NXIVM Leader Continues Legal Battle from ‘Special’ Quarters in USP Tucson; Raniere’s Deadline Extended

News 10

ALBANY COUNTY
Albany County democrats making no endorsement in DA race

by: Courtney Ward
Courtney Ward
Posted: Feb 22, 2024 / 10:07 PM EST
Updated: Feb 22, 2024 / 10:10 PM EST

https://www.news10.com/news/albany-county/albany-county-democrats-making-no-endorsement-in-da-race/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLARE BRONFMAN,
Defendant

Case No.1:18-cr-00204(S3)(NGG)

MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) Clare Bronfman, an incarcerated individual at FDC Philadelphia, an administrativesecurity federal correctional institution in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Court reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). On February 7, 2024, the United States Department of Probation sent the Court a Supplemental Presentence Report for Clare Bronfman. See Exhibit A. Undersigned Counsel received a copy of the same. The Probation Department completed an amended Guidelines analysis for Ms. Bronfman in light of the recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, The November 1, 2023 edition of the Guidelines Manual “created a [two-level] reduction in the offense level for [certain] zero-point offenders,” and such reductions “have been made retroactive.” Id. at 1, n.1. The Probation Department determined that Ms. Bronfman is eligible for this two-level reduction and, therefore, amended its original Guidelines analysis to reflect this reduction. The original Guidelines Range, recommended by the Probation Department and accepted by the Court, was 21-27 months. The Probation Department’s amended Guidelines range, reflecting the two-level reduction, is 15-21 months. Id. at 3

At Ms. Bronfman’s sentencing hearing, the Court expressly stated that it was sentencing her to three times the higher limit of the Guideline range. With the amended Guidelines range at 15-21 months, three times the higher limit of the Guidelines range is a 63 month sentence. The dual impact of allowing Ms. Bronfman’s application for a sentence reduction is that (1) the Court will realize its mandate to sentence Ms. Bronfman at three times the higher limit of the Guidelines range, and (2) the amended sentence (63 months) will remains longer than what the government requested at the sentencing hearing (60 months). In sum, Ms. Bronfman is a zero-point offender who is eligible for a two-level reduction to her offense level. For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to the Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1(a) (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders) and Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821, promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission last year, Ms. Bronfman respectfully requests a reduction to the sentence she is currently serving. A. Amendment 821’s Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders The Sentencing Commission is “a bipartisan, independent agency located in the judicial branch of government[.]”1 It “was created by Congress in 1984” and, among other things, “establishes and amends sentencing guidelines for the judicial branch[.]”2 On April 5, 2023, the Sentencing Commission announced that it had “voted … to promulgate amendments to the federal 

1 “About the Commission,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, available at https://www.ussc.gov. 2 Id.

2

sentencing guidelines.”3 Those amendments, more commonly referred to as “Amendment 821” or the “2023 Criminal History Amendment,”4 were submitted to Congress on May 1, 2023.5 Among other things, Amendment 821 “revis[ed] guidance provided to courts regarding people facing their first federal conviction.”6 Specifically, the Sentencing Commission sought “to reduce recommended guideline ranges for offenders with zero criminal history points under the guidelines (‘zero-point offenders’)….”7 To do so, “Subpart 1 of Part B of the amendment create[d] a new Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders)” that “provides a decrease of two levels from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three for offenders who did not receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A, and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors.”8 The relevant amendment language states, in full, as follows: 3 “‘Back in Business’ U.S. Sentencing Commission Acts to Make Communities Safer & Stronger,” New Policies Increase First Steps Toward Second Chances, Take Targeted Action on Gun Trafficking and Fentanyl, and Expand Alternatives to Incarceration, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 5, 2023, available at https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/april-5- 2023. 4 “Materials Related to the 2023 Criminal History Amendment,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, available at https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/materials-relating-2023-criminalhistory-amendment. 5 “Issue for Comment: Retroactivity,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendlyamendments/20230405_prelim-IFC.pdf 6 “‘Back in Business’ U.S. Sentencing Commission Acts to Make Communities Safer & Stronger,” supra note 3. 7 “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 27, 2023, available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/readerfriendly-amendments/202305_RF.pdf, p77. 8 Id. at p 79.

