Suneel Weighs In: ‘Name the Does!’

Editor’s Note:  According to Neil Glazer in his most recent filing, there are now 12 individuals out of seventy-one who don’t want their full names revealed. Suneel Chakravorty is one of those who believe that all plaintiffs in the civil suit should be named. Some of his colleagues suggest they will name them publicly. The following is Suneel’s editorial, unedited. The opinions expressed by Suneel are his own and do not represent the opinions or position of Frank Report.

Suneel Chakravorty

I agree with Michele Hatchette in that the civil lawsuit plaintiffs should not hide behind anonymity.

They are all adults. This is not about threats or intimidation. It is not about the criminal case, but about the civil, which is all about money.

Glazer’s proposed anonymity has nothing to do with “protecting victims” in the criminal case. It has to do with obfuscating the many lies in the civil and the fact that the whole complaint has been “Bronfmanized.”

Let’s look into this further.

Why Not Have Anonymity?

Anonymity in civil and criminal cases allows accusers afraid of retaliation to come forward. But that doesn’t apply here.

Many have gone public since the criminal trial. Mark Vicente was a star on HBO. India Oxenberg was a star on STARZ. Jessica Joan revealed her identity on the CBS Morning Show to 2+ million viewers. No one has retaliated against them. On the contrary, the public has lauded and supported them.

Victim Mark Vicente starred in HBO’s The Vow

 

Victim India Oxenberg starred in Seduced.

 

Victim Jessica Joan has published a book and hosts a podcast.

 

Victim Anthony ‘Nippy’ Ames co-hosts a podcast, “A Little Bit Culty.”

 

Victim Bonnie Piesse recently landed a role in a Star Wars spin-off.

As for Camila and Daniela, they have the most sensitive claims in the civil lawsuit and could benefit the most from anonymity.

However, Mexican media has already published their full names more than a hundred times.

If this proposed anonymity were truly about protecting the plaintiffs, there doesn’t seem to be anything legitimate to protect them from.

It’s not to be construed that I don’t like does, and here’s the proof. I just want their names told.

Here’s Why Not

There is another aspect to anonymity for the accusers: the accused gets a presumption of guilt.

The media and the public label anyone who dares to even examine the accusations as a “victim shamer” or even a “victimizer” themselves and they are silenced.

That’s what, in my opinion, is being threatened to be done to Michele.

Alan Dershowitz discussed this very dynamic in his interview with the Jerusalem Post: “This is a call for censorship and for only one side of a disputed accusation to be heard. It is precisely this censorial attitude that prevailed during McCarthyism, when people were falsely accused of communist affiliation and were denied airtime to defend themselves.”

Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz continues, “[t]he result of this one-sided presentation is to deny the public information necessary to evaluate the comparative credibility of the accusers and the accused.”

Due process demands equal justice under the law, but if the Jane and John Does get a bias in their favor because of their anonymity, how can there be equal justice?

In the courts of Garaufis and Glazer, everyone is equal under the law, but some are more equal than others.

Anonymity also can encourage false accusations.

There are many lies that are in this civil lawsuit and most of  the plaintiffs’ claims have nothing to do with the Bronfmans.

That’s a problem, because the Bronfmans have the money, and Glazer’s plaintiffs can’t blame the Bronfmans for everything.

Clare and Sara Bronfman.

There’s no evidence they knew anything about Daniela’s confinement in “the room” or Cami’s alleged abuse in 2005. They didn’t even know about the existence of DOS until after it was public.

Thus, I’m not sure how Daniela, Camila, or the DOS plaintiffs have a case against Sara or Clare.

Should Michele Just Shut Up?

In his letter (no. 136), Glazer writes in a footnote, “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.”

Michele Hatchette

 

Neil Glazer wants Michele to shut the frig up.

This footnote about criminal prosecution sounds to me like an implied threat. I’m not sure about attorney ethics but, if so, this is exactly the kind of “extortionate demand” Glazer accuses Michele of earlier in the letter.

If Michele names names, I predict that many of the Jane and John Does who know their claims are false will leave the lawsuit. The remaining plaintiffs will have no case against the Bronfmans, and the payday Glazer promised his plaintiffs will not come to pass.

I believe that is what worries Mr. Glazer about Michele’s statement.

