Earlier today we reported on a request by Clare Bronfman’s attorney to have a Fatico hearing. The article was entitled Bronfman Seeks Hearing to Prevent Being Sentenced for Crimes ‘for Which She Was Not Charged and for Which She Did Not Enter a Plea’
The prosecution has responded to this request in a letter to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Court.
Dear Judge Garaufis:
The government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defendant Clare Bronfman’s letter filed earlier this morning. The letter filed by Bronfman’s counsel appears to misapprehend the purpose of a Fatico hearing, which is to resolve specific disputed statements of fact in the Presentence Investigation Report {PSR] prepared on December
13, 2019 (“PSR”).
The bulleted statements set forth in counsel’s letter are arguments that they may attempt to make on behalf of their client at sentencing (e.g., “Clare Bronfman did not provide any financial support or facilitate sex trafficking whatsoever”) but are not factual disputes requiring resolution by a Fatico hearing.
Tellingly, Bronfman does not appear to dispute any of the specific conduct attributed to her in relation to DOS (see, e.g., PSR ¶¶ 97- 100 (detailing, among other things, Bronfman’s public statements in connection with DOS and her efforts to hire a public relations firm to “rebrand” DOS)).
The Court has extensive knowledge of the facts in this case, having presided over the trial of Bronfman’s co-defendant Keith Raniere. Even if Bronfman were to specifically identify factual disputes with the PSR relating to DOS or her financial support of Raniere, which she has not done, the government respectfully submits that the Court has
already afforded Bronfman an opportunity to be heard through “affidavits, letters or other writings, argument and comment” and need not hold a “full blown evidentiary hearing.”
Respectfully submitted,
SETH D. DUCHARME
Acting United States Attorney
By: /s/ Tanya Hajjar
***
Perhaps the most interesting thing in this letter is the reference to Bronfman in the PSR “detailing, among other things, Bronfman’s public statements in connection with DOS and her efforts to hire a public relations firm to ‘rebrand’ DOS.”
It is a very ironic use of the word “rebrand” in reference to a sex cult that branded women on their pubic region.
During the period when I was the only media outlet reporting on DOS, Bronfman made a statement on her website defending DOS. And I did break the story that she was looking for a public relations firm to spin a better story for DOS than that it was a secret master-slave sex cult with Keith Raniere at the head – a group that branded women and took blackmail-worthy material which they called collateral to ensure obedience and silence.
Clearly, Bronfman knew about the secret aspects of DOS and worked to help save Raniere before the first NY Times story came out.
Whether she gets a Fatico hearing or not, one lawyer, who has been watching the case from the onset, said, “Nothing that happens in this Fatico hearing is going to change her sentence.”
That may be true.
Still, this is a complicated matter and smacks of injustice. I am inclined to side with Bronfman on this one. She should not be sentenced for crimes alleged by a series of victims whose evidence is not being held to a higher standard of proof than mere allegations.
Clare undoubtedly committed many crimes for which she was not charged, but she should only be sentenced for those crimes to which she pled guilty: identity theft and harboring an illegal alien for financial gain. Those two felonies are the only charges she should be punished for and not other crimes she neither pled guilty to nor was convicted of at trial.
The prosecution is seeking a longer sentence than the original estimate of sentencing guidelines of 21-27 months, most likely because of the many alleged victims who signed victim impact statements.
As her attorney Ronald Sullivan argues, Bronfman never got a chance to dispute these claims and should not be sentenced for crimes that never went to trial.
Bronfman may be a living devil, but she should still be treated fairly by the law.
This reminds me of Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” where Sir Thomas More is asked to arrest a man because he is evil but who has not broken a specific law.
ALICE MORE: Arrest him!
SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?
ALICE: He’s dangerous!
WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he’s a spy!
MARGARET MORE: Father, that man’s bad.
MORE: There is no law against that.
ROPER: There is! God’s law!
MORE: Then God can arrest him.
ALICE: While you talk, he’s gone!
MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER: So! Now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
***
I’d give the devils, Raniere and Bronfman, the benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
Bronfman deserves due process. I believe a Fatico hearing should be held, as requested by her attorney.
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, you have said this at others times also, that you think it’s not fair that Clare’s victim’s impact statements might get her a punishment for crimes she did not commit yet you admit in your own article below, that her crimes call for a much longer sentence than her original plea agreement of 21-27 months.
