Sara Bronfman authorized her NYC attorneys to admit that Keith Raniere's claims of genius were "improbable".

Sara Bronfman-Igtet admits Raniere’s claims of genius were ‘improbable’, ‘puffery’, which ‘no reasonable person should believe’

Sara Bronfman-Igtet, through her New York attorneys, has admitted that Keith Raniere’s claims of superintelligence are “improbable statements”, “puffery,” and “incapable of being proven.”

Her admissions contained in a memorandum of law used to support her motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against her in New York State Supreme Court.

Last year, attorney Omar Rosales brought a civil lawsuit on behalf of former Nxivm students and against Bronfman-Igtet – on the grounds that she participated in the deception of students by supporting Raniere’s bogus claims that he:

1) Was one of the World’s Smartest Men;

2) Began talking in complete sentences by age one;

3) Was an East Coast Judo Champion at age twelve;

4) Tied the New York State record for the 100-yard dash in High School; and

5) Had a very rare problem-solving ability that allowed him to create a curriculum to assist others with their business projects.

In her memorandum of law, Bronfman-Igtet’s lawyers, John J. McDonough and Rachel H. Bevans, of the New York City law firm of Cozen O’Connell, claim no one should have believed Raniere, writing:

“A reasonable consumer would not have made the decision to purchase the ESP courses solely based upon vague, improbable statements that the course director is ‘one of the smartest men in the world’ or ‘had a rare and unique problem-solving ability’ or that he was speaking in full sentences by age one. Indeed, such statements are ‘puffery,’ incapable of being proven, and are not actionable…Nor would a reasonable consumer have made the decision to purchase the ESP courses based upon irrelevant details such as winning a race in high school or being a young judo champion…For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ GBL claims should be dismissed.”

In law, puffery is a promotional statement or claim that is subjective rather than objective, which no “reasonable person” would take literally.

Bronfman-Igtet’s lawyers cited case law [Serrano v. Cablevision Systems Corp., E.D.N.Y. 2012] to support their claim that  Raniere’s “puffery” is not grounds for a lawsuit.

Quoting from the decision, they write, “‘To the extent that Plaintiffs allege that Cablevision mislead them by falsely representing that its service provides “High-Speed Internet,” “Faster Internet,” and “blazing fast speed” and that “Optimum Online’s lightning-fast Internet access takes the waiting out of the Web,” these statements constitute puffery and are not actionable under § 349(a)'”.

Rosales’ lawsuit against Bronfman seeks to recover class fees and tuition paid by plaintiffs and others who paid for Executive Success Program (ESP) and NXIVM classes – as well as damages.

The response from Bronfman-Igtet’s attorneys seems reasonable in terms of defending her against the claims being asserted by Omar Rosales. But it also seems to be a tacit admission that she herself may not have believed the very claims that she was asserting to potential recruits in her role as a NXIVM Coach and recruiter.

 

About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is the founder of the FrankReport, publisher and editor-in-chief of Artvoice, The Niagara Falls Reporter, Front Page and the South Buffalo News.

36 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • I never said you weren’t previously critical of him. I just meant I’m not the only person commenting here who believes Rosales can’t win the case based on the argument he presents.

    Some people commenting here seem to think that just because someone files a lawsuit that it means the other party will be found guilty.

  • Have I not, from day one, made claim, that this was a way, for two sisters who have no discernable achievements in life, who never worked a day in their lives, to use their money, which was unesrned, to elevate themselves as movers and shakers when in effect THEY HAVE LED DISSOLUTE, MEANINGLESS, MEAN LIVES?
    Nothing of value has come from their hand. They tried to steal what was bogus to begin with.

  • So what she’s saying is even though she espoused his lies if you were stupid enough to fall for it “nuts to you.”
    See, folks, she wants to walk away, untainted.
    So indicative of the arrogant smugness of the Bronfman sisters.
    Now she hides away in Macron’s France, away from the bourgeoisie.

  • I don’t think Rosales will win. Keith’s misrepresentation of his IQ and childhood accomplishments have no bearing on whether or not the students recieved the goods and/or services they paid for.

  • https://twitter.com/Walkerita/status/1091024867040870401

    Kristin Kreuk is happy (twitter liked) that her generic “straight white male” father is dead so that these non-white characters can be a family. Her on-screen father is everything liberals hate (white, male, in a position of power in his own country etc) and he was written that way. No way they would portray her Asian mother as a perpetrator. Or even, a Chinese father abusing white girls.

