The case is Sarah Edmondson et al, v Keith Raniere et al. The venue is the US District Court in the Eastern District of NY. The judge is US District Court Judge Eric R. Komitee.
A hearing was held on February 1, 2023 to hear oral arguments for motions to dismiss against defendants, Clare and Sara Bronfman, Nicki Clyne, Brandon Porter and Danielle Roberts.
Defendants Raniere and Kathy Russell made no appearance.
In part 1, we left off with the plaintiff’s attorney discussing how Clare Bronfman’s criminal immigration fraud against Sylvie Lloyd is one of two predicate acts required for civil RICO.
Bronfman’s attorney Craig Martin addressed this issue.
MARTIN: … RICO injury is different than just any injury. It’s got to be injury to business or property. RICO requires you to connect the dots from the common purpose of the [racketeering] enterprise through the predicate acts to causation and to injury for business and property.
THE COURT: That could be true… [the plaintiffs allege] your client entered a plea of guilty before Judge Garaufis on this [immigration] crime, albeit as to a different person [Sylvie, who is not a plaintiff in this civil case]. And the allegations in the [civil] complaint here are substantially identical, even though they relate to different people. If it’s enough to make the criminal violation for Judge Garaufis….
MARTIN: … [Clare’s] plea is to a particular person [Slyvie], who is not a plaintiff in this case and doesn’t qualify as a predicate act in this case.
THE COURT:…. [Clare in her criminal pleading] says ‘I facilitated this person’s [Sylvie’s] ability to live and work in our country in a way that would be undetected.’ And Judge Garaufis says, ‘okay, that suffices to make it a violation of [immigration law] §1324.’
That factual statement of ‘facilitated someone’s ability to live and work’ in our country in a way that’s undetected, I’m not seeing a categorical difference between that and what’s alleged in the complaint. Yes, as to different people, but same factual substance. No?
MARTIN: … When you look at the three people that there’s allegations about, which are Camila, Adrian, and Daniela, I don’t think that that matches up to what she was pleading to [with Sylvie] in the criminal case… there’s a reason that Ms. Bronfman pled to one and not the others…. I do not think that the allegations with regard to Camila… or Adrian, or Daniela match that particular issue in the same way. …as best I can tell, there’s a conversation that goes on …in which Ms. Bronfman allegedly says that I’m not going to give you access to my lawyer…
THE COURT: Well, then why isn’t saying ‘I’ll help you support yourself, I’ll give you access to this …T-shirt company [Raniere and Clare allegedly promised Adrian an opportunity to stay in the USA and run a T-shirt company] and its equipment. And you can keep a share of the profits.’ Why isn’t that substantially the same as alleging that ‘I substantially facilitated her ability to live and work in our country in a way that would be undetected?’
MARTIN: I don’t know what ‘undetected’ means….from the sentencing hearing…. but I do know from the guilty plea… there’s a huge difference between giving somebody the opportunity to participate in a T-shirt company and harboring or concealing or shielding from detection.
In fact, that seems exactly the opposite to me… if you’re going to work at a T-shirt company, you’re going to be out there working. That’s not concealing or harboring or shielding from detection.
THE COURT: … This is a legal question. Maybe if you say to somebody you can work indoors and print T-shirts and make money, they’re less likely to be detected by the immigration authorities than… if they’re out on the street begging for money…
MARTIN: … there’s nothing in the [civil complaint] allegations that is talking about ‘shielding from detection’… There’s… no allegation that [Adrian] was put in a basement, they were printing T-shirts, they were not allowed to leave the basement. They had to put the T-shirts on a dumbwaiter to go upstairs for somebody else to sell.
THE COURT: Yeah, but there’s no factual statement about any of that stuff in [Clare’s criminal] plea allocution either. And we have a determination that that was legally sufficient to make out a §1324 violation, yes, albeit as to other people..: I think it would be helpful… to bear down on the legal question of whether giving someone… an equity stake in this T-shirt venture and promising them a share in the profits, suffices to establish concealment, harboring, or shielding from detection…. I think [this] might be where the rubber meets the road…
[Later in the proceedings]
THE COURT: we were talking about whether or not the complaint established a pattern of racketeering by Ms. Clare Bronfman and that the pattern has to be established by two predicate acts within 10 years.
Aiten Goelman, the attorney for the plaintiffs spoke.
GOELMAN: Jane Doe 12 [Sylvie] is the one that Ms. Clare Bronfman pled guilty to harboring.
THE COURT: And that’s the alleged predicate act?
MR. GOELMAN: That is one of many predicate acts that is alleged in the complaint.
THE COURT: Okay, so take that as a given that [it is] a predicate act… ou still need a second one. … who else has Clare Bronfman concealed, harbored, or shielded from detection, and how? And when we talked about Adrian and whether he qualifies or not, I think I still have a legal question about whether giving somebody a job, knowing that they’re in the country illegally, constitutes a federal crime of shielding somebody from detection….
Or is something more than just giving somebody a job required?… let’s say there was a predicate act committed as to Adrian, Adrian also has to show injury…. And… does his injury have to emanate from the predicate act…? And if that’s the case, how is he injured by being harbored?
GOELMAN… With respect to Ms. Bronfman and the difference between what she pleaded guilty to and what happened not just to Adrian, but also to Lindsay, and also to Camila, there’s really not any principle difference…. Your Honor, it’s not just that [Adrian] wasn’t out there begging on the street … it’s a whole scheme to hide his presence…. He’s not given a W-2. … the books…were cooked… in order to deceive immigration authorities.
And it’s not just ‘I’ll give you a job.’ It’s also ‘don’t go to the authorities. Don’t get legal. Don’t go back to Mexico and apply for a visa.’ I mean, that is actively concealing the detection of somebody who’s here illegally….
THE COURT:… There’s no specific… allegations against Clare Bronfman that would cause mail or wire fraud, is there?
MR. GOELMAN: Well, there are…. all Defendants actually were defrauding members of NXIVM.
THE COURT: …. Point me to the complaint where we see what Clare Bronfman is doing that would satisfy that standard?
GOELMAN: …all the different positions [Clare] held… on the executive board, founder of ESF [Ethical Science Foundation], part of the inner circle….
THE COURT: Okay. Companies commit securities fraud all the time. And they have boards of directors who oversee everything happening at the company. And it doesn’t mean that every member of the board of directors is criminally liable for securities fraud, right?… just because she held positions of authority… if there was a fraud committed somewhere [in] the organization, she’s automatically responsible, right?… where does the complaint speak with particularity to Clare Bronfman’s… knowledge of and participation in mail or wire fraud other than just by reference to her high ranking position?
GOELMAN: … there are directors who are sued by the SEC or CFDC or sued civilly that have… far less involvement in the actual crime than Ms. Clare Bronfman did here…
THE COURT: But you have to have some involvement and you have to have knowledge…. I think there’s literally nothing alleged about her specific participation or knowledge….
GOELMAN: …I bring up Clare Bronfman’s title … because it is not just a title. It is also a position that confers authority…. she was Raniere’s righthand man in developing the curriculum. And the curriculum was based on lies. It was designed to and did entice people to pay a lot of money for basically garbage. And if somebody is on the executive board and in charge of finance and in charge of legal I don’t think you can say.. she had [no] idea about the multi-level marketing scheme.
THE COURT: Well, if I matriculated into college on the basis of representations on that I’m going to get a world class education and have all kinds of job prospects, and then, it turns out that my professors were all terrible and I don’t get a job,.. that’s not enough to allege fraud with particularity…. there’s got to be some concrete misrepresentation or omission…
GOELMAN: … …But here, we’re talking about a much smaller organization –
THE COURT: What’s the lie?
MR. GOELMAN: That this rational inquiry is this patented wonderful –
One of Keith Raniere’s patent applications was for a treadmill of a unique style.
THE COURT: There’s a patent pending. …I would think you’d have to allege that there’s no patent pending.
GOELMAN: …I believe that there were misrepresentations about whether the technology was …patent… pending. There were definitely misrepresentations about how this could change your life. And there’s basically repackaged cognitive therapy. And it was sold to these people as this brainchild of the smartest man in the world.
THE COURT: And you say he’s not actually the smartest person in the world? I’m just kidding. But… there are psychotherapists up and down the West side of Manhattan making grandiose claims about how psychotherapy can change a person’s life. And some people surely come out of therapy believing that it has not lived up to those aspirations. And so, again, … [where] in the 200-plus page complaint … are the misrepresentations that we’re going to tag Clare Bronfman with responsibility for.
GOELMAN: … paragraphs 593 …., talks about the misrepresentations… about why Rational Inquiry was not eligible for patent protection.
THE COURT: Okay. … so paragraph 593 actually refers to a bogus patent application. … you allege that that patent application was destined to fail.
GOELMAN: As all of them beforehand, yes.
THE COURT: All of NXIVM’s applications?
GOELMAN: All of Raniere’s patent applications, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
GOELMAN: And then, Your Honor, the following paragraphs talk about some of the other lies that Raniere is the world’s smartest person with an IQ of 240.
THE COURT: … is that actionable as mail or wire fraud that somebody says I’m the smartest person in the world? Like there’s no basis on which somebody to credibly make that claim –… unless they knew all 7 or 8 billion people and had them all IQ tested. Like nobody could be injured by that claim, it seems to me.
Corporate Books for several of the NXIVM-related corporations that owned the technology..
GOELMAN: Your Honor, if I am… looking for a religion or a philosophy to help me make sense of my life, and I… walk by the NXIVM or ESP storefront and they say here’s this wonderful technology, patent pending, and it’s … from this smartest man in the world, Keith Raniere, who is an ascetic. He doesn’t care at all about worldly things. And he’s celibate. And he has been inventing things since he was… six [years old]. Those are all lies.
Now, Your Honor, you may not fall for it. You might keep walking but those are statements that are designed to induce someone to come in and give their credit card and take an intensive … that cost them thousands of dollars. That’s fraud.
THE COURT: Okay, what’s the best mail or wire fraud case for the proposition that statements like I’m the smartest person in the world and my program will change your life are actionable bases for a mail or wire fraud prosecution?
GOELMAN: For securities fraud… there’s a line between puffery and… actionable, misleading, or false statements. …
THE COURT: Well, and also [a line] between [facts and] statements of opinion. ‘this program will change your life,’ that’s not really falsifiable other than by reference to the subjective experience of the person who feels their life was or was not changed, right? The initial presentation has to be something that is susceptible to being proven true or false…. You may be … able to prove at trial that Mr. Raniere was not the smartest person in the world. That seems…. falsifiable maybe. But claims about the psychic effects in terms of self-esteem and well-being… have you seen a mail or wire fraud case where that was the ….subject matter of the misrepresentations?
GOELMAN: …, I can get back to you about the best mail or wire fraud cases we have. … it’s not just ‘this is going to change your life and we’re awesome.’ It’s also based on Keith Raniere. I mean, he’s the brand… kind of godhead figure and all the qualities that he says he had weren’t true. I mean, they are falsified. He wasn’t an ascetic. He wasn’t celibate. He was sleeping with 15 year olds. And if that fact had been told to the person walking down the street in… whatever city, I think that would be pretty material.
THE COURT: Okay.
Stay tuned for Part 3.
Clare is a disgusting being (human left out intentionally). She has the face of a RAT and the brains of a mosquito. Her sister Sara is as evil as her. They should both be locked up. Their poor father had to die watching his two daughters hitched to a pedophile, rapist.
Twenty bucks says she will look like a late stage Jerry Garcia by the time she’s released.
It’s so icky Nicki that she preyed on a friend from her teen years to procure fresh meat for Raniere. Her lover.
Just disgusting. That is such a loathsome betrayl.
Hopefully the former friend didn’t get her snatch branded with Nicki’s shared boyfriend’s initials.
Can’t even imagine the crushing emotional blow that Nicki wrought on this unsuspecting woman.
It’s very telling that the two long-term buddies couldn’t work it out on their own.
Nicki’s former friend must be rightfully pissed.
Nicky is scum. Pure trash.
An interesting factoid about the Bronfmans.
The Bronfmans are still heavily involved in media productions in Toronto and Vancouver.
Paul Bronfman is a cousin of Edgar Bronfman, Junior.
Paul Bronfman is also the largest co-owner of the newly built Pinewood Toronto Studios, built neat the old Port District in downtown Toronto.
Paul Bronfman is the Co-Chairman/Senior Advisor of William F. White International Inc. He is also the Chairman of Pinewood Toronto Studios Inc.
A graduate of the University of Toronto, Mr. Bronfman launched his entertainment industry career in the mid-1970s, working in the music industry with hit bands including Supertramp and April Wine. By the late 1970s, he had transitioned to the film and television industry and went on to hold a number of executive positions at Astral Media over the decade.
Mr. Bronfman founded Comweb Corporation in 1988 and over the years has built a group of horizontally integrated entertainment firms dedicated to providing expert production services, studio facilities, and equipment to the Canadian and international film and television industries. Comweb’s first industry endeavor was to build and manage Canada’s first Hollywood-style studio complex, North Shore Studios in Vancouver, in partnership with well-known Hollywood producer/writer Stephen J. Cannell. North Shore Studios is well known as the original home of the smash television series hit, The X-Files.
In late 1989, Comweb acquired a controlling interest in William F. White International Inc., one of the world’s premier providers of state-of-the-art lighting, grip, camera and related specialty film, television, live event and digital media production equipment. The company was founded in 1963 and has provided unparalleled technical production expertise and support to Canadian and international producers, directors, cinematographers, and technicians for over five decades. The company has offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Sudbury, Toronto and Halifax.
In 1993 Comweb created Protocol Entertainment Inc. Protocol’s activities included developing, financing, and producing TV series, movies, miniseries, and feature films for the North American and international markets. The company created a number of highly acclaimed audience winning productions including the worldwide hit television series, Goosebumps. This sensational show won the number one ratings slot for its demographic in the United States on the Fox Kids Network in its premiere season in 1995. Goosebumps was sold to broadcasters in over 105 countries throughout the world. Comweb sold its interest in Protocol in 2005.
William F. White International Inc. was also partners with Sparks Camera & Lighting Ltd., a leading Budapest, Hungary-based provider of motion picture production equipment servicing western and eastern European producers. Sparks was originally co-founded through a joint business venture with the late Oscar Award-winning cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Deer Hunter).
Comweb is an active partner in Pinewood Toronto Studios, a world-class, state-of-the-art film and television production facility. The studio lot is situated on 24 acres of prime downtown real estate and includes 260,000 square feet of production facilities. Foremost among the seven state-of-the-art film stages is the 46,000 square foot Mega-Stage, one of the world’s largest purpose built film studios.
Comweb owns and operates Comweb Aviation Inc., a private jet leasing company which provides first-class, non-stop, tax-creditable charter flights from Toronto to any destination in North America. Comweb also owns and operates Comweb Realty Inc., which owns properties in Vancouver and Toronto.
Paul Bronfman’s dedication to fostering and developing new talent in Canada’s film and television industry is well-known. His company sponsors numerous college and university film programs, industry initiatives and relevant organizations including the Atlantic Film Festival, Banff World Media Festival, Hot Docs, On-Screen Manitoba, Toronto International Film Festival, Vancouver International Film Festival and Norman Jewison’s Canadian Film Centre, just to name a few.
Mr. Bronfman serves on numerous industry boards including the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television (ACCT), Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA), FilmOntario, the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) and the Canadian Film Centre (CFC).
Mr. Bronfman is also an active member of his community and contributes to a number of national and local charities. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies. As well he serves on the Board of Governors of B’nai B’rith Canada and Mt. Sinai Hospital in Toronto. In 2002, Variety the Children’s Charity recognized Mr. Bronfman’s outstanding accomplishments with a special gala tribute dinner in his honour.
In 2008, Mr. Bronfman, along with The Globe & Mail CEO Phillip Crawley, was awarded the prestigious Human Relations Award by the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (formerly The Canadian Council for Christians and Jews), a leading Canadian organization dedicated to providing programs and strategies that educate against discrimination, prejudice, and bias.
In 2010, Mr. Bronfman was inducted into Playback’s Film & Television Hall of Fame, whose inductees include Norman Jewison, Don Carmody and David Suzuki. In 2011, Paul received the Honourable Life Member Award from the Director’s Guild of Canada along with the Academy Board of Directors’ Tribute for Outstanding and Enduring Contributions to Canadian Television at the Gemini Awards. He was also selected as a finalist for the esteemed Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award.
In 2012, Mr. Bronfman was bestowed with the Canadian Society of Cinematographers (CSC) President’s Award in addition to receiving the Friend of the Industry award at the Alberta Film and Television Rosie Awards (AMPIA). In 2013, he was nominated to join the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and was bestowed with a Rockie Award at The Banff World Media Festival honouring excellence in business and entertainment.
– IMDb Mini Biography By: William F. White International
In 1989, partnered with Stephen J. Cannell to build North Shore Studios in Vancouver, B.C. (now Lionsgate Studios).
Cousin of ‘Edgar Bronfman jr.’.
Whenever Frank posts a picture of our Clarebear, I can’t help but hear The Faces singing, ” But with a face like that, you got nothing to laugh about…”
That is why Suneel preferred the view from her other end.
How can you tell which end is which?
On January 28, 2020, Sarah Edmondson, Toni Natalie, Mark Vicente, Jane Does 1-13, Jane Does 15-39, and others (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Aarthi Manohar, Craig W. Hillwig, Elias Kohn, Neil L. Glazer, Stephen H. Schwartz, Steven M. Steingard, William E. Hoese and Zahra Dean of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Bryan M Reines and Aitan D. Goelman of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, filed a RICO lawsuit against Keith Raniere, Nancy Salzman, Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman, Lauren Salzman, and others (collectively “Defendants”), represented by Andrew Linz, J. Bruce Maffeo, John J. Sullivan and Nicole Sprinzen of Cozen O’Connor; Anne Aufhauser, Israel David and James D Wareham of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Craig C. Martin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Ronald S. Sullivan of Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.; and Sara Horton of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, seeking declaratory relief, for the Defendants’ alleged conspiracy to operate a criminal enterprise. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York with Judge Steven M. Gold and Judge Eric R. Komitee presiding.“
Ok. If Keith is not “the smartest man in the world,” and someone gave their credit card and spent thousands of dollars, ok, forget buyer beware, forget that these were adults who made a decision to give it a try, and who were repeat customers who got something from the experience.
Putting that aside, who sold them the package? Who made commission, and over $300K per year on selling it, over a period of over a decade?
Danielle Roberts? Nicki Clyne?Brandon Porter? Allison Mack? Or the two lead plaintiffs suing them, who brought them into the organization in the first place, and subsequently made money off of them, and so many others?
These defendants, plus the two heiresses with money, they are somehow responsible for Keith’s claims, but the two lead salespeople and center owners, and the President of the company who was dropped from the suit, they aren’t?
The more the plaintiffs and their money grubbing lawyers talk, the more it looks like this was always about money, that this was planned out ahead of time.
Frank, you’ve profiled these defendants multiple times over the last five years. What I want to know, and what the defendants want to know, is this:
1 – Who is Mark Vicente?
2 – Who is Sarah Edmondson?
Wasn’t Keith Raniere as the top of the pyramid getting a percentage of what all the centers made?
That’s what civil cases are about: money. Reparations for damages. Is there any other reason to bring a civil case? Regarding “money grubbing lawyers,” Keith Raniere himself has quite a few. Are we to believe that Keith Raniere’s lawyers are not getting paid?
Who is still as loyal to Keith Raniere as members of the mob are to their leader? Danielle Roberts, Nicki Clyne, Brandon Porter (I have no idea about Allison Mack). Who branded people without anesthetic and without telling them that they were being branded with KR’s initials? Who lied about Keith Raniere’s involvement in DOS? Who showed unsuspecting people actual snuff films and conducting a bunch of other unregulated scientific experiments? Who released Sarah Edmondson’s branding video to the Mexican media? Who still has people’s collateral and refuses to give it back?
“Kevin,” you seem like one of the defendants so you should know who Sarah Edmondson, Mark Vicente, et al. are. Defendants were in NXIVM and they are being sued, so presumably they should know who these people are. If you need even MORE information, Sarah and her husband Nippy have a podcast and they were both in The Vow; same with Mark Vicente. They, unlike the loyalists, have been really transparent about their role in things. They, unlike the loyalists, have admitted to mistakes. Mark Vicente signed a non-prosecution agreement, meaning that he had to confess to criminal acts.
Why don’t you ever attack Nippy, only Sarah and Mark? Furthermore, why don’t you ever attack the dozens of other people in the lawsuit who say they were victims of fraud?
The loyalists can always countersue. They seem so confident and RIGHTEOUS in their position that I’m sure if they can’t afford it they can convince a lawyer to take their case pro bono.
Kevin – thoughts? My initial thought is mic drop…
I’m not a defendant, and never participated in this organization in any way. I use my real name, and certain people here and elsewhere know my last name, who I am, and what I do for a living. What’s your name?
You didn’t address my questions about Mark and Sarah; who are they to be suing Nicki, Danielle, Allison and Brandon Porter when Mark and Sarah played substantially larger roles in the organization, and unlike these four people, made money from it, around $300K per year, for well over a decade?
How many people did Mark and Sarah recruit into the parent organization? How many did they recruit into groups like SOP and DOS? How much did they make? How many people did they have under them, to include the recruits of their recruits in their respective downlines?
How many EMs did Sarah give to people? And to how many people? Same question about Mark.
What are those numbers?
How did those four defendants contribute to wire fraud, mail fraud, immigration fraud, and all the other charges? And how are the co- plaintiffs and the company president, conveniently dropped from the suit, not liable for those things when their level of involvement was greater?
Supporting Raniere and believing that he is innocent does not make his supporters liable for anything Raniere may have done. Associating with a person or group isn’t a crime.
Why don’t I attack the other plaintiffs? Good question. Because I don’t know who they are, except for India. Neither do the defendants. That’s one of the reasons they’re trying to dismiss the suit.
How is Danielle liable for battering over 50 people who were never in DOS, who never received a brand? Why is Danielle liable for performing a brand for adults who were invited into the group the same way as her, who to her understanding, consented to the brand?
Danielle is liable for Lauren not telling Sarah what the brand meant, but Lauren herself isn’t?
How do you know what the defendants want to know “Kevin”?
It’s not hard to guess. If you were being sued by two people in a class action civil RICO case, wouldn’t you want to have as much information about them as possible?
Ok. So you don’t know. And you don’t speak for them.
So just more of your same bullshit
“ok, forget buyer beware, forget that these were adults who made a decision to give it a try, and who were repeat customers who got something from the experience.”
Ever seen the Monty Python parrot sketch, Kevin? Are you implying that ‘adults’ are in some way immune from getting manipulated and ripped off? FFS, the Donald got 74 million votes in 2020!
How many people get repeatedly burned every year in dodgy investments? The super rich, i.e. the Bromfman sisters, get richer every year by doing nothing. You gotta have a goose to get a goose, and those 2 were born with very large silver spoons stuck up their asses.
The rest of us have to do 2+ jobs a day to EITHER eat or heat – most can’t afford to do both. That wealth gap just keeps getting bigger, baby.
So you figure M&S made around $3M over 10 years? Ever see their tax returns? I’m guessing they actually paid tax unlike some.
The only person responsible for Keith’s claims is Keith: the noun/verb is performative! Even Suneel said those bogus on his online CV claims were pretty much all BS. How the hell can someone with a 240 IQ just about scrape a pass grade in a primary degree? LOL
That’s not to say he was without ability. His genius was screwing other people in more than one sense of the word, and in that he was supremely gifted. Psychopaths have no feeling or conscience, and unlike sociopathy, that’s the way they’re born. The proof of that pudding is that it’s genetic and you can test for it. All you need is a single hair follicle, and god knows, he certainly has plenty of those covering his bloated torso.
See, the people who really brought people in were not M&S – they were just employees/minions/skivvies, however much money they made; the people who brought EVERYONE in were Raniere and those who financially backed him. That’s where the buck stops IMHO.
I’m not sure about the wisdom of putting the others on the Defendants’ list other than for specific and limited instances of knowingly causing harm to others in given situations. It could be argued they were acting under duress.
Of course, there’s no denying litigation is about money. But it’s not JUST ABOUT money. It’s also, like all law, about getting to the TRUTH, and giving people who never got their chance to give testimony a public forum in which to do just that. And if the Court deems that wrong has been done to them, they are of course entitled to compensation under the law.
I took a handful of classes in college where I didn’t find the lessons valuable or helpful to my education. Am I a victim? Am I entitled to restitution?
In this scenario, the college advisor who convinced me to take the classes would be suing me. And I would have to find a way to defend myself for what the advisor did to me.
Do you see it yet, Rock? In your analogy, where you see this as a scam investment, it’s the people who sold the investment who are suing their clients. You don’t see how batshit crazy that is?
I’m not asking you to dance outside of a jail for Keith or give this group your life savings. I’m asking you to consider that maybe Sarah and Mark aren’t such nice people, and that maybe Danielle and some of her co-defendants aren’t such bad people.
As far as your wealth gap rant, ok. I make contracts for a living, so I’m not sure how you want me to help with that. That might be something you want to talk to your Member of Congress about. I’m sure they’ll get right on it, especially if they’re reelected…
It’s a simple question of accountability, Kevin – who apologised and took accountability for their actions and who hasn’t and doesn’t.