Brandon Porter, acting pro se, a defendant in Edmondson v. Raniere is opposing 70 former NXIVM plaintiffs’ move for leave to amend their complaint. He wants the lawsuit tossed out against him.
Porter was a yellow sash [unpaid NXIVM coach] and spent 18 years in NXIVM.
He was also a licensed physician in New York who lost his medical license in 2019, for conducting unauthorized human experimentation for NXIVM and its associated groups, including the so-called “Human Fright Experiment,” a Tourette’s study, and an OCD study.
The TAC was in response to Judge Komitee telling the plaintiffs in February that he would dismiss their Second Amended Complaint [SAC] because it was rife with shotgun and group pleadings, where all plaintiffs accuse all defendants for everything, which is impermissible under the federal rules of civil procedure.
Porter argued in his recently filed opposition papers that “the court may deny leave to amend when there is undue delay… bad faith; or the complaint continues to be futile.”
He alleges all three.
More than three years have passed since the first of four complaints was filed in Edmondson v Raniere on January 28, 2020.
A stay was issued on June 25, 2020 to await the conclusion of the USA v Raniere criminal prosecution, which ended in effect with the sentencing of defendants Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, and Kathy Russell, and former defendants, since dropped from the civil lawsuit, Nancy Salzman and Lauren Salzman.
The First Amended Complaint [FAC] was entered on August 13, 2021. The Second Amended Complaint [SAC] was largely the same as the FAC, with the exception of dropping several plaintiffs and naming most of them in substitution of Jane Doe with corresponding numbers. The SAC was entered on February 25, 2022.
Still a Shotgun
Porter claims the TAC is still “shotgun pleading and group pleading,” alleging that it provides no information for how Porter was involved in RICO charges, other than including him by naming “all defendants.”
In the FAC and SAC, plaintiffs accused Porter of RICO, sex trafficking, forced labor, human trafficking, and peonage charges.
In his filing, Porter wrote about the harm this has done as he tries to get a new license to practice medicine in Iowa.
Porter wrote, “These malicious, yet vague, allegations… contributed to his inability to obtain a license to practice medicine in his resident state after the State of New York revoked his medical license. There is a requirement to share current and past legal litigations when applying for licensure to practice medicine in a state. It is unlikely that any state will allow Defendant Porter a license to practice medicine while these RICO complaints stand…
“Frivolous complaints like this are damaging to defendants. Courts in this [Second] Circuit have sanctioned attorneys for actions like this in order to deter people from making frivolous RICO charges that obviously do not meet bare minimum pleading requirements.
“Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel placed themselves in a difficult position by making the overzealous RICO claims in the first complaint, FAC, and SAC. It appears that they decided to deal with this by trying to tie Porter into the RICO conspiracy in the TAC, as opposed to dropping indefensible claims.”
In the TAC, the plaintiffs added a new labor trafficking complaint against Porter. His alleged victim is Camila.
The TAC alleges
Defendant Porter is liable for labor trafficking Camila because he knowingly benefited financially or by receiving things of value, including payment, enhanced status, power, and prestige, and free babysitting services from participation in the Venture, which he knew or should have known labor trafficked Camila.
He knew or should have known that members of the Inner Circle and Defendant Raniere were forcing Plaintiff Camila to perform menial tasks, commercial sex acts, administrative work, and babysitting because Camila provided babysitting services to his family.
He was in regular contact with Camila, Raniere, and members of the Inner Circle and performed unauthorized experiments on Camila.
Porter is miffed at allegations of abusing Camila.
Porter writes, “The TAC doesn’t address how I should have known that Camila was being human trafficked and forced to labor. It provides no dates for when this activity supposedly happened.
“The claim that I knew the insides and outsides of Camila’s life because she babysat my children is irrational. In the TAC, Plaintiffs plead conclusory allegations masquerading as facts. They plead no new facts to connect me with labor trafficking or conspiracy to labor trafficking.”
Camila worked for Rainbow Cultural Garden, a company owned by Loreta Garza and Keith Raniere. Rainbow assigned Camila to work with Porter’s children.
Porter allegedly paid Rainbow for Camila’s services. If she was unpaid, it was Rainbow, not Porter, who failed to pay Camila.
