Perhaps the easiest pickings for more criminal charges against Clare Webb [of deceit] Bronfman, AKA Legatus, for the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York to choose from, is to be found in the civil lawsuit against 15 Nxivm leaders.
Attorney Neil Glazer and his team represent 80 ex-Nxivm plaintiffs.
In two previous posts we laid out some of the crimes Bronfman, a heiress with a net worth estimated to be more than $200 million, allegedly committed, according to the Glazer lawsuit.
Where Did Clare Bronfman Go Wrong — Glazer Lawsuit Lays Out Crimes of Vicious Seagram’s Heiress
Bizarrely, many of the crimes she is alleged to have committed, and both of the felony crimes she stands convicted of in the EDNY, are relatively minor financial crimes.
For example, for the two crimes she was convicted of – harboring an illegal alien for financial gain and conspiracy to commit identity theft – the actual amounts total at best a few hundred thousand dollars.
She faces years in prison for these two offenses.
There was certainly no financial need for Clare to swindle DOS “slave” Sylvie out of $100,000 over several years. Or for her to help Keith Raniere use the deceased Pam Cafritz’s American Express card.
It is not as if, for example, the heiress could not afford to pay Sylvie $2,000 more per month, like she told Department of Immigration authorities she would.
We heard Mark Vicente testify that Clare admitted she was spending $40,000 per month just on [worthless] patents for Raniere.
She did not need to commit financial crimes for the same reason that 99.99999 percent of everyone else who commits these financial crimes do – for the money.
Clare Bronfman may be the first person ever convicted of these particular financial crimes in history, someone who totally did not need the money!
No, she needed to commit these crimes for the natural perverse sadism in her, her unnatural stupidity, and her insane dedication to the architect of her destruction, her adorable and worshipful master, Keith Alan Raniere.
In our previous posts, we saw how Glazer laid out the way Clare victimized numerous Jane and John Does [ex Nxivm members whose identities are being shielded from the public].
Alleged in Glazer’s civil lawsuit are a number of other crimes, largely financial crimes – that the foolish heiress committed.
Through Glazer’s lawsuit, we get a good look at how Clare took advantage of people she brought to the US on visas and cheated illegal aliens out of compensation she promised.
Still, even if there were two dozen victims of Clare and she cheated them all over the years out of an average of $100,000 each – it wouldn’t amount to what she spent pampering Raniere and funding his terroristic litigation in any single year.
No, these were not true financial crimes. For they fail in intent.
Her intent was not to commit the financial crimes. He intent something else altogether. She had the intent to commit other crimes.
Consider, this woman blew through a probable $100 million on Raniere. So did her sister Sara.
Clare did not cheat some two dozen foreigners [collectively] out of what was to her a paltry $2.4 million – to profit – as most do in these kinds of financial crimes.
She did it because she is a villain. Because she and Raneire wanted them to be poor and dependent and frightened and illegal in this country in order to enslave them.
This is what Clare’s true intent crimes are – not financial, that was not her intent. Her true crimes are – as Glazer’s lawsuit is revealing [and another good reason for her to settle fast] – forced labor and sex trafficking.
Clare knew that by manipulating these women into the U.S. and keeping them poor, she was priming the pump for sex trafficking them to Raniere.
Clare is now in danger of being charged again, and being convicted again, and getting a much stiffer sentence than the 4-7 years she is likely to get for her two relatively minor financial crimes.
The Glazer lawsuit is going to expose Clare to possible sex trafficking charges which come with a minimum of 15 years in federal prison.
The Glazer lawsuit might wind up being the genesis for something few of us have thought much about before: the possibility of Clare not getting out of prison, of her dying there, of her going away for life.
Let us return now, as we did in previous posts, to the allegations of crimes and actionable deeds of the loathsome heiress of the Bronfman filth money as alleged in the Glazer lawsuit’s complaint.
Exo/Eso Was a Front for Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor
From the Glazer Complaint:
Raniere and Clare Bronfman lured unsuspecting women from other countries to enter the U.S. to work with them on developing exo/eso.
Defendants assured them that they would be gainfully employed.
