1.Mark Vicente — Direct (Part 6)
647 lines(In open court; Jury not present.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
(Defendant enters the courtroom.)
MS. PENZA: Moira Penza, Tanya Hajjar and Mark Lesko for the United States. Good morning, Your Honor. Also with us at counsel table is a Special Agent Michael Weniger of the FBI.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. AGNIFILO: Good morning, Your Honor. Mark Agnifilo, Teny Geragos, Paul DerOhannesian and Danielle Smith is going to be entering this door probably in 30 seconds. And we're here with Keith Raniere.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning.
Please be seated, everyone.
We have a couple of -- one of the jurors is a few minutes late, so we may not get started at 9:30 precisely. Not all of the jurors are here yet, but they don't have to be here until 9:30.
So I have a couple of letters from the defense. I have one letter regarding the file box issue.
Have you seen that?
MS. PENZA: We have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And without going into the specifics of what's in those particular objected-to items, are there objections to the defense's view of admissibility as to the items identified?
MS. PENZA: Let me just pull it out.
As to the one, Your Honor, the government is -- perhaps we should have a sidebar --
THE COURT: Yes, it's all right.
MS. PENZA: -- difficult to articulate it.
(Continued on the next page.)
(Sidebar conference.)
[REDACTED]
(In open court; Jury not present.)
(Pause.)
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 10:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Are we all set?
MS. PENZA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Let's bring in the jury.
(Continued on next page.)
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Good morning, members of the jury.
JURORS: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready for the witness?
MR. LESKO: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Bring in the witness.
(Whereupon, the witness resumes the stand.)
THE COURT: Also Mr. Lesko, you may continue your examination of the witness.
MR. LESKO: Thank you.
THE COURT: I remind the witness that he's still under oath.
MARK VICENTE: Yes, your Honor.
(Witness takes the witness stand.)
(Witness takes the witness stand.)
MARK VICENTE, called as a witness, having been previously first duly sworn/affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Good morning.
MARK VICENTE: Good morning.
MR. LESKO: We left off a couple of days ago with you discussing events that occurred in the early part of 2017. Do you remember that?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: In approximately March of 2017, did Sarah ask you to obtain a letter from your wife?
MARK VICENTE: I believe it, I believe it was March.
MR. LESKO: What was your understanding of what of that letter was to supposed to say?
MARK VICENTE: My understanding is the letter was some kind of an exit letter, to basically have my wife say that she had no outstanding ethical issues with the company. My sense was basically to hold the company blameless for anything. And that was the letter that she was -- I believe she tried to call my wife and then tried to get me to influence my wife to sign it.
MR. LESKO: Did your wife sign such a letter?
MARK VICENTE: I don't believe she did, no.
MR. LESKO: Did Sarah indicate to you that anyone asked her to request this letter from your wife?
MARK VICENTE: After a number of attempts I did say to her, like, I know somebody is asking you to do, this can you tell me who? You are being told to do this, right? She said yes.
MR. LESKO: Also in the March 2017 time frame, do you recall taking a walk with the defendant and him saying something strange in connection with some principle comments?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. We were walking and I was beginning to have very distant, at that point, doubts about him. And he said something to me that sounded, you know, one of the usual things that sounded very principle. And I said to him, well, you could be a psychopath and say those exact same words. He seemed to me to get very excited. And he said, well, I could be. Let's say I am. And the whole discussion continued. To me it was a strange response, his, what I perceived, as excitement about it.
MR. LESKO: In that conversation did he mention anything about protecting himself?
MARK VICENTE: I think it was that conversation potentially, towards the end of it, he said to me something like, well, he prefaced it with saying, you know you're trying to defend yourself too much. You're worried about things happening to you.
And then, I don't recall, I think I said something like, I think there are things in the world to defend against.
And he said to me a while later, there is nothing you can do to hurt me. There is nothing you can ever do to break me.
I was also a bit concerned about that. I wasn't sure exactly what he meant by that.
MR. LESKO: During that same time period, March 2017, do you recall another conversation with the defendant regarding who would succeed him?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. We were having a discussion at the 21 Oregon Trail residence, in what I called the sun room. Where I was expressing to him, I think it was potentially time for me to move on. And he said to me that he was hoping that I would be the person that would take over the organization, that I would take his place. And I said to him, something to the effect of, I'm assuming you know that's not something I'm interested in. I thought it was odd that he would suggest, you know, that I would somehow lead the kingdom. It was very strange to me.
MR. LESKO: In the same time frame, approximately March 2017, did you make any decisions regarding where you would reside?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. We decided to close up the residence in Half Moon, and just be in LA living full-time from that point. And then the idea was that I would just continuing traveling backwards and forwards for events and intensives.
MR. LESKO: Did you tell the defendant that you would wanted to move full-time to Los Angeles?
MARK VICENTE: I believe I did.
MR. LESKO: Did you have a discussion with the defendant about the executive board?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I told them that I thought it was time. I was trying to resign from the executive board for over two years, and I was asked every time to please stay. In one case it would be too damaging if you left, or Pam Cafritz is dying, it's not a good time.
Eventually I said to him, I think it is time I have a replacement. I suggested that Omar Boone take my place, and I suggest that I step down. He seemed open to the idea.
MR. LESKO: During that same time frame did you discuss this secret society with the defendant?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I don't recall the exact sequence, but I had been talking about something going on and my concerns. I know at one point he asked, and it had to do with Allison Mack as well, he said, is this something to do with the source? I feel like don't know if has something to do the source, I know it has to do with something, I don't know what it's connected it with. I do have grave concerns. I recall saying in March, saying to him, I don't know what is going on with you and all these women, but I have deep concerns about this all blowing up in some way that is bad. He said to me, well, I don't think this will blow up; maybe other things will, but not this. I thought, I don't know where to go from here. He's not engaging me on what I'm concerned about.
MR. LESKO: At approximately the beginning of April of 2017, did you travel to Vancouver, Canada?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I went to shoot a web series, a pilot web series, with Anthony Ames and Sarah.
MR. LESKO: Without getting into the substance of the conversation, did you have a conversation with Sarah about the secret society?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I shared my concerns with her.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, this may be an appropriate time for an instruction regarding the conversation with Sarah. Could we have a sidebar please?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Continued on the next page.)
(Sidebar conference.)
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LESKO: This is the second of the series of discussions where Mr. Vicente is having discussions with non-co-conspirators where he's acquiring information about the secret society. Previously you've given a limited instruction regarding the admissibility of these statements on the issue of Mr. Vicente's state of mind and the effect on Mr. Vicente.
THE COURT: Not for the truth of the statement.
MR. LESKO: Yes.
THE COURT: I wanted to make sure. You can do that.
(End of sidebar conference.)
(Continued on the next page.)
