Suneel Decries Glazer, Parlato, Kobelt; It Wasn’t ‘Human Fright,’ It Was An ‘Emotions’ Study!

Suneel Chakravorty

By Suneel Chakravorty

According to Neil Glazer, the prince of exaggeration, unsuspecting plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit were “subjected” to a horrific ‘Human Fright Experiment.’

Neil Glazer is conducting his own Human Fright$ Experiment, converting an emotions study into dollars and cents for his recently terrified plaintiffs. They hope to be crying all the way to the bank.

Glazer says in the complaint: “At least forty members of the NXIVM community, trusting in Raniere, Nancy Salzman and Defendant Dr. Brandon Porter, M.D. (“Porter”), were subjected to a ‘human fright experiment,’ in which individuals were seated in front of a video display with electroencephalogram (“EEG”) electrodes placed on their skulls to measure brainwaves. These subjects believed they were going to watch a talk by Raniere, but instead were subjected to scenes of escalating violence including actual, extremely graphic footage of the brutal beheading and dismemberment of five women in Mexico.”

I believe that while some of the clips were disturbing and shocking, this is a case of extreme exaggeration. Let’s take this apart. (I’ve bolded some pertinent parts of the claim above.)


“Electrodes Placed on their Skulls”

First, Glazer says electrodes were “placed on their skulls.” Here is a skull:

This is not a skull.

Just as a point of clarity for Mr. Glazer, a lesson in anatomy: the electrodes were placed on their head, not their skull. He could have said they were attached to the skin or the hair above the skull but they weren’t attached to the skull. If he is this imprecise about obvious anatomical things, we wonder what else he is imprecise about.

He also says that in the graphic snuff film that five women were killed. It’s actually four. He got it 80% right. It’s these kinds of errors that make us suspect that our prince of exaggeration is doing this throughout the lawsuit and enough exaggeration equals a lie.

But before my carping critics tell me I am focused on minuscule things, let’s get to the heart of the matter of why Glazer is dead wrong.


“Escalating Violence”

Glazer’s next line is that the scenes were of “escalating violence.” But as you can see in Parlato’s post, EXCLUSIVE: Frank Report Obtains 18 Video Clips That Comprised the ‘Human Fright Experiment’ – See It Here and Judge!, it wasn’t escalating violence at all.

It was a mixture of different clips, some violent, mostly non-violent, some funny, some sentimental, some humorous, some dramatic, and, yes, some violent. They ran the gamut of human emotions, which is precisely what the study was actually supposed to do, and it included a gamut of things, including a gruesome death. That snuff film is not to be minimized in any way, yet it is similar to many video clips that are readily available.

For example, here is a video on FOX news of ISIS terrorists executing captured Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh by burning him alive:

ISIS burns a hostage alive.

Here is a video of US journalist James Foley being beheaded by ISIS and this was reported on CNN and elsewhere and shown to millions:

Finally, here’s George Floyd being killed by an American police officer that was shown to practically every single American.

And why was it shown? So that the American public could see in graphic detail police violence on a black man. Nobody has said that that was too graphic or too violent. Nobody has said that it shouldn’t be shown because it illustrated a point.

Police officer Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd’s neck.

It showed a man actually being killed and everyone in America embraced that film. It, too, is horrifying, yet no one vomits or wretches opprobrium on CNN for showing it. Just the opposite, they are applauded, because it illustrates something.

When we want to show ISIS is bad, we show a snuff film. The film of George Floyd is a snuff film.

It is okay to show a snuff film if it supports the social outrage you want to provoke, but it’s wrong to show a snuff film when you want to study the range of human emotions? When we watch a clip that clearly shows Mexican cartels are bad and study the emotional reaction, then we’re bad?


The Origin of the Snuff Film Was Vicente

It’s a complete falsehood, by the way, that Keith Raniere was using this film to traumatize people. There is a history behind the snuff film that is important and that outsiders like Glazer either don’t know or don’t want to know. But once you hear the history of this snuff film and how it entered the community, I think you’ll understand the context and why it was chosen. It was not to indoctrinate people to violence. It was to have a teachable moment.

According to Eduardo Asunsolo, long-time business colleague and friend of Mark Vicente and fellow leader in the Society of Protectors, “Mark Vicente was actually the one who found the video clip of the beheading.”

Actor and Raniere supporter Eduardo Asunsolo Ramirez was an instructor in the Source curriculum for actors.


Mark Vicente introduced the beheading clip to Keith Raniere.

Apparently, Mark Vicente came across the clip, perhaps in his immersive study into violence in Mexico for his documentary Encender El Corazon, the trailer of which is below.


Vicente felt understandably disturbed after watching it. He brought it to Keith to make sense of it, of how men could be so brutal. Then I’m told Keith helped Vicente imagine the same horrific event from the different perspectives of everyone involved,  from the women being killed, to the men killing them, to the families, on both sides watching.

Keith Raniere

Vicente was said to have had a profound and positive experience as a result of this discussion with Raniere. It is based on that positive experience, in part, that the decision was made to include this snuff film in the study.

Before you start attacking me and saying that Raniere wanted to inculcate and habituate people to snuff films, remember that one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Mark Vicente, was the one who actually brought this film into the community and he knows well that he was helped by Raniere’s teachings to digest and understand, or so he said, and if he was being honest, I’ll take him at his word.

Although most of the participants maybe hadn’t seen this particular clip before, it certainly became the subject of discussion in the community prior to the study and the purpose of these discussions was to try to build greater empathy for all of the individuals involved in the slaying, without condoning the violence.


The Big Lie in the Glazer ‘Fright’ Claim

Finally, the big Glazer lie about this so-called ‘Human Fright Experiment,’ the one I really don’t like, is that the participants were allegedly lied to and told it was going to be a lecture by Raniere. This is simply not true.

