In my post. If Clare Bronfman Flees to Fiji, She Must Do It Before Sentencing!, I raised two concepts:
1: That Clare might flee to her private island in Fiji where it will be possible for her to avoid extradition and even have her sentence legally commuted by Fiji judges which would be binding in the US.
2: The consideration at sentencing by the judge of the statements of alleged victims who were not part of the crimes Clare pleaded guilty to seems to be an abridgment of her due process rights. She’ll never get a chance to cross-examine her new accusers. The judge has ruled that alleged victims may simply appear at her sentencing – without even stating their full names – and make any declaration about her alleged crimes without her being able to confront her accusers. All Clare will get is a chance to make her own statement to the judge before he announces her sentence.
The judge apparently is going to consider the alleged victims’ statements as part of his process of determining her sentence.
He has already announced that it will likely be higher than the estimate made by the prosecution at the time of her guilty plea hearing. She pleaded guilty to identity theft and harboring an illegal alien for profit in April 2019.
The original estimate, the prosecution said, of her sentencing guidelines carries a range of 21-27 months. Her subsequent Pre-Sentencing Report and the spate of alleged victims who have come forward to write victim impact statements and intend to speak at her sentencing have caused a re-estimate of her sentencing guidelines – in an upward direction.
The public has not seen the report.
No one, least of all myself, thinks she deserves only two years in prison. I am one of the alleged victims of the ruthless one, although I do not plan to speak at her sentencing.
When we heard the plea deal, all who fought Nxivm groaned, and felt that she ‘bought down’ her sentence in part with her $6 million fine.
Here was the worst woman in Nxivm getting just about the lightest sentence. I wanted to see her charged with some of the additional crimes she clearly committed during her 17-year reign of terror in Nxivm.
But I do object to not charging her with crimes – but sentencing her for them anyways – by taking unchallenged statements of various alleged victims and adding to her sentence, consequently.
I recognize that before Clare pleaded guilty before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, he warned her that he was not bound to anything the prosecution estimated and that she could face up to 25 years if she got the max sentence for both of her admitted crimes and he was to decide that they should run consecutively.
The sadistic dunce, with her high powered and expensive attorneys, chose to take it on trust that the judge would adopt the prosecution’s estimated guidelines.
She was wrong.
But let’s be fair.
The same prosecution that estimated her sentencing guidelines at 21-27 months, at the time they wanted to encourage her to make a plea deal, later went about calling dozens of alleged victims, urging them to make victim impact statements, which they knew quite well would impact her sentencing.
In other words, the prosecution sandbagged Clare – much like she and Raniere sandbagged others in their business and legal dealings.
I should know. It happened to me. I signed a contract with her. She wired the money to me that was called for in the contract in order to get the work accomplished. But she never signed the contract. I did the work.
Then she asked for the money back based on the fact that there was no contract.
When I refused, since I did the work, and she breached the contract, Clare filed a civil suit against me claiming there was no written contract and sued me for the money back.
OK, fair enough. Let’s litigate it.
But then the vile one filed a criminal complaint against me with the Department of Justice. When Clare went before the grand jury, she told the opposite story that she claimed in the civil case. She perjured herself and testified that there was a written contract between her and me.
The reason she did that was without a contract, there could be no criminal fraud. So she lied. [Assistant US Attorney Anthony Bruce knew she was lying and suborned her perjury.]
Clare said there was a written contract when it was necessary to get a criminal charge and said there was no contract because that helped her in her civil suit.
I get why she did that. Her testimony in the grand jury is secret. No one would know until after I was indicted what she said.
The civil suit was public.
The curious dunce probably thought she could get away with claiming one thing about the contract in civil court – under oath – and claiming the exact opposite in the secrecy of the grand jury, also under oath.
Unfortunately for her, the grand jury minutes of her testimony were released to me as part of what is called Brady Material [exculpatory information that prosecutors are required to reveal to defendants] and the little booger was caught.
Her perjury caused the DOJ to drop the Bronfman charges against me.
And funny, today, she was equally sandbagged as I was.
The DOJ offered her a plea deal that suggested she would get 21-27 months. Then they went about assiduously making sure she got sentenced to much more – by corralling dozens of alleged victims and even fighting to ensure they will be able to step forward in court with confidence and anonymity.
The prosecution just won a successful motion whereby the judge ruled the alleged victims [who seem to be anyone the prosecution decides is a victim] can publicly denounce Clare without revealing their identities to the public [though Clare will know their identities] as part of her sentencing hearing.
