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.
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.
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, 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.
Based on those crimes and her lack of criminal history, the applicable sentencing guidelines for Clare were 21-27 months. She agreed to pay a fine of $500,000, restitution of $96,605.25 and a forfeiture money judgment of $6,000,000.
The pre-sentence investigation report and the government’s sentencing memorandum suggested that Bronfman supported DOS and helped find sexual partners for Raniere. The government sought a 60-month sentence, more than twice the sentencing guidelines.
Bronfman sought a hearing to demonstrate there was no basis to find she had a culpable mental state regarding DOS. The judge declined to hold such a hearing.
Prior to sentencing, Bronfman submitted a sentencing memorandum seeking probation, stating she had no connection to DOS but included a letter where she told the judge she did not disavow Keith Raniere.
Her sentencing hearing was held on September 30, 2020, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, before Judge Garaufis.
Eight former members of DOS, who had no connection to Bronfman’s crimes of conviction, spoke at her sentencing about their experiences in DOS. One of the speakers, Jane Doe 12, was brought to the US through Bronfman’s efforts and later joined DOS.
Her lawyers appealed to the judge for probation or home confinement. Bronfman spoke briefly asking for leniency.
Before handing down a sentence, Judge Garaufis stated that DOS was “relevant context for analysis of the appropriate sentence for Ms. Bronfman” and this “places her in an [altogether] different category from other defendants convicted of the same offenses.”
This was the clue that he was going to sentence her above sentencing guidelines of 21-27 months.
The judge said that Jane Doe 12, “the kind of pressure and mistreatment that [Jane Doe 12] was subjected to by Ms. Bronfman,” made Jane Doe 12 “susceptible to be recruited into an organization like DOS.”
He said of Bronfman, “While she might not have known about DOS before receiving the [the request to return] collateral emails in September 2017, I find it clear that in her own words, she did not want to know either.… She maintains that she was an innocent bystander to Raniere’s abhorrent conduct, completely blind to Raniere’s crimes and the sex trafficking that occurred within the Nxivm community…. I find that any such blindness was willful and cultivated, and Ms. Bronfman’s sentence can and should serve to deter other people who find themselves in situations in which they can chose to either confront or avert their gaze from the harm brought by their actions and the actions of those to whom they are close.”
The judge said, “Ms. Bronfman seems to have a pattern of willful blindness when it comes to Raniere and his activities…. [DOS] would not be the first time that Ms. Bronfman exuded the sense that she wanted to participate in Raniere’s world while remain unaware of uglier aspects.”
He sentenced her to 81 months’ imprisonment, triple the sentencing guidelines.
She was not permitted to report to prison voluntarily, as her codefendants Allison Mack and Nancy Salzman would do after they were sentenced. Instead, she left the courtroom in handcuffs and was assigned to the harsh maximum security Philadelphia Detention Center.
Bronfman appealed her sentence to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing the sentence was unprecedented for her offenses and criminal history, claiming that of all 27 defendants who were sentenced in recent years for the same crimes – and who were in the same criminal history category [no prior convictions] – “not a single one” was sentenced to an above guidelines term of imprisonment.
When the judge found Bronfman was willfully blind to DOS, he was invoking the concept by which a person is found culpable of conduct of which they lack actual knowledge, which was an error. [see more below].
The government asserted that the judge punished her for Bronfman’s continued support of Raniere “after she [gained] actual knowledge of DOS” in 2017. The government stated that “the court used the phrase ‘willful blindness’ to describe Bronfman’s behavior—not her legal culpability” and that “the extraordinary and unique facts underlying and surrounding [Bronfman’s] offenses” made it impracticable to compare her sentence to others convicted of the same offenses.
On January 26, 2022, one of Bronfman’s lawyers, Daniel R. Koffmann, filed a supplemental brief on her sentencing appeal to the Second Circuit.
Koffman wrote in part:
“[T]he government engages in revisionist history, attacks strawman arguments, and fails to offer any logical defense of the defective sentencing proceeding that resulted in her extraordinary 81-month sentence.
The Court should reject the government’s arguments and its years-long effort to tie Clare Bronfman to allegations of sex slavery, blackmail, and worse. Ms. Bronfman, like thousands of others around the world, was an active member of NXIVM and a zealous proponent of its teachings.
