Neil Glazer

Nxivm Victims’ Attorney Neil Glazer Speaks Out on Defamatory Commenters

[Editor’s Note: Neil Glazer is an attorney who represents many ex-Nxivm and ex-DOS members in a soon-to-be-filed civil lawsuit against Nxivm and its principal leaders. He also represents several women who appeared as witnesses in the criminal trial of Keith Raniere, such as Daniela, Jaye, and Nicole].

***

By Neil L. Glazer

Now that the trial of Keith Raniere is over, I would like to make a statement about some of the comments and guest posts that appear of this blog.

As Frank, Joe, KR Claviger and one or two other of his guest contributors know, although we are extremely protective of our clients, we don’t take issue with accurate statements on this blog even if at times we don’t love what’s being written.

Frank and those particular guest writers have been quite good at identifying when they are making statements of opinion or conjecture rather than fact –  and they have generally been good at checking their facts or at least trying to rely on credible sources even if they do not always adhere to the gold standard of double- or triple-sourcing facts.

Frank is to be lauded for shedding light on some dark events, and he has demonstrated time and again his willingness to protect real victims when there is a genuine need to do so.  We may not agree with all of his methods, and he knows very well we don’t like everything posted here, but he deserves credit for his contribution to the real justice that is finally being done.

Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for the comments section or certain guest posters.

Up until now, however, there was little we could do to protect our clients from what we believe are instances of defamation, false light defamation, and invasion of privacy. That’s because there was a criminal trial going on – and we were uncertain as to which of our clients might be called as witnesses.

But as we move forward now to seek further justice for our clients via civil litigation, we will be much more aggressive in reviewing – and responding to – comments and guest posts that concern our clients.  That’s because we cannot allow such public statements to be used to attack our clients and put their legitimate claims at risk. There is still a lot more justice to be done – and we intend to see that happen.

Only cowards disparage people, disclose confidential information or invade people’s privacy while hiding behind pseudonyms.

We have never asked Frank to reveal a source or the identity of any commenter or guest poster, and we will not do so in the future.  We have no interest in disrupting the lively conversation here, some of which in the comments section is just nonsense and noise.  But there are lines that cannot be crossed, and from this point forward, we will be paying closer attention to those who cross them.

Complete anonymity is almost impossible to achieve on the Internet.

It’s unfortunate that some people derive pleasure at the expense of others.  It’s even more unfortunate that some people feel free to compound the suffering of people who have experienced unspeakably traumatic events.

We support and encourage Frank’s legitimate investigative journalism, and he knows there are people who read this blog regularly because of his ability to dig up and report important facts.

But this blog is a public outlet and every statement made on it, whether in posts or comments, is a public statement.  The First Amendment has its boundaries, and we intend to enforce them if we feel such actions are necessary to protect our clients.

Opinions must be stated as opinions, and not disguised as facts, because false statements of fact can be actionable. And if someone reveals information that has been gleaned from purloined documents – they may also be engaging in tortious acts.

My email address is nglazer@kohnswift.com and if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a note.  Please do not ask me to screen anything you are contemplating writing here, because you are all big boys and girls and you can figure out what’s appropriate on your own.

About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Report’s founder and lead writer Frank Parlato is one of the internet’s most decorated investigative journalists. His writing and investigations have helped expose major criminal organizations and scandals.

Frank’s work has been cited in major publications all over the world, including The New York Times, New York Post, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CNN, Rolling Stone, and more.

He is also the publisher and editor-in-chief of Artvoice, The Niagara Falls Reporter, Front Page and the South Buffalo News.

106 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Since most people on this website are anti-NXIVM being abrasive does not do Councilor Glazer any good.

    The First Amendment gave both Sarah Edmondson and Catherine Oxenberg the power to publicly expose the crimes of NXIVM and give his clients relief from the torment that this criminal gang has inflicted for twenty years.

    For the likes of Clare Bronfman, Free Speech is like garlic to a Vampire.

  • Fluffy really didn’t do himself any favours by crashing in here with an arrogant and bullying, attitude. With a more civil approach, he would have better served himself.

    But hey, Fluffy is a lawyer, not a diplomat

  • People don’t like being threatened for having an opinion and having their free speech violated.

    Neil Glazer, your momma is so fat, her belly button gets home 60 seconds before she does.

    • “People don’t like being threatened for having an opinion and having their free speech violated.”
      Except that many Don’t voice their opinions…they state it as a fact!
      This is defamation, like it or not.

      You can have an opinion, everybody is entitled to it and Mr Glazer stated (quoted from the text you obviously didn’t read):

      “Opinions must be stated as opinions, and not disguised as facts, because false statements of fact can be actionable.”

      You’re telling people that it’s right to present as fact their lies? it’s not an opinion anymore, it’s defamation.

      BTW , if you consider the article that actually PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH , why do you dare using that same Freedom of speech to defend your position?

  • Will Mr. Glazer Esquire be having Shadowstate1958 and Scott Johnson served subpoenas for a deposition in a civil suit?
    Will Scott and Shadowstate answer their front doors when the doorbells ring this week?
    Were Scott and Shadowstate able to sleep last night?

    • I slept quite well last night.
      Show me where I have defamed Daniela, Jaye or Nicole.
      Hint: the answer is nowhere.
      The testimony of Jaye and Nicole bolster my long time argument that Allison Mack is a pimp and sex trafficker.

  • When speaking of this attorney, please remember to use his full name: Neil L. Glazer. This way, when future “clients” google his name when researching before hiring him, this site and all these comments will appear.
    Fact.

