At Clare Bronfman’s sentencing hearing on September 30, 2020, she apparently displeased Judge Nicholas Garaufis after she attempted to apologize to one of the women who she allegedly harmed, Jane Doe 12.
Jane Doe 12 is a Mexican woman, who joined NXIVM in Monterrey. Her name is Ana-Gaby. Her last name will be withheld. She was brought into the US under one set of pretenses – and Clare failed, she admitted, to pay her what she promised to pay.
For the first time, we will be publishing the judge’s admonition of Bronfman.
It is quite possible that Clare’s looking at Ana-Gaby caused the heiress to get additional prison time.
We also learn that despite her reputed cheapness, Clare Bronfman was earning $25-30 million per year from her investments – which probably exceeded what she invested each year into Keith Raniere.
Let us go to the courtroom where Bronfman had her turn to speak.
Whoever wrote this speech failed to advise Clare – or if Clare wrote it herself, she failed to realize – that she should have begun with an apology and showed contriteness for her actions.
For she began, sounding immodest:
Clare: Your Honor, I’m immensely grateful and privileged because all over the world today people are praying for me because they know my goodness. I’m saying this because, one, I’m grateful that they’re praying for me and, two, because I hope you will see a glimmer of what they see in me.”
As a spoiler, we now know that the judge did not see that same glimmer that people all over the world, deep in prayer, saw.
Regardless of its intended purpose, the opening was ill-advised. I suspect that Clare was not trying to be immodest but actually humble and expressed it poorly. She was “grateful” and “privileged” because “all over the world today” people “know my goodness” and are praying that the judge is good to her.
When you say people “all over the world”, it implies there are hordes of people spanning the planet. Yet she had only 67 letters of support, almost all of them from people who were financially dependent on her.
To be more accurate, what she really meant was, “Your Honor, I feel immensely grateful and privileged because there are some people, scattered across the world, who today are praying for me because they believe I have good. I’m saying this because I hope you will see just a glimmer of the goodness that they see in me.”
Clare went on:
It doesn’t mean I haven’t made mistakes, because I have made mistakes. I’m standing here before you today because of my mistakes and my wrongful choices, and for that I am deeply sorry.
I would also like to apologize to my friend who came here today who is sitting in the room [Ana-Gaby/Jane Doe 12]. I am truly sorry for all of your hardship and any pain that I caused you and I truly hope you can forgive me and that you can live a very happy life. Sorry.
Your Honor, lastly, I’m sorry for the time and the resources that I have taken from this court and from yourself for my actions. Thank you.
That was it – and the judge immediately began discussing what he used to calculate the sentence he was about to hand her.
He remarked how Raniere “maintained a rotating group of15 to 20 female NXIVM members with whom he maintained sexual relationships. These women were not permitted to have sexual relationships with anyone but Raniere or to discuss with others their relationship with Raniere.”
Bronfman was one of those women by the way.
From at least 2009 to 2018, Ms. Bronfman served on NXIVM’s executive board.
Then in a lengthy explanation, he discussed DOS, something Bronfman was not accused of being a member of.
He said “In 2015, Raniere created a secret society called DOS, D-O-S, or The VOW. As the PSR explains, quote, ‘DOS was comprised of all female masters who were NXIVM members who recruited and commanded groups of all female slaves. In identifying prospective slaves, masters often targeted women who were experiencing difficulties in their lives, including dissatisfaction with the pace of their advancement in NXIVM. Each DOS slave was expected to recruit slaves of her own, who in turn owed service not only to their masters but also to masters above them in the DOS pyramid.
“Raniere alone formed the top of the pyramid as the highest master. Other than Raniere, all participants in DOS were women. Raniere’s status as head of the pyramid was concealed from all newly recruited slaves, other than those directly under Raniere. DOS masters persuaded slaves to join DOS by falsely describing it as a secret women’s empowerment group and that the goal of DOS was to eradicate weaknesses in its members. Prospective slaves were required to provide collateral to prevent them from leaving the group or disclosing its existence to others. Collateral included sexually explicit photographs and videos of themselves, rights to financial assets, and videos or letters of true or untrue confessions that would be damaging to the prospective slave’s family members and friends. After joining DOS, slaves were required to provide additional collateral, including sexually explicit photographs and to pay tribute to their masters, including by performing tasks that would otherwise be compensable.”
