Then in the gym area there were three pictures, large pictures, of the defendant down there as well. This is Government's Exhibit 762. We saw this during the trial. It's a declaration filed in a case involving the defendant and Microsoft and AT&T in Federal Court in Texas, where the defendant had been ordered to pay $400,000. Now he filed, he put in motion papers in order to stay having to pay that $400,000. It states that as of December 30, 2016, the defendant could not pay the fee, because he stated under penalty of perjury, that he did not have access to money. This was at the same time he was charging thousands of dollars to the Cafritz American Express card, and writing hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks out of the Cafritz Key bank account.

The defendant is living an expensive lifestyle, traveling to Mexico, Audi payments, volleyball games, NXIVM. Customers are paying thousands of dollars; and he gets the 10 percent cut of everything. Using Pam Cafritz's American Express and writing checks out of her bank account. And he claims he has no assets.

Why? Why hide all the assets? Why did he use Pam Cafritz's credit card after she was dead to fund his lifestyle? To avoid paying taxes. Because not he didn't want to take that money into his own name because the defendant was obsessed with not paying taxes.

You heard Stephanie Franco was startled that she didn't have to -- that he didn't have to pay taxes.

You heard from James Loperfido, the tax preparer. Mr. Loperfido explained that NXIVM created many companies to take advantage of tax benefits. And Kathy Russell told Mr. Loperfido that his job was to make as much tax liability as possible for the NXIVM company. The ultimate goal for the company was zero tax; that was the ultimately goal for the defendant as well.

Mr. Loperfido testified that there was always a question about the defendant's assets because it was clear he was running them and making all the decisions. While the defendant is running all these companies, the accountant, Kathy Russell, is telling Mr. Loperfido that the defendant did not have any income. No income while he was -- no income, even though he was getting a 10 percent cut of all of the companies.

So where is that? That's where we submit all this cash is coming from, it's all the defendant's.

Mr. Loperfido told you about a movie shown at V Week that concerned him very much. The documentary claimed that taxes were unconstitutional. And Mr. Loperfido wanted to address the audience, because the movie was showing a one-sided stand on not paying taxes. He was not allowed to address the crowd. That testimony was page 3373 to 3374.

I suggest to you -- I submit, that the defendant's entire scheme to maintain the appearance of having no assets, no income, while funding a lifestyle, was all done so he does not to have pay taxes. That's why the conspiracy to use Pam Cafritz's American Express card without authority was done with the intent to commit or and aid and abet or in connection with the crime of tax evasion. I submit that we've proven that one as well, which is Racketeering Act 11.

Now we're going to move on to Racketeering Act 2, 3, 4. So now we're in the portion of the category slide that deals with the crimes related to the sexual exploitation of Camila and the possession of child pornography.

Racketeering Act 2 is sexual exploitation of a child and the actual producing of the pictures of Camila. And that happened on two different occasions, so that's why there are two Racketeering Acts related to that. Then Racketeering Act 4 is the actual possession of those photographs.

So you've heard a lot of evidence about Camila during the course of this trial. You learned that the defendant began having sex with Camila when she was just 15 years old and he was 45.

This photograph was taken when Camila was 13 or 14 years old, just when she started going to school in Cohoes, New York. Now, at that point in time Daniela testified Camila's parents were around while she was there for the school year. But then Camila went home to Mexico and then there was an effort by the defendant in discussions with Daniela to encourage her younger siblings to come back to the United States. When they came back, their parents weren't there. You heard from Daniela that the plan the defendant had for Camila was to have her work as a maid for Nancy Salzman, for Camila to clean Nancy Salzman's home, and to be very far away from where Camila's other siblings were. At that point in time, their parents are still in Mexico. And Daniela testified she and Marianna are living apart from their brothered, Adrian, who is far away, and then Camila is far away as well. This was part of the defendant's plan.

In Daniela's words, "Camila was isolated from her so the defendant could have easy access." Daniela testified to that on page 2,471 of the transcript.

Daniela testified that sometime before the fall of 2006 she asked the defendant if he was asking sex with Camila. He replied that he was. He asked whether Daniela minded. Daniela was brutally honest when she testified. She said that she remembers this because she was actually jealous. She felt jealous because the defendant had made Daniela wait until her 18th birthday, while her sister was allowed to have sex with him before she turned 18. The defendant responded that some women girls are more mature, emotionally mature, than others. And that's at transcript page 2,473.

Those words might sound familiar to you. Just last Friday you heard the defendant speaking about the age of consent. And he said in that context that it mattered, that the real question was whether the person was a child or adult-like.

You also know -- we looked last Friday at Government's Exhibit 1071. This was another one of the defendant's teachings. In that one he talked, he asked whether there was anything wrong with an adult and a child having sex. And first there were -- he posited there could be concerns about pregnancy or disease. But then he says, "There is sex that doesn't involve -- that involves -- that doesn't involve, that minimally involved the need of transferring procreation. So for example, an adult manually stimulates the child, should the child be allowed to masturbate the adult? Should the adult be allowed to masturbate the child?" The defendant included an answer, "These are things students have to think out for themselves. We're raising the issues on how to think about the issue and generate an opinion. Be careful as head trainer not to give any opinion."

You also know that Camila was only 15 when the defendant started having sex with her because of the e-mails and chats that you saw. You saw the WhatsApp chats from 2014 where the defendant says that he was proud to have been Camila's husband for 8.75 years, which would have meant that their relationship began in 2005.

This was another example from those WhatsApp messages that also showed that the defendant had been having sex with Camila since she was 15. This is in one of the conversations, which we're going to talk about more in a minute, about finding a successor for the defendant. The defendant asked whether, who would be interested given age, et cetera. She says something flattering. He says, "Even an inexperienced 18 year old?" And Camila responds, "Even an inexperienced 15 year old." The defendant certainly doesn't respond, What are you talking about. He responds, "It needs to be a once in a lifetime person. And I have that. And I lost it."

You also saw that even back in 2009 the defendant was calling Camila his slave. This one example, Government's Exhibit 1400, where she talks -- where the defendant is responding. This was the Camiliacastle account, where the defendant and Camila would both communicate on the same account. So it looks as if the same person is sending the e-mail, but really they are both logging in and responding to each other.

And so in this e-mail, written by the defendant, he writes something sexual that he wants to have happen. He says, "by very obedient slaves."

I submit within -- there were in the same set of e-mails there were other references to BDS-type sex, and she signed other e-mails your slavey slave.

Also in 2009 all of these messages reflect a much longer-standing relationship than one would have been possible to have begun had it begun by the time she turned 18.

And so, this one is also Government's Exhibit 1400, Camila is writing another sexual comment, and then she notes that she's "fresh out of jail bait grounds." Racketeering Act 2 and 3 are based on the same conduct. That on November 2, 2005, and again on November 24, 2005, the defendant took graphic and sexual photographs of Camila who was then only 15 years old, a child. For both of those crimes there are three elements.

One additional piece of evidence regarding the fact that their relationship started well before Camila turned 18. This is in August 2011, she says five years. That when we looked at records from her gynecological visits, the nurse practitioner explained this is a very important question, so you can monitor their sexual health properly. Here Camila had written she had been five years with her partner. And from all of the evidence in this case, I submit, that had to have been the defendant.

But here that would have turned out to be roughly 16. The five years then is an approximation that people often use; but regardless, long before she turned 18.

