In what is shaping up as a classic First Amendment versus Victims’ Rights battle, and the stakes are getting higher.
Attorney Neil Glazer, who represents a number of plaintiffs, most of them anonymous, in the civil lawsuit, Edmondson, et al versus Raniere, et al. has filed for a protective order to prevent Michele Hatchette from publishing names of the anonymous plaintiffs.
In a serious revelation, Gazer admits that among those in the case who have thus far chosen to be anonymous and are using Jane Doe, the number has been reduced from more than 50 to now a mere dozen.
Glazer noted, “As the Court is aware from Plaintiffs December 17, 2021 ex parte submission (No. 133), there are only twelve Plaintiffs remaining who continue to seek the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ motion for the Protective Order. Of the other Plaintiffs who sought that relief, ten have terminated their claims and withdrawn from the litigation, and fifty-nine Plaintiffs informed the Court of their willingness to proceed using their full identities.”
Initially Glazer represented some 81 plaintiffs. Now, if there are only 12 who wish to be anonymous and 59 who want to proceed with their names revealed publicly, his pool of plaintiffs are 71 plaintiffs. That is more than enough to bring suit against the NXIVM defendants and in particular the deep-pocketed Clare and Sara Bronfman.
Here is Glazer’s motion:
Here is Glazer’s argument [my comments in bold and in brackets.]
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs in this action to alert the Court that one or more Defendants are threatening to publicly identify the twelve remaining “Jane Doe” Plaintiffs [again this is a surprise. There was at one time 50 Jane Does] while
their motion to proceed by pseudonym or first name is still pending.
[Glazer has made an earlier motion to have the names of the plaintiffs who wish anonymity to be protected by the court, much like the victims were in the criminal case against Keith Raniere.]
This conduct is inimical to the orderly administration of this action and the well-being of the Plaintiffs being targeted.
Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to promptly issue Plaintiffs’ requested Protective Order, prohibiting direct or indirect disclosure by any Defendant of the identities of the small number of Plaintiffs who continue to request that protection, [in addition to the 12 Jane Does, there are Souki, Nicole, Daniela, and Camila, who are using only their first names and an unknown number of John Does, who also seek anonymity] and to further address this matter with the particular Defendants involved in this highly improper conduct.
Specifically, on February 2, 2022, a group calling itself The DOSsier Project, which is led by Defendants Nicki Clyne and Danielle Roberts, published a statement on its website attributed to co-member Michelle [sic. it is Michele] Hachette threatening to publicly disclose the full identities of all Plaintiffs seeking pseudonymity. The statement links to a video on the group’s Instagram feed in which Ms. Hachette reiterates and reframes their threat as a demand that she will reveal
these Plaintiffs’ identities if they do not publicly identify themselves first.
Defendant Nicole Clyne then posted links to both statements on her Twitter feed to her thousands of followers, along with comments that make abundantly clear her active participation in this scheme.
Defendant Roberts has also posted links to the threats to support the effort. This extortionate demand is blatant retaliation, an attempt to harass, intimidate and further traumatize the Plaintiffs seeking the protective order, as well as a brazen demonstration by a party to these proceedings of her utter contempt for the rule of law and the judicial process.
Defendants Nicole Clyne, Danielle Roberts and their fellow members of The DOSsier Project are all members of DOS engaged in a public relations campaign to portray Defendant Keith Raniere and his co-conspirators as victims of government persecution and a corrupt judicial system, themselves as victims of persecution by individuals who they claim were never harmed, justify what was done to women in DOS (including Plaintiffs in this action), and to criticize and attack the reputations and credibility of the former DOS members who are Plaintiffs in this action.
Attached hereto as exhibits A to I are screenshots of pages from The DOSsier Project website and social media accounts of the organization and certain of its members, including Defendants Clyne and Roberts, along with Ms. Hachette.
In her video statement, The DOSsier Project’s Ms. Hachette warns the Plaintiffs: “For those of you who are Jane and John Does watching this, this is your last opportunity to come forward and put your name to your claims. If you do n’t, it is my moral obligation to name every single one of you. The clock starts now.”
In their written statement, The DOSsier Project elaborates: “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 [Plaintiff] Nicole . . .”
The message from The DOSsier Project is clear: the Plaintiffs better quickly accede to their demands because even if they do not want to be publicly identified, Ms. Hachette will identify them.
Ms. Clyne did not merely re-post these threats to her personal Twitter feed. She endorsed and amplified them with her own comments that leave no doubt about her involvement in this campaign.
Among other things, she states on Twitter that, “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.”
She also states, in the same thread, that “Women in the NXIVM case have hidden behind their anonymity long enough. With equal privilege comes equal responsibility. Time’s up!”
Ms. Roberts shared their threatening statement on her Twitter feed, joining in the effort.
Ms. Hachette may be the organization’s face for this disgraceful conduct, but Ms. Clyne’s responsibility is indisputable.
