Editor’s Note: Attorney Neil Glazer worked with the EDNY to provide evidence and to bring witnesses forward that helped ensure that the odious criminal Keith Alan Raniere got exactly what he deserved – a conviction and a likely lifetime sentence.
If Glazer had not protected his clients as zealously as he did, in my opinion, it is not certain that the witnesses – Daniela, Jaye and Nicole – would have even testified. His ardent defense of his clients is to be praised not censured.
However, is he going too far in his plan to monitor comments on Frank Report for defamation?
That is a fair topic for debate.
Glazer, who represents many Nxivm victims, offered his legal view in a post on Frank Report entitled Nxivm Victims’ Attorney Neil Glazer Speaks Out on Defamatory Commenters.
In it, he made several points about what he thinks are appropriate versus defamatory comments about Nxivm victims and others involved in Nxivm. There have been quite a few comments in response to his article – both pro and con.
Here is another comment, which can be viewed as in opposition to Glazer’s post, and which relies heavily on Justice Hugo Black’s view of the First Amendment. It is precisely for that reason – the marvelous quotes of Black’s that I chose to make this a separate post. This should not be construed as my taking sides in this issue or in any way to diminish the important work Glazer has done in the takedown of Nxivm. In my opinion, Glazer is one of the “but-for” people in the case. But for him – and several others – Raniere would not have come to justice.
By Theodosia’s Eye
I have no problem with the actions or behavior of attorney Neil Glazer’s clients, Daniela, Nicole or Jaye. Those three women are victims of NXIVM and its top leaders pure and simple. 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?
The 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 offer Mr. Glazer 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).
*****
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.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Anonymous&Shadowstate&Nearly everyone else,
Neil Glazer’s statement is not necessarily directed at “us” posters or most likely has a dual purpose.
I believe that Neil Glazer is a highly intelligent and articulate man. My criticism of Neil is from his over the top pronouncement.
Neil does not want false or misleading information regarding his clients spread around the internet, and rightly so.
Neil, I believe, also wants to insure that confidential and private information regarding his clients is not leaked by any official or private citizen. I feel Neil has every right to defend his clients and protect their interests.
Most of us, if not all us, have not made any false or misleading statements regarding Neil’s clients.
Therefore, I am of the belief that Neil’s threatening (wrath) pronouncement ” is actually directed to key individuals involved in the NXIVM saga.
My only issue with Neil is the way he went about things. Otherwise, I think he is an excellent attorney and a Mensch.
PS. Attorney Glazer, I don’t think you look like Wolf Blitzer or Richard Dreyfuss. You are much better looking. 😉
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.”
The first amendment include the protective article to avoid defamation…Let it be clear, Mr Glazer isn’t forbidding freedom of speech.
It’s obvious that many commenters over here don’t understand the difference between stating an opinion (something accepted by many) and pretending that it’s a fact.
A lie is a lie and when this lie is impacting someone else’s life , their reputation or their potential defense (court or not), it’s criminal!
This text was pull out of context, what is said in this text is still applied , even after Mr Glazer’s statement.
He pointed “opinion should be stated as opinion and not as fact”.
This is absolutely not a limitation of freedom of speech!
“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.”
The same Founding Fathers are the one behind the regulation of the freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press.
If press can go wild and blow any lie they want, what is their use anymore? they could simply be fantasy book author.
BTW, i find presomptious from FR BLOG to waive the Freedom of Press…
If it was on your Niagara reporter , Frank, your service would make sure it respect the law…A blog isn’t a newspaper and therefor cannot waive this kind of point.
Democracy also include the right to have the truth. If you are complaining that you can’t defame , there is a problem!
““An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.””
As long as it’s not a lie , it’s not a problem and it concerns mostly the political side of public affairs as they(politicians) are elected by the people, for the people…Don’t derail a perfectly sense-full sentence to make a wrong point.
“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.”
And that authorize people to defame publicly?
That authorize people to present tons of LIES as if they were FACTS?
Ignoring the trial that actually happened?
Ignoring the FACTS completly?
Nothing defend this behavior!
And if Mr Glazer was really aiming at those who say the truth (based on proof) , he knows very well that i would be a lost case.
He is aiming a FALSE FACTS, And i don’t see why you worry?
As far as i know, you never had anything against any of Glazer’s client…He is not gonna protect everyone’s integrity (he do it for the money, Sorry Mr Glazer, i shouldn’t suppose it’s for that but i doubt you do it for free so it’s not inaccurate)
He is just saying (courteously) that anyone defaming one of his client will have to face the law…i see no breach of freedom of speech there.
Frank, if you are so worried about this announce (while not directed to you , atleast not by Mr Glazer) , why do you continue to publish some of the lies of some (way too visible) commenters?
