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.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I have always believed that the two witches should be sued. But, as stated, they have too much money. I suppose I need to be satisfied with the punishment rendered.
In regards to Cami, where were her parents ??
[…] This guest view is in response to Bronfmans Responsible for What Happened to Cami; They Should Pay […]
Very salient post.
Marianna got handed a big ol chunk of cash in a trust to not to testify against Keith Raniere and Nxivm
No loyalist deaad-enders seem to consider that money a “cash grab”.
It’s not $ to take care of Kemar. Because we already know that Keith Raniere does not care about financially supporting his sons.
And Keith allegedly has no money.
So who put the money into the trust?
It was payment to stay in Mexico and keep her mouth shut.
That’s why it’s in a trust. Can’t have Marianna changing her mind.
Well said!
Privileged people think their deleterious support and actions should have no ramifications just because of their privilege. They have ZERO understanding of ethics.
As far as financial recompense due to injustices committed is concerned, such has been the case for MILLENIA. Do they not know how old the concept of “blood money” is?
As usual, Mr. Aristotle grills an excellent sausage.
Marc Elliot is in for some nasty karma as well.
Keith’s brilliant idea to hire an attorney with no successful media defamation experience (because no competent attorney would touch the case regardless of how much cash the Bronfman bitches threw at them) is going to come to a disastrous ending sooner or later. Although the rich cult sisters are going to foot the legal bill, it will be Marc who’s on the hook to pay Lionsgate’s litigation costs when he eventually loses. I doubt Keith will direct his minions to cover that, thereby draining Marc of whatever resources he has and driving him into bankruptcy.
Keith will enjoy watching, knowing he can still manipulate his meat puppets from the comfort of his prison cell.
Marc will enjoy getting to whine about being a martyr.
Fortunately, Marc has a fellow NXIVM cult apologist here on the Frank Report who can give him Chapter 7 bankruptcy advice derived from first-hand experience.
Viva Executive Success®!!!!!
🐵🕺👯♀️🤡
Viva Ring Dings®!!!!!
🍩🐳🤡🍩
Nice Guy Certified® Comedy Double Platinum Award Winner 🪙🪙
😂🤣😂
🤣👍🏼 💿💿💿
Triple platinum!
***
Take it easy. I wish you well.
I’m done for now.
Even a brief google search will explain the case of “Perdue Pharmaceuticals and the Sackler family”. I barely followed that and even I know the reason they lost – because there were whistle blowers, emails, and a shit load of evidence that they knew of the addiction of opioids, purposely ignored it, continued to advertise they were not addictive and behind the scenes leaned into the addictive properties to sell even more. It’s the cigarettes case all over again and really has no comparison to this case beyond a rich family involved.
“Camila will face a tough cross-examination.”
Nope. No reason to make it tough.
It will be short and simple.
“Have you ever met the Bronfman sisters? If so, when?”
“Where the Bronfman sisters in the house when you were raped?”
“Did they abuse you?”
“Did they take pictures of you at age 15?”
“Did they participate in grooming you?”
“Did they ever try to contact you or bribe your silence?”
Questions of that nature that likely will all re-enforce the idea that Keith acted without their involvement in his treatment of Cami. No reason at all the actually “disprove” she was raped. If they do take that approach that means the answers to those example questions are not good and this case is a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. I have not read anything to indicate that will happen.
People keep ignoring the bank problem. The Bronfman’s were the bank of NXIVM. I doubt they will contest that because there’s no point in it. What they will contest is how they are responsible for the behavior of those they bankrolled. It’s like suing a bank because they provided the loan that built the church that had the pedo-priest. Or suing the bank for the restaurant whose food poisoned a room full of people.
If the Bronfmans had not activity participated in NXIVM and simply wrote a check and walked away, this case would be a definite nonstarter. However, they did, so all the evidence against them weirdly comes down to the same approach that may be used in a political corruption case – who knew what, when did they know, where were they when it happened or when they learned of it, and what did they do?
All indications are they were subordinates and loyal minions to Keith. I have not to read anyone really spell out true evidence on what actually ties them into orchestrating anything. Even the documentaries, designed specifically to condemn NXIVM (and turn one hot blonde into a hero of her own story), failed to really do much with the Bronfman’s beyond highlighting a few times how they were the NXIVM bank and lovers of Keith.
Which goes back to the other problem with the case I keep hammering – outside of being the bank, what distinguishes what the Bronfman’s did (recruiting, training, DOSing (maybe), scamming) from what many of the plaintiffs also did (recruiting, training, DOSing, scamming)? Until can draw a line in the sand that distinguishes the plaintiffs behavior from the defendants behavior so clear that even a jury understands it, I do not see how this case if really winnable. Being rich and/or fu^$ed by Keith isn’t enough.