How far should plaintiffs be able to go to protect their identities in a civil lawsuit?
Neil Glazer is going to test that out.
The Philadelphia lawyer wants to conduct his massive civil lawsuit against the Nxivm defendants without the public ever finding out who the plaintiffs are.
The Nxivm defendants will know who all the plaintiffs are, of course, but Glazer wants to shield most of the plaintiffs’ identities from the media/internet by precluding any mention of their names in court filings or at the trial.
There are 80 plaintiffs altogether, but the public only knows the names of three – Sarah Edmondson, Toni Natalie, and Mark Vicente.
The others are known as Jane or John Does, with numbers. There are 58 Jane Does and 19 John Does.
I can guess the identity of about half of the plaintiffs without much effort, but, for now, at least, I am going to go along with Glazer, at least up until the time the court rules otherwise. I think I would be inclined to go with whatever the court decides as I did during the criminal trial of Keith Alan Raniere.
The Nxivm defendants are 15 people and four companies. They are all named, of course.
DR. BRANDON PORTER
DR. DANIELLE ROBERTS
DANIELLA PADILLA BERGERON
ROSA LAURA JUNCO
LORETA J. GARZA
DAVILA; MONICA DURAN
EXECUTIVE SUCCESS PROGRAMS, INC.
ETHICAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Of the defendants, thanks to their long association with Nxivm, most of them are poor to middle class, but we have a few exceptions: Clare and Sara Bronfman have hundreds of millions to be taken.
Rosa Laura Junco, while living on merely a million dollars a year or so allowance from her father, comes from a family that may be richer than the Bronfmans sisters are currently.
If a settlement is a possibility, the Juncos are as promising as the Bronfmans for financial recompense.
Raniere also may have a few million left from the Cafritz inheritance and it’s quite possible that Nancy has a few million between cash stashed and real estate she owns. The rest of them are, as far as I know, not affluent.
Let us return to the privacy point. What kind of precedent will this set?
In our legal system, which is supposed to be public for a variety of good reasons, can a plaintiff keep forever anonymous?
Can they win judgments in the millions and never be known?
This is what these plaintiffs want.
The defense is sure to argue that this lawsuit is a proactive effort. No one is forced to participate and this is, after all, about money.
This is not a criminal action. It is commonplace in America and other countries to shield the identities of victims of sex crimes from the public, but this case is in pursuit of money and some of the plaintiffs are not alleged to be sex crime victims.
Why should they have their names shielded from the same kind of scrutiny that every other plaintiff [and defendant] has to endure?
We are in interesting territory here – and I do not wish to seem hostile to the lawsuit. Just the contrary, I fully support it.
But it is worthy of debate. Precedents get set and while they may be fully appropriate in the original case, the precedent often gets used for expanding the theory into far less worthy cases.
Should everyone who is embarrassed by their deeds that led to their lawsuit be permitted to sue anonymously?
What about the defendants? They did not choose to be part of a lawsuit.
Forget for a minute that this is Nxivm. Imagine the next lawsuit that may be based on this precedent. While the plaintiffs are anonymous, the defendants’ names are blazoned in the lawsuit.
A world where plaintiffs are anonymous based simply on being embarrassed – while defendants are named – seems to be a highly prejudicial world that will embolden plaintiffs and prejudice defendants.
With that in mind, let us hear Glazer’s arguments for the total anonymity of most of his plaintiffs.
While Glazer filed a motion asking the judge to order that 77 of 80 plaintiffs now known as Jane or John Doe “may use pseudonyms in the caption of this case and in all public Court filings,” he will, of course, be revealing the true names of the Doe Plaintiffs to the Court and the defendants.
This is important to understand.
Raniere, Bronfman and company will know who the plaintiffs are.
Glazer filed a memorandum in support of his request. Here is the complete memorandum.
The basic two arguments Glazer raise are:
- Raniere-Bronfman are dangerous and known to retaliate.
- The Plaintiffs are embarrassed and traumatized by their Nxivm experience and publicity will hurt them.
As part of argument one, Glazer writes, “Defendants have a documented history of retaliatory and abusive litigation and other practices against their perceived opponents and those who spoke out (or who they thought might speak out) about what was going on behind the scenes at NXIVM. That history, combined with the sensitive nature of the Plaintiffs’ claims and the personal information about the Plaintiffs that Defendants compiled and may still have access to, provides good cause to … protect the Doe Plaintiffs from the threat of embarrassment, harassment and retaliation.”
The argument is weak, in my opinion, insofar as the defendants already know who the Doe Plaintiffs are. If they are capable and desirous of being retaliatory, they will do so, whether the plaintiffs’ names are made public or not.
