Dismissal Hearing #4: Judge Considers Dismissing Trafficking Claim Against Clyne; Compares Herself to Edmondson & Camila

Nicki Clyne

We are reviewing the February 1 hearing in the civil lawsuit, Sarah Edmonsdson et al, vs. Keith Raniere et al.

This is part #4.

The first three parts focused on the targets of the lawsuit, Clare and Sara Bronfman. This is a civil lawsuit. The effort is to get or prevent someone from getting money, not putting people in prison.

The defendants from whom the plaintiffs seek money are the Bronfmans, Keith Raniere, Kathy Russell, Allison Mack, Nicki Clyne, Danielle Roberts and Brandon Porter.

Only the first two have enough money to justify a multi year, 70- plaintiff, dozen-attorney lawsuit.

The reason for the other defendants is to tie their alleged bad acts to a theory of liability for the Bronfmans.

This is not to insult the plaintiffs, their claims or their attorneys. It is a matter of fact that everything is focused on Clare and Sara Bronfman’s money.

The trick is to keep the Bronfmans in the lawsuit and get a jury to blame them for funding and recklessly, proactively, and through willful blindness, enabling NXIVM and DOS to thrive thereby creating a raft of victims.

Hearing: Motions to Dismiss in Edmondson v Raniere: PT #1 Clare Bronfman RICO

Part # 2 Motion to Dismiss: Plaintiffs Allege Clare Bronfman Responsible for Raniere’s False Claims About Himself, Teachings

Motion to Dismiss: Judge Tests Whether Complaint Has Enough to Keep Sara Bronfman in Lawsuit

Nicki Clyne is not a defendant from whom the plaintiffs expect to extract money, but rather is there for, you might say, window dressing. She is next up before Judge Eric Komitee on a hearing to determine whether the claims as alleged in the complaint are sufficiently pleaded to keep the defendants in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege predicate acts of their civil RICO claim against Clyne is sex trafficking and forced labor.

One of her DOS slaves, called Jane Doe #8, is a plaintiff.

Jane #8 is a resident of Vancouver and was a NXIVM student under Sarah Edmondson, the first named plaintiff.

Aarthi Manohar, Esq. of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. of Philadelphia spoke for the plaintiffs on the matter of Nicki Clyne.

MANOHAR:… I’m prepared to speak to §1591 [sex trafficking] as a predicate act [of RICO]… I believe the operative words here would be “recruits, entices, or maintains.”…

THE COURT:…you say the allegations establish recruitment and enticing….  Why is this a commercial sex act for which somebody is being recruited?

MANOHAR: The term… commercial sex act means any sex act… in which anything of value is given to or received by any person. The commercial sex act was a thing of value to Keith Raniere. … The thing of value is the sex act in and of itself.

THE COURT: But then every sex act is a commercial sex act?

MANOHAR: No, in the context of this… case, the NXIVM operation was a sex trafficking pipeline. It was designed and maintained in order to funnel individuals…[to Raniere] for… sexual pleasure. That is how it’s a commercial sex act.

THE COURT: Even if no money ever changes hands? it’s the fact that the pipeline you’re saying that makes this commercial, that it’s organized like a business?

MANOHAR: Commercial sex act is defined as anything of value. And the ‘anything of value‘ is not limited to financial value. It’s limited to any benefit.

THE COURT: It sounds to me like there might some circularity in your definition of what makes a sex act commercial if you’re saying that the thing of value that’s exchanged for the sex is the sex.

But the 2nd Circuit… spoke to this… in the Raniere appeal, right? And they say… the commercial requirement was satisfied if the person recruiting enticing, etc. does it in return for a “privileged position within an organization.” Do you allege that in the complaint?

MANOHAR: Yes, we do.

THE COURT: And I don’t just mean that Ms. Clyne held a privileged position, but that she received it as compensation for the enticing and facilitating that we’re talking about.

MANOHAR: Yes, we do. … We allege that Clyne worked directly with Raniere to create and run DOS. Within the DOS structure, Clyne was the first line master and Jane Doe 8 was a slave. She [Clyne] was a member of the inner circle. Those were all –

THE COURT:… part of the commercial transaction… is that you get a privileged position within the organization, does it matter the order in which things happen? Maybe not.

MANOHAR: I’m not sure I understand the question….

THE COURT: You have to recruit the person or entice them while knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the person you are recruiting or enticing will be engaged in a commercial sex act… if you’re a recruiting someone to participate in sort of [a] garden variety prostitution… the exchange of sex for money that’s not exactly what we’re dealing with here… you allege Ms. Clyne to have recruited and/or enticed the people below her in this organization. Does she know that they would be engaged in a commercial sex act? And if so, how? And you’re saying she knows that it’s all commercial because she was given this privileged position…

MANOHAR:… DOS was structured as a pyramid. People at the top of the pyramid, first line masters, were given these positions of power and they were able to maintain their positions of power by recruiting, enticing, maintaining, etc., individuals below them on the pyramid.

The specific benefits that they attained were slaves. We define that specifically in the complaint. Those slaves provided them with labor services, menial tasks, around the clock care, acts of service. Those were the non-monetary benefits of –

DOS First-Line Slaves with their master in the middle. If the eight first line, five were dropped in the lawsuit, two are defendants and one is a plaintiff.

THE COURT:… If I understand you correctly, and definitely correct me if I’m wrong, the commerce here is that in exchange for recruiting, enticing women to engage in these acts with Raniere, you say that Ms. Clyne was compensated with free “slave labor.” Is that [what] makes this commercial?

MANOHAR: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So that’s one predicate act. The second predicate… against Ms. Clyne is the forced labor count… obtaining or providing labor or services of another by means of a threat of serious harm. And I take it the threat of serious harm you allege is the release or publication of what the complaint calls “collateral”.

Is that the threat we’re talking about?

MANOHAR: That’s correct, Your Honor. But also, the psychological and physical abuse that accompanied being a slave to a first line master that included sleep deprivation, starvation, around the clock back in call service, this was a very –

THE COURT:…the threat of serious harm [has] to be the thing by means of which the victim is induced to provide this labor? If it’s just a consequence of the labor, that’s not the serious harm we’re talking about.

MANOHAR: No, collateral would meet that definition. The… general environment in which the collateral was given was this abusive environment….

THE COURT:… So where’s the allegation that Ms. Clyne herself threatened to release collateral?

MANOHAR: Paragraph 168, Defendant Clyne told Jane Doe 8 that she needed collateral in the form of nude photographs to tell her about it. Clyne also required Jane Doe 8 to provide her with the email addresses of her colleagues at work as collateral and then revealed that Jane Doe 8 had entered into a master slave relationship.

THE COURT: And then revealed, okay. All right, and Ms. Clyne, do you want it be heard on what just transpired?

CLYNE: Yes, I would love to.

THE COURT: Please.

CLYNE: Thank you, Your Honor. Well, I know this isn’t the time to rebut, you know, all the allegations, but first of all, if what they’re saying is true, generally speaking, I should be a Plaintiff in this case because I’m no different than other people who are…, being represented by the attorneys over here in terms of any type of authority or rank within the companies. In terms of Jane Doe 8, that description of how it happened is completely false.


CLYNE: It was a voluntary… agreement. Jane Doe 8 was never threatened. And I think some facts should be understood, which is the fact that she lived in a different country [Canada] the entire time. And I received no uncompensated labor [from her]. If there was uncompensated labor performed, it was at the center at which she was a coach, which was led by Sarah Edmondson, a fellow Plaintiff.

So it just doesn’t beg to reason. I understand I’m not a lawyer. I have no legal precedent, but there’s just no logic here –


CLYNE: — to what they’re alleging.

THE COURT: So you — it seems like you do understand at least a little bit about what differentiates a motion to dismiss, which is what we’re dealing with now, from a motion say for summary judgment –

CLYNE: Sure.

THE COURT:-… At the motion to dismiss stage… we treat as true everything that the complaint alleges. We’re not having a dispute about whether these facts are correct or not correct. We’re just testing whether they’re  legally adequate, assuming they’re truth, to make out a claim for RICO or whatever.

CLYNE: So they’re alleging… that I thought Jane Doe 8 was going to have some sort of sex. Is that the allegation?…

THE COURT: Yeah, if –

CLYNE: — my understanding is she was and is married. And –

THE COURT: Well, let me just look at the –

CLYNE: — it makes no sense to me.

THE COURT: The elements of… 18 U.S. Code §1591.

CLYNE: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: It’s being referred to in the complaint as the sex trafficking claim. And as I understand it, the elements of that claim, meaning the things somebody has to prove in order to prevail on that claim are, one, that the defendant… knowingly transported or recruited or enticed a person knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that that person was going to be subject to force, fraud, or coercion.

CLYNE: But so what are the specifics in the complaint? I don’t –

THE COURT:… And so, we just talked about certain paragraphs in the complaint that allege that it was the job of people in… DOS… to recruit people into it. And in paragraph 168, they say… you recruited Jane Doe 8 to participate in DOS, that you told her that to –

CLYNE:… how does that prove or create the foundation for sex trafficking? That’s what I don’t understand… I know they say it. They say under ‘uncompensated labor’, but I think you understand that the words master and slave are not literal in this case. It was a figure of speech that was used in a program [DOS] where there was no monetary exchange whatsoever. And to be quite honest, being in a position where you’re mentoring someone, it’s — there’s a lot of labor on my part to help people. I was available to Jane Doe 8, 24/7 to help her with her problems and she called me at all hours.

THE COURT: So you’re suggesting that –


THE COURT: If I understand the legal argument that you’re making –

CLYNE: Okay, thank you.

THE COURT: — you’re suggesting that there’s actually no allegation in the complaint that you –

CLYNE: That links sex trafficking or forced labor to inviting someone into DOS, that they voluntary –

THE COURT: Knowing with reckless disregard –

CLYNE: Right.

THE COURT: — of the fact that this person would be engaged in a commercial sex act. So I guess putting that question back then to Plaintiff’s counsel… what paragraph in the complaint makes that linkage that the recruitment enticement maintenance whatever was with knowledge or reckless disregard that the person being recruited would be engaged in a commercial sex act?

MANOHAR: Your Honor… the complaint is replete with discussions of the manipulation and the extreme nature of DOS. We also allege that Ms. Clyne was the person who designed it [DOS] with Mr. Raniere. And we also allege that it was a pipeline to funnel women directly to Mr. Raniere…

THE COURT … you need to say… that’s what it was, [and] that at the time.. she did the recruiting or enticing or whatever, that Ms. Clyne knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that this person would be… engaged a commercial sex act.

MANOHAR: Your Honor, we allege that DOS was created as a sex trafficking mechanism. That’s what it was.