3

sentencing guidelines.”3 Those amendments, more commonly referred to as “Amendment 821” or the “2023 Criminal History Amendment,”4 were submitted to Congress on May 1, 2023.5 Among other things, Amendment 821 “revis[ed] guidance provided to courts regarding people facing their first federal conviction.”6 Specifically, the Sentencing Commission sought “to reduce recommended guideline ranges for offenders with zero criminal history points under the guidelines (‘zero-point offenders’)….”7 To do so, “Subpart 1 of Part B of the amendment create[d] a new Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders)” that “provides a decrease of two levels from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three for offenders who did not receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A, and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors.”8 The relevant amendment language states, in full, as follows: 3 “‘Back in Business’ U.S. Sentencing Commission Acts to Make Communities Safer & Stronger,” New Policies Increase First Steps Toward Second Chances, Take Targeted Action on Gun Trafficking and Fentanyl, and Expand Alternatives to Incarceration, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 5, 2023, available at https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/april-5- 2023. 4 “Materials Related to the 2023 Criminal History Amendment,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, available at https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/materials-relating-2023-criminalhistory-amendment. 5 “Issue for Comment: Retroactivity,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendlyamendments/20230405_prelim-IFC.pdf 6 “‘Back in Business’ U.S. Sentencing Commission Acts to Make Communities Safer & Stronger,” supra note 3. 7 “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 27, 2023, available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/readerfriendly-amendments/202305_RF.pdf, p77. 8 Id. at p 79.

4

continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848; decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2 levels.[9 ] The “Application Notes” for §4C1.1 also provide, in relevant part, as follows: 10. Zero-Point Offenders. (A) Zero-Point Offenders in Zones A and B of the Sentencing Table. —If the defendant received an adjustment under §4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders) and the defendant’s applicable guideline range is in Zone A or B of the Sentencing Table, a sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment, in accordance with subsection (b) or (c)(3), is generally appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(j). [10] Put more simply, “[t]he amendment applies to offenders with no criminal history points, including (1) offenders with no prior convictions; (2) offenders who have prior convictions that are not counted because those convictions were not within the time limits set forth in subsection (d) and (e) of §4A1.2 (Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History); and (3) offenders who have prior convictions that are not used in computing the criminal history category for reasons other than their ‘staleness’ (e.g., sentences resulting from foreign or tribal court convictions, minor misdemeanor convictions, or infractions).”11 9 Amendment 821, §4C1.1(a); see also “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 27, 2023, available at https://www. ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/ 202305_RF.pdf, pp 87-88; 88 Fed. Reg. 28254, 28271 (May 3, 2023) (to be codified at U.S.S.G. §4C1.1(a)). 10 Application Note 10 to Amendment 821, §4C1.1; see also “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 27, 2023, available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendlyamendments/202305_RF.pdf, p 92. 11 “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” p 79, supra note 7

5

The Sentencing Commission’s decision to promulgate these changes was based on findings “that ‘zero-point’ offenders were less likely to be rearrested than ‘one point’ offenders….”12 Nevertheless, “[w]hile determining that a reduction is appropriate for some offenders with zero criminal history points, the Commission also identified circumstances in which zero-point offenders are appropriately excluded from eligibility in light of the seriousness of the instant offense of conviction or the existence of aggravating factors in the instant offense (e.g., where the offender used violence or credible threats of violence in connection with the offense or where the instant offense of conviction was a ‘sex offense’).”13 Significantly, the Probation Department expressly evaluated each of these aggravating factors and found that none of them applied to Ms. Bronfman. See Exhibit A at 2-3. B. Retroactive Application of Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 Shortly after promulgating and submitting to Congress Amendment 821, the Sentencing Commission sought “comment on whether it should list Parts A and B of the amendment, addressing … offenders with zero criminal history points at new §4C1.1, in subsection (d) of §1B1.10 as changes that may be applied retroactively to previously sentenced defendants.”14 “On August 24, 2023, the [Sentencing] Commission voted to give retroactive effect to … subpart 1 of Part B of Amendment 821.”15 Because Congress has not acted to disapprove of Amendment 821, eligible incarcerated individuals, including Ms. Bronfman, are now “able to ask courts to reduce their sentences beginning November 1, 2023….”16 12 Id. 13 Id. at pp 79-80. 14 “Issue for Comment: Retroactivity,” supra note 5. 15 “Materials Related to the 2023 Criminal History Amendment,” supra note 4. 16 Id.; see also United States v. Brummett, No. 4:21-CR-3080, 2023 WL 3319713, at *1 (D. Neb. May 9, 2023) (denying a defendant’s “motion … to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, premised on an alleged amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines—“Adjustment for Certain

