Evidence published on Frank Report may have serious consequences for Damon Brink.
That evidence is a video Mr. Brink broadcast in February 2014.
The matter falls within the six-year statute of limitations for criminal and civil fraud in New York State, although it’s also possible that federal laws may have been broken.
SOP members who paid money toward SOP Weekend #7 may be entitled to actual and punitive monetary damages.
The question of criminal fraud hinge on statements made by Mr. Brink on his video broadcast.
For those of you that don’t know, our founder, Keith Raniere, has built more than 1,000 millionaires in his life. He has built multi-million dollar businesses in a short amount of time and at one point was making more than $100,000 per hour coaching the highest level business executives in the world.
At the time of the broadcast, Mr. Brink was a member of the High Council of SOP. The purpose of the broadcast was to pitch attendance to a “Weekend” seminar costing in excess of $1,000 where Mr. Raniere was scheduled to teach in Clifton Park, New York.
The broadcast was directly tailored to membership of SOP, a multi-level marketing company whose principal office of business is in Clifton Park, NY.
The question of whether or not the evidence contained in the broadcast meets the elements of criminal and/or civil fraud is contingent on whether Mr. Brink’s claims about Mr. Raniere are true.
If Mr. Brink’s statements are true, there would be no fraud evidenced from the broadcasted video. However, if the claims are false, several more questions need to be answered to determine whether the evidence contained in the broadcasted video is properly submitted for civil and/or criminal resolution.
If the statements are false, these questions need to be asnwered:
Did Mr. Brink believe his claims about Keith Raniere to be true when he broadcast them?
If Mr. Brink did believe they were truthful, how did he become so informed so as to believe they were true, prior to his broadcast solicitation?
Did Keith Raniere – or someone else – inform Mr. Brink that his stated claims about Mr. Raniere were true?
Was this information in writing or orally conveyed to Mr. Brink?
Did Mr. Brink exercise a reasonable standard of due diligence to verify the claims prior to his broadcasted solicitation?
To what extent did Mr. Brink profit [or could he have anticipated profiting] from immediate sales to SOP members to the Weekend or from long term, recurring attendance to future SOP trainings based on representations made about the ability of the teacher and creator of the material taught in the seminars?
Is it Civil Fraud or Criminal Fraud?
If Damon Brink deliberately and knowingly broadcast false claims about Mr.Raniere, he has likely committed fraud.
If he thought he was broadcasting factual information, yet his claims were nevertheless false, Mr. Brink may be liable civilly for actual and punitive damages.
A civil case may turn on whether the jury believes that Mr. Brink was negligent when he ‘innocently’ broadcast falsehoods that a reasonable person would find suspicious on their face and, of necessity, require due diligence and vetting prior to soliciting money based on those statements.
Of course, this series is predicated on the statements being false.
In our next post on this subject Frank Report will explore that question more fully.