But NXIVM is not DOS. Ms. Bronfman never participated in DOS, knew nothing about it, and cannot in any legitimate way be said to be culpable for it. Yet she faces years in prison because the district court saw fit to impose a sentence three times the Guidelines range based on incoherent reasoning and clearly erroneous findings that linked her to DOS.
This Court should not tolerate such procedural error. The government’s primary argument is that the district court did not punish Ms. Bronfman based on a finding that she was willfully blind to DOS. That blinks reality….
There can be no legitimate dispute that the district court found that Ms. Bronfman was willfully blind to DOS, nor that this finding affected the court’s determination of her sentence. Nor can there be any dispute that the court’s willful-blindness finding was clearly erroneous….
The district court’s reliance on the concept of willful blindness was part of its justification for punishing Ms. Bronfman for DOS notwithstanding that she knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with it.…
Had the district court not believed that Ms. Bronfman bore culpability for DOS, none of this would have been relevant or appropriate to discuss at her sentencing.….
A clear factual error affecting a sentence requires vacatur… This Court can read the transcript for itself and see the importance that DOS played in the district court’s decision to imprison Clare Bronfman for three times longer than the upper end of the Guidelines range….
Finally, the government fails to address the key disconnect between the extraordinary harshness of the sentence it imposed on Ms. Bronfman and the sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants around the country….
Yet when the district court faced those same “extraordinary and unique facts” in sentencing Ms. Bronfman’s codefendants, [Mack and Lauren Salzman) it imposed sentences that were extraordinarily lenient by comparison.
In doing so, the district court undermined any suggestion that Ms. Bronfman’s case was such an outlier that it warranted such an extraordinary disparity from similarly situated defendants. In any event, the district court’s premise was wrong….
The individual and cumulative impact of the procedural errors underlying Ms. Bronfman’s sentence is too prejudicial to let the sentence stand. The Court should vacate and remand for resentencing.
ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BOTH IN FINDING THAT CLARE BRONFMAN WAS WILLFULLY BLIND TO DOS AND IN PUNISHING HER ON THAT BASIS.
The District Court Clearly Erred When It Found Ms. Bronfman Was Willfully Blind To DOS.
… there can be no legitimate dispute that the district court punished Ms. Bronfman based on its belief that she was willfully blind to DOS. It said so on the record. The court explained that, although “there is no evidence that she directly participated” in DOS….
DOS was front and center at Ms. Bronfman’s sentencing. The hurdle the district court had to overcome in order to punish Ms. Bronfman for what happened in DOS was that, as the district court conceded, Ms. Bronfman played no role in DOS, knew nothing about it, and made no conscious effort to provide financial support for it. There would be no justification to punish Ms. Bronfman based on DOS unless there were some basis to find her culpable for it….
So the district court bridged the gap with its willful-blindness finding….
The record is clear on its face that the district court was purporting to describe Bronfman’s state of mind before she gained actual knowledge of DOS….
The court stated, for example, that it found it “particularly credible” that Ms. Bronfman was willfully blind to DOS because, in the court’s view, “it would not be the first time that [she] exuded the sense that she wanted to participate in Raniere’s world while remain[ing] unaware of its uglier aspects.”
It then found explicitly that her “blindness” to “Raniere’s abhorrent conduct … and the sex trafficking that occurred within the Nxivm community … was willful and cultivated”—that “while she might not have known about DOS … she did not want to know either.”… And it ensured that her punishment would be significant enough to “deter other people who find themselves in situations in which they can choose to either confront or avert their gaze from the harm brought by their actions and the actions of those to whom they are close.” …
As discussed above, the district court returned multiple times to Ms. Bronfman’s ostensible willful blindness and explained the impact it had on the determination of her sentence….
In her principal brief, Ms. Bronfman identified additional evidence that the district court committed clear factual error—and thus reversible procedural error— in basing her sentence on its finding that she had a “willful and cultivated” “blindness” to “sex trafficking that occurred within the Nxivm community.”
Specifically, Ms. Bronfman pointed to (1) the incoherence between the district court’s Guidelines analysis and its willful-blindness finding, and (2) the court’s eleventh-hour, sua sponte invocation of that rationale, which deprived Ms. Bronfman of a fair opportunity to rebut it….
Ms. Bronfman’s argument was that the inconsistency between the district court’s willful-blindness finding and its Guidelines analysis demonstrated that the court’s willful-blindness finding was clearly erroneous….