So here are the elements of sexual exploitation of child. First, that Camila was under 18 at the time of the acts alleged, November 2, 2005 and November 24, 2005. That the defendant used, employed or persuaded Camila to take part in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual image of that conduct. Sexually explicit conduct includes lascivious exhibition of the genitalia and the pubic area. And lascivious exhibition is a depiction designed to excite lustfulness and sexual stimulation in a viewer. So the difference between baby in a bubble bath and the types photos that you saw of Camila. Now, the third element is that the visual depiction produced was produced using materials mailed, shipped, transported in or affecting interstate commerce.

Let's talk about the second element first. You now that the defendant took sexually explicit photographs of Camila. Daniela identified a redacted version of one of those images as being of her little sister. So that's Government's Exhibit 929, combined with on the top there is a transcript cite to page 2,477. You saw all of the images. That's the redacted version. They are in evidence as Government's Exhibit 518 A through U. I'm not going to show you them again. But you did see them. And you if feel it necessary, you can you determine if they are necessary, if you want to, you can request to see them again during your deliberations. They clearly focus on Camila's genitals, which mean they are what is called a lascivious exhibition under the law, or visual depiction of a child's genitals for sexual stimulation.

You heard evidence of about where those images were kept, on a hard drive, the defendant's executive library.

So that's the defendant on the left with the drive behind him, that's the picture that was taken in February 2012. And then on the right you can see the hard drive, which Special Agent Mills testified he recovered in 2018. And so you can see that it has not moved from the same spot since then. Those are Government's Exhibit 175A-1 and Government's Exhibit 502A-34.

The images were found in a folder that the defendant called his studies. Now, how do you know that this was the defendant's hard drive, that it was the defendant's studies folder?

First, because of Daniela's testimony. Daniela testified that the defendant had a Dell computer and a Western Digital hard drive and a Dell drive and a big professional camera. She testified to that on pages 2,568 through 69.

Daniela testified that she went through the defendant's Dell computer and found pictures of naked women, women that she knew the defendant had been with. That was on page 2,571 of the transcript.

She testified that she distinctly remembered seeing Monica Duran's photograph, because she hadn't known up until that point that the defendant was having sex with her.

She also testified that she set up the hard drive to back up the defendant's Dell computer. You also know that it was the defendant's studies folder because you saw what was in the folder. There were 11 folders of sexually explicit photographs, all of women that the defendant was having sex with. You can look at Government's Exhibit 550, which was the stipulation identifying the women in each of those individual folders. The first folder, 4L122505, naked photographs of Lauren Salzman, which the defendant titled the folder after his nickname for her Forelorn. A111005, naked photographs of Angel Smith. BJ103005, naked photographs of Barbara Jeske. 101705, naked photographs of Dawn Morrison. A lot of these people are on the inner circle board as well. DF101905, naked photographs of Daniela. J10605 naked photographs of Barbara Bouchey, who went by the nickname Ja, that was from Lauren Salzman on page 1992. L102805, those were naked pictures of Loretta Garza, one of the defendant's first line DOS slaves as well. NMP102005, those were naked pictures of Marianna and Pam Cafritz together. MO101805 were pictures of Monica Duran. And then MS -- we're missing one. There was also MS Kathy Russell's photographs were in a folder that was labeled MSK at the beginning; and you heard through testimony that one of her nicknames was Ms. Kathy. Then finally V110205, which were naked photographs of Camila. Now, why the V? Well, you know by now, you've seen her nickname over and over, all over the place, Virgin Camila, Vicky Baby, CV Baby, the name was given to her by the defendant.

The defendant talks with Camila about the fact that he had these photographs. You saw that in the WhatsApp chat, Government's Exhibit 302R, page 44. He says, "You know I guard the other pictures, right?" Camila responds, "From way back when?" The defendant responds, "I wanted the original forever. I thought it was truly mine. Yes. From way back when." Which brings us to the first element of the crime of child exploitation. The evidence is overwhelming that Camila was under the age of 18 when the photographs were taken.

First of all, you know Camila's birthday was March 1st, 1990. You know that because Daniela testified to it. But you also know it because of Camila's passport that was scanned in her e-mail account, and her medical records, all of which consistently show her birthday of March 1st, 1990.

Next you know when the photographs were taken because of when they were dated. I don't think we have the, we don't have the -- so there is -- the first one is B110205, and then -- we'll come back to it before we finish.

Now the defendant clearly came up with the folder title, because it's his own private nicknames for the women who's pictures are inside them. Each of these folders contain photographs that match the date on which they were taken. You know it because Lauren Salzman and Daniela both testified that the defendant took naked photographs of them in 2005. And the naked photographs they described having been taken are exactly like the ones that you saw in the studies on the Western digital hard drive.

Now you also know that the photographs were taken in 2005 because that's what the data shows. The forensic examiner, Brian Booth testified that the most reliable metadata that the FBI could obtain from the images on the Western digital hard drive, said that they were taken exactly when the folders stated they were taken. So Government's Exhibit 518 A through N, now we can see it, were taken on November 2, 2005. And Government's Exhibit 518 O through U were taken November 24, 2005.

You also know that the photographs were taken when Camila was under 18 because you know that Camila's appendix surgery was on January 9, 2015, when she still 16 years old, she wouldn't turn 17 until the following March. You know that the wounds were bad. You heard it described in detail, watching her mother clean it out. You yourselves have compared a recent photograph of Camila's abdomen where the scar is still visible. You know it's a recent photograph because you can also see her brand on there.

In that photograph, when you compared that photograph to the photograph from the studies folder, I submit to you, there is no scar. Special Agent Wenniger also told you there was no scar. So the images must have been taken before Camila turned 17.

The third element, the last element, is also clearly mapped because the materials that had been mailed, shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. So here, as you know, the images were taken from this camera, the Canon EO 20D, which is Government's Exhibit 520. You can see that right on it, it says that it was made in Japan. You know because the active data from every single photograph taken from the defendant's studies folder showed the photograph was taken by this camera with this serial number 1420908348. This is in evidence.

It looks just like the camera that Lauren Salzman and Daniela described the defendant taking pictures of them with. You can inspect it yourself in the jury room.

As Special Agent Mills testified, the camera says it was made in Japan. You can see it for yourselves, which proves the third element of the Racketeering Act 2 and 3 beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, as for Racketeering Act 4, the defendant was charged with possession of child pornography. The child pornography with which he possessed is the same as the images he took of Camila when she was under 18 years old.

The elements of Racketeering Act 4 are that the defendant knowingly possessed the visual depiction. That the visual depiction was produced using material that had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. That the production of the depiction involved the use of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. And that the defendant knew that the production of the visual depiction involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

So Racketeering Act 4 is similar to Racketeering Act 2 and 3 because elements two and three are the same. The difference for Racketeering Act 4 is that Racketeering Act 4 charges the possession, not the creation, of the images of Camila. All possession means is that the defendant had control over the images at some point between when the images were created in November 2005 and when they were seen by Special Agent Mills in March 2018.

You know the defendant did, because again, the defendant took those photos. He labels the photos with the first initial of his nickname for Camila, Virgin Camila, and he tells her that he has the photos from way back when.

MS. PENZA: Now, it's not just -- let's check off our three racketeering acts.

So I submit that what we just went through proved Racketeering Acts 2, 3, and 4.