THE COURT: Which paragraph are we talking about here?

MANOHAR: 69’s a paragraph that relates specifically to Ms. Clyne. I

THE COURT: Was a first line master and member of the inner circle. Continues to support Raniere and advocate for him. But it doesn’t say — it doesn’t make that last step in the linkage at least not in this paragraph that created and ran DOS knowing or recklessly disregarding that the participants would be engaged….

MANOHAR:… paragraph 788 [is a] long description of DOS. And we allege in this paragraph that DOS was created… for the express purpose of providing women to Raniere….

THE COURT: So look at 793. You have a bunch of people named there. And it says all these people were first line DOS masters, with their own pods, some of whom, and that’s the phrase that we get hung up on here, some of whom had been coerced into recruiting their own slaves as well. And so… the purpose… was to provide a good labor pool for Raniere and the first line masters, as well to expand Raniere’s supply of [sex] partners. But isn’t it incumbent on you to allege at least somewhere this element of Ms. Clyne’s knowledge or reckless disregard that when she was recruiting people…. that they were being recruited to engage in commercial sex acts?

MANOHAR: Yes, Your Honor read in connection with paragraph 69, we believe we plausibly allege the connection between Ms. Clyne, DOS, and the state of mind requirement of §1591.

THE COURT:… let’s say I dismiss this claim, but with leave to amend, so dismiss without prejudice. Could you say more about how Ms. Clyne knew at the time she was recruiting, enticing, etc., the purpose for which she was recruiting people… to engage in commercial sex acts?

MANOHAR: Yes, we could.

THE COURT: So that’s why — yeah.

MANOHAR: I understand that.

CLYNE: I just want to add, too, that Camila was a first line who’s a Plaintiff, again raising the issue of the arbitrary nature… between Plaintiff and Defendant.

THE COURT:… it happens all the time that people are both perpetrators of these offenses and victims, unfortunately….

CLYNE: Well, just to the point that they’re raising, that because I was part of DOS that that implies that I had any knowledge of this fabricated sex trafficking enterprise….

Judge Eric Komitee

THE COURT:[hinting that he may dismiss the sex trafficking claims against Clyne, the judge said to the plaintiffs’ lawyers]... You didn’t say a single word [in the complaint] about what [Clyne] said or a conversation that she had… It may have been enough if you would have just said we allege that when Ms. Clyne recruited Jane Doe 8 and others into this organization, she did so knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that they were or would be engaged in commercial sex acts.… I looked hard at the language of the statute itself. But as to Ms. Clyne, you don’t even do that. And I asked you… a year ago… if you wanted to amend the complaint to increase the level of specificity or particularity as to any of these things. And the answer I got was no. And that begs a question, which we know as I look through now then, is why is this matter of a law that any dismissals should be without prejudice to amend instead of with prejudice given the procedural history here?


Editor’s Note: The judge indicated he might not only dismiss, but also not allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and bring Clyne back in the lawsuit. Keep in mind that the Bronfmans are the only defendants of interest in the case. The tie in from Clyne’s role in DOS to the Bronfman’s is unclear in the complaint. Clyne might get out of the lawsuit.

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

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

  • I don’t see how Nicki could be participating in DOS group blowjob “recommitment ceremony” and then claim this had nothing to do with sex. It just doesn’t make sense.

    • There are people who work in my office, on my team, who sleep with each other. Some are married to each other. Some have kids with each other.

      Is my workplace a sex cult?

      • Yes, but it would be really weird if just one guy in your office had parties just for all the gals there who all blew him together??!

      • So DOS was a work place? With retirement funds? Health insurance? Tax forms? All the slave women were employees? Being paid? Keith was CEO? But secretly?

        Then there’s all the blackmail. Porn on demand. Signing over property. False confessions. Only women deceptively branded with the initials of a guy who they don’t even know runs the company… and is the shared boyfriend of the higher level management.

        Plus being on call 24 hours a day. Seduction assignments. Sleep deprivation…

        Not a successful comparison.

    • Good point. DOS was littered with porn and sex but only for one secret hobbit in charge.

      How can Nicki Clyne be recorded enthusiastically participating in the planning to hide Keith’s initials and lie about the brand – but still believe she is an ethical warrior on the highest moral ground?

      Why not at least cop to the undeniable lies that were told? Pretending that Keith wasn’t the architect from the beginning even doing press denying it. So many other lies that are so easily provable as lies. It’s second hand embarrassing.

      That would make the remaining loyalists just slightly more credible. It’s long overdue. But even a tiny shred of taking responsibility and being forthcoming would be a slight Improvement.

      When you lie about everything no one’s going to believe you about anything. And why should they?

  • Nicki should hit the Plaintiffs with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. That would really flip the script on them. She should dangle $5,000 at them. It will cost her much more to deal with the inconvenience and travel related to discovery, even if she is pro se.

    If they don’t take it in 14 days, she is entitled to costs and fees from that point forward if she prevails in the case, which it looks like she may.

    • Richard:

      Pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees under Rule 68..

      Costs for her probably won’t amount to $5000.

      Another Richard.

        • I think the Plaintiffs should have filed a Rule 56 affidavit asking for time to conduct discovery, thereby converting the Motion to Dismiss to a Motion for Summary Judgment and giving them another shot to amend if needed.

    • Although I believe Nicky is just a rotten person for her deeds in DOS, I do agree she should NOT be on the Defendant side of this. Just doesn’t make sense. Mark and Sarah are demonic psychopaths whom readily recruiting unsuspecting, wealthy losers into this Cult. They ONLY bailed when they knew the curtain was going to pulled up on this Cult. I believe Sarah and Mark are worse than Nicky.

    • I don’t think Squeaky has $5, nevermind $5000. She’s a freakin bus girl for fucks sake. She blew all her dough on useless NXIVM courses and relied on Bronfman hand-outs, but that’s coming to an end.

  • At first it just struck me as odd that the deluded dancers, Nicki, Suneel, Eduardo, Mark, Michele and all were so focused that Keith was a good guy and a terrible injustice had befallen him. These people put in, what, ten years into this family? How driven they were to fight this terrible wrong. When I say fight, I don’t mean like go to the actual court and give evidence or anything like that. You know, on Keith’s behalf, sort of thing.

    There are people today. Members of real flesh and blood family who get blown out of the water by accusations of abuse, childhood abuse and financial or sexual abuse by well loved members of their clan. Sometimes the crime exacted on a family member was literally decades ago. The realisation, the coming to terms with, and the moving forward takes skilled therapists, support teams, law enforcement, friends, structured support to allow those stricken by abuse to live a life after disclosure. And we all have sympathy for that person don’t we? Well, if we are right thinking compassionate people we do.

    All that Suneel, Mark, Eduardo, Nicki, Dr Danielle, Michele, and the rest of the deluded think, is, our community got fucked up. No more meetings to go to. No more midnight volleyball and branding blow jobs.
    You are bad people. Really. You are. I hope to god none of you ever breed or have access to young females. You are a threat to them. You have no boundaries.

  • Saddest group of ding-dongs the world has ever known. Seems these discount dogs have no shame. Why waste the courts time with these silly pleadings and appeals. Get a life ladies.

  • Ummmmmm. Reminds me of other cults I’ve heard of. Prostituting for god: “If you really love god and want to help the poor you’d go out and sell your body for money to feed them!”

    How bout… : Having sex for money or sex without boundaries teaches you strength to overcome your innate feminine weakness. You’ll learn to detach yourself from your emotions. You’ll become a master!”

    Or…”Have sex with whatever politicians I tell you and we’ll use the emotion bond your Johns will form as a means of manipulating politics and changing the world. You’ll be serving America and humanity!”

    Yeah… right.

    But I have to ask Niki directly, If you wanted to be a bad ass bitch, why not join the marines? You’d be paid better, fed better, exercised better, and would have to f**k anyone.

  • “… According to ex-followers who slept with him, Lenz has sex with many of the female students, who later feel violated and coerced. Others suffer a worse fate: Several have been driven to suicide, lost their minds, or disappeared mysteriously, without a trace …” Margulis, Zachary. “The Code Cult of the CPU Guru.” WIRED, 1 Jan. 1994.

    Did the mainstream news and entertainment industry make us think the Nxivm cases weren’t that bad?

  • “Jane # 8 is a Vancouver resident, and was a NXIVM student under Sarah Edmondson…”

    What in the actual fuck? Seriously?

      • There’s no record to correct. Do you understand how ridiculous it is that Sarah is suing a third party for Sarah herself having brought Jane Doe #8 into the organization?

        • OK, that’s interesting. I didn’t know that it was Sarah who recruited her originally. I’m guessing you’re talking about NXIVM rather than DOS. That suggests to me that they may have been working together in DOS, even though they were in different pods?

        • It’s not that ridiculous. If a person was lied to and not fully aware of the criminalty and true nature of the organization. It’s not a civil suit I would pursue. But it’s a a lot less ridiculous then many civil cases. Anyway don’t you worry your pretty little head it’ll play out in court not on a Blog.

  • Nicki Clyne was intregal to the sex slave conpiracy to conceal her boyfriend of 10 years as the sole true dictator and architect of the sex slave operation.

    To lie blatantly that DOS was concieved and led by women only.

    Nicki Clyne lied. To everyone. About DOS.

    Nicki clyne is recorded planning the intentional deception of branding unsuspecting women on the pubis with her cult leader and shared lover’s initials.

    The entire phony DOS organization was a feeder for free labor, blackmailed sex partners, bespoke pornography, power, humiliation, starvation, sleep deprivation and anything else Nicki’s shared boyfriend wanted from whomever Keith wanted it and the Frontline slaves could procure.

    Whether the civil suit is tossed or not has no bearing on the reality of the coniving, heartless, disgusting, amoral and unethical actions and plotting and scheming to satiate and advance Keith Raniere in his every whim or desire.

    It’s so gross. And Nicki is still at it.

    Pathetic is too gentle a term for a woman who lives only for her convicted and incarcerated pedophile shared one way commitment boyfriend.

    If anyone actually cares about the quality of the rest of her life it’s time to stop feeding her delusion

  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Jane Doe 8 Clyne’s only slave? And I believe one of the reasons Clyne didn’t have such a high strike rate was that she was reputedly pretty honest with potential recruits as to what DOS was all about, so most of the girls she spoke to about it just ran a mile rather sharpishly. In NXIVM I understand it was a similar story, which may be a reason she didn’t make it that far up the pecking order there, in spite of her not insubstantial commitments in terms of time and money.