6

C. Motions for Sentence Reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Amendment 821 specifically identifies 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as the vehicle by which a “court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment” under these circumstances.17 That statute provides, in relevant part, that “upon motion of the defendant,” a “court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the facts set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”18 The Sentencing Commission specifically indicated that, “[a]s required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement.”19 1. The Timing of a Motion Based on Amendment 821 Zero-Point Offenders”—that provides a 2-level downward adjustment to the offense level for defendants with no criminal history whose offenses fit within the guideline’s criteria” as “premature” until it “likely … take[s] effect on November 1”); United States v. Shelton, No. CR 17-0260, 2023 WL 4707030, at *1, 2, 4 (W.D. Pa. July 24, 2023) (denying the “Pro Se Motion of Defendant seeking for this Court to reduce his sentence of 72 months imprisonment, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),” “base[d] … primarily on [the defendant’s reading of the upcoming November 1, 2023, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines” “because the Guideline range ha[d] not yet been lowered, and retroactivity ha[d] not been determined”); United States v. Hernandez, No. EP-15-CR-01334-DCG-1, 2023 WL 5354163, at *2, 3 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2023) (denying a defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because, “although the Sentencing Commission ha[d] accepted public comments regarding whether §4C1.1’s effective date, the Commission ha[d]n’t yet made that decision,” as well as because §4C1.1 [was]n’t scheduled to become effective until November 1, 2023”). 17 Amendment 821 §1B1.10(a)(1). 18 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 823, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2689, 177 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2010 (involving “a pro se motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2)” “[a]fter the Sentencing Commission made the amendment to the crack-cocaine Guidelines retroactive in 2008”); United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 708 (5th Cir. 2018) (involving “sentence-reduction motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines”); United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464, 465-466 (8th Cir. 2013) (involving an “18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence modification” “because the United States Sentencing Commission … retroactively amended the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines”). 19 Amendment 821 §1B1.10(a)(1)

7

Procedurally, the Sentencing Commission made it clear that, absent congressional intervention, eligible incarcerated individuals like Ms. Bronfman are “able to ask courts to reduce their sentences beginning November 1, 2023….”20 The Sentencing Commission also made it clear that eligible incarcerated individuals like Ms. Bronfman are eligible to reduce a sentence pursuant to Amendment 821 beginning on “February 1, 2024.”21 2. The Substance of a Motion Based on Amendment 821 Substantively, the Sentencing Commission established individual and offense-specific criteria that a defendant must satisfy before he or she is eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As indicated above, pursuant to §4C1.1(a), a court may only “decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2 levels” pursuant to Amendment 821 “[i]f the defendant” “did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A,” “did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism),” did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection with the offense,” “did not personally cause substantial financial hardship,” “did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense,” “did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense),” “and … did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848,” as well as if “the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury,” was “not a sex offense,” and “is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses Involving Individual Rights)[.]”22 20 “Materials Related to the 2023 Criminal History Amendment,” supra note 4. 21 Id. 22 Amendment 821, §4C1.1(a).