Now, the fact that in addition to the fact that he began his relationship with request Camila when she was still a child, 15. It was coercive and abusive in so many other ways. You saw the nature of that relationship. The WhatsApp chats Special Agent Reiss read were a special window into the defendant's relationship with Camila. You saw how controlling he was. How Camila asked permission to eat, to sleep, to cut her hair, to see a friend, to text her family.

At the beginning of this case, Mr. Agnifilo, told you that that a lot of the time the defendant was being controlling, he said what's behind the control? This is something these people signed up for. They are here to make their lives better and they have signed up for this. But you saw the messages, you heard the testimony. This was not about making anyone's life better, and either Camila nor her sister signed up for anything like this: The control, the abuse, the threats to send her back to Mexico. And you likely remember the defendant's obsession with Robbie.

The defendant also told Camila that by ruining her period she had ruined herself as the defendant's successor. And he tasked her with finding a new virgin to take on the role.

You saw the defendant's messages with Camila about Robbie asking her the most excruciating details about her sexual encounters with him. Eerily similar to the messages exchange between Daniela and the defendant about Ben Meyers.

This is Government Exhibit 301-R. This is a concept of finding a successor for her. Oh, sorry, I didn't show you the appendix scar. We'll talk about it before, but if you want to look at the record, Government Exhibit 530-R is the actual appendectomy records.

So this is the line about the successor where the defendant says to Camila, "Make another successor. Give me you in ways you never would have." And then he goes on about how she had ruined herself for him.

Now, because Camila had been with Robbie, the defendant no longer considered her worthy of being his successor. And you heard from witnesses and saw e-mails and messages about what the defendant wanted for his successor. A young version that Camila was supposed to recruit and groom into becoming his new sexual partner. You saw on WhatsApp chats that the defendant told Camila Rosa Laura could help in finding a successor. She could assist in her becoming friends with young future candidates and shepherding them over time. And you also saw Camilla's actual efforts to find the defendant a virgin on Tinder. This is Government Exhibit 1779-534. This is where the defendant says Rosa Laura could assist her in finding a successor.

The defendant also said that the person needed to be very pure, more than just being a virgin, and "at least as pure as you were when I first met you."

And you saw this e-mail from Rosa Laura Junco to the defendant telling him she was concerned she wasn't doing enough to facilitate her own teenage daughter Laureisa's possibility for succession.

This is consistent with Lauren Salzman's testimony, too, at Pages 1899 and 1900. Lauren Salzman testified about the defendant's young virgin successor that Daniela Padilla, Loreta Garza, and Rosa Laura Junco, were trying to bring in sisters or cousins from Mexico to come to Albany for this purpose. Rosa Laura was even willing to give up her own daughter.

Now, you remember this clip, right, this is when Nancy Salzman was parroting the defendant's words about age of consent in the Jness room. I want you to look on the left-hand side. As Sylvie testified, those are the underage girls from Mexico that were being taught in this girl's school of Rosa Laura Junco's. I submit that the defendant wanted those girls to hear that age of consent conversation to believe that able of consent was just a societal construct, that it would be okay to have sex with an adult as long as they them themselves were adult-like. I submit that that is grooming right there.

Now, if you want to review the testimony from Lauren about Rosa Laura's Junco's girls program, you can review the testimony on Page 1901. Now, why the defendant instructed Camila to find him a successor virgin because from the beginning the defendant relied on his female sex partners to approach, recruit, and groom other women as his sex partners. You saw that time and time again. You heard that from Daniela who Pam Cafritz facilitated her and her sister's abortions to quote, Make sure everything went according to plan and that nothing implicated the defendant. And that's on transcript Page 2647.

You heard that from Lauren Salzman, too, who testified that Pam Cafritz facilitated all of Keith's objectives, whatever Keith wanted especially in terms of getting sex partners for the defendant. That's on Page 1707.

Lauren Salzman testified that Pam's illness and death meant that no one was going to fill at that role to be able to do that for him. That was until DOS. It was through DOS that the defendant executed on his plan to have women formally recruit other women and lock them into a collateralized vow of obedience to him so that they couldn't leave him, couldn't be unfaithful, to do work for him, to have sex with him, and to recruit new sex partners for him and here they are, the defendant and the seven first line DOS slaves.

Having women recruit other women was an important part of this plan. Why? Because these women trust -- because the women who were brought into DOS trusted the women who recruited them. And the defendant exploited that trust for the things he wanted.

But make no mistake about it. The defendant did not create DOS to be a sisterhood as Mr. Agnifilo put it in his opening statement. It was not as he put it, "A group of best buddies."

To know what DOS really was, just look at the defendant's own words. "I think it would be good for you to own a fuck toy slave for me that you could groom and use as a tool to pleasure me." That's October 2015.

The evidence is overwhelming that the defendant created DOS not to empower women but to benefit and to satisfy himself so that he could have DOS slaves do work for him and have sex with him. Lauren Salzman testified about the sexual aspects of DOS. She told you that the defendant was having sex with his first line DOS slaves including herself. She told you about the naked photographs, the up-close vagina pictures that were sexual in nature. She told you about the dungeon with the BDSM equipment that Daniela Padilla bought. She told you about seduction assignments and the sexual relationships between the defendant and the DOS slaves. And that testimony on Page 1790.

And this is the testimony about the dungeon. 9 Milltowne Drive, the sorority house the defendant told his slaves to purchase. And you can see here the warranty deed dated October 25, 2018, with Stinka, LLC signed by Nicole Clyne. She is one of the first line DOS slaves. And they quote from Lauren Salzman about the dungeon is at Page 1638.

And the items that they told the first line DOS slaves to buy for him. The ones Salzman described as a BDSM sex torture place like the cage. And you saw the invoices. And you saw what Daniela Padilla actually bought is Government Exhibit 864 and Government Exhibit 863. These are just a few of the items. Can there really be any doubt that DOS was anything other than a way for the defendant to get what he wanted from the women including sex.

All of this was for him to satisfy the defendant's desire for sex and power and control. Here he is talking about changing the vote, finding women of influence.

MS. PENZA: So you you've time and time again the defendant speaking out seeking out political influence.

Now, here, he wants to do that and you heard Lauren Salzman testified that Cici, whose name we're not using, is somebody who was a woman who did have very powerful connections in Mexico. And the idea of changing a vote shows that the defendant has envisioned, I submit, that all of these women will be collateralized vows. And he what he says from top down everyone's voting one way, he believes that everyone will have to obey that. And so, this was the grand plan that the defendant had envisioned.

Now, Lauren Salzman testified about the structure of DOS and she told you making it abundantly clear throughout the trial that the defendant was at the top of it. He was the grandmaster, he was the supreme master. And that's a transcript Page 1506.

And Lauren Salzman also testified about the Excel spreadsheet that's in evidence as Government Exhibit 357 and it documented the enrollments of individuals of women into DOS and you can take a look at it during your deliberations. You'll see the names of everyone in the first line and you'll see the names of all of the slaves that they enrolled.

Now, this chart includes only a few of those names, but you can see all of the people who were DOS slaves who you heard from and about: Nicole, Jay, Lauren Salzman, Sylvie. And all the ones you heard about: India, Michele, Daniela, Audrey, Sarah. All of these slaves were ultimately under the defendant. He was their master, he was their grandmaster, he was their supreme master.