  • I warned you Frank. You’re the one who publishes these after removing the ones you weed out so you’re the culpable one.

  • Who is this moron lawyer?

    And which ex Nxivm morons is he speaking of?

    Mark Vicente, the sanctimonious little bitch?

    Sarah Edmondson, the bullshitter playing the victim card?

    Kristin Kreuk, the bony assed, flat chested, liar, virtue signaller?

    Mark Hildreth, the cuck?

    Allison Mack, the bitch with ankles thicker than Mike Tyson’s neck?

    Fuck off. Free speech you little bitch. These people are not victims.

    Fuck everyone in NXIVM.

    • I think it Toni Natalie Foley, the one who was with Keith Raniere for three of his illegal enterprises.
      CBI,
      National Health Network (which he hid in Toni’s name because he had been banned by the state of NY from running and illegal pyramid.
      Executive Success Programs/NXIVM (which he hid in Nancy Salzman name for the same reason).

  • Mr. Glazer,

    On this board, I will say whatever the F*ck I like about whomsoever I like. The subject is nxivm.

    I will do that free of any risk of theatre-goers burning to death.

    IMO, you are patronizing a class full of big girls and boys, who find you dim-witted and unable to earn the kind of respect that allows you to lecture on the first amendment with any real credibility. IMO, you are a faint legal version of that boring grammarian dedicated to eliminating the incorrect use of the colon. On the internet, for f*ck’s sake.

  • “Know Your Rights’ by The Clash.

    This is a public service announcement
    With guitar
    Know your rights all three of them

    Number 1
    You have the right not to be killed
    Murder is a CRIME!
    Unless it was done by a
    Policeman or aristocrat
    Know your rights

    And Number 2
    You have the right to food money
    Providing, of course, you
    Don’t mind a little
    Investigation, humiliation
    And if you cross your fingers
    Rehabilitation

    Know your rights
    These are your rights
    Wang

    Know these rights

    Number 3
    You have the right to free
    Speech as long as you’re not
    Dumb enough to actually try it.

    Know your rights
    These are your rights
    All three of ’em
    It has been suggested
    In some quarters that this is not enough!
    Well…………………………

    Get off the streets
    Get off the streets
    Run
    You don’t have a home to go to
    Smush

    Finally, then I will read you your rights

    You have the right to remain silent
    You are warned that anything you say
    Can and will be taken down
    And used as evidence against you

    Listen to this
    Run

  • Hear that Mr. Shadows and friend:
    “The First Amendment has its boundaries, and we intend to enforce them if we feel such actions are necessary to protect our clients.”

    Something you forget a lot lately…stick to the facts!

    Frank: If you consider this PSA as a genuine claim, maybe you should stop publishing Shadow’s lies…and Don’t pretend he doesn’t lie…

    He states as fact much FALSE INFORMATION and HEARSAY while ignoring the fact from court documentation.
    You just published another of his lies (the title is an absurd proved lie)

    So, maybe consider that DEFAMATION PER SE IS A REALITY and make sure that they can’t be published…

    • I never attacked Glazer’s clients.
      At trial they gave CLEAR AND CONVINCING testimonies of the crimes of Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman.
      Glazer’s clients are victims of Allison Mack’s and Lauren Salzman’s sex trafficking.

      Glazer is going after Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman, Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere.

      • And where did i say that it was against Mr Glazer’s client? Genius….

        Defamation is defamation, the target aimed is irrelevant! You have here a lawyer that say that defamation will be handled for his client, he as the courtesy to tell to people to stop defaming before…
        Some might not have the envy to be courteous and might just send the proof of your defamation on Allison.

        You are accusing perpetually Allison with exclusively false accusation. It’s defamation. Worst, after the trial and despite many things proved untrue, you use them as “proof” against her.
        So you can’t even ignore that you are lying and defaming!

        I already told you , i protect my back to make sure that you Don’t try to ask Parlato to delete your false accusation but i have quite a file…
        You didn’t defame just once, you have defamed Allison (and Defamation per se is WAY more seriously treated than simple defamation).
        Continue with your behavior, just continue… But don’t be surprised when you’ll get a notice from the court.

  • Rhetorical question…

    Why would any attorney, worth hiring, post on this blog or even care what this/a “blog” says?

    And hypothetically, assuming they are worth hiring…..The only reason I can think of is they are desperate to keep unfavorable info, from being reported or divulged on the blog they are trying to intimidate.

    But that’s me.

      • “Glazer might be aiming to get more women from NXIVM DOS to be his clients in lawsuits against Allison, Lauren, and Clare.”

        No, his actions are aimed toward people who are practicing your favorite sport…defaming!

        It has nothing to do with lawsuits against Allison, Lauren or Clare.
        If you think it’s for the money, restitution is part of the sentencing, Nothing more will be done for this part…
        Especially not against Allison since she isn’t anything but a simple coach in Nxivm like many people who would try to fill a complaint…
        ONLY EXECUTIVE CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

  • Question
    Who is going to fact check Toni Natalie’s book? How can her publisher do it?

    The publisher knows nothing about Toni Natalie’s life other than what she’s told her publisher.

    Neil Glazer knows nothing about Toni Natalie’s life, other than what she’s told him.

    Her co-author – conflict of interest, just saying.

  • Dear Neil L. Glazer,

    The below is all my opinion and should only be taken as that.

    You sound like the big bad wolf, huffing and puffing to attempt to blow this blog down from speaking out about certain things you and your client do not want pubic.

    Maybe it’s about your behavior while you were in NYC during the final days of the trial?

