General

Michele Hatchette Plans to Reveal Names of Anonymous Women Suing Raniere

02/03/2022·

Frank Parlato

Michele Hatchette has announced on the Dossier Project website that it is her intention to publish the full names of the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, Sarah Edmondson, et al. v. Keith Raniere, et al.

The lawsuit has an estimated 74 plaintiffs and all but 10 of them are anonymous – either as Jane and John Does or as first-name-only plaintiffs.

Much effort has been expended to keep their identities secret from the public.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Neil Glazer, has made a motion before Judge Eric Komitee to prevent the parties in the lawsuit from revealing the names of the plaintiffs. Judge Komitee has not yet ruled on this motion.

Even if he were to rule that the real names of the Jane and John Does may not be mentioned in court proceedings, it would have zero impact on anything outside his courtroom.

Michele Hatchette is not bound by rulings of the court, for she is not a party to the civil lawsuit – and her right to speak out is governed by the First Amendment, which permits her to reveal the names if she so chooses.

Legally, she can name all the plaintiffs, and no one can stop her. In fact, nothing can prevent anyone from naming any accuser in any civil or criminal case. There are some who think that courts allowing accusers to remain anonymous have gone way too far and that this practice encourages false accusations, since there is no cost to making an accusation, while the accused is ruined reputationally from the moment the accusation is made public.

There are others who feel that women will be intimidated and fail to report true crimes, if the public will know who they are when make accusations.

Most of the media supports this latter theory and it is the general policy of most media not to name victims of certain crimes, particularly rape and crimes against children.

Hatchette points out that she is only naming individuals who are in a civil lawsuit, seeking money from the Bronfmans.

It is not known if the Bronfmans are paying Hatchette for her outspoken and sudden candor.

***

Hatchette’s Statement

The Dossier Project has published this “Statement from Michele Hatchette”:

My name is Michele Hatchette.

Please know that you are reading my first and last name. Here is my middle name: Bari. I’m not hiding.

In the criminal case against Keith Raniere, the Honorable Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis made a decision that I believe was a legal error. He decided that some people would be referred to only by their first name, and others by their first and last name. It seemed almost like it was a recognition of who was innocent and deserving of protection, and who was not. It was egregious bias, in my opinion.

I knew the names of these people and some of them had at one time or another told me they wanted to be “badass,” that they wanted to be tough, yet now they were hiding behind “Jane Doe.”

Frankly, I was offended, but I didn’t speak up at the time.

But now I think I have reached my limit because those same individuals, joined by other “Jane Does” and some “John Does” as well (they are a timid species, these “Does”), are in a civil lawsuit that — let’s be honest — is, as Nicki Clyne writes in her motion to dismiss, a “greed-grab” for Bronfman money.

The same anonymous women that Judge Garaufis, at Raniere’s sentencing hearing, called “brave victims” are in this anonymous lawsuit. When in history have you ever had a government officially labeling people as brave when they are making anonymous accusations? Calling them brave while sheltering them with anonymity is Orwellian.

I know who these “Does” are and I’m not going to play their game. I’m going to name them, starting with Nicole, my DOS sister, who once wrote to me that she thought the practices of DOS could help her become a woman “to be reckoned with.”

I’m willing to listen to anybody who has an argument as to why I shouldn’t, but I’m leaning toward naming all of them.

***

Video Statement from Hatchette

Hatchette also put out a short video explaining that she plans to out the anonymous plaintiffs.

https://frankreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MH_2022-02-02-20.52.16.mp4

In the video, Hatchette says, “It is wrong that women and men have been able to make outrageous accusations in the trial of Keith Raniere and NXIVM and receive hundreds of thousands of dollars and are now seeking more money in a civil lawsuit, all the while remaining anonymous. This is a dangerous precedent that puts innocent men and women at risk. Now that these people are seeking more money in this civil lawsuit, it’s time to grow up. For those of you who are are Jane and John Does watching this, this is your last opportunity to come forward and put your name to your claims. If you don’t, it is my moral obligation to name every single one of you. The clock starts now.”

***

Nicki Clyne Tweets

Clyne: “Women accusers who hide behind anonymity further the paternalistic idea that women need to be babied and are too weak to put their name to things. Michele Hatchette of @thedossierproj calls on the anonymous NXIVM plaintiffs to own their claims

We’re supposed to be equal under the law, yet accusers get to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the accused, who have the most reputational damage at risk, whether they are innocent or guilty, are immediately outed.