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, I'm going to advise you that the statements which are being elicited as to the remarks of someone other than Mr. Vicente are not being provided to you for the truth of the matter asserted. They are only being provided to you to elicit the state of mind that was involved when the statements were made to Mr. Vicente.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, if I could suggest also the effect on Mr. Vicente.
THE COURT: That's right. And also the effect that they had on Mr. Vicente when he heard the remarks being made to him. Go ahead.
MR. LESKO: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: So could you describe this conversation you had with Sarah about the secret society?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. I told her what I knew at this point, that there was some kind of society, that there was kind some of blackmailing collateral involved, life-long vows involved. That I was deeply concerned. That I didn't know what was going on but I had grave concerns.
Her response I recall was something along the lines of, well, if something like this existed then a person that was involved probably couldn't talk about it, which I didn't register until later.
MR. LESKO: What do you mean by register?
MARK VICENTE: We had another conversation, maybe three weeks later, the same kind of conversation. When she said that particular line again I finally got, oh, are you involved in this thing? But at first it just went over my head.
MR. LESKO: Around this time period did you have a discussion with someone named Kayla?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: Was that about the secret society?
MARK VICENTE: That was specifically about --
MR. LESKO: Let's hold off on the substance.
MARK VICENTE: It was about --
MR. LESKO: Involving the secret society?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we would ask for the same instruction.
THE COURT: I'm permitting the witness to testify about what certain other people said to him, including Kayla. I'm allowing this because the statements of other persons are relevant to Mr. Vicente's state of mind and their effect on Mr. Vicente, but are not being offered for the truth of the statements themselves. Therefore, you are to consider these statements only to the extent that they had an impact on Mr. Vicente's state of mind, and their effect on Mr. Vicente, and not for the truth of the statements made by the other party.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: So could you describe this conversation with Kayla?
MARK VICENTE: She told me that at a certain point she had seen a vow on Allison Mack's computer. The vow was to Raniere vowing in essence that she would never leave. And that if she ever did, she would give up her any children she had to him and all her possessions. So it was some kind of a life-long vow.
When I heard that from her I was extremely disturbed. It was consistent with the kind of -- there were vows involved in a lot of curriculum, this seemed extreme. Of course I was very concerned.
MR. LESKO: Did this type of vow that you described, did it appear to be different from the other vows that you were familiar with in NXIVM?
MARK VICENTE: It was much more extreme. In essence giving up your children, giving up all your worldly possessions. It disturbed me.
MR. LESKO: During this time period, had your perspective on the defendant changed?
MARK VICENTE: It was beginning to. Around April is when I finally asked myself the question I was terrified to ask. I was terrified because the whole system is the built around -- you have to constantly what is called edify the leaders. You have to speak well about them all the time. You have to build them up in everybody's eyes as being these great people. It was called edification. To not edify the leader was to be dishonorable, in essence a bad person.
So I was at this point holding him still in some sort of sacred place in my mind. This was the first time I began wondering, what if based on the information I'm getting, I'm hearing things that I believe are lies, and what if he's not the person I think he is.
MR. LESKO: Lies from whom?
MARK VICENTE: From him. And I thought up to this point, I believed that in all these years he would never lie to me. And I was hearing lies and I was hearing very evasive.
So I began to, I had finally asked myself the question, the most terrifying question, which is, what if he is not only who he represents himself to be; but what if he's the exact opposite? What if he is in fact evil. What if all of this is a mask to do heinous things to other people. That was pretty bad thing.
MR. LESKO: At this point in time did you question your continued connection to NXIVM?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I couldn't -- I wasn't sure what to do. I was still thinking maybe the education is okay. I was struggling between maybe there is some grand purpose and reason to this that I can't understand.
But there came a point where I was, I felt so disturbed that I began realizing something is dreadfully wrong. I'm trying to protect this picture in my brain of him, that was part of the conditioning of the education so strongly, when all common sense was saying to me you must ask this question. What if none of this is what you think it is. I was struggling with that.
I hadn't made the determination but I think the crack began sometime in April when I allowed myself to ask the question, the most the scariest question of all, which is to question, in essence, the supreme leader.
MR. LESKO: You previously testified about a discussion with the defendant involving Debra and the secret society and the Facebook posts, did that discussion happen at around this time frame?
MARK VICENTE: It was around this time frame, yes. I wanted to approach him with these pieces of evidence that I was gathering and check them out. And there were a series, I don't remember how many, there were a series of conversations that happened that just got more disturbing for me. One for instance was --
MR. LESKO: Let's be precise. Is this with the defendant?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, with the defendant.
MR. LESKO: Go ahead.
MARK VICENTE: With Mr. Raniere. One of them was about we had this discussion before where he said to me, you know, your one of your limitations your morality, your attachment to morality, to good and bad. I said, I don't see that's a problem. He is like, well, it could be a problem. It limits you in many ways. I said, But morality is the thing I love the most about myself. It is the thing -- I come from a country of such horrific abuse, that it's something that I grew inside of me as something very important. I think it's the best thing about me. He said, There are limitations. The whole constant dialogue about limitation to these things.
Then I was talking to him about like the ethicist education that I thought was damaging people terribly. He was saying things like, Things get worse before they get better. I said, I don't see anyone getting better.
I began thinking to myself, why is he trying to make me give up morality? Why? It doesn't make sense. I think before I had thought maybe there is a grander morality to like human morality. I thought to myself, maybe that's possible. At this point I was thinking I don't think there is a grander morality, just what is good and bad, what is abuse and what is not.
At this point I got concerned. I began thinking, Is he unhinged? Has he lost touch with morality and ethics and everything? Is this part of some game?
And it was all these inconsistencies that began bothering me. I realized like I was finally allowing myself to ask the question, because inside the organization if you had doubts, those were dealt with. If you had doubts you felt it's bad that I'm having doubts, because I'm not honoring the great leader, which the felt like a sin. I thought, No, no, I need to start asking. I need to ask these questions, even if it's pushing up against this don't-question-the-supreme-leader feeling.
But I began having a lot of concerns. I still didn't in my mind have a full sense of what I call a full picture, but I knew more and more something was deeply wrong. And the other thing is, I was, I had this gut feeling of something really bad going on.
MR. AGNIFILO: I'm going to object to that feeling and move to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MARK VICENTE: Gut feelings, we were taught, were a problem. Intuition was a problem. They used the word viscera, the things you feel in here, there is no data associated, there is nothing proveable about feelings you're having.
And that's the animalistic part of you driving you. You have to use logic. You have to use your mind to override all these things.
And I began thinking, wait a minute, what if that's not true. What if there is something about instinct. At that point for me my instinct was screaming like something is wrong. I decided to stop the program of it's bad that you're feeling that. I decided to let it come out, let yourself explore what is so terrifying to you right now. That's what I was doing.
