Bronfman Appeal: Never in DOS, While Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman Were ‘Elbow Deep in DOS’, and Got Lighter Sentences

Clare Bronfman

In a recent article in the Insider, Clare Bronfman’s attorney, Duncan Levin, argued on behalf of his client that she deserves to have her six year, 9 month sentence reduced because she got punished for DOS, something she never participated.

Clare Bronfman attorney, Duncan Levin

Bronfman has appealed her sentence, and a recent filing by another of Bronfman’s attorneys, Daniel Koffman, argues that her sentence should not be longer than Allison Mack [three years] and Lauren Salzman [probation] who pled to more serious crimes and were integral members of DOS. Her lawyers argue even though she had nothing to do with DOS, she was punished heavily for its existence – and that the judge, while acknowledging she knew nothing about DOS until after it was publicly exposed, gave her extra years in prison for “willful blindness.”

Willful blindness imposes culpability on someone who lacked actual knowledge of a fact – in this case the existence of DOS – but only if the person suspects the fact, realized its high probability, but refrained from obtaining the final confirmation because they wanted to be able to deny knowledge.

“Clare Bronfman never knowingly funded a sex cult,” Levin told Insider. “And that is what the judge himself said at sentencing.” Bronfman is “categorically against sex trafficking of any kind,” he added.

Sean Buckley, attorney for Allison Mack, leads her out of court and past reporters.

Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in April 2019 and was sentenced last year to three years in prison, less than half of Bronfman’s sentence.

Lauren Salzman got probation.

Lauren Salzman, a member of the executive board of NXIVM and one of the first line Masters of DOS, recruited the most slaves into DOS – but tearfully testified at the trial of Raniere, weeping so hard that the tender-hearted Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis halted her cross-examination (The halting of her cross-examination is an issue in Raniere’s appeal).  Lauren’s sentence was 5 years of probationbut no jail time.

She now grooms dogs.

Clare Bronfman leaves court with her then-attorney Mark Geragos.
In April 2019, Bronfman pled guilty to conspiring to conceal and harbor aliens for financial gain and identity theft.

***

 

About the author

Frank Parlato

61 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • K.R. Claviger,

    Re Sentencing Law vs Guidelines Question:

    Is the following statement by Attorney Koffman actual PROCEDURAL LAW:

    “The court may not “selectively rely” on mitigating or aggravating factors in sentencing one defendant while ignoring them in sentencing a codefendant….”

    Thank you!
    ****

    I read through this sentencing appeal twice. It seemed more skillfully written in legalese than Bon Jean’s appeal for Raniere.

  • Attorney Koffmann writes “And even if there had been a “culture of stifling and threatening dissenters” within NXIVM (there wasn’t), the government identifies no factual basis to infer a causal relationship between that culture and the “darkest and most horrific crimes that Raniere and others committed.” ”

    Is this the most ridiculous statement or what? There wasn’t a culture of stifling or threatening dissenters? Are you kidding me? Just ask Kristin Keefe, Barbara Bouchey, Susan Dones, Frank himself, or even Edgar Bronfman…and many others!

    Talk about willful-blindness!

  • Clare doesn’t realize a probable reason for her extended sentence was to ensure she did not use her enormous wealth to defend Mr. Raniere, or to help him persecute his detractors from inside a jail cell.

    Raniere’s reported decades long war against Dones, Natali, Bouchey, Ross, etc. while legal, was highly unethical and exceedingly harmful.

    I suggest she could gain credibility with the judge by disavowing Raniere publicly, apologizing, and then endeavoring to make right any wrongs she might have contributed to with her financing of NXIVM. It would go a long way to tipping the balance.

  • Clare Bronfman funded terrorism. Just ask the people that she terrorized.

    If you were a victim of a terrorist organization and their harmful actions – would you want the person who knowingly financed the terrorists prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

    What if this person also knowingly lied in a criminal complaint against you?

    Wouldn’t you be relieved that she was behind bars?

    Not just for justice. But to protect others?

    Frank, you were directly impacted by Clare Bronfman’s legal harassment. And you are still dealing with the fallout many years later.

    Do you, Frank, believe that Clare should be let out of prison early?

    What about any other direct victims? Would love to hear from any of you on this issue.

    Thanks.

    • Given how much harm she caused to me and many others by financing lots of NXIVM/ESP’s criminal and legal-but-immoral activities, I was hoping that Clare (and her sister, Sara, for that matter) would end up in federal prison for at least 5 years. But knowing first-hand what places such as the Philadelphia Detention Center are like, even I would not have hoped that she would end up serving her entire sentence there.