    She could also argue that the “Seduce Keith” assignment was not compulsory, and some women flatly refused to do it. True, some women may well have felt obliged/pressured because of their collateral. To Clyne though, who clearly thought Raniere was the very model of godly male magnificence, the assignment must have seemed something to be cherished – an opportunity to be blessed by Heavenly cum!

    It’s also hard to argue that Clyne derived any personal benefit from recruitment to DOS: she was a founding member and First Line Master so potential promotion was not part of any benefit equation. Neither was financial remuneration – Clare Bromfman’s gofer for 10 bucks an hour? The fact she wasn’t indicted tells its own story.

    The link the prosecution tries to make between Clyne recruiting Jane Doe 8 for the express purpose of having sex with Raniere seems tenuous at best, especially given that Jane Doe 8 was based in Vancouver, and highly ironically directly reporting to Sarah Edmondson there, the lead Plaintiff.

    To use cricketing parlance, one might just say she batted out the over with a straight bat and lofted a six with the final ball.

    • Clyne recruiting Jane Doe 8 for the express purpose of having sex with Raniere seems tenuous at best, especially given that Jane Doe 8 was based in Vancouver, and highly ironically DIRECTLY REPORTING to Sarah Edmondson there, the LEAD Plaintiff.
      Eyeroll ~

    • A direct slave wouldn’t necessarily know who any other women in DOS were. Even those above them in DOS (Sarah was the sxme level) who weren’t their actual master.

      Keith was Nicki’s boyfriend and master. Benefitis to him were of value to her. Because it increased both their standing. Much like any other criminal gang. They don’t get actual paychecks. Lol

      If you know that you are part of a sex trzfgicking znd racketeering conspiracy and bought a “sorority house”(with Bronfman money) for a basement dungeon to lock women up naked in cages snd abuse them with sex toys for your boyfriend’s pleaseurd as Nicki Clyne did then you are very much a part of the conspiracy.

      • Say what you will this Forced Labor benefited Sarah, Not Nicki., as she owned the PROFITABLE center that # 8 was working, coaching at.
        Can’t speak to the other stuff but 2 predicate acts Need to be Proven.
        I do remember reading Padilla did that though..

        • Sarah did not get to “master” Nicki’s slave. That makes no sense. The slaves in different “pods” who weren’t Frontline did not even know who the other slaves (in different pods) were.

          • Can you read, Forced Labor
            @ Vancouver Centre., run by Sarah.
            to whom the value is being given here?
            Married lady, never in Albany ..

      • I’m not sure whether Jane Doe 8 worked with SE or even knew her in DOS, but the fact that they were based in the same city and were both DOS members suggests they could have and might raise a few eyebrows. Agreed – they were at the same level in DOS, but SE’s more senior position in the parent company might come across as making her a little more equal.

        Keith wasn’t just fucking Nicki, but the whole of the First Line apart from Lauren, and unlike the assignments that sex was consensual. It is not clear how Keith benefitted Nicki by having sex with other women. I’d say the opposite is the case – Nicki may well have been jealous.

        Where I do think Nicki might have a few problems is in explaining her role in investigating the “seduce Keith” assignments (Lauren’s testimony). What did she find out, and if she had evidence it was illegal, did she have a legal obligation to report that?

        As far as I’m aware there is no evidence as to what the dungeon was going to be used for: punishment or consensual BDSM? In a court one must have hard evidence to convince a jury. I know it’s early days but the prosecution’s case lacks coherence, and this was noted by the judge in several instances.

        • Keith fucked Lauren.

          The details of the dungeon came out in court.

          There’s no consensual BDSM if you’re blackmailed.

          As a member of DOS Sarah had no jurisdiction of anyone’s slaves but her “downline”

          None of the DOS Slaves except for the front-line even knew who all the other slaves in the racket were.

          People are conflating ESP and the slavery. Those were two separate entities

          Did Sarah have people doing voluntary labor at her Center? Probably. A lot of large group awareness trainings work with that scheme. Landmark forum does the same thing

          That said it is not volunteer work done through sexual blackmail like the slavery ring racket. Or withholding people’s immigration papers like they did in the Danielle Roberts exercise program and Claire did in many instances. It’s just people who took classes or work at the center and are volunteering to work there. I refrained from calling them dumbasses who wasting their time by volunteering and tried to give a more factual neutral account. LOL

          • I know he fucked Lauren. He wasn’t fucking her in DOS though.

            Never heard any punishments were given to slaves in the dungeon. Far as I know it was just under construction.

            Not saying Sarah had jurisdiction, just that the optics look bad.

            Course Clyne was part of the conspiracy – she played an active role in collateral collection and storage, wilfully misled innocent women re. the branding, and failed to stop the sex assignments.

            The issue here is the prosecution are trying to down an elephant using birdshot. If they continue so shambolically the case may just fall apart. Trying to tie her to recruitment and forced labour is skating on thin ice,

          • If immigration papers were withheld in Danielle’s excersize program, that would be on Clare, also nether was Danielle a frontline slave, nor did she ever recruit another slave as Sarah did.
            It was months , many months, before Sarah even decided she didnt like having a brand.and supposedly she knew from a mirror image right after receiving it.

          • Anon 4.18pm 13-2
            Couple of observations: your grammar is a lot better than your spelling/punctuation, and in some places your spelling is fine, others appalling. This leads me to believe that ‘you’re putting it on a bit’. Why would anyone want to disguise their identity when they’re anonymous in any case? Your knowledge also suggests you were an insider. Furnish me some more details and I’m willing to listen and check it out.