MR. LESKO: In approximately April 2017 did you participate in an intensive?
MARK VICENTE: I did. We had an intensive scheduled in Los Angeles and it was 11-day intensive. It was during the middle of the intensive that all of these things I just described was happening in the middle of the intensive.
Towards the beginning I was aware, there is a secret society, and I think that some of the young women are in danger. I spoke to some of people about their girlfriends, to warn them. During the middle the intensive is when I began having what I call recognitions.
MR. LESKO: Let me stop you for a moment. You said you warned people, what did you warn them about?
MARK VICENTE: There were two of people that were my coaches and I believed that their girlfriends had been approached for the secret society. And I said to both of them, individually, I said, You need to get your girlfriends away from Albany. You need to get them away from these women that are trying to enroll them in something. You need to protect them, they are in danger.
MR. LESKO: I'd like to draw your attention to approximately May 20, 2017, do you recall having a discussion with Sarah on that day?
MARK VICENTE: May 20, before my resignation, yes, I do.
MR. LESKO: Without getting into the substance, did you discuss the secret society again?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: I don't know if we need the same instruction, but the same instruction would apply.
THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, I'm permitting this witness to testify about what certain people said to him.
And this is about Sarah?
MR. LESKO: Sarah, correct.
THE COURT: Including Sarah. I'm allowing this because the statements of other persons are relevant to Mr. Vicente's state of mind and their effect on Mr. Vicente. But they are not being offered for the truth of the statements themselves. Therefore, you are to consider these statements only to the extent that they had an impact on Mr. Vicente's state of mind and their effect on Mr. Vicente and not for the truth of the statements. Go ahead.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Describe your discussion with Sarah?
MARK VICENTE: I told her that I was going to resign. And that I was going to leave everything. And resign from every single position. I told her that based on what I was learning about the secret society, I had deep concerns not only about the morality of it but the legality of it. I had been working on a project for an organization called CAST, which is the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. I was interviewing a number of trafficking victims just gathering information as I was shooting. And I had decided to talk to one of the liaisons with the LAPD.
MR. LESKO: Let me stop you there. Based on that discussion that you're about to describe, did you have concerns about what was going on?
MARK VICENTE: Very much, yes.
MR. LESKO: Could you share those? Did you share those concerns with Sarah?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, I basically said, I think that something is going on that could be illegal. I think it's a huge problem. And she said to me, again I only realized it when she said it the second time, Well, if somebody was involved in something like what you're describing then probably they couldn't say anything.
That's when the light bulb went off. I said, Have you been invited into this thing? She just got very quite.
I realized -- so I began asking her what is going on. She said that she had been invited in. That she was part of it. And I said, Well, get out. She said, I can't. I said, Why not? She said, Because they have too much on me. I said, What do they have on you? She said, They have confessions, recorded confessions, they have naked material, and I'm trapped. And I said, Well, if the consequence of you leaving is that all these things end up on the Internet, then you better leave because what you're involved in is illegal and you're complicit in this if you continue. This is trafficking.
MR. AGNIFILO: I'm going to object to the characterizations.
THE COURT: It's overruled.
MR. LESKO: Just to be precise, this was your opinion or conclusion that it was trafficking. This was not your -- your opinion was not based on any legal advise?
MARK VICENTE: No, it was based on a discussion I had with the liaison to the LAPD Task Force, but it wasn't legal advice.
That is when I pressed her more, because I felt she was in danger. That's when she told me there were branding ceremonies. She had been branded. I just was I was horrified.
I just -- in essence, the walls just came tumbling down. Oh, my God, this is what is really going on.
MR. LESKO: Did Sarah indicate whether she was sleeping well?
MARK VICENTE: She said she was exhausted. She was on standby all the time. She had been trying to hide this from her husband, but she was on permanent standby. She was exhausted. She was being required to enroll other women; she was struggling with it. She wasn't comfortable with some of the things she was asked to do. And in essence she felt trapped.
MR. LESKO: Did she indicate that she answered to someone?
MARK VICENTE: She did. She said that she had a master. She explained it was --
MR. AGNIFILO: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. AGNIFILO: Could we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. AGNIFILO: I object to this entire line, Judge.
THE COURT: Objection noted and overruled. Go ahead. You may continue.
I'm sorry, what did you understand the term standby to mean?
MARK VICENTE: Much like in the Society of Protectors Random Readiness, we were always on standby to receive a signal day or night.
THE COURT: A signal.
MARK VICENTE: A message from somebody higher up in the chain.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MARK VICENTE: So my understanding was that this secret society had implemented those same kinds of tools, messaging tools.
MR. LESKO: You're talking about telegram?
MARK VICENTE: Telegram, yes.
MR. LESKO: Encrypted messaging?
MARK VICENTE: Encrypted messaging, correct. And she was just exhausted. She was beginning to in essence feel unstable from the lack of sleep.
MR. LESKO: Did she indicate, you mentioned she mentioned the term master, did she indicate her status with her master?
MARK VICENTE: What I learned from her was that she was a master of others and that she had a master above her. A lot of things began to make sense as to why she was doing certain things or asking certain things.
MR. LESKO: Did the status of the master above her have a name?
MARK VICENTE: The person had a name. I don't know if there was a --
MR. LESKO: Was the term slave used?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. So it was called a master/slave relationship. And so she was a slave to a master, and then she was supposed to be a master to other slaves below her, and she was supposed to be getting other women to be slaves for her.
MR. LESKO: Did she indicate who her master was?
MARK VICENTE: She said her master was Lauren Salzman.
MR. LESKO: Did she send you anything related to her brand?
MARK VICENTE: She sent me numerous images of her brand at various stages. I said, Why are they slightly, why are they different? She said they were photographs of it overtime. I asked why they existed. She said because we are supposed to send it in to the master to show the progress of healing, I suppose.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, if we could activate the Elmo please. And begin by just showing the exhibit to the witness.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Showing you for identification Government's Exhibit 352, do you recognize that exhibit?
MARK VICENTE: The image of the brand she sent me.
MR. LESKO: Is that one of the images that Sarah sent you after May 20, 2017?
MARK VICENTE: Correct, yes.
MR. LESKO: We offer Government's Exhibit 352.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 352 is received in evidence.
(Government Exhibit 352, was received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Do you want me to publish it?
MR. LESKO: Yes, please.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Do you recognize that brand?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Could you explain?
MARK VICENTE: That is a combination of two initials.
MR. LESKO: I'm going to turn it counter clockwise?
MARK VICENTE: It's very hard to see it that way. Go another 180 degrees then you can see it.
MR. LESKO: Okay, I turned it.
MARK VICENTE: So it's backwards, it's flipped left to right right now. But that's the K over there and that is R over there. And then there is another set of initials in there as well.