Frank, I feel you are now minimizing these victim impact statements, a far cry from what I see was your opinion in your earlier article. I think this is not an all-or-nothing issue. Given the sheer maximum sentencing guidelines for each of her 2 crimes she would be lucky to get 5 years.
https://artvoice.com/2020/08/11/educated-guesses-on-bronfman-raniere-and-other-nxivm-defendants-sentences/
QUOTES FROM FRANK PARLOTO’S ARTICLE:
Clare pled guilty on April 19, 2019, on Good Friday, in Brooklyn Federal Court to one felony count of conspiracy to conceal and harbor an illegal alien for financial gain – and one count of fraudulent use of identification. The maximum sentence for count one is ten years and for count two, 15 years. She could get a maximum of 25 years if the judge should decide to hit her with the max and have the two sentences run consecutively.
That seems unlikely. But the ruthless nature of the Nxivm racketeering enterprise, which the judge has become intimately familiar with, might prompt him to punish the vicious Clare Bronfman to a sentence that might surprise all of us. I would not rule out 10 years. And it would be far less than she deserves.
No one can be quite sure if dozens of victims, most of them women, tearfully describing how Raniere and Bronfman ruined their lives will be able to persuade the judge to make their sentences longer, but one thing is certain, he won’t lessen their sentences on account of victims’ appearances.
I think Clare could be looking at something in the 3.5-5 year range, instead of the 2-2.5 in her plea agreement. The judge was pretty clear that he is still considering an upward departure. I’m not sure how high he could go, but I think four years for Clare would not be unreasonable and should withstand appeal.
Frank likes to take both sides of an issue and let people put in their two cents. LOL
My friends and I are going to protest against the NXIVM members at the next WeAreAsYou gathering at the MDC. I encourage others to join as well. We have signs and everything and cannot wait! They will be met with some very choice words as we air out this group in real-time.
I’m surprised law enforcement hasn’t sought this as an easy opportunity to arrest Nicki Clyne, etc. during these meetups.
P.S. Emiliano Salinas should be arrested ASAP.
I don’t think they danced this past Friday. LOL
If law enforcement has an indictment for Clyne, they can find her without the dancing. LOL
Ducharme aka Tanya Hajjar’s response is on point, IMO, that Clare is misusing the Fatico hearing rules to address rumors, not any matter ever put before the trial Court regarding her crimes.
In fact, there was a distinct dearth of any mention of Clare at trial.
This degenerate deserves everything and worse. I wish we had more barbaric punishment for what she did. Tie her up to a horse and let it run through the Manhattan streets for all I care. Let’s bring her sister in too.
Why punish the horse? The horse had nothing to do with Clare being a criminal, soulless, despicable being. She could just as well be pushed in front of a bus.
There are probably quite a few people who would be willing to put on a horse suit. LOL
Mmh giddy up cowboy. Horse suits? Want to drink from my TROUGH? I could put on a pair of chaps and a cowboy hat.
Palomino or a pinto? Maybe a clydesdale so big and strong.
If you are a horse in my stable I could ride you.
Men can be so cruel [redacted].
I will treat you right.
I agree, Timothy. It would be incredible if the law allowed for extremely harsh punishment. In my opinion, she should be waterboarded, branded (just like a cow or horse) all over her body, and starved. She is a waste of space. Complete trash. Just like her sister. May she succumb to COVID. She deserves the absolute worst for the longest amount of time possible.
Be careful not to wish something on someone when, if approved, could be used on you or someone you like. LOL
—careful not to wish something on someone when, if approved, could be used on you or someone you like. LOL
You must be referring to the lovely pearl necklace I gave you.
The pearls really bring out your porcelain skin tone.
I don’t need any pearls thanks.
BTW: I can always drop some pearls of wisdom on your head as well.
The purpose of a sentencing hearing is to shade the guidance, both up and down. LOL
For example, assuming Frank goes to trial as scheduled next May, and assuming he is convicted, he is allowed to bring in testimony regarding the good things he has done that are completely unrelated to his crimes, such as exposing NXIVM. LOL
The fact that one can be sentenced by unsubstantiated claims and unproven facts withheld from trial is unconstitutional.
The forefathers of the Constitution most certainly all have agreed it is wrong.
I agree with Frank.
Then you’re wrong with Frank. LOL
I’m sorry. I forgot you are one of the greatest minds, [redacted]
Trailers.
There’s only one problem Frank.
During the allocution and Guilty plea, Clare was asked specifically if she agreed with the US Attorney’s and the Government’s summary of facts and events that led up to her arrest.
Clare Bronfman said yes. BOOM.
No one forced her to agree. No one coerced her to agree. Clare agreed with the Government’s statement of facts.
And even though she was not charged for those specific offenses, she still admitted to those facts. Which may now be used in the calculation of her sentence.
So, technically, the Court is within its right under sentencing guidelines to take those factors into consideration.