    • Hitler and Putin didn’t actually kill anyone, but they orchestrated and allowed the funding of evil. Financiers and managers of evil are still accountable. Clare and Sara were the enablers. Without them, Nancy, Lauren, and Michelle would have run small time seedy hotel brothels….

    • L.

      Excellent point.

      Or Allison Mack. The cult loyalists just don’t care because it is not Keith. And there is also their deeply ingrained misogynistic worldview. It prevents them from caring much about the fate of any women.

      Even if the women were once their coach in ESP or a close friend in Nxivm. A”sister” from DOS gets very little love or support.

      Even a (now ex) wife never got the all consuming impassioned attention and actions of the loyalists that Keith Raniere still garners.

  • This is a little off-topic to the post – I hope Ms. Bronfman is getting more than 500 calories a day where she is. When I saw her in court, she was so thin that if she closed one eye she looked like a needle.

  • Random question, Frank. Whatever happened with your friend in the Ghana scam? All I saw was four parts to the story.

    • Great question. Enough NXIVM. I WANT MORE RONNIE AND HIS OVERSEAS LADY FRIEND!!!

      I still think the answer to the whole situation would have been finding the real girl in the picture and paying for her to come meet Ronnie. If anyone could talk sense into him, it would be her.

      • I think the girl in the photo was identified but don’t think she has had contact with his friend. I’ll have to go back and read again.

      • That guy died from covid after Frank convinced him it was caused by 5g and not a virus which has a vaccine

        • Ronnie is alive and well and living in a senior home, still waiting for Nancy to come see him. He sold his house because he could not keep up with the expenses of both the home and Nancy. The good news is that while he waits for Nancy to come, he has met a lot of women his own age [80] and is a rooster in the henhouse.

          • That is good news. Give that horny mfr my best. I always thought he had good taste.

  • Prosecution made a deal with her, the judge backed out. She got screwed, plain and simple! Why? She’s unlikeable. She lost the personality contest to Lauren and Allison. The judge hated on her for her personal beliefs and supporting her unlikeable friend, Raniere. I don’t like her either, but I think the judge took justice into his own hands in giving out her sentence.

    If the prosecution had wanted to charge her with additional crimes and she was convicted of them, that would have been reason to sentence her as he did. As it stands, Garaufis just shows up as a vindictive S.O.B.

    • I think I explained this at the time Clare was sentenced but now that she’s moved forward with her appeal, it’s probably time to explain it again.

      When a defendant in a federal criminal case chooses to enter into a plea agreement, there are three options for them and their attorney to consider:
      (1) Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to a crime/crimes that is/are less serious than the one(s) they were charged with.
      (2) Sentence Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to the original charge(s) but in exchange for that plea, the prosecutor will agree to a lesser sentence than the defendant could have received had they gone to trial and been found guilty (The agreed upon sentence must be approved by the presiding judge).
      (3) Count Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal — which is utilized when a defendant in facing multiple charges — requires the defendant to plead guilty to some of the original charges and the other charges are dropped.

      Had Clare wanted to be certain that she would only spend a certain amount of time in prison, she and her attorney, Mark Geragos, should have proposed a Sentence Agreement to the prosecution. Had they done so, Judge Garaufis would only have two options: i.e., accept the Sentence Agreement and sentence Clare to the agreed upon time in prison — or reject the Sentence Agreement and schedule Clare’s trial.

      All plea deals must be approved by the presiding judge (Judge Garaufis held a separate plea hearing for Nancy, Lauren, Allison, Clare, and Kathy — all of whom chose to take Charge Agreements or Count Charge Agreements). As a result, all five of them agreed to be sentenced to whatever punishment the judge thought was appropriate in their case.

      I don’t know (a) whether Mark Geragos explained all this to Clare; (b) whether the prosecution would have agreed to a Sentence Agreement deal; or (c) whether Judge Garaufis would have approved a proposed Sentence Agreement (Given that Clare had agreed to forfeit $6 million in lieu of being liable for restitution and spend up to 27 months in federal prison, I’m inclined to think the prosecution and the judge would have gone along with some sort of Sentence Agreement). But I do know that I would never allow a federal defendant to take any type of plea deal before I explained all of this to them.

    • The judge let Nancy and Lauren off with sentences that were way too low. He also forgot about Michelle Myers!!!