When the district court stated that a Guidelines sentence would not be sufficient because Ms. Bronfman “did not want to know” about DOS and her “blindness” to it was “willful and cultivated,” it was the first time anyone had raised that concept. Ms. Bronfman had no notice of or adequate opportunity to address it. That is improper….
(“[T]he Due Process Clause [] require[s] that a defendant … have an opportunity to respond to material allegations that he disputes, in order that the court not sentence him in reliance on misinformation.”).
Particularly in light of the magnitude of the variance of Ms. Bronfman’s 81-month sentence from both the Guidelines range (21 to 27 months) and the sentence the government recommended (60 months), this procedure was unreasonable….
The district court’s refusal to hold a hearing because it did not sentence Ms. Bronfman based on a finding that she had actual knowledge of DOS, and subsequent imposition of an extraordinary upward variance based on a finding that she had an alternative culpable mental state, was procedurally unreasonable…..
The district court explicitly found that Ms. Bronfman was willfully blind to DOS…. There is no dispute that this finding was clearly erroneous…. And this finding plainly affected the district court’s decision to vary 200% upward from the Guidelines and impose an 81-month prison sentence on Clare Bronfman….
As to Jane Doe 12’s subsequent recruitment into DOS, the government makes no argument this was a foreseeable consequence of the “emotional and financial pressure” Ms. Bronfman allegedly inflicted on her….
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.”
Yet the transcript is clear that the district court drew an explicit link between Ms. Bronfman’s conduct and harms associated with DOS, and it is equally clear that it enhanced her sentence based on that purported association…
As discussed further below at this Court cannot condone a sentence three times the Guidelines range based on fortuitous, unforeseeable conduct for which a defendant bears no culpability. Nor can Ms. Bronfman’s identity theft-related conduct support her extraordinary sentence….
The government’s response regarding the unwarranted disparity between Ms. Bronfman’s excessively harsh sentence and those imposed on similarly situated defendants misapprehends Ms. Bronfman’s argument. At sentencing, the district court dismissed this Section 3553(a) factor on the purported basis that “the context of Ms. Bronfman’s criminal conduct places her in [an altogether] different category from other defendants convicted of the same offenses.” (SPA129.) But when faced with that very same “context” in sentencing Ms. Bronfman’s codefendants— including Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman, whose racketeering crimes put them elbow-deep in DOS—the court faced no similar obstacle to showing extraordinary lenience….
There are, of course, many immigration cases involving allegations of sex trafficking…. And the Sentencing Guidelines contemplate immigration offenses in which victims are subjected to criminal sexual abuse…. The Guidelines are the “primary vehicle for reducing nationwide sentence disparities.” United States v. Wills…
Nor does the government dispute that Ms. Bronfman’s sentence is an extreme outlier compared to every relevant benchmark….
The government also takes umbrage at Ms. Bronfman’s comparison of her sentence to her codefendants’, arguing vociferously that sentencing courts need not consider sentencing disparities among codefendants… But when a sentencing court “opts to compare the relative culpability of co-defendants” during sentencing, its reasoning must be consistently and logically applied…. The court may not “selectively rely” on mitigating or aggravating factors in sentencing one defendant while ignoring them in sentencing a codefendant….
The government does not dispute that the district court opted to compare the relative culpability of Ms. Bronfman and her codefendants. Nor could it…. (“Ms. Bronfman’s allegiance to Raniere shines through time and again.”) with (“In contrast to other individuals who have remained deferential to Mr. Raniere, even as the artifice of his virtues crumbled, you [Allison Mack] have begun the hard work of unravelling the lies and grappling with your culpability and the consequences of your behavior.”).) Nor can the government explain why the district court’s justification for imposing a far more punitive sentence on Ms. Bronfman than on her far more culpable codefendants stands up to scrutiny.
The district court’s explanations were neither consistent nor logical. For example, the government offers no reason why the district court’s belief that Mr. Raniere coerces, manipulates, and victimizes women who are close to him is a mitigating factor for Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman, and Kathy Russell… but not Clare Bronfman. Nor does the government dispute that Ms. Mack’s and Ms. Salzman’s racketeering crimes eclipse anything Ms. Bronfman did. And it has no adequate response to the fact that Ms. Russell, whose conduct parallels Ms. Bronfman’s, and who also did not cooperate, nevertheless received a non-Guidelines, nonincarceratory sentence. There is no dispute that there is a massive disparity between Ms. Bronfman’s 81-month prison sentence and both the sentences imposed on other defendants convicted of the same crimes, and the sentences imposed on other defendants in this case.