    Maybe it’s about protecting certain “assets” that you will get a percentage of in your case that is now showing up maybe not so reliable if certain information comes to light about their behavior?

    Defamation is not a crime, but it is a “tort” (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong).
    A person who has been defamed can sue the person who they believe defamed them for damages.

    Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others’ lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake.

    The bottom line here is TELLING LIES ABOUT THEM. It’s not about telling the truth about them.

    The problem is, the person you are defending has told some whoppers themselves.

    If you were to bring about a lawsuit to silence posters, a countersuit would surely happen.

    Be careful about what you and your client are asking for Mr. Glazer.

    Your client didn’t seem to mind when the shoe was on the other foot, and their enemies were attacked on the blog.

    Your client also didn’t mind inciting those attacking posts to happen.

    • Puff
      You’re right- defamation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, which Mr. Glazer obviously knows. It sounds as though Glazer is representing a number of clients (exNXIVM) who have had their names mentioned here in negative terms, and who hope this warning will prevent further negative comments about them.

      I’m sure it would be impossible for certain people, (such as Raniere, Mack, or Bronfman) to sue any of the people commenting here.

      As far as I know, those criminals just mentioned have not even tried to sue Frank yet for defamation, and Keith surely has grounds for such a case, considering Frank’s posts regarding Keith’s rodent feet.

      Can Frank actually PROVE that Keith’s feet are tiny, square, and resemble those of a rat? Probably not. 🤔

      However, Glazer’s clients who have not been charged with any crimes, may have grounds to sue those who keep writing posts in which they claim to know these exNXIVM members did commit crimes.

      Those types of claims are not opinion, so certain people, (for example Kruek) might have grounds to sue for defamation of character.

  • Hypothetically Possibly Important information for Attorney Glazer’s clients:

    Attorney Glazer do you bill your clients your hourly rate when paralegals or your assistants assist you?

    Do you disclose when your paralegals help you in your billing?

    Do your clients get a breakdown of your billing?

    How much do you charge for a single 5min telephone call?

    How much do you charge for opening the mail?

    How much do you charge for writing a one page letter?

    Are you billing by a flat fee or hourly? Do you bill in 3 minute clips?

    I am just curious. I think you are peachy

    • Niceguy:

      If this is a Civil RICO action under Federal law the losing defendants pay the attorney’s fees of the winning plaintiffs.

      So if Nicole and Jaye sue Allison and Lauren under the Civil RICO statute and win, then Allison and Lauren must pay attorneys fees for Nicole and Jaye.
      Allison and Lauren also have to pay their own attorneys’ fees.

      Welcome to hell Allison and Lauren.

      ——————————————————————-
      https://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/9961/original/Civil%20RICO%202014.pdf

      § 71 Attorney’s Fees
      Section 1964(c) expressly allows a party that has been injured by a RICO violation to
      recover reasonable attorney’s fees in a civil RICO case.
      7
      To recover attorney’s fees, a party must
      “prevail”; there is no statutory right to receive attorney’s fees in a case resulting in settlement.

      Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has held that § 1964(c) permits only prevailing plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees,

      In awarding attorney’s fees under RICO, courts must first decide an appropriate
      “lodestar” fee amount and then determine whether a fee multiplier should be applied to the
      lodestar. While noting that a fee multiplier is permissible under RICO

      Fromm the law firm of Jenner and Block. Pages 138 and 139.

      A Guide to Civil RICO Litigation in Federal Courts

      JENNER & BLOCK LLP

      OFFICES
      353 North Clark Street
      Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456
      Firm: 312 222-9350
      Fax: 312 527-0484
      919 Third Avenue
      New York, New York 10022-3908
      Firm: 212 891-1600
      Fax: 212 891-1699
      633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, California 90071
      Firm: 213 239-5100
      Fax: 213 239-5199
      1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
      Washington, DC 20001-900
      Firm: 202 639-6000
      Fax: 202 639-6066

      Back in the day Albert Jenner of JENNER AND BLOCK was a powerful Chicago lawyer who represented the Republican party during the Watergate impeachment hearings.

      • Shadowstate,

        Besides the lawsuits, attorney Glazer may be doing other work such as book deals and other various contract-type law. Some of Attorney Glazer’s work may be for billable hours not associated with torts (lawsuits).

        I do not know all of the ways in which Attorney Glazer and his law firm are representing their clients.

        Do you?
        *****

        I do appreciate your insight.

        • Any settlement with Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman will be sealed but will probably require Mack and Salzman to turn over royalties from books, movies and TV deals to Glazer’s clients.
          And Glazer will probably want his clients to have veto power over what Mack and Salzman write and say.

          Glazer is the worst nightmare for Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman and Clare Bronfman.
          Any money not taken by the government in the criminal RICO case will be taken in the civil RICO case.

      • shadow : Hmmm no…they both pleaded guilty so the court fee would go to Raniere as he wanted to go to trial…
        BTW, the potential compensation is part of the retribution that the judge will have to determine.

        Would be nice if instead of wearing you blindfold , you ‘d make a real research (not Wiki search)

        BTW , i hope you retain the main info here: The First Amendment has its boundaries
        You can hide behind it but when you defame people expect the punishment …
        Defamation is your specialty (like when you pretend someone committed a serious crime that never existed and was not related to her)

        I’m not gonna ask for Mr Glazer to confirm about the Defamation per se (as he has more important things to do) but it’s even more serious than “classic” defamation.
        With potential prison time.

        Stick to the fact, old man, stick to the fact.