I had a discussion with Sarah. This seems consistent with the kind of symbology by Raniere and Marianna that has more than one meaning usually. So I identified another set of initials in there as well.
MR. LESKO: Did you discuss leaving the secret society with Sarah?
THE COURT: Are you done with that exhibit?
MR. LESKO: Yes, I am.
MARK VICENTE: I did. That was part of my, "I think this is illegal," that was part of the discussion. I said, you must leave. You must get out. I don't know how far this goes or how big it is. I think it's a huge problem.
MR. LESKO: Did you advise her regarding the release of her photos?
MARK VICENTE: My suggestion was that she make peace with those things being released. That even though she may be afraid about things that would come out, that it was better than staying involved in something that she was trapped in. Because my understanding, when I said just leave, she said there is so much blackmail collateral material on me it would be very, very hard. I said, But not impossible. You have to make peace with it. So maybe your naked body is going on the Internet, fine. Make peace with it.
And there was supposed to be these confessions she made about things that were not true about her family, that was part of the blackmail material. I said, Just tell them that you did this. Tell them that you were forced to lie about something that is not true. And that if it comes out on the Internet or whatever that it's a lie and just apologize now.
MR. LESKO: Did Sarah share the actual name of the secret society at this time?
MARK VICENTE: She shared a name that didn't make sense to me. She said something Latin, I don't recall the exact name. Later I heard the name but I don't recall. I think she said Dominus something, Dominus over something, but at that time I didn't know the actual name.
MR. LESKO: Did she share an acronym?
MARK VICENTE: DOS.
MR. LESKO: Is that the first time you learned of the term DOS?
MARK VICENTE: That is the first time. I heard other terms. I heard the Agency. I think I heard Vow. But this is the first time I heard DOS.
MR. LESKO: A few days later did you communicate something with respect to NXIVM?
MARK VICENTE: I sent three letters of resignation. One to the executive board, one to the leaders of the Society Of Protectors, and one to the greens, the senior proctors. I CCed Raniere, Nancy Salzman and I believe Clare Bronfman on all of them, I believe.
MR. LESKO: Were these letters all basically the same in substance?
MARK VICENTE: Pretty much the same. It was nothing too substantial. I was incredibly afraid. My realization at that point was that there was this group of people that had blackmail over them that would do anything for their master. So I realized my life could be in physical danger, my wife's life, my mother's life. Because they were, you know, in someway they were like terror cells.
MR. AGNIFILO: I object.
THE COURT: Sustained on that.
MR. AGNIFILO: Move to strike.
THE COURT: The jury will disregard the last comment about terrorist cells.
MR. LESKO: Did you include in these resignations letters an explanation why you were resigning?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I didn't want to set any alarm bells off. I felt I was in danger. I said, I'm going to do my career now, the thing I want to do for a long time. That's what I was going to do.
MR. LESKO: Was that true?
MARK VICENTE: It was half true. I was just deeply disturbed at that point. Of course that is what I want to do, but I realized I had to have some, there was no way I was going to say, I discovered there is some horrible slave/master thing going on, and it's morally objectionable. I wasn't going to say any of that. Because that would just release, I don't know what, on me. I had an understanding of the way the organization worked and the resources, and I believed my life is now in danger.
MR. LESKO: Did you contact Clare Bronfman and ask her to do anything in connection with your resignation?
MARK VICENTE: I did. I contacted her and the IT department. I said to them, please revoke all my access to any computerized system, pull my -- cut me off from are the database, disconnect my e-mail addresses, disconnect everything. I had to do that twice; it didn't happen at first.
MR. LESKO: Why did you make that request?
MARK VICENTE: Because I believed that was one of the traps they would use. I began to understand, I was reading more and more now and realizing, oh, so I could get framed for something. And I likely will.
One of the ways I believed I would be framed is that I would some how illegally be accessing something. I thought as a preventive measure let me say disconnect me from everything. Then if you say I'm accessing something, then clearly there is a problem.
MR. LESKO: Around this time did you become aware of a planned branding ceremony to be held in Albany?
MARK VICENTE: I did. There was one going to be held in the beginning of January. I began understanding that a number of women were going to be branded at that ceremony.
MR. LESKO: January or June?
MARK VICENTE: Sorry, June.
MR. LESKO: Was that in connection with a NXIVM event that was held about that time?
MARK VICENTE: There was a, I believe it was a coach summit that was going to happen, I think three or four days. So my understanding was during that coach summit there would be a branding ceremony.
MR. LESKO: Did you learn the names of individuals who were to be branded in --
MARK VICENTE: I learned the names of some of them, yes.
MR. LESKO: Was someone named Charmel to be branded?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Someone named Rachel?
MARK VICENTE: I believe so.
MR. LESKO: Someone named Valerie to be branded?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Did you do anything to stop these three from attending the branding ceremony?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: Did you go to someone named Catherine's house?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: What happened there?
MARK VICENTE: Well, originally I had gone to speak to Catherine to share my concerns about her daughter because I believed her daughter was involved in this. And I had said to her, She needs help, she's in danger. We need to get her out.
So we were having that conversation. And it was around that time I believe that I learned about the branding ceremony. We were at her house actually and began making a series of phone calls trying to do certain things to make sure that either the women would not go, or they would leave as soon as they could.
MR. LESKO: Did you have a discussion with Charmel about your concerns?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: Do you know someone known as J?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Who is J?
MARK VICENTE: J was a participant in the NXIVM programs in Los Angeles and somebody who I then learned had been part of the secret society, part of DOS. And J shared with me information which disturbed me even further.
MR. LESKO: I'm showing you what is admitted as Government's Exhibit 32, do you recognize that photograph?
MARK VICENTE: I can only see it on that screen.
THE COURT: Sorry.
MARK VICENTE: Yes, that is J.
MR. LESKO: Is J an actress?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: A model?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Did you discuss collateral with J?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, I did. I learned more about the collateral. And then J said to me that she was --
MR. LESKO: If could you stop there for a second. Your Honor, if we could have an instruction?
THE COURT: I'm going to give the same limiting instruction. I'm permitting this witness to testify about what J said to him. I'm allowing this because the statements of J are relevant to Mr. Vicente's state of mind and their effect on Mr. Vicente, but they are not being offered for the truth of the statements themselves. Therefore, you are to consider these statements only to the extent that they had an impact on Mr. Vicente's state of mind and their effect on Mr. Vicente and not for the truth of the statements that are being testified to regarding statements of J.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: You may continue.
MARK VICENTE: J told me that she was in possession of collateral material of some of the people in her, I guess, pod. I said to her would she mind passing it along to me because I likely will want to take it to the authorities. She then passed it along to me. I said, I'll keep this safe.