Anonymous accusers endanger due process and threaten the rights of all people. Women in the NXIVM case have hidden behind their anonymity long enough. With equal privilege comes equal responsibility. Time’s up! instagram.comThe Dossier Project (@thedossierproject) • Instagram reel”

https://twitter.com/nickiclyne/status/1489067416768417796?s=20&t=fQnTufHfieu9gQXqAPNFhQ

***

Ivy Nevares on Twitter

Ivy Nevares, a long time member of NXIVM and intimate partner of Keith Raniere’s, disagrees strongly with Hatchette’s decision. It is of note that Nevaras was believed to be one of the plaintiffs in the civil suit. It is not known if is one of the Jane Does who recently dropped out.

Nevares tweeted .@instagram Michele Hatchette/@thismixele and @thedossierproj are threatening to release the names of victims in the federal criminal case vs. #KeithRaniere that includes victims of child sexual exploitation, #childpornography and #sextrafficking. Please take action!! #NXIVM #DOS”

.@instagram Michele Hatchette/@thismixele and @thedossierproj are threatening to release the names of victims in the federal criminal case vs. #KeithRaniere that includes victims of child sexual exploitation, #childpornography and #sextrafficking. Please take action!!#NXIVM #DOS pic.twitter.com/yIFkKgQCi2
— Ivy Nevares (@ivynevares) February 3, 2022

Hatchette responded

Hatchette: “Calm down, Ivy. We’re not talking bout the criminal case, this is about the civil case. It’s time for people to be honest about what they really want: Money. This is about money, not about criminal justice. Say what you want. Try to censor me. Do you boo, but this is happening.”

Calm down, Ivy. We're not talking bout the criminal case, this is about the civil case. It's time for people to be honest about what they really want: Money. This is about money, not about criminal justice.
Say what you want.
Try to censor me. Do you boo, but this is happening. https://t.co/sghKVMm7Dj
— Michele Bari Hatchette (@thismixele) February 3, 2022

Nevares Replied

Nevares “There’s a significant overlap of victims between the two cases. What happened to respecting the rule of law, or have you turned against your beloved sociopathic cult leader’s teachings? You are harassing and intimidating victims. Is that your idea of a high moral ground? Pathetic”

There's a significant overlap of victims between the two cases. What happened to respecting the rule of law, or have you turned against your beloved sociopathic cult leader's teachings? You are harassing and intimidating victims. Is that your idea of a high moral ground? Pathetic
— Ivy Nevares (@ivynevares) February 3, 2022

Hatchette Responds

Hatchette: “It’s time to be brave. I’m calling on women to own their lives, and not let men decide when their names can be mentioned.”

It's time to be brave. I'm calling on women to own their lives, and not let men decide when their names can be mentioned.
— Michele Bari Hatchette (@thismixele) February 3, 2022

Hatchette: “For years, women have been first name only. They have their father’s name and then when they get married, they take their husband’s name, and they haven’t owned their own names. I understand the cowardly impulse, Ivy, but I’m going to out the names of people who are after money.”

***

Eduardo Asunsolo Weighs In

Asunsolo tweeted: “Ivy this is a civil case not criminal. And there’s a difference between being a victim and going for money, Once you cross that line and you’re after money from people who had nothing to do with your victimization, you at least should be willing to put your name behind.”

Nevares had tweeted: “Unlike your and your lot, I never committed a crime or abused people while in #NXIVM. Attack ema ll you want, my conscience and affairs are clear. This is the last I will ever respond to the only black woman in the 21st century who is willfully a @slave. Knock yourself out.”

Adam B. Coleman an advocate for free speech defended Hatchette. Coleman is the founder of WrongSpeak

Coleman quote-tweeted: “I hope you understand it says a lot about your character when you bring up @thismixele’s race simply to call her a slave.”

I hope you understand it says a lot about your character when you bring up @thismixele 's race simply to call her a slave. https://t.co/1wjXBlnwpi
— Adam B. Coleman, Le Based Black (@wrong_speak) February 3, 2022

Nevares replied, “I myself am a woman of color, born and bred. #DOS was set up by a white man as a master-slave system. I never took part in it. Michele did and still supports its creator. You can do the math.”

***

So, is this a tempest in a teapot? Does anybody really care if Michele names the anonymous people or not? It is the year 2022 – and there is no great shame in having been fooled by NXIVM or Raniere. Every day we see people toppled from positions of high power because they did something politically incorrect or cancelable.

