In response to his previous post on contradictions in liability alleged in Edmondson v Raniere, the NXIVM civil case, Kevin doubles down on defending the defendants. He argues that Sarah Edmondson and Mark Vicente owned and operated centers and were higher ranking than defendants such as Brandon Porter, and Danielle Roberts.
While the purpose of the lawsuit is to get money from Clare and Sara Bronfman for funding the vile Keith Raniere, it is clear that some plaintiffs accuse some defendants of doing the same behavior they themselves committed – and in fact were the “but for” cause of at least one of the defendants being in NXIVM in the first place.
By the way, more than 65 percent of the plaintiffs [45 out of 70 plaintiffs] were recruited into NXIVM by Vicente/Edmondson.
But since Edmondson and Vicente woke up, they are not liable.
None of the defendants other than Bronfmans have enough money to justify a lawsuit with 70 plaintiffs and a dozen attorneys. It is unfortunate that the lawsuit devolved into a shotgun complaint – which was tossed out once, and may be tossed again.
The better way would have been to sue the Bronfmans, Raniere, and possibly Nancy Salzman. Keep the claims focused and avoid the glaring contradiction of higher ranking NXIVM members suing lower ranking members, and consequently have gaping lack of specificity and insufficient pleadings.
Now before we hear from Kevin, who will criticize Vicente and Edmondson, I want to remind readers that without Edmondson and Vicente, along with Catherine Oxenberg, and their willingness to blow the whistle on Raniere first to me – and then later the New York Times and the FBI, Raniere might be branding and blackmailing women today.
Catherine & India Oxenberg
Keep in mind that India Oxenberg was like many others in Raniere’s grasp. Like Vicente, Edmondson, Nicki and many others, she believed in Raniere at one time, and when she believed, she followed and supported him. When she stopped believing, she stopped supporting him, and spoke out.
What amazes me is the timeline for lack of sympathy by those who left years ago, for those who left more recently, and for those who are still following, as if they do not see they are kindred spirits.
If Raniere fooled you and you did not have evil intentions, why is it that you believe anyone who left after you, or still remains under his thrall, has evil intentions?
The NXIVM lawsuit, however, is not about that. It is solely meant to make Bronfmans pay with their more than ample funds for their reckless support of Raniere. That reckless millions spent to destroy could be offset with a few thoughtful millions to help and heal.
If the lawsuit is not dismissed, how wise would it be for the Bronfmans to settle the case for a few million, without admitting culpability? It could be a PR move that would earn them more in the long run in good will and opportunities than they might imagine.
But for the plaintiffs to hold Raniere’s poorer victims – even if they still support the varmint – liable for deeds against higher ranking plaintiffs, while dropping the lawsuit against even higher ranking members like the Salzman, seems unjust, and may cost the plaintiffs the whole lawsuit.
And when you sniff the unpalatable odor of letting people who are much more culpable, like Nancy Salzman, who co-founded NXIVM, and Lauren Salzman, who had more DOS slaves and grand slaves than any DOS master – a whopping 28 slaves and grand slaves, including Edmondson’s three slaves – the motive becomes obvious. The Salzmans were dropped because they will provide favorable testimony against the sole targets of the lawsuit – the Bronfmans and they’ll sit on the witness stand as if they were victims.
Lauren Salzman [right] with her mother Nancy.
In this respect, it may be deduced that the only reason the minor defendants – Porter, Roberts, and Kathy Russell, all who have no money – remain in the suit is probably because they have not agreed to testify against Bronfman or that they can somehow be tied into Bronfman, even if by the flimsiest thread.
Now let’s hear from Kevin.
By Kevin
Nicki Has a Right to Defend Herself
A number of people here and on other message boards are now starting to ask the questions and make the points I’ve been making for a year and a half.
Not that I’m taking credit for that, but still…
Watching the actual stalker, Mr. BK ‘I’m too afraid to use a real name,’ wet himself in the comments section of his own thread, due to people pointing out the obvious: For example, Nicki has a right to file motions to defend herself, considering she’s being sued and all… has been fun to watch.
I never once endorsed or supported any criminal or harmful activity. I have never met Raniere, and have never met any of his remaining supporters. All I’ve done is point out that many people pointing fingers have no business doing so.
Mark Vicente and Sarah Edmondson at VWeek
If you have any counterpoints that justify why Vicente and Edmondson have any business being lead plaintiffs in a civil case in which they are suing people for things they themselves did, please share them with us.
If you have any explanation for why you have a problem with behaviors that went on in this group, but simultaneously believe that the people who displayed those behaviors should be given a pass, while lower ranking students remain defendants, please share with FR.
Vicente and Edmondson
If the allegations about NXIVM are true, Vicente and Edmondson should be defendants in this suit along with the Salzmans, and should have every penny they and their centers earned off the backs of unsuspecting customers clawed back down to the penny.
If a girl was locked in a room for two years, why were Lauren and Nancy removed from the suit?
Brandon Porter, a supporter of Raniere’s paid Rainbow Cultural Garden for babysitting.
Or is that Brandon Porter’s fault too, because he once knew this guy, who knew this guy, who knew this other guy, who once met her in passing?
India Profited from Undocumented Workers
India was a DOS slave master. She operated Delegates, a company in which teenage Mexican girls performed free labor.
India did that. Not Allison. Not Nicki. Not Danielle. Not Brandon Porter.
India Oxenberg owned and operated Delegates
People support a lawsuit in which forced labor is alleged. Yet in response to a question about Mark and Sarah, who owned the company centers where alleged unpaid labor was performed, people’s response is “what unpaid work?”
Sarah and Mark bear no responsibility for Camilla?
But Danielle, Nicki, and Porter do? How so? Because Porter paid a company for Camila’s babysitting services?
How many others procured babysitting or childcare services from the same company?
There are multiple allegations in the lawsuit in which the lead plaintiffs participated in the behavior they accuse of others.
Nicki will establish this when she gets her day in court.
Dr. Brandon Porter, Dr. Danielle Roberts and Nicki outside the Brooklyn Courthouse
The two lead plaintiffs caused much of the damage most others are suing over.
“Ms. Rood, why are you suing?”
Rood: “Well, Mark brought me in, so I’m suing a doctor and an actress that I’ve never met.”
Good luck with that.