In a previous filing, Bronfman objected to a discussion of DOS as per her sentence, since it “creates a false impression that the defendant was aware of or even a participant of DOS.”
The judge said “To be crystal-clear, Ms. Bronfman was not convicted of any of those [DOS] crimes, Ms. Bronfman was not convicted of participating in any racketeering activity, and there were many aspects of Mr. Raniere’s crimes in which Ms. Bronfman very well may have not have been familiar.”
Bronfman previously filed a memorandum disputing the proposition that she was even aware of DOS or any sex trafficking that Raniere engaged in or that she knowingly funded DOS or sex trafficking activity.
The judge said, “I agree with Ms. Bronfman that the available evidence does not establish that she was aware of DOS prior to June 2017 [when the Frank Report first published word of its existence] or that she directly or knowingly funded DOS or other sex trafficking activities. However…Ms. Bronfman’s crimes were not committed in a vacuum, they were committed in connection with a role in NXIVM and a close relationship with Raniere, and I believe it would be inappropriate for me to consider them divorced from that context.”
The judge then added something frightening and completely counterintuitive to what one would think is justice – about plea bargains at the federal level.
He said, “in determining sentence, I am not bound by rules of evidence that would pertain to at a trial and I am not limited to considering admissible evidence in determining an appropriate sentence. Particularly relevant here, the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that a sentencing court is entitled to rely on information gleaned from a trial in which the person to be sentenced was neither a defendant nor represented by counsel.”
That says it all. No plea deal means anything since whatever charges a defendant pleads guilty to is not what the judge needs to exclusively consider when he sentences her.
The Second Circuit decided that anything said about her at someone else’s trial, a trial which she is neither present for, or can cross-examine witnesses who speak against her, the judge may use to sentence her.
This is why Bronfman’s plea deal was worthless. She or her attorneys did not understand that a federal plea deal is meaningless.
The judge did get to her actual crimes and added some to her sentencing though they were never proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Judge said, “Ms. Bronfman helped Jane Doe 12 to obtain a visa by representing that she would make $3600 per month as a, quote, ‘management consultant,’ end quote, for a NXIVM-affiliated fitness company Exo/Eso, E-x-o-/-E-s-o.
“Instead, Jane Doe was barely compensated for her work. Her e-mail correspondence with Ms. Bronfman shows that she repeatedly made Ms. Bronfman aware that Ms. Bronfman’s failure to deliver on the terms of the employment agreement had left her in dire financial straits. In November 2015, for example, Jane Doe 12 e-mailed Ms. Bronfman that, quote, ‘with no money involved,’ end quote, she was, quote — it was, quote, ‘very difficult to support herself and to keep pace with no income and with the uncertainty of not knowing how I will live each day.’ End quote.
“The following month, in December 2015, Jane Doe 12 e-mailed Ms. Bronfman that because Exo/Eso was not paying her the contractually specified wage she was owed, she needed to find another source of income, quote, ‘to support myself here.’
“Jane Doe 12’s victim impact statement makes clear that she felt tremendous pressure from Ms. Bronfman, who led her to believe that she did not deserve the salary provided for her in her employment letter because any business difficulties that Exo/Eso endured were attributable to Jane Doe’s, quote, ‘personal issues.’ End quote.
“According to Jane Doe 12’s statement, Ms. Bronfman, despite her financial needs and earlier commitments to the contrary, explained that she, quote, ‘couldn’t pay her,’ end quote, because she had failed to enroll enough participants in Exo/Eso to generate sufficient revenue.
“Ms. Bronfman also used Jane Doe’s immigration status as a means of pressuring her to continue working without compensation. When Jane Doe 12 e-mailed Ms. Bronfman to ask if she could look for another job, Ms. Bronfman replied that it, quote, ‘would impact the work agreement,’ end quote, and cause possible visa issues. Those visa issues just popped up whenever it was inconvenient for Ms. Bronfman to fulfill her obligations, and that is a sword to force people to do things and not get paid to do them. This is the same Ms. Bronfman who, according to paragraph 183 of the presentence report, had gross taxable income in the range of $26 million to over $30 million a year in the last four years that are reported.
