Michele Hatchette has announced on the Dossier Project website that it is her intention to publish the full names of the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, Sarah Edmondson, et al. v. Keith Raniere, et al.
The lawsuit has an estimated 74 plaintiffs and all but 10 of them are anonymous – either as Jane and John Does or as first-name-only plaintiffs.
Much effort has been expended to keep their identities secret from the public.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Neil Glazer, has made a motion before Judge Eric Komitee to prevent the parties in the lawsuit from revealing the names of the plaintiffs. Judge Komitee has not yet ruled on this motion.
Even if he were to rule that the real names of the Jane and John Does may not be mentioned in court proceedings, it would have zero impact on anything outside his courtroom.
Michele Hatchette is not bound by rulings of the court, for she is not a party to the civil lawsuit – and her right to speak out is governed by the First Amendment, which permits her to reveal the names if she so chooses.
Legally, she can name all the plaintiffs, and no one can stop her. In fact, nothing can prevent anyone from naming any accuser in any civil or criminal case. There are some who think that courts allowing accusers to remain anonymous have gone way too far and that this practice encourages false accusations, since there is no cost to making an accusation, while the accused is ruined reputationally from the moment the accusation is made public.
There are others who feel that women will be intimidated and fail to report true crimes, if the public will know who they are when make accusations.
Most of the media supports this latter theory and it is the general policy of most media not to name victims of certain crimes, particularly rape and crimes against children.
Hatchette points out that she is only naming individuals who are in a civil lawsuit, seeking money from the Bronfmans.
It is not known if the Bronfmans are paying Hatchette for her outspoken and sudden candor.
The Dossier Project has published this “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.
Video Statement from Hatchette
Hatchette also put out a short video explaining that she plans to out the anonymous plaintiffs.
In the video, Hatchette says, “It is wrong that women and men have been able to make outrageous accusations in the trial of Keith Raniere and NXIVM and receive hundreds of thousands of dollars and are now seeking more money in a civil lawsuit, all the while remaining anonymous. This is a dangerous precedent that puts innocent men and women at risk. Now that these people are seeking more money in this civil lawsuit, it’s time to grow up. For those of you who are are Jane and John Does watching this, this is your last opportunity to come forward and put your name to your claims. If you don’t, it is my moral obligation to name every single one of you. The clock starts now.”
Nicki Clyne Tweets
Clyne: “Women accusers who hide behind anonymity further the paternalistic idea that women need to be babied and are too weak to put their name to things. Michele Hatchette of @thedossierproj calls on the anonymous NXIVM plaintiffs to own their claims
We’re supposed to be equal under the law, yet accusers get to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the accused, who have the most reputational damage at risk, whether they are innocent or guilty, are immediately outed.
Anonymous accusers endanger due process and threaten the rights of all people. Women in the NXIVM case have hidden behind their anonymity long enough. With equal privilege comes equal responsibility. Time’s up! instagram.comThe Dossier Project (@thedossierproject) • Instagram reel”
Women accusers who hide behind anonymity further the paternalistic idea that women need to be babied and are too weak to put their name to things.
— Nicki Clyne (@nickiclyne) February 3, 2022
Ivy Nevares on Twitter
Ivy Nevares, a long time member of NXIVM and intimate partner of Keith Raniere’s, disagrees strongly with Hatchette’s decision. It is of note that Nevaras was believed to be one of the plaintiffs in the civil suit. It is not known if is one of the Jane Does who recently dropped out.
Nevares tweeted .@instagram Michele Hatchette/@thismixele and @thedossierproj are threatening to release the names of victims in the federal criminal case vs. #KeithRaniere that includes victims of child sexual exploitation, #childpornography and #sextrafficking. Please take action!! #NXIVM #DOS”
.@instagram Michele Hatchette/@thismixele and @thedossierproj are threatening to release the names of victims in the federal criminal case vs. #KeithRaniere that includes victims of child sexual exploitation, #childpornography and #sextrafficking. Please take action!!#NXIVM #DOS pic.twitter.com/yIFkKgQCi2
— Ivy Nevares (@ivynevares) February 3, 2022
Hatchette: “Calm down, Ivy. We’re not talking bout the criminal case, this is about the civil case. It’s time for people to be honest about what they really want: Money. This is about money, not about criminal justice. Say what you want. Try to censor me. Do you boo, but this is happening.”
Calm down, Ivy. We're not talking bout the criminal case, this is about the civil case. It's time for people to be honest about what they really want: Money. This is about money, not about criminal justice.
Say what you want.
Try to censor me. Do you boo, but this is happening. https://t.co/sghKVMm7Dj
— Michele Hatchette (@thismixele) February 3, 2022
Nevares “There’s a significant overlap of victims between the two cases. What happened to respecting the rule of law, or have you turned against your beloved sociopathic cult leader’s teachings? You are harassing and intimidating victims. Is that your idea of a high moral ground? Pathetic”
There's a significant overlap of victims between the two cases. What happened to respecting the rule of law, or have you turned against your beloved sociopathic cult leader's teachings? You are harassing and intimidating victims. Is that your idea of a high moral ground? Pathetic
— Ivy Nevares (@ivynevares) February 3, 2022
Hatchette: “It’s time to be brave. I’m calling on women to own their lives, and not let men decide when their names can be mentioned.”
It's time to be brave. I'm calling on women to own their lives, and not let men decide when their names can be mentioned.
— Michele Hatchette (@thismixele) February 3, 2022
Hatchette: “For years, women have been first name only. They have their father’s name and then when they get married, they take their husband’s name, and they haven’t owned their own names. I understand the cowardly impulse, Ivy, but I’m going to out the names of people who are after money.”
Eduardo Asunsolo Weighs In
Asunsolo tweeted: “Ivy this is a civil case not criminal. And there’s a difference between being a victim and going for money, Once you cross that line and you’re after money from people who had nothing to do with your victimization, you at least should be willing to put your name behind.”
Nevares had tweeted: “Unlike your and your lot, I never committed a crime or abused people while in #NXIVM. Attack ema ll you want, my conscience and affairs are clear. This is the last I will ever respond to the only black woman in the 21st century who is willfully a @slave. Knock yourself out.”
Coleman quote-tweeted: “I hope you understand it says a lot about your character when you bring up @thismixele’s race simply to call her a slave.”
— Adam B. Coleman, Dealing Pure Uncut Wrong-Think (@wrong_speak) February 3, 2022
So, is this a tempest in a teapot? Does anybody really care if Michele names the anonymous people or not? It is the year 2022 – and there is no great shame in having been fooled by NXIVM or Raniere. Every day we see people toppled from positions of high power because they did something politically incorrect or cancelable.
While Ivy objects, she has always been out there with her full name. Her victim impact statements were impressive, even more so because she always gave her full name.
Michelle promises to reveal the names of the anonymous women and men, starting with Nicole, who was her sister slave under Allison Mack.
I was the one who first spoke to Nicole and did my best to persuade her to go to law enforcement. She came to me at first to have her name removed from the public – on my website. She had quit DOS and planned to live quietly and forget Raniere and DOS to the extent that she could.
I did two lengthy interviews with her in order to ascertain the facts. I urged her to speak with an attorney. She wound up meeting with Catherine Oxenberg and ultimately, she retained Neil Glazer as her attorney.
He has worked hard to keep her name withheld from the public. The condition of her testimony at Raniere’s trial was that only her first name would be mentioned.