  • How come Suneel & co have not taken the cudgels for Clare B (and Mack et al)? Danced for her in front of the jail house? Stormed law office to demand she be released? Offered shedloads of ‘evidence’ that someone, somewhere, tampered with something? They don’t seem to waste an awful lot of sympathy on the women, do they, (not even towards an ex-wife) and none towards the person who literally funded their hero’s schemes – and his expensive defense – apart from offering to wipe her ass?

  • I’m gonna be the outlier here (and be willfully aware that you’ll all bash on me for it) but strictly looking at her charges – when 6yrs was the ruling I thought “hell yeah!” and I wished I could high-five all those she used our legal system to victimize. The irony of her situation isn’t lost on me.

    Sigh. But 6yrs incarceration based solely on the actual charges against her (and not all the other asshole things we all know she did but she wasn’t charged for, but she managed to get a solid sentence as punishment for) really does demonstrate what Frank’s been saying all along – our interpretations of “justice” are malleable constructs in our minds. So we have to stick to the facts and the evidence that supports or nullifies an actual charge. 6yrs in prison for a non-violent, first-time offender with the charges she had – that she pled guilty to – is dumb.

    Incarcerate her for 9mo; have her live in a halfway house for 9mo; she works 3days a week at a soup kitchen on Staten Island (with a midnight curfew for those 2yrs). Done and done.

    • I think I explained this at the time Clare was sentenced but now that she’s moved forward with her appeal, it’s probably time to explain it again.

      When a defendant in a federal criminal case chooses to enter into a plea agreement, there are three options for them and their attorney to consider:
      (1) Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to a crime/crimes that is/are less serious than the one(s) they were charged with.
      (2) Sentence Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to the original charge(s) but in exchange for that plea, the prosecutor will agree to a lesser sentence than the defendant could have received had they gone to trial and been found guilty (The agreed upon sentence must be approved by the presiding judge).
      (3) Count Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal — which is utilized when a defendant in facing multiple charges — requires the defendant to plead guilty to some of the original charges and the other charges are dropped.

      Had Clare wanted to be certain that she would only spend a certain amount of time in prison, she and her attorney, Mark Geragos, should have proposed a Sentence Agreement to the prosecution. Had they done so, Judge Garaufis would only have two options: i.e., accept the Sentence Agreement and sentence Clare to the agreed upon time in prison — or reject the Sentence Agreement and schedule Clare’s trial.

      All plea deals must be approved by the presiding judge (Judge Garaufis held a separate plea hearing for Nancy, Lauren, Allison, Clare, and Kathy — all of whom chose to take Charge Agreements or Count Charge Agreements). As a result, all five of them agreed to be sentenced to whatever punishment the judge thought was appropriate in their case.

      I don’t know (a) whether Mark Geragos explained all this to Clare; (b) whether the prosecution would have agreed to a Sentence Agreement deal; or (c) whether Judge Garaufis would have approved a proposed Sentence Agreement (Given that Clare had agreed to forfeit $6 million in lieu of being liable for restitution and spend up to 27 months in federal prison, I’m inclined to think the prosecution and the judge would have gone along with some sort of Sentence Agreement). But I do know that I would never allow a federal defendant to take any type of plea deal before I explained all of this to them.

  • Sound reasoning. Solid points the judge erred egregiously. This is a winner. 2nd Circuit sets our Clare Bear FREE.

    #FreeLegatusNow

  • Wow, a lot to read here. Got kinda bored. In short, Clare funded NXIVM. And in so doing, funded DOS. Case closed.

  • She got 7 years for being a mean S.O.B.

    Payback from Garaufis for the victims of Raniere?

    I have no love for Clare Bronfman, but the sentence appears highly vindictive.

    • I think I explained this at the time Clare was sentenced but now that she’s moved forward with her appeal, it’s probably time to explain it again.

      When a defendant in a federal criminal case chooses to enter into a plea agreement, there are three options for them and their attorney to consider:
      (1) Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to a crime/crimes that is/are less serious than the one(s) they were charged with.
      (2) Sentence Agreements: This type of plea deal requires the defendant to plead guilty to the original charge(s) but in exchange for that plea, the prosecutor will agree to a lesser sentence than the defendant could have received had they gone to trial and been found guilty (The agreed upon sentence must be approved by the presiding judge).
      (3) Count Charge Agreements: This type of plea deal — which is utilized when a defendant in facing multiple charges — requires the defendant to plead guilty to some of the original charges and the other charges are dropped.