The main plaintiff having to do with the ‘Human Fright Experiment’ in the civil lawsuit is Jane Doe 19, who everyone knows is Jenn Kobelt. She told the Times Union, the CBC, and The New York Times, and she’s the one who got Porter’s license revoked. Her name is her name and I’m not playing the Jane Doe game for someone who has already announced themselves to the world.

Vancouver actress Jenn Kobelt: Never was a woman so completely altered. Her hair has turned quite gold from fright.

(By the way, I’m not subject to any court orders. I’m not a defendant in this case. I can do anything I want. I haven’t lost my First Amendment rights.)

Now, let’s look at what the evidence shows.

Below is the export of a WhatsApp chat between a coordinator of the emotions study and Jane Doe 19 in the lawsuit.

After all, this was not a ‘fright’ experiment. It was an emotions study and that is how it was billed and that is how it was advertised, and the coordinator was looking for volunteers for an emotions study. Everyone knows that NXIVM is edgy, and emotions would have included the range of emotions, from love to fear, from hate to joy, and everything in between.

Humans have a range of emotions. [Photo credit: Verywell Mind]
Here is the text exchange where Kobelt volunteers for the emotions study and refers to it as an emotions study. The name of the coordinator has been redacted and replaced with “Coordinator.”

8/2/16, 9:21 AM – Jenn Kobelt: Hey [redacted] – Sam said you need participants for an emotions study. I’m free Thursday after 3pm if you’d like me to be part of the study. Let me know if you need me
8/4/16, 3:55 PM – Jenn Kobelt: Hey – just following up on this
8/4/16, 4:20 PM – Coordinator: Hey thanks, sorry I’m trying to get new dates added,
8/4/16, 4:20 PM – Coordinator: Stand by or follow up again. Thanks for following up
8/4/16, 4:20 PM – Jenn Kobelt: Ok
8/4/16, 7:24 PM – Coordinator: How about tomorrow at noon
8/4/16, 7:24 PM – Coordinator:?
8/4/16, 8:18 PM – Coordinator: Or tomorrow at 6 pm?
8/4/16, 8:20 PM – Jenn Kobelt: Tomorrow at 6pm is much better. I’m staying at Sam’s – is there someone willing to pick me up from there and take me home afterwards?
8/4/16, 8:20 PM – Coordinator: I think we can figure it out.
8/4/16, 8:20 PM – Coordinator: Can we book it?
8/4/16, 8:21 PM – Jenn Kobelt: Yep. Tomorrow at 6pm. I’ll be ready to leave by 5:30 (I’m not sure where it is or how long it would take to drive there)
8/4/16, 8:21 PM – Coordinator: It’s at Apropos. In theory you could walk there, but I’ll see if Brandon [Porter] can pick you up.
8/4/16, 8:21 PM – Coordinator: Thanks!
8/4/16, 8:21 PM – Jenn Kobelt: I’ll totally walk there!
8/4/16, 8:23 PM – Coordinator: Awesome. The front door might be locked, so just come in the back.
8/4/16, 8:30 PM – Jenn Kobelt: Ok

The following is a redacted screenshot that I obtained from Brandon Porter. When Porter gave me this screenshot under the condition that Jane Doe 19’s name be redacted, which I have done. He told me this was a text exchange between himself and Jane Doe 19, and it lines up with the timeframe of the WhatsApp messages between the coordinator and Kobelt.

Porter does not know I am disclosing Jane Doe 19’s name. He has told me that he does not agree with naming the Does and even asked me not to do so.

But I disagree with Porter, at least about Jane Doe 19. For me to refer to Jenn Kobelt as Jane Doe 19 would be like referring to Sarah Edmondson as Sarah and India Oxenberg as India, as was done in the criminal trial, even though they are known to the world.

The redacted screenshot shows Kobelt arriving for the study and Porter checking in with her the day after.

Porter (8/5/16, 6:07pm): Hey, are you coming to apropos for the experiment?

Kobelt (8/5/16, 6:07pm): Yep. I’m inside waiting.

Porter (8/6/16, 10:22am): How are you doing today?

Kobelt (8/6/16, 10:25am): Ummm, I feel like the world is different and yucky, but I know the world hadn’t changed, it’s me that’s changed. I’m ok, just feeling much less safe than I used to tell myself I was.

Kobelt was fine. She said “I’m ok, just feeling less safe than I used to tell myself I was.” It is true that she saw things that opened her eyes, but she says she was ok.


Legacy of the Study

Jenn Kobelt made her name forever synonymous with ‘human fright experiment’ because she’s the one who blew the shrieking whistle of terror and it was Frank Parlato, the biased journalist who dubbed it the ‘Human Fright Experiment.’

That’s not what it was called and this ugly label attached itself to what was actually a noble and worthy enterprise to learn more about the human mind and the human emotions and its relationship to human morality.

There are two names that deserve shame in the history of this study. One is Frank Parlato and the other is Jane Doe 19, a.k.a. Jenn Kobelt. These two names are names of ignominy, and instead of Porter and Raniere being names to elicit disgust, we should maybe thank them for their effort to gauge human emotion and make a sincere scientific study.

But for the irascible Parlato and crying Kobelt, this study may have actually advanced our knowledge about emotions.

Furthermore, this was something totally voluntary and no one had any complaint until articles began appearing on the FrankReport, and most of the complaints were after people learned they could get Bronfman money for having watched a series of video clips.

Is Frank Parlato the real villain in this tale? Glazer, Kobelt and Parlato, the three amigos, are the ones that created fright. Only two of them are going to get money for it.

Maybe you think I’m just a blind fool, but at some point, we’ll investigate this further. In the meantime, keep an open mind that the villains here are Parlato, Kobelt and the crazy media and a vindictive and draconian medical board and maybe this study was meant for good. It wasn’t a human fright experiment. It was a study of emotions.

Nobody went into this thinking it was going to be Captain Kangaroo, Mickey Mouse, Mr. Rogers, the Romper Room, or Sesame Street.

Sesame Street


Mr. Rogers


The Romper Room Tv series


American children’s television host Robert (Bob) Keeshan (R) poses with the cast of his TV series ‘Captain Kangaroo,’ circa 1967. L-R: ‘Dancing Bear,’ ‘Mr. Moose,’ Hugh ‘Lumpy’ Brannum (as Mr. Green Jeans), Bunny Rabbit and Keeshan. (Photo by CBS/Getty Images)


Mickey Mouse Clubhouse

Nobody thought that’s what they were going to see. Everyone expected they were going to see edgy stuff and anybody that says otherwise is lying, because they knew there were going to be edgy, evocative, and provocative, and was going to run the gamut of emotions.

The purpose of this particular study was to develop a way to measure the results of the NXIVM “Ethicist” course, which was a program for teaching students how to more consistently make decisions that comported with their ideal personal morality, whether it had to do with minor day-to-day decisions or major life events or significant business dealings

This study was to examine participants’ ability to allow themselves to feel the range of emotions, in particular sorrow, which is a prerequisite for any kind of morality.

Even Kobelt admitted at the time that her world changed and she saw something of a different world and even if that was to morph into other ideas later, the very fact that a study could change your view of the world or give you a different mindset, even that in itself is an emotional experience. Even that is a lesson to be learned.

About the author

Suneel Chakravorty


Click here to post a comment

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

    • Nutjob-

      When is it going to dawn on you that Suneel Chakravorty is not a good person? Good people do not single out women for retribution.

      Good people don’t pretend that a bunch of naked women getting axed to death isn’t a “big deal.”

      Good people don’t call victims of child molestation by the nicknames given to them by their molester: i.e., Suneel called Cami “camel toe”.

      Christ f*ck – how naive are you, Nutjob?

      You act like you’re an extra from the Andy Griffith show.

  • Tut, tut, persnickety Suneel!!

    —The Big Lie in the Glazer ‘Fright’ Claim

    Whatever moniker is slapped onto the “experiment” is immaterial. Don’t waste your time reading Suneel’s lies.

    What Suneel fails to grasp – or is too blind to see – is that “informed consent” was nonexistent within the context of the experiment.

    In the medical/scientific fields, there exists a thing called ethics; experiments done on human beings have to have “informed consent” or the experiment is deemed unethical.

    Once again, poor old Suneel is cutting hairs and throwing tantrums over nomenclature/semantics.

    Boohoo, Boohoo Suneel.

    YAWN | Oh, I’m sorry. You’re crying like a woman. | Futurama (1999) – S03E05 Comedy | Video clips by quotes | 7c861bd1 |

  • Y’all. There is ZERO chance that this is not a coordinated effort on the part of defendants in the civil case and other Nxivm loyalists such as Suneel.

    If you have to say to a friend or associate, “Don’t reveal the name” ya kinda know that there’s a strong possibility that they will. Right?

    IF you believe that’s what happened. It’s not.

    Would YOU endanger your friend’s defense in a civil trial unless you had their full support in doing so?

    No. Of course not. So, either Suneel is a shit friend OR Suneel is working with Brandon Porter. And Nicki Clyne. And Danielle Roberts.

    So… Did Suneel lie to Brandon Porter? A person that Suneel cares about enough to defend publicly and vigorously and a person TRUSTED by Brandon Porter enough to supply Suneel with text messages. And WhatsApp communications that are potentially going to impact a fellow loyalist’s civil trial?

    Even IF Suneel tries to play the whole “objective investigator” role about Brandon – which is utter bullshit – why would Brandon trust Suneel? About a legal case?

    Because they have a personal relationship. And they have a shared goal. Free Keith Raniere. Redeem Nxivm. Change the public opinion of it all.

    So, I ask you earnest readers, once again.

    Did Suneel lie to Brandon Porter about keeping the Jane Doe anonymous?

    Or is he lying to you? To all of us?

    Suneel IS lying. To someone. For purely ethical reasons, certainly. Ha, ha. But Suneel lied to someone.

    Because if Suneel did NOT lie to Brandon Porter, then that means that Brandon Porter knew FULL WELL that Suneel would use those materials Brandon Porter supplied to name a Jane Doe and attack her credibility.

    So again. Suneel lied. He’s a liar. That’s been established. But whom did Suneel lie to? That’s the only question really left here.

    I know when I’ve been lied to.

    The loyalists are not even good liars.

    Y’all can’t be falling for this feeble and transparent attempt at pre civil case PR campaign and legal work around… Can you?!

    Get this ridiculous, prolific liar Suneel on the stand. And Michelke Hatchette too. Depose them.

    Or just ask logical questions.

    It all falls apart.

  • Like Manson, KR had men who wanted to sleep with him. Pretty sure Suneel has the same sexual desires as Clyne and the rest of the harem. I bet he was begging Roberts to brand him in honor of his Vanguard.

  • You are dangerous. Great Parlato, you are a genius. I didn’t get what you were doing but giving the microphone to a creep that says snuff videos are edgy and just a noble and innocent experiment in the name of science was brilliant…. Thanks, because Suneel will regret this defense, and Clyne and the others too. These proofs without a doubt that making an unwilling woman see something that should never have been thought about, done or captured on tape, something so violent it would make an angel puke, is edgy for a kiddy-rapist follower. Thanks, Suneel, because for the first time I believe the stupid logic you always spit, is equally useless and rotten as any phallic delirium should be, and just by the things you choose to believe, you should be pull away from society until you prove to be less harmful.

  • “Edgy” is the beheading of four bound passive women in various states of toplessness. And then the bodies are delimbed and thrown into a pile.

    Edgy ???

    Suneel you are mentally ill and delusional.

    I guess you have an excellent defense from prosecution of your crimes as it is illegal to prosecute those who can not aid in their own defense.

    Probably why KAR liked you.

    Did you like the “Seduction Assignment” finally videos? Did you ever aid in their “Edgyness”. Or just your aspiration is more DOS slaves were acquired ?


  • Money is the name of this game. Just money; not fear, not victimization, not trauma. Just money. Kobelt is a fraud.

    She volunteered.

    • What’s with the “Adios Kobelt”? Is that some kind of threat?

      Sorta like showing a Narco murder movie is a threat to women that are potential “enemies” or defectors of a criminal RICO organization ( like Nxium)?

  • First off,

    The chicken shit Suneel leaves out the name of Porter’s assistant but exposes a Jane Doe.

    He will protect his own

    This is after the Judge had ruled in favor of a Temporary Restraining Order giving the Frank Report plenty of time to plug this story.

    Yes, Suneel Chakravorty isn’t involved in the civil lawsuit, but he is involved in a conspiracy with those who are. Together, they have promoted each other’s Twitter feeds about outing the names of the Does.

    You see, Suneel, this was a big no no for Porter to do. As per Judge Eric R. Komitee’s order, Brandon shouldn’t have given you those messages and you have just screwed yourselves.

    “Defendants may not reveal Plaintiffs’ true identities to anyone, within or outside the scope of this litigation.”

    Michele Hatchette has made threats to release them all had the Does not come forward on their own.

    Her Twitter feed was supported amongst this group’s feeds as the request for a TRO stated.

    Now, Suneel has shared Porter’s messages with Does’ names in them regarding Raniere’s and Porter’s research which is evidence in the civil case.

    This will all be discussed on February 17th at 1:30 in front of Judge Eric R. Komitee where all defendants must appear in person (other than those who are incarcerated) sorry Raniere.

    Another successful smart move by Suneel Chakravorty and his NXIVM Five members

  • You’re Brandon Porter. Now, what are the chances that you have NOT shown all your closest friends, Nxivm associates and confidantes this “Fright Experiment” reel long, long ago?

    I mean…You think you’re innocent, right? If you’re Brandon Porter. And you think that showing this reel will exonerate you. Because there’s nothing wrong with it, right? So, what are the odds that you (as Brandon Porter) HAVEN’T shared these clips with your fellow loyalists years ago?

    Or you are Suneel who is “investigating” the case. You have access. But you are only NOW watching the “Fright Experiment”?

    Y’all falling for some fake-ass buffoonery.

  • “Mark Vicente introduced the beheading clip to Keith Raniere.
    Apparently, Mark Vicente came across the clip, perhaps in his immersive study into violence in Mexico for his documentary Encender El Corazon,”
    “Vicente felt understandably disturbed after watching it. He brought it to Keith to make sense of it, of how men could be so brutal. Then I’m told Keith helped Vicente imagine the same horrific event from the different perspectives of everyone involved, from the women being killed, to the men killing them, to the families, on both sides watching.” Suneel

    The whole history of the human race is marinated in blood.
    I am surprised that “virginal” Marc Vincente had to enter well into adulthood to learn this fact.
    And Frank Parlato counts Vincente as a hero?

    Today is February 12, 2022.

    On Monday it is February 14th, the anniversary of Chicago’s Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre where seven men were brutally gunned down in a Chicago garage.
    Is Marc Vincente such a cupcake that he is unaware of this piece of American history?
    Black and white photo of the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre

    Some people believe that future mob boss Sam Giancana was involved in the 1929 Massacre as a driver for the gun men.
    Gianacana himself was gunned down in his home in 1975.

    The FBI believes that Tony Spilotro gunned down Gianacana in 1975.
    By the time of his death in 1986, the FBI suspected Spilotro was involved in 22[29] or 25 murders[30] including:

    The murder of former Chicago Outfit boss Sam Giancana on June 19, 1975

    And Tony Spilotro was murdered in 1986 and buried in an Indiana corn field.
    ” Spilotro and his brother Michael disappeared on June 14, 1986, after they drove away together from Michael’s Oak Park home.[12] Michael’s wife, Anne, reported both brothers missing on June 16.[4] Michael’s car, a 1986 Lincoln, was recovered several days later in a motel parking lot near O’Hare International Airport.[12] On June 22, their bodies were found, one on top of the other and stripped down to their undershorts, buried in a cornfield in the Willow Slough preserve near Enos, Indiana.[12] The freshly turned earth had been noticed by a farmer who thought that the remains of a deer killed out of season had been buried there by a poacher, and notified authorities.[12] An autopsy completed on June 24 identified their cause of death as blunt force trauma, and ascertained that they had been dead since June 14.[12] They were identified by dental charts supplied by their dentist brother, Patrick Spilotro.”

    Marc Vicente:
    You’ve heard of the Circle of Life?
    Call this the Circle of Death!

    Now Vicente you are no longer a virgin.