8

In addition to the criteria set forth in §4C1.1(a), courts must also consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and public safety considerations, as well as a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct if a court so chooses, before reducing a sentence based on a recalculation of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.23 D. Ms. Bronfman is eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) The Probation Department has already issued a Supplemental Presentence Report for Ms. Bronfman predicated on her eligibility for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821. See Exhibit A. Ms. Bronfman is a zero-point offender. At sentencing, she was assessed zero criminal history points and was, therefore, in Criminal History Category I. Combined with her Offense Level 16 rating in Zone D, Ms. Bronfman faced a Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. However, because Ms. Bronfman is a zero-point offender, Amendment 821 authorizes this Court to “decrease the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three by 2 levels.”24 As a result of this twolevel reduction, §4C1.1(a) reduces Ms. Bronfman’s Guidelines range to 15 to 21 months. Ms. 23 See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that, “[a]fter recalculating the guidelines, the district court next must consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety considerations, and may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, in evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted and the extent of any such reduction”); United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 F.4th 961, 965 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that “a court must ‘consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the policies … is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case”); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that, “[i]n exercising … discretion” to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) “the court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ‘to the extent that they are applicable’ ” and “may also consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct”). 24 Amendment 821, §4C1.1(a); see also “Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,” UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Apr. 27, 2023, available at https://www. ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/ 202305_RF.pdf, pp 87-88; 88 Fed. Reg. 28254, 28271 (May 3, 2023) (to be codified at U.S.S.G. §4C1.1(a)).

9

Bronfman respectfully requests that her sentence be reduced accordingly pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Ms. Bronfman is aware of the Court’s strong views regarding her culpability and the seriousness of her conduct. In sentencing Ms. Bronfman to a period of incarceration that was “three times the high end of the Guidelines range,” or 81 months, the Court stated that such a sentence “takes into account the severity of Ms. Bronfman’s illegal activity.”25 Ms. Bronfman does not here seek to relitigate the Court’s sentence. In fact, Ms. Bronfman now simply asks the Court to apply the Court’s own sentencing formula of three times the highest end of the sentencing Guideline to the reduced Guideline range. Ms. Bronfman seeks only what the Sentencing Commission determined to be appropriate for all first-time offenders outside of a limited – and specifically enumerated – set of crimes or enhancements, none of which apply to Ms. Bronfman. See Supplemental Presentence Report so found. Exhibit A at 2-3. Had the Sentencing Commission’s current Guidelines been in effect at the time of sentencing, Ms. Bronfman would have been a zero-point offender with no criminal history and an Offense Level of 14. That would have yielded, as stated above, a Guideline range of 15 to 21 months. Exhibit A at 3. Using the Court’s previous calculation – three times the high end of the Guidelines – would have yielded an above Guidelines sentence of 63 months; a sentence of incarceration that still exceeds the 60-month sentence that the government requested. This is exactly the type of sentencing disparity that the Commission sought to correct. None of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) undermine Ms. Bronfman’s request for relief in this case. As indicated above, Ms. Bronfman is a zero-point offender with no 25 See, United States v. Clare Bronfman, Sentencing Memorandum of the Court at page 27.

10

criminal history. The Court has already factored in its clear view that the 3553(a) factors warranted a significant above-guidelines sentence. Ms. Bronfman does not now ask the Court to reconsider its view that these factors weigh in favor of a tripling of the highest end of the Guidelines. Ms. Bronfman simply asks that the Court apply the tripling to the amended, and now correct, Guidelines range that would have been applicable to her if the amendment to the Guidelines had been in effect at the time she was sentenced. In addition, in considering whether the reduction is warranted, the Court “may [also] consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after the imposition of the term of imprisonment.”26 Here, such post-sentencing conduct is highly relevant. See, Application Note 1(B)(iii) to Amendment 821, §4C1.1.27 Ms. Bronfman pled guilty on April 19, 2019. Since that time, she has paid restitution; a fine of $500,000.00; and forfeiture of $6,000,000.00. Ms. Bronfman began serving her sentence on September 30, 2020. She has served over 40 months of her 81-month sentence. See Order, United States v. Bronfman, Case No. 18-cr-204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2020), ECF No. 937. Although this Court recommended that Ms. Bronfman be detained at the minimum-security camp facility in Danbury, Connecticut. Judgment and Commitment Order, at 2 (Oct. 7, 2020), Case No. 18-cr-204 (NGG), ECF No. # 946, that is not where she is serving her sentence. This is because, notwithstanding that the Court unequivocally stated that it “agree[d] 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 26 Amendment 821 §1B1.10, Application Notes § 1(B)(iii). 27 According to the application note, “The court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection (b).” Application Note 1(B)(iii) to Amendment 821, §4C1.1.