Now, the victims you heard from in this case, and the other women who were recruited into DOS below the first line, had no idea all of this was going on behind the scenes.

We're going to go through each of them individually later, but the DOS victims who testified: Sylvie, Nicole, Jay, were never told that the defendant was the head the group; that the defendant was ultimate master, that they never were expected to get naked for or send naked pictures to the defendant. That they would have ever have to turn over additional collateral, or they would be expected to have sex with the defendant. None of them testified that they were told that a BDSM dungeon, the defendant's idea, was being built at the bottom of the house owned by the women in DOS and that the defendant had been interested in BDSM for years.

In short, none of the DOS victims testified that they were told that that group had anything to do with sex. And based on the misrepresentation of the group as being about female empowerment and the concealment of the defendant's role, we'll talk about which women handed over property.

Now, you heard of how much this collateral meant to these women. You saw the lists of collateral that were provided by Michelle and her insistence that her slave, Suzie, provide additional collateral including renunciations of their inheritances. And that's in evidence as Government Exhibit 1816.

You also saw the types of pictures that women handed over as collateral. Close ups of their vaginas with their faces in the same frame. I'm not going to show you these now, you can ask to see them while you deliberate if you wish. But some examples are Government Exhibit 1806, 1807, 1809, 1811, and 1812. I submit these were pictures that no one would released. Life destroying pictures.

You also heard that women like Nicole and Jay turned over intimate videos as well. Of course, the victims did not know, couldn't have known, that they were being asked to pose in a way that was most sexually pleasing to the defendant.

At the beginning of the trial, Mr. Agnifilo said that the naked photos that the DOS slaves provided were not sexual. The photos the DOS slaves provided are nearly indistinguishable save the Nokia phone and the old VCR from the trophies the defendant kept in his study from over a decade earlier. I submit those photos that the DOS slaves provided were for the defendant's sexual gratification and nothing else.

Now, several of the racketeering acts in all of the standalone charges in this case are related to DOS and here they are.

So the first one we're going to talk -- the way we're structure the order in which we're going to go through them I think is the way that it makes the most sense as we talk about the facts as the DOS slaves were of them and as we went through the evidence in the course of the case. So the first count that we're going to talk about is the wire fraud conspiracy and the concealment of the defendant's role in DOS and the fact that it included making women available to the defendant for sex brings us to the first of those charges,s wire fraud conspiracy.

Now, this is another conspiracy charge, so, again, it's the agreement to commit the wire fraud that's the crime.

And these are the elements of wire fraud.

The first element of wire fraud is the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

The law says that materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises includes not only deceitful statements but also half truths and concealment of material facts.

As to the first element, the defendant and his first line agreed that they defraud the lower-ranking DOS slaves by concealing the true nature of DOS including the defendant's involvement in the organization and the sexual aspects of it.

Lauren Salzman testified that she was instructed to conceal the defendant's identity from her slaves, and that she followed that instruction. And you can read Lauren's Salzman's testimony on Page 1602. And you read the defendant's own words to Camilla saying that there were slaves who would never know of his existence. And as of October 2015, there were some who already did.

And you also heard from Nicole and Jay who said that they had no idea that the defendant was involved when they joined, and they would not have joined if they had known. And so, Nicole's testimony on this can be found on Page 3862 and Jay's testimony can shall found on Page 4324.

And I think it's just notable, also, I submit when you read the transcript of these women, these women had the best of intentions. They wanted good in the world and that was used against them. Here Jay testifies that, you know, she wanted to be this strong force of light in the world and that was what was used against her. And here Jay is again. "Would you have joined the vows if you were told or man or men was involved in the organization?" "Absolutely not." "Why not?" "Because no offense to me, but there are just some things that men don't understand that only woman do and because of everything that I had been through. And my mother not being present, I definitely wanted to form more bonds with women and it just made sense. It wouldn't make sent if there was a man running things."

I submit that the defendant and the first line knew women were not going to hand over their property, their collateral, if they knew the truth. And I submit obtaining that initial collateral was vitally important. At that point, the fear of release is established and the power dynamic immediately shifts.

So looking back at the elements of wire fraud conspiracy, to prove the first element, Judge Garaufis will instruct you to consider whether a reasonable person would have considered the omitted information to be a concern when making a decision.

Now, you heard interest Nicole and Jay on this point, but I submit that any reasonable woman would have considered it important, would have considered it important to know that there was actually a man at the head of this women's group before joining. Especially one where they were being asked to provide naked photographs and sex tapes in order to join.

Additionally, a reasonable woman would want to know that a group she thinks will be about women's mentorship has an explicit sexual bent and that the existing members already understand sex and nudity to be part of the group.

Now, the second element requires the Government to prove the defendant or conspirator knowingly and willfully provides or participated in the scheme with a specific intent to defraud. In short, the scheme of the defendant knew of the lies being told to the DOS slaves, and that he intended to obtain property through those lies.

The defendant was the creator of DOS and his first line knew his identity had to be concealed, so there is no doubt this element has been proven. Naked photos, videos, rights to assets, those are things of real value in the real world.

The third element that there was an agreement that interstate or foreign wire communications would be used to commit the scheme. Again, this is an element where there really can be no doubt that the Government has proven it. You heard the women were recruited into DOS from California, from Mexico, from Canada, of course communications would cross state lines and national boundaries. Of course, communications that would cross state lines and national boundaries were envisioned as part of this. In fact, Lauren Salzman testified that she recruited two of her slaves in Mexico over Skype while they were in Mexico and she was in New York. Her testimony about that can be found on Page 1604.

You also heard bunch of DOS's operation occurred over telegram and that telegram did not operate in the United States. There was testimony about that which appears on Page 1604 and 1371.

With that, we submit we've proven the wire fraud conspiracy and we can check off as guilty Count Four, wire fraud conspiracy.

So we talked about the lies that brought women into DOS who induced them to give up their property their collateral, but let's talk now about what the DOS slaves believed they're collateral meant.

As you'll see in a second, there is ample evidence that the defendant and his co-conspirators intended to release collateral if necessary. But even if that were the case, the question is what victims believed based on the defendant's and their co-conspirators words and actions. That's the key to the coercion that will be at the heart of the rest of the DOS-related crimes.

Let's look first at the evidence that the defendant intended to release collateral, if necessary.

Here he is talking on tape.

MS. PENZA: Executing the collateral. The defendant is talking there about releasing it. Now, just last -- and that's Government Exhibit 494 in evidence.

Now, also, just last week with Special Agent Wenninger. We looked at an internal document sent by Rosa Laura Junco to the defendant which he then saved in November 2017. So then here Rosa Laura Junco is sending the document to the defendant on October 15, 2016. "Find attached the document promised the letter S," stands for what you can imagine, "and it attach letters for M." And this is Government Exhibit 1326. And this document describes how to measure the specific collateral.

And the first one of the criteria was proven authenticity. As you can see right underneath it asks "How much can we prove collateral is authentic. This determines how much the collateral is actual." Actual, executable, can be released. Those are all words for the same thing.

Now, the criteria goes from whether the collateral is typed versus handwritten versus notarized, to audio, to video, and it whether there is an actual legal title to the document. And there is different points that are to be assigned to how valuable that collateral is.