I was just also concerned that something would happen to these girls. So I wanted to make sure that somebody had the material.
MR. LESKO: So she sent you this collateral that you referred to?
MARK VICENTE: She did.
MR. LESKO: If we could publish this to the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure, go ahead.
MR. LESKO: I'm going to show you what is marked for identification as Government's Exhibit 446, it consists of four pages. Let's start with page one, do you recognize page one of Government's Exhibit 446?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: What is page one?
MARK VICENTE: It is --
MR. LESKO: Actually, do you recognize that as the part of the collateral that J sent you?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, I do.
MR. LESKO: Was that in the May or June 2017 time frame?
MARK VICENTE: I believe this was the end of May.
MR. LESKO: Let's look at page two of Government's Exhibit 446, do you recognize that page?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Is that part of the collateral?
MARK VICENTE: It is -- well, no, it's not part of the collateral. It's part of the materials that she gave me related to the collateral.
MR. LESKO: Thank you. Showing you page three of Government's Exhibit 446, is that also part of the materials that J sent you?
MARK VICENTE: It is.
MR. LESKO: Last page on Government's Exhibit 446, is that another page of materials that J sent you?
MARK VICENTE: It is.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, if I could have just a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LESKO: The Court's indulgence for just a moment. If I could just show counsel the exhibit?
THE COURT: Please.
MR. LESKO: We seek to admit 446.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, Government's Exhibit 446 is received into evidence.
(Government Exhibit 446, was received in evidence.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Let's start with first page, can you describe what that first page is?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. That is a server, online server, called Dropbox, Dropbox is a depository for documents, videos, audio, anything you want to keep in a cloud. It synchs with your computer.
So that is somebody's Dropbox account and those are folders. You look -- could you zoom in slightly? You can see there are two folders there. One says brands, one says workout. And with brands there are eight members. That means that there are eight members with individual e-mail addresses that have accounts that have access to that particular folder. So in essence, anything that goes in that folder all eight people have access to. They either have access to only read or they can read or they can make changes. I'm not sure at this point how many had the ability to change things.
MR. LESKO: Okay. I'm going to show you the second page, could you describe what that second page shows, if you know?
MARK VICENTE: Those are the, at the very top, it says collateral. There is a little folder with two people, that means it's a shared folder. It says eight members. And these are the actual members that have access to that particular folder of materials. And you can see on the right the owner of that folder. The owner and the creator of the folder is Allison Mack. You can see the other members can edit, which means they can look at and also add things or subtract things.
MR. LESKO: Page three, describe that?
MARK VICENTE: That appears to be additional members that have access to what I just described.
MR. LESKO: Page four?
MARK VICENTE: That is an example of an invitation. If you invite somebody to a folder, then Dropbox sends a form letter like that with a memo. So this was sent to India who is invited to edit the folder -- sorry. This was from India inviting, I believe it was J, to edit the folder. And it says in the memo section, "India said here is your file to upload collateral. Once it's uploaded it will be taken offline."
MR. LESKO: If we could just publish the next exhibit to the witness initially?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LESKO: Mr. Vicente, showing you what is marked for identification as Government's Exhibit 447, do you recognize Government's Exhibit 447?
MARK VICENTE: This is a legal document --
MR. LESKO: Without getting into what it is, do you recognize this as being part of what was sent to you by J?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we admit Government's Exhibit 447.
MR. AGNIFILO: One second, Judge.
THE COURT: You want to just enlarge it so it can be ready more easily?
MR. AGNIFILO: I object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, my college languages don't permit me to understand what this is. Why don't we have a sidebar.
(Continued on next page.)
(The following occurred at sidebar.)
THE COURT: Yes, I don't know what it is, so.
MR. LESKO: I don't believe Mr. Vicente knows what this is. I'm just going to simply ask as to -- a question as to whether this was material received and that's it. I just want to admit the document we're actually going to have J testify about the document.
THE COURT: You mean you want to admit it subject to connection?
MR. LESKO: Actually, we want to admit it as material he received and then we will connect it, but I don't think it is subject to --
THE COURT: I see.
MR. LESKO: We will connect it to J's explanation. And just so Your Honor understands, this is some Mexican -- some legal process that was provided to J in connection with her involvement with NXIVM and DOS. It's sort of like a called a legal summons or something like that from Mexico.
THE COURT: You going to provide a translation of it.
MR. LESKO: I believe we will, yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: So my just thinking out loud, because I don't to hold things up, if you put J on, just admit it through her. My objection is admission of a document put into evidence without any of us knowing what it actually says without the witness who received it.
So I have no problem with introducing it for identification, and if J's going to testify, I think it's utterly admissible.
MR. LESKO: That's fine.
THE COURT: Just get him to indicate that it was provided to him. He identified it and then we will put it in with the other person, and, you know, we know the source.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Well, if I could suggest this, sort of backtracking.
I actually think then we could admit subject to connection so that there's no confusion with the jury that this is going to be connected later through another witness. And then it's in evidence. I mean, it really doesn't matter either way.
THE COURT: Well, let me -- I'm going to allow that, but if it doesn't -- if there isn't testimony by J in connection with it, I'll strike it.
MR. LESKO: Very, well.
THE COURT: But it's in Spanish, so I don't think -- I mean, maybe there are a few people on the jury who can speak Spanish. They are going to see it for about ten seconds just now.
MR. LESKO: That's fine.
THE COURT: All right. Doesn't have to be sealed.
MR. AGNIFILO: I don't think so.
(End of sidebar conference.)
(Continued on the next page.)
(In open court; Jury present.)
MR. LESKO: We'll just publish to the witness.
Your Honor, we'd offer Government's Exhibit 447 subject to connection.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection subject to connection.
THE COURT: Subject to connection, yes.
447. Government's Exhibit 447 is received subject to connection and publish to the jury.
(Government's Exhibit 447, was received in evidence.)
(Exhibit published.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: And without getting into any of the details, I don't know if you know Spanish or not --
MARK VICENTE: Not well enough.
MR. LESKO: Is that a letter in Spanish, essentially?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: And it's addressed to J?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Next.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, with respect to this exhibit, may I approach the witness and show the witness at the witness stand?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. LESKO: Okay. I'll show counsel first.
THE COURT: Counsel first.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Mr. Vicente, I'm initially going to show you Government's 448, which is four pages of photographs.
Without describing what they depict, do you recognize Government's Exhibit 448?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Are those photographs that J sent you?
MARK VICENTE: They are.
MR. LESKO: Okay. And now I'm going to show you Government's Exhibit 448R, the letter R.
If you could review those photographs.
(Whereupon, the witness is reviewing the document.)
MR. LESKO: Is that -- are the photographs in Government's 448 redacted or pixelated or blacked-out versions of the original photographs in Government's 448 --
MR. LESKO: I'm sorry, strike that.