While Ivy objects, she has always been out there with her full name. Her victim impact statements were impressive, even more so because she always gave her full name.

Michelle promises to reveal the names of the anonymous women and men, starting with Nicole, who was her sister slave under Allison Mack.

I was the one who first spoke to Nicole and did my best to persuade her to go to law enforcement. She came to me at first to have her name removed from the public – on my website. She had quit DOS and planned to live quietly and forget Raniere and DOS to the extent that she could.

I did two lengthy interviews with her in order to ascertain the facts. I urged her to speak with an attorney. She wound up meeting with Catherine Oxenberg and ultimately, she retained Neil Glazer as her attorney.

He has worked hard to keep her name withheld from the public. The condition of her testimony at Raniere’s trial was that only her first name would be mentioned.

Comments (40)

Add Your Comment

Yeppers02/03/2022

Hatchette: “It’s time to be brave. I’m calling on women to own their lives, and not let men decide when their names can be mentioned…..unless it’s Keith Reniere.” Fixed it for you. Man, you lot are idiots. The irony of saying never let a man rule you yet you gave your life, career/money, and body to a man. You can’t make this stuff up!

London_Calling02/03/2022

This is DOS, once again exerting their power over women by threatening means. Have they learnt nothing from this debacle? YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR WILL ON OTHERS AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

Zen02/04/2022

Haha Frank has talked about everyone involved in NXIVM is really not a mystery and frankly they are in no danger. They want money and are cowards. Real sad to see that both sides of NXIVMs are crazy. Sarah and Mark are seriously just as crazy as any cult leader.

What a dumpster fire!02/04/2022

Michelle is a (branded with his initials) slave to her white master and a prison inmate white grandmaster. She speaks of equality while relinquishing her freewill to other presumably superior white masters? Is a master slave relationship equal? These women speak of women being treated “equally” but Nicki Clyne claims in a tweet that no black woman will ever know if she earned her spot on the Supreme Court. What?! Why?! Is a black woman who's accomplished and educated enough to be a supreme court candidate also too stupid to know her own value? Her own skill level? To accurately see herself in the professional scheme of the legal field? That's Nicki's opinion of any black female lawyer who is deemed qualified to the highest court in the nation? But a white man does know? What about a black man? How does Nicki Clyne – a white woman with a high school education – know what a highly educated black woman in the legal field thinks? Or knows? Or feels? And how does Nicki know it better than the black woman herself?

Anonymous02/04/2022

There's a difference between simply revealing information (legal) and threatening to reveal information if the other person doesn't do/refrain from doing something else (possibly illegal). For instance: New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law – PEN § 135.60 Coercion in the third degree A person is guilty of coercion in the third degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: . . . 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or . . . 9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Anonymous02/04/2022

What an idiot! She just proved exactly why these women and men need anonymity. She also needs an EM. Seems angry. And prideful. I hope her master spanks her.

Nutjob02/04/2022

Prideful. LMAO

Jane Doe = Snowflakes02/04/2022

I'm so happy someone is finally slapping back! It's sickening how cowardly and fictitiously fragile these “Jane Doe” women have been pretending to be. They're such snowflakes… please pity their plight! Their feelings were hurt! But mostly…they need money!

Clarity02/04/2022

Hatchette, is that you? Your name rhymes with Bat Shit

Just Sayin'02/04/2022

All this superiority from the black woman who's had 2 white slave masters and a grandmaster…. And ooofff, whatta tantrum! Giiirlll….wasn't today's DOS assignment on Instagram a cold shower???

Carly b02/04/2022

Lots of female judges hurt men in judgements too. There is no rhyme or reason. There is plenty of reverse discrimination and false negative stereotypes of men.

Sherizzy02/04/2022

This is a crime. It is intimidating a witness. The judge has not yet ruled on whether the plaintiffs’ names may be revealed so Hatchette is asking to be arrested and charged. Most certainly, the judge will be informed of Hatchette’s antics and I don’t think it will be favorable to those still in DOS, namely Nicki, who we can be sure was involved with this stupidity.

Calienta Rodriguez02/04/2022

I don't think that she should tell the names. It's not fair. They should not have their dirty laundry aired.

