Nicki Clyne refers to the dozen Jane Does as “hiding in the craven’s shadow.” Craven is another name for coward. She claims the 12 women who claim to have been abused by Keith Raniere and, allegedly, by Clare and Sara Bronfman, are cowards not to use their name. Now, Clyne is demanding to know the names of the people who are suing her.
In attorney Neil Glazer’s first amended complaint, he refers to some 60+ anonymous plaintiffs as various Jane and John Does with numbers or by their first names only – such as Daniela, Camila, Souki, Nicole, etc.
Based on Glazer’s latest court filing, there are now only 12 individuals who are going by their first names only or by Jane or John Doe.
As for now, we only know five full names according to the first amended complaint. Glazer tells us that 59 plaintiffs are ready to cross over the line and be known by their full names.
Based on that, Clyne is asking to hear those names. It’s not an unreasonable request since they are willing to be named. It would be a lot easier if they were named in, for example, a second amended complaint.
Taking out the 10 who have dropped out and naming the 59, even if Glazer does continue to allude to 12 by first name or Jane or John Doe, would clarify a lot in the lawsuit.
But is it right for Clyne to refer to the 12, who do not wish to have their names revealed to the public, as cravens?
We don’t know who precisely the 12 are, but we might guess that they include Daniela, Camila, Souki, Nicole, and other DOS slaves who were branded and deceived by the application of the monster’s initials on their crotches without knowing that it was indeed the ragged rascal’s initials.
This assault on their person is something shameful, humiliating and denigrating. Women they trusted came to them and said ‘We have the four elements,’ but instead it was the sick elements of the monster Raniere and, on top of that, Clyne is demanding these people should be named in public, outed, and further humiliated.
Clyne does what she wishes, as evidenced her by adherence to the monster after all these years.
Still, if 59 are ready to cross over and be named, they should be named, and due process suggests their names should be mentioned in the civil suit. While I can’t agree that the names of the 12 should be revealed, the names of the 59 should obviously be revealed and it is our wish and hope that Judge Komitee will grant Clyne’s request on the 59.
Clyne’s Letter to the Court
February 4, 2022
Via Electronic Filing
Honorable Eric R. Komitee
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Courtroom: 6G North
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: Edmondson, et al. v Raniere, et al. No. 1:20-cv-00485
Dear Judge Komitee:
Mr. Glazer wrote in his letter dated February 4, 2022 (No. 136), “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.”
However, the present FAC only shows nine plaintiffs with full names. I respectfully request that the Court direct Mr. Glazer to reveal the names of the 59 individuals who he claims are prepared to use their full names so we may begin to make heads or tails of this incomprehensible morass.
I am pleased to find out that these 59 individuals have decided to allow their claims to be rigorously examined, although, sadly, there remains a dozen who wish to hide in craven shadows.
Finally, I assure this Court that I will abide by any protective order, or any other order, so directed.
/s/ Nicole Clyne