A Stipulated Order was filed today in the Nxivm civil lawsuit wherein 80 former Nxivm members are suing 15 Nxivm leaders.
The stipulated order is between the plaintiffs and one of the defendants, Sara Bronfman-Igtet.
The parties have agreed to stay the civil lawsuit until all Nxivm criminal defendants are sentenced. For it to become effective, the stipulated order simply needs the approval of the presiding judge in the case, Eric R. Komitee.
Document 34 – Stipulated Order Staying Proceedings – Sara Bronfman-Igtet (02.20.2020)
Philadelphia attorney Neil Glazer is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
This stipulation will delay any further proceedings in the case until Keith Alan Raniere, Clare Bronfman, Kathy Russell, Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, Lauren Salzman, and Nancy Salzman have all been sentenced.
Raniere, Bronfman and Russell are set to be sentenced in April.
Lauren and her mother, Nancy Salzman, and former actress Allison Mack have yet to have a date set by the court for their sentencing.
Raniere was convicted at trial in June 2019. The other five defendants took plea deals in April 2019.
There is speculation that Salzman, Salzman and Mack are cooperating with the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York – and that their sentencing dates may be suspended until well after a future wave of indictments have been issued against Nxivm leaders and others.
It has been 10 months since they pleaded guilty to racketeering crimes – and there is still no sentencing date in sight. That is highly unusual, especially considering that Raniere and two of his top loyalists, Bronfman and Russell, have had dates set for their sentencings for about a month.
The Pre-Sentencing Reports for Mack and the Salzmans are not likely to be more complicated, or time-consuming than the ones for Raniere and Clare Bronfman.
There was no excessive holdup in setting a sentencing date for Keith Raniere. There seems to be no reason for the lengthy delay for sentencing dates for Mack and the Salzmans other than it is the protocol for cooperating defendants to have their sentencing stayed until they testify for the prosecution. This ensures cooperating witnesses testify as directed, whether truthful or not.
If there will be a second wave of indictments, and Mack and the Salzmans are cooperating, this could push back their sentencing for another year or longer – which, in turn, would hold up the Glazer civil lawsuit by an equal amount of time.
In addition, the stipulation indicates that Sara Bronfman-Igtet agreed to be served through her attorneys – in return for which the Plaintiffs in the case agreed to stay the proceedings as outlined above.
Sara is being represented by four attorneys from the Cozen O’Connor law firm:
– J. Bruce Maffeo;
– John J. Sullivan;
– Nicole H. Sprinzen; and
– Andrew D. Linz.
I am not certain why Bronfman-Igtet agreed to this deal since the “stay” would likely have been automatically granted.
18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(1) provides that “[a]ny civil action filed under subsection (a) shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is a victim,” and Section 1595(b)(2) provides that a criminal action remains pending “until final adjudication in the trial court.”
On February 5, 2020, the Nxivm plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order requesting permission from the court to proceed in their lawsuit under pseudonyms.
Only three of the 80 plaintiffs are prepared to publicly use their names – Mark Vicente, Sarah Edmondson, and Toni Natalie.
Bronfman-Igtet has agreed to let the 77 anonymous plaintiffs continue to be referred publicly to by Jane and John Doe.
According to the stipulation, “Sara Bronfman-Igtet does not accept or agree with Plaintiffs’ stated grounds for the Proposed Protective Order, but she nonetheless consents to entry of the Proposed Protective Order.”
According to the stipulation, Bronfman-Igtet will learn the names of the Jane and John Doe plaintiffs after the stay is lifted.
She may then challenge the Proposed Protective Order.
The big gain for Glazer seems to be that Bronfman-Igtet agreed to accept service through her attorneys. This spared Glazer the need to have to hunt her down in Portugal or wherever she decides to hide next in order to serve her.
Bronfman-Igtet and her sister, Clare, are the “Big Money” defendants in this case.
Her assets have been likely moved offshore. She may be hard to collect from if the plaintiffs prevail in this case.
Bronfman-Igtet’s sister, Clare, resides in Manhattan – and is still subject to home arrest. She will be sentenced on April 23rd and will likely be residing in prison for several years. How much of her assets she was able to secrete from potential judgments is anybody’s guess.
Much of her money is likely tied up in trusts that may be protected from civil seizure. She also has offshore assets.
How much money she has readily available in the US is not known.
As part of the stipulation agreement, it appears that none of the 15 Nxivm Defendants will be required to file an Answer or other response to the complaint until the stay has been lifted. The deadline to file such an Answer will be 21 days from the date on which the stay is lifted, which is the day after the last rascal is sentenced.
Meantime Sara Bronfman-Igtet is bringing out the checkbook once again to pay for lawyers. Who knows: she may be indicted herself.
Viva Executive Success!
The first of probably many delays, as I said earlier.
Clare Bronfman had a delay of three months based on 25 alleged victims.
Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman, as heads of NXIVM DOS, have one hundred plus possible victim impact statements to deal with.
Remember this story from July 2019?
Rumors About Allison Mack Include Nervous Breakdown
Convicted racketeer and former actress Allison Mack has had a nervous breakdown, a Nxivm source told Frank Report.
“She had a meltdown,” the source said. “She was babbling and incoherent and needed psychiatric treatment.”
“Her episode was so severe, and her lack of cognition of her surroundings caused alarm for family and friends and necessitated medical attention,” the source said.
https://frankreport.com/2019/07/05/rumors-about-allison-mack-include-nervous-breakdown/
How trustworthy will an incoherent babbling witness prone to nervous breakdowns be?
Furthermore Ms. Mack has a history of falsely accusing family members of child molestation.
How trustworthy is a witness like that?
Here is another story from July 2019
Source: NDNY Poised to Charge Raniere and Bronfman in November
According to a source who is highly familiar with the investigation into Keith Alan Raniere and Clare Webb Bronfman, the Northern District of NY [NDNY] is planning to indict the two leaders of Nxivm.
Raniere and Bronfman may be charged as soon as November, the source said.
https://frankreport.com/2019/07/31/source-ndny-poised-to-charge-raniere-and-bronfman-in-november/
November has come and gone and there are no new charges.
Nothing in this case has followed normal protocol because the original prosecution was rushed.
The US DOJ feared that Raniere would flee to Fiji and the blackmail material would be released over the internet.
So the arrests and prosecutions were done before the original investigation was completed.
There is nothing abnormal in this case.
“Scott Johnson
February 21, 2020 at 5:09 pm
There is nothing abnormal in this case.”
Every neighborhood in America has harems with 100 sex slaves.
I addressed the case, not the neighborhood. But thanks for consistently going off-topic. LOL
Scott:
Name one other case with 80 plaintiffs, 15 defendants and involving the following crimes:
sex trafficking
human trafficking
forced labor
peonage,
extortion
blackmail
battery
I think you’re misreading this as to when Sara gets to learn the Plaintiff’s identities. Paragraph 5 of the Order says, “Upon entry of this Proposed Protective Order and an appearance by Defendant Sara Bronfman-Igtet as described in Paragraph 3 above…Plaintiffs’ counsel will identify each and every Plaintiff to Defendant Sara Bronfman-Igtet.” She gets to know immediately upon entry of the protective order and her appearance. The stay is only in regard to her answer and attacking the protective order itself.
.