The district court offered no logical reason why such a disparity was warranted. Nor does the government. This violates Section 3553(a)(6) [“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”] and is an independent procedural error requiring vacatur of Ms. Bronfman’s sentence and remand for resentencing….
And this was hardly the only procedural error the district court committed in sentencing Ms. Bronfman. The court based Ms. Bronfman’s sentence on a clearly erroneous finding that her “blindness” to “Raniere’s abhorrent conduct … and the sex trafficking that occurred within the Nxivm community” was “willful and cultivated.”
It denied Ms. Bronfman a fair opportunity to rebut that finding. And it offered other ill-conceived and unsupported justifications for the sentence. Each of these errors, as well as the alarming unwarranted sentencing disparity, violates Ms. Bronfman’s rights and constitutes reversible procedural error. Taken together, they leave no doubt that Ms. Bronfman is entitled to resentencing.”
***
I’m so sick of Clare Bronfman using the EXCUSE of she was not in DOS, so her sentence should have been less harsh then the DOS women.
Yes Clare, you weren’t in DOS, but you CRIMINALLY PARTICIPATED in other crimes for fraud, wire tapping, financial gain and manipulation, threats, etc, that’s why you received a longer prison sentence. Your crimes, by law, required longer time in prison, and had nothing to do with “sex crimes”.
Maybe if you HAD been in DOS and did nothing else, your sentenced would have been halved.
If I was you, with your amount of $$, I would have kept “my arse in the saddle”.
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.
Hey Claviger-
To get my questioned answer do I have to pay for the Platinum membership?
Or maybe, if I act like an annoying cult- groupie with a mangina, you’ll answer my question, so I’ll go away. 😉
Tell him where Shivani disappeared to and you’ll have his attention.
😂
Please remind me of what your question was (I’m in the middle of a major case — and not able to read as much on Frank Report as I usually do).
Never mind! I get it! No worries!
Enjoy binge watching Netflix!
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!
Nancy, Lauren, Michelle, and Allison were elbow deep in vagina more like.
So, that’s why the Kook left.
Yeah, and maybe she felt there weren’t enough elbows in her vagina too.
Alex-
LMFAO!
***
Some say Alonzo likes, it, double fisted — and I’m not talking about holding two beers at once.
Nice Guy, Alanzo doesn’t like me either but I think this is over-the-top and most likely untrue.
Frank-
Perhaps it’s over-the-top — unless it’s “gapingly” true. 😉
Ouch!
Hey, Nice Guy, whose gap are you saying has widened more from all the elbows, Alonzo or Kook?
Lord Jesus, My Personal King, what do you have to say to these things?
[…] wrote concerning the post Bronfman Appeal: Never in DOS, While Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman Were ‘Elbow Deep in DOS’, a… “She got 7 years for being a mean S.O.B. Payback from Garaufis for the victims of […]
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.
That is a very fair answer, Joe! Thank you.
Joe, that’s very magnanimous of you. Did you by chance suffer a contusion?
Is. 54:17 is for His Servants~
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….
I know nothing about this case in particular.
What I do know is a Bible is CLEAR about the challenges for the rich to enter into Heaven.
Amen
So why is there no dancing outside the prison walls and protests for fair and just treatment for Clare?
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.
Simply based on her past life choices, you’d think she’d be open to making a few bucks to talk some sense into poor Ronnie.
“It’s” probably not a she…….
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.
Gross
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.
K.R. I do not think this poster is looking for a reasonable answer.
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?
Let’s not discount the wiping of poop.
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.
This is interesting stuff.
Thanks for explaining it!
#FREELEGATUSNOW.
Let this hash tag go all over the world.
It’s trending on Twitter!!! There will be no stopping this #FREELEGATUSNOW train!!!
Did you see Putin in his FREELEGATUSNOW t-shirt? — this movement is really [Mary] poppin!!
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.
Misuse of authority: Lord chop off some peoples toes or noses. Spiritually speaking that is. Amen
ToDAY.
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.
loathing