Scribd

MKM:TH/MKP/KMT F. #2017R01840 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - against - KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN, ALLISON MACK and KATHY RUSSELL, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Docket No. 18-204 (S-2) (NGG) (VNS) THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL MOTIONS AS TO THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RICHARD P. DONOGHUE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Moira Kim Penza Tanya Hajjar Mark J. Lesko Kevin Trowel Assistant U.S. Attorneys (Of Counsel)

Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 485 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 5076

TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3 I. There Is No Basis to Dismiss or Sever Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. S-2 Does Not Unfairly Prejudice Raniere and He Has No Speedy Trial Right to the Current Trial Date .............................................................. 4 1. Applicable Law ........................................................................... 5 2. Discussion ................................................................................... 6 B. Relatedness Is Not an Element that Must Be Pleaded in the Indictment .............................................................................................................. 10 II. There Is No Basis to Dismiss Counts One and Two ....................................... 13 A. Count One Is Properly Pleaded ............................................................ 13 B. Count Two Is Properly Pleaded ........................................................... 18 III. Defendants’ Motions To Sever Should Be Denied ......................................... 27 IV. Raniere and Mack’s Motion to Preclude the Government’s Experts Should Be Denied .............................................................................................................. 29 V. There Is No Basis for Raniere’s Refusal to Identify His “Foreign Witnesses” 30 VI. Counts Three, Four, Five and Eleven Should Be Dismissed ........................... 31 VII. Raniere’s Request for a Bill of Particulars as to the Interstate Commence Element of Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four Should Be Denied ........ 32 VIII. Bronfman’s Remaining Arguments Are without Merit ................................... 33 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 34


1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On March 13, 2019, more than six weeks before opening statements in the above-captioned matter, the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment (“S-2”). In response, the defendants Keith Raniere and Claire Bronfman have moved to dismiss S-2, and sought other relief. Their motions as to S-2 largely recycle the legal arguments made in their initial motions to dismiss the first superseding indictment (“S-1”), to which the government responded at length on December 17, 2018 (DE 248, 249), and which remain pending before the Court. Accordingly, the government incorporates its previous response herein and supplements it below where appropriate. Defendants’ motions to dismiss S-2 suffer from the same deficiencies as their motions to dismiss S-1. In particular, Raniere again “confuses the standards of pleading with [the] standard of proof,” United States v. Messina, No. 11-CR-31 (KAM), 2012 WL 463973, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2012), in seeking to dismiss Racketeering Acts (“RA”) Two, Three and Four on “relatedness” grounds. (RBr. 5; MBr. 7).

1

As with S-1, S-2 was “returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury” and is “valid on its face,” and that is “enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.” Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956). And Raniere offers no legal support for his assertion that Racketeering Acts Two, Three and Four in S-2 force him to choose between his constitutional right to a Speedy Trial

1

References to “DE,” “RBr.” and “BBr.” are to docket entries in this matter, the defendant Keith Raniere’s March 22, 2019 Motions (DE 456) and the defendant Clare Bronfman’s March 22, 2019 Motions (DE 457-459), respectively.