Stop publishing the commenters when they are defaming, simple as that…in comments ,you’d have little “responsability” but if you publish it as an article, it’s you fault.
“He is aiming a FALSE FACTS,”
Who determines what a False Fact is?
Let’s state some True Facts about Allison PIMP Mack from Mr. Glazer’s client Jaye and her truthful testimony.
1.) She had to provide new collateral every month.
And it was due on the 1st of every month – “just like rent” according to Jaye.
Most of the collateral that Jaye provided involved pictures and movies.
2.) Her “acts of care” included buying mani-pedi sessions for India – and small gifts of jewelry for India and Allison.
She also had to run various errands for both India and Allison.
And she, of course, was never paid for any of this work.
3.) She described The Source training sessions as being “very expensive” but noted that “there was a payment plan” (We know from other witnesses’ testimony that NXIVM’s “payment plans” often turned into permanent indentured servitude).
Jaye went from being a highly-compensated model in Los Angeles, CA to an $18/hour “go-for” working for Delegates, a NXIVM-related company run by India Oxenberg.
4.) She also took The Source Intensive course that was taught by Allison Mack and Mark Hildreth in Vancouver – and a Jness weekend in Clifton Park at Rosa Laura junco’s home there.
The 5-day intensive cost $5,000, The Source Intensive cost $11,000, and the Jness weekend was a bargain rate of $500.
Also in attendance at the Jness weekend that she attended were the young Mexican girls.
5.) Jaye hoped Allison would help her learn about the acting business. But she went from thinking that Allison was a good person, to later believing Allison was vindictive, hurtful, and manipulative.
As a member of DOS, Jaye was expected to recruit slaves.
6.) At one point, she had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about her sexual preferences.
One day she attended volleyball without a bra and Allison scolded her for that, saying the older women were offended.
7.) Jaye was told by Allison and India how lucky she was to have this great guru (Raniere) taking an interest in her.
Allison Pimp Mack was grooming this woman and other women to serve as sex slaves.
8.) Allison told Jaye that she must seduce Keith subtly [as if he did not know this was planned with Allison] but Allison added kindly to Jaye, “And I give you permission to enjoy it.”
(Isn’t that kind of Allison PIMP Mack to give the slave permission to enjoy sex?)
9.) “What was Jaye thinking about Allison when she was ordered to seduce Keith?
“You fucking bitch” was her thought, she testified.
Allison was re-traumatizing her. And clearly Jaye did not want to do this obscene act, but she pretended she would do it. From this moment on, she planned to escape DOS.
https://frankreport.com/2019/06/12/trial-tuesday-jaye-assigned-to-seduce-vanguard/
https://frankreport.com/2019/06/12/a-few-more-tidbits-from-jayes-direct-testimony-and-then-on-to-her-cross-examination/
So what true facts are we to glean from Mr. Glazer’s client Jaye?
1.) Allison Mack is a PIMP.
2.) Allison PIMP Mack grooms women to serve as sex slaves.
3.) Allison PIMP Mack is a SEX TRAFFICKER.
4.) “Allison PIMP Mack is a “fucking bitch.”
Now Mr. or Ms. Brave Anonymous tell Mr. Glazer how his client Jaye defamed Allison PIMP Mack in a court of law under oath.
Or maybe Mr. Glazer’s client told the whole truth about Allison PIMP Mack the Gangster.
Guess what, Anonymous: Allison PIMP Mack is going to be sued under the civil provisions of the RICO Act for her PIMPING activities.
Treble Damages.
[…] First Amendment Debate: In Reply to Mr. Glazer – Let Me Quote Hugo Black […]
The NXIVM Defendants are in Deep Doo Doo
Paraphrasing the late President George H. W. Bush
Who should really be worried about Lawyer Neil Glazer?
Allison Mack
Clare Bronfman
Nancy Salzman
Lauren Salzman
Emiliano Salinas
Alex Betancourt
Keith Raniere
(As for Mr. Raniere he should be more worried about being shanked in prison.)
Raniere kept nothing in his own name and used shell companies and straw men to hide his assets.
The real threat to Mr. Glazer’s clients are not commenters on an internet blog.
The real threats to Mr. Glazer’s clients are:
Allison Mack
Clare Bronfman
Nancy Salzman
Lauren Salzman
Emiliano Salinas
Alex Betancourt
Keith Raniere
Here’s the deal: Mr. Glazer already has numerous clients in the NXIVM case.
FR: We get an idea of how many ex-NXIVM members have retained Glazer: “dozens.” This means at least 24 – and probably more. How many of these will be witnesses in the criminal case will be seen. Some of them are likely some of the Jane Does mentioned in the indictment.
