Camila Will Face Tough Cross Examination as Bronfmans Try to Separate Themselves From Her

Clare [l] and Sara [r] Bronfman

Camila won a victim restitution award of more than $500,000 in the criminal case against Keith Raniere.

It appears that may be paid from the $6 million Clare Bronfman paid to the Department of Justice in lieu of any other forfeiture of her assets even though there was no adjudication that she was a victim of Bronfman.

Raniere owes the money but supposedly has none, so the feds are looking into whether they can use Bronfman’s money to pay Camila and about 20 other victims. Cami was awarded the largest amount in restitution by Judge Nicholas Garaufis.

Cami is also, along with more than 60 plaintiffs, seeking damages in a civil lawsuit against not only Raniere but ten other individuals, including especially Clare and her sister Sara Bronfman, in federal court.

Other than the Bronfman sisters, the other defendants are hardly worth pursuing in federal court.

None of them have attorneys other than the Bronfmans. Three of them, Nicki Clyne, Danielle Roberts, and Brandon Porter, represent themselves because, as they have claimed to the court, they do not have the money to retain an attorney.

Among the others, Raniere is in prison, as is Allison Mack and Nancy Salzman. Kathy Russell and Lauren Salzman are on probation, and all of them have lost most of their assets defending the criminal case.

The civil case is entirely about extracting some of the Bronfman’s wealth, which means that the Bronfmans have to be found liable for any actions committed by Raniere and others.

This is especially true for Camila, and for the first time, she will be sworn in and testify – first in a deposition, and later, if the case survives, at trial.

She will be cross-examined by some of the sharpest litigators around – the Bronfmans’ attorneys.

Because this is a civil case, and the quest is money, the judge, US District Court Judge Eric Komitee, will not be as protective of the plaintiffs as Judge Nicholas Garaufis was of the female victims in the Raniere criminal trial.

Judge Eric Komitee is presiding over the civil case.


Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis presided over the criminal trial of Keith Raniere.

Cami will be cross-examined without much shielding. Little will be off-limits, including the WhatsApp chats between her and Raniere that were not presented in the criminal trial.

That cross-examination will not be by a defense attorney scrambling against a mountain of horrifying evidence of Raniere’s guilt before a jury that disliked the defendant and a judge who did not seem too fond of – and was often impatient with – the lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, and a judge who disliked, and was, at times it seems, mortified by the defendant’s conduct.

Marc Agnifilo leaves court after a grueling day of testimony in the trial of Keith Raniere.


Keith Raniere was not smiling much during his criminal trial.

Camila will face a battery of Bronfman lawyers in pursuing her monetary claims, who will have wide latitude to discredit any claim she makes tying in the Bronfman sisters to her victimization.

That’s the only reason they are there: To separate the Bronfmans from anything Keith had done.

Clare Bronfman

Clare’s Team

For Clare, there is Professor Ronald Sullivan, Director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute, and Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor with the DOJ and the Manhattan DA.

Ronald Sullivan represents Clare Bronfman


Duncan Levin

Both men appeared for Clare for her sentencing and represent her on the appeal of her sentence.

Clare Bronfman also retained the ‘white shoe’ law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP, founded in 1888, with offices worldwide.

Attorneys from Willkie in this matter include Sara Tonnies Horton, a partner with expertise in complex civil litigation, and Craig C. Martin, who is a member of the Executive Committee of the 1000-lawyer firm, a partner in the Litigation Department, and described as a “leading national trial lawyer, his clients include… some of the nation’s most influential families, and he regularly appears as lead counsel in trials and appeals in state and federal courts as well as in domestic and international arbitrations.”

Craig Martin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP


Sara Tonnies Horton of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP


sara bronfman headshot photo
Sara Bronfman

Lawyers for Sara Bronfman

For Sara Bronfman, she has retained the global chairman of Fried Frank’s litigation department, James D. Wareham, and the firm’s so-called ‘bet the company’ litigation partner, Israel David.

Global Chair of the Litigation Department, James D. Wareham


Israel David is a ‘bet the company’ litigation partner

Civil Rules Are Different From Criminal

When you sue for money, the rules are different than when you are a victim in a criminal case prosecuted by the government.

Cami is not only suing the man who abused her, the allegedly penniless and imprisoned Keith Raniere, but she is also suing the heirs of the Seagram’s liquor fortune, who likely had little or nothing to do with Raniere grooming Camila, starting in 2003, or his sexually exploiting her in 2005 when she was 15.

The Bronfmans joined NXIVM in 2003, and by 2005, they were still new members of NXIVM.

At the same time, Camila was isolated from most of the members, including her own family, according to the complaint and her statement at Raniere’s sentencing hearing.

Do the Bronfmans have liability for the early actions of Raniere toward Camila?