Without that anonymity, I estimated that instead of dozens of alleged victims coming forward, only a handful would be speaking.
In other words, I would call what the prosecution did to Clare almost as slick as what she did to others for years. She used her superior wealth and power to crush people. Now it’s the feds who have superior power and wealth and they gave her a splendid dose of her own medicine.
So, yes, while I think that Clare’s due process rights have been abrogated, I have mixed feelings. She certainly deserves to go to prison for many more years than two years and now likely will do more time.
But the concept rankles me. She should have been charged with the various crimes that her alleged victims will claim she did.
For me, due process trumps even an evil princess of darkness like Clare Bronfman getting her comeuppance.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Frank, note the attached re unsigned contract
https://www.schlamstone.com/unsigned-employment-agreement-void-under-statute-of-frauds/
Once again the great Frank Parlato is magnanimous to a fault and 100% right.
In all seriousness, the DOJ and the judiciary are literally circumventing the constitution.
Using allegations of criminal acts to sentence a criminal circumvents due process.
Sentencing guidelines of between 2 years and 20 years is insane. Does that make logical sense to any sane [except for Shadow] adult with a college education?
The number of victims of the NXIVM crime machine is staggering.
All of the major NXIVM defendants, with the possible exception of Kathy Russell, face a potential tsunami of Victim Impact Statements.
And many of these victims are represented by lawyers like Neil Glazer who was quite adamant in insisting that his clients are telling the truth about the criminal behavior of Keith Raniere, Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman.
“Nxivm Victims’ Attorney Neil Glazer Speaks Out on Defamatory Commenters”
https://frankreport.com/2019/08/05/nxivm-victims-attorney-neil-glazer-speaks-out-on-defamatory-commenters/
It’s called posturing, Glazer is far from the first lawyer to play that card. It’s also called puffery.
Glazer is looking for a big pay day.
“Nicole” and “Jaye” don’t have enough money.
Glazer is looking to feed his ego.
I will comment on the contract issue brought up.
I hope that Frank prevails in court. I think the government is overcharging him.
However, if Clare didn’t SIGN the contract then she can’t be bound by its written terms, regardless of whether or not she wired the money to Frank.
Merely wiring money to another person/business doesn’t bind you to written contract terms that are not signed UNLESS there’s other witnesses (or actions) which the court can use to deduce the true ‘intent’ of the person who wired the money.
In this case, it’s just he said/she said.
Frank is up shit creek without a paddle.
Did Frank consult an attorney back in 2008? I doubt it. Or his attorney was a bona fide IDIOT.
Why didn’t Frank get the contract signed if he’s so experienced at getting land developed?
If Clare refused to SIGN the contract, as I’m guessing she did, it tells me there was a DISPUTE about what the money was being paid for and Frank simply chose to ignore that dispute and HOPE that a court might side with him.
If Clare was TRULY on board with Frank’s contract terms, as Frank claims, then WHY did she refuse to sign the contract?
I’d like Frank to give us an answer.
It takes 30 seconds to sign and fax a contract.
Clearly she didn’t want to agree to Frank’s contract terms, else she’d have signed it.
With regard to Clare’s perjury…
It doesn’t matter if Clare said one thing in a civil trial but said another thing in a grand jury hearing, as it doesn’t prove which version of Clare’s contract claims are valid. It only proves that nobody knows which version of Clare’s contract claims are true. It may prove that Clare can lie, but it doesn’t prove that she agreed to those specific contract terms.
Frank should have gotten the signature or returned the money.
I suspect that Frank’s business attorney (back in 2008) was an idiot or simply didn’t exist.
I will explain it all in a post. But the short answer is that I was already deeply involved in the project – rescuing some 30 properties and getting them under control for development.
I was expecting their signature but – and this is stupid – I trusted them.
I recovered $26 million in assets for them that Keith mismanaged – much like the commodities. They would have lost it except I got in between. I don’t think Keith was too happy about that.
Within a few weeks of recovering their assets – they/Keith [through their attorney Bob Crockett] asked for the money back and told me to take a walk. I felt they breached the contract after getting my services. Which was a shitty thing to do.
My position is — if there was no contract, then what was the understanding about the one million they wired to me?
This has to be litigated. That is why I never spent the money. I have been trying to get Clare deposed for this lawsuit. But she keeps dodging a deposition. I understand she has a lot on her mind. I also tried to get Sara Bronfman deposed and she refuses to come into the country. No, I don’t think they are going to do well at trial. If they refuse to be deposed, then the judge will order a judgment in my favor – as per the rules of civil procedure in NYS.