(No doubt Glazer would like to encourage all of the victims of NXIVM o retain his services.)
FR: It was reported on Frank Report, August 2017, that Bronfman personally traveled to Vancouver and filed criminal complaints against Sarah Edmondson, Jen Kobelt and, I am told, at least one other woman. This was Bronfman trying to use her influence and wealth to convert victims into criminals, largely because they left NXIVM and spoke to NXIVM members about DOS and human fright experiments. This was before the NY Times story came out – and I was the only one reporting the branding and blackmail stories.
In earlier episodes, Ms. Bronfman has (among other things) (i) perjured herself in a civil proceeding; (ii) made false statements to local law enforcement and/or directed the falsification of evidence in order to instigate a baseless criminal investigation; (iii) directed the falsification or destruction of evidence in another civil proceeding; and (iv) directed, participated and financed the prosecution of numerous completely meritless legal proceedings aimed at punishing critics and silencing witnesses, going to extreme lengths such as interfering in bankruptcy proceedings to attempt to prevent the discharge of persons who would not have filed for bankruptcy but for the fact that defending against Bronfman and Raniere’s reign of vexatious litigation terror had
impoverished them.
FR: This is Bronfman’s MO for the last nine years. She lied in the computer trespass case about the date she discovered the alleged trespass to cheat the statute of limitations. She was caught lying and the judge dismissed the case. {She gave a one year earlier date in her criminal complaint and thus she was caught.]
I know for a fact she made false statements to law enforcement and the grand jury in my case. In the criminal computer trespass case against Barbara Bouchey, Toni Natalie, and Joseph O’Hara, her lies led to them being indicted.
In short, she directed the falsification of evidence in order to instigate this baseless criminal investigation – for which she has yet to be charged for perjury. She ordered the moving of NXIVM computer servers from their longtime location in Saratoga County to Albany County – then perjured herself about the location, saying the servers were in Albany County at the time of the alleged trespass in order to indict four people. In this, Bronfman worked with her lawyers, a state trooper, a DA and his former employee who became the Special Prosecutor in the case. How much they knew about her perjury is hard to say.
Analysis of Glazer letter protecting victims of Bronfman-Raniere – and a list of Bronfman-Raniere lawsuits
https://frankreport.com/2018/09/11/analysis-of-glazer-letter-protecting-victims-of-bronfman-raniere-and-a-list-of-bronfman-raniere-lawsuits/
Mr. Glazer’s clients if they all sued the NXIVM defendants could literally wipe the NXIVM leadership out financially.
Let’s just take the women in NXIVM DOS as an example.
There are an estimated 100 women in NXIVM DOS, the sex slave component of the cult.
Imagine if each of those women sued the leaders of NXIVM DOS.
Allison Mack was the leader of the slaves and collected the blackmail.
Lauren Salzman was the second lieutenant of the slave slave operation.
Clare Bronfman had access to the Dropbox account which Allison Mack used to store the blackmail.
Keith Raniere was the recipient of all of the heterosexual services of the women.
Emiliano Salinas
Alex Betancourt
and perhaps Dr. Danielle Roberts.
Last year I mentioned that the Feds should prosecute the NXIVM leaders under the Criminal RICO statute.
RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization.
What I did not mention was that there is a Civil Component to RICO.
Victims of a RICO can go into Federal Court and sue for TRIPLE damages in a civil action.
Here is a 291 page PDF document from the Chicago based law firm of Jenner and Block outlining the damages possible in a Civil RICO case.
https://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/9961/original/Civil%20RICO%202014.pdf
Here is just one quote from the Jenner and Block document.
“Under this provision, a private plaintiff may sue in state or federal court to
recover treble damages and attorney’s fees caused by a RICO violation. ”
Treble Damages to all of the victims of a RICO.
With maybe up to one hundred branded women in NXIVM DOS do you understand what Allison Mack was crying about?
Both Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman plead guilty to criminal RICO violations.
Those guilty pleas can be used against them in a civil RICO law suit.
On top of that in certain instances in a civil RICO action plaintiffs can recover attorney fees from RICO defendants.
Now you understand the true stakes in a civil RICO lawsuit involving NXIVM.
All of the NXIVM defendants should be crying their eyes out.
I find the trend in contemporary America to label unpopular news and views as “fake news” to be repugnant.
Indeed this trend is hostile to democracy and our rights as citizens.
As if our social betters, people like Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer, are the Gate Keepers of what is proper speech and what is improper speech.
These benevolent dictators want to tell us what to think because they don’t trust the American people.
In the recent Democratic Presidential Debate the Drudgereport alerted people to the fact that CNN and MSNBC had already anointed California Senator Kamala Harris their favorite Presidential candidate.
When Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had the effrontery to bring up embarrassing facts about the record of Senator Harris when she served as California’s State Attorney General, the media talking heads cried foul.
For example Senator Harris kept convicted felons in California prisons after their freedom dates to milk some more free labor from them.
Another example Senator Harris was tough on marijuana crimes but when asked about her own personal marijuana use responded with only a smile.
I have clearly stated my opinions on this case and I find that I agree with the testimony of Mr. Glazer’s clients, Daniela, Jaye and Nicole.
I believe that these three women were telling the truth.
NXIVM DOS was a clear case of sex trafficking and Daniela, Jaye and Nicole were victims.
But I also believe that people who disagree with that testimony should be able to do so without being intimidated or having their speech chilled.
The prosecution of NXIVM’s leaders is an open court proceeding and people should be able to express their opinions.
In the free marketplace of ideas the truth will out.
Even Clare Bronfman with all of her hundreds of millions of dollars was unable to conceal the truth forever.
Article 19 of The UN Convention on Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Pity the US never ratified it.
“Pity the US never ratified it.”
The United States is run by lawyers.
1,338,678
The number of active attorneys in the United States has increased by 15.2 percent over the last decade, according to the ABA’s National Lawyer Population Survey. The total number of lawyers in the United States as of Dec. 31 was 1,338,678. Ten years before that, the total number was 1,162,124.May 3, 2018
Here’s a list of countries with the highest number of lawyers per capita (oddly excluding Israel):
In 2015, Clements Worldwide did a short statistical paper on the most litigious [law suit filing] countries in the world:
U.S. 1 lawyer for every 300 people
Brazil: 1 lawyer for every 326 people
New Zealand: 1 lawyer for every 391 people
Spain: 1 lawyer for every 395 people
UK: 1 lawyer for every 401 people
Italy: 1 lawyer for every 488 people
Germany: 1 lawyer for every 593 people
France: 1 lawyer for every 1,403 people
I wish Attorney Glazer well.
He should not go around intimidating people. His statement was clearly meant to intimidate and curtail speech. He knew what he was doing in my opinion.
He could easily have explained things differently with more poise.
Instead, he chose to deliver his message with a club.
If Mr. Glazer enjoys intimidation and curtailing free speech, he should move to Iran, Russia, or China.
It’s great that he is helping the three women. Is he helping them for free? How much press are he and his legal practice receiving?
Is Glazer doing it Pro Bono?
People shouldn’t run around playing the Self-Righteous indignation card if they are a hired gun. It makes them look hypocritical and pathetic.
Nobody is immune to criticism. Liberals like to dictate what people can and can’t say, but they can all fuck off. As for NXIVM, boohoo! Poor cult twats crying about a fucking blog!
Since Frank Parlatto holds comments in queue until he reviews and approves them, I’m pretty sure that he would also be held liable as a defendant in a defamation suit. Web site operators who allow people to post comments without any sort of review or filtering are held to a different standard than those that actively review comments. The former enjoy a greater amount of immunity than the latter. I don’t know which legal case to cite on this, but it is common knowledge among web sit operators that the forum admins that they either need to take a heavy handed approach of censoring comments, or to allow a complete free-for-all. It looks like Frank wants to take the middle road in which case he can get squished like a bug if he lets through something questionable.
IMO, you are whistling in the wind.
When I make a comment, I usually try to cite some kind of source — a news story, a court document, or even Wikipedia — to back my view.
It would be nice if everyone did this but if we accept that many people are merely expressing their opinions or views and we can take those views or leave them at least we preserve free speech.
Is America now such a small-minded country that anyone who disagrees with us now a villain who has to be vilified?
Shadowstate,
Why don’t you ever cite your clairvoyant mind and active imagination?
I think you clairvoyant citation.
“Since Frank Parlatto holds comments in queue until he reviews and approves them, I’m pretty sure that he would also be held liable as a defendant in a defamation suit”
He is partialy for comments… But it’s particularly true if he publish the lies as an article…Then he is completly liable and actually a complice…
shadowstate1958 :
You sure like to link your statement with YOU OWN PREVIOUS STATEMENTS or FAKE STORIES or HEARSAY…but you have yet to link your fake accusation to court documents…unless you can twist completly the meaning of what is said..
You are the absolute defamer! You ignore willingly the court documents and the facts so don’t pretend .
If there is one person that should be used as a perfect example of a defamer, it’s YOU.
Keep up with your lies and defamation and you’ll get a lawsuit and your picture in the dictionnary to illustrate the definition of defamer…
I know it’s really scary how deluded and obsessed this guy is!!!!
A product of Trump America… In dire need of mental health treatment and support but unable to access it as not wealthy..
As another commenter pointed out… “He’ll only become aware his actions went too far when the court documents arrive for him!!