Camila also alleges ongoing abuse by Raniere that lasted throughout their relationship, after Camila reached the age of consent and when the Bronfman sisters rose to become principal managers and chief financial supporters of Raniere and the NXIVM organization.

Neil Glazer and his team of Philadelphia lawyers from Kohn Swift and Graf would not spend thousands of hours on speculation, hoping to collect a third of the judgment if the Bronfman sisters were not the financial target. Nor would they do that if they did not think there was a legal theory and evidence of a definite tie to the Bronfmans’ conduct and Raniere’s abuse.

If Camila is to collect from the Bronfmans, the proof will have to be strong, not of Raniere abusing her in 2005 but of the Bronfmans doing so after that period, when they rose to power in the company.

I will venture that defense might focus on Camila, the adult, and purport to show how she eagerly and voluntarily embraced a relationship with Raniere while she was in her 20s; that she was not a victim but was seeking opportunity – advancement in the company and a married or committed relationship with Raniere and to have his child and that her actions were responsible for her disappointment.

While this is disputable as it concerns Raniere, it may go toward whether Bronfmans were responsible for whatever happened to her during her life in NXIVM, which began when she was 13 and ended when she was 28.

Love Turned to Hate

If two defendants in the civil case are the sole reason for the case – the Bronfman sisters – there also may be only three main plaintiffs who are the crux of the matter – Camila, Daniela, and Nicole [and arguably several other DOS women].

Of these three, they all, at one time, liked, if not loved, Raniere. All three now despise him.

That, too, will be a focus of the civil case.

Part of that will focus on the Keith and Camila chats, including many that were not read in court, which Frank Report obtained from the DOJ at the time of trial.

In toto, they present a far more nuanced portrait of the relationship between Cami and Keith. The selection of chats the prosecution chose to read to the jury was exclusively directed to paint the villainy of Raniere.

Artist sketch of a woman who looks not unlike Daniela

There is little doubt that Camila, her sister Daniela and Nicole, and others changed their minds about Raniere.

The chats will be instructive since they are voluminous and give a day-by-day revelation of what the two were texting, when Camila was in her mid-20s and Raniere in his mid-50s, speaking of love and intimacy and many other topics.

Part of the defense may be that Camila changed in her esteem and love for Raniere for money, which may be acceptable or not, but that it is not fair to blame the Bronfmans.


About the author

Frank Parlato

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Btw, Raniere gets to be deposed, too. Wish I was a fly on the wall for that one.


[…] Aristotle’s Sausage does not quite agree that it will be an effective strategy for the Bronfmans to confront Camila too robustly. His guest view [actually originally a comment] is in response to Camila Will Face Tough Cross-Examination as Bronfmans Try to Separate Themselves From Her. […]

Aristotle’s Sausage
Aristotle’s Sausage
1 year ago

Camila will face tough cross examination.

Yeah. Well that will go over like a lead balloon. Imagine a team of high priced lawyers, mostly men, in expensive suits and slicked back hair working over a girl in the witness box. A girl who was groomed and raped at age 15 by scumbag Raniere, who is now serving 120 years in federal prison for sex trafficking. Said scumbag funded by the Bronfmans, defendants in this civil case.

What kind of impression do you think that’s gonna make on the jury?

Where do you think the jury’s sympathies are going to lie?

People don’t like inherited wealth. They don’t like people who duck responsibility. They don’t like people who can buy high priced lawyers in expensive suits to help them duck responsibility. They don’t like people who fund sex trafficking cults and racketeers and vile cult-running scumbags like Raniere.

Anyone who thinks multimillionaires can buy their way out of trouble with slick expensive lawyers needs to look up the case of Perdue Pharmaceuticals and the Sackler family. The company made opioids, among other medications. Perfectly legal, FDA approved, all above board. They maybe promoted the opioids a little too enthusiastically. Again, nothing illegal.

Well they got sued in civil court. And they lost. They lost the company, stripped bankrupt, and they lost a good chunk of their personal fortune too. They got sued, essentially, by addicts who abused the legal painkillers that Perdue sold.

Jury trials are usually mostly about emotion. Who are you going to feel sorry for? You’re not going to feel sorry for the Sacklers. And you’re not going to feel sorry for the fuckin’ Bronfmans. And if the jury felt sorry for a bunch of drug addicts they’re sure as hell going to feel sorry for the girl Raniere raped when she was 15.

The Bronfmans associated with Raniere. That alone condemns them. Look at how people regard anyone who ever so much as met Jeffrey Epstein. Now imagine if he had needed to be funded to do what he did. Imagine how a jury would feel about the people who funded him.