        • The fact is that I never defamed Glazer’s clients.
          You NXIVM trolls and Allison Mack fans defamed Jaye and Nicole.

          Jaye and Nicole clearly and convincingly testified that ALLISON MACK IS A PIMP AND SEX TRAFFICKER.

          And now Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman and Clare Bronfman are going to pay out their keisters.
          Get your head out of Allison Mack’s butt.

          • It doesn’t matter who you defame, i never said it was Mr Glazer who would sue you…
            BTW , the beauty of defamation per se is that Allison don’t even have to hire a lawyer, anyone can do it for her!

            “Jaye and Nicole clearly and convincingly testified that ALLISON MACK IS A PIMP AND SEX TRAFFICKER.”

            See, that is defamation !
            Nicole clearly testified that Allison did collect the collaterals…period!

            Jayes clearly not testified anything about Allison and just insulted her…there is no real crime involved and she was not even Allison’s slave.
            This isn’t defamation, it’s fact from the court.

            What you do is defamation and even more so when SHE ISN’T RECOGNIZE AS A SEX TRAFFICKER!
            READ THE COURT INFO, SHE DIDN’T PLEADED TO THIS AND CHARGES ARE DROPPED.

            See, this is actually defamation per se!
            Accusing someone without proofs fo a serious crime. This is potential prison for you !

            BTW, i never defamed Jaye or Nicole…
            I stated facts from court and i pointed that Nicole is definately a victim.

            Stick with the fact and Don’t try to attack me when you are lost of arguments…just give up!
            Your reaction to this post show that you are conscious that you are actually a defamer!
            Why posting on this article so much if you don’t take it for you?

            You should take it for you but consider this, the danger for you is obviously not Mr Glazer but another Lawyer.
            When it will happen, just don’t act surprised!

      • I forgot to add that in 1964 Bert Jenner was also a lawyer for the Warren Commission investigating the JFK assassination.
        The Jenner and Block PDF about Civil RICO penalties is the best description of the Civil RICO penalties facing the RICO defendants.

  • “And if someone reveals information that has been gleaned from purloined documents – they may also be engaging in tortious acts.”

    Really? What about the famous Pentagon Papers case, and related cases involving stolen information published by Wikileaks?

    “But there are lines that cannot be crossed, and from this point forward, we will be paying closer attention to those who cross them. Complete anonymity is almost impossible to achieve on the internet.”

    Translation: We know who you are! We saw what you did! Or at least we’re going to try to from now on.

    Well, that post was about as veiled and subtle as a stripper doing a pole dance (just my opinion). Why not just say it right out? “I’ll get you, my pretty! And your little dog too!” Seems like anyone viewed as engaging in “tortious acts” can anticipate pretty torturous acts in return. Shot across the bow of free speech (again, just my opinion).

      • Shadow: Don’t you know? You who defame an ex Nxian all the time?

        When you create a ridiculous story about someone and try to accuse them of committing a crime that never existed, it’s a good example of how you can libel and defame anyone in Nxivm…

          • “Once Allison Mack chose to become a PIMP she will always be known as a PIMP…
            That is one stain that will never wash away.”

            Yes, please, continue…the more defamatory terms by you, the easier it will get to convince the court to send you in prison…
            Just continue with your defamation and lies, it’s a pleasure!

  • “Don’t take my comment personally, it is intended more as a cautionary note for the numerous readers who clearly are lacking in critical thinking skills” – Neil Glazer

    “Her (Toni Natalie) publisher does check facts. So do her lawyers. Who now expect the author of this post to publish a retraction.” – Neil Glazer

    STFU you stooge. Lemme guess, you are a partner in Dewey Cheatem & Howe.

    I’m sure its hard – standing up here all Gangstar, when you usually crawl on your belly like a snake

    • Rainbow Cultural Garden will continue to operate until the US DOJ and the NDNY go after the likes of Sara Bronfman, Rose Laura Junco, Kim Busby Constable and Allison Mack for this international abuse of children.

    • As far as I know, there has never been a cult that disbanded because its founder was sent to prison, or because predicted events didn’t come to pass, or because its founder was a pathological liar. NXIVM will keep going for the foreseeable future, but more covertly.

      But here’s a thing: When the top loony gets kicked off the top perch of the pyramid, there is ALWAYS a leadership battle amongst the higher up loonies for that top perch.

      We should expect to hear something about a leadership battle before very long.

      Maybe a US/Mexican war?

      • Cults do tend to whither when they lose their leader, being left with just a few diehards. I think there may be some cases where groups vanished entirely, because anyone with remaining interest or loyalty gravitated to other similar or related groups; the Jesus Movement of the 60s and 70s, known for its “Jesus freaks,” probably provides some examples of that.

        It seems to me that NXIVM has effectively been shrinking for a long time, starting first with the Forbes exposé that cut off their recruiting of actual executives, followed a decade later by the Times Union exposé that made it hard to recruit or hold on to anyone with the discernment to fact-check on the internet. The New York Times exposé apparently caused them to lose much of their membership, and the ongoing revelations and trial have ruined their reputation and made any further recruiting impossible – probably even in Mexico.

        So it’s hard to see where they go from here. From the cases I’ve seen and read about, typically even most loyalists and true believers finally start to lose interest once the bubble has burst, with only a few real diehards hanging on.

        I also don’t see that there is anyone in the US who could assume leadership, who is not on their way to prison; and in Mexico the most prominent figures seem to have distanced themselves, though Jack Levy comes up as someone who might at least keep his local center going.