  • “Clyne might get out of the lawsuit.”

    Good, she should.

    On Twitter, I made the point that the only valid part of the lawsuit that I could see was Sarah Edmonson having the brand misrepresented to her. Using my years of legal education and experience, I said that is a valid civil complaint.

    Nicki emerged and said “Then why isn’t Sarah suing Lauren? Lauren is the one to misrepresent the brand to Sarah.”

    Very good question, isn’t it?

    We know why Lauren isn’t being sued by Sarah – Lauren has denounced Raniere. Nicki hasn’t.

    With all my years of Tik-Tok legal training, I don’t think mean-girl loyalty tests are valid civil torts.

    I could be wrong. But I’m confident I’m not.

    I hope the judge tosses all of it, and Sarah starts over, suing the right people for the right reasons.


    • Nicki should be dropped from it simply because she showed up pro se and made a pretty good argument on her own behalf.

    • I have one difference of opinion with Alanzo on this; IMO, the Salzman’s were dropped from the suit b/c of the info they have on Sarah’s time in the group, and Sarah doesn’t want it to come out.

      Sarah is the Mike Rinder of NXIVM/ESP. And I don’t mean that in a complimentary way, either.

      • Is this once again something you are presenting as fact but have no actual information to back up? Kevin it seems that you are very fond of pretending to have Insider knowledge and then when asked how who what where why hiding or admitting that you in fact do not have any factual actual information to back up your claims. This habit is one of the many things that make you very less than credible

        • I have no insider knowledge. In my opinion, based on information that has been made public, it is more likely that the lead plaintiffs did the things they’re suing the defendants for than the defendants themselves. And two of the people who would be able to confirm this were dropped as defendants.

      • Kevin wrote:

        “the Salzman’s were dropped from the suit b/c of the info they have on Sarah’s time in the group, and Sarah doesn’t want it to come out.”

        I think I saw that somewhere, but its significance escaped me.

        Do you have any examples of Sarah’s actions that she wants to keep secret – so secret that she would decide not to sue two of her main tormentors – particularly the very person who lied to her about her brand?

        Jesus. This lawsuit is a freaking mess.


        • Yup that very person and her mom , creator of the programs and high priestess forgiven and DROPPED , Iincredible!

        • Some possibilities:

          That Sarah owned slaves in DOS.

          That Sarah made her DOS slaves give collateral.

          That Sarah continued to recruit for DOS and the parent company after receiving her brand.

          That Sarah likely benefited more from her DOS slaves’ labor than any other DOS master, given her rank in the parent company.

          That Sarah benefited from the free labor of other DOS slaves that weren’t hers.

          That women Sarah and Mark recruited into the organization ended up in DOS.

          That Sarah and Mark recruited more of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit than any of the defendants.

          That Sarah was aware of the allegations against Keith years before DOS existed.

          That anyone who worked under Sarah, whether in DOS or not, did the same tasks for Sarah’s benefit.

          That Sarah and Mark performed more unlicensed therapy (EMs) on more people than anyone else in the company except for Nancy, who along with her daughter, a 1st line DOS master herself, was dropped from the suit.

          That the majority of plaintiffs were never in DOS, and performed labor for Sarah’s benefit, and not for the benefit of the defendants.

          That Mark and Nippy were SOP leaders and did horrible things to people, but are now playing victim.

          That Sarah knew all about the sexual relationships and dynamics, and had no problem with any of it, until she decided to turn it into a book and television show.

          That Sarah knew about the girl kept in the room, and didn’t care.

          That Sarah knew about the Saratoga in Decline blog and knew about all of the allegations against the company, and didn’t care.

          That Sarah spent more time in Albany than she lets on.

          That Sarah and Mark had more of a relationship with India than India had with Allison, and were aware of everything.

          That Lauren/Nancy could confirm that some of the people who are claiming to be coerced into sleeping with Keith via DOS were sleeping with him before DOS existed.

          Did India sleep with Raniere before Allison ever met India? That would sort of put a hole in the “Allison gave me an assignment” story.

          Previous posts dating years ago suggest that India had a boyfriend, and dumped him after meeting Keith. But that this happened prior to Allison and India meeting.

          Lauren would be privy to a lot of this information, and would badly damage Neil’s money suit if she could confirm any of the possibilities above.

          • “That Lauren/Nancy could confirm that some of the people who are claiming to be coerced into sleeping with Keith via DOS were sleeping with him before DOS existed.”

            That still means that there are some people who were NOT in that camp, people who claim they were coerced while in DOS who had never even met Raniere.

            The collateral was coercion, as was the assignment itself given the vertical power structure, and the penance system. I reckon any right minded jury would come to that conclusion.

    • Alanzo-

      I’m glad there are people like you who are brave enough to stand up to Scientology and the anti-cultist tribal assholes who denigrate their fellow man.

      Never let them get to you. Stay strong brother! You are a good man.

  • Thank God for this judge demonstrating some logic. It’s not that I support Nicky or Keith, but it makes no sense that she was guilty of sex trafficking. It seems like the plaintiff’s lawyer thinks she can just say, “DOS!” “manipulation!” and the judge will reflexively bring down the hammer on Clyne. I hope the claims against her are dismissed without prejudice because it’s just plain common sense.