  • “Finally, here’s George Floyd being killed by an American police officer ” Suneel

    Fact: George Floyd was a long time drug abuser with a damaged heart.
    Chauvin trial: Floyd DNA on meth-fentanyl pill found in police squad
    “Officials: Pill in squad car held meth and fentanyl, had Floyd’s DNA; Floyd’s blood also found in stains
    Pills found during the forensic investigation into George Floyd’s death in police custody tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl; one contained Floyd’s saliva, ”

    George Floyd was a dope fiend who died of a drug overdose.
    Minnesota is now a Marxist run hell hole with Moscow-style show trials where truth does not matter/

  • So Suneel feels it’s ok to disclose Jenn’s info. Wonder how “coordinator” will feel if their info is revealed. Among others, but Suneel has now put “coordinator” into play.

  • Also? As an aside, I decided to watch that video about the beheading and it was not shown. Seems that Suneel did not “understand the assignment”.

  • Suneel, 1000 and 10 percent you are a blind fool.

    Have you still, seriously, never read the patent “DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A LUCIFERIAN CAN BE REHABILITATED”?

    This was no “emotions” study.

    Also, how dare you insult Mr. Rogers this way? He absolutely helped children to process their emotions but never once did he recommend exposing them to scenes of graphic violence and touching dead bodies as a way to achieve that.

    Care to explain how this …

    Examples of the tactile stimulus 18 include, inter alia, touching a dead person or dead animal.

    … fits into your peaceful and non-violent world view?

    Also? How nice of you to decide that Jen should have no privacy even in a court of law to describe a situation that made her feel “yucky and less safe” in the world. Gee, the whole experience sounds so terrific, such a wonderful outcome, I guess she should be shouting from the rooftops and telling the whole world about this wonderful “emotions study” that helped her feel “yucky and less safe”. It’s just marvelous! Incredible research and amazing outcomes! Obviously, I’m kidding and obviously she did report the incident and she did even put her name behind it.

    But that’s not enough for you, Suneel. You still gotta act like a pompous and self-important dick believing that any traumatized people owe the public any part of their story.

    You’re a big fat jerk just like your dear leader. You and your little group of friends are truly some of the most revolting people I’ve ever heard about. Sneaking and lying and manipulating people. Starving women, branding them, assigning them to seduce a smelly old psychopath who believes the gift of his semen makes women see a blue light?!!

    I’m only comforted by the knowledge that people generally reap what they sow. Keith already received his comeuppance. It’s your turn now, asshole.

    • My2cents.


      Of COURSE J’ is not going to make herself fully vulnerable A SECOND time when the same pyscho doctor who recently completely betrayed J’s trust and traumatized her in an unprofessional and unethical experiment follows up to further plumb her physiological terror.

      “Hi. This is the teacher who groped your ass when you left class yesterday… How are you”?

      Such an unconvincing. “Proof” of anything.

      Lord. These loyalists are DENSE.

      if anything it’s proof Dr. Psycho knew he fucked her up with his diabolical study.

      • Here, here! I’d also like to add that big words make an impact in a statement only if they are used correctly. Suneel and his band of misfits like to throw around the word ‘noble’ any chance they get. Let’s go down this path, shall we? How is viewing a snuff film and then ‘exploring’ your own emotions helpful to society? The families of the victims on film never got to take these videos out of circulation. Such videos were certainly filmed for human consumption because there are sick and sociopathic people in this world. You are only propagating the hateful and amoral ‘emotions’ of such folks. It’s sad how bent your moral compass has become at the behest of someone claiming ownership of the only true ethical mind.

  • Hey Suneel, Raniere accepted the notion that he was one of the top three problem solvers in the world and abused such a farcical ranking to his advantage, while hiding the fact that he barely graduated RPI with a ~2.26 GPA where he was under academic probation at one point. He did the same type of self-aggrandizement in claiming he was East Coast Judo champion as a child and that he held a NY state record in the 100 yard dash. I don’t even need to mention the dozen other exaggerated nonsense claims that is associated with your scientist, philosopher, expert in the human dynamic BS.

    In your own words, “It’s these kinds of errors that make us suspect that our prince of exaggeration is doing this throughout the lawsuit and enough exaggeration equals a lie.”

    You dead-enders are such blathering hypocrites.

  • Suneel, once you share the results of your so-called impartial (and never ending) investigation into Raniere’s relationships with minors and explain how you have detailed knowledge of hard drives that were never in your possession, I’m happy to read your perspectives on other things. Until then, this is just more deflection.

    • I don’t know if you have a case.

      Was the movie streaming in your home? Did you buy a ticket to a theater? Or did Bronfman money fund a “doctor?” To use you in a experiment?

    • Yeah dumbass! That is what you do when some crazies try to ruin your life. You put them in jail and take all their money. It’s called the American Legal System. Now they will go after Nicki for marriage fraud and also take the little money she has left. This is called justice in case you are confused on how things work in America.

  • Frank, I cannot believe you allowed Chakravorty to post the name of Jane Doe 19. Not only post the name, multiple times, but also her picture. And her profession. And her city of residence.

    All of that should have been redacted. I know Chakravorty’s motive for exposing the female victim’s name, image, profession, and place of residence. What was yours?

    I don’t care that a little research would enable anyone to sniff out the woman’s name. (The rest might take a lot of vengeance fueled digging.) The point is she wanted to remain anonymous. A right typically granted by courts.

    In my opinion, her right to privacy has been violated. And I don’t want to hear the right to free speech as a legal counter argument: look at what the Amendment actually says. As for the argument from principles, people have a right to privacy and a right to speak their minds. To speak FOR THEMSELVES. That’s not a right to threaten others, to expose, to embarrass or harass. And if these rights were in conflict, it’s necessary to balance costs and benefit. So, I ask again, what benefit is gained by exposing this woman’s identity when she wishes to remain anonymous, a right granted to her by the court?

    So, I’m asking you, Frank, to reconsider and redact this woman’s name, picture, and biographical details.

    • The woman has appeared on CBC, New York Times, Albany Times Union, and Frank Report.