  • Yes, I think we should leave the victims in the wreckage and money ravaging pyramids of NXVIM off-limits, it’s not fair to a victim.
    Does that involve the voluminous tome of the Ramtha cult who helped seed sow the seeds of satan that cultivated NVXIM? Interesting how certain commenters are trying to shut up the JZ connection and silence the many techniques and happenings over the many decades with The Ram.
    This blog really needs to soul shift over to other dangerous cults and organizations.
    NXVUM is toast. Now let’s fry QNon and their affiliates and expose anyone tied to or indirectly tied to NXIVM who helped enable draining people’s bank accounts dry by using mind control.
    Any of these religious or Amway type cults with the pyramid structures should be brought to the forefront. No one should have been taken advantage of like that.
    Thank you for what this blog helped do for justice and exposing the underbelly of New Age self-help groups and pyramid schemers.

  • Neil, it may not surprise you to learn that an extraordinary number of the posts seen on the frankreport website are made by none other than the disgraced former prosecutor, Dennis K. Burke. Burke posts under several aliases here and has done so for an extended period of time. He replies to his own posts with numerous alias accounts. The alias accounts consistently deny any connection to Burke, as does Burke himself, who apparently believes his ineffective VPN subscriptions shield him (them) from being identified.

    The term “extraordinary” is used because it’s more frequent than you may first consider. There are days and weeks where something like half of the comments and alias names responding to Frank’s posts in the comments section originate from Burke’s hardware and VPN’s.

    We’ve been tracking his activity for a good deal of time now. It’s been a remarkable phenomena to observe, as he converses with himself, taking opposing positions within his multiple aliases to create the appearance of authentic personalities. When you start to appreciate the full extent of his ongoing conversations with himself; the number of numerous alias accounts, and how long it’s lasted, it starts to paint a picture of complete obsession and borderline deranged insanity, dare we invoke that word.

    Not sure why Burke is so obsessed with frank’s website and the NXIVM case. Might be because he realized he’s under investigation by the feds for his involvement in the Bronfman immigration scheme relating to certain persons including Marianna Fernandez, the mother of Vanguard’s baby. In Burke’s posts he often arrogantly lashes out at others, uses profanity, engages in name-calling, and various forms of disparagement while referring back to DOJ policies from the perspective only a former prosecutor could.

    The behavior described herein seems to be somehow therapeutic for Burke–maybe an outlet for his stress over the growing, very real possibility of being prosecuted..? It’s only a theory yet about the only theory we’ve been able to come up with at this point as the frequency of the posts suggests borderline obsession with the site. Often times the Burke accounts appear to try to sway the ongoing conversation towards positions that would be helpful to Burke.

    John Sandweg, Burke’s law partner, posts here as well. Similar style as Burke. Once you know what to look for, they are not difficult to identify.

    It is quite possible you will discover, formally or otherwise, that a lot of the more agressive, legally adept posts here (and subsequent posts made in the same threads) are from those two lawyers: Burke and Sandweg, who are both named in the government’s documents with respect to the alleged scheme to circumvent the immigration laws for the benefit of NXIVM connected persons.

    Thanks for all you have done to help NXIVM victims.

    https://frankreport.com/2018/12/30/illegal-efforts-to-get-marianna-fernandez-in-us-may-get-her-indicted-dennis-burke-implicated-by-government-in-fraud/

  • I have no problem with Mr. Glazer’s clients — Daniela, Jaye and Nicole.
    These women are victims of NXIVM’s leaders and I hope these three women and others like them take the NXIVM leaders to the cleaners.

    But at this point, I must make note that the people who ran NXIVM used and abused the legal system to harass and intimidate their critics.
    People who dared to criticize NXIVM were persecuted with litigation until they were bankrupt.
    Just ask Susan Dones, Rick Ross and Joe O’Hara.

    I hope that Mr. Glazer’s piece does not encourage the NXIVM defendants to continue their abuse of the court system to chill free speech.

    The most fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights are the Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press.
    That’s why those rights are preserved in the First Amendment to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights.
    The greatest champion of the Right of Free Speech and Press was Justice Hugo Black.
    It would be instructive to read the words of Mr. Justice Black on how fundamental those rights are to our country.

    1. ) The First Amendment provides the only kind of security system that can preserve a free government – one that leaves the way wide open for people to favor, discuss, advocate, or incite causes and doctrines however obnoxious and antagonistic such views may be to the rest of us.
    Concurring opinion, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

    2.) The First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read “no law . . . abridging” to mean no law abridging.
    Concurring opinion, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).

    3.) It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.”
    James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law (February 17, 1960).

    4.) In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.
    Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

    5.) An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.
    Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
    (At this point I must add that nothing is more of a public affair than a criminal trial where the Federal and State criminal laws are being enforced to protect human rights.)

    The law should be about protecting and enhancing rights, not chilling rights.

    On the issue of protecting Free Speech and Free Press, I stand with Mr. Justice Hugo Black.

    The cure for unpleasant speech is not repression but more free speech, better free speech arguing the other side of the issue.
    I have never advocated limiting the Free Speech of any commenter on this site or others.
    Just today, I answered someone who questioned my testosterone level with a humorous response.

