Godspeed, Mr. Neil Glazer.
I hope you make the Bronfmans pay through the nose.
But I do question Mr. Glazer’s choice to include Ms. Toni Natalie as a lead plaintiff, as that choice may wind up hurting the other plaintiffs by lessening any financial judgments that his side may win (or settle for).
How can Mr. Glazer make a strong case that his women are all innocent victims (worthy of a HUGE judgment) if NXIVM exposes stuff like this:
1) Toni was a leading salesperson (and spokesperson) for Keith’s Pyramid Scheme called CBI which was shut down. She even appeared on a TV infomercial (confidently) trying to sucker innocent victims into that scheme. During an ABC interview (more than 20 years later) Toni claimed that the idea behind CBI was ‘brilliant’ —- she showed no remorse for having personally suckered so many victims into that Pyramid scam.
2) Can Mr. Glazer argue that Toni Natalie ‘learned her lesson’ or changed her ways after the CBI debacle? Can Mr. Glazer argue that Toni finally ‘saw the light’ and abandoned Keith and his nefarious activities after CBI? Nope. According to Frank Parlato, Toni started up 2 brand new (failed) pyramid schemes and remained with Keith for several years after the CBI debacle. She was neck deep into Keith’s nefarious financial activities.
3) I’m not sure if Toni’s temporary indictment for ‘allegedly’ committing lease fraud (according to Frank Parlato) is gonna be admissible in this lawsuit, however, I have a hard time believing that Toni’s past history of (alleged) fraudulent activity is gonna be barred from this case —— especially if Toni ‘testifies’ and her character becomes relevant for cross examination, allowing her credibility to be impeached. I’m sure the discovery process will unearth even more negative shit about Ms. Natalie’s past behavior. The Bronfmans will inspect every nook and cranny of her life.
4) With regard to Toni’s lies told in her book (exposed by Frank Parlato), if Toni ‘testifies’ then it’s possible that the Bronfman attorneys will be allowed to impeach her credibility and confront her on these many lies. Especially the lie about blaming Keith for her brother’s decision to commit suicide, since her brother didn’t die of a ‘suicide’ (according to the death certificate and his longtime girlfriend). This will show that Toni is prone to telling lies about Keith Raniere. It shows that she’s willing to lie about Keith for financial profit.
I just don’t see how adding a plaintiff like Toni Natalie is gonna help (and not hurt) Mr. Glazer’s lawsuit.
Other people like Sarah Edmondson and Mark Vincente are good plaintiffs.
Sarah was kept in the dark about many things and was mostly a legit teacher/manager for an ESP center. Mark Vincente is also a decent guy with none of the baggage of Toni Natalie.
That I actually agree with Bangkok for once. Toni was always going to be in on this lawsuit no matter what it took. Her biggest goals – money, attention, and the ability to keep kicking Raniere and his pals as long as possible. She was Raniere’s top salesperson in CBI for a reason. She’ll talk her way to wherever she wants to be, and cut the ropes behind her as she goes.
Neil has no intention of trying this case in court.
He is looking for a big settlement, to receive his [standard attorney’s fee] 1/3, that’s why he keeps adding plaintiffs.
Trust me Neil is no hero.
Maybe Claviger will take the time to explain how things work.
Jealous much, Dennis?
“All4Money” is a new alias for you. Good to see you transparently representing your ethics, even if was only your subconscious at work this time.
Speaking of your ethics, how much money did you guys make trafficking weapons to Mexican cartels while you pretended to be concerned with “Arizona-Mexico” and then “USA-Mexico” relations, anyways?
Bangkok I want your address immediately so I can serve you with a summons. I am a libel and slander attorney with the law firm of Lindsey, Hunicutt, Bavier, Howard and McNear, with offices in Chicago, Saint Louis, Joplin, Missouri, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, Gallup, New Mexico, Flagstaff, Arizona, Winona, Kingman, Barstow, San Bernandino and Los Angeles. Forget it chump. You went too far this time. You have committed the crime of criminal defamation of Toni Natalie. I will give you 24 hours to make a complete retraction or expect to be served. This is no joke.
Toni, stop this nonsense! Haven’t you fought him long enough?
I think we’re really left to wonder if Natalie didn’t snow the attorneys, like she has so many other people – apparently she’s quite adept at it, as Frank has thoroughly exposed here.
Natalie’s inclusion makes no obvious sense, given how early she got out. If the attorneys are going to reach tenuously into the past, Bouchey and the NXIVM Nine would be relatively better candidates for inclusion on the plaintiff list – assuming none of them are Jane Does, which seems unlikely given how long they have been speaking out.
My guess would be that she convinced the attorneys that she brings some sort of key evidence to the suit – which her track record shows is not likely, though she is effective at convincing people otherwise. She actually risks jeopardizing the case if she gets the attorneys to buy into bogus claims, that the opposition can then shoot holes in the way Frank did, and otherwise sews misinformation and dissension; the only other thing that occurs to me, is that perhaps the attorneys considered her such a loose cannon that they didn’t want to risk her being used by the opposing side, and thus included her on the old principle of “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”
I already said this in a comment in the previous story. I should sue Bangkok for plagiarism.
At first, Bangkok (aka Dennis K. Burke, disgraced former U.S. Attorney for Arizona) didn’t like Neil Glazer, as he and Glazer faced off several times regarding various matters back when Burke was representing Clare Bronfman and her “Ethical Science Foundation”, at a time when Glazer was starting to represent NXIVM related parties.
Then, federal prosecutors included Dennis K. Burke’s name in the NXIVM criminal prosecution court documents, partially describing Burke and his partner John Sandweg’s role in the NXIVM-Raniere-Bronfman immigration schemes…and Clare fired Dennis. That’s when a few things changed.
First of all, Burke lost one of the only paying clients he’s ever had as a lawyer, ending his temporary windfall. Burke had been introduced to Clare Bronfman in the first place by NXIVM member Emiliano Salinas, whose father is a former President of Mexico.
Second, Burke had to start acting like he didn’t and doesn’t like Clare, so he can pretend he had no knowledge of the immigration schemes that he knowingly helped Clare Bronfman to mastermind with knowledge left over from Burke’s former government jobs. (Knowledge Burke accumulated while also trafficking weapons “from the inside” of the United States government to Mexican cartels, a level of corruption previously unseen in any U.S. administration)
So now, Burke, the shape-shifting fake friend who only ever held appointed positions in the government (by virtue of strategic kissing up) has shifted his fakeness over to the side of acting like he sure hopes Glazer can make those Bronfmans (Burke’s former clients), pay as much as possible….because now (the way Burke would like the government to believe it), Burke thinks the Bronfmans are bad, bad bad.
Clare, are you seeing this? Your former lawyer continues to stab you in the back. When are you going to put an end to it?
The Arizona Bar already fined and censured Burke for dishonesty including lying. (Did Burke mention this history to his clients before they hired and paid him? If not, they should ask for their money back). You’d better believe the Arizona Bar knows who Burke is and would not be surprised to learn of his continued underhanded agendas.
And finally, (for this post), Dennis K. Burke doesn’t like Toni Natalie, because she was one of the first sources through which the FBI learned Burke was intimidating NXIVM related parties as part of Burke’s ongoing efforts to obstruct and otherwise influence the government’s investigation.
More Burke/Sandweg disinformation will surely follow what has been written here…such disinfo will also probably appear throughout the comments section of this post, as it usually “coincidentally” does whenever Burke’s presence is discussed.
It is truly odd how much time and effort Burke sets forth to try to manipulate the comments section of Frank’s blog on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.
-Mr. Burke Troll
Your Bangkok is Burke trolling is starting to get a little creepy. I used to think you were Bangkok, but have since concluded you are in fact an adult with an obsessive trollish proclivity. Do you realize Bangkok is a young man? Or is that some kind of a turn-on for you?
K.R.Claviger is going to enjoy explaining to Bangkok, why Bangkok’s understanding of the law is about as close to reality as the last Star Wars movie or Bangkok’s incredible [it’s a total fantasy] sex life.
Side note: Bangkok’s condoms are for easy-clean up [post flying solo] purposes only.
Bangkok’s condoms are about as useful as Kobe Bryant’s parachute post-crash.
Sarah Edmondson was the owner of downtown Vancouver long before Allison Mack was recruited so she knew much more than she claims to know, I’m almost sure she was one of the women in Keith’s haren, not the intimate circle but if do and I think about the way he expressed himself about keith on one occasion and also because of his emphatic defense over kristen kreuk I shouldn’t have had sex with him, certainly how could she know that if she didn’t know many of keith’s hidden things, on the other hand Mark Vicente was a SOP leader. I doubt that Keith would give him that position if he were someone who was not committed to the cause and with that I want to say that at least he was a good recruiter and saw many things to try to wash his hands just to look for money.
Which “cause” are you talking about? There’s a huge difference between charging high fees for classes versus f*cking anything that is walking around.