MR. LESKO: Are the photographs included in Government's 448R redacted, pixelated or blacked-out versions of the original photographs that are contained in Government's Exhibit 448?
MARK VICENTE: They are.
MR. LESKO: Okay.
MR. LESKO: And, Your Honor, we'd offer Government's 448 and Government's 448R.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Government Exhibits 448 and 448R are received in evidence.
(Government's Exhibit 448 and 448R, were received in evidence.)
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we'd ask that these images just be published to the jury.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LESKO: And the Court, obviously.
THE COURT: And I'm sorry, and what?
MR. LESKO: I'm going to publish these redacted versions, the four photographs in Government's 448R. But we ask that these images only be published to the jury, the Court, and counsel.
THE COURT: All right. And I just ask that the jury tilt their screens toward the witness box, not all the way, but just -- he has a screen as well.
And your screen is off.
MR. LESKO: For the record, my screen is turned off, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Just a moment.
MR. LESKO: And I believe the screens at the various counsel tables are all oriented in a manner that they cannot be seen by the folks in the galley.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. LESKO: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Okay. I'm going to start with Government's Exhibit 448R, the first page.
Could you describe that photograph? That redacted photograph, I should say.
MARK VICENTE: It is a picture, I assume, taken by her of herself. The camera is down below with her crotch in the foreground, and her face visible in the background. And it's pixelated.
THE COURT: And the individual is in the reclining position.
MARK VICENTE: She appears to be lying down and her legs seem to be spread apart as well.
THE COURT: Next.
MR. LESKO: Do you recognize who that is it in that photograph?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Who is that?
MARK VICENTE: Danielle.
MR. LESKO: I'm going to show you the second page -- I'm sorry, second page of Government's 448R.
Do you recognize that photograph?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
MR. LESKO: Could you describe it please.
MARK VICENTE: This is a similar photograph. A young woman taking a picture of herself. Her legs are spread wide open, with her crouch in the foreground. You can see her face in the background.
I believe she's standing with her legs spread apart, and I do recognize the individual.
MR. LESKO: And is that individual nude in that photograph?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Okay. And who's that individual?
MARK VICENTE: Michele.
MR. LESKO: I'm going to show you the third page of Government's 448R.
Do you recognize that photograph?
MARK VICENTE: Yes. That's the -- that's the same person, Michele. She appears to be lying down. She is now holding the camera up above her. Her legs are spread open. She's naked. And she's making a face towards the camera of some kind.
MR. LESKO: And that's Michele?
MARK VICENTE: That's Michele.
MR. LESKO: Next Government's -- last page of photographs Government's 448R.
Do you recognize -- are there two photographs on that page?
MARK VICENTE: There are two photographs.
MR. LESKO: And who are they of?
MARK VICENTE: Again, Michele. The one on the left, she appears to be standing. It's the same kind of position. She's naked. She's -- her legs are wide open. And it shows her crotch and her face and body.
In the second image also of her, she appears to be seated. The camera lowered down with her crouch in the foreground, and her face in the background.
MR. LESKO: At the end of May 2017, did you initiate any attempts to contact law enforcement about NXIVM?
MARK VICENTE: I did.
MR. LESKO: What did you do?
MARK VICENTE: I was trying to find a trusted person in the FBI in the Northern District in Albany to talk to. So I went through somebody else who had a friend who is a trusted DEA agent to find a person I could talk to in the FBI.
They found a special agent and then the special agent called me to begin the conversations.
MR. LESKO: Did you eventually learn of an incident that occurred at the coach summit in June 2017 involving Sarah's husband?
MARK VICENTE: Oh, I did learn that -- that he -- he didn't know about any of this, and when he finally found out, he was very upset and he went to the coach summit, which I believe was being held at Apropos, and to basically confront Lauren Salzman and Jim Del Negro. D-E-L, N-E-G-R-O.
MR. LESKO: After May 22nd, 2017, the date of your resignation, did you ever participate in another NXIVM program?
MARK VICENTE: I did not.
MR. LESKO: Let's go back in time a bit to the end of October 2012.
Do you recall participating in an audiotaped meeting with the defendant about SOP?
MARK VICENTE: October?
MR. LESKO: October 2012?
MARK VICENTE: Yeah. Yes. Yes.
MR. LESKO: Okay. I'm showing you what's been marked --
MARK VICENTE: I can't see it.
MR. LESKO: Oh, you can't see it?
THE COURT: Now?
MARK VICENTE: Not yet.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Is this just for the witness?
MR. LESKO: For now, yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Can you see it now?
MARK VICENTE: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MARK VICENTE: Yes, I recognize that.
MR. LESKO: And for identification purposes, that's been marked as Government's Exhibit 1002.
What is 1002?
MARK VICENTE: I don't know what 1002 -- oh, sorry, now I understand the question.
That is a CD of have that audio recording which I signed on the 6th of May.
MR. LESKO: You've reviewed that audio recording?
MARK VICENTE: I have.
MR. LESKO: And it truly and accurately reflects the audiotape of the discussion that you had with the defendant and others on October 29th, 2012?
MARK VICENTE: It does.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we offered Government's Exhibit 1002.
MR. AGNIFILO: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Government Exhibit 1002 is received in evidence.
You may publish it.
(Government's Exhibit 1002, was received in evidence.)
(Exhibit published.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: What was the discussion about that's included in that audiotape?
MARK VICENTE: My recollection was it was during a, what's termed an SOP high council meeting with the founder. So it was Raniere, myself, Jim Del Negro, Mike Baker and Damon Brink. I believe it was shortly after we had held our first SOP weekend.
And we were discussing -- we were discussing vows, leadership whether or not he would have the ultimate authority over all decisions.
We discussed, you know, promises. It was a wide range of discussions that occurred. But -- and there was a discussion, I think, at the end about legal matters in Mexico, I believe.
MR. LESKO: So is it fair to characterize this audiotaped meeting as a planning session of sorts for SOP?
MARK VICENTE: It was. It was towards the genesis of it and trying to figure out, you know, what this would be. We typically held meetings at the beginning. Like around 1:30 in the morning. For about an hour, an hour and a half. And they were recorded.
MR. LESKO: And was this about DOS in any respect?
MARK VICENTE: Not the name DOS. But certainly perhaps the --
MR. LESKO: Well, I'm not asking for your opinion, I'm saying --
MR. AGNIFILO: The witness was answering the question.
THE COURT: Do you want to finish your answer?
MARK VICENTE: Just DOS was not named in that recording at all.
MR. LESKO: You mentioned that the meeting involved other members of high council. Who specifically participated in this meeting?
MARK VICENTE: So, again, it was Raniere, the founder, myself, Jim Del Negro, Mike Baker and Damon Brink.