Michele Hatchette, She One Angry Woman02/04/2022

What is Michele Hatchette intent in naming names? She doesn't have a dog in this fight? Is it spite because some of her pals are caught up in this litigation? Does this make her feel like a powerful black woman? Why is she sticking her nose into something that isn't her beeswax? Most of the victims in the criminal case will not get most of their money unless Raniere comes into his money from Pam's estate that was never his. He didn't earn it, nor did Pam. In the civil case, some of the victims won't get a lot of their money. The Bronfmans have their money tied up in trusts, which will come out in small amounts at a time. For the rest who lose, they will pay out 20% of their earnings for 20 years split between the number of people who win in the case. This is after the law firm takes their % + fees. No one runs out and buys a car, house or expensive vacation. Your money might not come in all at once. We all know what the payout each month Raniere's is paying. It won't even buy dinner out on the town each month. If Raniere lives 20 years, none of those women will ever see their full payout from the criminal case.

Mauricio Ricardo Urtaza Reyes02/04/2022

Asunsolo and Hatchette, the Happy slave who got Rockefeller support (They also appear on Epstein and Dutroux dossiers) and Asunsolo, the groupie of the pedophile group. Hatchette seems to forget that she is not invisible. Even when she thought Raniere could control weather. Is undefendable, and they gaslight a legal terrorist attack. Well, they are cult followers, stay after everyone knew about Raniere rapping kids. There's videos of Raniere talking about rapping babies and they find it logical and innocent

Anonymous02/04/2022

If Michelle “knows” who the women are – and Nicki's complaint is that Nicki “doesn't know” – why doesn't Michelle just tell Nicki? Because Michelle wants to publicly shame, embarrass and intimidate the women. And if Michelle names someone incorrectly… that's another lawsuit. You start publicly naming people whose names haven't been released in a court case and you're wrong – THOSE people can now sue you, Michelle. Will they win? I don't know. But they have a case Because you are causing them a lot of pain and problems. Job loss. Being targeted. Public harassment. Who knows? So, get a lawyer, Michelle. You might need one. My guess is that Michelle ain't the best communicator. Michelle probably means I will release the LAST NAMES of the women I know for sure are suing and are my former “sisters”. Or more succinctly, ” I, Michelle Bari Hatchette, am a truly loathsome human with no heart, soul or decency. And I love attention. Even if it is negative. Hurting people makes me feel alive. And important. Also, Nicki told me what to do.”

OhMy!02/04/2022

I want to know who Michele thinks she is deciding when and where people say their own names. Not everyone wants to share their trauma on the timeframe Michele thinks they should. What about women's agency? What about anyone's agency? I agree that not everyone is innocent here. Civil suits are not just about money grabs – they are about holding someone accountable somehow. Nicki and Michele and many others are not innocent but were never charged (or have not been charged yet). This includes people who are on the other side of the suit. If someone feels like their rights were violated, and there are no criminal charges, civil litigation is often the way to hold people accountable. Nicki may have no money. Danielle may have no money. Brandon Porter may have no money (I mean, how could they?) But, for the next 20 years, they will have their wages garnished and every paycheck will remind them that actions have consequences. And can we talk about cognitive dissonance for a minute? Criminal justice, tampered evidence and whatever else they are throwing at the wall, are just false narratives (see what I did there?) being spun as smoke and mirrors, to distract everyone from the fact that one of their “dearest friends”, someone they called a sister, came forward and admitted that this “relationship” started when she was 15. Sure, the abuse continued, and she may have even thought it was consensual at the time and after, but at 15 you do not possess the ability to give consent so anything that came after that is fruit from the poisonous tree. The moment their slave sister said, “This happened to me. And it kind of fucked my shit up” is when The NXIVM 5, the paranoid and delusional cunts of the Dossier Project and whoever the fuck Suneel is should say, “What can we do to support you?”. Even if you say that anything that happened after she turned 18 is behavior she should be responsible for (which is psychotic), that is THREE DAMN YEARS where she did not have the agency to make that decision for herself. Unless you think that 15-year-old girls, in the position she was in, have the ability to say no for any reason, should be conditioned to have sex with anyone, much less someone older and in a position of power, then I don't know what to say because there is no reasoning. I understand that there are women (and men) who find Keith Raniere and his like very sexually attractive because of the way he makes them feel. I have a giant crush on Pete Davidson for no other reason than he makes me laugh. But this “sex assignment” that Raniere even gushed about in his neurotic ramblings, is not something that everyone wants. I mean, please… If all of this hadn't been sensationalized on an international scale – and if these men and women weren't feeling personally attacked anytime someone says a bad word about Raniere, they would see that in any other situation, this behavior would be abhorrent. Anytime someone says a bad/true word about Raniere, they see it as a personal attack because their entire self-worth and world view has been dictated by him. They don't even realize that this women's agency buzz word that they throw around is a joke. If they actually think that they have any agency right now, then my heart hurts for them. How devastating is it going to be when they realize that that they have no agency? That was given away years ago. I could go on and on about collateral and the dangers of that kind of behavior, but I will just ask this: I have heard several times that no collateral was released, but we know that is false. Sarah's branding video was edited and released, and Danielle has threatened to release more video in the future! You can't say that there should be no fear of that information being released, or of giving up your first born, or the deed to your house, or whatever, because it was just a symbolic gesture, how did it already happen? The threat was real then, and the threat is real now. This threatening to release collateral and name people is just revenge porn. While I have you here, let's talk about loaded language… I feel like every time I come here, there is some new definition to a word that I am supposed to know and if I don’t, I must be an idiot. Stop trying to start your own cult on a blog message board. And if your cult name has the word ‘Anti’ in it once, much less TWICE, then just sit down, shut the fuck up for a minute, and hire a hooker. And before anyone tries to start any drama with me or attacks, I will give you fair warning that during my last psychological evaluation I scored a 38 on the PCL-R. I am an entitled, overly educated, upper class white woman with a lot of time and money on my hands. You won’t even see me coming. XOXOXO- OhMy!!