      Had Clare wanted to be certain that she would only spend a certain amount of time in prison, she and her attorney, Mark Geragos, should have proposed a Sentence Agreement to the prosecution. Had they done so, Judge Garaufis would only have two options: i.e., accept the Sentence Agreement and sentence Clare to the agreed upon time in prison — or reject the Sentence Agreement and schedule Clare’s trial.

      All plea deals must be approved by the presiding judge (Judge Garaufis held a separate plea hearing for Nancy, Lauren, Allison, Clare, and Kathy — all of whom chose to take Charge Agreements or Count Charge Agreements). As a result, all five of them agreed to be sentenced to whatever punishment the judge thought was appropriate in their case.

      I don’t know (a) whether Mark Geragos explained all this to Clare; (b) whether the prosecution would have agreed to a Sentence Agreement deal; or (c) whether Judge Garaufis would have approved a proposed Sentence Agreement (Given that Clare had agreed to forfeit $6 million in lieu of being liable for restitution and spend up to 27 months in federal prison, I’m inclined to think the prosecution and the judge would have gone along with some sort of Sentence Agreement). But I do know that I would never allow a federal defendant to take any type of plea deal before I explained all of this to them.

      • K.R. I am not sure how to phrase this question.

        I am assuming it is permissible for Clare to ask the court to reconsider her sentence. Is this is true?

        The court can so no, of course.

        • That is exactly what she is doing per her current appeal. If the Second Circuit Appellate Court — which is the court hearing her appeal — decides that her sentence was inappropriate, it will send the case back to Judge Garaufis for re-sentencing.

          Judge Garaufis will then consider the findings and/or recommendations, if any, of the Appellate Court — and re-sentence Clare to whatever he deems appropriate. The new sentence could be less than the original sentence, the same as the original sentence, or more than the original sentence. And, once again, Clare will have the right to appeal any sentence that is more than 27 months (Per her plea agreement, the only thing that Clare can appeal is a sentence that is more than 27-months).

          • In that case I would do the same thing. Ask for less and try to get it down to 27 months.

            I wonder if she received extra time since a fine was likely to mean little to her. I suspect that a lot of community service would be appropriate. I once worked in corrections, and at least some offenders preferred time over community service.

  • She was unrepentant and still supported Raniere AFTER knowledge of DOS was revealed, even if she didn’t know anything about its existence prior to that. Also, it was her financial backing that allowed such abuse for all the victims to occur.

    Her sentence is equitable. In fact, it’s probably lenient, both in terms of time received and financial compensation demanded compared to the amount of money she has and earns on a yearly basis. Of course, it’s unfair when compared to what her sister should’ve received since she got away Scott free even though she will likely never be able to set foot in the USA again.

    Both are such spoiled, privileged brats.

  • The attorney is doing this because he is being paid. Clare can ask, but it does not mean it will happen.

  • I note that Attorney Koffman makes lots of references to Salzman and Mack’s lenient sentences but never mentions Raniere’s 120 year sentence.

    Nor does he mention that his client, like Raniere, was adamantly unrepentant.

    Judge Garaufis’s sentencing looks a lot more consistent, logical, and fact-based when these two things are considered.

  • I’m not sure what her attorney is getting at. Maybe he can write a few thousand more words to help me understand his simple couple of points.

    Please don’t let Suneel read this. It will only perpetuate his issue, and completely put us all to sleep while reading strike 3.

    • NutJob-

      I had to read “it” twice.
      ****

      Suneel definitely hit pay-dirt in his pants after reading this article. Maybe it served to lift his spirits since Nicki moved out.
      ***

      Once Raniere, loses this appeal, Suneel will move on to the length of sentencing. I have to say, if we strictly go by what Raniere was convicted of HE DESERVED 20 YEARS, not the 120 years.

      I’m glad Raniere received 120 years, BUT, a prison sentence should be for what you were convicted for.

      • As I recall, the 120-year sentence that Keith received was based solely on the seven crimes he was convicted of. In this regard, I believe the judge simply had each of the seven sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently.

        • KR how common is it to run sentences concurrently? Are there guidelines are laws for this? Or is this left up to the judge.

        • Claviger-

          My feeling about the 25 years sentence for Raniere means that he’ll be punished and get out when he’s too old to hurt anyone or enjoy life. At 85 what can you do?

          Everyone talks about how America’s prisons are overcrowded for a variety of reasons. Raniere getting out at 80+ years of age isn’t the worse thing.
          ***

          Keep in mind, my opinion changes daily. I hate Raniere and the level of hate moves between loath and vexation beyond your imagination.

Frank Parlato

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com

Archives