From the moment she was indicted, the worriment about Clare Webb Bronfman, 40, fleeing the US pre-trial was serious enough to set her bail at a staggering $100 million.
She was also subject to home arrest with an ankle monitor. Since late July 2018 – for almost a year and a half – she has been allowed outside her luxury Manhattan apartment on a schedule of two times a week for 90 minutes – and 120 minutes once per week.
In April 2018, she signed a plea deal. It suggested she would get a sentence in the range of 21-27 months for two felonies she pleaded guilty to committing plus a $6 million fine.
It is a great lesson on law and the federal system: Her plea deal is worthless.
Just like almost any plea deal in the federal system.
She thought she was getting a plea deal with a two year sentence [21-27 months] – and last month she found out that was out the window.
The judge said he is considering a higher sentence – not based on the two crimes she pleaded guilty to but based on her Pre-Sentencing Report which re-calculated her sentencing range using higher sentencing guidelines.
In part, that may have been because of the large number of alleged victims who came forward to complain about Bronfman brutality.
These alleged victims complained about alleged crimes that had nothing to do with the two felony crimes she pleaded guilty to.
In a sense, it is shocking. We all know Clare is a monster. An evil sadistic beast. But if people can come forward and level allegations at a defendant – – without any of it being tested in court – and this can effect her sentence – without a trial – where is due process?
What is the value of a plea bargain?
Clare made a pretty stupid plea deal.
As Joe O’Hara proved in his federal case in El Paso – unless the sentence is fixed in writing – it is not a contract, it is merely a suggestion. It has no force of law.
Clare Bronfman hired the most expensive lawyer in the US – celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos. He fashioned for her what everybody thought was a super sweetheart deal. Everybody thought it was going to be a two year sentence and a fine of $6 million.
Clare Bronfman leaves court with Mark Geragos about an hour after fainting in court
The only things that were fixed were her pleading guilty – and her having to pony up the $6 million.
The heiress did not buy down her sentence after all.
What she pleaded to is not what she will be sentenced for, it appears.
Yes, this is America and it only goes to show you that you cannot trust deals made with the feds that contain any expectations outside the four walls of the agreement.
Clare’s lawyer fumbled. He did not lock down the sentence. The language of the plea deal is that the sentence is only a suggestion based on estimates made by the prosecution – and clearly states the judge was not bound to following the suggestion at all.
In short, the plea deal said nothing. Not legally. Nothing at all.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis
In fairness to the good Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis – a hero to many of the readers of Frank Report – he fairly warned Clare at the time of her pleading guilty on Good Friday, April 19, 2019.
She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens for financial gain and fraudulent use of identification and he warned her that the 21-27 months suggested in the plea deal was not something he was bound to follow.
Let’s go back and recall a little of that hearing.
THE COURT: Have you discussed that charge with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I have.
***
THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Geragos, in your view, does your client understand these charges that have been brought against your client in the superseding information?
MR. GERAGOS: Yes, Your Honor, we discussed it. Outside counsel discussed it. Expert counsel discussed it. It’s been a very thorough — and we’ve discussed it with the government. It’s been a very thorough back and forth.
All these experts did was come up with a worthless plea deal. The sentence is expected to be a lot longer than what they thought she was going to get.
***
THE COURT: Miss Bronfman, are you satisfied with the assistance your attorneys have given you thus far in this matter?
THE DEFENDANT: I am, extremely.
She has always been a fool, putting her trust in morons and Vanguards and Prefects and faith that her money could buy outcomes.
***
The judge went over the charges with Clare. He asked the government to set forth the elements of each crime that the government would have to prove to a jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict her of both Counts if she decided to go to trial.
Moira Penza for the DOJ explained it at length. She explained how there was an agreement between Bronfman and others to conceal or harbor an illegal alien [Sylvie] for financial gain.
Sylvie was in the USA on a work visa that had been procured through false statements by Clare Bronfman. And Bronfman harbored Sylvie and obtained her labor and services without paying her.
***
THE COURT: Miss Bronfman, do you understand the elements of the crime that the government would have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and unanimously in order to convict you of the crime charged in Count One of the superseding information?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s move on to Count Two. Count Two alleges fraudulent use of identification…
The judge explained that Bronfman with others used the identification of Jane Doe 7 [Pamela Cafritz] in violation of federal law.
THE COURT: So do you understand the charge that has been brought against you in Count Two?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
***
The judge asked the government to explain the elements of the crime that would be required to be proven in order to convict her.
Moira Penza again did the honors, explaining that Bronfman caused the use of the name and [American Express] credit card number belonging to Cafritz by facilitating Keith Raniere’s use of the credit card after Cafritz died.
It is all so foolish.
Bronfman is a woman worth $200 million plus. She cheated Sylvie out of $100,000 worth of salary. And she aided or abetted Raniere in tax evasion for what at most was $100,000 in evaded taxes.
She squandered more than $100 million on Raniere’s caprices and vendettas. And she had to cheat people and the IRS for $200,000 – one tenth of one percent of her net worth?
Penza said her motive was “part of a scheme to allow [Raniere] to falsely portray himself as a renunciate and to not pay taxes on his income and assets.”
It shows how stupid she is – much like many of the followers of Keith Alan Raniere.
THE COURT: So, Miss Bronfman, do you understand the elements of the crime….?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
***
THE COURT: I have in front of me a plea agreement in United States of America against Clare Bronfman, 18-CR-204-S3. It’s marked as Court’s Exhibit Number 1. It’s dated today, April 19th, 2019, and it consists of 11 pages… [it could have been 11 sheets of toilet paper for all the value it had].
THE COURT: Miss Bronfman, have you read this document?
THE DEFENDANT: I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And have you discussed it with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: I have, Your Honor.
***
THE COURT: Now, I’m going to go over the statutory penalties associated with pleading guilty to these crimes. The statutory penalties are set forth in paragraph 1 of the plea agreement.
As to Count One, conspiracy to conceal and harbor aliens for financial gain, the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years…. there is no minimum term of imprisonment. The maximum supervised release term is three years, which would follow any term of imprisonment…. There’s a maximum fine of $250,000.
Restitution. With regard to restitution, the parties agree that restitution in the amount of $96,605.25 payable to … Jane Doe 12… should be ordered by the Court…
Do you understand the statutory penalties associated with pleading guilty to Count One?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With regard to Count Two, fraudulent use of identification, the maximum term of imprisonment is 15 years. There’s no minimum term of imprisonment. The maximum supervised release term is three years, which would follow any term of imprisonment…. The maximum fine is the greater of $250,000, or twice the gross gain, or twice the gross loss. Restitution is mandatory in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the Court….
Sentence is imposed … on the two counts can run consecutively or concurrently. You understand the statutory penalties associated with pleading guilty to Count Two of the superseding information?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
Right here the honorable judge is telling her that he can sentence her to the max on both counts and the sentences on each can run consecutively – meaning she can get as much as 25 years.
She said she understood that. But her attorneys, her experts, were telling her not to worry. Nothing like that was going to happen.
THE COURT: At this point, I’m going to discuss the sentencing process with you, Miss Bronfman. Mr. Geragos, have you discussed sentencing with your client?
MR. GERAGOS: I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And in your view, does Miss Bronfman have a basic understanding about how sentencing would work in her case?
MR. GERAGOS: More than basic.
Again this understanding was worthless.
THE COURT: Okay. Miss Bronfman, have your attorneys answered all your questions about the sentencing process?
MR. GERAGOS: They have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And do you believe you have a basic understanding, at least a basic understanding, about how sentencing would work in your case?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I’m going to discuss it with you as well.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
THE COURT: And if at any point you wish to consult with your attorneys, just let me know, we’ll stop, and you can have a conversation with your attorneys. We’re in no hurry.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you. I appreciate it.
***
THE COURT: Now, the government has made a prediction as to the calculation of your guideline. Let me understand this, Ms. Penza. Assuming the defendant pleads guilty today and accepts responsibility, the government is predicting that the defendant will have an adjusted offense level of 16, and assuming she is in Criminal History Category I, that her guideline would be 21 to 27 months in the custody of the Attorney General. Is that your current prediction?
MR. PENZA: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You understand the government’s current prediction?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
The use of the word “current” should have been a red flag. Current? That means it could change in the future. And it did.
The “current” prediction changed to the present. The Pre-Sentencing Report came up with a new, higher calculation.
THE COURT: Now, in this plea agreement letter that’s dated today, April 19th, 2019 … there is an agreement regarding your right to appeal your sentence.
The agreement letter says, and I want to make sure you understand this, that by signing this agreement, you agree not to appeal, or in any other way challenge the sentence I impose upon you if it is 27 months or less. If I were to sentence to you more than 27 months in jail, and you believe there was a legal or other error in my doing that, you would then have the right to appeal your sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
These appeals have a snowball’s chance in hell. The judge – in sentencing her – will make sure he has solid reasons for her longer sentence. He will explain in open court and on the record. He will do so with an eye towards withstanding an appeal.
The fact that Clare can appeal a sentence longer than 27 months is as meaningless as the estimated sentencing guidelines.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to appeal only if I sentence you to more than 27 months?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that even if the sentence I give is you more severe than what you may be thinking or hoping you will receive, you are still going to be bound by your guilty pleas and not permitted to withdraw them, and you will not be able to challenge or appeal that sentence as long as it is 27 months or less, as we have discussed?
THE DEFENDANT: I do, Your Honor.
Yes, the judge gave her fair warning but undoubtedly her attorneys and the experts told her not to worry.
The judge told her she could get 25 years and the only thing she could do was appeal the length of the sentence.
There was never a guarantee she would get 27 months. Clare was trusting things that were not in writing.
Of course, this is poetic irony. Clare used to sucker people into deals without signing them and then sue the bejesus out of them – like she did with me. By not signing her agreements, she could pick and choose whether to hold someone to the deal or act as if there was no deal.
Now she signed the most important contract of her life – only to find out later that she had been suckered.
All the words about 21-27 months mean nothing. The only real thing is she can’t be sentenced to more than 25 years.
That’s what she signed. Period.
***
THE COURT: …. Are you ready to plead at this time?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. How do you plead to the charge contained in Count One of the superseding information charging you with conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens for financial gain?
THE DEFENDANT: I plead guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How do you plead to the charge contained as Count Two of the superseding information charging you with fraudulent use of identification, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.
***
The sentencing date is tentatively scheduled for Valentine’s Day 2020. A delay was caused because her Pre-Sentencing Report was not completed, largely because of so many alleged victims of other alleged crimes coming forward to be heard and considered as part of her sentencing.
The judge said he is considering sentencing her to more than 27 months, in part because of the Pre-Sentencing Report and the other victims.
I don’t think Moira Penza for the prosecution deliberately miscalculated sentencing guidelines.
What Clare’s attorneys failed to tell her is that her plea deal was nothing more than a suggestion based on an estimate.
They probably failed to tell her that the Pre-Sentencing Report, written by the probation department, might come up with something altogether different than the prosecution’s estimates.
They failed to impress on Clare that the judge might sentence her to a far longer sentence than 27 months – and there was nothing she could do about it other than appeal and if they were honest with her they should have told her that she likely had almost zero chance of winning that appeal.
If they had negotiated a more structured plea deal – one that read that the judge either agrees to 27 months maximum or rejects the plea deal – Clare would know where she stands.
With a plea deal like that, the judge would have either agreed to 27 months or had the option of rejecting it and Clare would have had to go to trial.
This is what Joe O’Hara did with his plea deal. And he didn’t have a cadre of high-priced attorneys to represent him. In fact, he had a Public Defender who – not that long before he was assigned to Joe’s case – was selling used cars.
He did not leave it up to the judge to decide his sentence based on current and changeable estimates. He rejected his attorney’s advice – and wrote his own deal. It said that his maximum sentence was 3 years. Take it or leave it.
The judge had the choice to accept or reject it. If he rejected it, Joe would have to stand trial. The judge accepted it.
Regardless of what was in Joe’s Pre-Sentencing Report – or what his alleged victim had to say – Joe knew that the judge could not sentence him to more than 3 years. And that’s exactly what he did.
The irony is not lost on me that it was Clare’s perjury and vengeance that bankrupted Joe and made him vulnerable to false federal charges against him, leaving him without funds to get proper legal representation.
Clare unjustly brought Joe to where he wound up.
And now Clare is justly headed there herself – and ironically likely to do more time than Joe.
Such is karma.
But Clare is likely going to be sentenced not only for crimes she pleaded guilty to but quite likely on what is in her presentencing report which seems to allege crimes she did not plead guilty to.
I’m not saying Clare does not deserve the harsher penalty – but I will defend her right to due process.
I think that for all crimes she did not plead guilty to, she should be tried in court – with evidence and the right to cross examine accusers.
It is outrageous that she should be sentenced to a lengthier term based on what alleged victims claim – without having those claims tested by trial.
Of course, I think Clare should be imprisoned for more than 27 months. This woman tried to destroy my life by filing a false criminal complaint against me – and then perjuring herself before the grand jury. But she was not charged for that.
It should not impact her sentence.
I think the historic, common law principles of due process supersede one individual, Clare Webb Bronfman, monstrous though she may be. Abandoning due process is more monstrous.
Even though I sympathize with the victims of Clare Bronfman – and I am one of them – the only two victims she has pleaded guilty to victimizing are Sylvie and the estate of Pam Cafritz.
Allowing other alleged victims [and that includes me] of other crimes she was not convicted of to impact her sentencing is not due process.
This spits in the eye of due process!
Which brings me to my final point:
Clare will not likely walk out of court after she is sentenced. She will walk in freely and leave the court in handcuffs.
I believe the judge will order Clare remanded to custody at the time she is sentenced. That means they will handcuff her on the spot and lead her from court to prison.
Sometimes, judges allow a defendant a month or two to organize their affairs and report to the prison on a certain date.
I do not think the judge can take that risk with Clare Bronfman. Not even with a $100 million bail – which shows what a flight risk she was before she was convicted.
Even if she forfeits bail, she still has another $100 million plus her island in Fiji and her Los Angeles real estate which I recovered for her – worth $26 million or more – the latter two assets she neglected to put on her net worth statement for the court.
I think Clare would not flee if the sentence was 27 months – or even three or 4 years.
But at some length of sentence, I think she will consider fleeing.
What is that length?
If her sentence is 7 or 10 years, will she flee?
What if the judge decides to give her 10 years? Then she goes to a maximum security prison. If she knew that was her fate for the next decade, would she run?
2-3 years and she gets a federal camp. No bars. No hard living. But if it is 10 years, she will live a life of brutality and is not likely to be able to stand it.
So what can happen? If she is sentenced to a long sentence, I think the judge will order her remanded immediately.
Otherwise, she could leave court and head on a private plane to her island in Fiji where – with her money – she will not be extradited. There are other countries she can go to also. She has the money to buy refugees status.
But here is the tricky part.
Clare does not know what the judge is going to do.
It seems she will be sentenced to more than 27 months. He already signaled that. And by his signalling that, it means it is likely to be substantially more than 27 months.
In other words, he has already decided to sentence her to something which she can try to appeal. Why would he do that unless it was substantially more than 27 months?
The sentence he has in mind has to be at least four 4 years and could be a lot more, I suspect.
Clare has to guess. And if she wakes up and realizes she is going to prison for years – and not a women’s camp – but a stone-cold prison – she might decide to flee before sentencing, which may be her only chance to flee.
I would keep an eagle eye on her between now and her sentencing date.
She has the ability to escape. She could disable her ankle monitor. She has money to hire someone to do it. Harvey Weinstein disabled his repeatedly. Then she could slip off to a private plane and away we go.
She will be on the beach on her private island in Fiji in a matter of hours.
And guess what the rules are there?
Clare Bronfman purchased 80 percent of Wakaya Island in Fiji.
If a Fiji judge – usually a native making about $3,000 per year US – decides Clare was unfairly convicted or for any other reason, he can refuse extradition. He can also avoid making a decision about extradition by unilaterally ordering that she serve her sentence in Fiji – right on her island.
He can suspend sentence and there is nothing the US can do. All she has to do is get there and per$uade a judge.
The terms of the US extradition treaty with Fiji requires the US to accept the decision of the judges there .
So, when Clare’s sentence is completed in Fiji, she can legally return to the US and there is nothing the US can do to further punish her – unless, of course, they charge her with other crimes.
She will have served her sentence legally, even if the Fiji judge sentence$ her to only one day in prison.
Once any judge in Fiji decides she may $tay in Fiji, she is not a fugitive anymore.
She cannot be extradited. She is legally $erving her $entence in Fiji.
That’s how it works.
As everyone who has studied it knows, the judiciary in Fiji is for sale. It is consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt in the world.
I think this is why Keith Raniere chose Fiji for Clare.
Clare has more than enough money to buy a judge to declare she can serve her sentence in Fiji.
All she has to do is get there.
When her sentence was only going to be two years in a women’s camp – it was easier to do the time and be free again in the USA.
But now the equation has changed.
It has changed enough that were she my responsibility, I would keep an eye on her now.
Wakaya Island
Soaring cliffs overlook the ocean
Typical prison cell in federal prison