Potential retaliation came into play once Bronman-Raniere learned who the plaintiffs are. The plaintiffs have already decided to risk that by joining in the lawsuit.
I personally do not think the chances of retaliation are high.
Raniere and Bronfman are up to their eyeballs in legal problems.
And I don’t think any of the other defendants are in the mood for retaliation. They are either in legal trouble themselves or do not wish to get into trouble.
It is interesting that the two men who might retaliate – Emiliano Salinas and Alex Betancourt – are not named in the lawsuit.
Alex viciously went after the DOS slaves trying to escape and Salinas’s father is rumored to be a leader of the Mexican drug cartels. I could see them retaliating but not Nicki Clyne, Monica Duran or Dani Padilla.
This argument seems weak to me.
Even so, even admitting retaliation is a possibility, shielding the names of the plaintiffs from the public has nothing to do with whether or not retaliation is in the cards.
If Bronfman-Raniere were free right now, they would retaliate, regardless of whether or not the plaintiffs’ names were made public. That would not matter to them one bit.
Glazer, along the same lines, mentions that some of the plaintiffs gave collateral which might still be in the hands of some of the defendants as a further argument to keep their names hidden from the public.
However, this is also a weak argument, in my opinion.
Whether or not the Doe Plaintiffs are named will have little bearing on whether Raniere or someone in Nxivm chooses to release their collateral.
Glazer refers to the release of Sarah Edmondson’s branding video as a further reason to shield the names of the plaintiffs.
He writes, “One episode that graphically illustrates why good cause exists to protect the Doe Plaintiffs is that a DOS victim’s branding video ‘was released during trial and published by the Mexican media, suggesting that Raniere’s alleged criminal enterprise may continue to exist notwithstanding his incarceration.'”
Edmondson’s branding video was broadcast on Televisa during the trial of Keith Raniere [May-June 2019].
However, and this Glazer may not know, Raniere did not release the collateral of Edmondson’s branding session during the trial.
I spoke with a high ranking source at Televisa who told me that they released the video during the trial because it was timely but he said Televisa had the video since November 2017, more than a year before the trial.
It was released to them while Raniere was still in Mexico.
It was my understanding that Lauren Salzman released the video to Televisa after she and Allison Mack worked on editing out screams and other seemingly coercive parts. It was meant to look like Sarah wanted to be branded to offset the idea in the media and possibly for law enforcement that it was coercive.
It was Televisa that chose not to air it until after Raniere’s arrest. Had it been up to Lauren, Allison and Keith, it would have aired at the time it was released.
But the release or non-release of collateral is not going to be impacted by the anonymity of the plaintiffs from the public. Whether the public knows the names of the plaintiffs or not will have no sway on a man like Raniere.
That won’t stop him if he has a mind to release the collateral.
However, to date, the Edmondson video is the only collateral I know of that has been released – and it was released before he was arrested.
He has had plenty of time to release the collateral of people like Nicole, Jaye, Sylvie, and even Lauren Salzman, who testified against him in the criminal trial. If he was going to retaliate by releasing collateral, he would have done so already.
Glazer makes a better point when he talks about the media attention that Nxivm has and will likely continue to receive.
“[T]here was sensational coverage about NXIVM from the tabloid press. In the nearly two years since Raniere’s arrest, that sensationalism has not subsided, existing not only on the sites of numerous established media in the United States, Mexico and Canada, but also blogs, YouTube channels and other online publications and outlets.”
In support of his point, Glazer’s civil lawsuit has generated substantial press and, if the plaintiffs are named in filings, some of them will be named in the media.
Most of them are not public figures, and the sum total of their internet search results could be tied to their role in Nxivm if their names are made public in this lawsuit.
Is it fair to keep their names outside of the public domain because it will tarnish them? It’s a good question.
The question is a lot easier when it is a criminal case, and people are victims of sex trafficking. But this is a civil case and at its heart, it’s a quest for money.
Where do you draw the line for anonymity in civil cases?
Glazer continues to paint a picture of the dangers of Raniere in his memo and mentions that jurors’ names were protected during the criminal trial of Raniere – even after the verdict. But Raniere knew the names of all the jurors.
Glazer makes a better argument when he goes into the topic of reputation.
Glazer writes that the DOE Plaintiffs, ‘Fear a lifetime of repercussions and lost opportunities as a result of their association with NXIVM, which has now become synonymous with DOS and Defendants’ most serious crimes in the public eye.”
Yes, it is true. Having your name associated with Raniere and Nxivm can have a harmful effect on your chances of employment or marriage etc. The potential for damage is immense for some otherwise largely innocent people.
I have recognized this and have removed many names from Frank Report of lower-level Nxivm members and DOS slaves because of the impact it was having on their lives.
Some people who were in Nxivm for years have never been mentioned online as members – and the mention of their names now in connection to this civil lawsuit could jeopardize their work and family life.
It is not easy to explain you were a member of a criminal sex cult but never participated in the sex or the crimes.
As Glazer argues, “Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and related problems due to their abuse by the Defendants, and this lawsuit and the accompanying press coverage will require them to revisit those traumatic events.”
Their PTSD will be made worse no doubt if they are named in the media.
And it is important to note that 50 of the 60 female plaintiffs are alleging serious sex trafficking claims.
That, by the way, is quite a significant number and suggests a far more extensive and criminal sex trafficking enterprise than what we heard about during the trial of Raniere where only one woman was alleged to be trafficked [Nicole] and only one woman [Jaye] was alleged to be a victim of attempted sex trafficking.
Now we have 50 women alleging sex trafficking – and this time it will be more than just Allison’s slaves.
Whether this will lead to more criminal charges remains to be seen.
Glazer makes another good point, even for the non-sex-trafficked women.
He writes, “The media have relentlessly focused on the sexual aspects of NXIVM, frequently including mentions of a so-called ‘sex cult’ in their stories and headlines. This may lead to the misapprehension that every NXIVM member was involved in lurid sexual abuse. No one should have to risk being tainted with that inaccurate and scandalous label, in order that they might pursue a valid claim to vindicate his or her rights… Thus, the need for pseudonymity extends beyond the claims of the sex trafficking victims.”
Glazer argues that ” The reputational risk to Defendants is small, because the national media has already covered the criminal proceedings and Raniere’s trial extensively. Moreover, Defendants Raniere, Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, Allison Mack, and Kathy Russell have all been convicted of crimes for their roles in the NXIVM enterprise and face prison time.
“Defendant Porter lost his medical license in New York State for engaging in the NXIVM medical experiments, which were described in great detail in a publicly available opinion. The involvement in NXIVM of every single Defendant named in the Complaint is a matter of public record, having been disclosed in the criminal proceedings in filings and at trial…
“Moreover, the Defendants will not be unfairly limited in their defense. Under Plaintiffs’ proposed Order, the Defendants will know the real identities of the Doe Plaintiffs and the parties need only substitute their Doe pseudonyms for their real names and/or redact identifying
information from documents filed in the case. Defendants will still have full discovery rights.
“The Doe Plaintiffs are not public figures, and their identities are not germane to the public’s interest in holding Defendants’ accountable or preventing similar criminal enterprises from victimizing others.”
This last part, in my opinion, sums up the best of Glazer’s arguments pretty well.
The defendants are all thoroughly known as Nxivm leaders and most of the plaintiffs are sex trafficking victims and otherwise non-public figures. Where is the harm in granting this application?
Now, it is up to the judge.
Someone didn’t post my response.
Neil Glazer knows that if the plaintiffs are granted permanent anonymity, which is standard, many more plaintiffs will come forward.
Neil is settling this case.
You are living in fantasy land if you believe Neil will ever go to trial. This case would be a nightmare to try in a court room.
Neil’s firm is not large enough to fund a large class action lawsuit.
Neil would have to go out and get third party financing to help with expenses…
….And all those expenses along with the financing interest/costs would cut into Neil’s profits.
Neil is no white night. The more plaintiffs equal a larger settlement and larger payday. Neil gets his 33%.
You are setting yourself up for disappointment.
BTW good old Neil used and kept Toni Natalie around because he believed she had all the contacts with the other defendants. And he does not want any other law firms involved.
Jussie Smollett Indicted Over False Hate Crime Attack By Special Prosecutor; Ex-‘Empire’ Star Back To Court
Justice at last. 🙂
But Flowers is gonna be pissed to hear this.
That wench loves Jussie the liar.
She’s gotta be sitting at home with her 15 cats right now, just fuming about this new indictment.
Pretty sure that Flowers even feels sympathy for Ezra McCandless, a cold blooded murderer who carved “boy” into her own arm to try and frame her victim.
Flowers is not very liked in Canada. Most Canadians hate her. The RCMP won’t even take her phone calls anymore.
It’s not over yet. Jussie may somehow squirm out of this charge as well. Being in Shitcago, anything can happen. Right, Mr. Shadow? Master of the Universe, All-Knowing Guru of MLM Scams?
Dan Webb is a professional prosecutor.
He is one of the top lawyers in Chicago.
And lots of African-Americans resent the way Jussie Smolett played the race card.
Whatever you say, Sgt. Joe Friday. Just the facts, ma’am. LOL
Sex slave cult boss Lawrence Ray charged in NY. I just read about this. There are so many similarities to DOS and NXIVM it boggles the mind. All the blackmail, forced labor, sex trafficking, forced false confessions, starvation, sleep deprivation, tax evasion, brainwashing (even the way he brainwashed them), are eerily similar. It went on for 10 years. I guess in NY they are just slow to catch these guys. FR is important to helping expose these to prevent them from happening again:
If you’ve seen one sex slave case, you’ve seen them all.
They all follow the same depressing pattern.
Another similarity with NXIVM is that people didn’t speak up, which enabled Ray to also get away with it for a very long time. It’s hard to “catch these guys” if there is no evidence for law enforcement to work with. People should NOT rely on people like Frank to expose these creeps, there’s only so much one guy can do.
How is it that this college Sarah Lawrence, located in Yonkers New York, allows a parent to live in a student dormitory.
That is what the story in today’s New York Times alleges.
“Lawrence V. Ray showed up at his daughter’s elite college, in a New York City suburb, in late 2010, shortly after being released from prison, and moved into her dormitory. ”
And get this.
Lawrence Ray was once a close associate of New York City’s Police Commissioner under Rudy Giuliani Bernard Kerik
“Mr. Ray, 60, once a close associate of former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik,”
“Mr. Ray was the best man at Mr. Kerik’s wedding and paid for part of the celebration
“Equally remarkable is Mr. Ray’s own strange history, a life where he seemed to seesaw between mob figures, on the one hand, and top law enforcement and military officials, on the other; he even has made claims, largely credited, that he worked for a United States intelligence agency in Kosovo.”
“He was an F.B.I. informant in the late 1990s, dishing dirt about a Gambino crime family soldier, but his efforts to cooperate with the bureau failed, and he was later charged with more than a dozen other men in a federal racketeering and stock fraud case in Brooklyn.”
“Perhaps the most unusual public episode in Mr. Ray’s career came in 1997 when he arranged a City Hall meeting for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.”
Lawrence Ray claimed that the college coeds were broken and he could fix them by pimping them out.
Just the same way Allison Pimp Mack claimed that a woman could fix her trauma by being pimped out to Keith Raniere.
You might want to use The Google to fact-check. Given that it seems implausible that the man was living in a conventional student dormitory as we might envision it, it’s more likely that some sort of non-traditional housing arrangement was involved. From what I’ve seen between my own time in academia, my kids’, and work I now do that takes me onto campuses, many colleges and universities have bought up formerly adjacent private properties to expand their space and footprint, including former single-family residences sometimes converted to student housing. It can end up being not that different from off-campus housing, except that the institution is the landlord.
Trump has finally spoken up for Roger Stone!
Hopefully, this means that Trump will pardon Stone down the road, after the election.
I hope Stone is set free .
Maybe Frank will give us an update soon. While I might not agree with Mr. Stone upon much of anything else, I too don’t want him to go to prison.
Watching video of Roger Stone going in and out of court, I feel so much empathy for his wife, who loves and upholds him.
The guy cannot be all bad when his wife loves him so much. As a woman, apolitically and conscientiously, I stand with her. I don’t care how silly it might sound or who she is, Roger Stone needs to have more time added all right, good days and nights at home with his wife.
Considering what a con-man Stone is, why not even suspect that his wife “who loves and upholds him” is told to act for the camera, or worse, worships him like the harem adored Keith?
Sounds like you learned reality from watching The Bachelor.
I don’t see it so much that Stone should get off easy, I see it as others are either getting off easy or aren’t being prosecuted at all, for far worse behavior.
Could it be that the Stones have their relationship parameters arranged their own way? They have been together for a long time. Their marriage hasn’t anything to do with his current troubles.
The couple seems to live in a way that has zero attraction for me, so I don’t understand what makes them tick. We could be from a different species of some subtle sort.
I don’t have the same attractions, and men who live in suits are not adventurous enough for me. But so what, it’s all of our world.
Nevertheless, Stone looks like he is having to be the fall-guy for acting the same way most “politicos” do, wheeling and dealing. The bastards shanghai one another but are all similar in their conduct. Probably most of these people who are drawn to the world of “power,” influence and questionable profits could be convicted of something or other and sent down the drain.
I’ve lived so much in Florida and have always loved most people from Cuba, have been lucky to have many good friends who came from there. Roger’s wife reminds me of a certain spiritedness and of one of my own favorite old friends.
Now it happens to be true that my old friend was a bit of a little devil, but we always had a such a blast. Party days, everywhere she went! She had so many incredible but very real stories to tell, but only when she knew someone could understand her. It came “up” more than once that she wanted me to so-call sleep with her husband, and she wanted to watch. Gee whiz. People really are funny.
So much for why bother watching The Bachelor, but isn’t that really a show about shopping? Shopping for what, I wonder?
Who the hell are you Flowers to pass judgement on someone else’s relationship? Especially when these are people you have never met before. You have quite the high and mighty tone in just about all of your comments.
Roger, is that you?
I never said I knew him. The information is from Morrow (who does know him)…so take up your complaint with crazy Robert.
Or maybe Roger could sue Morrow for slander.
Stone has regularly cheated on his loving wife. He has a mistress, and he has affairs. His wife’s apparent feelings are not an indication that Stone treats her well.
Niceguy, Trump doesn’t want to pardon Stone because it won’t be a good move for Trump, so instead he made this attempt at interfering in the justice system. However, this stunt will probably not accomplish what Trump hoped. The ultimate decision in Stone’s sentencing will still be up to the judge, not up to Trump and Barr.
I have never seen anything Smollett has acted in, so I’m not even a fan.
Apparently the charges against him are for disorderly conduct, which seems like a very strange charge in this case, but honestly I haven’t heard much yet about this new case against him.
Stone did not cheat on his wife. They have an open relationship.
—Stone did not cheat on his wife. They have an open relationship.—
I’m sure it was his loving wife’s idea, who had to pressure Rog to agree.
“Disorderly Conduct” is the charge that is used in Illinois for filing a false police report. The real crime that’s being alleged is making false statements to the Chicago Police Department.
Frank, I realize Stone and his wife prefer a certain lifestyle. According to his co-author and former friend, Morrow, Stone also had affairs of which his wife was unaware.
I don’t think they needed to tell each other about everything they did. But I can tell you they are very close and are good people.
It didnt make sense to me because I kept thinking of “drunk and disorderly”….which didn’t apply here.
—I am sure it was his loving wife’s idea, who had to pressure Rog to agree.
Roger Stone is famously quoted as saying, “I’ll try anything once”. He and his wife most likely started out that way before marriage,
–He and his wife most likely started out that way before marriage–
And they most likely mutually agreed to the open mariage…just like Keith and his harem mutually agreed that he could have sex with other women but the women could only have sex with him.
The fix is out! A few of the prosecutors stepping down.
According to this article, KAR was known as Big Dog in SOP. Is he now known as Big Pussy in MDC?
I had to look the story up, because it sounded so ridiculous, I didn’t believe it. LOL
“Members called Raniere “Big Dog” and the men’s group was allegedly framed as “NXIVM’s equivalent to joining the military” complete with “doing penances, disciplines and readiness drills that would build character.” -CBC
It’s like if you enlisted in the Marines and RuPaul was your drill sergeant.
All of the men in the Society of Protectors were completely out to lunch. What a bunch of pussies. A 5’4 a-feminine wimp named Big Dog? Chasity Bono could kick Keith Raniere’s ass.
‘Chasity Bono could kick Keith Raniere’s ass.” Nice Guy
Pee Wee Herman could kick Keith Raniere’s ass.
Frank Parlato kicked his ass with a keyboard.
“doing penances, disciplines and readiness drills that would build character.”
Next to leak about SOP is how they had to show their respect and devotion to Keith by kneeling before him as he bestows a “pearl necklace.”
With respect to money, if Junco is just receiving a large allowance, then she probably doesn’t have many assets to attach, and her father’s wealth is not really part of the equation; clever lawyers could probably even protect her income stream against judgments. As far as I can tell, it is Lauren Salzman who owns properties, not her mother Nancy, who lived in a house that belonged to a NXIVM-related entity (which apparently bought it from a member of Heidi and Gina’s extended Pippino-Romano clan, in yet another curiously connected transaction).
And unless Raniere and crew were actually exceptional, they fell into the typical culty scam artist mentality of failing to plan for the possibility of things blowing up on them, and so it’s unlikely that any of the hapless bunch actually has money stashed. What’s going on with Raniere’s supposed inheritance from Cafritz is a more interesting question, though.
It’s very interesting to see Mack’s reported role in editing and releasing Edmondson’s branding video, which is further evidence that she was a key figure in running DOS as Raniere’s henchwoman and enforcer; it’s interesting that Salzman wasn’t questioned about that at trial, but it wouldn’t have made her look good, either. “Frenchie,” Ally’s ESL defender/apologist, is apt to be upset if he catches that reference.
One more thing:
That one group was already whacked last Summer in Mexico. Though called “unrelated “, who knows for sure?
Allegations of a criminal enterprise could mean anything.
“Allegations of a criminal enterprise could mean anything.” Just sayin’
RICO laws are deliberately written to be vague and cover all kinds of criminal enterprises and criminal organizations.
Too bad that the World’s third smartest man and his brilliant followers did not realize that.
But the NXIVM defendants have to be profoundly stupid not to have understood that branding and blackmailing dozens of women was illegal.
Shadow, I know. Predicate acts, enterprise, etc. And the catch all of ” depriving honest services.”
I’ve litigated these. This one is the clearest I’ve ever seen.
I agree: when did it dawn on the plaintiffs they were defrauded? Why didn’t they jump ship?
The defense will be interesting, though Guilty verdicts makes the Plaintiff’s work much easier.
Interesting issue. Will read the Memorandum later. Until I do:
Sex crime victims are usually anonymous, but something bigger comes to mind:
Someone is a leader of the cartels? In a narco-state??
Hello. I’d be afraid, too. Who knows WHAT Nxivm was up to South of the Border.
LOL, I’d love to see a federal judge, in a US court, officially declare that Mexico is a ‘narco-state’ and base his rulings on this declared fact.
FYI: Yes, Mexico is a semi-narco state and their cartels cannot operate without the tacit authority from Mexican federal police and military leaders. It’s not a secret. The kidnapping, torture and murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena (in the 1980s) were done with the tacit approval of the Mexican Attorney General (To find out how much he knew about the government’s involvement with the cartels). There was even a tape recording made of his torture.
However, it’s another thing entirely for a US federal judge to declare Mexico a ‘narco-state’ and to base his rulings on it.
Besides, every plaintiff’s identity will already be known to the defendants regardless of how the judge rules on this request, which means every Mexican associate of NXIVM will have private access to this information too (ever heard of an invention called the telephone?).
Which means shielding these names from the public won’t prevent the Narcos from learning this info.
Dummy. Now grow a brain.
I agree with Neil Glazer.
I have no desire to hurt these plaintiffs any more than they have already been hurt.
But I think the public deserves to know the harm and havoc the NXIVM defendants have inflicted on their victims.
The best way to do that is for the court to reveal that Jane Doe #26 was harmed in this way by Defendant X with Defendant X’s name revealed and Jane Doe #26’s name being concealed.
Are you serious right now? I’m trying to be serious but if this case reads like an algebra course, I’m in trouble.
I’ve read the complaint filed by Glazer.
It numbers the Jane and John Does.
The defendants will know the names but you and I have no need to know the names.
We just need to know what the defendants are accused of doing.
If the defendants are upset at being restricted from naming their victims, they should have thought about that before branding and blackmailing so many people.
Complaint filed by Neil Glazer:
(A) SEX TRAFFICKING—18 U.S.C. § 1591, CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE 18 U.S.C. §
1591, and 18 U.S.C. § 1593A, BENEFITTING FROM SEX TRAFFICKING (against all
Defendants on behalf of Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1, Sarah Edmondson, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3,
Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, Jane Doe 8, Jane Doe 9, Jane Doe 10, Jane
Doe 11, Jane Doe 12, Jane Doe 13, Jane Doe 15, Jane Doe 16, Jane Doe 17, Jane Doe 18,
Jane Doe 19, Jane Doe 20, Jane Doe 21, Jane Doe 23, Jane Doe 25, Jane Doe 26, Jane Doe
27, Jane Doe 28, Jane Doe 29, Jane Doe 30, Jane Doe 31, Jane Doe 32, Jane Doe 33, Jane
Doe 34, Jane Doe 36, Jane Doe 39, Jane Doe 41, Jane Doe 42, Jane Doe 43, Jane Doe 44,
Jane Doe 45, Jane Doe 47, Jane Doe 48, Jane Doe 50, Jane Doe 51, Jane Doe 52, Jane Doe
53, Jane Doe 54, Jane Doe 55, Jane Doe 56, Jane Doe 58, Jane Doe 59 and Jane Doe 60);
So, is Sarah Edmonson suing herself?
Wasn’t she a major recruiter for NXIVM, earning more than a million dollars?
Do the mystery Plaintiffs have claims against Sarah?
Something smells rotten here
And Toni Natalie is a lead plaintiff? Why is Toni suing Alison Mack?
Yeah, Frank, what’s really going on or is this just a circus act.
I think the lawsuit is sincere.
Neil Glazer has been working on this for years. Obviously the best result is a settlement of the case with big-bucks Bronfmans and Junco paying up to avoid all the possible criminal disclosure in the civil case.
Neil of course and the battery of lawyers will get a third of the take, so therefore they will make more than any individual plaintiff – but then again they are doing all the work – and on spec. No one is paying them upfront.
I don’t fully agree with the anonymity concept, because, I believe, if more women and men were brave and willing to stand up, it might chill the perpetrators who depend on the cowardice and desire for confidentiality. Far from wanting the victims to be hurt, I feel that they may end their victimization when they tell the world and their abusers they fear no one.
That said, Neil Glazer had a huge role in the take down of Nxivm.
Whaaaaat? How so? What was his role?
He was the one who represented Jaye, Nicole and Daniela and gave them the confidence to testify. He also represented others who provided info to the feds and were standby witnesses.
Recruiting and making money aren’t crimes.
That’s what Amway said
That’s what the law says.
Someone got burnt.
“Recruiting and making money aren’t crimes.” Scott Johnson
Amway is deliberately designed so that most participants will lose money.
Really? Is that really true? Please tell me more, Mr. Shadow. Please be responsive for once, how are recruiting and making money illegal? LOL
Anyone using a taxpayer funded forum to seek redress, like our Courts, needs to be public. It’s really that simple. Otherwise, seek private arbitration or mediation.
PS – HAPPY BIRTHDAY NICKI!!! Gonna be a super soft one this year!? 😉
Nicki still has her friend Michelle to give her Birthday Cheer.
Nicki and Michelle actually get along better than Nicki and Allison.
Something to do with Allison stealing Keith Raniere from Nicki.
They should have thought about this before filing a lawsuit, everybody should stand to their actions! Not every defendant is guilty of the other defendants wrongdoing either, but they still get connected to it!!
They did think about this before filing the lawsuit. What makes you think they didn’t?
I can understand the reasons why these plaintiffs would not want their names to be made public, but has that ever been done before with a class action suit such as this one?
I’m calling bullshit! Neil has lost his mind. If Edmonson can do it, so can the rest. Not only that but Toni is a fucking criminal that stole from the same people wanting their money back.
As for my own opinion, I say FUCK this request for anonymity.
This is a court of law, not a left wing mainstream media telecast.
The ‘retaliation’ argument is so nonsensical that it weakens Neil’s overall argument —– since it makes his credibility less than what it otherwise would have been, IMO.
As Frank astutely pointed out, the defendants will already know who everybody is anyway —— thus, hiding their identities from the ‘public’ won’t do anything to prevent NXIVM from retaliating. How can the judge give Neil any credibility (after reading that part of his request) when he’s pretty much speaking in a dialect of English called ‘word salad’?
IMO, it’s basically a long argument of ‘word salad’ topped with rancid Italian dressing, which almost reminds me of something that Keith might write.
The only argument that makes sense is the ‘humiliation’ argument.
These plaintiffs want to be spared the ‘humiliation’ of letting the public know that they were dumb enough to associate with a sex cult, in some cases for years.
But then again, maybe the public should know this stuff.
Why? …So that people will think twice before associating with these types of cults in the first place.
While it’s true that these plaintiffs probably had no idea about Keith’s sexual perversions or the true intentions of DOS, I find it hard to believe that they didn’t realize they were at least joining a ‘cult’ —— since right from Day #1 everybody is subjected to obvious cult indoctrination routines (including chanting after classes, separation from friends who aren’t supportive of the cult, demonstrating absolute loyalty and worshiping a FAT SLOB as though he were god on Earth, etc.
I am too smart to fall for a cult like that.
I was too smart to fall for Amway’s cult techniques too, when they attempted to recruit me using subterfuge and trickery (by not telling me that they were from ‘Amway’ and by lying about why they wanted to meet with me one day, which had nothing to do with making money or selling anything).
I sniffed them out after just 5 minutes of listening to them speak. Even before I knew it was really ‘Amway’, I had already realized they were some type of ‘cult’. LOL.
But sadly, Scooter Johnson was not smart enough to do this. Scooter Johnson spent YEARS in Amway while trying to recruit (sucker) innocent people into his ‘downline’ to feather his own nest. Scooter Johnson needs to apologize and make amends with the people he suckered into his downline at Amway.
Anyway, getting back to Neil’s argument…
Maybe public humiliation & shame is the best way to ensure that ADULTS stop associating with cults in the first place?
Maybe that’s the ‘price’ for being dumb enough to let yourself fall into the clutches of a cult led by a fat, smelly slob?
Everything in life has a price. The world isn’t fair.
Is it fair that kids and families are starving right now, while others have plenty?
I feel as apolegetic for joining Amway as Frank does for joining NXIVM. We are both educating others about these scams AND using our real names, unlike most on this website. You are so “brave” to suggest others use their real names when you aren’t willing to even connect your ID to an anonymous social media account, let alone use your real names. LOL
Of course, Frank uses his real name, it’s his site! Anyone else who does is an idiot.
Q.Is it fair to keep their names outside of the public domain because it will tarnish them?
A. Hell no!
“Plaintiffs are embarrassed and traumatized by their Nxivm experience and publicity will hurt them.”
Advice..back out now then.
As Glazer argues, “Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and related problems due to their abuse by the Defendants, and this lawsuit and the accompanying press coverage will require them to revisit those traumatic events.”
Toni Natalie was cured of her PTSD during the trial. Advice….seek advice from Natalie.
There are different aspects of this civil suit which have been bothering me from the get-go. I remind myself to keep openminded and that there’s a lot to be learned. Nevertheless, I still don’t feel as fully “embraceable” about this lawsuit as I’d really like to be.
It looks like a big mess so far, but the plaintiffs deserve to pursue their civil attempts to get some recompense. Maybe things will begin to make more sense later.
Glazer has made an application for some facets of the plaintiffs’ anonymity to be protected, but that application is only a kind of request, right? It’s completely understandable that Glazer has made this application, to me. So many ended up being harmed by Raniere and his major followers, and some of the court testimony during Raniere’s trial was heartbreaking.
Yet at the same time, there are just some doubts and questions, still on my mind, about even the named plaintiffs’ own involvements with Raniere.
Although not exactly the same scenario, identities in civil cases are often kept confidential: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2779&context=llr In this case, some former Quixtar (Amway in North America from 1999-2009) anonymously spoke out against Quixtar and Quixtar sued them civilly. A necessary part of being able to do that was to learn who they were and the judge ruled that in most cases Quixtar did not have the legal right to demand their identities, as anonymous speech is protectected, and has been since before the Constitution was ratified. NXIVM’s abusive use of the legal system should be enough to push this case over the finish line to keeping the identities confidential.
Frank — If the judge rules in Glazer’s favor, would it prevent any of the defendants from revealing the names later? Say Allison decides to write a book or give an interview while in prison or after she gets out. Would anything happen if she were to reveal that say Olivia XXX was one of the Jane’s suing her?
Also you said that you’ve, “stopped naming people who have come to me and told me, assured me and proved to me they were out.” Curious how someone proves to you that they are out. If someone like Sarah Edmondson tells you that XXX is out but XXX doesn’t tell you tell you themselves, would yous still name them?
It would probably be a permanent injunction. I don’t think Frank said he accepts second-hand information.
“Say Allison decides to write a book or give an interview while in prison or after she gets out. ” Anonymous
This legal process is designed to heal the victims and make them whole.
Why should anyone care about giving Allison Mack one last whack at her victims?
And while we are on the subject, many of these victims still have blackmail material floating around on the internet.
Those victims are still vulnerable to blackmail or extortion.
These victims have asked the defendants to return the blackmail information and have been stonewalled.
I don’t want to hear how Keith or Allison or Lauren or Clare are being stifled while they are still hanging on to blackmail material.
I do not accept second hand sources for who is in or out and I have had numerous requests. I also do not feel it is right from a historical perspective to take names off who had big roles in Nxivm. One person actually [between the time I broke the branding story and before the New York Time story on branding came out] i.e. July 2017, asked me, on behalf of her dear friend Kristin Kreuk, to take Kruek’s name off. I felt that Kreuk had too big a role in Nxivm to be removed as if she was not part of its history.
Was that Sarah Edmondson?
It might have been.
I was just curious about the answer. I’ll ask questions too, if I know the answer. I know the relationship between Sarah Edmondson and Kristin Kreuk. I just want to see if answers or statements are lies.
In reference to Alison making a book and naming her victims, she is not allowed to. At least not while in prison. The US has a law, I believe it is “Sam’s son” law from the serial killer, that says that criminals cannot profit from their victims. This serial killer was writing books and making money from his victims, etc. As a result, we now have this law that would protect victims
“I do not accept second-hand sources for who is in or out” — Frank, are you saying that if Nicki Clyne called you and said that she was out of NXIVM, you would believe her over Edmondson or Vicente telling you that Clyne was out? That seems backward to me. Why would you believe Clyne over Edmondson or Vicente, especially knowing how members lie and have played you and others in the past. And how does someone prove to you that they are really out?
Frank didn’t say that. Use your brain.