      She named herself. And she’s not a sex trafficking victim. She saw a snuff film and now she wants a million dollars. She should be named.

      If I can be accused of some god-awful thing and be named, let the accuser be named even if she’s a weak tiny fragile female.

      If this was a man that saw the film, we’d laugh at his desire to be anonymous.

      You want money, then you’re gonna be named.

      • The judge disagreed with y’all on that stance. Ha, ha. You dead-end losers lose AGAIN.

        That ruling was a little birthday present for Nicki Clyne. And just what she deserves.

        Talk about weak. You gonna still name all the names? Or are you gonna be a frail, little weakling again? Too scared to testify. Now too scared to follow up on your “promise” to name the “Does”.

        Looks like it WAS a “drill” and just an empty “threat” to name the remaining anonymous plaintiffs. Your words mean nothing. All talk. All social media fake bravery.

        Ha, ha. You so scared! Ha, ha!

      • ‘If I can be accused of some god-awful thing and be named, let the accuser be named even if she’s a weak tiny fragile female.’

        This is what happens when your defining talent is to see grown men and women (just like you!) as teeny-tiny breakable objects—

        When you are the sort of person who sees others as some sort of crushable non-entities you will be useful to someone a little further along the psychopathy scale, who sees you very clearly haha — and ‘understands’

        Psychopathy is eminently exploitable, a quality eagerly sought in any security detail from the nefarious underworld to her majesty’s service —

        ‘ f*cking nutters ‘ are the most exploitable — all the chief psycho has to do is pander to the vanity of the psycho wannabe minions.

        They can easily be convinced to do any stupid chaotic destructive thing because they are dumb enough [not brave] often greedy enough and deluded enough and ultimately because of these qualities — they are expendable.

        Your chief-kief psycho is in 7th heaven right now, he can taste your demise and he loves it!!!

    • Aristotle? While I appreciate your sentiments, let’s keep in mind that Jen truly did go public with her complaint. I’m sure Suneel’s harassment is not appreciated by her but I’m also certain that she’s strong enough to handle this. I’m glad Frank is exposing these assholes for what they are even if it seems a little (barf!) “odious”.

  • Take a shot every time a leftover says “edgy”. The “go to” word that’s supposed to excuse brandings, paddlings, solitary confinement, seduction assignments, blackmail, group blowjobs and much more. Unknowingly being shown the beheadings and dismemberment of 4 (yes, 4 not 5, Suneel) helpless people is not “edgy”. It is monstrous and cannot, should not take a second of rationalizing KR’s intentions. For fuck sake, Suneel…

  • Wow. I gave Suneel 5 years to shake free. I guess I was wrong. He is going to die on this hill. What a legacy to leave behind. It makes me wander if his feelings for KR go deeper than friendship. I’m thinking Suneel is a bit jealous he wasn’t in the DOS getting branded.

    • Denial? I totally agree and I’ve sometimes wondered if Nicki is just butt hurt that she didn’t get to go to jail. After all, wasn’t it said that imprisonment was only for the most devoted of slaves?

  • Whoa. I must be getting indoctrinated. This guy Suneel makes sense.

    After hearing him and watching the 18 clips, I can now believe there was nothing evil about the study except a group of people are playing it up for $$$$$$$ pretending to be frightened.

    Frogging lies. The 18 clips are NOT escalating violence like the lawyer says. It is nothing too scary after all.

    I think Raniere is a dark person, but human fright experiment it is NOT

    • Suneel, that you?

      Seriously. You must not know how manipulation works. You don’t just throw it out there, you mask it. Like feeding a dog his meds in his food. You don’t want them to see your true intentions.

    • You may not be a shyster to your mom but to me the term shyster suits you very well and that’s not the end of your talents — you are special to find a snuff-film ‘nothing too scary after all’

      And by special, I mean a human being who sees nothing wrong with the murder of other human beings — in this case several women whose execution was titillatingly filmed for the pleasure of someone just like you — that kind of special.

      You should be banged up, most of us don’t sanction murder, is that really surprising to you?

      Don’t breed whatever you do.

      • I believe none of us enjoys watching another human being murdered but we’ve actually witnessed this on FOX news.
        The woman does volunteer, thereby nullifying these very serious charges.

        And to top it all off, this NXIVM snuff flick was literally Vicente’s film brought to the group?

        Talk about messed up, WOW!!!

  • Suneel is a legit nut job. However, Vicente is equally as bad. Vicente cut a deal with the feds to save his own ass. Typical nxivm playbook. Redirect negative attention and responsibility to someone else.

  • Most people just want to be entertained by a creepy cult, and the media knows that.

    People don’t want to know the truth about the cult they’re seeking entertainment from. That’s too difficult to think about. Too boring.

    So “Human Fright Experiment” it is. And if it ruins a cult member’s career, that’s all the more entertaining!

    After seeing the actual line up of these videos and reading Suneel’s description, I’m finding that a lot of what we’re being told for entertainment purposes regarding NXIVM are actually lies.

    And that there’s a greasy Phillie lawyer who may try to make money in court off of these lies is especially insulting.

    AntiCultism is modern day witch hunting. The torches and the pitchforks have turned into computer screens and keyboards, but the hysterical lying mob is the same.

    There are people using that mob to make money.

    Don’t be used by these people.










    20-CV-485 (EK)(CLP)
    ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

    This action was brought by seventy-nine Plaintiffs alleging various claims including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violations, sexual assault, sex trafficking, peonage, and forced labor. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 52, ECF No. 64. Twelve plaintiffs have moved for a protective order permitting them to proceed anonymously – either under a pseudonym or by first name only. ECF No. 133. For the following reasons, I grant Plaintiffs’ motion on a preliminary basis. At a conference to be held shortly, the Court will consider whether Defendants should now be provided Plaintiffs’ supplemental materials on this issue (in full or in partially redacted form), given the protections contemplated in this order.