      • Sultan, it’s so obviously you with your “cry some more” bullshit. Would love it if you behaved like you do face to face. People like you need a thorough slap.

        • It’s not bullshit if every post of yours about KK is the same tired repitition every time her name is mentioned. I came back to check out this site again to see where the content moved forward to, and while it went away from the KK character assassination content – at least for a bit – when she’s broached again offhand, lo and behold! it’s once again the same character(s) repeating the same broken record without the “turd boy” or the “shitstain” or the “brown beetle” even posting here. At least I was obsessed as a fan based on a good belief and sincere attraction. At least when I posted I primarily argued rationally. And at least when I complain there is some merit to it characteristic of indignation.

          Whiny bish.

          • Go away asbergers boy. No one is doing “character assassination” for calling out Kristin “Crook” Kreuk. You never use that term when people call out other shitty NXIVM members, ever. People can post whatever the fuck they like, about Kristin Crook or whoever else in the NXIVM cult and you can never change that, no matter how much you cry. You are the fucking sharia stalker thought police on Kristin Kook. Doing your rounds several times a day on Frank Report and probably elsewhere looking for any negative comments about the hoe so that you can jump in with your low testosterone beta male bullshit. Stop trying to dictate what people can say about this bitch or anyone else. You don’t get to decide, you self righteous, sanctimonious asbergers loser. Stop commenting on other people’s posts….

    • Remember reading about Rhiannon years ago in the Albany Times Union. Depressing read. Kristin Kreuk and Allison Mack were named in that series of articles. Was hoping their fame, no matter how small, would draw press attention and help bring down NXIVM. John Tigue even wrote an article about the “fall of NXIVM”. He was the one who published information about the lawsuit by Joe O’Hara that named Kreuk and Mack along with other top NXIVM assholes and he released information about the Necker Island trip with specific allegations of criminal acts by people named in Joe’s lawsuit. All in the space of one month. The cult and those top NXIVM people carried on as normal. Instead, he ended up in the shit himself. Hopefully, Jane, the DOS slave, will come forward again with more information. If even one girl from Girls By Design ended up in NXIVM because of Kristin Kreuk and especially if she ended up being branded and especially again if GBD was indeed Kreuk’s attempt at a “feminist approach to BDSM”, that needs addressing.

    • Sorry Heidi, but the “lookback window” of that law will be struck down as unconstitutional by Federal courts, even though it’s a state law.

      Nobody is gonna get justice on Keith for those old crimes.

      You can’t make a new law apply retroactively like that to old cases which have already passed the statute of limitations. That violates the US Constitution.

      Otherwise — if that weren’t really true — then a person would never be out of legal jeopardy for any crimes. …Because future lawmakers could simply pass a new law 20 years into the future which outlaws something a person did 20 years into the past. There would be no limit to what lawmakers could do retroactively, if that were allowed.

      The first person to sue past the statute of limitations will be overruled and handed their own ass by the US Supreme Court.

      Keith will NOT face justice on those crimes. Sorry. He’ll be in jail for owning DOS sex slaves, yes, but not for the older crimes from the 1980’s.

      NY’s new law is great for NEW victims, but the “lookback window” (for older victims) just won’t pass the Supreme Court when challenged. Sorry.

      • “Retard” — Looks like there’s a “look back window” of 1 year without ANY AGE OR STATUTE LIMITS that takes effect 6 months after the bill passes according to “The Buffalo News” and other major media, to wit:

        “The Child Victims Act includes provisions to:

        Expand the statute of limitations so that victims, prospectively, can bring civil cases up until their 55th birthday. It’s now age 23.

        Increase the statute of limitations for criminal cases until, in the case of felonies, the 28th birthday of the victim, up from age 23 now.

        Opens a one-year look-back period, which will start six months after the law takes effect, in which victims of any age can bring civil lawsuits against individuals or public and private institutions – from churches to public school districts – for abuse that may have occurred many decades ago.”