    In the words of the great Mark Twain:
    “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”
    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-against-the-assault-of-laughter-nothing-can-stand-mark-twain-29-86-41.jpg

    • Justice Black certainly wrote some nice aspirational statements but concurring opinions are not the law. If they were, he would not have felt the need to write separately. The First Amendment has virtually nothing to do with commenting or posting on someone’s blog. As with every other constitutional right, the First Amendment’s free speech clause has plenty of limits. Here is a very partial list:

      • You have zero right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else.
      • You may not defame someone else. This is also called slander or libel.
      • You may not incite others to criminal acts.
      • You may not participate in a criminal conspiracy even if your only action was speaking or writing.
      • You may not urge support for organizations that the government has designated as terrorists, even if you disagree with that designation.
      • You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.
      • You have no right to threaten anyone with violence.
      • You have no right to threaten to reveal embarrassing or humiliating information about someone if they don’t do what you ask them to do, even if that information is accurate. That is the crime of extortion.
      • You have no right to engage in protest wherever you want, whenever you want, even if it is “core” protected political speech. The government may impose time, place and manner restrictions.
      • You have no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

      The First Amendment is not a blanket license to cause others harm.

      • Neil,

        Please stop metaphorically swinging your dick around and puffing up your chest…

        “The First Amendment is not a blanket license to cause others harm.”

        Guess what Neil…

        …The law is intended to be used as a shield, not a sword….. you’re not supposed to try and intimidate people.

        Saintly, Neil when is the last time you did pro bono work?

        …..and I don’t mean holding a store door open for an elderly person.

        How about it, Neil?

        Neil, in my humble opinion, you are a poor man’s Gloria Allred or Lisa Bloom. 😉

        Neil, the fact of the matter is if you were some hotshot attorney, I believe you would not be wasting your time attempting to intimidate a bunch of men and women on a website blog.

        Neil, in the words of the great and immortal Bangkok, “move on spanker”!

      • “You may not defame someone else. This is also called slander or libel.” The leadership of NXIVM consists of convicted felons.

        That is not slander or libel.

        If it were not for free speech, Mr. Glazer, your clients would never have had their stories heard in public and could only cry in their beers over the wrongs they had suffered and their lack of legal redress.

        The NXIVM gangsters would not have hesitated to sue your clients – Daniela, Jaye, and Nicole – for defamation and libel.

        And they would have sued Sarah Edmondson and Catherine Oxenberg.

        • ““You may not defame someone else. This is also called slander or libel.” The leadership of NXIVM consists of convicted felons.

          That is not slander or libel.

          If it were not for free speech, Mr. Glazer, your clients would never have had their stories heard in public and could only cry in their beers over the wrongs they had suffered and their lack of legal redress.

          The NXIVM gangsters would not have hesitated to sue your clients – Daniela, Jaye, and Nicole -for defamation and libel.

          And they would have sued Sarah Edmondson and Catherine Oxenberg.”

          And because they are convicted felons, they lose their rights? The constitution is for everyone, including felon!
          And you abuse the Freedom of speech by defaming and libeling one of the défendants (because don’t pretend you aim everyone, your last 3 “articles” shows who you aim

          I feel like you are taking personally (and you should because defamation is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO.

          If you invent, create and broadcast a false story to destroy the image of someone, it’s defamation (and you sure do it a lot)
          IF you accuse publicly someone of committing a serious crime without having the slightest proof, this is defamation per se…
          It’s WAY more serious as it can bring a prison sentence

          A defamation will result (usually) in paying a moral compensation (and court fee) leveled on the seriousness of the defamatory comment
          A defamation per se will result in the same but also, depending on the accusation, a potential prison period (or at least a probatory period)

          You didn’t just defame but did defamation per se…
          You state as fact false accusation, unproven statements, hearsay, and your own fantasy while a trial had occurred and disproved EACH OF THOSE STATEMENTS.

          You are the ultimate defamator!
          Are you worried? Mr shadow? You should be!
          Stop the lies and stick with the facts…they are grim enough to add your extra layer of Lies.

      • “You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.” Great. Then I have a legitimately outstanding opportunity for you to make a MAJOR difference, because there are literally millions of new people being ripped off by Amway and other MLM under false AND fraudulent claims. You know my email.

      • Neil Glazer: Mr. Glazer,
        If you really read this blog (I feel bad for you, I know, I do it myself), you should know that Mr. Shadow is an expert in defamation…
        In his claim, about 10% is factual (and twisted a bit), the rest is mostly creative writing or hearsay or rumors…

        You expect him to understand something I tried to make him understand for months?

        For him, freedom of speech is a blanket license…He refuses to recognize the (just) limitation of it.
        Defamation per se is his specialty (he loves to claim crime that didn’t exist, or that existed but were committed by other people or use hearsay as fact…he also likes to ignore what court proved.

        Good luck trying to make him understand that it’s wrong to defame!

  • Hi Neil Glazier,

    Wow! Not very threatening or intimidating.

    Allow me to share with you an acronym you are familiar with ACLU!
    😉

    Neil as long as commenters voice their opinion or beliefs and note explicitly that their comments or beliefs are not facts, they should be okay.

    Here is an example for everyone to follow:

    Dear Neal,

    I believe and I am of the opinion that allegedly, you look like Wolf Blitzer fucked Richard Dreyfus and they had a baby.

    The above comment is my opinion and is not necessarily subject to fact. I am merely taking artistic license as a caucasian amateur rapper.

    If you are Neal or his attorney and feel defamed, slandered or your feelings were hurt and you want to cry, please post a follow-up response and I will gladly retract my statement. I am just offering my opinions and feelings and not necessarily facts.

    Neil, I may be wrong about Wolf Blitzer and Richard Dreyfus being your parents.

    Wolf Blitzer looks so hairy and filled with testosterone, I am sure that he can copulate and procreate with anyone
    or anything including a toaster.