“Several months later, Ms. Bronfman e-mailed Jane Doe 12 that in order to, quote, ‘stay here,’ end quote, she needed to address, quote, ‘one fundamental question yet to be answered, what are you going to do to earn your visa?’ End quote.
“Importantly, none of these facts are disputed. Ms. Bronfman does not contend that she provided Jane Doe 12 with adequate or consistent compensation or honor the terms of the employment agreement, rather she merely suggests that she was surprised to learn that Jane Doe 12 was unhappy with the circumstances of her employment and she thought their relationship was, quote, ‘caring,’ end quote, and a, quote, ‘friendship,’ end quote. But her characterization is belied by Jane Doe 12’s victim impact statement and by the e-mail correspondence between Ms. Bronfman and Jane Doe 12.
“In short, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Bronfman refused to honor the terms of Jane Doe 12’s employment agreement, demanded work from Jane Doe 12 without compensation, and emotionally manipulated Jane Doe 12 into believing that her own personal failures and job performance, not Ms. Bronfman’s refusal to pay her, were the cause of her precarious financial situation.
“I think that part of Ms. Bronfman’s statement was directed this afternoon at Jane Doe 12, and it would appear to me that Jane Doe 12 was affected by that. I saw it on her face today.”
While the judge was speaking, Bronfman seems to have turned to look at Ana-Gaby in the courtroom.
The judge was angered.
He said, “At this very moment in this very courtroom, Ms. Bronfman is doing again what she did then. This judge is not blind, Ms. Bronfman. I saw what you just did and I’m speechless.”
Silence for a moment.
“And all of this emotional and financial pressure came with severe cost to the victim, a cost greater than the sum of its parts. Jane Doe 12 was eventually recruited into DOS, Raniere’s secret society in which she was pressured into giving up, quote, ‘collateral,’ end quote, and becoming a, quote, ‘slave,’ end quote. I am not suggesting that Ms. Bronfman had a direct role in Jane Doe 12’s recruitment into DOS or even if she was aware of it. The evidence before me does not support such a proposition. But I do find that the kind of pressure and mistreatment that Jane Doe 12 was subjected to by Ms. Bronfman put her in a very vulnerable state, the kind of state that could make a person more susceptible to be recruited into an organization like DOS.
“Moreover, the evidence suggests that this kind of conduct was part of a pattern….”
In short, that was the beginning of the end of Bronfman getting a sentence anywhere near the sentencing guidelines of 21-27 months. Instead, the judge handed her a stiff 81-month sentence and had her immediately remanded into custody and led away in handcuffs.
God Bless the judge that sentenced her.
In rereading the exchange, my impression is the judge was saying Clare was being emotionally manipulative of Jane Doe 12 when Clare addressed her in her statement and the judge saw it register on Jane Doe 12’s face. Clare turned to look at Jane Doe 12 when the judge said that, which the judge felt was more manipulation.
BUT, exactly what type of face was Clare making?
Was it a mean spirited face, sarcastic, mocking, smug smile, or an eye roll….
We demand answers!!!!
Exactly, ..so many options
This is what I wonder…putting myself in her position…..if the judge is speaking to ME , ABOUT Jane Doe 12, I would feel the need to acknowledge to what he is speaking, out of respect. I dunno? Just a thought
The judge’s “you looked” admonition had to be maddening to Clare’s lawyers. Reminds me of the movie “…And Justice For All” where an exasperated Al Pacino yells at the judge — “You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order!
https://media4.giphy.com/media/eGJgwDXbKP6nK/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611a2133663586dc9b930d69a06aa6576a494b3bf45&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
The judge was wise and he knew exactly her measure. Where there is a band within which sentencing can be made, then judges have discretion. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
“When you are feeling hen-pecked or pussy-whipped, try growing a beard. That should help. A beard brings out the masculine energy. A man with a beard usually will not enjoy seminal weakness – which is, in fact, the cause of weak-kneed cowardly submissiveness to a woman.” – Frank Parlato, March 2010
Frank’s likes beards on men, Keith likes unshaven women — Brothers from different mothers
https://i.imgur.com/R0No9lF.jpeg
What was the circumstance behind the statement?