Ex. B is a screenshot of the Instagram post of the video, which can be found in full at
The full video can also be accessed on a secure server hosted by Plaintiffs’ counsel at
In addition, a courtesy copy of the video file pre-screened for viruses will be submitted on USB drive to the Court
pursuant to this Court’s individual rules.
Ex. A is a screenshot of the written statement, which can be found at https://www.theDOSsierproject.com/articles/statement-from-michele-hatchette
No one has a legitimate interest in having the identities of sex crime victims revealed, especially in this manner threatened here. Harassment, intimidation and threats of this nature are traumatic, particularly for people who are already struggling to recover from related trauma. It is abundantly clear that Defendant Clyne is working in concert with others in a brazen effort to undermine the Court’s exclusive authority to decide this matter, and to inflict additional harm on those Plaintiffs in the process.
The protective order in the criminal proceeding only applied to the Defendants in that proceeding, but the judgment of Judge Garaufis that certain victims of the defendants in that case – including Plaintiffs in this action who had escaped from DOS, and Daniela, Camila and their brother– deserved some protection from full public disclosure of their identities has been respected beyond the criminal case.
A Protective Order by this Court will bar the Defendants in this action from directly or indirectly publicly disclosing the protected Plaintiffs’ identities. But this most recent development may warrant more, irrespective of the Court’s decision on the pending motion. Ms. Hachette asserts on Twitter that she is a “civilian” not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, but the fact that The DOSsier Project includes Ms. Clyne, who is a party, and her own flagrant and public disregard for the clearly established legal process justifies sanctions.
However, because Ms. Clyne is a pro se litigant and lacks access to advice from competent counsel, Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that a stern admonishment from the Court may be appropriate, so that she can fully understand that her efforts to make end-runs around this Court’s authority, and to harass and threaten Plaintiffs outside of these proceedings, can have serious consequences.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court expeditiously consider all the circumstances in this matter and take appropriate action, before even more damage is done.
Neil L. Glazer
cc: All counsel and pro se defendants via ECF
[Footnote by Glazer] Ms. Hachette seems to believe this is protected First Amendment speech, but it may constitute coercion in the third degree, a felony offense under NYS Penal Law § 135.60.
Plaintiffs’ concerns extend well beyond this particular issue. Looming over their heads every day is the continued
existence and possible threat of release of some or all of their collateral, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ separate
motion pending before Magistrate Judge Pollack for leave to issue a non-party subpoena directed at collateral. (No.
That motion raises the concern that the subject non-party likely obtained copies of collateral from Ms. Clyne and has shared those materials with others. Ms. Roberts has publicly stated that she is in possession of a video of the branding of at least one Plaintiff, [Sarah Edmondson] which is also collateral…. [Roberts got her copy of the branding video of Sarah Edmondson as part of the discovery material in her license revocation hearing. It was provided to her by New York State and may have been obtained by NY from the US DOJ, although the source of providing the video to Roberts is unclear. When asked, Roberts said she does not know who provided the video to NY State.]
If these Defendants believe that they can disclaim responsibility and avoid consequences simply by encouraging non-party associates to engage in the wrongful conduct, as is happening here, there is a very high risk that they will continue to do just that, with potentially disastrous results.
Ed Note: This is a high-stakes matter. It is interesting that only a dozen out of more than 70 plaintiffs want to maintain anonymity. Glazer also raises some interesting legal issues. He acknowledges that the court cannot prevent non defendants from doing whatever they want, but he claims that anything that non defendant Hatchette does should be laid at the doorstep of defendant Clyne.
Glazer also raises a New York State third degree felony law of inducing or compelling a person to engage in conduct that he or she has every legal right not to participate in.
According to the law firm Crotty Saland “the means by which you persuade a person to abstain or engage in conduct must be based in a fear that if the target person does not comply you will take certain acts against this person as follows:
- Whether true or not, expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact: This act must subject the person to contempt or ridicule.
- Testify, provide information or withhold information with respect to that person’s legal claim: Fairly straightforward, this section speaks for itself.
- Perform any act that would not in itself materially benefit you but is calculated to harm the person: The harm that you intend to cause must relate to the other person’s health, safety, business, career, finances, reputation or personal relationships.
It is hard to say whether or not Hatchette’s statement that if they do not reveal their identities she will, falls under this conduct. But if I were Hatchette, I would strongly reconsider naming names. Either she should withdraw her threat that if they do not reveal themselves, she will, or better yet, not reveal anyone’s names at all.
But that is not my choice. It is not even Mr. Glazer’s. I do not think it is the judge, Eric Komitee’s decision – at least as far as Hatchette, a non defendant, is concerned.
But Glazer may have missed a point though. Hatchette does not live in New York State and might not be subject to NY prosecutors’ jurisdiction. Still, knowing the wide discretion prosecutors have, Hatchette might be well advised to shy away from this controversy.
Stay tuned, and as always, Viva Executive Success!