    It’s even possible Wolf Blitzer copulated with a Shiksa!

    I’m just joking around have a great day!
    😉

    • If someone was to say that someone is an “over-paid, bloodsucking four-eyed cunt, who badly needs a shave,” would that be defamation? Purely hypothetical, of course. I really can’t imagine anyone actually saying that.

      • Lilly, someone could attempt to sue for pretty much any “offense” but it doesn’t mean they can win the case.

        However, when attempts were made to sue me last year, one of the complaints listed in the document was that I called one of them a “fat toad”…
        And this guy never followed through with the lawsuit when I called his bluff. This guy happens to be a lawyer, too…..

    • The technique of self-protection is well-described in your comment. It is mainly linguistic protection and is (or used to be) taught to every student of journalism. State opinions as opinions and use the tools of language to do it. State facts, if you have any to state, factually.

      It isn’t complicated unless someone wants to complicate it. You can be pretty certain that often, there will be someone looking for an opportunity to complicate it, often someone who represents, or who is being paid to represent, a different kind of chosen agenda.

      • Attorney Glazer,

        Are you trying to indirectly silence or intimidate Joe O’Hara?

        I believe to be quite frank(pun intended) that is what you are attempting to do. Are you?

        Attorney Glazer I personally believe you should be a “big boy” as you put it and contact Joe O’Hara directly. Have you?

        Then again Attorney Glazer I guess you need to evidence(prove) to your clients that you are hard at work for them.

        Attorney Glazer, I certainly hope you did not bill any of your clients for posting your public pseudo pronouncement.

        It would be so uncouth to bill for such a thing would it not?

        I feel you we’re trying to communicate the following statement ‘I might sue you’.

        *****

        Possibly Important information for Attorney Glazer’s clients:

        Attorney Glazer do you bill your clients your hourly rate when paralegals or your assistants assist you?

        Do you disclose when your paralegals help you in your billing?

        Do your clients get a breakdown of your billing?

        How much do you charge for a single 5min telephone call?

        How much do you charge for opening the mail?

        How much do you charge for writing a one page letter?

        Are you billing by a flat fee or hourly? Do you bill in 3 minute clips?

        I am just curious. I think you are peachy!

  • Thank you, Mr. Glazer. I do apologize if I may have ever crossed the line but doubt if any commentators I’ve ever crossed are among your clients. …Oh, contrar.

    In addition to having some sensitivity toward the NXIVM victims in preservation of their legal rights, I think it behooves us all to mind our tongues in these violent times of mass shootings and hate crimes; which many believe are instigated by “hate speech,” especially racially and sexually prejudiced remarks, made on the internet.

      • Wow, what a relief and thank you HH and OCD, just two commenters tipping the nod on FR to your (the US) hate crime issue:

        250 mass shootings THIS YEAR?

        Keep up your battle against immigrants orphans and sparrows, US, as long as they’re all off-white – Who cares? Right?

        *IMO* Mr. Glazer is, as someone has suggested here, swinging his bigus legalus dickus around on this thoroughly libertarian site. There’s plenty of pro bono work to do in your country, citizen Glazer, if it’s HATE you are so concerned with.

    • According to the NXIVM defendants – Keith, Clare, Allison, Nancy, and Lauren – they are all victims.
      They have been subjected to scorn and ridicule for their evil acts.
      And they deserved every bit of scorn and ridicule they received.

      • Shadow : no, that’s what you Believe (except for Allison)

        None said that ,they pleaded guilty.

        You still Don’t understand that this statement is referring to you too? you are the expert of defamation!!!
        Now you know it’s a serious matter but seeing how ridiculously obsessed you are, i expect that it won’t stop you.
        Until you’ll get the notice that will show you have gone too far with your lies, libels and defamatory statements.

  • I have no problem with the actions or behavior of Mr. Glazer’s clients Daniela, Nicole or Jaye.
    Those three women are victims of NXIVM and its top leaders pure and simple and I wish them much luck in their cases against the NXIVM leadership.
    Take the NXIVM leadership to the cleaners!

    But NXIVM itself is an organization unique in its hatred of free speech.
    NXIVM is an organization unique in its ability and willingness to use the legal system to harass and intimidate people.
    Indeed NXIVM has used the court system to literally bankrupt its opponents.
    Just ask Susan Dones, Rick Ross or Joe O’Hara.

    Is Mr. Glazer trying to chill free speech?
    Freedom of Speech is the most Fundamental Right in the Bill of Rights.
    Freedom of Speech is the First Right in the Bill of Rights.

    I give Mr. Glazer with the words of Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court.

    The First Amendment provides the only kind of security system that can preserve a free government – one that leaves the way wide open for people to favor, discuss, advocate, or incite causes and doctrines however obnoxious and antagonistic such views may be to the rest of us.
    Concurring opinion, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

    The First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read “no law . . . abridging” to mean no law abridging.
    Concurring opinion, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).

    It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.”
    James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law (February 17, 1960).

    In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.
    Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

    An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.
    Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
    ( My note: Is anything more of a Public Affair than a Criminal Trial based on violations of US and State criminal statutes?)

    In all matters of free speech I stand with Justice Hugo Black.

    • In deference to the 22 people shot over the weekend in his own hometown of El Paso, TX, I am going to resist responding to Schlock’s wide-open invitation to provide an “example” — starting with a sampling of slurs that got Mr. Scott Johnson wisely banned from the Twitter-verse and should have included the entire internet blog-o-sphere long ago.