Porter wrote, “There was no way for me to know if Camila was or was not being paid [by Rainbow] for her services. There was no way for me to know that she was allegedly threatened with deportation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel should know this, because Camila should know this.”
Porter, growing increasingly incensed, indirectly accused the plaintiffs’ counsel of what amounts to malpractice.
Porter wrote, “I highly doubt that Camila supports the assertion that I participated in her being sex trafficked and forced to labor. It appears to me that Plaintiffs’ attorneys added another frivolous RICO charge in order to appear to have had reason for their
first frivolous RICO charges against me.”
Porter wrote about the relationship Camila had with his family.
He wrote, “Camila did take care of our children. Indeed, she was a second mother to two of our three children…. [S]he was present for the birth of one of my children and one of my children is named after Camila. She was a wonderful role model to my children. They continue to hold her dear to their hearts.
“In addition to Camila being a central figure in my family’s life, Camila is the daughter to wealthy parents. It was never my impression that she was in any danger. I was never aware of her attempt to take her life. She was private about her life. For these reasons, it was a great surprise to see the claims against me related to Camila.
“It is possible that Camila made these egregiously false claims, but I find that possibility to be highly unlikely because it would require tremendous lies on her part and she would be disavowing her cherished position in our family.
“Instead, I suspect that Plaintiffs’ counsel made these claims without Camila’s approval. Of course, I might be wrong. I twice emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, Neil Glazer and Zahra Dean, and asked if Camila approved of the claims and I received no replies.
“Camila’s dedication to my children’s joyful experience of life made is so that it was important to me that she have a joyful life, too.
“The level of this claim’s absurdity is only matched by its level of malice. Honestly, it would be easier for me to accept the betrayal these claims represent if they are directly from Camila. It would provide closure to our relationship. However, if these atrocious claims against me were made hoping that these claims will justify the previous group and shotgun pleadings of the RICO charges, I’m in awe of the destruction they are willing to do to me and my family in
their attempts to pillage the Bronfman fortune.
“From this perspective, it seems that in their zealous quest for fortune, even debasement of loving relationships looks like gold.”
Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Bad Faith
Porter also criticized Plaintiffs Sarah Edmondson, Anthony ‘Nippy’ Ames, Mark Vicente, Bonnie Piesse, India Oxenberg and others.
He wrote, “it seems that a small core of Plaintiffs colluded together to harm their friends so that they could achieve fame and fortune by making HBO and STARZ specials and then use this venue to try to take their wealthy former friends’ [Clare and Sara Bronfman] money.”
Tourette’s and Statute of Limitiation
The FAC and SAC claimed Gross Negligence and Recklessness against Porter for his work with alleged Tourette’s and OCD sufferers Margo Leviton, Isabella Constantino, and Caryssa Cottrell.
In the FAC, the plaintiffs wrote:
Dates can be posited from a citation from the New York Office of Professional Misconduct (“NY OPMC”) Board findings for Defendant Porter’s hearings. The board concluded that Porter performed Human Research projects between 2010 – August 2017.
Porter earlier motion to dismiss noted that the FAC and SAC allegations did not include dates for his alleged negligent and reckless actions with the Tourette’s women, and that the statute of limitations likely barred the claim.
New York law establishes a 30-month statute of limitations period for medical based claims. N.Y.C.P.L.R § 214-a.
The Plaintiffs’ initial complaint was filed on 1/28/2020, barring all claims prior to July 28, 2017.
The TAC still includes the Gross Negligence and Recklessness claim against Porter for the Tourette’s women. But this time it failed to mention when the dates he stopped working on the human experiments.
Proter wrote in opposition, “Despite being alerted that the statute of limitations was likely past, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s counsel did not
provide dates of the alleged violation(s).”
Porter suggests worse – bad faith. He writes that the plaintiffs’ attorneys knew the Tourette’s women’s claims were time barred, and tried to hide it by no longer including the information from Porter’s termination as a licensed physician, which shows he stopped work on unauthorized human experiments as of August 2017 just days after the statute of limitations bar of July 28, 2017.
Unless he committed the acts alleged in the TAC against the Tourette’s woman from July 29 to August 30, 2017, when it is conceded that he completed his studies, they may be time barred.
My Tourette’s, which features the Tourette’s alleged victims, was reportedly produced in 2017.