Guest View: NXIVM Lawsuit Not Winnable


This guest view is in response to Bronfmans Responsible for What Happened to Cami; They Should Pay

Bronfmans Not Responsible for What Happened to Cami

By Erasend

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 whistleblowers, emails, and a shitload of evidence that the Sackler family knew about 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 has no comparison to the NXIVM case beyond there being a wealthy family involved.

Cami as a teen girl by MK10ART

‘Camila will face a tough cross-examination.’

Nope. No reason to make it tough.

It will be short and simple.

The Bronfman attorneys will ask her:

“Have you ever met the Bronfman sisters? If so, when?”

“Were 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 will likely all reinforce the idea that Keith Raniere acted without their involvement in his treatment of Cami. No reason at all to actually “disprove” she was raped.

If the Bronfman lawyers try to disprove Camila was raped, that means the answers to some or all of the above questions are “yes,” and then this case is a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.

But 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. They will contest 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 with the pedo-priest—or suing the bank for lending money to the restaurant whose food poisoned a room full of people.

If the Bronfmans had not actively participated in NXIVM and simply wrote a check and walked away, this case would be a definite nonstarter. However, they did not, 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 read anyone really spell out actual evidence on what 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 do much with the Bronfman’s beyond highlighting a few times how they were the NXIVM bank and lovers of Keith.

MK10ART’s painting of Clare Bronfman.
MK10ART’s painting of the leader of Nxivm and DOS.





MK10Art Sara Bronfman and her Rainbow Cultural Garden

This 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 I 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 is really winnable. Being rich and/or fu^$ed by Keith isn’t enough.

About the author

Guest View

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


The burden/threshold of proof is lower in tort law than criminal law.

The RICO statute ties Clare Bronfman to the civil case.

Innocence of the defendant isn’t the issue – liability is in fact the issue of the case.

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

True. Civil cases often come down to emotion with a dash of facts. But here you have the plaintiffs essentially going “please reward us a ton of money for the horrible behavior these rich sisters participated in. But ignore that we did the exact same things because we are not rich.” Emotion wise all that means is jury wants to reward no one.

1 year ago
Reply to  Erasend

Do you believe the sisters Dani and Cami deserve money?

I find it comical that Edmondson and Vicente are plaintiffs.

1 year ago
Reply to  Erasend

Its not emotion. Damages may be, but liability comes down to elements of a case. 1, 2, 3 ,4. No elements, no case.

If anything, the Bronfman sisters are arguably ” necessary parties” and liable under vicarious liability.

My humble opinion.

Sniveling, Craven, Cowardly, Anonymous & Cruel
Sniveling, Craven, Cowardly, Anonymous & Cruel
1 year ago

I can’t think of anyone with greater litigation experience and acumen than Erasend who can lend a well-informed opinion of this case.

Based on this analysis, the plaintiffs will all certainly drop their case if they are wise.

Viva Executive Success®!!!!!

Viva Ring Dings®!!!!!

Nice Guy Certified® Comedy Double Platinum Award Winner 🪙🪙

1 year ago

“This 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 I 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 is really winnable.”

Great article. Very educational.

Extremely clear.


1 year ago

They funded vexatious lawsuits. They withheld wages. They participated in immigration crimes (that left the victims without basic rights & options), they funded the fright experiment, and they funded PIs to harass “enemies”. In addition, Clare lied in a criminal matter, and she also tried to have Sarah Edmonson falsely arrested.

That’s just some of what (mostly Clare) directly participated in.

The Bronfmans are all up in there financially and otherwise.

Will they lose on every claim? Probably not. But they’re going to lose on quite a few.

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

None of what you say has anything to do with rape, sexual abuse or DOS.

The Bronfmans are bitches but this civil suit is simply Attorney Neil Glazer’s sick attempt at a money grab.

I hope Glazer is rebuked hard.

The larger point is We are all under threat of having our life savings taken away by aggressive attorneys and entitled “victims”.

I don’t like the Bronfmans but this case is much bigger than the Bronfmans. It is about money hungry lawyers terrorizing people.

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

I suspect Glazer is hoping that a jury’s dislike for Clare translates into a big payday. I doubt it will work out that way.

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