I submit there is no way to interpret this other than its plain language that they were trying to figure out how executable the collateral would be, meaning, they were trying to figure out could they take the property. If they have the title, makes it easier to execute the collateral. And could they make clearer that it was really belonging to the DOS slave. Would it have the effect of damaging her because it could be directly tied to her? Same document, Page 1326. At the end of the document, there is a section called depth of collateral.

And the points for the authenticity section and another section were to be multiplied by how damaging the collateral would be. The levels there ranged from become an inconvenience to affects by limiting options permanently to affects freedom and all experience of self. I submit this is a document that only for the defendant and his first line and the only way to the language of this document makes sense that they intended to be able to release the collateral effectively that is with the appropriate damage if they determined it was necessary.

Your Honor, do you want to stop?

MS. PENZA: So where we left off, we were talking about the collapse and the understanding among the first-line DOS members and the defendant that collateral was meant to be used.

Now, additionally, Lauren Salzman testified the initial collateral she proposed, that the initial collateral she proposed which described the true story of her, her mom, and the defendant's role in corrupting a woman who was having a mental breakdown following a NXIVM class was rejected because the defendant might have been uninclined to release it since it implicated himself.

And so this is Lauren Salzman's quote on Page 1691 and she said -- she told me she would rejected it because it would be a conflict of interest for Keith to release the collateral because he would be implicated in the collateral. So if I were to ever violate the vow, he wouldn't be able to use it because it would hurt him so she didn't accept it and at that time did you believe your collateral would be released if you violated your vow.

And she said yes.

I submit also the common meaning of the word "collateral" implies execution. The bank, for example, can foreclose on your house if you don't pay your mortgage. Regardless, what matters at the end of the day is not what the defendant actually intended to release or not release collateral, what matters is the defendant knew the victims believed their collateral could be released. That is where the power lies. A master has also the ample proof that victims did get release of their collateral and that the defendant and the first-line masters re-enforced that.

Remember Sofie from the very beginning of the trial and is this is her testimony on Page 273. She had decided that her master, Monica Duran, right there (indicating) told her that the defendant had said that another one of Monica Duran's slaves, named Gaby was at risk for having her collateral released. Sofie testified that Monica told they are that the defendant had said Ana Gaby might have to be the first one to, "take the fall." Sophie testified that scared her and she called her Ana Gaby and tried to persuade her to do what she was supposed to be doing because Sofie was so worried about Anna Gaby's collateral to be released. Her testimony, if you want to read it, is contained on the bottom of Page 274 as well.

And Nicole also testified that she had experiences that made her fearful that her collateral would be released if she was not obedient. The first is just when a month -- the first was one just a month and a half after having joined DOS Nicole tried to leave. Allison told her that she had like an arranged marriage and couldn't get out. Now we'll talk about that a little more in a day, but Allison also told her that Allison's own master, the defendant, who Nicole did not know at that time was the defendant, had once threatened to release a sex tape Allison had provided as collateral when Allison wouldn't keep to her diet and Nicole testified after Allison said this, Nicole used the disobedience as grounds for release of her collateral. Nicole's testimony on this could be found on Page 3875 to 76, if you want to review it.

The second was -- time was when Nicole tried to talk to the defendant about leaving DOS. And he told her the story of Billy Budd. Nicole's takeaway from the defendant was that Billy Budd had been hanged in order to uphold the code of the Navy, even though there weren't actual laws to be upheld. Nicole told her that after that conversation she contemplated options where perhaps DOS would not have to release her collateral, like joining the witness protection program. She was desperate to find any way to get out without DOS having to make an example of her and release her collateral in order to keep their code.

Now we're going to move on to extortion. I submit that when the lower-ranking DOS slaves went through the process of providing their initial collateral they thought the worst of it was over. You heard, though, that once they were in, they were informed for the first time that there was a requirement of monthly collateral, and that brings us to the next criminal act charged as part of DOS, extortion under New York State Law, which is charged as racketeering, which is actually charged as Racketeering Act 9. Now, the premise here is that once the women had provided their initial collateral, any subsequent property that was obtained was obtained based on the threat of the release of that initial collateral. Now extortion under New York State Law requires the Government to prove that the defendant obtained property illegally by extortion. This is another act that has been charged under the aid and abetting theory. So if you find that the defendant didn't get his own hands dirty or commanded or held others in the process, then you can find this act proven. Extortion means instilling in a victim of fear that if they don't hand over property, the defendant or another person would expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true for false, tending to subject some person, could be the victim or someone else, to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or perform any other act which would harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationship. I submit there couldn't be a more perfect statement of what the threat posed by release of that collateral was.

DOS slaves uploaded their monthly collateral to avoid the release of their initial collateral which had been specifically designed to harm them with respect to their business, their calling, their career, their financial condition, their reputation, their personal relationship. Plus the fact that the initial -- at the DOS collateral document that we had been looking at before, Government's Exhibit 1326. There is a section called Areas. And that that is A collateral is committed affecting a specific area or areas. The more areas are affected, the stronger it is. Each area affected is worth five points. These are the areas: Work, family, social credibility, important people affected, assets, wealth, possessions, rights. It reads almost -- it's very similar to the list in the extortion statute.

Now Nicole also testified explicitly that the fear of her original collateral being released is what kept her to submit more, the fear of harming her family. And you can find that testimony on Page 4017. And you also saw some of the initial additional collateral Nicole provided, and she told you she also provided many more additional naked pictures. I submit that the Government has also proven that the defendant engaged in state law extortion beyond a reasonable doubt, so Racketeering Act 9 has been proven.

Now, the remaining DOS related crimes that we're going to look at rely in part on an analysis of whether tactics of force, fraud or coercion were used on victims. Let's look at all the tactics of coercion that were being reported DOS beyond the collateral. First you have the branding with the defendant's initials, the humiliating act of possession.

Lauren Salzman and Nicole both described how painful this process was. Lauren even described her slave, Jimena, squealing and screaming and said it looks horrendous and really scary. Lauren Salzman's testimony about this is on Page 1748. And let's take a look at that, what that chat between, again, October 2015 with -- between Camila and the defendant and even all the way back in October 2015 even though the slave would not end up being branded until early 2017. The defendant is talking about branding he says it caused her and other slaves all that wanted to be branded with my monogram plus a number, so the defendant's initials were always conceded to be what the brand was going to be.

MS. PENZA: Now, you heard that the ceremonies played out exactly as the defendant described, that all slaves were naked. The ceremonies were videoed to create more collateral. Their hands were held above their heads like a sacrifice. You also heard that the victims had to say, Master please brand me, so it didn't seem like they were being forced.

I submit that line in the recording was a submission by the defendant that, in fact, the brands which secretly contained his monogram was obviously coercive or he wouldn't have thought that the statement was necessary. He knew if the true meaning of the branding came out he would need to protect himself. And look at the brand. I don't think you need me to trace his initials anymore. You know what it is. Just like Nicole knows what it is, when she looks down and sees that permanent scar on her body every day.

Dr. Hughes described in her testimony a number of tactics of coercion that victims experienced and the relevant effect. She talked about isolation, how that keeps abusive secrets and stops victims from getting help. She talked about indoctrination and how it takes away freedom of though. She talked about subjugation, treating someone as less than them. She talked about surveillance and checking in and creating a sense that the abuser is omnipotent. She talked about secrecy and intimidation, about controlling vital functions like eating, sleeping, grooming, and she talked about shame, humiliation and emotional abuse. Dr. Hughes' testimony on these topics can be found on Page 3721 through 28 and she told you the goal of these behaviors is entrapment.

