Last Friday was the deadline for all 11 defendants in the federal civil lawsuit, Sarah Edmondson, et al. v Keith Raniere et al to file motions to dismiss. Five of the defendants filed motions. They are Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman, Danielle Roberts, Brandon Porter, and Nicki Clyne.
Six defendants apparently filed nothing and one might assume from this that they do not plan to defend the suit which will likely lead to default judgments against them.
The defendants who did not file motions are Keith Raniere, Nancy Salzman, Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman, Kathy Russell, and Karen Unterreiner. This group is, for the most part, without money.
The lawsuit is, of course, all about the Bronfmans, the true and only targets of the civil litigation.
While the filings of the Bronfmans – coming from top flight civil litigators – have a better legal sheen – it is Clyne’s motion to dismiss that is the most virulent, in your face, and amusing.
The plaintiffs are 74 in number, down from 81. A few backed out.
In addition to Edmondson, other plaintiffs include sisters Camila and Daniela, Mark Vicente, Bonnie Piesse, Anthony Ames, Toni Natalie, Jessica Joan, Souki, Nicole [the sex trafficking victim], India Oxenberg, Tabitha Chapman, Ashley McLean, Ana Cecilia and some 60 Jane and John Does of which about two thirds are Janes.
The allegations in the lawsuit are contained in the first amended complaint. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs is Neil Glazer of Kohn Swift of Philadelphia.
Since it is plainly part of the record, I think I will publish Clyne’s motion in full. While I doubt the motion to dismiss will be granted, the Bronfmans probably spent six figures on lawyers on their motions to dismiss and I doubt their motions will be granted either.
Why is that?
Because there are issues of fact in dispute here and plaintiffs – that is people who seek money in a civil lawsuit – generally speaking – deserve their day in court where triers of fact – the jury can hear the evidence and decide.
It is not due process for the judge to simply hear that the case is full of shit and, therefore, dismiss it. There are some reasons for a lawsuit to be dismissed and we will get into those when we report on the Bronfmans’ motions.
‘Here is Nicki Clyne’s motion to dismiss and, if I make an occasional clarification, [I will do so in brackets and bold].
:
DEFENDANT [NICKI CLYNE’s] MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
1. Pursuant to Rule 8, 9(b), and 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant [Clyne] hereby respectfully requests that the court hereby dismiss all claims in the complaint for failure to state a complaint for relief, failure to make a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and failure to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake they are alleging.
2. I am not a lawyer and am representing myself pro-se.
3. I do not have access to money to hire an attorney.
4. I do not have any assets that would grant any relief or compensation for the 74 Plaintiffs’ alleged hardships.
5. I have a 2011 Subaru to my name.
6. Which begs the question, why am I defendant in this suit? I submit I am here for show, for window dressing.
7. This is a greed-grab for Bronfman money.
8. I find it curious that the main difference between me and the Plaintiffs is that I have chosen not to disavow my experience in NXIVM and, instead, I express gratitude for everything I learned and gained through the curriculum.
9. I have no ill will towards anyone who was part of the NXIVM community.
10. I do not feel I am owed by anyone with whom I jointly, knowingly, and willingly participated in the personal growth programs.
11. While I cannot know the motivations of those involved in this convoluted and confusing complaint, I can assume that, since I have nothing to offer financially, I am being included to tie in certain alleged wrongs with the Bronfman sisters, the real targets of this lawsuit.
12. In the fall of 2005, I was recruited into Executive Success Programs (ESP) by one of the plaintiffs, Sarah Edmondson. She enthusiastically promoted the program and encouraged me to sign up immediately so that she would receive a commission.
13. From that point forward, Edmondson received a monetary percentage of every training I took over the 12 years I was involved, and everyone I recruited and so on. Yet, she is suing me.
14. If her complaints are true, I should be suing her. She recruited me, encouraged, and, if the complaint is true, indoctrinated me, not vice versa.
15. Edmondson, the lead plaintiff in this case, is the real culprit, if the FAC [First Amended Complaint] is true. She made money off me, preyed on me, cajoled, pleaded, and inveigled me to take more and more courses which she now claims were deceptive and hypnotic and harmed her.
16. If the complaint is true, I am being sued for being a victim of Edmondson, and the very harm she purportedly recruited me into. This alone should show the capricious, mercenary nature of this complaint.
17. Edmondson made tens of thousands of dollars off me for my participation in NXIVM and the resulting commissions.
18. I never made any money off of her.
19. It would appear she wants to continue making money off me, when the very claims she alleges, if they were true [they are not] were her doing.
20. Another plaintiff, Mark Vicente, who recruited Edmondson, also received a percentage of all the money I spent over the years.
21. Both Edmondson and Vicente encouraged me to continue taking classes over the course of twelve years, to become a coach, and to become increasingly involved with the program and the community.
22. Vicente, also, was my teacher and mentor in the program, and consistently pushed me to take more classes and be involved at higher and higher levels.
23. Were it not for them, I would have never have taken the program or gotten involved with the community.
24. If their claims are true, as they say, then the logic would follow that I am actually a victim of theirs and should be reimbursed and rewarded for my time and resources spent.
25. The audacity of their suing me after they profited financially from every course I took over twelve years, and have since destroyed my reputation, my career, and my relationships due to lies they’ve spread about me in the media, is almost unbelievable. Their coming after me for so- called damages is remarkable cupidity considering: if there were any truth to their claims, they should be offering to reimburse me for all the money they took from me and, the damages they caused me.
26. Both were constantly active in encouraging me to participate in every program offered under the NXIVM umbrella.
27. Here’s the difference between Mark Vicente and me: If I make a mistake, I own up to it. But if he, and some of these other Plaintiffs, evidently, make a mistake, they want others to blame for it. It’s bizarre and eccentric that Vicente and Edmondson should choose me since they’re the ones who brought me into NXIVM.
28. At the very least, they should apologize for misleading and manipulating me all these years, if such is the case.
29. Instead, in their naked greed, they are suing me.
30. Unlike Edmondson and Vicente, and some other Plaintiffs, I never earned money as a salesperson for NXIVM.
31. Like most of the Plaintiffs, I enjoyed the education as a participant and did my best to learn the teachings so I could help others as a coach.
32. I found the process uplifting and fulfilling, as did everyone else I came in contact with.
33. In all the time I spent with Keith Raniere and the other women in DOS, I only ever understood and witnessed it to be a sisterhood that helped women become more independent, empowered, and fulfilled in their lives.
