Clare Bronfman's attorney, Kathleen Cassidy [above] seeks info from the prosecution.
News NXIVM

Bronfman attorney informs judge that prosecution has not given necessary information to defense

Clare Bronfman’s attorney, Kathleen Cassidy, has filed a letter to the court complaining to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis that the prosecution has not provided her client with most of the information she and other attorneys for NXIVM defendants requested in August.

While admitting that the prosecution has revealed the identities of the victims – named as Jane and John Does in the indictment – most of the information requested has not to date been provided, Cassidy says.

In general terms, here is a quick overview of what the NXIVM defendants are seeking from AUSA Moira Kim Penza and AUSA Tanya Hajjar.  While much of it is redundant, a careful read of the list will explain a lot about the case and what the government and defense will try in turn to prove and defend.

The defense is asking the government to specify or identify the following:

RE: The Conspiracy Counts:
Every individual the government contends are co-conspirators—including:
(a) unindicted co-conspirators.
(b) cooperating witnesses.
(c) confidential sources.

RE: “The “Enterprise”:
1. individuals referred to as “others”.
2. every member, leader, or associate of the Enterprise including whether each person was a leader, member, or associate.
3. date, time, and location of the formation of the Enterprise.
4. all persons involved in forming the Enterprise.
5. crimes or actions the government will use in an attempt to prove the existence of an Enterprise.
6. how that Enterprise functioned.

RE: Count One (Racketeering Conspiracy):
1. Date, time and location of the agreements to conspire.
2. Parties that created the alleged conspiracy.
3. Individuals referred to as “others”.
4. Date, time and location of agreements.
5. Parties that agreed to commit at least two acts of racketeering.

RE: Racketeering Act One (Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft):
1. Alleged acts constituting a conspiracy to commit identity theft of Jane Doe 1’s identity.
2. Alleged acts constituting a conspiracy to unlawfully possess Jane Doe 1’s sheriff’s identification card.

RE: Racketeering Act Two (Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft):
1. Date, time and location of agreements [to conspire].
2. Parties that created the alleged conspiracies to commit identity theft.
3. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.
4. The role Nancy Salzman played in the conspiracy to commit identity theft.
5. What conduct occurred between August 2005 and January 2006, before the alleged identity theft of John Does 1 and 2.
6. Alleged acts constituting the crime of identity theft.

RE: Racketeering Act Three (Conspiracy to Alter Records for Use in an Official Proceeding):
[This refers to a video used in the NXIVM v Ross case that was allegedly altered to deceive the court in the case]
1. Date, time and location of agreements.
2. The parties that created the alleged conspiracy to alter records for use in an official proceeding.
3. What was done to alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal the video recording of Nancy Salzman?
4. What manner the integrity of the video recording was impaired.
5. The video recordings allegedly altered.
6. The date [altered] records were allegedly produced to the Ross Institute.

RE: Racketeering Act Four (Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft – Jane Doe 2):
1. Date, time and location of agreements.
2. Parties that created the alleged conspiracy to commit identity theft.
3. Identify Jane Doe 2.
4. Alleged acts constituting the crime of conspiracy to commit identity theft.

RE: Racketeering Act Five (Encouraging and Inducing Illegal Entry and Money Laundering – Jane Doe 3):
[This involves Clare Bronfman and her alleged role in bringing to the USA an alien]
1. Jane Doe 3.
2. Acts allegedly undertaken by Ms. Bronfman to “encourage and induce an alien…to come to, enter and reside in the United States”.
3. Date, amount, originating account, and receiving account of each wire transfer.
4. The “financial gain” or intended financial gain and the alleged beneficiary.
RE: Racketeering Act Six (Trafficking of Jane Doe 4 for Labor and Services): Identify or Specify:
[The woman was imprisoned in a room for 18 months]
1. Jane Doe 4.
2. “Labor and services” Jane Doe 4 provided and for whose benefit.
3. Which “immigration documents and actual government identification documents” that were concealed, removed, confiscated and possessed.

RE: Racketeering Act Seven (State Law Extortion):
[This alleges defendants extorted ‘lower ranking DOS members’ to do things based on fear their collateral would be released]
1. DOS members who allegedly delivered property and other things of value to “Raniere, Mack, Lauren Salzman, and others.
2. “Personal property and other things of value” that “lower-ranking DOS members” delivered.
3. Actions taken by “Raniere, Mack, Lauren Salzman, and others” that instilled fear that they would “expose a secret”etc.
4. Individuals the government contends Raniere, Mack, Lauren Salzman and/or “others” aided or abetted.