The evidence showed that those tactics are used by the defendant time and time again, perhaps most formally within DOS. There was a push to isolate the members of DOS by forcing them to stay in Clifton Park as much as possible. For example, Nicole testified that she was expected to travel nearly every day off even if it was only overnight. You can read about her grueling schedule on transcript Page 3953. And the DOS slaves were in a master/slave relationship. There could be no greater subjugation. They were doing readiness drills at all hours, walked at all hours, naked pictures on demand. Nicole testified that she even needed permission to cut her hair, and I submit it's just common sense that when people are sleep deprived and living on 500 calories a day, that they are more easily manipulated and coerced.

For those willing to make a career of it, success in EPS was explicitly tied to -- success in DOS was explicitly tied to their success in ESP, an additional tactic of coercion. For example, in one of the text messages we discovered in Exhibit 432 between Audrey and Lauren Salzman, Lauren said, I'm telling you this not just as your M, a master, but as a green in ESP, very high rank.

That brings us to the next type of criminal conduct that occurred within DOS, forced labor. And here there was one standalone task related to forced labor, and there's one subpart of a racketeering act, forced labor of Nicole is 10B. We're going to talk about them together, but for the conspiracy count, again you only need to find an agreement and for the racketeering act you do not need to find that the defendant committed it himself if he commanded it or caused it to happen.

Now starting with the first element, the Government has proved that the defendant agreed with his first line slave including Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack to obtain the labor of lower-ranking slaves and that the defendant did specifically obtain the labor and services of Nicole. Throughout the trial there was ample evidence DOS operated as a way for the defendant to obtain sex and labor from lower-ranking slaves. This is what's in evidence as Government's Exhibit 1404 and that's the entirety of the DOS book, but take this example from the DOS book where it says that you surrender your life, mind, body and possessions for unconditional use. You can also look at Lauren Salzman's testimony. This is on Page 1618 and 19. She testified that the defendant had said that the first-line DOS members should be getting approximately 40 hours of labor per week from their slaves. And you also saw the text message, Government's Exhibit 432 that she -- that Lauren Salzman texted one of her slaves where -- that she was conveying that her slave needed to provide her with work and she told the slave, who was a professional, that the type of work Audrey should be doing should be commensurate with Audrey's skill set. So, for example, I submit that if Audrey were a lawyer, Lauren expected an hour of legal work from her. Notably as mentioned before, Lauren also threw around her power of a high ranking member of NXIVM with Audrey who herself was looking to be promoted within NXIVM.

Now as to the second element, the Government has proven then the defendant agreed to obtain the labor of DOS slaves and he did obtain labor from Nicole through threats of serious harm or a scheme, plan or pattern intended to cause them to believe that if they did not perform such labor and services they or someone else would suffer serious harm.

As I mentioned before, I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that serious harm includes psychological, financial and reputational harm. I submit that the scheme language is particularly appropriate here because there was no need to threaten harm day in and day out to get women to do things once they were DOS slaves. The collateral served this intended purpose and served as an ever present threat to the psychological, financial and reputational stability and took away the ability of the DOS slaves to make their choices freely. And remember, when you're analyzing whether the DOS slaves would have felt that serious harm would befall them if they did not provide labor and services, the question is what a reasonable person in the DOS slaves circumstances would do. That's a reasonable person who has been isolated, who has been sleep deprived, limited in eating and who is being humiliated.

Count 4, forced labor conspiracy. So that has led us to forced labor and conspiracy and we have proved it because the defendant did get labor and services. He agreed to get labor and services. So forced labor conspiracy has been proven guilty.

Now the defendant also actually got the labor and services, and so that's where we're going to talk about the racketeering act. Now, Nicole and others transcribed recordings of Pam Cafritz speaking for her memorial service and you heard that Nicole stayed up all night to do that after getting home from her nightclub job. If you wish to review her testimony, it's at Pages 4039 and 4040.

Now, if you look at Government's Exhibit 658, that is the attachment that Nicole sends with her transcription and she writes, It took me about five and a half hours just to do this first part.

Now, Sylvie testified that other people in the Community, including Sylvie were getting paid for tasks related to the memorial. In fact, Sylvie said she was supposed to do the transcription but realized that she couldn't get it all done and that's when it was suggested that Allison's slave do it. I submit there was no chance Nicole would have stayed up for 23 hours in a row to transcribe recordings of Pam's tape unless she felt she had no choice.

Nicole and Sylvie also edited the defendant's articles for hours a day for weeks straight. I submit that the purpose of those articles being edited was to benefit the defendant and make them available for curriculum or for the defendant to publish. Now these are some examples. This is Government's Exhibit 1358 and Government's Exhibit 1360.

Now throughout the trial you've heard about other types of labor and services performed as well such as acts of care, including running errands and buying groceries. I mean there's a regular taking of naked photographs which is its own form of labor. Sofie testified she would spend all this time in the bathroom to take pictures for the defendant. The evidence of the labor Nicole actually performed means that the Racketeering Act 10B has been proven. Now, we're at the final set of DOS-related crimes. Count 5, sex trafficking conspiracy. Count 6 and racketeering 10A, which both relate to the sex trafficking of Nicole and Count 7 which relates to the attempted sex trafficking of Jay. Before we discuss the elements of sex trafficking I'm going to ask you to keep a few things in mind. We've discussed already the fact that the sexual component of DOS was concealed from DOS slaves when they joined while all the first-line slaves were in sexual relationships with the defendant. And you can look to the Government's Exhibit 1779, Page 285.

And keep this in mind, too, this Exhibit 1779, Page 285. October 1st, 2015, the defendant's order that Camila is a fuck-toy slave for him. Keep this in mind as you walk through the sex trafficking of Nicole starting with her recruitment into DOS in February of 2015, four months after Camila received this WhatsApp message. Now in February of 2016 Nicole was spending her first winter in the city having moved from California to pursue her acting career. Things weren't going well and she was actually suicidal. Prior to that I submit Allison had begun pushing her way into Nicole's life, arranging for Nicole to sleep in her bed and hinting at the women's mentorship group she was a part of. She would also assign Nicole to a personal journal entry to Allison as part of their source work. But back to February of 2016, Allison repeated to Nicole, Did Allison suggest Nicole see a therapist? Go home to California for a while and spend time with her family? No.

So this is February 10th, Nicole sends, Tonight was brutal. I haven't felt this low in a very long time. I haven't felt suicidal like this in a long time. This is Government's Exhibit 657. The very next day Allison Mack meets with Nicole at the Ace Hotel in New York City and pitches her on DOS. Nicole testified that meeting with Allison made her feel hopeful. You can read about this initial meeting through the process -- through the process of her joining on Pages 3845 to 3856. Nicole thought she was being given an opportunity to be mentored by an established actor. Now, within a few days, and this is an e-mail from Allison to Nicole saying, I'm so excited to share what I'm doing. This is exactly what you need. Trust me, you'll be okay. Is your collateral finished.

And so this is three days after Nicole had sent the note -- the e-mail saying that she was feeling suicidal.