34. I cannot speak for anyone else, but that is what I experienced and what I witnessed with the women I related with directly.
35. The false allegation that the purpose of DOS was to secure sex partners for Raniere is not only offensive to the women who chose to be romantically involved with him, it is wildly impractical and untrue.
36. Another plaintiff, Camila, is claiming to be a victim of branding, falsely described as “battery.”
37. If this were the case, then Camila and I, who were both in the “First Line” are both victims because we both received a brand from same person at the same time.
38. Unlike most of the Plaintiffs, I recognize that the beauty of being an adult is you make your own choices and decide to spend your time and resources in whatever way you please.
39. Personally, if I purchase something I find doesn’t match the value I expected or desired, I discontinue my membership or simply do not purchase that product again.
40. Considering I had nothing to do with running NXIVM and was positioned similarly to most of the Plaintiffs, [except Vicente and Edmondson who were top leaders of NXIVM and ran their own centers] I am at a loss for how to defend myself except to point out that this is clearly a retaliatory action seeking to punish me for not taking their side, while hoping to steal from the Bronfman fortune.
41. Regarding the one and only specific claim against me by a Jane Doe 8, I can easily show the falsehood with the text message exchanges in which I wish her well when she chose to leave DOS. Never once did I say she couldn’t leave, only that I was sad, but I would always care for her and consider her a friend.
42. Her “recollection” of how she got involved can similarly be disproven with documentation I have at my disposal.
43. The notion that she performed forced labor is curious since I was unaware of any labor that was performed on my behalf or for my benefit or anyone else’s. The only thing I ever received from her was a collection of five or six greeting cards that I thought she gave me as a gift. I would happily return the unused greeting cards to Jane Doe 8, a woman with whom I had been friends since I was 17 years old, so that she can be made to feel whole.
44. This whole point should show a reasonable trier of fact that this whole case is a frivolous money grab at Bronfman dollars.
45. I am included along for their “joy ride.”
46. The fact that I invited another close friend to join DOS around the same time as Jane Doe 8, who declined the offer with no repercussions to our friendship, demonstrates that DOS was an option offered to grown women who either chose to be involved or not. End of story.
47. I will add that Jane Doe 8 never got a brand.
48. No woman that I invited into DOS ever got a brand.
49. Even so, alleging that grown women choosing to join a group that involves getting a brand, something akin to a tattoo, is edgy, at best, but by no means “battery.”
50. On August 19, 2021 there were motions of voluntary dismissal for defendants Monica Duran, Daniela Padilla, Loreta Garza, and Rosa Laura Junco in this suit.
51. All these individuals were of a higher rank within NXIVM and other subsidiary companies than I was.
52. I see no reason why there should not be an immediate dismissal of claims against me as well.
53. The arbitrary and retaliatory nature of the claims against me are absurd and unfounded, but also expose the agenda underlying the suit.
54. For example, had I chosen to join the “angry mob” who left NXIVM in 2017, I could have writing to your Honor as a plaintiff in this case. Or better yet, I would have had Mr. Glazer representing me on contingency fee basis, and representing me in the criminal prosecution “pro- bono” provided I signed up to pay him 40 percent of my restitution award in the criminal case.
55. The only difference between me and the Plaintiffs is that I have chosen not to disavow the teachings and experiences I gained through my involvement in NXIVM, and I am choosing to take responsibility for my choices.
56. The cost of sticking to honesty and integrity in this matter has been great, as the plaintiffs have aggressively attacked my character in the media, but I stand by my values and conviction that I have never done anything wrong nor engaged in any illegal or harmful activity.
57. The facts of the case, once illuminated through the emails, texts, photos, video, and documentation I possess about the plaintiffs will show as much, but it will be at great cost and waste of resources.
58. If the claims in the complaint had any merit, then logic follows that I am actually a victim and should be reimbursed and rewarded for my time and resources spent being involved, as were the 74 Plaintiffs, in NXIVM and its subsidiary companies.
59. The audacity of Vicente and Edmondson suing me after they profited financially from every course I took over twelve years, is an example of extreme greed and opportunism.
60. The audacity that they wish to profit off of me after they have libeled, slandered, and defamed me, seeking to destroy my reputation, my career, and my relationships due to lies they’ve spread about me in the media, is shocking. Yet, here we are.
61. It is my intention at this point to inform Your Honor that it is my plan to countersue, using the frivolous and fictional claims in this suit, as well as the multitude of additional damages I have incurred as a result of their actions.
62. I will note that there may be other Plaintiffs in this countersuit, which I will establish once I know who the Plaintiffs are in this suit.
63. I believe it is cowardly and unethical to hide behind Jane and John Doe status when suing for monetary damages.
64. Further, I join in and incorporate the arguments for dismissal made by the other defendants.
65. Therefore, I, Nicki Clyne move this Court, in Courtroom 6G North, in the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, at a time and date to be determined by the Court, for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 64) with prejudice as against me.
Date: January 28, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicki Clyne
***
I like that she says “have no ill will towards anyone who was part of the NXIVM community” and then spends 2000 words evicerating the case plaintiffs, which would certainly suggest otherwise.
Imagine being on the greatest television show of all time, where other stars have gone on to have great careers, only to have a car in your name, and a brand on your crotch.
There is a harsh lesson here.
Hey, Nicki [genius that you are], have you ever heard the term “whistle blower”? That is what the Edmondsons and Vicentes were.
It’s akin to this: I work for an insurance company. I am writing up estimates on all these wrecked cars and earning a small commission for each estimate (or even just earning my paycheck to do my job). Unbeknown to me, my supervisor’s supervisor is getting kickbacks from the company-approved body repair shop for each car I send their way. When I find out, I bring this up to the next level supervisor, who doesn’t do a thing. So, I leave my job because I KNOW IT’S WRONG and I go to the state-licensing entity for them to take care of it. That’s when all hell breaks loose and the conman and those who were complicit, are arrested.
Meanwhile, I was just doing my job and earning my paycheck/commission. Am I expected to return that earned money when I realized the b.s. that is going on by people levels above me? Nope.
The Edmondsons and Vicentes are the worker bees…you, Raniere, the Bronfman sisters, Salzman, Mack, etc. — you are next level supervisors. You did nothing. But when that powerful entity (media and the feds) stepped in, all hell broke loose.
If you were stupid enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars on nothing (you couldn’t even buy loyalty), then that is your own adult-making choices. Don’t be a hypocrite.
It’s unbelievable to think that you are even capable of dressing yourself each day without your loving “master” to tell you what to wear.
Nicki said the same thing 12 different ways.
And to think, at one time I believed she was smart when compared to Kathy Russell.
Edgar must roll in his grave knowing what his two ugly ducklings Clare and Sara Bronfman have done.
Nicki chose to move to Albany.
Sarah never did. Nippy never did.
Sarah and Nippy actively told ESP students NOT to move to Albany.
Telling someone that they should take a LGAT course is NOT the same as “Move to Albany. Quit acting. Make Nxivm your entire world. Get fake married for immigration purposes, fuck Keith for 10 years, join his harem, become his slave, blackmail women, go broke, brand Keith’s initials on your vag”. Oh, and lie about it all.
Those choices were entirely Nicki Clyne’s choices. And Nicki has repeatedly separated DOS from Nxivm.
By Nicki’s own logic: Mark and Sarah bear no responsibility for DOS (which is why Nicki is being sued – DOS). In fact, Mark Vicente couldn’t be a member of DOS. A women’s organization. Run by Keith Raniere.
Legally. Nicki Clyne has repeatedly, publicly and fervently said that DOS was NOT NXIVM/ESP – so how/who brought her into ESP/NXIVM is irrelevant – by Nicki’s own repeated and public statements that the two were NOT the same. DOS was a SEPARATE entity from ESP/NXIVM.
Nicki was a “founding member of DOS” a secret society that Nicki Clyne has sworn was NOT NXIVM/ESP. How could Sarah be responsible for bringing Nicki into DOS THEN? DOS did not even exist when Sarah and Mark suggested Nicki Clyne take an ESP class.
So, Nicki Clyne holds Sarah and Mark responsible for a secret group that Nicki Clyne says she helped start?
Such flawed logic.
Don’t agree.
NXIVM was de facto the parent company; it was MXIVM courses (intensives and EMs) that did all the brainwashing, and Clyne spent a fortune on these, and like many others, they bankrupted her. Edmondson and Vicente were much more senior than Nicki within NXIVM and ran their own operations, and since Clyne was recruited by Edmondson, Edmondson was getting a percentage of every course Clyne signed up for.
Edmondson and Vicente joined NXIVM earlier and had worked their way up quickly to senior positions with much less exposure to all the madness of the so called curricula, and unlike most NXIVM recruits, did end up making some money out of it.
Of course Edmondson was a victim in DOS – she got branded – but she was based alone in Canada and not part of the crazy shit most DOS ‘slaves’ (and sometimes ‘masters’) had to go through: starvation, humiliation, beatings etc, while all the while trying to live up to all the pseudo science ‘morality’ that had been drilled into them in NXIVM.
Clyne lost thousands during her time in NXIVM trying to climb the ladder, and never made that much in DOS. Moreover, she didn’t just lose her money, her career and her youth, to a large extent she lost her soul. Now who is the bigger victim?
Sarah Edmondson and Mark Vicente were self-righteous and profiteering perpetrators when they themselves were part of the criminal racket that profited financially from others, the real victims. Edmondson and Vicente are perpetrators who became victims when they defected to the prosecution side quickly enough to avoid being indicted themselves when NXIVM went down. Thus, they are a different kind of “victim” than the real victims they financially sucked dry. Therefore, I advocate that they be recognized as victims. In my view, they deserve compensation. I suggest, and I have given this ample thought, that token compensation for these two of $1 and zero cents is appropriate, but that Edmondson should receive an unquantified premium because of the branding.
It’s the beautiful executive success program way that the Salzman family lives and teaches. When you are in trouble, turn it around and blame the other person. It’s manipulation 101. Redirection of the problem.
Sara Edmondson, Mark Vicente and Nippy are not victims. They are three adults who profited by recruiting naive people into a criminal organization. As such, they should be barred from enriching themselves further through the court system.
They left NXIVM when it became apparent that they had to become victims to avoid prison themselves.
All were in leadership positions and knew what was happening.
To quote the teachings of their Vanguard, “There are no victims.” The very first module teaches students to be “at cause.”
I suggest the three of them try earning a living and acquiring wealth by doing an honest day’s work!
If, by a miracle, the judge awards cash to these three, they should donate it to John Tighe, a real victim of NXIVM who Vicente recorded his arrest for the Vanguard’s viewing pleasure.
Frank, please stop the beatification of this trio!
It just reads like incessant whining. It’s like she took one of her DOS Instagram rants, had it transcribed, then submitted it to the judge.
She’s made horrible life decisions and tried to justify them with obvious half-truths and outright lies, attempting to victim-blame Mark and Sarah for them throughout her statement. For example, this absurd passage:
“56. ….I have never done anything wrong nor engaged in any illegal or harmful activity.”
Well, actually, Nicki, you did. You committed immigration fraud by entering into a sham marriage with Allison Mack. You gave up your acting career, home, friends, and future to move to Albany so you could be available to fuck keith raniere (gross btw). I have a hard time believing Sarah Edmondson convinced you to do any of that.
It’s just piling on at this point. I hope she turns her life around and gets her shit together. It’s just very sad to watch.
The problem is the people that in some sick way agree with anything that Clyne says or nxivm groupies do. Raniere was a terrorist pedophile capable of burning woman into a state of Madness, to control the elections, and people make excuses. Most of them American, which is funny because Americans are supposed to be patriotic, and be offended by some Luciferian pervert messing with youth. If you don’t know what happened in Nxivm, shut the &€#€ Up. They showed snuff videos in illegal experiments, they pimped woman, destroyed people with lawyers, exploited immigrants, raped, and they keep doing It. The Lebarons keep supporting the pedo Keith and trying to mess with México politics. I don’t know who is more grotesque: Clyne, rina oh or Rosa Laura. Maybe Rosa Laura. I don’t see her fucking name anymore. Maybe she settled ugh. Rosa Laura is a child trafficker. Clyne should grow Up and at least stop supporting the cult; she is a happy pimp slave
[…] An anonymous commenter took a different point of view than Nicki Clyne did. It was written as a comment in response to Nicki Clyne’s motion to dismiss. […]
Bahahahahahaha
Has Nicki Clyne not read one legal document in her life?
Her motion to dismiss should be based on case law not some rant of who did what to who.
Isn’t this the woman who is supposed to be leading the charge to Blind Justice?
She rambles on like a 12-year-old having a hissy fit that people are practicing the American rights in the justice system.
Suing when they believe they have been wronged.
Her lover/master Raniere did this all the time, and she didn’t seem to take issue with it or tell him to stop his behavior.
Too bad for Nicki Clyne, we don’t always get what we want now, do we?
If you don’t want Raniere’s Karma, you should have gotten out of his fire.
You’re a kind of Stand by your Man woman. This is the price you pay when you play with the devil.
If you can’t handle the fire, go back to Canada, and shut up about being some kind of justice advocate. We all know it’s only for Raniere.
Nicki is delusional and simply not smart. What do you expect? She’s an actress and the extent of her education amounts to the over a decade of the mindfuckery of the “University of Raniere”, centered around a conman who built a false image around himself as one of the greatest problem solvers of the world while merely graduating RPI with a ~2.26 GPA where he was under academic probation. Raniere suffers from a number of negative qualities, and being an emotionally stunted man-child is one of them. We can only give of ourselves what we are, so it is no surprise his hardcore followers are similarly stunted like him.
Just now:
Statement from Michele Hatchette
My name is Michele Hatchette.
Please know that you are reading my first and last name. Here is my middle name: Bari. I’m not hiding.
In the criminal case against Keith Raniere, the Honorable Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis made a decision that I believe was a legal error. He decided that some people would be referred to only by their first name, and others by their first and last name. It seemed almost like it was a recognition of who was innocent and deserving of protection, and who was not. It was egregious bias, in my opinion.
I knew the names of these people and some of them had at one time or another told me they wanted to be “badass,” that they wanted to be tough, yet now they were hiding behind “Jane Doe.”
Frankly, I was offended, but I didn’t speak up at the time.
But now I think I have reached my limit because those same individuals, joined by other “Jane Does” and some “John Does” as well (they are a timid species, these “Does”), are in a civil lawsuit that — let’s be honest — is, as Nicki Clyne writes in her motion to dismiss, a “greed-grab” for Bronfman money.
The same anonymous women that Judge Garaufis, at Raniere’s sentencing hearing, called “brave victims” are in this anonymous lawsuit. When in history have you ever had a government officially labeling people as brave when they are making anonymous accusations? Calling them brave while sheltering them with anonymity is Orwellian.
I know who these “Does” are and I’m not going to play their game. I’m going to name them, starting with Nicole, my DOS sister, who once wrote to me that she thought the practices of DOS could help her become a woman “to be reckoned with.”
I’m willing to listen to anybody who has an argument as to why I shouldn’t, but I’m leaning toward naming all of them
Michele Hatchette asked you to publish her post on FR? I am guessing not. You are posting it because you love the drama
That is exactly the kind of statement one would expect from a black woman who agreed to be a white woman’s slave.
A black woman with her white master’s white prison boyfriend’s initials branded into her vaginal area.
A black woman who admitted in her FBI proffer that she completed the “seduction assignment” Nicki Clyne (her white master) gave her as a “slave” to have sex with white “grandmaster” (and Nicki’s boyfriend of 10 years), Keith Raniere. And Michelle told authorities that she would not have done the sex act if she was not blackmailed.
The kind of woman who dances in scanty clothes nightly outside a detention center for a pedophile. And child pornographer.
The kind of woman who supports Nicki Clynes’ racist and misogynistic ramblings.
I haven’t paid attention to this saga in a while, but I see it’s still going strong.
I think it’s too emotionally painful for Nicki to even contemplate the idea that she could be a victim of Keith and NXIVM. And she doesn’t have any incentive to consider it either, because she isn’t facing down jail time or anything. But IF she was to say the words “I am a victim”, she probably would have grounds to sue Sarah and Mark for the reasons she stated.
It will be milked for money and publicity for some time.
RE DEFENDANT [NICKI CLYNE’s] MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT:
This is an excellent example of why no one should ever go the pro-se route.
Nicki attacking the victims and calling them liars will not go over well with the judge.
If anything, he will deny her request.
***
Rumor has it Nicki and Suneel have parted ways. 😉
NXIVM people are all parasitic and pretentious.
Mark Vicente and Sarah Edmonsdon LOVE the attention.
They brought Nicki Slime into NXIVM and profited from her, yet are suing her?
While there are others who have a right to sue, these two cannot.
Of the Jane and John Doe’s, are there any others who have hopped on to make a buck?
Mark Hildreth? Kristin Kreuk?
That would be a joke.
ALL OF YOU ARE ASSHOLES.
Anyone who was in the cult after 2012 can fuck right off.
“Mark Hildreth? Kristin Kreuk? That would be a joke”
Rumor has it that whenever Nxivm had “partner swapping” sex, Mark demanded money for swapping Kristin to other men or women.
“Rumor has it that whenever Nxivm had “partner swapping” sex, Mark demanded money for swapping Kristin to other men or women”.
Based on what?
“Based on what?”
His overactive imagination, likely due to all the “deep fake” porn he’s watched on the Internet.
John Tighe said there were ogies at Necker and India said there partner swapping was common at NXIVM.
We all lied to our “friends” about the brand.
We told them that Keith was not involved.
We all lied that the brand is a symbol of the elements. But really, it was always to be my “partner of 10 years” initials burned into their pelvis forever.
They wouldn’t want a brand of my boyfriend’s initials branded near their vagina. So, I will lie in order to get it done. That is normal, reasonable, acceptable and lovely “friend” behavior.
I WANT a brand of my boyfriend’s initials on my “friends” pussies.
And that’s not weird.
So who cares if that is what THEY want?
It is my legal right to have my “friends” deceptively branded with my boyfriend’s initials inches from their genitals.
Myself and all Keith’s other front-line slaves met nude at the feet of master Keith. The man that we all share sexually demanded that we hide his involvement in DOS and his initials in the brand.
So, “Of course, Master.” Naturally, We will all conspire to keep that vital information from our “friends”.
I was giddy (listen to the tape of Nicki Clyne ooohing and cooing over the dishonest rendering of the brand) with the idea of lying to my “friends” about getting Keith Alan Raniere’s initials seared into their flesh – without their informed consent.
I feel that I have the moral high ground. It is my decision on what my friends do with their bodies. I am smarter. I am their master. If I decide that they will get my boyfriend’s initials burned onto their crotch – then that’s what’s happening .
What THEY truly want – is not my problem.
Why is anyone even upset that I conspired with 8 other people to completely lie to my “friends” and disfigured their bikini area forever with my boyfriend’s initials scarred into their bodies?
The court can see that I am the real victim here. But I am not going to call myself a victim. Even though I am a victim of these mean women that should be more appreciative of my not revealing to them that it was actually my boyfriend’s initials being seared into their groin. They should be thanking me for my participation in a conspiracy to maim them. But they are too greedy.
We all lied to our “friends” about the brand.
We told them that Keith was not involved.
We all lied that the brand is a symbol of the elements. But really, it was always to be the initials of my “partner of 10 years” burned into their pelvis forever.
They wouldn’t want a brand of my boyfriend’s initials branded near their vagina. So, I lied in order to get it done. That is normal, reasonable, acceptable and lovely “friend” behavior.
I WANT a brand of my boyfriend’s initials on my “friends” pussies.
And that’s not weird.
So, who cares if that is what THEY want?
It is my legal right to have my “friends” deceptively branded with my boyfriend’s initials inches from their genitals.
Myself and all Keith’s other front-line slaves met nude at the feet of master Keith. The man that we all share sexually demanded that we hide his involvement in DOS and his initials in the brand.
So, “Of course, Master.” Naturally, we will all conspire to keep that vital information from our “friends”.
I was giddy (listen to the tape of Nicki Clyne ooohing and cooing over the dishonest rendering of the brand) with the idea of lying to my “friends” about getting Keith Alan Raniere’s initials seared into their flesh – without their informed consent.
I feel that I have the moral high ground. It is my decision on what my friends do with their bodies. I am smarter. I am their master. If I decide that they will get my boyfriend’s initials burned onto their crotches – then that’s what’s happening.
What THEY truly want – is not my problem.
Why is anyone even upset that I conspired with 8 other people to completely lie to my “friends” and disfigured their bikini area forever with my boyfriend’s initials scarred into their bodies?
The court can see that I am the real victim here. But I am not going to call myself a victim. Even though I am a victim of these mean women that should be more appreciative of my not revealing to them that it was actually my boyfriend’s initials being seared into their groin. They should be thanking me for my participation in a conspiracy to maim them. But they are too greedy.
More Real Nicki Response 2 Lawsuit:
Are you going to provide a link?
Or are we just supposed to believe you?
Alanzo
You are one lazy mother fucker. Have you read the transcripts? Why are you still here ??
If Nicki and Allison need clothing in the future, might I recommend Goodwill stores and the Salvation Army?
Both sell used clothing at reasonable prices.
Hey, Frank
New York State better prepare for some law suits of its own.
SUNY Professor: “It’s a Mistake” to Think Pedophilia is Wrong
Claims there are “evolutionary advantages to child/adult sex.”
A SUNY professor is under investigation after video clips emerged of him asserting that “it’s a mistake” to think pedophilia is wrong and that there are “evolutionary advantages to child/adult sex.”
Yes, really.
SUNY Fredonia Professor Stephen Kershnar teaches libertarian philosophy and applied ethics at the university.
As part of his libertarian philosophy, Kershnar believes that society’s reaction to pedophilia is what’s wrong, and that consenting sexual relationships between adults and children could actually be a good thing.
“Imagine that an adult male wants to have sex with a 12-year-old girl. Imagine that she’s a willing participant. A very standard, very widely held view is that there’s something deeply wrong about this. It’s wrong independent of it being criminalized,” said Kershnar.
“It’s not obvious to me that it’s in fact wrong,” he continued. “I think this is a mistake. And I think exploring that why it’s a mistake will tell us not only things about adult/sex and statutory rape and also fundamental principles of morality.”
Kershnar asserted that there was no minimum age at which pedophilia could be considered wrong.
“The notion that it’s wrong even with a one-year-old is not quite obvious to me,” he luridly claimed.
He went on to assert that in some foreign cultures, grandmas perform oral sex on baby boys to calm them down, adding, “It’s hard to see what would be wrong with it.”
The professor said claims that it’s wrong because kids “can’t understand” sex can be countered by pointing to other activities children enter into but don’t fully understand, such as judo tournaments or bar mitzvahs.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/suny-professor-its-a-mistake-to-think-pedophilia-is-wrong/
Maybe Allison Pimp Mack can get a job teaching at SUNY Fredonia.
“47. I will add that Jane Doe 8 never got a brand. No woman that I invited into DOS ever got a brand.”
Yeah that’s because SARAH saved their pelvises.
Beverly J Sutton
February 2, 2022 at 10:57 am
Nicki could show how much she is empowered by her DOS choice and current sisters by digging deep to be employed again. It seems to me she is violating the major NXIVM principal of controlling as much money as possible.
Sad to say, but Nicki is probably unemployable.
Corporations tend to shy away from hiring employees with massive legal liabilities.
Indeed, all of the NXIVM defendants are probably unemployable.
Nicki, you left out some important stuff
February 2, 2022 at 10:16 am
People sue over hot coffee. What did you think was gonna happen, genius?
Seinfeld–Kramer sues Java World (coffee company)
To the caption with the words “Kristin Kreuk, Sarah Edmondson, Nicki Clyne” [between numbers 12 and 13] you can add the name Michel Chernitzky, who is also in the photo.
If all the spread-eagle porn photos were taken for “women’s empowerment,” then have the remaining DOS loyalists continued to take group and solo graphic nudes with their grown out pubic hair ever since Keith’s been incarcerated?
Be honest. Without Keith texting demands for women to pull over right now and take an up-close vagina photo in their car – is anyone still doing it?
Who is telling all the women in the group nudes to “look happier?” Or show their brands? Be more “uniform”?
How is the women’s pubic hair length being monitored? Who is keeping all the new graphically sexual videos for the group?
Nothing has changed at all with the prodigious homemade porn production output, right? Because it was all porn for yourselves, correct? That’s what you’ve said? Keith didn’t need or want all these graphic vagina shots?
So, you’re still doing it, right? Just for the ladies?
You ladies keeping up the sexual blackmail? The binder of Vulvas? Cause you loved doing it? And it was only ever just for yourselves?
Nicki could show how much she is empowered by her DOS choice and current sisters by digging deep to be employed again. It seems to me she is violating the major NXIVM principal of controlling as much money as possible.
This pro se diatribe shows that, if she ever had them, Nicki now has zero critical thinking skills.
I would like to see her go back to Vancouver and engage Sarah in a conversation about profiting from her enrollment dollars.
Nicki is recorded conspiring with her boyfriend and his many other “slaves” (naked at his feet while he is fully clothed) to intentionally deceive women into having Keith’s initials painfully burned into their flesh while nude and being held down. MORE blackmail and Keith’s viewing pleasure.
It’s on tape. Nicki enthusiastically agrees “I am all in, Keith (my partner of ten years) let’s scar all of these women near their vagina permanently in the most painful way possible with your initials and lie about it!”
Nicki, you cannot behave like that and then act outraged when you are civilly sued.
People sue over hot coffee. What did you think was gonna happen, genius?
She [Nicki Clyne] figured with so much blackmail material and the victims’ shame and the Bronfman sisters’ money and NXIVM’s threats of lawsuits, it would never happen and that Raniere and his accomplices would be safe forever and everything would go on as before, like the two decades of criminality of Keith’s ventures.
I’m impressed with Nicki’s candor. Seems like she knows what’s up. The folks filing this suit haven’t made sense from the start.
LOL! “Nicki’s candor”? “Knows what’s up”? You might be as delusional at Nicki
Nicki herself probably wrote as “Amy B”.
Vicente and Edmondson posing as victims undermines those who were victimized. How exactly did Nicki victimize these two?
“How exactly did Nicki victimize Vicente and Edmondson?
Maybe Nicki’s check bounced and they lost their commision.
To be fair, I am sure that Nicki believes she is being persecuted. Never underestimate a person’s ability to deceive themselves.
Why isn’t Nicole suing Camila for rape?
Many pedophiles are in prison right now for rape even though they themselves were raped by Catholic priests as children. Having been a rape victim as a child did not absolve them of their sex crimes as adults.
Nicole testified that Camila raped her. Nicole thought she was there to have sex with Keith but instead Camila had sex with Nicole without her consent.
So why isn’t Nicole suing Camila for rape?
Alanzo
I’ve had that same thought, Alonzo !
#1, 12, 14,15, 16,19, 22, 24, 25 ,28, 30, 40, 41,42,46, 49 and especially 50 RING Very True to me.
Do you think Camila wanted that? It is pretty likely that she had given as much collateral as Nicole. Both had the chance to say no and they did not dare to do it. This is rather common in high control groups, where there might be consequences for defiance.
Oh look.
Another anonymous expert on “high control groups” spouting the prejudicial bullshit we’re all supposed swallow about this case.
I think we’re going to find out who wanted what during the discovery phase of SuperStar Neil Glazer’s surreal BigPayDay® lawsuit.
Alanzo
Irrelevant. You are trying to side track people into a separate conversation, because you are upset. Be honest about what is actually bothering you, don’t ask disingenuous questions.
Not very bright are you, Alanzo…For someone who follows this stuff so closely, you think you would have a small sense of what these women went through and why someone like Nicole does not blame Camila for what she did. Camila has gone through enough trauma/brainwashing and I am sure Nicole understood this as well as anyone.
Are you really sure?
Or like most everyone else here, are you simply projecting?
And by the way – it must be repeated – brainwashing doesn’t exist. Almost every court in US history (except for the Salem Witch Trials) has not accepted either “trauma” or “brainwashing” as a defense of criminal activity. Accept, of course, Federal Judge Garaufis, who I like to call “Judgy G”.
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/22/the-brainwashing-myth_partner/
Alanzo
Yes! 100% sure.
Brainwashing doesn’t exist? Of course is does you fool. Conditioning, indoctrinating, gaslighting are all terms used by the medical community to describe someone who has been manipulated by psychological means.
Salon.com? LOL! Next time you attach a link, it better be a pier reviewed article or STF!
Peer* ; )
“the medical community”
“And by the way – it must be repeated – brainwashing doesn’t exist.”
Alanzo- that’s because you were brainwashed into believing you weren’t brainwashed. Sometimes, Alanzo, you are so infantile.
So all pedos were raped by priests according to our resident genius, Alanzo.
Because Nicole understands that Camilla was separated from her family at a young age and groomed by a pedophile psychopath since childhood?
And that suicidal Camilla tried to take her own life out of despair? Nicole recognized that Camilla is a deeply damaged human who was brutally victimized and also sexually blackmailed since she was 15 years old?
That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on Frank Report.
It’s just an unhinged, contradictory rant shoehorned into what is supposed to be the format of a legal document, sprinkled with big thesaurus words in an attempt to make it sound legitimate.
“They’re suing me? But I have no money! Plus they were the ones who got me into NXIVM so maybe I should be suing them, even though I have nothing but gratitude for the NXIVM technology. Wait, actually, I WILL be filing a countersuit, just so you know, judge!”
“maybe I should be suing Sarah E and Vicente, even though I have nothing but gratitude for the NXIVM technology.”
Yes, Nicki contradicts herself…but so do Sarah E and Vicente. They are suing the organization in which they were high rankers for many years, and in which they made a small fortune.
Wait, is Nicki Clyne complaining about the fact that Sarah got money from the MLM scheme, while she did not? Let’s be honest here, what she did was legal and she got reimbursed for the time she spent working for the company. This is what I do as well. There is nothing wrong about that.
But let’s be honest when it comes to the proprietary “tech” NXIVM was selling. It was as important for humanity as the “tech”, which is still sold by Scientology. This BS might be a scam – hell, it probably was. In that case, she should not sue Edmondson, but the owner or board or NXIVM.
Branding is also legal, anon
Depends on the local law in a particular country and how it is done, level of pain etc. (and of course you need consent where it is legal and if you don’t know the initials going on it is not informed consent in my view or you do not know in advance how long it will take)
“Let’s be honest here, what she did was legal and she got reimbursed for the time she spent working for the company.”
Doing a legal act (and profiting from it) for an illegal company is still illegal. Sarah E’s lawsuit admits she was working for an illegal company.
Line 50 – noting that the Mexican nationals were dismissed from the case. Perhaps because they have returned to Mexico. Nicki could follow suit and return to Canada.
Now, Nicki Clyne knows how everyone who Keith Raniere sued feels
Just because you’re broke doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be sued, Nicki
Just because you cannot afford an attorney doesn’t mean you cannot be involved in a lawsuit either, Lady Clyne
You have 20 years to pay off your share to those that win in this case if they do. The courts will take it out of your earnings
You might want to use some of your time studying up on how to write legal documents if you want to ha e 1/2 a chance at this
“Life isn’t fair” is in very small print on your birth certificate. Even if you’re Canadian.
An hilarious waste of the judge’s time. Hope they have a sense of humour and pity for this strident arrogant nonsense.
N.clyne’s thinking comes across as demented to me.
Everyone who joined this cult as an adult and who attained the level of yellow sash and above deserves jail time. The higher the level, the greater the time deserved.
I enjoy watching all these assholes fight it out in court.
Note: I don’t consider the young victims to be assholes, just the ones with the age to do differently.
The target of this civil suit may be the Bronfman sisters but there will be fallout aplenty for the other defendants. Perhaps especially so for the ones who aren’t putting up a defense.
And I wouldn’t be so sure they’re penniless, no matter what they claim. The ones who aren’t in prison have jobs, they’re supporting themselves. So they have money. They have income. And it’s gonna bite when that income gets garnished.
Most of them will have that debt hanging over them for the rest of their lives. Good. Like Raniere having his commissary funds seized, it will pinch. This will be a constant reminder of the damage they did.
Will getting a few bucks a month from these ex-felons down the years be much help to the 70-odd plaintiffs? Probably not. But even symbolic reparations mean something.
Aside from Raniere, none of the the criminals in the Nxivm criminal trial received a significant prison sentence. They all got off easy. Well, this civil trial may help right that wrong. Multimillion dollar settlements may not impact the Bronfmans as much as the others getting their waitress tips garnished. Get a better job? Watch that extra money vanish. Inherit some family property? Bye-bye $.
This is what happens when you get caught racketeering. When you extort people. When you brand them. When you lie, cheat, and cook the books. It’s time to pay the piper, kiddos.
While I agree with Nicki Clyne’s position on Sarah and Mark, she is utterly deluded otherwise. And just tooting her own horn about agency, responsibility, empowerment. etc. Which makes it just like her Twitter. Annoying as fuck.
Girl, your shared boyfriend is never getting out of prison. Because he was proven and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Due to court sanctioned evidence meeting those rigorous standards. In a jury deliberation of three hours. It literally takes some of the actually innocent decades to be absolved. Not happening for your guilty Keith. You will never suck his dick again. You can continue to delude yourself into believing that these women claiming to be victims —some of whom testified — all made choices “freely” and “willingly”, and repeat it to yourself and to others over and over again, but it ain’t going to change a damn thing with respect to what happened in court.
Grow the fuck up. NXIVM emotionally stunts you. You sound like nothing more than a whiner on social media.
That is not a legal document. It is a rant and a ride on the pity train.
Well, it’s clear Nicki is not a lawyer. It’s also clear that she is a very sick and delusional girl. I can say with 100% confidence that the judge will be rolling his eyes and shaking his head as he reads her embarrassing diatribe.
Aside from the fact that she sounds extremely unbalanced, to put it nicely, Nicki contradicts herself. She says Sarah and Mark owe her money for the courses but then she expresses her gratitude for having taken those same courses! Sounds like she owes Sarah and Mark a gift!
And, as you alluded to Frank, everything she writes shows exactly why a trial is necessary – to resolves conflicting “facts”.
She clearly still cannot see that she is responsible for her tarnished reputation and poverty. She joined NXIVM with millions and blew it all for Raniere. She rants about the virtues of DOS when the rest of the world can easily see what a manipulative and deceptive ploy it was for Raniere’s sexual gratification. How sad.
Like you say, Frank: Viva Executive Success!
Nxivm dead-enders always justify the infamous “rapable baby” quote by alluding to it being a kind of esoteric thought exercise.
That’s the company line pushed by the Nxivm loyalists. The premise being that the most reprehensible and criminal statements made by their leader, Keith Raniere, were merely a hypothetical practice of getting into the mind of and better understanding the perspective of say… a pedophile.
Why then can’t those same Nxivm dead-enders employ that same empathetic exercise and put themselves into the place of…say…Camilla? A pedophile’s victim?
Or practice empathy for Susan Dones?
Why do the Nxivm dead-enders go out of their way to understand and have compassion for a “baby raper” but NOT even entertain caring about RHIANNON? Actually refusing to even READ the police report or news accounts from years ago?
Nxivm/ESP students were instructed NOT to even READ any negative press accounts of Keith Raniere’s well-documented past abusive behavior and the stories of those Keith hurt. Yet they paid money to put themselves into an abuser’s place and feel compassion for their vile acts.
So, no love for Camilla. An important “community member” in great pain and agony. Suffering so much since childhood, but those same Nxivm members are going to sit around and imagine what a baby-raper feels like and try to better understand them?
It. All. Just. Makes. No. Sense.
Why does the compassion always only work the one way? Keith “vanguard” Raniere’s one way? The “let’s identify with the baby-raper but NOT the raped baby” way?
What even qualified Keith Raniere to say, “Some little children are fine” with being raped by adults? What empirical evidence did Keith have to back this insane claim? And why are you even slightly willing to accept that demented premise?
Yet unwilling to accept a first-person account by a living, breathing victim of Keith’s child pornography and child rape telling you and the authorities that, in fact, she was not “fine” with it?
This is a woman who you claim was like a “sister” to you at one time? Why not try to understand and sympathize with Camilla? Even a little bit?
You routinely express more concern for complete strangers in prison. Men only though. Why? Why not a tiny shred of regard for any of these women that you claim were your empowered friends?
PS
The DOS reboot attempt is glitter on a dumpster fire.
And it’s really funny. Please keep it up. Don’t quit on it like, ” We are as You.” And all the other sites. Thanks.
The “rapeable baby” talk was in an acting class discussing how to possibly understand the mind of a villain to play the role. I believe when Keith discussed how to make a baby “rapable,” he described it as a robot baby that wasn’t real and didn’t think or feel, explaining that could be how a sociopath or psychopath sees people.
Keith said many, many disgusting things like claiming that some children were “fine” being sexually abused by adults.
To excuse these demented ramblings as an acting exercise is laughable. None of these adults were going to be playing molested children as actors.
And what about those alleged fictional mothers in other countries that Keith claimed gave their infant sons blow-jobs to sooth them?
Also, only robot babies?
The point is that well outside of any acting class and in ESP/DOS/JNESS/etc., all the programs promoted being understanding and compassionate of those who abused women and children. Not caring about those women and children who were being hurt.
Is this how to justify, “It’s not rape if the woman enjoys it.” And “Some women only orgasm while being raped” statements made by Keith? Let me guess… Keith was talking about “robot women”? But just never actually said, “robot”?
And by the way, if they were talking about robots and not humans, how does that even help you in acting at all? That would only matter if you were in a Sci-Fi movie and you were talking about acting evil in regards to decisions that you’re making towards bad treatment of Androids or something. It’s nonsense.
Bad people like Keith do not choose to hurt children because they see them as robots. They hurt them because they enjoy it.
If you view everyone as an object or a robot, why would that incline you towards destroying them? Many people treat objects as precious. The destroying of humans was for the pain it caused. And that gave Keith Raniere the “most joy”.
Yet, he also said “I could make a baby very rape-able.” Whether that was real or as a thought experiment for a supposed acting role, the entire discussion around it is absurd. Because you can’t do so unless you’re a morally sick fuck. There is no justification for — nor empathizing with — raping (or engaging in any intentioned sex act) with a baby, and therefore, there is no justification to understand nor feel why a sociopath (who lacks empathy in the first place) would do it so that one could get “into” his mind.
My opinion of Nicki Clyne:
Nicki Clyne hates women, or the female gender in general. That includes herself. Nicki Clyne hates herself. She hates being a woman.
That’s why she can never identify herself with other women or be empathetic towards other women. Not even towards women who have been victims of violence or crime. If Raniere were a woman, he would never have had a chance with Clyne to take on his/her role as mentor or role model or leader for her that Raniere took on as a man with Clyne.
Anonymous at 11:58 am. Excellent answer!
I think you’re right.
Thank you.
Hope the judge drops this bogus lawsuit.
It may be a cash grab, but it is not bogus.
Hat tip to Clyne for being so ballsy. Legally, I doubt the document has any meaning if only because lawyers only respect other lawyers (a judge is still a lawyer) but still. She has nothing to lose by expressing her take on the case so why not do it? Also, can’t fault her logic and the way she lays things out. I really don’t disagree with her on most of it.
Except for maybe a tiny handful of the plaintiffs (Camilla and Nicole are only 2 that come to mind), the rest should be part of the list of defendants. As I keep pointing out, nearly every single player in the NXIVM cult were both victims AND victimizers. Willing and fully participating victimizers who had the chance to refuse immoral actions and eave at any time. This fact was proven by them leaving when they finally chose too. It seems just wrong to sue for financial gain for the thing you also did, but maybe that is just me.
Which does make this whole case weird and, personally, if I was a true victim, I would want my own separate case from the rest of them. Why? Because if this goes to trial the Bronfman’s have a real chance of winning the case despite the child pornography and trafficking. The trial will, no matter what, be a trial of NXIVM, but it can be a trial in which the weapons fire literally on everyone. It’s almost small-scale version of mutual assured destruction. The goals for the Bronfmans is to simply create a situation in which the jury doesn’t want to reward anyone for anything.
They will have access to 74 defendants (and probably others) who they can use to testify against each other. For example, if I was Bronfman’s lawyer, I would love to get Jessica Joan on the stand testify about how India Oxenberg was setting her up to be a slave for Raniere and how the only reason that didn’t happen was because of the branding coming out. To have Mark Vicente have to admit over and over and over how he recruited most of the other plaintiffs and get into detail how he did it would be a gold mine. And on and on and on. And since many have written books, participated in documentaries, podcasts and more, all those statements can be used against them if they contradict themselves on the stand. It would be an absolute field week of betrayals.
So, it’s back to everyone, and I do mean everyone, wants this case to settle. The only goal is for one side to create the illusion of enough ammunition to make the paycheck amount worthwhile and face saving.
Love the point about how all cult members are both victims and perpetrators. That is the difference between a cult and a criminal gang. Cults prey on their own members. But if you don’t think a cult member deserves financial compensation for their injuries, I’d question why you think Raniere should be in jail. Victims deserve compensation and money is the way that courts compensate people for harms. If Raniere has no victims who deserve compensation, you are saying that they haven’t been harmed . . . so what has he done wrong?
This lawsuit is going to be crazy complicated and quite a few claims and defendants will be dismissed before trial. But I don’t share your opinion about the strength of the defense case. For example, we saw how a cross of Mark Vicente looks. It looks really bad for NXIVM. And criminal trials are harder to win than civil trials. So, if any claim gets to trial in this case, I would expect a similar outcome.
If not the charges, except for a few, he was not actually charged with harming the cult members. Because they were willing participants in legal behavior. The agreed to be branded. They agreed to provide blackmail material. At most, they might be able to push rape and even that is a reach. All the activities, except for trafficking, pedo charges, and economic activity were actions between consenting adults.
Yes, rape occurred morally, but legally…that would be incredibly difficult to prove because, again, they would have to admit on the stand over and over they agreed to do it. That’s the fundamental problem, with only a few examples the rest were willing participants, and participated over the course of years.
Also, I didn’t say they had a strong case, simply that they have plenty of ammunition to make it so they “win” even if lose. Jury can declare them guilty and award a $1 for instance. Forcing the plaintiffs to turn on each other is a gold mine of material to muddy those waters and make the jury go “f$%= all of them.”
I think the term is “Fuck All Y’All”.
And yes, because of the brain-exploding ironies, hypocrisies, and mind-numbing contradictions, this is a likely outcome from a jury.
One of the few clear, sane legal claims I’ve seen out of this lawsuit is when Sarah Edmonson told me that had they disclosed to her she was getting a brand of Keith’s initials, she would have never gotten it. “They hid that from me.”
This a claim that, if true, is cut and dry. That’s a claim that can be won, and paid on, in court.
What the Bronfman fortune has to do with that claim will take some twisty contortionism on SuperStar Neil’s part.
But if anyone can do it, maybe Neil can.
Alanzo
https://twitter.com/thedossierproj/status/1488541138906718216?t=RKRY6wn6puWbnYTY4nb61A&s=19
DOS is now trying to reopen and recruit new slaves! You can’t make this shit up.
Are Nancy and Lauren prohibited from joining it when they get out?
So… DOS is “open” to new “members.”
My 12 year old niece is looking for some new friends… is she too young to join?
Yes, too young. Sign up your niece for Girls By Design.
Wow….that is exactly what they are doing? DOS2 – The Reboot
Conversation
Feb 1
Friends who love and accept you for who you are, and are there to help you become the person you want to be? Sounds great, doesn’t it? The truth is, true friendship takes work. We can’t control your friends but you CAN control the kind of friend you show up as.
The Dossier Project
@thedossierproj
We created a 15-day challenge that can help you improve or maintain your friendship game. Small acts of discipline and care help us become more aware of ourselves, which leads to us being more aware of others.