RE: Racketeering Act Eight (Sex Trafficking):
1. Date, time, location, and participants in each alleged “commercial sex act”.
2. Conduct that constitutes a “commercial sex act”.
3. Individuals referred to as “others”.
4. Jane Doe 5.
5. Each and every “benefit” allegedly given or received by any person.
6. Individual(s) who gave or received a thing of value, as well as dates and times of actions.
7. “means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion” allegedly used.
8. Individuals the government contends Raniere, Mack, and/or “others” aided or abetted.

RE: Racketeering Acts Eight and Nine (Forced Labor):
1. Each and every “labor and service” allegedly performed.
2. Jane Doe 6.
3. Each and every act that constitutes:
(a) force;
(b) physical restraint;
(c) threats of physical restraint;
(d) serious harm;
(e) threats of serious harm; an d
(f) schemes, plan, and patterns intended to cause Jane Doe 5 and Jane Doe 6 to believe that, if Jane Doe 5/6 did not perform such labor and services, Jane Doe 5/6 and one or more other persons would suffer serious harm.
RE: Racketeering Acts Eight and Nine (State Law Extortion):
1. Acts, including date, time and location, taken by Ms. Mack and Ms. Salzman that caused Jane Doe 5 and Jane Doe 6 to deliver property to Ms. Mack and Ms. Salzman and others.
2. Property delivered.
3. Actions taken by Mack and Salzman that instilled fear that she would “expose a secret and publicize an asserted fact…”,etc.
4. Individuals government contends Mack and Salzman and/or “others” aided or abetted

Racketeering Act Ten (Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft):
1. Jane Doe 7.
2. Conduct constituting the basis of any willful attempt to evade or defeat the assessment or payment of a tax.
3. Set forth the amount of any tax allegedly evaded.
4. Conduct constituting tax evasion.

RE: Count Four (Sex Trafficking Conspiracy):
1. Date, time and location of agreements.
2. Parties that created the alleged conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.
3. Date, time, location, and participants in each alleged “commercial sex acts”.
4. Conduct that constitutes a “commercial sex act”.
5. Individuals referred to as “others”.
6. The venture, including every member of that venture.
7. Each thing of value that was allegedly agreed to be given or received by any person.
8. The individual who agreed to give or receive.
9. Dates and times of such actions.
10. Specific date and time each thing of value allegedly was transacted and by whom.
11. Each and every “benefit,” including financial benefit(s) or thing(s) of value, allegedly agreed to be received by defendants Raniere, Mack, and “others,” from their alleged participation in the ventures.
12. Date, time, and location that such benefits were allegedly agreed to be conferred and by whom.
13. The “means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion” allegedly used.

RE: Count Six (Attempted Sex Trafficking – Jane Doe 8):
1. Date, time, location.
2. Participants in each alleged attempt to “cause such person to engage in one or more commercial sex acts”.
3. Conduct that constitutes a “commercial sex act” for each alleged attempt.
4. Individuals referred to as “others”.
5. The venture, including every member of that venture.
6. Jane Doe 8.
7. Each thing of value allegedly agreed to be given or received by any person.
8. Identities of the individual who agreed to give or receive.
9. Dates and times of such actions.
10. Specific date and time each thing of value allegedly was transacted and by whom.
11. Each and every “benefit,” received by defendants Raniere, Mack, and “others”.
12. “Means of force, threats of force, fraud and coercion” allegedly attempted to be used.
13. Each substantial step the government contends was taken by Raniere, Mack and “others” in furtherance of the alleged crime, including date and time of such alleged substantial step.

RE: Criminal Forfeiture:
1. Specify the property or assets subject to forfeiture.
2. The amount of money subject to forfeiture.
3. How the property or asset was used or intended to be used to commit the offense.
4. Itemization of the actual or contemplated loss or losses from each defendant’s alleged conduct.

***

As we see from the indictment, there are eight Jane Does and two John Does.

That makes 10 victims. There will also be witnesses and documents presented to the jury.