A Final Note

This is a message for those plaintiffs with the “sheep’s eye and licorice tooth.” Let’s have some facts of life. If the judge doesn’t dismiss this case, it’ll be years before it goes to trial. There will be discovery, and depositions and the like.

It will be years before anyone sees any money, because the Bronfmans follow a legal strategy that many wealthy people follow: never settle.

Much like the Glazer lawsuit, this donut looks good but there may not be enough dough to go around.

About the author

Suneel Chakravorty

22 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • What I don’t get is –

    If an anonymous person makes a claim about something that didn’t happen, how does Michele know who they are?

    Surely, the only way she would know who they are is if the things they are claiming did happen.

    • Yep, Beef.

      Additionally, can you imagine mistreating so many “friends” that you legitimately can’t figure out “who” is suing you? Especially, given all the context? That’s really hard to believe.

      Both scenarios show a likely deep dishonesty in their portrait of being so in the dark about the civil lawsuit.

  • Suneel is too busy to explain why he has extensive knowledge of hard drives not in his possession, yet he’s somehow not too busy to stop by and give us hot takes on anonymous Jane Does. It’s as if we can’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth.

  • Suneel ‘weighs’ in? My mistake for expecting something ‘weighty’ — with ‘heft’.

    Suneel ‘wafts’ in, feels more apropros to me.

  • I am torn over the idea of anonymous plaintiffs. You have the right to face your accuser, but that right is not why the NXVIM remnant want them revealed. We have seen how much that crowd values the rights of others. More likely they want to harass an intimidate.

  • Suneel,

    Awesome post!

    —Here is my little Daniela Doe. Oh no, you’re not Daniela, you’re Camila Doe.

    You’re a real funny sick f*ck Suneel.

    …The only thing, actually ‘funny’, is the fact that in the last 2 years – your Free Raniere campaign has only attracted the attention of an unemployed cult groupie.
    (LMAO @ U)
    ***
    BTW: Your insider’s, Raniere, joke ‘Camila Doe’ is so hilarious, though, not as hilarious as your belief that Nicki enjoys banging your ugly ass. Now that’s fucking hilarious.
    ***
    If you’ve haven’t looked in the mirror lately, let me help you:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/39663835@N00/3819547223
    I think you’d look better with green skin – then you wouldn’t look like such a shithead.
    ***

    • Suneel,

      Such’a heel …. I love the fact you read my posts and are consciously aware there is much pith to my words.
      ***

  • Hi Suneel,

    Awesome post!

    —Here is my little Daniela Doe. Oh no, you’re not Daniela, you’re Camila Doe.

    You’re a real funny sick f*ck Suneel.

    …The only thing, actually ‘funny’, is the fact that in the last 2 years – your Free Raniere campaign has only attracted the attention of an unemployed cult groupie.
    (LMAO @ U)
    ***

    BTW: Your insider’s, Raniere, joke ‘Camila Doe’ is so hilarious, though, not as hilarious as your belief that Niki enjoys banging your ugly ass. Now that’s fucking hilarious.
    ***

    If you’ve haven’t looked in the mirror lately, let me help you:
    https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Kif_Kroke

    I think you’d look better with green skin – then you wouldn’t look like such a shithead.
    ***

  • The Bronfmans funded this monstrosity of an organization. They kept it afloat and so enabled this horror show. That’s the link to Clare and Sara. And then there’s willful blindness. Is it enough to convict? We’ll see. Years of entertainment for us on the FR!

    Citing Dershowitz to prove any point is a joke. That scum of the earth has lost every credibility. He’s so old he won’t live to see the resolution of the civil lawsuits he’s entangled in related to the Epstein case. It is very pleasing to see his legacy and reputation destroyed in the final stage of his life. Karma indeed.

    Oh, and I think the Jerusalem Post did a rectification or comment on Dershowitz’s opinion piece.

  • Ok so let me see if I’m getting it. Do the NXIVM loyalists believe that:

    1. All of the anonymous plaintiffs are lying about their victim status for a pure money grab
    And
    2. If you are going to lie to try to grab some money, at least have the balls to sign your name to it.

    Or is it: 3. Every adult plaintiff in any case should never be allowed to have anonymity bc it’s unfair to the accused ?

    Is it that they believe that 4. when people are allowed to stay anonymous they’re more likely to sign onto a lawsuit just to see if they can cash in whether they truly deserve compensation or not? And so to discourage that kind of free-for-all, they think all names should be public? And only honest people will stand by their name? What about honest but publicity-shy people? Too bad for them?