  • Squeaky trying to play lawyer is fun to watch. Apparently she did not bother to understand “reckless disregard”. She was so in awe over Raniere’s stolen/fraudulent act, she did not know she was leading women into a chamber of horrors. What a dope… This is what happens when you choose to play pretend as a career: you completely zone out of reality. Mark and Sarah are perfect examples: two dopes who fell hook, like and sinker for this con artist.

    • I think Nicki is dangerous for the Plaintiffs. Court is high drama. The Plaintiffs probably won’t be able to win this one on summary judgment, and they are squared up against an actress. My money says that she can charm the jury, maybe even “wow” them with a few “legally blonde” moments.

      These lawyers don’t understand what they are going against when they battle “star-power.” No offense to Mr. Manhar, but he’s nowhere as good looking on his best day in court as Nicki will be on her worst day. When he starts to question her in front of the jury, he will look like a terrible person and Nicki can look like the victim. The Johnny Depp trial was over the second the jury laughed at his jokes, and cried with him when he shed tears about how much work he had put into building the Captain Jack Sparrow character. Amber Heard was responsible for “taking it from him” with her lies. The trial was over well before Amber even said a word.

      If Nicki goes for part Elle Woods, part Ally McBeal, part Alicia Florek (from the Good Wife), she will resonate as a beautiful, smart, strong woman. A woman who had some bad judgment; but who is unfairly being pursued by a bitter, spiteful, catty Plaintiff guilty of at least the same level of bad judgment. The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands and has her ugly, bottom-feeder, shark, ambulance-chasing attorneys come in with a full-blown thug “money-whip” on Nicki. All Nicki has to do is be circumspect about NXIVM and DOS (and not necessarily disavow or throw anyone under the bus), and she wins:

      “Everyone make mistakes. I made mistakes. Sarah made mistakes. I want to move forward. Sarah wants someone to blame. But she’s a grown woman, and she needs to look in the mirror. Hiring a smart lawyer doesn’t change the reality. She has no case. The US Government says she has no case because neither of us were criminally charged. Yet she’s using the RICO statute to make me look like some type of “organized crime” figure. The jury will realize very quickly I’m not John Gotti. And the more she pushes, the more she looks like Sammy “The Bull” Gravano.”

      This is a production, and Nicki Clyne has more experience with building characters from the ground-up than anyone in that courtroom. If she hires a good consultant and goes pro se, my money is that she pulls it off.

      • LOL. Whatever. Nicki will fail completely on the stand. Liars always give themselves away eventually. The reason why practically everyone believed Depp over Heard (except “woke” feminists) is because her story was unbelievable from the evidence and her testimony. She felt and looked completely insincere. Depp may not be a great moral example due to issues with sobriety, but unlike Amber he was in a long-term relationship for well over a decade that produced children where abuse allegations never surfaced, and his past partners came out and supported him.

      • I agree with all the above. Squeaky may be a liability for the Plaintiffs for those reasons.

        But Sarah is an actress as well. And she knows exactly how and when to turn on the waterworks to benefit herself. She will talk about “being a mother” and how she “would never want this to happen to anyone’s daughter”, etc. etc. So might not be as one sided as it seems.

        Anyhow, Squeaky is only named as a Defendant for optics: this about getting Bronfman money. They just named the others so it’s not too obvious. Squeaky will likely be dropped if she gets in the way of that. Last I heard, she was bussing tables for work. I mean, how much money can they even take here? What are they gonna take her bottle of Windex and rag she wipes down the tables with?

  • Well I’ll be, Clyne didn’t put her foot in her mouth and try to defend DOS. Guess she figured between her site, tweets, interviews, etc. she provided the plaintiffs with enough ammunition. Lets be honest, she isn’t there because they think she is some mastermind. They are just hoping that she shits the bed on the stand if this goes to trial in her attempt to passionately defend DOS, she actually gives the jury more ammunition to hand over the green.

    Also Clyne missed a chance to challenge the “rank” she had. After all the order of events was she co-created DOS, was placed in “high” ranking position (lol) then she recruited. The reward came first. In reality, Clyne desperately then and now wants the approval of Keith and be his one and only and so she hustled not for reward of position but to maintain it and hope it brought her closer to her god. If he ordered her to take a header off the roof, she would probably do it. Reluctantly while thinking “this will show Keith my devotion.”

    So between order of events and misplaced hero worshipping, I don’t see how she meets the criteria for “commercial sex act” except for this very liberal interpretation with “anything of value”. By their definition, this Valentine’s day is going to have so many “commercial sex acts” since a whole lot of people will be putting out money for the reward of sex later aka “a date”.

    As keep saying, the civil case isn’t really about putting the Bronfman’s on trial directly or any of the defendants really. Is about using them all to paint a picture of Keith/NXIVM/DOS that is so loathsome that the jury will want someone to pay (literally) and the only ones that can are the Bronfmans. That does mean getting the Plaintiffs on the stand as they wax poetic about how they were manipulated and what they did wasn’t really their fault. Most will probably not be liked when its over but if end with the tragic story of the sisters, the impression of loathing Keith and NXIVM will be what stands out over the individuals that willingly participated in the same behavior they are suing over. Then the defense will takes its shot and ultimately it will mostly be more of the same with a dash of “well yeah I did all those things too but NXIVM and DOS is really about empowerment!”.

    Its a simple plan really and a hard one to challenge by the defendants in the jury phase. The best chance is now when have a judge knows a lot of it is a reach and can see their plan too. Having said that, judges tend to lean on the side of let jury sort it and suspect this one will too.