    I. Background

    Plaintiffs filed this action on January 28, 2020. The next month, they moved for an interim protective order, asking the Court to allow sixty-seven plaintiffs to proceed
    pseudonymously and to order the parties not to publicly identify those plaintiffs in court documents or elsewhere. ECF No. 22-1. Shortly thereafter, in response to a separate request from Plaintiffs, I stayed the case pending final adjudication of the related criminal case, United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-204, and held the motion for a protective order in abeyance.
    Defendant Clare Bronfman opposed Plaintiffs’ motion in October 2021. ECF No. 88. After the stay was lifted, at a conference on November 30, 2021, I directed Plaintiffs to submit a supplemental, ex parte letter in support of the protective order. That letter, filed on December 17, identifies three categories of plaintiffs: (1) those who will identify themselves and use their full names going forward,1 (2) those who seek to terminate their claims rather than risk public identification,2 and (3) those who continue to seek the Court’s protection. Mot.


    1 This category contains individuals who either have been publicly identified, or have not been publicly identified but decided to proceed using their full names. Mot. for Protective Order 3-4, ECF No. 133.

    2 Some of these plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal on November 5, 2021, ECF No. 114, and December 15, 2021. ECF Nos. 125-132.


    for Protective Order 2, ECF No. 133.3 This order addresses the third category, which comprises twelve plaintiffs.

    II. Legal Standard

    The Court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
    26(c)(1). “This rule confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Parnon Energy, Inc., 593 F. App’x 32, 36 (2d Cir.
    2014).4 To determine “whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit has identified ten factors for district courts to consider in evaluating a request to litigate under a pseudonym. Id. at 189-90. The Second Circuit has emphasized


    3 Attached to Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion were declarations and exhibits detailing the individual circumstances of each plaintiff who wishes to proceed pseudonymously. The Court has reviewed these materials. As discussed at the November 2021 conference, the Court will keep these materials under seal. However, Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed redacted version of the motion itself (ECF No. 133) so that a redacted version may be made accessible to the public.

    4 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal quotation marks.


    that “this list is non-exhaustive,” that “district courts should take into account other factors relevant to the particular case under consideration,” and that the “factor-driven balancing inquiry requires a district court to exercise its discretion in the course of weighing competing interests.” Id. Moreover, a “district court is not required to list each of the factors or use any particular formulation as long as it is clear that the court balanced the interests at stake in reaching its conclusion.” Id. at 190 n.4.
    The most relevant factors in this case are: whether the litigation involves personal matters that are highly sensitive; whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to plaintiffs or to innocent non- parties; whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms; whether plaintiffs are particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, especially in light of their age; whether defendants will be prejudiced by allowing plaintiffs to press their claims anonymously; whether a plaintiff’s identity has thus far been kept confidential; whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring plaintiffs to disclose their identities; and whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting confidentiality. See id. at 190.


    III. Application

    I address the moving plaintiffs in the categories they use: (1) Daniela, Camila, and Adrian; and (2) “DOS Plaintiffs.”
    Daniela, Camila, and Adrian

    A. Daniela, Camila, and Adrian are siblings who wish to proceed by first name only. Applying the relevant factors, I conclude that they may do so, at least at this stage of the litigation. Daniela and Camila have demonstrated that the first and fourth Sealed Plaintiff factors weigh in favor of anonymity because their claims involve matters concerning sexual assault and rape as minors. “Allegations of sexual assault are paradigmatic examples of highly sensitive and personal claims and thus favor a plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym.” Rapp v.
    Fowler, 537 F. Supp. 3d 521, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2021); e.g., Doe No.

    2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (collecting cases). “Likewise, allegations of sexual abuse of minors typically weigh significantly in favor of a plaintiff’s interest.” Rapp, 537 F. Supp. 3d at 528. This is in part because, under factor four, the “plaintiff’s age is a critical factor . . . as courts have been readier to protect the privacy interest of minors in legal proceedings than of adults.” Id. at
    530. “Importantly, however, allegations of sexual assault, by themselves, are not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed


    under a pseudonym.” Id. at 528 (quoting Doe v. Skyline Automobiles Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)).
    Daniela and Camila have also established, at least preliminarily, that public identification poses a risk of severe mental harm and retaliatory harm in the form of harassment or the release of damaging information (factors two and three).
    Allegations of potential psychological injury “must be more than mere embarrassment or social stigmatization,” and more than “mere speculation.” Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). But a plaintiff may be allowed proceed anonymously, for example, where she provides “specific evidence from medical professionals predicting that revelation of her identity would likely cause [severe] psychological and emotional pain.” Id. (quoting Doe v. Smith, 105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 43 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)); see also Skyline, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 406 (some courts have suggested that a plaintiff should submit medical documentation supporting the alleged harm they will suffer if not permitted to proceed anonymously). Though Daniela and Camila have not submitted medical evidence specifically linking revelation to risks of future harm, they have submitted letters from medical or mental health professionals detailing their trauma diagnoses and explaining that their trauma-related symptoms are likely to be exacerbated by future stressors.
    Disclosing the identity of a young woman who was featured in


    graphic, pornographic photos as a minor – as Camila alleges she was, see FAC ¶ 86 – surely may cause future damage beyond psychological harm.5 Indeed, the allegation that Defendants demanded sexually explicit photos or videos of Plaintiffs to use as “collateral” in exchange for obedience, sex, and secrecy, see FAC ¶¶ 22-25, 30-31, makes the risk of future harm particularly salient here.
    A similar analysis applies to Adrian for the second, third, and fourth factors. Though his own personal circumstances are less sensitive in nature, his anonymity obviously directly affects the anonymity of his sisters.
    Adrian, too, was a minor during the alleged conduct, and he has demonstrated a risk of harm not only to himself but also to his family if his last name is revealed.
    The seventh factor, too, weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.