Alanzo02/04/2022

Does anyone here think that if Keith Raniere or Nancy Salzman could use the public courts to sue someone anonymously for 100s of thousands of dollars that they wouldn't do it? What would yo say to that? The hypocrisy of those here who have one set of rules for their friends, and a completely different set of rules for their enemies, is out TF roof. Alanzo

Anonymous02/04/2022

Finally! alonzo gets something right. i am guessing you finally did your research? how Keith/nancy/claire DESTROYED so many people through the legal system. He planted evidence (hence the current projection about cami) and dragged people through the courts to drain them. Thank you for finally doing some homework!

Alanzo02/05/2022

So we agree then that using the power and force of the government through the public court system to deprive someone else of their property should never be allowed to anonymous plaintiffs. Is that right? Alanzo

BonnieJean02/04/2022

I love Michelle, as much as someone can love someone they don’t know personally. To me, she’s always seemed very intelligent and principled. But this? Not a good look. I hope it’s not a Bronfman lawyer using her to try to get people to drop out of the civil suit. Sometimes I really do feel like the leftovers are such good and principled people, but they are having those good qualities used against them by people who only care about themselves.

shadowstate195802/04/2022

Michelle: Please do not reveal the names of the plaintiffs. Frankly, I don't care who slept with whom. If less coercion had been used against these women, perhaps they would be more forgiving. I am reminded of the quote by Gandhi, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Ice-nine02/04/2022

This is all keith. keith is using Michelle’s naïveté against her. I am pretty certain keith put her in charge of DOS to annoy the others. So she thinks she’s smarter than she is and that this move is oh so clever. But she is really just a pawn and too stupid to know it. There’s no way she’d do any of this without vanguard telling her to. he is outing everyone on the list for his own amusement and Michelle will pay the repercussions for it. It’ll piss someone off enough that they will take revenge on her. I’ve said it often, everything keith does is to torment, humiliate, and destroy. This is just another day at the office for ol’ vanguard.

Michelle's not the boss of them02/04/2022

So… “Men” shouldn't decide for woman — BUT other women should decide for women? Like maybe a master slave relationship? What if.. Everyone decided for themselves? And Michelle minded her own business? This is the height of misguided arrogance. Pushing a person of a cliff doesn't make them unafraid of jumping. Or heights. Similarly Michelle cannot demand women be brave thru Michelle naming their names. That doesn't even make Michelle brave. And why do the victims need to conform to Michelle Hatchett's definition of bravery? And maybe NOT naming themselves IS the victims being brave? Maybe they are protecting their families? Ever think about that? Maybe the victims don't want their children, husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, grandparents exposed to a vindictive, dangerous cult? Besides, when Raniere's victims DO come forward then they are accused by the cult leftovers as wanting fame or profiteering. The cult dead-enders will never be satisfied. So why even try to please them? This move by the remaining DOS slaved is so sleazy. But to try and dress it up as noble is next level disgusting I wouldn't be surprised if the goal is to try and drive Raniere's victims to suicide. Like Keith wanted to drive Ivy Nevares to kill herself.