11

trafficking activities,” and that it did “not find that Ms. Bronfman knowingly funded a sex cult,” the Bureau of Prisons gave Ms. Bronfman a sex-offender public safety factor (PSF). As a result, on or about December 28, 2020, Ms. Bronfman was transferred from MDC Brooklyn to the Federal Detention Center, Philadelphia (“FDC Philadelphia”), located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. FDC Philadelphia is a pretrial detention center and has higher security designations than the security classification of the facility that this Court specifically recommended for Ms. Bronfman (i.e., minimum security). Its inmates have limited access to programs, outdoor space, and no opportunity to visit with family by video. On May 2, 2022, Ms. Bronfman was transferred to Danbury and on November 16, 2022, the BOP agreed to remove the “sex offender” public safety factor from Ms. Bronfman’s classification. But on March 29, 2023, Ms. Bronfman was transferred back to FDC Philadelphia due to the BOP’s equally unwarranted decision to replace the PSF designation with a Management Variable designation that rendered Ms. Bronfman ineligible for a camp. The BOP removed the Management Variable on November 16, 2023, at which point Ms. Bronfman became eligible for community custody (i.e., eligible for halfway house and home confinement) and was referred by the BOP for home confinement placement. Despite Ms. Bronfman being approved for home confinement by the probation department, to date, Ms. Bronfman remains at FDC Philadelphia. Ms. Bronfman has been a model inmate. See Exhibit B, Positive Decision Report of C. Cole, Unit Manager, FDC Philadelphia dated January 22, 2024. According to Mr. Cole, from December 28, 2020, to May 2, 2022, Ms. Bronfman “excelled” in her jobs and earned the trust of the prison staff and that, upon her transfer to Danbury, Ms. Bronfman worked as the FSL Admin Orderly and law library clerk. Id. He reports that while awaiting transfer to a camp, Ms. Bronfman was transferred back to FDC Philadelphia, where she remains at this time. Id. According to Mr. 

12

Cole, Ms. Bronfman has earned 365 credits toward her release date; has been referred for Home Confinement placement; and, due to her trustworthiness and community custody level, has been tasked with the responsibility of being a Gate Pass inmate. Id. Dr. Fareed Farooqui, supervisory chaplain at FDC Philadelphia, has submitted a letter to this Court describing Ms. Bronfman’s character and her contributions at FDC Philadelphia. He points out that she is honest, hard-working, courteous, and respectful, and that she mentors other inmates. He offers his view that she knows right from wrong and is well-prepared to contribute responsibly in society, if given the chance to do so. See Exhibit C. In sum, Ms. Bronfman is eligible for the 2-point reduction in her Guideline Range. Applying this Court’s own “triple Guidelines” formula for her above Guidelines sentence yields a 63-month sentence – one that fulfills all the goals of deterrence and punishment. E. Conclusion and Request for Relief By promulgating Amendment 821 and the new Chapter Four guidelines at §4C1.1(a) and allowing for its retroactive application, the Sentencing Commission expressly authorized this Court to decrease Ms. Bronfman’s offense level by two levels because she is a zero-point offender. For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Bronfman respectfully requests that this Court reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) based on the two-level decrease authorized by §4C1.1(a)

13

Date: February 22, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD SULLIVAN LAW, PLLC
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.
Bar No. 451518
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400 E
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 313-8313
rsullivan@ronaldsullivanlaw.com
Attorney for Ms. Bronfman

14

Feb 22, 2024

Document Number: 1236

Reduce Sentence – USSC Amendment

Main Doc­ument
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062.1236.0.pdf

Attach­ment 1
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062.1236.1.pdf

Attach­ment 2
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062/gov.uscourts.nyed.420062.1236.2.pdf

Times Union

Former bureau chief alleges Albany County District Attorney David Soares demoted her amid a domestic violence crisis

The former Major Crimes bureau chief filed a complaint in June 2022; she soon after was moved to the Albany County attorney’s office
By Steve Hughes
Feb 16, 2024
Albany County District Attorney David Soares was the subject of a complaint filed in June 2022 by the former head of his office’s Major Crimes bureau that alleges Soares demoted her for her work performance while she was going through a domestic violence crisis, a breach of the state’s Human Rights Law. 

ALBANY — The former head of the Albany County District Attorney’s Major Crimes bureau filed a discrimination complaint against District Attorney David Soares in June 2022, alleging that Soares demoted her for her work performance while she was going through a domestic violence crisis.

Shannon Corbitt, now a lawyer in the Albany County attorney’s office, told the Times Union this week that she wanted to set the record straight on why she left the district attorney’s office after more than two decades, including eight years as the Major Crimes bureau chief.

Corbitt alleged in the complaint to Albany County’s Human Resources Department that Soares abused his power and violated state discrimination laws when he removed her from her position within his office to another, lesser role after a May 2022 meeting. She said Soares was aware of the issues in her personal life, but further victimized her by allegedly saying there was no treatment program for domestic violence victims to assist her in getting her professional life back on track.

The revelation of Corbitt’s complaint against Soares comes as the district attorney faces state investigations into his decision to award himself bonuses late last year using state grant money.

[ … ]

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/albany-county-da-david-soares-target-past-18669056.php

Correction: Last sentence contained a small omission. 

 It’s
great for children, says Mrs.
Raniere, who is interested in
P.T.A. work and is now help-
ing with plans for the flower
show at the school.

Times Union

Churchill: Suddenly, David Soares is scrambling to save his political careerThe district attorney’s presumed coast to reelection no longer looks so easy
By Chris Churchill
Feb 15, 2024

[ …]

That statement was true then. It felt true two weeks ago. Albany County’s longtime district attorney seemed destined for another easy reelection.
But everything changed when we learned that Soares paid himself $23,000 in bonuses from grant money. Kindlon is among two challengers — Colonie Assemblyman Phil Steck is the other — now seeking the Democratic Party’s endorsement in the race, and one or the other may get it. 

The bonuses are indefensible, an egregious error of judgment that may have broken the law. But I initially doubted the money would be enough to derail Soares, given his longevity and broad base of support. Then I saw the video Soares released Monday evening, the one in which he announced he would return the money. 

Soares could have delivered the news in a written statement and probably should have. Instead, he gathered his wife and two young children in what appears to be his living room for a taped recording that had the look and feel of an apology video. The apology never came, but the remarkable video made clear that Soares is taking the threat posed by the scandal very seriously. 

[ …]

Perhaps not, given that he had no reason to worry until just a few days ago. His reelection was assured. 

Indeed, the bonus scandal is a sign of overconfidence, complacency or both. A politician facing a reelection contest wouldn’t have made the decision, given the terrible optics. A politician who feared a threat wouldn’t have handed his opposition the ammunition.

But Soares, already the highest-paid elected official in Albany County, did just that. He paid himself $22,308 from a state Aid to Prosecution grant and also used a separate grant program to give himself a $1,562 boost. What was he thinking?

[ …]

Churchill: Suddenly, David Soares is scrambling to save his reelection (timesunion.com)

https://www.facebook.com/AlbanyCountyDA/videos/2033530803698684/

What is a Cult? #6 – THE MISSION from Mark Vicente, NXIVM Whistleblower

Mark Vicente

https://youtu.be/EOedak2RwBo

February 14, 2024

By ECF

The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis
United States District Judge
United States District Court
225 Cadman Plaza
East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re; United States v. Keith Raniere, et al.
Criminal Docket No. 18-204 fS-2) INGGJ (VMS) 

Mr. Raniere respectfully requests that the Court consider this letter a supplement to the Defense’s reply regarding the alleged photograph technician. (Doc. 1233.) Due to over 40 days of lockdown at USP Tucson, starting on January 1, 2024, and sporadic and limited legal communication – including no legal visits allowed in over 4.5 months – Mr. Raniere was only able to convey meaningful input on the government’s response last week, and identified important additional points he believes are crucial for the Court’s consideration.

SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT The government introduced critical new evidence in their latest response. (Gov. 0pp., Doc. 1231.)’ For the first time, they mentioned that the recently disclosed, unidentified “photograph technician” is a “Federal Bureau of Investigation photograph technician.” (Gov. 0pp. at 1.) (emphasis added.) Although the disclosure of the alleged photograph technician’s FBI affiliation may seem minor, it gives rise to significant implications. This new disclosure by AUSA Tanya Hajjar to the Court, if true, now demonstrates that at least three FBI employees – SA Lever, the unidentified FBI “photograph technician” and at least one unidentified “law enforcement agent” – were involved in the unauthorized operation on Item 1B15, the Canon camera and its unpreserved memory card, on September 19, 2018, which permanently altered the original card (Loveall Deck, Doc. 1213-3 at ^ 10.), and which the government kept secret until 4+ years post-trial (Gov. Rule 33 0pp., Doc. 1213 at 11, n.6.).^

______________________________
‘ As a separate point, this response by the government contains critical misrepresentations, which inaccurately minimize structural evidentiary misconduct, and which are addressed in Exhibit B. ^ This operation only came to light due to an apparent error by the secret FBI “photograph technician,” leaving altered dates on the camera card. Without this mistake and the Defense’s subsequent challenge under Rule 33, the government might have never disclosed this deliberate mishandling of critical evidence.

1

Significantly, the FBI employees involved in this secret operation knowingly violated critical FBI evidentiary procednres. Such actions, if discovered, “could result in an agent’s termination.” (Exhibit A, Joint Former FBI Decl. at 9, 11.) These conclusions are supported by a joint analysis from four former FBI CART examiners, who served the FBI for a combined 55 years and are experts in FBI evidentiary procedure. {Id. at ^ 1-3.) Note that because original digital evidence is volatile and especially easy to alter or destroy, the FBI uses CART specialists to ensure the preservation and integrity of such evidence. All FBI personnel are trained and required to sign the chain of custody form when they handle evidence, ensuring that the evidence’s handling is properly recorded. {Id. at ^ 5.) However, in this case, the FBI “photograph technician” accessed the evidence without signing the chain of custody, and despite the fact that original digital evidence is the sole purview of CART. (Chain of Custody, DX 945; Joint Former FBI Decl. at TI4.) SA Lever, who facilitated the operation and gave them the evidence, knowingly allowed this critical breach of protocol. (DX 945.) The FBI “photograph technician” then used unknown forensic software on the original memory card, without a write-blocker, and caused the evidence to be permanently changed. (Joint Former FBI Decl. at f 10, 17.) Since preserving evidence is a fundamental pillar of FBI evidence handling, SA Lever, the FBI “photograph technician” who was not a CART member, and any other agents involved, clearly knew they were violating critical protocols. {Id. at ^ 11.) Finally, the FBI “photograph technician” returned the evidence to SA Lever, again not signing the chain of custody, and SA Lever allowed this. (Chain of Custody.) This improper operation was “directed” by multiple. unnamed “law enforcement agents,” meaning that in the least, SA Lever and another, currently unidentified agent directed it and were involved. (Gov. Rule 33 0pp., supra.) 

Remarkably, of over 60 produced devices in this case, onlv Item IB 15. the Canon camera and its memorv card, was mishandled in this wav. This occurred in one of the most significant cases in the Eastern District of New York at the time, raising the question: Why would this group of at least three FBI employees knowingly risk their careers and the integrity of the evidence, and secretly mishandle only this particular evidence item? The only plausible reason is an intent to tamper with the camera card. Further evidence strengthens the conclusion that the camera card was deliberately tampered with during this operation: Its contents were permanently changed, and the specific files that the FBI “photograph technician” used the unknown forensic software on overlap with the specific files that the seven independent Defense experts determined were deliberately tampered with. (Loveall Deck, supra, Def. Mot, Doc. 1230 at 9, 12.)

2

This discovery of intentional evidentiary misconduct by the FBI “photograph technician” – knowingly facilitated by S A Lever – casts a shadow over the unauthorized copying of the same camera card by SFE Booth, as that was also facilitated by SA Lever. (DX 961 at 29.) This increases the likelihood that the camera card was tampered with before Booth’s copying and analysis, explaining why 37 additional photo files appeared only in Booth’s report, with at least 28 of these files being demonstrably and deliberately tampered with, according to the seven independent Defense experts. (Def. Mot, Doc. 1230 at 6; Doc. 1225 at 3.) The government could easily disprove this explanation, if it were untrue, by disclosing the withheld two camera card copies, yet they refuse to do so, merely repeating government expert Loveall’s unsupported assertion that additional files in the Booth report are due to “different settings,” though Loveall does not provide a single detail or proof. (Loveall Deck at ^ 9; Doc. 1229 at 2.) This intentional evidentiary malfeasance involving SA Lever, the unidentified FBI “photograph technician,” and at least one other unidentified “law enforcement agent” carries serious implications beyond Mr. Raniere’s case. It calls into question the integrity of these FBI employees’ conduct in other cases – past, present, and future. Full disclosure of their currently concealed identities and the full extent of their actions must be compelled. The only other possibility is that AUSA Tanya Hajjar is intentionally misleading the Court regarding the circumstances of this secret operation on the camera and card, and the existence of an FBI “photograph technician.” Supporting this, there appears to be no “photograph technician” role officially recognized by the FBI, based on our experts’ 55 combined years of experience in the FBI and no description or job postings for such a role on the FBI job website. (Joint Former FBI Deck at ^ 12-13.; FBI Jobs, (https://www.fbijobs.gov/, February 13, 2024).) Additionally, no one with this title appears in the evidence’s chain of custody, and no FD-302 forms, which document investigative activities, have been disclosed which would prove their existence and involvement. (Joint Former FBI Deck at ^ 13.) This is despite the government’s promise to “produce everything” related to the alleged child pornography evidence before the trial. (Pre-Trial T., 4/4/19 at 13:6-13.) Intentionally misleading the Court about this improper operation would likely aim to conceal something more serious. Finally, the government’s late and xmsubstantiated disclosure about the FBI affiliation of the alleged photograph technician is a further use of secret evidence. This exacerbates existing due process concerns and further obstructs Mr. Raniere’s ability to challenge the evidence against him. U.S. V. Abuhamra 389 F.3d 309, 322. (2d Cir. 2004) Moreover, the secrecy of the withheld evidence in this case surpasses that of exparte proceedings like that in Abuhamra. Here, the government alone has access to the withheld evidence, forcing the Court to accept or reject the government’s assertions without independent verification. This level of secrecy impedes the

3

Court’s ability to function as an impartial arbiter and poses a threat to the fundamental fairness of the judicial process. In conclusion, disclosure of the withheld evidence is imperative. Moreover, AUSA Hajjar has consumed far more time, including the Court’s time, opposing disclosure than it would take to simply disclose the evidence, which the government promised to the Court and Defense it would before trial, and after trial misrepresented to the Defense that it had. {Id.; Doc. 1169, Exhibits H1-H3, Defense Informal Discovery Request.) The withheld evidence is essential not just for fairness in Mr. Raniere’s case but also for its potential to affect the integrity of other cases involving SA Lever or the unidentified FBI employees discussed above, which may be ongoing. Therefore, the Court’s ruling will either aid in the exposure and curbing of government malfeasance or contribute to its concealment.

Dated:2/14/2024 Respectfully submitted,
_______________
Keith Alan Raniere