Now, within a few days Nicole did submit her collateral, the process was difficult and Nicole broke down on the stand when she described writing a letter of her father's sexual abuse. You can see that spot in the transcript on Page 3850. But then she was in and she was hopeful, but she didn't know what she had signed up for. Nicole testified that she was okay with the first commitment, stop sleeping with her on and off boyfriend, try being celibate for three months. Nicole told herself that maybe those things were good for her. I submit what Nicole did not know was that the defendant required all women he had sex with to be monogamous and that he already had his eyes set on having sex with her. At the beginning they were also signs that maybe DOS was a membership group. Allison got her prestigious off-Broadway audition and an interview with Allison's agent which Nicole describes on Page 3866. But fast-forward to late March 2016. By then, Nicole was doing a bit better and one night at her job she met a cute guy who asked for her number and her e-mail journal to Allison that night Nicole wrote about what had happened. Nicole testified that she was concerned by Allison's reaction was to flip out. Allison then went on to tell Nicole she needed to fix it. After that Nicole felt, quote, super unnerved. You can review Nicole's testimony about this interaction on Page 3869 of the transcript. It was then that Nicole decided she didn't want to be in DOS anymore, but she tried to tell Allison. Allison told her it wasn't an option. At that point Allison told Nicole about the time the defendant threatened to release Allison's sex tape.

After that meeting Allison sent the following e-mail. This is March 29th. Why are you scaring yourself -- go back, I'm sorry.

Okay. So on the 29th -- take that back. So on the 29th this is where Nicole talks about wanting to give -- if I wanted to give out my number to get coffee or even kiss a boy, small things that make me smile, I don't see how that's bad, I just don't. And then within two days, Allison Mack is saying, Why are you scaring yourself? This is the after they had the conversation where Allison had -- Allison Mack had talked about the defendant threatening to release her sex tape, although Nicole didn't know it was the defendant at the time. And Allison Mack says, Why are you scaring yourself? I want to remind you that ou made a commitment. You can't go back. It's not an option. It's like an arranged marriage. Why waste time contemplating changing your mind. Take that energy and move into the choice you made. You don't get to question. It's a choice you made, now what are you going to do about it? You will find freedom in the commitment you already made. Don't question, don't waste time, just do.

And I submit that behind the scenes Allison was discussing every step of this with the defendant because within one week of saying she wanted to leave DOS, Allison tasked Nicole with making contact with the defendant. So at that point Nicole still did not know he was a part of DOS, and it was less than two months after that Nicole was staying at Allison's house when she was commanded to go on a walk with the defendant and say she would do anything he asked her to do. And before she left, Allison ordered her to be a good slave. This testimony is on Page 3916 through 17.

And so here you can see the increase in communication. Within a week she is, a little bit after that Allison is passing her getting the attention of the smartest man in the world and then there was a series of e-mails that Allison wrote and it would be about a month, a little over a month later that she was given the assignment to do whatever the defendant wanted her to do.

And so before we go on, there's one -- another WhatsApp message that I wanted you to bear in mind as we consider what happens to Nicole. And this is where the defendant is saying to her, again, October 2015, What if we suggested that another woman seduced me with you?

Now, when Nicole went on the first walk and said to the defendant she would do anything he wanted her to do. He asked her what the worst thing he could ask her to do was. She said she thought the worst was something sexual, but hadn't realized it's the worst thing would actually be to get asked to hurt her family or hurt herself. So the defendant went for second worst. On the walk after that, which I submit based on the e-mail was likely a week after the one where she asked what the worst thing walk he could do for her was -- asked her to do was, Allison again arranged for Nicole to walk with the defendant. Testimony regarding what's the following on this walk and the prior walk can be found on Pages 3917 through 37. I'm sure you remember what Nicole's testimony was next. She described the terrifying and disorienting moment when she was lying on a wooden table, tided down and blindfolded and felt someone begin to go down on her. She assumed it was the defendant but then she heard his voice and realized there was a third person there. She testified that in that moment she worried there were even more people in the room. What Nicole didn't know then but you know now, is that the person who was going down on her was Camila, the very DOS slave who the defendant had commanded to recruit fuck-toy slaves, and who the defendant had sexually abused when she was a minor.

Lauren testified that the defendant told her it was Camila. Lauren's testimony on that is at Page 1870. And this happened at Camila's apartment 120 Victory Way, which I submit is a secret apartment where the defendant hid Camila. You heard evidence that the apartment was paid for and this testimony can be found at 3338. You heard evidence that the apartment was paid for in cash by Kathy Russell, using a fake name Kathy O'Sullivan. And the woman -- the landlord testified and was shown a picture of Kathy Russell and identified her as Kathy O'Sullivan the woman who had been paying a year's worth of rent upfront in cash in a bag at Starbucks for seven years. And that testimony is on Page 3338. Now, when the Government obtained a search warrant for Camila's Google account, this picture with the wooden table -- with the wooden table moved out of its usual spot. And the tie that was used, I submit the tie that was used to bind Nicole's wrist or ankle still hanging off to the side on the upper right of that picture was dated the same day Nicole told us that this incident happened.

And you also saw the video of 120 Victory Way that the landlord took. You also saw the video of 120 Victory Way that the landlord took and there were items all over that video but that all were in this -- all were in this. And so Nicole told you that while she was tied to the table -- that while she was tied to the table the defendant circled her asking probing questions about her sexual history. Based on that picture, I submit that what Nicole didn't know is that the defendant had a videocamera pointed at her while she was tied to that table. I submit the defendant videoed Nicole without her knowledge to have as additional collateral on both her and Camila and for his own sexual gratification.

Tellingly, after this was over, the defendant sat Nicole down and told her that there was nothing wrong with what had happened. I submit the defendant said that to Nicole because he knew what had happened was very, very wrong. And of course --

MS. PENZA: Of course he told her not to tell anyone, making an exception only for Allison. The defendant also told Nicole she was great.

Now Nicole sent an e-mail close in time to this saying that she was looking forward to working more with defendant. Nicole and the defendant had sex after that and she sometimes sent messages initiating contact with the defendant. Describing this period where she would try to make the situation she thought she was stuck in work.

And Dr. Hughes provided psychological insight as well for this behavior. She told us that the fact of continued contact or even a relationship after a sexual assault does not mean the assault did not happen. She explained a perpetrator might get attacked later in the day after a sexual assault and say, it was so nice seeing you. Dr. Hughes explained, the victim may be thinking, well, it wasn't nice to be raped, but I'm going to keep you happy because I know that is what you want to hear because that's what is going to keep me safe. Dr. Hughes' testimony on this point can be found at 3,733.

Look at Nicole. I submit you'll see displaced anger and avoidance that Dr. Hughes told you is very common in sexual assault victims. Dr. Hughes' testimony is at 3,708 and 3,709. All of Dr. Hughes' testimony is valuable in considering the victims. If you feel it may help, you should ask for her testimony.

Do not forget that as soon as DOS blew up and Nicole confirmed with Allison that her collateral wouldn't be released, Nicole didn't feel the need to breakup with the defendant. I submit that Nicole's behavior, once she was unburdened, showed that all of her interactions with the defendant were the product of coercion and direct result of being collateralized. Without DOS, I submit, there is no chance for the defendant ever having sex with Nicole. What happened to Nicole on May 31, 2016 was sex trafficking.

Let's talk about the elements of sex trafficking, all of which are proven here. Now, again, the defendant is guilty if he committed the crime or if he helped to commit the crime.

