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.
‘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.
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.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
EraSend-
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.
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.
Do you believe the sisters Dani and Cami deserve money?
***
I find it comical that Edmondson and Vicente are plaintiffs.
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.
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 🪙🪙
😂🤣😂
Great article. Very educational.
Extremely clear.
Alanzo
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.
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.
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.