Of course, as I said before, there is an 800-pound gorilla looming – the superseding indictment – which may significantly alter the landscape of charges and the defense of those charges.

Based on the above list, a picture of what the trial will look like emerges.

There is evidently a lot to present and defend. And if half of it is provable, the defendants – each with their various charges – may find it hard to win an acquittal.

The information the defense seeks – and claims it has not received – is vital to conducting a proper defense. It will also help establish how strong the prosecution’s case is, which might prompt attempts at plea bargains.

I suspect, however, that the prosecution has such a strong case and witnesses – as well as a group of very believable victims – that the plea deals offered will not be very much less than the maximum sentences the parties face if they are convicted.

As for Raniere, I doubt he could get any plea deal with a sentence of fewer than 20 years. If he could even get one at all.

 


About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato

36 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • With 12 Terebytes of information and probably dozens of witnesse statements to analyze, the Feds have quite a task. Do they put in the effort to give Bronfman’s lawyer what they have now and update it later as they continue their analysis, or wait until the judge gets impatient and orders them to provide the information to allow the defense enough time before the currently scheduled March 2019 trial, so they don’t have as much updating to do later? And as Frank mentioned, superceding indictments could change the entire landscape and delay the start of the trial.


  • The defense is asking the government to specify or identify the following:

    RE: The Conspiracy Counts:
    1. Every individual the government contends are co-conspirators—including
    (a) unindicted co-conspirators
    (b) cooperating witnesses
    (c) confidential sources”

    Of course he defendants, if given the names of cooperating witnesses and confidential sources would never, never, never dream of
    pressuring those witnesses.
    Would they?
    And with a claimed 150 slaves plus numerous women approached for recruitment there are lots of potentil witnesses.
    ————————————————————–
    Conduct that constitutes a “commercial sex act”

    the term commercial sex act means “any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.”

    Here is an example:
    “Give me the sexual satisfaction I demand and I won’t release the ‘collateral’ I have on you.”

    THAT IS A COMMERCIAL SEX ACT!

  • The most chilling aspect of this is how they are trying to get names and identities of cooperating witnesses. In typical nxivm style, so they can be issued death threats we guess? How does nxivm pull back prime witnesses who start to cooperate with the gov. But then change their minds? With clare and her still un named handlers its always been about controlling everything and everyone through the use of force. She is a dangerous beast, it was a mistake to let her roam free at any price. Now they are seeking names and identities of witnesses, scary indeed.

    • 1. What the defense is asking for is normal and necessary for them to conduct a defense
      2. It is also entirely normal for any witness to be afraid however if the prosecution is doing their job properly, they can protect and calm their witnesses so they can testify without fear of reprisal.
      3. Clare Bronfman is rich but she is not all powerful or crazy enough to attempt a John Gotti style reprisal. There is too much attention on her to attempt to intimidate any witnesses. I’m sure her attorney’s have cautioned her about attempting this as it would make matters much worse for her.

      Clare appears to be ably represented by her attorneys. Requests and motions such as these set the stage for what information will be presented and what cannot be; what charges can be defended and what cannot be.

      Remember, being convicted of just one charge can be a devastating felony that impacts one’ s freedom, one entire life going forward and one’s reputation. Frank is right; Nexium is finished and Keith is finished as a John Galt style savior of humanity. What happens from here forward is really just about how much freedom the defendants will have in the future.

      • Good post, Double anon.
        I agree – I think its doubtful that Clare would try any witness intimidation tactics at this point. I also think the names of the witnesses would already be known to Clare and the others already, so there would not be much new information for them on that point.

        I agree that they are asking for the information in order to prepare their defence.

      • Where were Clare’s attorneys whom you’re sure “cautioned” her, on her last trip up to Clifton Park to shovel out her horseshit stalls, file unauthorized pleadings and have tea with “Jane”?

        • Lawyers are first officers of the court, and their highest responsibility is to the court, not their clients. If they misbehave in this manner, they can get into VERY big trouble, including fines, losing their law license, and/or imprisonment. I doubt these high-dollar lawyers are willing to take that risk.

    • Agree. Doubt Clare Bronfman will ever accept the slightest notion she’s bound by the same laws as any mere human — that she can’t buy arrests and indictments, have “connected” or “immune” PI firms if not the police conduct illegal surveillance, harass, cyberstalk, intimidate witnesses, perjur, steal from the dead, evade taxes, “manipulate human” little girls into sex, unpaid labor, crimes, self-mutilation and suicide through her alleged science foundation experiments, etc. — until Clare Bronfman is behind bars.