Clare Bronfman sent letters on behalf of NXIVM supporting their applications for visas, falsely stating that they would be working for NXIVM as “business consultants,” and that they would be paid set salaries.
When these women arrived, they realized that this was untrue. They worked around the clock, at the beck and call of Clare Bronfman and Raniere, but were not paid what had been promised – and, at times, not paid at all.
When they complained, they were told in typical NXIVM fashion that it was their fault, that they were not entitled to earn compensation until they overcame their “issues,” took more curriculum, or paid back supposed debts to Defendants.
Clare Bronfman’s NXIVM Propaganda Film – “My Tourette’s”
In addition to underwriting the Enterprise’s human experiments, Clare Bronfman sponsored individual students (including two Plaintiffs), on the condition that they agreed to be subjects in a film called “My Tourette’s”that one of her companies produced.
The film has never been released commercially, but it has been shown at several film festivals.
Although the film was intended as pro-NXIVM propaganda, it was also utilized to advance the Defendants’ claims about their development of bogus cures for medical ailments.
See the trailer for Bronfman’s film
Abusive and Vexatious Litigation
In support of the NXIVM criminal enterprise, and in furtherance of its objectives, Defendants grossly misused legal systems in the United States, Canada, and Mexico to conceal their wrongdoing, silence critics of NXIVM, punish defectors, and terrorize current NXIVM members with the omnipresent threat of defending against frivolous lawsuits and spurious criminal complaints if they left the program.
Clare Bronfman paid for the lawyers NXIVM hired to wage the Enterprise’s reign of legal terror. She also drafted threatening letters that were supplied to NXIVM’s lawyers to transpose onto law firm letterhead and then sent to the targets of the enterprise’s wrath.
Defendants’ legal abuses included filing false criminal complaints with law enforcement authorities, bringing and maintaining baseless civil litigation, vexatious and sanctionable litigation tactics, perjury, manufacturing evidence, and witness tampering.
The message these abuses sent to those inside NXIVM was clear: cross us – and this will happen to you.
In about 2009, Defendant Clare Bronfman began directing the formulation, funding, and execution of the enterprise’s legal strategy, subject only to Defendant Raniere’s ultimate approval.
With her limitless resources, almost anything Raniere wanted could be accomplished, and examples of their litigation abuses abound.
In the criminal trial of Raniere, Mark Vicente testified that “The decision makers in Legal were Clare Bronfman and Raniere.”
One tactic they employed was to intervene and interfere in the bankruptcy proceedings of members who had exhausted their life savings and become deeply indebted to NXIVM, either in pursuit of the Stripe Path or in unsuccessful attempts to open their own NXIVM centers, and who then filed for personal bankruptcy in order to discharge their debts.
In several cases, the Defendants asserted baseless fraud claims or objections to the debtors’ financial disclosures, seeking to deny the member a discharge. Defendants also employed abusive discovery tactics designed to prolong the proceedings and increase the expense to the former member, all to prevent the member from receiving a discharge and the “fresh start” that the bankruptcy laws afford.
***
***
This is an excellent place to stop in the lawsuit.
We have plenty more to go on Clare’s alleged crimes and misdeeds.
A pattern is emerging.
The key point – and one I think prosecutors contemplating bringing new charges against Bronfman might consider – is not to look at these crimes as one would if this was a normal criminal committing them.
They are NOT financial crimes. The motive is different. Clare was not looking to make illicit dollars from these activities.
She was pursuing the development of the overall Nxivm racketeering enterprise which was, in the end, sex trafficking for Raniere and forced labor for her and Raniere.
Her motive was to enhance her role in the enterprise. That is why she sex-trafficked women and made men and women do forced labor, using all the tools at her disposal including abusive litigation and her vast wealth.
Many thanks to Neil Glazer for trailblazing the legal path to charge Clare Bronfman in a greater scheme of racketeering and laying the foundation for charges of sex trafficking and forced labor against the cruel and deceitful heiress.
It is about time one of the Bronfmans pays the price for misusing the money that their patriarch, Sam Bronfman, robbed from the world while making the world a darker and more sinister place.
Neil Glazer has taken this case to a whole new level beyond what the EDNY did – at least in their first round of indictments.