    I’m sincerely trying to understand.

    • “I’m sincerely trying to understand.”

      OK, if you are really trying to understand then, as a thought exercise, just switch the teams:

      If Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman anonymously sued Sarah Edmondson, would you think that was fair?

      If they put Sarah in a position where she could not question their claims in court, Sarah could not present their factual histories in question – where Sarah was being sued for millions by them – do you think that would be fair to use US courts against her this way?

      If you can perform this thought exercise in your mind, then you can understand this campaign to get rid of the anonymity in Neil Glazer’s lawsuit.

      It is a basic legal principle: If you are going to use the force and power of the public US court system to deprive someone of their property, you must do so publicly so those you seek justice from can defend themselves.

      If you would want to apply this principle for Sarah, then you should also want it applied for Nicki and the rest who are being sued.

      Alanzo

      • You misunderstand the nature of anonymous plaintiffs. I am an attorney and I have defended certain claims of a sensitive nature that have been filed anonymously. The identity of the Doe is disclosed to defense counsel and that plaintiff is still subject to depositions and cross examination. As a defendant you keep all your rights, and the only question is whether the public has a right to know the name of the person suing.

        As a civil defense attorney, I understand the idea that you would want the names of the accuser public but if we are all being honest, the reason is to keep people from suing. That to me is wrong and when you are dealing with claims of a very sensitive nature someone shouldn’t be intimidated into not bringing suit because they have to reveal their names.

        I suspect the reason that the number of plaintiffs seeking anonymity has decreased is because most do not fit within the narrow category of people entitled to proceed anonymously.

        • “As a civil defense attorney, I understand the idea that you would want the names of the accuser public but if we are all being honest, the reason is to keep people from suing.”

          “…if we are all being honest…”

          Are you being honest, anonymous “Defense Attorney”?

          Or are you just trying to undermine the argument of the defendant’s, and the public’s, right to know the participants in our public courts?

          Attorneys like to present themselves as “truth-tellers”, when in fact they are rhetors, argument makers, sophistic PR flacks who try to convince people of things by people who pay them by hiding, distracting from, or mischaracterizing the facts of the other “side”.

          “…if we are all being honest…”

          From an anonymous “Defense Attorney”!

          LOL!!

          Alanzo

          • Interesting how you accuse lawyers of attempting to distract from the other side when you ignore the fact that your argument that having an anonymous plaintiff prevents the defendant from confronting their accuser is fundamentally false. Second, the public’s right to know is balanced against the plaintiffs need for privacy. I have not seen a cogent argument for why the public needs to know the names of these plaintiffs and it’s clear that the only reason is to hope they will be encouraged to drop out of the case.

          • @Alanzo, Are you getting the therapy you need? Instead of responding or not responding to the content of the “Defense Attorney” points, you choose to deflect and attach his character and became nitpicky about his choice of words to twist them.

      • If Keith wasn’t busy, he’d probably have already sued Sarah Edmondson a half dozen times.

        Everyone in NXIVM was good at letting the court system ruin people their Vanguard didn’t like. Don’t hate the player…

        • They Nxian heads of state tried to have Sarah ARRESTED. And they sent a bunch of the DOS defectors legal threats. Sometimes in Spanish. To English speakers. Cease and desist letters were delivered.The nxium dictators were ALL about silencing those who left their cult.

      • “If you are going to use the force and power of the public US court system to deprive someone of their property, you must do so publicly so those you seek justice from can defend themselves.”

        Makes sense, but I don’t think any of the Nxivm loyalists have stated that reason for wanting to release names, have they?

        I personally don’t think they are bad people, so I’m still trying to grasp their reasoning for this. I don’t believe they would want to expose actual victims of sex trafficking to unwanted public exposure, so after thinking it over, I think it is a simple case of:
        “We know these people are lying and we aren’t going to make it easy for them to get away with it if we can help it.”

        I think it’s possible it’s got nothing to do with principles of female empowerment etc. They’re just 100% convinced the anon (and other) plaintiffs are liars and so they are acting accordingly.

  • Suneel, I want you to shut the fuck up. You weren’t branded so you know nothing about the pain these women went through.

Frank Parlato

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com

Archives