And as for the defendants in this suit who whine “I got no money!”, and the ones who aren’t even bothering to put up a defense, they may well be in for a world of trouble. Remember how these clowns claimed they didn’t have funds to travel to Brooklyn for the court hearing? Remember how they all showed up, with their tails between their legs, obedient to the judge’s command?

They have money. Not much, sure. It just hurts all the more when that pittance gets taken away from them. As it well might be

Good. They deserve the pain and the sorrow. They inflicted enough of both, when they thought they were on top of the world.

There’s an impression abroad that civil law cases are “all about the money”. That it’s all about the somolians, the filthy lucre. Well in a sense they are. But often they are about justice. Redressing wrongs. Think of all the environmental class action lawsuits. Think of the consumer fraud cases. You sell a product that you know causes cancer (cigarettes), you should pay the medical bills of the victims you profited off of. If someone inflicts harm they owe damages. It’s simple justice and it’s as old a principle of law as the law itself. You cause damage, you pay for it.

The Bronfmans are responsible for what they did. They should pay.

Nice Guy
Nice Guy
1 year ago

Awesome! Awesome! Allison Mack Article!

Many longtime readers may have missed the following interview with Allison Mack’s ex-boyfriend. It’s more of a personal perspective of NXIVM and Allison Mack’s seduction by the Cult of Vanguard:

Possibly could make for an interesting article….

1 year ago

Sometimes big law firms work against Defendants. The jury asks, ” Wow, maybe they did do something wrong.” This happened to Mike Tyson.

The burden of proof is lower, and the higher criminal burden has already been proven.

My opinion.

M. Novak
M. Novak
1 year ago

Gotta wonder why the Feds didn’t move for even more asset seizures in the wake of KAR’s conviction and Clare’s plea. Seems to me there are a lot more funds potentially available for the plaintiffs. For example, somewhere out there, there’s a Bronfman-owned/leased Gulfstream IV jet that was used in commission of numerous RICO offenses. To wit, when Vanguard began to panic in the spring of 2018, he didn’t just drive an old beat-up Volkswagen from the Capital District to Puerto Vallarta.

1 year ago

Did John F. Kennedy boink Nancy Pelosi?
comment image

Nice Guy
Nice Guy
1 year ago

Did Donald Trump once boink his Daughter?

Does Shadow wish he was Ivanka Trump?
Boink! Boink! Mmh!

1 year ago

When you fund a criminal organization, you are still liable and guilty.

1 year ago
Reply to  Maury

March 20, 2022 at 1:36 pm
When you fund a criminal organization, you are still liable and guilty.”

So anyone who funded the Biden Crime Family is guilty.

Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide Hardcover – November 30, 2021
by Miranda Devine (Author)

Miranda Devine turned away from entering Hunter Biden’s NYC art show

Aristotle’s Sausage
Aristotle’s Sausage
1 year ago
Reply to  Maury

My thought exactly

1 year ago

If Claire still wants to protect Keith Raniere above all else and shield Nxium’s tattered reputation she would be better off settling out of court versus having more damning information directly from Camilla come out under oath in a courtroom.

All of the defendants should relish their day in court if they are innocent. And settle if they are not. It will be damning, salacious information that is dissected.

Many of the dead-enders have used “she wasn’t under oath” to discredit Camilla. Well, now she will be.

Whether or not Camilla is awarded money her experience is important and valuable to share. Many of the defendants will benefit from testifying about their abuse whether or not the settlement money is awarded.

It’s a losing situation for the defendants even if they don’t have to financially pay out.

An out of court settlement would be the best money they ever spent on Keith Raniere and Nxivm. Make it confidential and just move on.

Although, going to court will be satisfying for the victims and those who love them.

And ESPians seem to love embarassing court battles and going down in flames…

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

“Many of the dead-enders have used “she wasn’t under oath” to discredit Camilla. Well, now she will be.”

When I made this point, it was not an attempt to discredit Camilla, although all the anticult tribal ninnies claimed it was.

It’s simply a statement of fact.

An important fact.


1 year ago
Reply to  Alanzo

Yeah… Wasn’t talking about you. Or to you.

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Don’t care.

Cami was an incredibly important part of the criminal case which deprived the liberty of many of your fellow citizens.

And yet Cami never testified under oath.

You’re fine with that.

Not everyone is. Nor should they be.


1 year ago
Reply to  Alanzo

—Don’t care.

If you didn’t care you wouldn’t feel the need to respond.
Cami never needed to testify. The DOJ had the photos. Raniere was not charged with rape, he was charged with possessing child pornography.

You don’t understand the law. You only have a formal education in Scientology BS.

You’re such a stupid shit.

Nice Guy
Nice Guy
1 year ago
Reply to  Alanzo

“It was not an attempt to discredit Camilla.”

Sure it wasn’t, and you’re not a loser. LMAO @ you!

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.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

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 premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x