Stay tuned.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I hope Joe O’Hara joins the Glazer lawsuit as a plaintiff.
He certainly suffered from\ the machinations of these NXIVM defendants.
I see that Claviger has weighed-in with useless drivel again.
My prediction:
Bronfmans have the upper hand.
1) Because this case is LIGHT YEARS from being decided, the ONLY way it gets settled quickly is on Bronfman terms (no admissions of guilt and a chump change settlement).
2) Since most plaintiffs probably won’t wanna wait many years to go to trial and then litigate Bronfman trusts, I’m guessing they’ll cave-in and fold like cheap suits. 🙂
3) To add insult to injury… Because federal income taxes generally apply to lawsuit judgments which can’t show ‘physical injuries’ (federal taxes also apply to punitive damages), I’m guessing that plaintiffs will likely have to pay taxes on their chump change settlements, thus adding even more insult to injury.
Here’s how I see it going…
1) After some back and forth, I see the defendants offering no more than $7 million for a ‘quick’ settlement.
2) After some posturing and attempts at playing hardball, I see the plaintiffs FOLDING like a cheap lawn chair. 🙂
3) Here’s how I see the judgement being cut up:
Likely judgement IMO: $7,000,000
Lawyer’s likely cut: $2,300,000 (1/3)
Plaintiff’s likely cut: $4,700,000
Divide that loot by 80 plaintiffs…
Likely payout to each plaintiff = $59k (Chump change, lol)
Likely net payout (after federal taxes) = $44k (assuming a 25% rate)
That’s chump change!
*Even if federal taxes didn’t have to be paid, $59k would still be a JOKE settlement from NXIVM.
That’s barely enough money to buy a USED Mercedes —– with just enough left over for a ping pong table, a steak dinner and maybe some potato chips. What a JOKE.
In my opinion, Dani deserves a LOT more than the other plaintiffs.
It’s a shame she’s letting her own tragic story benefit the other plaintiffs equally. Why spread that loot equally among lesser deserving plaintiffs? IMO that’s just not fair.
#JusticeForDani
#FileYourOwnFuckenCaseDani
#ScrewTheOtherPlaintiffs
#ThinkOfYourselfDani
#CollectYourOwnLootDani
Just my own opinion, of course.
Have a nice day. 🙂
I think it will likely take quite some time for this case to get sorted out. To begin with, it may be difficult to serve some of the plaintiffs (As of today, only four have been recorded as having been served). There may also be jurisdictional issues raised by at least some of the defendants and/or as regards at least some of the claims being asserted by some of the plaintiffs. And I would not be surprised to see some of the defendants assert counterclaims against some of the plaintiffs and/or cross-claims against some of the other defendants.
So, while it’s possible that there could be a “quick and dirty” settlement, I think it’s much more likely that this thing drags on for quite a while. Especially if some of the defendants end up representing themselves – which is also quite likely.
I definitely agree that not all the defendants have equal damages – which may make it much harder to settle the whole case at once. And what happens if/when one of the plaintiffs with the largest claims decides to settle for $X – and other plaintiffs with lesser claims don’t get acceptable offers.
Good luck to Neil Glazer in herding all these cats…
Claviger-
Do you believe Toni Natalie, Mark Vicente, and Sarah Edmondson deserve to be part of the same class action lawsuit as “Nicole” and “Daniela”(Dani)?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated by all readers and Dani and Nicole most of all!!!!!
To begin with, the action filed by Neil Glazer is a mass tort lawsuit rather than a class-action lawsuit. You can get a synopsis of the differences between the two types of lawsuits at: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/differences-between-class-action-lawsuits-and-mass-tort-claims.html
But I think the issue you want me to address is whether I think all these plaintiffs belong in the same lawsuit – or whether some of them, like Dani and Nicole, would be better off on their own. Assuming that’s correct, here’s how I look at it.