Didn’t Frank also say something to the effect of, “women are filled with blood and pus”? He had some kind of, “Mens rights” type of site.
Who was she Frank? Who hurt you so much?
Don’t be silly. No one can hurt a strong person.
While the judge was speaking, Bronfman seems to have turned to look at Ana-Gaby in the courtroom.
The judge was angered.
He said, “At this very moment in this very courtroom, Ms. Bronfman is doing again what she did then. This judge is not blind, Ms. Bronfman. I saw what you just did and I’m speechless.”
What was her look exactly? Was she trying to intimidate Ana-Gaby? I’m so confused about this. What was Clare doing? Sending her a morse code message by blinking her eyes?
Clare called the woman her friend and was overall aiming to invalidate the story. present it as it was a minor thing what she did to the woman. Clare was trafficking women. She was bringing them into the US and then not paying them and leading them to be in a sex trafficking ring. The point is NOT if Clare looked at a woman or not. It is that Clare is cruel. She had billions and thought she deserved to have slaves. Women she did not pay and who were also forced into being blackmailed by Keith.
Fuck you, Clare!
Amen.
Clare is calling Ana Gaby her friend and then looking her over with intimidating eyes. The judge saw through her fakeness. Clare did not call anyone else her friend. Clare probably felt she still had control of Ana Gaby. Ana Gaby likely did not have much power and Clare knew she could continue to abuse her. I am glad Clare was stopped.
Now you can read minds?
Nicki Clyne now believes that she is an American citizen.
She is probably more patriotic than most of our pathetic politicians.
Nicki’s social media now has the saying We the People US
Nicki Clyne
@nickiclyne
Advocate for: due process ⚖️, free speech 💬, constitutional rights 📜, forgiveness 🙏🏼 | Cally on #BSG 🚀 | I identify as human 🤍 | We (are) the people 🇺🇸
Nicki Clyne
@nickiclyne
Oops, I forgot Canada’s birthday. Hopefully they disown me once and for all
Canada’s birthday is July 1st and it used to be called Dominion Day. Shadow State
In commenting about Clare’s plea deal and her sentence, I have mentioned several times that there was another alternative that her attorneys might have explored.
Here is a more detailed outline of that alternative process:
Rather than simply pleading guilty and agreeing that sentencing will be left up to the judge after both the prosecution and the defendant make recommendations, a federal criminal defendant can propose that they plead guilty per what is informally called a “C plea” (The reference is to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure/https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11).
Per such a plea, the defendant and the prosecutor must agree to a specific sentence or a specific sentencing range – which is, of course, exactly what they did in Clare’s case.
The big difference with a “C plea” is that the judge has only two choices when such a deal is proposed: (1) accept it as is – and sentence the defendant in accordance with the agreed-upon sentence or within the agreed-upon sentencing guidelines; or (2) reject it – and allow the trial of the defendant to proceed.
Some federal prosecutors falsely claim that “C pleas” are not available in their jurisdictions – which would only be true if their jurisdictions were outside the United States. And some federal judges are loathed to approve “C pleas” because it takes the sentencing power out of their hands.
Regardless of what prosecutors or judges say about “C pleas”, it never hurts to actually propose such a deal – and force them to put their “local rules” on the record.
There is no way of knowing for sure what would have happened if Clare’s attorneys had structured her plea deal as a “C plea”.
But given the circumstances leading up to her plea, the prosecution’s desire to focus its attention on Keith Raniere, Clare’s willingness to pay a large sum of cash to avoid the loss of any other assets, and the judge’s general demeanor before he heard about all the atrocities that took place in NXIVM and DOS, I think there was a better than 50% chance that a “C plea” would have been accepted by the prosecution and approved by Judge Garaufis in Clare’s case.
“C plea deals” are somewhat rare but I can tell you from experience that they are often the best option from the standpoint of the defendant.
And had Clare Bronfman gone that route, she would likely have reduced the amount of time she’ll be incarcerated by about 4 years…
That’s an interesting angle!
“Yet she had only 67 letters of support, almost all of them from people who were financially dependent on her.”
Still shocked that Judge Garaufis was not swayed by Suneel’s tale of having to wipe Clare’s poopy bottom.
I wanted to offer my letter of support for Clare, but my price was too high I guess.