Pyriel02/04/2022

Michael Avenatti guilty again! https://mol.im/a/10473383

Chickenshithit cowards said what?02/04/2022

Michelle Hatchette was too chickensh×t to testify in Keith Raniere's defense. Nicki Clyne was too cowardly to stand by her man under oath. Can you imagine truly believing your “partner of 10 years” was innocent but letting him go to prison for 120 years because you are such a scaredy pants that you could not valiantly help him at trial? Especially when you instagrammed Keith's location to the feds like Nicki Clyne did! Eduardo Aunsulo (who was not in DOS and could not possibly know what happened to the women Keith sexually exploited unless he was present for every assault holding Keith's dick) DID NOT testify in Keith's defense. Too cowardly. Ex Dr. Danielle DID NOT testify in Keith's defense. She was scared. MLM insurance hawker Whatever her face Chung DID NOT bravely testify for her cult leader and her grandmaster. Leah did not heroically stand for Keith. Nor did follower Suneel exercise his right to bravely speak up for his friend and mentor. NONE of Keith's followers took the stand. Because they were too scared. They've openly spoken of being too afraid. It's so much easier for the cult members to wrongly call someone else out – than to be brave themselves. AND why ONLY FOCUS ON THE FEMALES? No threats for the John Doe civil plaintiffs? Misogynists till the BITTER end. Ha ha ha.

Anonymous02/04/2022

This is nothing more than petty vengeance.

Alex02/05/2022

Just watched Michelle's video oration again. It's her moral obligation she says!! :-))) But no moral obligation to point both her hands at the criminal Raniere and apologise to everyone for being such a cretin to support the criminal for so long! Michelle is very sexy indeed. I wish Raniere would direct her to work full time on a porn set. I should say a public porn set. It is the best environment conducive to further intellectual development for her. It's as much as her brain can and would ever handle successfully! It would work in all ways. Raniere would derive further satisfaction from treating her like a dog, Michelle would feel even more empowered to have received more instructions – hence 'divine' attention, and more people around the planet would feel good as a direct result, which is the ultimate goal of Raniere's and nanna Nancy's teachings!

Just Sayin'02/05/2022

Michele is the house slave of the Dossier Project. I'm betting she was conned into speaking for Clyne and Roberts (who just trashed any hopes for that license appeal), the defendants. Michele's own family has said she's always struggled with mental illness which only heightened with cult relations. Girlfriend is literally bald from malnutrition (yet has a big old bush). No surprise she dove head first into a giant pile of shit like a streak of greased lightning.

Jane+Smith02/05/2022

Does this lot know how weird they sound when they twist things round like this? Also were this the UK, a court order would stop people disclosing names – happens with most of our divorce cases, for example, and child contact cases (anonymity). We also have data protection laws over here in the UK (although I think NY is getting one or has it so that is another aspect too – the disclosure of your personal data without consent, etc.). In the U, it could be contempt of court and you could go to jail if you breach a court order if a judge were to order non disclosure. On the other hand, the usual rule here in the UK if is you are suing for damages, then although our court proceedings are not online or searchable in most cases, journalists keen enough to make a trip to the court can find them out.

Anonymous02/05/2022

What an ugly jerk, inside and out. Well, it's what they say– birds of a feather flock together! Raniere's a convicted criminal! All his women minions are just as evil, disgusting, and horrible!! CHEERS for all the women suing! Get all you can, girls! And be proud of being Survivors AND getting all the compensation in the world you can! It will never erase the abuse! But lots of people do it! And when these losers say “This is about money.” How about someone says to them AND WHAT YOUR CONVICTED LEADER DID WAS ABOUT EVIL. AND NOTHING MORE. Some people really are nothing but a pos and I hope they suffer all their consequences in life before they rot.

Katie10/15/2025

I find Michele Hatchette to be disturbing. She is a woman with a profound wound and psychologically damaged. She’s arrogant, condescending, narcissistic and malicious. There is literally no reason to out the names of those involved in the civil lawsuit. She’s just being petty and vindictive and when you realize it’s all for that scumbag Keith, it’s physically sickening. You can see Michele is stuck in her indoctrination. She’s just gross.