Undertaking a lawsuit like this is a very expensive proposition. And to a large extent, the same out-of-pocket expenses would have to be incurred regardless of how many different plaintiffs were involved. Looked at another way, the claims of some of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit would never have been brought if they were structured as separate lawsuits because the “risk” (the out-of-pocket expenses) would have been too high relative to the “reward” (whatever damages some of the “lesser” plaintiffs might have incurred). So, to some degree, the claims of plaintiffs like Dani make it possible for the claims of people like Toni Natalie to be heard.
One of my main concerns is that with so many plaintiffs – who have so many different levels of damages – settlement discussions will likely be very difficult. Although all of the plaintiffs may have been harmed to some degree by Raniere and his cohorts, clearly some of them were harmed more than others. But getting those with lesser damages to accept much lower settlements may prove to be very difficult.
Another concern I have is that many of the defendants appear to be judgment proof (Example: Does anyone really think that Kathy Russell is going to be able to pay any significant amount to any of the plaintiffs?). While having multiple defendants may help bolster the plaintiffs’ argument that NXIVM was a criminal enterprise, I’m not sure having all the “clutter” is worth it.
Lastly, it appears to me that not all the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have “clean hands”. At a minimum, some of them benefitted financially while they were in NXIVM even while they were allegedly being harmed. And some of those same people also inflicted harm on other people as part of their role in NXIVM. Given all that, I could easily see this lawsuit devolving into a morass of counter-claims and cross-claims.
My opinions are based on the small amount of information I have about this case – and my extremely limited experience in dealing with this type of litigation. Thus, I would enjoy hearing from an experienced mass tort lawyer regarding the issues you have raised. Best of all would be to hear from Neil Glazer, the architect of this lawsuit – and the guy who is now driving the bus.
Thank you for answering my “anonymous” questions.
I am sorry I purposely misinterpreted your “cat herding” comment, on the other thread, in order to “goad” you into answering my questions.
Thanks again!!!!
Have a great day!
” (As of today, only four have been recorded as having been served). ” KR Claviger
Which four?
Obviously Danielle Roberts is one of the four.
In addition to Danielle Roberts, service has definitely been completed with respect to Sara Bronfman, Allison Mack and Nancy Salzman. It’s possible that others have also been served but no other receipts have been filed in the PACER system as of 5:00 PM today.
Allison Mack’s sister, who I will not name, has an Instagram account.
One of the pictures she had up was an April, 2017 picture of herself standing in front of a theater poster of her sister, Allison.
The caption read, “I’ve been looking all over for my sister and I found her performing at the Old Globe Theater in San Diego.”
The play was “Red Velvet.”
A commenter wrote some time ago “So Allison is your sister. That’s a shame.”
About a week ago that picture and all comments were removed.
All the other pictures are still up.
That was probably after Allison was served or the family read the media accounts of the law suit.
Most of Allison’s sister’s pictures are about finding art in nature and street scenes in California.
I don’t believe the Mack family is a very happy abode right now.
To Daniela,
Why Opt Out of a Class Action Lawsuit?
Although joining a class action lawsuit may seem like the simpler choice, as it frees up many plaintiffs from having to personally go through the trial or settlement process, doing so is not always in a plaintiff’s best interests. For instance, plaintiffs who join class action lawsuits cannot file individual claims for the same accident, so if their class action lawsuit fails, victims could lose out on any opportunity to recoup their losses. Similarly, even when a class action suit is successful, all plaintiffs are required to share any damages that are awarded equally, which could leave many plaintiffs with an amount that doesn’t even cover their medical bills, let alone their other losses.
For such plaintiffs, class actions are likely the only available vehicle for recovery. But for those who hold significant claims (generally at least several hundred thousand dollars), an opt-out lawsuit may result in a far larger settlement than the plaintiff would receive as part of a class action.
In fact, a recent study indicates that in the average case with an opt-out, an additional amount of almost 13 percent is paid to plaintiffs who opt out, and in a number of cases, more than 20 percent was paid to opt-out plaintiffs.
Clare’s reiterated her intent in this quote that appeared as the mission statement for her Ethical Science Foundation based on Raniere’s toxic teachings:
“Our mission is to discover if humans can be manipulated and if so how?” — Clare Bronfman
That’s pretty blatant intent underscored with Clare’s purchase of EEG equipment and financing the importation of helpless immigrant subjects, forced into labor and sex amid these mind control experiments — not to rule out other possible accomplices such as Rosa Laura Junco — or her malintent on her own Virgin daughter she allegedly once offered as a sacrifice to Keith herself!