Judge Garaufis was angry at Clare, he felt sorry for Allison. That’s the reason one got 3x the guidelines sentence and the other got 1/5 of hers.
Sentencing, even more than trials, can be a roll of the dice. Emotion counts for as much if not more than objective fact. This is true of much in human affairs.
In one case, saying “I’m sorry” pisses off the judge. In the other, it’s good for a decade’s worth of reduced prison time. In one case, context of the whole Nxivm/DOS racket counts in sentencing; in the other cas,e it is effectively dismissed as irrelevant.
Why the disparities?
The Judge is a senile old man who believes Allison Mack is his daughter.
The judge is 75 years old and was appointed by Blow Job Bill Clinton.
–Emotion counts for as much if not more than objective fact.
I’d prefer to think of it as justice tempered by mercy. This is quite different than an argument from emotion: e.g., appeal to pity, fear, threat, etc. You seem to imply that the judge replaced one with the other as if his anger or other emotions got the best of him, and his judgment was simply arbitrary and not based on anything else except them. This is FAR from true.
Judges are placed in their positions because they are supposed to be the best people who can do this. They are supposed to weigh all of the various factors holistically and in context: e.g., the evidence, the individual, the letter and the “looseness” of the law, etc., and then come to their decision. They never “dismiss something as irrelevant” that is actually relevant.
“I’m sorry” can be true or just another lie because of the concept of intent, and judging someone by it has always been part of human “social contract”, and even more so in the rightful application of justice. The only other option is to ALWAYS rule by the letter of the law, to only consider actions without intent, and that simply is not concordant with reality.
Justice tempered by mercy is great, I’m all for it. But where was Garaufis’ mercy for Clare?
And it’s true that intent is important in law. Problem is, we can never really know what another person intends. We aren’t privy to their thoughts.
So we’re left with guesswork and assumptions. This is what the Federal sentencing guidelines were intended to do, take out much of the guesswork. In these two sentencing decisions, Garaufis departed wildly from the guidelines. One way above, the other even farther below.
Seems arbitrary to me.
I agree that both sentences varied widely from the guidelines but I don’t think that automatically means they were arbitrary. In each case, Judge Garufis gave detailed reasons why he did what he did.
I will say that I thought his explanation regarding Allison’s sentence was less persuasive than his explanation regarding Clare’s sentence – but since no one is going to appeal Allison’s sentence, we’ll never know whether the Second Circuit would have approved it. We will, however, get to see what the Second Circuit has to say about that Clare’s sentence since she’s filed an appeal about it.
Jane Doe 12”s statement at Claire’s sentencing is also here: https://frankreport.com/2020/10/09/mexican-slave-tells-how-bronfman-lied-and-cheated-her-out-of-money-while-raniere-manipulated-her/
“When I was told by my master that I needed to tell Keith Raniere about my sexual encounters with my boyfriend, now my husband, the last thing that I felt was safety or personal growth.”
Reading between the lines, Raniere wanted intimate details about her sex life, she said no, and he and Monica threatened to release her collateral over it.
This is horrible. Keith was a pathetic sex addict and Clare helped fuel that addiction.
Ana Gaby was also threatened with having her collateral released—on Keith’s orders. From Sylvie’s testimony: “Monica Duran [Ana Gaby and Sylvie’s DOS master] called me and said she was having some problems with Ana Gaby and I think that she used the word Ana Gaby was being defiant or something, she was worried that Ana Gaby’s collateral was going to have to be released. I remember her saying Keith has mentioned she may need to be the first one to fall or some kind of phrase like that and she was really worried that if Ana Gaby didn’t do what she was being asked, that her collateral would have to be released.”
They likely would have released her collateral because she did not have any power. Nobody cares about an illegal immigrant. I am glad DOS got stopped. This was really horrible. It is sad that the TV is giving a lot of spotlight to the white women. Mexican women suffered a lot.
Thank you, Mexican Lady, for noticing this. No person regardless of immigration status should have to go through that. My heart goes out to Ana-Gaby.
I wonder how many of those 67 people were on the Brofman payroll?
“Particularly relevant here, the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that a sentencing court is entitled to rely on information gleaned from a trial in which the person to be sentenced was neither a defendant nor represented by counsel.”