The first element is that the defendant knowingly recruited, enticed, harbored Nicole, or that the defendant knowingly benefited financially or by receiving something of value from participating in a venture that recruited, enticed, transported, provided or obtained Nicole. I submit you can find that this element is proven under theory the defendant recruited, enticed Nicole to do so. The defendant was also part of DOS and knowingly benefited financially from DOS eventually.

The second element is that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that force, fraud or coercion would be used with respect to Nicole. This element is proven once again by the coercion stemming from the collateral.

And now the forced labor context above. Here the defendant was also the direct participant in the use of force against -- in the use of force against Nicole, given that she was tied to the table.

The third element in that is the defendant knew that Nicole would be engaged in a commercial sex act. Here the sex act is obvious, Nicole having other sex performed on her by Camila for the defendant's sexual gratification.

Now what make this is act commercial? I expect Judge Garaufis will instruct you that a commercial sex act is any sex act in which anything of value is given to any person because of the sex act. Here it's Allison Mack who is the one who received a thing of value by providing Nicole for a sex act to the defendant. A thing of value need not involve a monetary exchange, and need not have any financial component.

As we looked at before, there were certain privileges, including economic privileges, that came with being in the first line, including the longest line of free labor flowing up to you. Maintaining a spot in the first line and receiving those benefits, meant keeping the defendant happy. And because Allison kept the defendant happy and maintained that position by providing the defendant with women to have sex with, she received a commercial benefit. The defendant knew, and the defendant committed the sex trafficking. Nicole even testified that Allison was called Madam Mack. Additionally, e-mail correspondence between the defendant and Allison about an assignment for India to take her clothes you off and pose in the most revealing way for her, demonstrates the commercial ties for Allison to her providing women for the defendant. This is the e-mail I just described. You can see it was written only three-and-a-half weeks before Nicole -- so again, the top header is when the defendant ended up sending himself a lot of e-mails in November 2017, but at the bottom you can see that the original date is March 3rd, 2016.

The defendant writes, Does India know to complete her she needs to take off all her clothes while 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. And Allison Mack writes back, Wahoo, smiley face. And then the next day Allison writes to the defendant, I'm so sorry to bug you but I have not been paid as 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 someway you might be able to review this sooner rather than later? I know you're slammed, if I can help in any way to make this simply, please let me know. I'll try to figure out to be more streamlined with this too. The defendant responded, Yes. Any news on India? Then an hour later Allison replied telling the defendant that India has changed her flight, inclined that she was now, she has changed her flight and is really emotional as money is tight, but totally sees what the value in what the lessen 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. You're meeting again to complete the assign.

I submit this is evidence of a quid pro quo between Allison the defendant. She grooms women for him, and he gives her financial benefit for it.

Finally, you must find that the defendant's conduct was in or effecting interstate commerce. Here the element can be met in many ways, but at least because Nicole took either Amtrak or Greyhound to and from Albany the day of that assignment -- Amtrak or a bus, a commercial bus. The use of these modes of transportation affect interstate commerce. With that we have proven sex trafficking as to Nicole. Both Racketeering Act 10A and Count Six.

Now, on this question on six there is one more thing, so there is another box underneath, it says, "Do you find that the defendant knew means of force, fraud or coercion to be used to cause one or more persons to engage in one or more commercial sex acts." This question is there because this count can be proven by evidence that the defendant recklessly disregarded facts in front of him; but here the defendant was the prime mover and knew exactly what was happening every step of the way. I submit you can check yes to that as well.

Turning now to sex trafficking conspiracy. From what we've already discussed, you can check it. We've proven that Allison and the defendant agreed that Nicole would be sex trafficked. That is enough to find the conspiracy count as well. I'll check it off, that is Count Five.

You can look at other examples as well to consider whether this conspiracy existed. Like Sylvie, from the very beginning of trial, described receiving an assignment to seduce the defendant and ended up performing oral sex on him. You can review that on pages 254 to 255. Her master, Monica Duran, who is also in a first line, I submit would have received the benefit Allison did by being in the first line.

Sylvie receiving that assignment was calculated and planned, just as Nicole's was. Similar to what happened with Nicole, not long before she was recruited into DOS, Sylvie was told she had to be celibate with her husband by Keith, by Clare, by also by Rosa Laura Junco.

Another similarity, after the assault on Sylvie the defendant told Sylvie that she was brave, that she was special. Sylvie testified that she was disgusted by this. Her testimony about this is on page 255. Finally let's talk about the last count in the Indictment, that's Count Seven, the attempted sex trafficking of Jay. As she described on page 4,427, Jay was assigned to seduce the defendant and have him take a picture of her and send it to India to prove it was done. Allison told her to keep the assignment. Jay pushed back with Allison. And Jay testified on page 4,418, Allison tried to convince her that it would help her with her child sexual abuse. Jay also directly asked Allison if the defendant was part of the vow and Allison lied and said no. Finally, at one point, Allison stated to Jay, I give you permission to enjoy it in regards to the assignment.

Given what happened with Sylvie and Nicole, I submit it's clear that Jay was being sent to the defendant to engage in a sex act. They thought because of her collateral she could be coerced like the others. In fact, Allison admitted it that Jay that was supposed to have sex with the defendant. This is page 1,794. Lauren Salzman testified that she asked Allison if the defendant was having sex with her slaves. Allison said, just Nicole and Suzy, but we're going to start working with India and Jay. Lauren then asked, when you say working, do you mean fucking? And Allison said yes.

Additionally, the coercive power collateral is made clear by the fact that she decided she needed to download other people's collateral to have leverage if they tried to release hers.

The rest of the analysis isn't the same. Allison's commercial benefit is based on her arrangement with the defendant.

Here interstate commerce is effected by Jay's flights in and out of J.F.K. from California. With that the Government has proven that Jay was also being set up to have sex with the defendant, and you can check guilty.

At this point we've gone through all the counts, and every Racketeering Act. I submit we have proven. I submit we've already now checked off guilty on Racketeering, even though you could have checked that off as soon as you find two. We already checked off Racketeering conspiracy. And now finally checking off Jay.

At the beginning I said I would come back to relatedness and the threat of continued criminal activity. So here we are.

A nexus that is a connection to the enterprise. I submit there is a substantial overlap in the participants and victims in these counts. Additionally, the defendant was able to commit each of the Racketeering Acts because of the position in the enterprise and his position in the enterprise helped him commit those acts. Either of those factors alone satisfy both these requirements.

Finally you have to find that the Racketeering Act occurred over a substantial period of time where there was a threat of continued criminal activity. You can look at the timeline. I don't think there can be a dispute on this. The Racketeering at issue here span nearly 15 years. There was no sign that the defendant or his inner circle had any intention of stopping. Which brings us to the end.

In November 2016 the defendant fled to Mexico leaving Lauren Salzman and others holding down Clifton Park. A short time after, that he dropped his phones and stopped using his e-mail. He went into hiding.

On the day the defendant was arrested in Mexico he was with several of the first line slaves, including Lauren Salzman, with the intention that they could recommit themselves to the defendant and DOS through group sex. But his fantasy never happened. The Federalies came to his villa and the defendant hid behind another door, in fact two doors; but the defendant can't hide anymore.

A light has been shown into the darkness and the defendant's crimes have been exposed. The victims are thriving. Justice has been a long time coming, and for the first time he's being held accountable to you.

Trust the evidence. Trust your judgment. And find the defendant guilty of all counts. Thank you.