There is not a single way to interpret that statement, Hutchinson.
Great points, Heidi
Maybe this is also how she justified this behavior to herself. She is doing research in understanding “human manipulation”. This is important stuff!!
So arrogant to not think they needed any expert in human interfaces. IRBs in the US are needed. They were arrogant in thinking they only needed Keith’s brain. He was evil and lead them down a bad path where they ruined their reputation. That might be the worst for all the rich kids. Reputation is everything.
Laura Junco ruined her life. She lost all credibility. Her knife 🔪 media was interesting.
Daughter’s not daughter.
Poor Clare!
Sex trafficking is the only way Clare can get anyone to sleep with her.
LOL
When I was single, if I had been given the choice between sleeping with Clare for free or paying a $200 fine……..
…….I would have gladly paid the fine.
How exactly are allegations in an upcoming civil action going to affect sentencing in a criminal matter that will happen beforehand??
It won’t affect the sentencing of Clare on April 23. It will expose her to future charges – including quite possibly sex trafficking.
Did Bronfman’s earlier plea deal prevent her from being charged again on those crimes? Why would the EDNY have jurisdiction of her instead of the NDNY?
She had no global settlement in her plea deal. NDNY has jurisdiction on some crimes – like one of the immigration issues. But as we have seen, the EDNY found ways to have jurisdiction over a cult that operated primarily in Albany [NDNY].
If they want more of Bronfman – they will find jurisdiction. Just as Neil Glazer did with his civil lawsuit which is being prosecuted in the EDNY.
Not a global settlement, one that permanently dropped the specific crimes she was originally charged with. EDNY was able to charge for some of the crimes, many of them were moved to NDNY. Has Glazer been granted jurisdiction, or is his lawsuit still subject to being challenged (one of many potential challenges) in the EDNY by the defendants?
I do not know if Glazer has been granted jurisdiction yet. I don’t think any defendant has put in an answer yet, though some of them have been served.
No Answers have been filed as of yet – and my expectation is that many of the defendants will request (and very likely be granted) an extension to the filing deadline. So, I don’t think we’ll start seeing very many Answers before the end on next month or early April.
“Jurisdiction is simple when the case is simple. This is a complex case with some very wealthy defendants,” Scott Johnson
Under Civil RICO, the legal expenses of winning plaintiffs are paid for by the losing defendants.
Scott, are you trying to encourage a settlement to save Clare Bronfman some money?
No.
Scott:
Jurisdiction is really very simple.
One overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy can bring the whole case into either the EDNY or the NDNY.
A phone call from Albany to Brooklyn can give either district jurisdiction.
Transporting a woman from Brooklyn to Albany can give either district jurisdiction.
In 1990, two con artists operating out of the Grosvenor House Hotel in London defrauded the Chicago Housing Authority pension fund out of 13 million dollars in a Prime Bank Note scheme.
Even though the scheme was run from London, England because some acts were committed in Chicago, the trial was held in Chicago (the Northern District of Illinois).
DEFRAUDERS OF CHA FUND SENTENCED
“Hart sentenced Joseph Polichemi, 64, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., described as the ringleader of the scheme to 17 1/2 years in prison; Lyle Neal, 54, of Hi Hat, Ky., to 19 1/2 years; Wheaton attorney Oscar “Bill” Olson, 69, to 10 years; and Charles Padilla, 46, a former banker from Lexington, Ky., to 6 1/2 years.”
And the fraudsters were ordered to pay restitution even though they were supposedly broke.
“Although the hearing left him unsure about what happened to the money, Hart ordered the four defendants to pay restitution of $10 million”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-10-23-9610230182-story.html
Jurisdiction is simple when the case is simple. This is a complex case with some very wealthy defendants, who will probably hire very wealthy and cunning lawyers and put every barrier/delay in the process they can create. Jurisdiction is just one of many. This case could easily take 5-10 years to conclude. But thanks for another Sh!tcago story, I like them. LOL