That says it all. No plea deal means anything since whatever charges a defendant pleads guilty to is not what the judge needs to exclusively consider when he sentences her.
The Second Circuit decided that anything said about her at someone else’s trial, a trial which she is neither present for, or can cross examine witnesses who speak against her, the judge may use to sentence her.”
This is unfair, unjust, and unAmerican…even for Clare…but it’s the Law.
Not entirely. That judges can consider evidence produced at trial is hardly unjust. That defendants who have pleaded guilty can’t contest evidence later presented isn’t unjust either, since they have agreed not to contest.
Pleading guilty has its advantages and disadvantages. Judge Garaufis explained all this in court before he accepted the defendants’ guilty pleas. I’m sure it was explained to them by their expensive, experienced legal teams in even greater detail.
Pleading guilty worked out pretty well in this case, considering that the longest sentence handed out so far to the pleaders is 7 years. These people are literally Raniere’s partners in crime, who eagerly and willingly and proactively [Garaufis’ words] enabled Raniere in crimes that netted him 120-years in federal prison.
Bronfman is a sad tale. She’s badly emotionally handicapped and lacking basic social skills. Also, her attorneys should have prepped her better or prevented her personal testimony. What a total mess! Painful to read.
Will she make it through prison with being murdered or suicide? 50/50 chance
Any updates on Clare in the near future? Does she still employ a bodyguard? 🤔 Is she still worshipping her Vanguard after all this time?
This is really fucked up. Clare is cruel. She deserved the lengthy sentence.
She was basically engaging in human trafficking and, through her behavior, also helped Keith get slaves for DOS.
Clare: Everyone can see you were fucking Keith and you were not even in the main circle. Always a loser…
I completely follow the logic of the judge bringing up DOS. It makes sense.
The woman that Clare exploited and manipulated about her “issues” was made further vulnerable through Clare’s words and deeds.
If this woman needed to handle her “issues” to stay in the country and obtain the money long promised her – of course, she is going to join DOS.
DOS falsely claimed that exact assistance.
It does not sound like the woman in the courtroom considered Clare a “friend”. How creepy of Clare to refer to her as such in this context and setting.
I also have no problem with the judge looking at the Nxivm bigger picture and Clare’s place in it.
I’d lay money on Raniere influencing how Clare Bronfman responded to JD 12. If Raniere wanted JD12, he was probably already working all the angles to ensure she was pushed in his direction even as he kept Bronfman ignorant of his real motives/intentions. Bronfman certainly seems to have been used as his willing sycophant in so many other ways before – just part of the pattern.
If Bronfman had shown any hint of understanding how she had been manipulated and duped, if she had disowned her worshipped mentor, perhaps things would have gone differently for her.
Based on Sylvie’s testimony and JD12’s statement, she had a boyfriend and Raniere was pressuring her to give him intimate details about their sex life as part of DOS. One has to guess there might have been a plan to try to break them up so he could have sex with her, but we’ll probably never know for sure. What is certain is that according to Sylvie, she was threatened with the release of her collateral for defiance (presumably not divulging the details on her sex life).
I am NOT defending Bronfman…but I don’t get it…The judge mentions JD 1’2s face, Bronfmaster turns around to look at what he speaks…..What am I missing?
I don’t get it either! The Judge is acting like a power hungry, deranged High School Vice Principal. It what way was this a violation of some courtroom ethics?
She was illegally in the damn country. Who gives a shit? This judge showed what a corrupt degenerate piece of shit he truly is by letting Allison Mack walk Scott-free. Clare got screwed over horribly no matter what you think of her, she got done really dirty in all this.
On the payroll?
Mack didn;t bring in women illegally and punish them with no wages. Mack didn;t participate in litigations to put innocent people in prison. Clare is cruel and Keith helped her be even more cruel. Thank god Clare is locked away for a while . Bet she thought this day would never come
The judge deserves a medal for this ruling alone.
I can find no evidence that Allison Mack made any oral sttement at her sentencing.
Could that mean she was on psychotropic drugs at the time and merely allowed her attorneys to speak for her?
Mack made a statement in court.
The Albany Times Union covered it, and quoted from it in their podcast Nxivm On Trial.