Surely this is not the first time this issue has arisen. LOL
And a simple and quick search engine inquiry shows this to be true: https://www.pbwt.com/second-circuit-blog/second-circuit-vacates-sentence-that-erroneously-denied-acceptance-of-responsibility-credit LOL
Specifically, it states, “The Court briefly disposed of two other issues raised by Delacruz. First, it held that Delacruz’s due process rights were not violated by the district court’s consideration of facts unrelated to the offense conduct, or by its decision to hold a Fatico hearing to inquire about such facts in order to make sure that the defendant was sentenced based on true information. Second, the Court rejected Delacruz’s argument that the testimony from the government’s cooperating witness about Delacruz’s prior drug sales was incredible as a matter of law. Though the Court described the testimony as containing “inconsistencies and equivocations”—and suggested that it would have preferred a more careful explanation of credibility findings by the district court—ultimately there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding.” LOL
In Bronfman’s case, there are probably multiple people telling essentially the same stories about Bronfman, therefore the stories they tell are even more believable than the Delacruz case – in other words, I am happy to report that Bronfman is f*cked. LOL
All the judge has to do in this case is stay away from the “acceptance of responsibility credit” issue and state that the massive amount of money being used in an extremely evil manner multiplied the impact Bronfman had in inflicting evil against others and deserves a very long sentence. LOL
Case closed, I think a real-world legal case is better than a fictional story. LOL
P.S., Here’s the actual Fatico case, which supports the above position: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/603/1053/105471/, which means Bronfman is deservedly double f*cked, so she better look as pretty as she can and bat her eyelashes at the judge and hope he is in a good mood on sentencing day. LOL
To clarify my earlier comment, Bronfman may have been aware of the branding but not aware of the blackmail, which they euphemistically called “collateral.”
The choice of a euphemistic term does not invalidate the underlying facts that blackmail material is involved. The facts are not invalidated by a new term, and Clare Bronfman must also have been aware of what was involved, as she probably also revealed blackmail material of herself as ‘collateral’.
I don’t recall any mention that Bronfman provided or was aware of the DOS blackmail. LOL
“Clearly Bronfman knew about the secret aspects of DOS and worked to help save Raniere before the first NY Times story came out.” No, that is not clear. At all. Raniere publicly denied many things over the years that turned out to be true and he compartmentalized information in different combinations with different people.
Bronfman, who was not part of DOS because she is so ugly and would make even a horny 30-year prisoner puke his guts out if he saw a beaver shot of her with her legs spread as Raniere was wont to do with his slaves, could have been considered so important from the perspective of providing financial support to NXIVM that she was unaware of the DOS branding as apparently the wicked witch of the west elder Bronfman was as well, because her key role was bringing in money from the NXIVM “education” classes.
Therefore, Bronfman could easily have been trying to hire a PR firm to spin the DOS story that she considered to be false. We just don’t know what Bronfman knew about DOS at the time of trying to hire a PR firm.
Actually, she’s quite attractive without the glasses. Take a look at the shots of her wearing a swimsuit on Necker Island.
A paper bag over her head would help a lot. LOL
Mmh…
….Wasn’t that your[redacted] play?
You must have used a number of [redacted]
–reminds me of Katherine Hepburn
I’d rather fuck a drunk goat.
I beg to differ, it is crystal clear that Bronfman knew about the branding (What was that carefully staged NYT Magazine story by Vanessa Grogorialis recorded in 2017 — prior to Raniere’s arrest, replete with branding and “collateral” justifications) — about?
There’s proof aplenty that Clare also knew about the mind-conditioning and what was being done with all that Kafka-esk, sex slave grooming equipment CLARE purchased — she publicly proclaimed her and her sister’s “Ethical Science Foundation” was all about how to “MANIPULATE humans.”
Clare well knew about the Albany Times Union February 2012 expose’ on Keith Raniere’s pedophilia and other ESP/NX sex crimes and Nancy Salzman’s — Clare’s “hypnotherapst’s” and the Company owner and President’s, role in that. Clare went after the whistleblowers, the “enemies” of NXIVM, including reporters at first with a vengeance for outing her Grandmaster, Keith Raniere, and she damn well knew why we needed to be silenced, discredited and destroyed — on HER and Raniere/Salzman’s explicit orders and instructions to PI firms, lawyers and corrupt law enforcement officials. Clare’s own false “heiress in distress” accusations — to protect Raniere and NXIVM from further exposure and accountability by eliminating their “enemies.” And they succeeded in putting John Tighe and Joe O’Hara in prison if not, gosh darn it, killing them.
It was Clare who bundled NXIVM member campaign donations to Hillary Clinton to buy the political clout needed to escape punishment and shield NX leaders through bribery of public officials.
And why else would NXIVM need that level of illegally gotten clout to cover their bloody tracks?
The Dalai Lama called out NXIVM and Keith Raniere for “transparency” and he, ultimately, got it. With Clare & Sara right there on the stage they rented for his Albany appearance, how did they NOT “get it”?
