Allison Mack entered Nxivm around 2006 with an estimated net worth of $8 million. Like others who came to Keith Raniere, Allison soon lost most of her money.
Then came her arrest. Even though Clare Bronfman paid most of her legal fees, Allison still incurred a lot of new expenses as a result of her arrest – and the Feds seized her Albany real estate.
Facing sentencing soon, Allison filed for divorce from her spouse, Nicki Clyne, in December.
In her divorce filings, Allison listed assets worth just under $1 million. Of course, the equity in her real estate is an estimate – and I would not be surprised to learn that Allison underestimated values to land under one million.
Another interesting thing in Allison’s divorce filings is that Mack did not list “nullity” [as in fraud] as the reason for divorce.
She chose instead “irreconcilable differences” which is an indication that Allison thinks the marriage was real but is no longer viable. They have differences: chief among them Keith Raniere.
Now, let’s take a peek at some of the information in the divorce filings.
The following was previously published on Reddit…
I got Allison Mack’s petition for divorce. I’ll describe what’s inside it in excruciating detail…
After the celebrity/paparazzi coverage of Allison Mack’s divorce from Nicki Clyne, there’s been a surprising lack of follow-up about what was in the filing.
I figured there is enough interest is in the Mack/Clyne divorce on the subreddit that it would be worth it to purchase hard copies and post up whatever new [info] may be in them.
Please note: Mack is a public figure and this is posted in the general public interest of keeping track of the NXIVM case.
However, out of an abundance of caution, I am not sharing original scans since there is private information on them. I am also making an effort to keep a bit of ambiguity and will stick to general ranges about certain numbers.
So, on to what can be observed:
Mack did her own paperwork and did it (slightly) earlier than reported
The electronically-filed court record of the petition for divorce indicates that Mack signed papers over a week before the filings were entered into the court’s database on December 11, 2020 (where they were discovered by TMZ). She also chose to file the petition without a lawyer.
The divorce petition form does not ask for any narrative, but rather has a bunch of checkboxes and dropdown fields. That is not to say that there aren’t interesting factoids to be mined. For instance, Mack chose to list the date of her (de facto) separation from Clyne as the exact date of arrest on April 20, 2018.
However, Mack did not choose to list “separation” as her reason for divorce (maybe since this was never legally certified), and also did not cite “nullity” due to fraud or unsound mind, but rather chose “irreconcilable differences.”
Jobless, but living off residuals and assets…
A brief note regarding Mack’s employment (the job she was allowed to work as part of her bail) claims that Mack lost her job in March 2020.
Totaling up several income fields, Mack can still claim to make approximately $30,000 a year while living with her retired parents – a mix of residuals and rental income. It appears Mack was allowed to keep one of her properties, noted as being bought before her 2017 marriage, and is renting it at under $2,000 a month. I will speculate that this is her home in the greater LA area being sublet.
When it comes to assets, counting her home equity, Mack has a shade under $1 million in assets; other than home equity, much of it is in retirement accounts. She also has over $100,000 in debt, mostly her mortgage but also a student loan debt (she lists herself as having completed 2 years of college).
…but no interest in sharing any assets or income with you-know-who [Clyne].
Since the point of this tally is to decide how to divide income and property, might as well mention it: Mack is offering Clyne absolutely no share of any of her income or property so far.
This case [divorce], that bothersome criminal one [USA v Raniere, Mack et al], and that civil suit [Edmondson et Raniere, Mack, et al] Interestingly enough, I checked with the Orange County’s court system and there has yet to be a date provided for whatever next steps there may be in this divorce proceeding. Someone familiar with California family law can probably give a general idea of when Clyne would have to contest the divorce by (and choose whether she wishes to go quietly or engage in lawfare).
In addition: Mack is compelled to list any ongoing litigation as part of her petition. She lists her own case, as well as the Edmondson et al. v. Raniere et al civil suit; interestingly enough, Mack and Clyne are on the same side as defendants in the civil suit, so a possible court appearance could reunite the two regardless of their current attitudes toward each other (much less their attitudes toward Keith Raniere).
A couple of additional comments are in order here:
Allison did not retain a lawyer, which suggests she does not expect the divorce to be contested. The paperwork is not complicated. It is the contesting which becomes complicated and expensive.
The timing is important. It is in the run-up to her sentencing that Allison finally filed for divorce from Nicki. This almost certainly has to do more with her sentencing than with her need or desire to divorce Clyne.
For her own self-preservation, Allison needs to denounce Raniere. The sentencing judge, Nicholas Garaufis, has already shown he is capable of sentencing harshly in the Nxivm case. His sentence of Clare Bronfman was triple [the] sentencing guidelines, and he did this, it was apparent, because she would not disavow Raniere.
He gave Raniere 120 years.
Nicki Clyne is Raniere’s most famous supporter. She has danced in front of his jail. She has signed an affidavit trying to get the judge to give Raniere a new trial. [He denied it.]. The judge believes she is part of a media plan to discredit the integrity of his trial of Raniere and he has said he believes it is funded with Bronfman money [I doubt this is true].
Staying married could only hurt Allison.
Getting divorced from the woman that most visibly supports Raniere is a proactive move, quite possibly meant to show that Allison has left the last of her entanglements of Nxivm.
She is facing a max of 40 years and though her sentencing guidelines are probably in the 3-to-5 year range, if the judge triples her guidelines, like he did with Clare, Allison could get 15 years. He might even give her more – say 20 years, because her charges were more serious than Bronfman’s.
Working against leniency also is the unfortunate way she was described during the trial. Two of the most compelling witnesses, Nicole and Jessica, painted a godawful portrait of Mack. Mark Vicente also characterized some sides of Allison that were not very flattering, particularly Allison’s relationship with his wife.
The media will not be sympathetic to Mack. She will be described as a sex slaver – even though she was not convicted of a sex crime [She pleaded guilty to racketeering and racketeering conspiracy].
A judge who goes “too easy” on a woman that was charged initially as being an accomplice in the sex trafficking of Nicole and attempted sex trafficking of Jessica, will be criticized.
However, if the judge were inclined to be lenient, he has more to back up his decision if Allison shows genuine repentance and transforms herself as much as she can from a perpetrator and conspirator with Raniere to becoming another victim of Raniere.
Mack provided evidence for the prosecution to use against Raniere at his trial, and for which the prosecution might recommend a sentence at or below the sentencing guidelines range.
She has spent almost three years subject to house arrest, with an ankle monitor and under pretrial supervision – without an apparent violation. She went to school, got a job for a time. Has made every court appearance and evidently has not violated her bail conditions.
She denounced Raniere at her plea hearing in 2019. She needs to do it again at her sentencing, but this time far more vigorously.
And she needs to divorce Nicki Clyne.