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.
