Attorneys representing Clare Bronfman recently filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. in the US District Court in Connecticut. The petition seeks an order from Judge Omar Williams to end what Bronfman’s legal team claims are “unlawful conditions of confinement” at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Philadelphia, and immediately transfer the heiress to the prison camp in Danbury, Connecticut.
Bronfman is challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) interpretation of her Presentencing Report (PSR), which she believes inaccurately led to her classification as a public safety risk due to her alleged involvement in recruiting Mexican sisters Camila, Daniela, and Mariana to come to the US for no other purpose but to engage in sexual relationships with Keith Raniere.
Despite a recommendation by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis to assign Bronfman to the minimum-security camp in Danbury, because of this designation, the BOP placed her in the high-security Philadelphia Detention Center. After spending approximately one and a half years there, she was transferred to the low-security prison in Danbury. She sued the BOP to force them to move her from low security prison to the minimum security camp.
Moving her out of the jurisdiction, the BOP halted at least temporarily the lawsuit. Currently, Bronfman has been returned to the maximum security FDC Philadelphia, where she remains confined.
Clare’s denial to the BOP
By Clare Bronfman
I appeal the… demonstrably false claim that I participated in efforts to “recruit” non-citizens into the country, including a “minor,” to become sexual partners with my codefendant, Keith Raniere….
Specifically, below I address the principal allegation that I assisted Jane Does 2, 3, and 4 – all sisters from Mexico – into the country, when Jane Doe 2 was 14, Jane Doe 3 was 20, and Jane Doe 4 was 16, for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations with my codefendant.
Jane Doe 2 [Camila] – The trial transcript shows very clearly that I did not recruit Jane Doe 2 into the country, and I had no knowledge of any sexual relationship with Jane Doe 2 and my codefendant.
Camila had a secret relationship with Raniere and for years lived at this house in Knox Woods.
The transcript reveals that Jane Doe 2’s living arrangement was kept a secret in the NXIVM community, and not even the most senior NXIVM people knew anything about it. Furthermore, I did not know about any naked pictures for anyone, let alone a minor….
My codefendant ordered everyone with knowledge to keep the existence of … “DOS” and any [naked] pictures a secret from me.
Jane Doe 3 [Marianna]… and I joined NXIVM at about the same time in 2003. She was 20; I was 24. I did not know anything about Jane Doe’s 3’s immigration status when she first entered the country. At the time, I was a horse show jumper, living in Europe and Florida and competing around the world.
The confusion lies in that I did help with her immigration, but in 2016 – more than a decade after Jane Doe 3 entered the country, by hiring an attorney. By this time, Jane Doe 3 was the primary caretaker for a dying friend [Pam Cafrtiz].
Both Jane Doe 3 and the friend lived with my codefendant [Raniere].
Keith, Mariana and Pam lived together first in the townhome on Flintlock Lane [above] then later at 21 Oregon Trail [below]:
My plea to the immigration offense and conviction arose out of these facts – my efforts to help Jane Doe 3 get back into the country to care for our mutual friend. I had no role whatsoever in her initial entry into the country or her relationship with my codefendant.
Jane Doe 4 [Daniela] – Jane Doe 4 and I joined NXIVM about the same time; I could not have “recruited” her. Jane Doe 4 herself testified at the codefendant’s trial that I did not know anything about her or her sisters’ (Jane Does 2 & 3) immigration status, and that I did not assist them getting into the country.
Significantly, no other witness in the entire trial testified contrary to this.
Both Jane Doe 4′ s testimony and Lauren Salzman’s testimony provided detailed accounts of how the sisters were brought into the country, and there was not one- not a single- mention of me.
Instead, the trial testimony detailed how the sisters’ parents and others arranged for their entry into the U.S., mostly before I joined NXIVM, and certainly without my knowledge or participation.
Accordingly, the record is clear that I did not “recruit” anyone into the country, let alone recruit them, or anyone else, for sex with my codefendant.
Her codefendant Keith Alan Raniere minutes after the jig was up, and he would never taste freedom again – his apprehension in Mexico on March 25, 2018.
While, years later, I assisted my friends in resolving their immigration issues by hiring a lawyer, this was long after they had been in the country. I knew nothing about the recruit-for-sex-related allegations of my codefendant until I read it in the newspaper.
This was trial testimony, and, significantly, at my sentencing, Judge Garaufis reached the same conclusion.
The Judge wrote: “Following a six-week jury trial over which I presided, Raniere was convicted of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, forced labor conspiracy, sex trafficking conspiracy, and two counts of sex trafficking. To be crystal clear, Ms. Bronfman was not convicted of any of those crimes.” The Judge also made clear: “I agree with Ms. Bronfman that the available evidence does not establish that she was aware of DOS prior to June 2017 or that she directly or knowingly funded DOS or other sex trafficking activities.”
The BOP’s Response:
On January 18, 2022
Administrative Remedy No.1073720-A3 Part B – Response
This is in response to your Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal wherein you request the waiver of your Public Safety Factor (PSF) of Sex Offender and transfer to a camp.
We have reviewed documentation relevant to your appeal and, based on the information gathered, concur with the manner in which the Warden and Regional Director addressed your concerns at the time of your Request for Administrative Remedy and subsequent appeal. Our review of this matter reveals your PSF was adequately applied in accordance with Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification. You provide no new information that had not been considered at the lower levels that would compel us to reverse those decisions.
Accordingly, your appeal is denied.