    • Virtue signalling is a modern day pejorative that is morally irrelevant. It’s often cast by people like Paul J. Watson onto the left and is used in the similar way to “libtard”. The irony is obvious as noted on Wiki:

      A criticism of accusing another person of virtue signalling is that in doing so, ironically, one is, as Jane Coaston in the New York Times notes; “trying to signal something about their own values: that they are pragmatic, appropriately cynical, in touch with the painful facts of everyday life.”[19] David Shariatmadari in the Guardian argues that this makes it “indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out [reproach]: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority.”[1] Sam Bowman says of this that “saying virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling!”

      • sultan… butting in… again

        virtue signalling is pretending to be virtuous and “signalling” so that other people see it. its showing off.

        when virtue signalers refuse to accept they are virtue signalers and instead accuse us of it for calling them out on it, it just makes them bigger cunts.

        people getting pissed off with smug pieces of shit pretending to be virtuous is not the same as showing off to appear moral.

        people don’t like kill joys and pc culture. the annoyance is real. pretending to be virtuous while showing off is not.
        getting annoyed at shitty celebrities at the oscars for there virtue signalling about things that have nothing to do with them to show off is not virtue signalling.

        people don’t like smugness and that’s exactly what pretentious virtue signalers are.

        trying to force your bullshit on everyone else and showing off is virtue signalling. it makes you a cunt. trying to get likes on social media by pretending to be moral makes you a cunt. defending virtue signaling/signalers makes you a cunt.

  • When one examines the pattern of deceptions in which Nx engaged, these claims likely did inspire many to take the courses. Nx attracted weak, dependent, idealistic people looking for someone and something in which to believe in the context of a world that is being ripped apart on a daily basis by war, injustice and ecological devastation. Raniere was offered as the solution to the anxiety of living on the planet Earth. And, the constant references to Raniere and his achievements was an essential part of the sales pitch.

    I believe the plaintiffs have cause to sue when one examines the entire context of the operation and the role these mis-statements played in seducing potential clients to join.

  • Well the idea that NXIVM was a new
    Patent-pending integrative technology created by one of the top 3 problem solvers in the world, who had one of the highest IQs, was in the Guinness World Book of Records as having one of the highest IQs, and was a triple graduate from RPI was a pretty big hook to get people to take NXIVM courses.
    1. Lie, patents were turned down in many countries but never shared.
    2. Problem solving was card tricks and puzzles, not real problems like world hunger, global warming or anything to do with humanity.
    3. No one has produced the copy of the Guinness World Book of Records Keith Raniere was supposedly in.
    4. Raniere had a 2.26 GPA, nope not a smart man
    5. The IQ test he took was Take Home and; his smart friends helped with the answers.
    6. Raniere has destroyed any value he created.
    7. Raniere ran a criminal organization

    How fast he could run, speak, learn math, do judo alone were not hot selling points.
    Sara Bronfman Puffery defense left out a great deal of the dough boy’s puff puff puff that sold NXIVM classes

    • Nobody would have taken the classes if it wasn’t for the lies. There would not have been an ESP/NXIVM. The ones who looked at the claims as puffery, did not take the courses. The salespeople for the the course (ALLLLLLL of Keith’s ladies) certainly believed the claims. In fact, they also believed all his other false claims that helped him grow a harem. Over time, people like Kristen Keefe and Nancy realized it was all a big lie, but they initially fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

      Keith tested this puffery plan with Consumer’s Byline. We all signed up for that because of his lies. It wasn’t the “buying club” that sold most people. It was wanting to follow this young genius who can run like the wind, and help us get rich.

      I bet Sara is scratching her head right now trying to figure out if it really is “puffery” or if it’s just her well-paid lawyers trying to win the case.

      • I thought the guy was full of shit, but I went, anyhow.
        No way in hell would I have gone if I were paying, though, and was not spending another second beyond the 5 days regardless of whether I would have had to pay or not.
        I have to give Sara a tiny bit of credit. At least she bolted even if it were only for a guy who wanted to be the only one influencing her and her wallet.
        If you want to see puffery, look at Basit Igtet’s alleged accomplishments and humanitarian efforts.

      • Yeah, why would anyone pay almost $300 per year for the “opportunity” to save money? To save back that much and more (thus making it worthwhile), you would have to be purchasing like a mad man. It made no sense whatsoever. The pitch was seductive, though.

        At the time, those same memberships cost $30 per year through other channels.

        Thank God for Amazon.

Archives

     
     

CONTACT

frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740
%d bloggers like this: