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
/s/ Nicki Clyne