This Fatico thing is just another legal ploy to help Clare and Sarah avoid liability in the Civil Suit by claiming the Court ruled on only two counts against Clare and, apparently, negated all other claims should they win the hearing to, again, avoid accountability for their crimes despite that they already got away not being charged for many more crimes they obviously helped perpetrate. And with Sara not at all charged but remunerated for the properties she held title to that were used to perpetrate some of them.
Blah blah blah
Clare Bronfman could have taken repentant action, either before or after her plea bargain, and she could have made statements to disavow her ties to Raniere. Clare could have sought and maybe even completed some sustained therapeutic efforts, during the past two or so years. Unless there is a surprise coming from Bronfman, she is still very much identified with Raniere and the nauseating, steaming shitpile of their “human potential” movement, with all of its scandals and outright horrors, plus its inbuilt, trenchant abusiveness.
This reminds me of the old saying, (her) taste is in her ass. How come Clare doesn’t see that and reckon with it?
She was born more or less an orphan of wealth and didn’t learn self-respect. She seems to have no relation with her own core beingness. She is impoverished as a self and haphazardly grasps fake paste, trinkets made to copy real jewels, without even seeing what she is doing. If only she could come back to life. Ask yourself, did anyone ever care about Clare, anyone who could have exemplified to her, as a child, how she could have learned to love herself and others UP, instead of dragging herself and her associates down, down, down? This is one of the curses of the entitled, rich, psychological messes: personal investment into their own misery. I have seen this “curse” manifest itself, over and over again. It is nothing new.
Her life is never going to be the same again. Clare is notorious now. The overly eager civil suit might still be waiting for her, whether she becomes a prisoner for more than 27 months or not. This was the cutoff point of the amount of time that Clare offered to accept, without appealing her sentence. But again, her life as she knew it is already over. Her money can buy her a degree of isolation and privacy, until she can find her way out of the United States entirely, like her sister. If she has any survival energy left in her, Clare will get the F out of Dodge. She can be dissolved into the stricken anonymity of a disenfranchised character, as in a short story by W. Somerset Maugham, who gossiped relentlessly, almost as superbly as Proust, as he blatantly shamed dolled-up, grotesque hypocrisy.
Judge Garaufis, do your thing. This is what we have left, so far. I (try to) trust the Judge to do his best to come in just right, with his decision about Clare Bronfman’s length of prison time. Even more so, the Judge will explain his decision when he delivers it. It is a chess game. He is a representative of humankind itself, wearing a chamber robe and interpreting, imitating our multi-faceted conceptualizations about justice. Emotionalism cannot have much more than a cameo appearance.
So far, Clare Bronfman is stuck with herself. Apparently, she isn’t prepared to make any significant changes for herself. That is really too bad. How ironic it is that horses are healers, very, very often. She had a much more wonderful chance at a happier life before her sister introduced her to a new position, a front row, catered table in hell.
Blah blah blah
Frank, you are a big man for arguing that Clare Bronfman, a woman who treated you atrociously, should not be sentenced for crimes she was never charged with.
To be honest, I believe the DOJ should have brought the five main defendants to trial for the crimes they were indicted for.
The government traded away too much in the plea bargains.
It doesn’t matter how charitable Frank wants to appear to be, this issue has already been decided in the courts, and Frank’s unfounded opinion is on the wrong side of previous court decisions. LOL
Your opinion also doesn’t matter in the outcome of this case, as prosecutors will almost always take a guaranteed plea bargain than take their chances in a trial, where anything can derail their best-laid (Raniere pun intended) plans. LOL
[redacted] LOL
Yes! Those alleged victims have a potential payday since conviction of multiple crimes will tend to sway the jury in the class action lawsuit.
It is a conflict of interest. The class-action people played their hand too soon and now the judge is virtually forced to disregard other alleged crimes because it indicates a financial motive of the plaintiffs who are also victims in the criminal case.
It also creates a clear opportunity for appeal since, in addition to all the points raised by her lawyer, if the victim/plaintiffs in the class-action try to sue her, she can clearly demonstrate to the courts they had a financial incentive to do so. Sort of like “fruit of the poisonous tree” but not quite.
Good one.
WRONG. Sorry Nicki Clyne.
Any conflict of interest will be decided by the judge in the civil case, that’s one of the reasons there is a judge at trials. LOL
There are always opportunities for appeals, as long as you can afford to pay a lawyer. LOL
The main purpose of almost all civil lawsuits are financial incentives, the truth doesn’t create a conflict of interest – Bronfman scammed many of them, turnabout in a civil lawsuit is fair play. LOL
LOL, you have formulated this concisely and precisely. My compliments.
Thank me. LOL