Frank has a very strong case. Someone doesn’t just give $1 million to someone without some intent on what it is to be used for, and if the person they gave the money to provides a valuable service, then the preponderance of the evidence goes to the person who provided the valuable service, in this case getting a $26 million return.
I rarely comment here but I must express my voice to say I want no bad sentence for Clare who is a good person who has helped many people.
James Del Negro in reverse lol. Well done nikki.
Clare has been treated horribly. The tricked her and they pretend to have the moral high ground. Our wonderful Legatus who gave so much to help people is being treated like a criminal. The real criminals are the prosecutors and the judge.
#FreeLegatusNow
Pea:
Who has provided Charger426hemi1 with all of those photos of Alison Mack?
Over 180 photos.
Is it Allison Mack?
Is Allison Mack Charger426hemi1?
“I am one of the alleged victims of the ruthless one, although I do not plan to speak at her sentencing.”
Very curious, Frank — did you WRITE a letter to the judge? Or were you interviewed by the pre-sentencing investigator?
No. I did not write a letter to the judge. I was also not contacted by the DOJ or interviewed by the pre-sentencing investigator. Clare did not plead guilty to any offenses related to me – though her easily provable perjury was a more serious crime than merely harboring Sylvie or helping Raniere use the late Pam Cafrtiz’s credit card. After all, she tried to steal my freedom by perjury.
I sometimes think that her evil deeds have come back to her as karma so I do not feel blue about what I think is the abrogation of her due process rights. I am not sure I want to participate in that however.
A letter from you would be a great [lack of] character statement regarding Bronfman. Whether it would be admissible is a different question.
Here is a quote from a document called “Primer: Victims’ Rights (U.S. Sentencing Commission, January 2019; https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2019_Primer_Crime_Victims.pdf): “Because victim impact statements, whether oral or written, are made in the context of a sentencing hearing, neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation clause protections apply to statements or allocution.”
While the writers say those presenting impact statements must be victims of the crime in question, they also say the individual court has great “latitude” in choosing to hear from people who can offer insight into the “background” and “character” of the defendant.
While I agree with Frank that such latitude could very well amount to a departure from due process, the impact statements themselves do not grant the judge anymore latitude than he or she already has.
Clare got cheated by the prosecutors and so did Keith
I think sending Frank $1 million IS a contract.
Nobody was “sandbagged,” Bronfman’s very experienced and very highly-paid lawyers know how the system works. They probably tried to get a guaranteed deal and the DOJ wouldn’t give it to them, so they rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. It’s not a surprise, since Bronfman IS a snake in the grass. The judge’s clear warnings during the guilty plea hearing are evidence there was no real deal. Bronfman and her lawyers will get to object to any written sentencing complaints against her, so there is a process for her to push back, but it’s limited because she’s a convicted felon.
In the event Frank is found guilty, hopefully lots of people will write letters and show up at his sentencing hearing describing the good he has done to take down NXIVM and other bad behavior, such as the Niagara Falls boat tour scam in order to EARN a lighter sentence, just as Bronfman’s behavior will EARN her a heavier sentence. That’s how it works. Complain about it all you want, I very much doubt you can change it in your lifetime, even if you were just born.
Alleging crimes and proving them beyond a reasonable doubt are two very different things. The judge is only allowed to give Bronfman a higher sentence than he otherwise would, but not beyond the maximum for the crimes she was convicted of. Again, that’s how it works. How one lives their life outside of the specific crimes they were convicted of DOES count, and this is HOW it counts in a court of law. Case closed.
You are very negative in general . Frank will be free
I have to agree with that. And I will soon prove it too.
Go Frank !!! 💕💕💕
It’s not a question of being “negative,” trials are very unpredictable. It’s one reason why both sides often prefer settlements.
I think you should talk at her sentencing. This is the last bit. You have worked so hard. Do this last thing. It’s like working out all year and then when u have the date with a hot girl, you forget to shower. Do the last bit, Frank
Great analogy! I hate it when that happens…
Nutjob,
Don’t worry I’m sure your “paid dates” don’t shower either. There are no showers at the methadone clinic.
Don’t knock it. No need to work out all year long if I’m just gonna pay for it anyways.
Was the mistake Clare’s attorneys made was believing her?
Maybe Clare lied to her attorneys convincing them there would be no more harmful evidence to come out against her in Keith’s trial, so it would be wise to take the (generous) plea deal. And maybe she even believed it, thinking her crimes were covered up—or not thinking because she still suffered from Nx mindfucking.