MR. LESKO: Okay. I'm going to play a portion -- the audiotape is an hour and a half long. Is that roughly correct?
MARK VICENTE: Correct.
MR. LESKO: I'm going to play you a portion of it. And we'll talk about it afterwards.
MR. LESKO: If we could -- we're already cued up? So why don't we go ahead --
THE COURT: Let's put on the record where on the tape.
MR. LESKO: Oh, correct.
THE COURT: Where we're hearing.
MR. LESKO: So we're beginning a portion of audiotape at a timestamp of 25 minutes and 5 seconds.
THE COURT: All right.
(Audio recording played.)
THE COURT: Okay. Try it now.
MR. LESKO: Thank you.
(Audio recording played.)
(Audio recording stopped.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: That voice you are hearing now speak and you'll hear it later throughout, whose voice is that?
MARK VICENTE: That is Raniere.
MR. LESKO: We can continue.
(Audio recording played.)
MR. LESKO: Can we pause.
MR. LESKO: Whose voice did we just hear?
MARK VICENTE: That's me.
MR. LESKO: Would you continue.
(Audio recording played.)
MR. LESKO: If we could pause that.
(Audio recording stopped.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: So in this discussion regarding videotaping of murders and sociopaths, did anything like that happen in SOP?
MARK VICENTE: Murders?
MR. LESKO: Correct.
MARK VICENTE: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. LESKO: Videotaped murders?
MARK VICENTE: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. LESKO: Videotapes of violent activity used as collateral in SOP, was that ever done?
MARK VICENTE: I don't believe so.
(Audio recording played.)
(Pause.)
(Audio recording stopped.)
MR. LESKO: And for the record, we're ending the portion at 31 minutes and 41 seconds.
MR. LESKO: What was your understanding of what the defendant was saying in that portion of the meeting?
MARK VICENTE: My understanding was that not giving collateral was a sign of weakness, and that giving collateral, especially something sizeable, was a sign of strength and true nobility. That was the sales pitch.
MR. LESKO: Were you and other members of SOP required to provide collateral-involved nude photographs of yourself with your legs open?
MARK VICENTE: No.
MR. LESKO: Your genitals exposed?
MARK VICENTE: No.
MR. LESKO: You previously discussed the types of collateral that were used in SOP.
Did that involve -- did that involve the payment of monies in connection with enrollment goals?
MARK VICENTE: At one point I think in 2016, or maybe '17, there was collateral we put up by some of the men. In other words, we'd say, you know, we've enrolled this many people. We put down a certain amount of money to back it, that would be paid into the SOP system, the database, the payment system.
If we didn't make good on what we said we would do, we would lose that money.
MR. LESKO: In your discussions with the defendant about collateral, as that term would be used in SOP, did he ever indicate that he was going to require participants to send nude photographs of themselves to the defendant?
MARK VICENTE: He did not.
MR. LESKO: You're not familiar with the collateral that were used in DOS?
MARK VICENTE: I am.
MR. LESKO: Is that collateral, in your opinion, different in the collateral you were discussing with respect to SOP?
MR. AGNIFILO: I object to the question.
THE COURT: Could you rephrase.
MR. LESKO: Do you have an understanding, as you sit here today, regarding the types of collateral that were submitted in connection with DOS?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: We've gone over some of that previously, correct?
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Does that type of collateral, the nude photographs, was that type of collateral different from the concept of collateral that you were discussing with respect to SOP.
MARK VICENTE: Well, it was far more damaging and extreme, than anything that was being discussed in SOP.
MR. LESKO: Was anyone ever asked to have sex with the defendant as part of SOP?
MARK VICENTE: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. LESKO: Was anyone ever ordered to have sex with the defendant as part of SOP?
MARK VICENTE: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. LESKO: You testified that you worked on film projects with the defendant.
MARK VICENTE: Yes.
MR. LESKO: And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you explained that process as being sort of a back-and-forth?
MARK VICENTE: Correct.
MR. LESKO: Where the defendant would relate the concept, you would write it down, and then you'd go through drafts of the concept with the defendant?
MARK VICENTE: Correct.
MR. LESKO: Do you recall working with the defendant to develop a film concept regarding a mentor in a corporation?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, it didn't go far. It was mostly just a pitch on his part, but I don't think we went -- well, we didn't go anywhere with it. It was just an idea he had suggested to me.
MR. LESKO: If we could just show this last exhibit to the witness initially, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
MR. LESKO: If we could just show this last exhibit to the witness.
THE COURT: Sure. Hold on.
MR. LESKO: Initially.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, I don't think this is coming up on my screen. It's not on yours either.
MARK VICENTE: It's not.
THE COURT: Hold on.
MR. LESKO: Oh, here we go.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Showing you what's been marked for identification as Government's 1398.
Do you recognize -- well, I'll show you both pages. This is page 1. And I'll show you the second page.
Do you recognize that exhibit?
I'm sorry. Do you need to read it?
MARK VICENTE: No, I recognize it.
MR. LESKO: If you could just briefly explain what that exhibit is, and we'll discuss it.
MARK VICENTE: That is a transcript of a conversation that occurred between Raniere and myself. This was an example of one of the projects he was pitching me.
MR. LESKO: And did you actually create this transcript?
MARK VICENTE: I actually don't recall if I did or not. It is possible it was myself. But it is possible it may have Pam Cafritz.
MR. LESKO: Have you reviewed the transcript?
MARK VICENTE: I have read it.
MR. LESKO: Does it accurately reflect the discussion with the defendant about this film concept?
MARK VICENTE: To the best of my recollection, yes.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we offer Government's 1398.
THE COURT: 1398?
MR. LESKO: Correct.
MR. AGNIFILO: Objection, Your Honor. There's no tape.
MR. LESKO: May we approach and I can give you --
THE COURT: All right.
(Continued on the next page.)
(Sidebar conference.)
(The following occurred at sidebar.)
MR. AGNIFILO: My issue is we don't know who created the transcript. We have no idea if it's accurate. If he wants to tell the jury what he recalls about the conversation, that's one thing. But to put a transcript into evidence, not based on a tape recording that he can say, I listened to a tape. I listened to a transcript. This is a transcript of the recording.
THE COURT: I understand your point.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, the witness has reviewed the transcript. He says it's essentially a reflection of the discussion he had with the defendant.
I can ask him additional foundational questions just to be --
THE COURT: Well, did he listen to the tape?
MR. LESKO: He recalls the conversation. He did not listen to the tape.
MR. AGNIFILO: To call it a transcript, which we have now done, and have it be this level of unreliability, I think is misleading. It has no business being in front of the jury.
MR. LESKO: I can rephrase and refer to it as a transcript and make that very clear.
THE COURT: What is it then if it's not a transcript?