    The siblings were all named – and Daniela testified – in the related criminal proceeding, where they were publicly identified as siblings. Still, their shared family name went unmentioned, at the order of the presiding judge. United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-204 (E.D.N.Y. May, 16, 2018), ECF No. 39 (protective
    order). During those proceedings and since, they and their


    5 The Amended Complaint contains graphic and detailed allegations that Camila attempted suicide after she was raped and abused. FAC ¶ 665. It also states that Daniela became suicidal. Id. ¶ 662.


    attorneys have employed substantial efforts to keep the family name confidential. While it is possible that highly motivated followers of this case could identify their last name from external sources, such identifying information has not been circulated widely or recently.
    Moreover, it is not clear how, at this point, the public’s interest in the litigation would be furthered substantially by disclosure of these Plaintiffs’ full names (factor eight). “The public’s interest in accessing judicial proceedings is not meaningfully advanced by revealing plaintiffs’ identities” when they “do not seek to seal the proceedings entirely, but merely to conceal their names.”
    Lawson v. Rubin, No. 17-CV-6404 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2017), ECF No.

    at 3. Moreover, “the public . . . has a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes.’” Doe v. Baram, No. 20-CV-9522, 2021 WL 3423595, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021) (quoting Kolko, 242 F.R.D. at 195.
    Finally, courts have held that prejudice considerations (factor six) are less relevant at earlier stages of litigation. See, e.g., Doe v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’d, 672 F. App’x 48 (2d Cir.
    2016) (although a protective order was appropriate at the outset of litigation, a “different balance of interests … comes into


    play at the trial phase”); Lawson v. Rubin, No. 17-CV-6404, 2019 WL 5291205 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019) (“The Court has an
    obligation to reassess any prejudice to defendants, which may not have been implicated during the discovery stage of litigation, now that the case is proceeding to trial.”); Doe v. Cabrera, 307 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2014) (Courts generally find little to no risk of unfairness to an accused defendant in sexual assault cases where discovery does not appear to be inhibited by the plaintiff’s desire to proceed anonymously.”). Here, that the parties are still at a very early stage in the litigation cuts against finding prejudice. Moreover, the fact that “defendants already know Plaintiffs’ identities . . . obviates the prejudice defendants might otherwise suffer by having to defend against allegations by unknown persons.” Lawson, No. 17-CV-6404, ECF No. 7 at 3-4.
    DOS Plaintiffs

    DOS is alleged to have been a sex-trafficking organization within defendant NXIVM Corporation. The “DOS Plaintiffs” allege that they were victims of sex trafficking and related offenses. E.g., FAC ¶¶ 19-33; Mot. for Protective Order
    (“Each DOS Plaintiff is a victim of sex trafficking and related offenses.”) They allege, among other things, that they were compelled to pose in nude photographs, FAC ¶ 20, branded in the pubic region, id. ¶¶ 816-820, and that some of them were


    forced to perform sex acts. E.g., id. ¶¶ 30, 86, 137, 663. Though these plaintiffs were adults during the events in question, I conclude — again, for this stage of the litigation — that the Sealed Plaintiff factors weigh in favor of protecting their identities, largely for the same reasons as siblings Camila, Daniela, and Adrian. I will therefore permit them to proceed anonymously for the time being, but only to the extent that they were previously anonymized.
    Of the DOS Plaintiffs, three wish to proceed by first name only.6 Nicole, Audrey, and Amanda were identified by their first names in the criminal proceeding, and they may continue proceed that way here. Jane Does 8 and 9 were never identified by first or last name in the criminal proceedings and wish to continue anonymously in this case. I grant their request at this stage in the litigation. Jane Does 10, 11, 15, and 50 wish to proceed anonymously despite having been identified by first name during the criminal proceedings. Although I conclude that they need not disclose their full identities at this point, they must proceed on a first-name basis at this stage.


    6 Plaintiff’s motion includes a “Camila” in both the previous category and this “DOS Plaintiffs” category. Mot. for Protective Order 6-8. The Glazer Declaration addresses only one Camila, so I will assume this is the same Camila discussed above and need not repeat the analysis here.


    IV. Conclusion

    For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is granted on a preliminary basis. This order will be subject to further review (a) based on additional argument from Defendants, in the event I order Plaintiffs’ ex-parte submissions be made available to them in whole or in part in the coming weeks, and (b) at subsequent stages of the litigation, if circumstances warrant.
    Going forward, Plaintiffs may use pseudonyms in the caption and body of all public Court filings, consistent with this order. Defendants may not reveal Plaintiffs’ true identities to anyone, within or outside the scope of this litigation. At a conference to be held February 17, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., Plaintiffs must show cause why Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion (ECF 133) and / or the attachments thereto should not be produced to Defendants at this point.

    /s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE
    United States District Judge

    Dated: February 11, 2022
    Brooklyn, New York


    • “Twelve plaintiffs have moved for a protective order permitting them to proceed anonymously – either under a pseudonym or by first name only. ECF No. 133. For the following reasons, I grant Plaintiffs’ motion on a preliminary basis.”

      So, as expected, the court has granted these twelve victims of Raniere’s cult to remain anonymous, citing ample precedent for doing so.

      I understand Chakravorty’s motives for violating this clear legal and moral standard. What’s your motive, Frank? I’d really like to know.

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.” He also appeared in "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM, and was credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

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

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083