      But since Scott was, he boasts, “Trump before Trump was Trump,” I suppose Frank kept him “grandfathered” in on FR, which appears to be the only site left where his hateful, heavily-edited banality is, so far, mildly tolerated.

      Btw, POTUS also suggested today that tweeters spewing white supremacy hate speech on the internet be “involuntarily institutionalized” lest they incite any violence such as occurred in Dayton and there in El Paso.

      Trump didn’t offer any “examples,” either. Oh, the irony.

      • Heidi,

        Scott Johnson does not have time to waste on mass shootings or other liberal fake news. Scott is busy fighting MLM’s!

        People just can’t Google MLM’s and read a short 3 paragraph article to understand how MLMs work and that MLMs are bad.

        People need Scott Johnson with his 20+ years of real-world experience to educate them.

        MLM’s are incredibly complicated organizations much like Boy Scouts of America.

        Heidi, I fear that you are naive to the ways of the world and Scott’s infinite wisdom.

        I am completely joking of course!

  • This is good. Thank you Mr. Glazer. I for one get quite tired of some of the mindless drivel posted on this blog. But if anyone is crossing boundaries recklessly, accountability will be welcomed by me.

  • I assume everything written on this website is an opinion. I’ve called out people on numerous occasions, and some of them have actually been published, when they state opinions as facts. The biggest offender is Mr. Shadow. I am happy to go on the record that every single comment I’ve ever made and ever will make on this website or any other website is my opinion, whether it is written precisely or not. Go look for billable hours elsewhere, I’m not playing your lawyerly, parlor room tricks. You can email me at stoptheamwaytoolscam@yahoo.com if you want to discuss further, Glazer. And yes, this is my real name, so I’m not one of those cowards that you’re referring to in your story.

    • Scott ‘Yosemite Sam’ Johnson will not be tread on!!!!

      “I ain’t not playing your lawyerly, parlor room tricks. ”

      “Go look for your billable hours in the tumble weeds and dust clouds of Texas.”

      ” I am the toughest hombre north of the Rio Grande and Mexico.”

      ” I watched all the seasons of Bonanza, Walker Texas Ranger and HBO’s Mustang Bunny Ranch, I know my rights.”

      Yosemite Sam Johnson

      ****
      Yosemite Sam Johnson will not be
      intimidated by anyone or anything!!!

      Don’t mess with Texas!!!!!
      *********

      Neil if you sue Scott Johnson or Shadowstate I believe that just like suing the country of Montenegro or Jim Del Negro you will receive nothing because they all have nothing…. just my oppion.

      • TBF Shadowstate deserves everything that is coming to him… The first few weeks of the trial proved what a crackpot he was! He has been passing off his fantasies and fan-fiction as fact for 18 months… He’s admitted stalking her family online, gathering information on her siblings online, he has admitted he will not stop until he has ruined any chance of a life she has (will contact any potential employers AFTER she has served time…)

        Type Shadowstate in the sidebar. And tell me this is healthy or legal behaviour!!

        This is just the start now… His actions have been reported to law enforcement and lawyers multiple times that I’m aware of.. so things are finally gathering pace!!

        SHADOW I’m not interested in your response… Capitals OR NOT..
        Just gonna sit here with my popcorn and watch it come down on you; you were warned!!
        You may finally get your (real) name in a media article with AM

        • “TBF Shadowstate deserves everything that is coming to him… The first few weeks of the trial proved what a crackpot he was!”

          Allison Mack pleaded guilty.
          She is now a convicted felon awaiting sentencing.
          Mr. Glazer intends to sue Allison Mack and other members of NXIVM for abusing his clients.
          His clients, Jaye and Nicole, clearly stated at trial that Allison Mack is a PIMP and that Allison Mack is a SEX TRAFFICKER who engaged in coercion and blackmail.

      • I know right? Like Scott is really someone you’d go into the jungle with?
        And he wonders why he has literally NO support in his embittered battle with AMWAY.

        • Would you want to go into the jungle with Mr. Shadow? He would be constantly in your ear talking about how terrible Mack is, doing his Captain Obvious Act, then turning to his Admiral Minutiae routine, and wrapping it up with Chicago stories. I call that cruel and unusual punishment.

          The rest of you are just anonymous talking heads who obviously couldn’t care less about millions of people being ripped off, because if you did, you would join the effort rather than make up excuses. AMWAY and other MLM scams were a problem long before I came along, and that means there’s been a lack of support for shutting down these scams long before I came along.

          I do have support from people who come on my radio show, from Peter Mingils who hosts the radio show, and others. I’m always looking for a few good men and women, but they are few and far between, as most are like you and want to anonymously stay on the sidelines. But I recognize that this is an issue that goes back to Biblical times: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A35-38&version=NIV so I’m not bothered by it at all.

          I also don’t consider my battle with AMWAY and other MLM scams to be “embittered,” it is simply an effort to help others not get scammed for their time and money as I and millions of others have been. Labeling my effort as “embittered” is simply another lame excuse for staying on the sidelines. Enjoy your popcorn while the responsible adults take action.

          • “Would you go into the the jungle with Mr. Shadow?” Scott Johnson, I wouldn’t go into the jungle with either of you pud whackers. End of story!

        • Anonymous,

          Scott’s like the bad guy in the end of the titanic movie that grabs the little kid and hops into life boat.

          LOL

About Frank Parlato

About Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in major publications all over the world, including The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CNN, Fox News, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and more.

Frank Report is dedicated to Frank's investigative journalism and the pursuit of truth.

Read more about Frank Report's mission.

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

Loading cart ...
%d bloggers like this: