By A Reader
Clare’s attorney’s arguments are really just common sense stuff that any attorney would argue.
I can definitely see the judge letting her off home confinement if all of her pledged assets have the proper liens on them by August 21. It’s certainly very possible, especially seeing how leniently he treated Lauren.
But I don’t think he’ll let her remove the ankle bracelet, since her lawyer’s argument for that request is basically that Clare has no motivation to flee any longer because her family would be left “destitute” —- and since she already turned herself in, this fact supposedly proves she’d never flee (which is not a well-reasoned argument).
1) Clare’s mother and brother in law would not be left “destitute” if she fled, since Clare’s sister Sara probably has a net worth around $300-$400 million dollars at least, and if her mom or husband had to forfeit a few small assets (to the court) then Sara could easily replace those assets by snapping her fingers while eating a bowl of Cocoa Puffs. So I don’t think that argument is a logical one that the judge will accept. In fact, it’s probably why Sara herself didn’t want to personally guarantee the bond with her own assets.
2) While the fact that Clare turned herself in weighs slightly in the direction of her not fleeing, the truth is that Clare has no reason to flee *right now* since the trial isn’t happening until 2019. Once the trial begins and Clare can judge how the jury is reacting to the government’s evidence (once she can judge whether she’s likely to be convicted or not), her reasons to flee could become much more immediate, especially if her case isn’t going well and she senses that she’ll soon be taken to federal prison for up to 5 years. While I agree that 5 years isn’t nearly as frightening as 15 years, being locked in a cage with lots of smelly women and eating baloney sandwiches for 5 years might not seem palatable to a woman who’s been pampered 24/7 since birth. Only then would the judge be thankful that he didn’t remove her ankle bracelet.
3) While her lawyer argues that the Bail Reform Act wasn’t intended to cover the type of abusive litigation that Clare has engaged in, I think that the government will argue that *any* action taken with the *specific intent* to silence potential witnesses against her will be appropriate for the judge to consider. The fact that she sent email spreadsheets to Keith with lists containing the personal information of people that have wronged them (which included a Jane Doe witness) is also proof of her neverending attempt to silence, harass or intimidate people that the court should consider, since it goes to her personality of neverending harassment of perceived enemies.
4) I hope the judge orders that her sister Sara can’t fund anybody else on Clare’s behalf during her bail period, since otherwise the restrictions on her finances are meaningless. If Clare wants to fund somebody or something that the judge has forbidden the trust from paying for, then Sara could just fund those things herself (with a gift or loan to 3rd parties at Clare’s request) and the judge’s bail rules would be mocked. I hope the judge tells Clare that he’ll revoke her bail if he sees any evidence of Sara doing anything like that on her behalf.
Clare Bronfman – she followed a man named Vanguard – and that led to her downfall.