MR. LESKO: It would be, at a minimum, a summary of what was discussed.
THE COURT: So why don't you ask him what was discussed? And he can refer to it if he wants.
MR. LESKO: Very well.
MR. AGNIFILO: He can only refer to it, if he -- if it's a past recollection recorded, he had to have done it. It had to be his notes. And these aren't his notes, so it's not a past recollection of a recording.
If he wants to refresh his recollection, he can look at it. And he can talk to the jury about what he remembers the conversation being, but it can't come into evidence.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, the witness has reviewed the document and he adopts it as an accurate summary at a minimum of a discussion he had with the defendant. He reviewed it at the time it was made, and he's reviewed it recently in preparation for his testimony.
So I think an appropriate way to handle this would that the witness has reviewed the document, and it is an accurate summary of the conversation that he had with the defendant, and more particularly, it adequately represents the film concept that they were discussing.
THE COURT: And you don't want -- you won't put it in, but you'll -- you want him to refer to it? Or do you want it still put it in?
MR. LESKO: Well, you know what, why don't we do this. I won't seek to admit it. I'll ask him questions, if I have is to refresh his recollection as well, and at the end if it's abundantly clear that this document is something that he clearly adopts, then I may seek to admit it afterwards.
MR. AGNIFILO: But it's just a round up. There's no hearsay exception for adopting another person's summary. It doesn't hit any of the pigeonholes, for a hearsay exception. If he -- so it just it doesn't come up.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, if I may, Pam Cafritz is the person who created the transcript. She's a coconspirator.
The defendant's statements are reflected in the document, so they would be admissible, and the witness' statements, he's on the stand, are included and no one else. So we believe the statements themselves reflected in the exhibit are actually admissible.
MR. AGNIFILO: We don't know that Pam Cafritz made it. He might have made it. It's none of the things to be admitted in evidence that it would need be. It's not his own notes. It's not an accurate transcript. We don't have any basis for saying that. And if he wants to use it to refresh his recollection, the witness can use anything to refresh his recollection. But it doesn't come into evidence.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him the questions and I'll let you know.
MR. LESKO: Thank you.
THE COURT: Not sealed.
(End of sidebar conference.)
(Continued on the next page.)
(In open court; Jury Present.)
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, just to be careful, I just want to make sure we're still only publishing this to the witness.
THE COURT: Yes, correct.
MR. LESKO: Thank you, Judge.
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: I put Government's 1398 back before you, Mr. Vicente.
Without getting into the substance of this document, could you just tell us what it is?
MARK VICENTE: Well, it's a transcription of a conversation of a movie idea that Raniere had suggested to me.
MR. LESKO: So who -- and you don't recall exactly who created this transcript?
MARK VICENTE: I don't recall. There's no notation here as to who the transcript -- I -- I can tell you that V is his nickname and I'm Mark.
MR. LESKO: And have you -- is this a document you would have seen at the time at or around the time it was created?
MARK VICENTE: Yes, because generally speaking, what happened is our conversations were transcribed almost immediately. And kept. So yes.
MR. LESKO: Do you recall reviewing this document at or around the time it was created?
MARK VICENTE: I don't recall at that time, no.
MR. LESKO: Have you --
MARK VICENTE: There's so many.
MR. LESKO: Have you reviewed this document recently?
MARK VICENTE: Possibly two weeks ago.
MR. LESKO: Okay.
MARK VICENTE: I haven't read it carefully since then.
MR. LESKO: Does it accurately reflect or at a minimum summarize the conversation that you had with the defendant about this film concept?
MARK VICENTE: I believe so.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, we'd offer 1398.
MR. AGNIFILO: We object to it.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
(Government's Exhibit 1398, was received in evidence.)
(Exhibit published.)
BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: So this document is a two-page document; is that correct, Mr. Vicente?
MARK VICENTE: Correct.
MR. LESKO: Showing the second page now to the jury.
MR. LESKO: And you've mentioned V. V stands for what?
MARK VICENTE: V is the short for Vanguard, and V was the nickname used for Raniere.
MR. LESKO: And you were reflected in this transcript how?
MARK VICENTE: As Mark.
MR. LESKO: Okay. I don't think we have to read the whole -- the document, unless we have to.
But could you just describe for us what was the film concept that the defendant was discussing with you?
MARK VICENTE: In simple terms, the idea was that there's what's called the good, the bad and the mentor. That there was this corporation and this was this guy running the corporation, is a really good guy. And that there's some -- some bad influence occurring in the corporation and the good guy has a mentor that, you know, he works with the very evolved person.
And the mentor's helping the good guy figure out like who's the bad person in the organization, you know, who is doing all these destructive things. And then the joke or the trick at the very end is that the good guy realizes that the mentor is actually the one that's the bad guy, that's pulling all the strings, and even the bad person is a tool of the mentor.
So that, you know, they were sort of looking for this psychopath in the organization and it turns out the mentor was the one all along who was the psychopath advising the good guy.
MR. LESKO: As you sit here today, do you have an understanding of this concept as it relates to the defendant?
MARK VICENTE: I think I just lived through it.
MR. AGNIFILO: Objection to the form.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LESKO: In retrospect, do you attach any significance to this film concept?
MR. AGNIFILO: Same objection.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. That's sustained.
MR. LESKO: What is your understanding of what the defendant was trying to communicate with this film concept?
MR. AGNIFILO: I object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MARK VICENTE: Well, I think it was quite a sick, practical joke. The love and the love's practical jokes.
I think this was a practical joke on me to tell me exactly what he was doing with me ten years ago.
MR. LESKO: What do you mean by practical joke?
MARK VICENTE: Well, I believe that I was the good person. I believe the bad person was -- I thought Allison Mack. I thought she was the problem and I was going to the mentor all the time to figure out what was going on, like what was really going on.
So it seems to me very, very starkingly [sic] similar.
MR. LESKO: And who was the mentor that you were going to?
MARK VICENTE: Raniere. He was my mentor.
MR. LESKO: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take our mid-morning break.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: The witness may stand down. Please do not discuss your testimony with anyone. We'll take a ten-minute break.
MARK VICENTE: Sure.
(Witness steps down.)
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 11:52 a.m.)
THE COURT: All right.
(Defendant enters the courtroom.)
(Witness resumes the stand.)
THE COURT: Ms. Geragos, why don't you go up there.
MS. GERAGOS: I'll wait for Mr. Agnifilo.
THE COURT: I really wish you would.
I offered Ms. Geragos, but she declined the offer.
MR. AGNIFILO: Out of politeness.
THE COURT: Out of politeness.
All right. Are you ready?
MR. AGNIFILO: I am, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's bring in the jury.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
You may proceed with cross-examination. Mr. Agnifilo.
The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
MARK VICENTE: Yes, Your Honor.