Earlier today we reported on a request by Clare Bronfman’s attorney to have a Fatico hearing. The article was entitled Bronfman Seeks Hearing to Prevent Being Sentenced for Crimes ‘for Which She Was Not Charged and for Which She Did Not Enter a Plea’
The prosecution has responded to this request in a letter to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Court.
Dear Judge Garaufis:
The government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defendant Clare Bronfman’s letter filed earlier this morning. The letter filed by Bronfman’s counsel appears to misapprehend the purpose of a Fatico hearing, which is to resolve specific disputed statements of fact in the Presentence Investigation Report {PSR] prepared on December
13, 2019 (“PSR”).
The bulleted statements set forth in counsel’s letter are arguments that they may attempt to make on behalf of their client at sentencing (e.g., “Clare Bronfman did not provide any financial support or facilitate sex trafficking whatsoever”) but are not factual disputes requiring resolution by a Fatico hearing.
Tellingly, Bronfman does not appear to dispute any of the specific conduct attributed to her in relation to DOS (see, e.g., PSR ¶¶ 97- 100 (detailing, among other things, Bronfman’s public statements in connection with DOS and her efforts to hire a public relations firm to “rebrand” DOS)).
The Court has extensive knowledge of the facts in this case, having presided over the trial of Bronfman’s co-defendant Keith Raniere. Even if Bronfman were to specifically identify factual disputes with the PSR relating to DOS or her financial support of Raniere, which she has not done, the government respectfully submits that the Court has
already afforded Bronfman an opportunity to be heard through “affidavits, letters or other writings, argument and comment” and need not hold a “full blown evidentiary hearing.”
Respectfully submitted,
SETH D. DUCHARME
Acting United States Attorney
By: /s/ Tanya Hajjar
***
Perhaps the most interesting thing in this letter is the reference to Bronfman in the PSR “detailing, among other things, Bronfman’s public statements in connection with DOS and her efforts to hire a public relations firm to ‘rebrand’ DOS.”
It is a very ironic use of the word “rebrand” in reference to a sex cult that branded women on their pubic region.
During the period when I was the only media outlet reporting on DOS, Bronfman made a statement on her website defending DOS. And I did break the story that she was looking for a public relations firm to spin a better story for DOS than that it was a secret master-slave sex cult with Keith Raniere at the head – a group that branded women and took blackmail-worthy material which they called collateral to ensure obedience and silence.
Clearly, Bronfman knew about the secret aspects of DOS and worked to help save Raniere before the first NY Times story came out.
Whether she gets a Fatico hearing or not, one lawyer, who has been watching the case from the onset, said, “Nothing that happens in this Fatico hearing is going to change her sentence.”
That may be true.
Still, this is a complicated matter and smacks of injustice. I am inclined to side with Bronfman on this one. She should not be sentenced for crimes alleged by a series of victims whose evidence is not being held to a higher standard of proof than mere allegations.
Clare undoubtedly committed many crimes for which she was not charged, but she should only be sentenced for those crimes to which she pled guilty: identity theft and harboring an illegal alien for financial gain. Those two felonies are the only charges she should be punished for and not other crimes she neither pled guilty to nor was convicted of at trial.
The prosecution is seeking a longer sentence than the original estimate of sentencing guidelines of 21-27 months, most likely because of the many alleged victims who signed victim impact statements.
As her attorney Ronald Sullivan argues, Bronfman never got a chance to dispute these claims and should not be sentenced for crimes that never went to trial.
Bronfman may be a living devil, but she should still be treated fairly by the law.
This reminds me of Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” where Sir Thomas More is asked to arrest a man because he is evil but who has not broken a specific law.
ALICE MORE: Arrest him!
SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?
ALICE: He’s dangerous!
WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he’s a spy!
MARGARET MORE: Father, that man’s bad.
MORE: There is no law against that.
ROPER: There is! God’s law!
MORE: Then God can arrest him.
ALICE: While you talk, he’s gone!
MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER: So! Now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
***
I’d give the devils, Raniere and Bronfman, the benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
Bronfman deserves due process. I believe a Fatico hearing should be held, as requested by her attorney.