    • The way Nicki is gaga over Raniere and so desperate to prove her loyalty to him, makes me wonder if this pudgy, little, almost square-footed, emotionally stunted man-child, conman with the soft spoken voice over twenty years her senior, is the only “boyfriend” Clyne has ever had, let alone any person who’s shown her any devoted attention. Which is kind of sad since she’s forty years old now and there’s a snowball’s chance in Hell that Raniere will ever get out of prison.

      • Squeaky Clyne is damaged goods with daddy issues we cannot ever pretend to imagine. She is bat-fucking-shit-fucking bonkers. She will kill for Raniere if he directs it.

        • ‘She is bat-fucking-shit-fucking bonkers. She will kill for Raniere if he directs it.’

          If you mean it has been proven to the satisfaction of Raniere, after a certain experiment, carried out by the other ‘nxium doctor’ that Clyne has a Narcissistic, if not Psychopathic personality profile, then perhaps you’re right.

          Some targets did not pass the test – they found it morally repugnant and terrifying, that’s how we come to know about it. As to those who sailed through – ?

    • Sorry, Richard, but I don’t think apologising and expressing regret are part of Clyne’s psychological make-up. She may be smart and sassy, but she just doesn’t do empathic displays of remorse, especially in public, and in that regard she’s her own worst enemy. That said, if the prosecution lawyers don’t up their game it really could all just fall apart. For whatever reason the judge also seems to be more on the side of the defendants, but his ability to influence a jury will be limited by the adverse publicity out there.

        • Complicated: the media reflect public opinion but also shape it, so it’s a 2-way street. Members of a jury are also members of the public. The judge in this case is a Trump appointee so may be slightly more sympathetic to defendants publicly supportive of you-know-who. His ability to influence and lead a jury and influence a trial, while potentially forceful, will be limited by the aforesaid, as well as by their collective perception of witness testimony. All that’s assuming the trial even goes ahead as he may decide to dismiss some/all claims with prejudice.

  • Thought “Kevin” was the lawyer for the dead-enders in the civil suit? Or is Kevin just the weak-ass post ‘Knife of Aristotle” wanna be spin doctor?

    • None of the above. I’m a person who had the privilege of knowing one of the smeared DOS members, and I know that she isn’t the person she’s been made out to be in the press.

      You got tricked. You fell for the media manipulation. And now that the cameras and hysteria and 1980s style moral panic are gone, there’s going to be a real trial. And things aren’t looking too good for the Sarah/Mark team after round one.

      • LOL. A “real” trial. Said like a true deadender. You do realize that a criminal trial is more rigorous in terms of acceptable evidence and proof than a civil trial, right? Unless you believe in the silly nonsense of the deadenders of a trial by media and hate.

        • It was a trial by media. The Jury returned a verdict on a complex RICO case in 30 minutes.

          And I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about the women who’ve been smeared for five years and have never seen their day in court, who are getting one now.

          Love how everyone is trying to minimize the importance of the civil case after years of making it into a huge thing.

          Three people with no representation embarrassed a professional legal firm that’s suing for 80% of the world’s money supply. Because those “pros” had nothing, because nothing is there.

          You bought into a witch-hunt, and five years later, in a place where evidence matters, there’s no proof that anyone is a witch.

          • If those women wanted their day in court they could have had it. And why would they try to shut down the civil trial if they believe that’s going to absolve them somehow?

            Why use a term like “everyone”?

            You’ve got a very US versus them mentality and seem unable to see nuance at all.

            The civil trial means nothing to anyone but those directly participating. As it should.

            The criminal case is over. The outcome of the civil case will have no bearing on the future of your imprisoned Vanguard.

      • Definitely wasn’t tricked. Could care less who wins or loses the civil case. Not an overly invested weird stalker like you are. There is no question that immigration fraud was committed by squeaky. It was a cynical cheating move. Jumping the line and lying to authorities is a bad look and it’s also Criminal.

        Because you work with a person in a tangential fashion over a decade ago does not mean you have any real idea what they’re truly like or about their personal life or criminal activities. Your word pales in comparison to the on the stand and under oath testimony of people who lived and worked and slept next to Allison.

        • “Look! Over there! See that daycare center? The people who own it are practicing Satanists who rape children. Something must be done to stop them! Jeepers creepers!

          Never mind that the kids were coached and wouldn’t have had the vocabulary to say or understand the words they were saying to the investigators. The news said it happened, and golly, that’s all I need to hear!”

          Maybe next time your team shows up to court, remind them to bring some real evidence. Except, you know, that the real evidence implicates the plaintiffs…

          • The civil case really only matters to those directly involved. And you. Which appear to be one and the same.

            The outcome of the civil case will have no bearing on the criminal cases whatsoever.

            Bringing up satanic panic which happened what 40- 50 years ago? Seems unhinged and most of your comment is rather disengaged from any other comment. Kind of just a nutter rant

            It’s nice that you are so loyal to a person you worked with peripherally decades ago that’s the kind of loyalty that would have made you a great part of Keith’s cult. By the way Sarah Edmondson helped me get into college. You must now forgive her for any other transgression right? According to you?

      • ShadowState1958-

        Where is the evidence of election fraud?

        How is it Ghislaine Maxwell is still alive?

        When will crackhead Hunter Biden’s laptop deep-state secrets be revealed?

        Why can’t you ever answer a straight forward question with straight answer? You always hide and I’ll always……So sad.

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.” Parlato was also 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 premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

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