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.
By Aristotle’s Sausage
Camila will face a 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.
MK10ART’s Clare Bronfman
What kind of impression do you think that will 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, were stripped bankrupt and lost a good chunk of their personal fortune. 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 those 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 samolians, 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.