      May not happen in this case but if she buys her way out of jail time this round, it WILL happen because her sense of entitlement (and criminal mindedness) are such that she won’t stop until it does.

    • To: Names and identities of witnesses November 23, 2018 at 10:06 am You need to have a bit of humility and admit you were wrong. Starting ignorant threads on a website is not helpful in educating people about how things really work. Somebody could have read your comment and not come back to see that you were repeatedly corrected, and will continue to spread this false information in the future.

  • It’s not about agreeing. The prosecution is required to share their list of witnesses. And evidence. It’s called disclosure

      • The prosecution is also required to provide to the defense information they come across that would tend to make the defendant innocent. It’s call Brady disclosure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure Of course, there are ways around this, as the defense doesn’t know if Brady information is being withheld by a crooked prosecutor. The defense would have to suspect this is being done, such as the prosecution having a wire tap phone conversation that makes the defendant look guilty, and the defendant knows the prosecution should also have a phone conversation that would make them appear innocent.

    • The defense has the right to disclosure from the prosecution since everyone accused of crimes is entitled to defend themselves. Both sides need to know the full story. There is no such thing as a surprise witness in a real trial. The defense must be given ample time to prepare for each witness for the prosecution. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • Potential Witnesses also have rights to protection from the actions of a criminal enterprise known, in fact, DESIGNED to shield it’s criminal conduct and that of its leaders from the law by intimidating, punishing, silencing, discrediting, threatening and mentally and physically harming any perceived opponents.

        If the prosecution believes, as they have stated, there’s a potential for witness tampering, witnesses can request their identities be protected, of course!

        • I agree with the physical threat of harm of a specific witness, but I’m not as sure about the rest of them (intimidating, punishing, silencing, discrediting, threatening and mentally harming any perceived opponents). And protection is not automatic protection upon request to any perceived opponent, the threat must be significant.

  • I doubt anyone is going into witness protection. The testimony given by such a witness will probably be easy enough to connect to them. The testimony will either be common knowledge of the inner circle or secretive enough only known by a few. The latter will be a defendant, one that took a plea or someone that came forward

    • I agree. I don’t see any NXIVM person has having enough of a potential physical threat that would result in the expense of protection. A strong admonishment from the judge and their lawyers to not cause trouble will probably be as far as this goes, unless/until they start to misbehave, and hopefully are caught in the planning stages. At that point, all hell would break loose on them.

  • Nancy Salzman is highly likely to negotiate a plea deal.

    1. She is 64, has health problems and being in prison is not good for anyone, let alone a woman her age and having problems
    2. She is a mother and her daughter is significantly implicated. No one wants to see their children in prison and she’ll do whatever is possible to prevent this
    3. She has her issues with Keith. 3 years ago Rainiere took away her salary of around 200K per annum because he felt she needed to become more humble. She’ll never admit to this influencing her decision but wouldn’t you be somewhat less loyal if someone took away your income and made you ask to have every bill paid?
    4. Keith took stupid risks. How do you think Nancy really feels about all that? These risks have totally blown up her life and everything she’s achieved. How loyal would you be if someone did that to you? Things can never go back to the days of her reign of Queen but at least avoiding prison would allow her to restart her private practice and pull together a career and life.

    I have no idea what the prosecution has offered her but Nancy could be “an important get” because she knows where all the bodies are buried. The only issue for Nancy is if the prosecution doesn’t really need her to put on their case or if they’re not willing to extend immunity to her daughter, Lauren. What then?

    • I agree. Well written and thoughtful post. Rare nowadays I was just saying I doubt Nancy or any of the rest rise to the level of needing witness protection. Not in the form of new identities or relocation. Protection? Yes. They all would get some form of protection if they were threatened

    • I agree that Nancy being offered any kind of plea deal is contingent on what the prosecution can already prove. It would be wonderful is she does break the hold KAR has had on her and she starts singing. I believe it’s been mentioned here before that it’s likely no one person was privy to all that was going on within that pyramid except for KAR but Nancy would have a lot of pieces to that puzzle.

%d bloggers like this: