A paragraph I wrote about Keith Raniere and NXIVM drew the wrath of an anonymous reader, whom I call Mr. Anonymous,
The paragraph was:
I wrote about 5,000 stories about Raniere, and I want to give a tip of the hat to some of the people who helped me expose the grandmaster, such as Catherine Oxenberg, Sarah Edmondson, Mark Vicente, Susan Dones, Kristin Keeffe, Daniela Fernandez, Nicole Isbel, Alejandro Junco, Barbara Bouchey, Toni Zarratini, and others.
Raniere by MK10ART
Mr. Anonymous warned or should I say threatened me:
Mr. Anonymous
You might want to remove a name or two from this article before you receive a letter from some angry attorneys, Frank.
Mk10Art painting of me (Frank Parlato)
I replied:
What names?
Mr. Anonymous
The Jane Doe you reference
I replied:
I did not remove any names.
Mr. Anonymous
I sent it to the attorneys. They will be in contact. You should have just removed the name of the Jane Doe.
I replied:
That’s a good idea. Let the attorneys handle it. I do not believe in anonymity for accusers anymore. Unless they are children, I’ll publish any accuser’s name (unless they are underage).
As a journalist, I am not bound to Jane Doe designation by any judge. That designation is only within the courtroom and court filings.
Mr. Anonymous
That is certainly what I expected you to say. Only reputable journalists honor Jane Doe designations out of professional ethics, respect for privacy, and to avoid interfering with court proceedings, but let’s be honest, you are a bottom-feeding “journalist” with absolutely zero integrity. Good day, sir!
Frank:
The court proceedings are long over.
Mr. Anonymous
True, but some of these people are still dealing with the trauma and bullshit that happened to them in NXIVM. Your lack of empathy is palpable. You think being brainwashed… is an easy experience to get over? But hey, anything for a few clicks to my shitty website, right?!
Frank
Brainwashed? What is that? …
Mr. Anonymous
You really are as stupid as they say. Let’s not play word games. ‘Brainwashed’ is exactly what happened—psychological coercion, manipulation, and isolation are textbook cult tactics. … Adults can be manipulated, threatened, and blackmailed into compliance—pretending otherwise is willful ignorance.
And your take on anonymity and accountability? Survivors of sexual coercion, abuse, and cult exploitation don’t owe you their names or faces to validate their trauma. Suggesting that anonymity ‘lets women lie’ is a tired, misogynistic smear meant to silence victims.
What actually does harm is minimizing abuse and pretending it didn’t happen because it makes you uncomfortable. You are a fucking clown, Frank.
Frank
Brainwashing is very real, and you are the proof. It must be hard to have a weak brain…. Please get your brain dirty again. It’s been washed too well. I’ll help you.
Mr. Anonymous
LOL what an insanely idiotic comment. I’m sure I need help from some half-cooked boomer blog writer that has nothing better to do than write crap AI-generated articles about the scum of the earth on the internet all day. You are what you eat, Frank, and you, sir, eat dogshit all day and look what you produce: absolute filth content that serves no value to anyone on this planet.
Mr. Anonymous’s view of me.
Mr. Anonymous
Your obituary will read something like “was here.” Anyways, good luck with it all, I guess.
Frank
In another case I covered, defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean stated, “It is far easier to come to court and lie anonymously than it is to stand on testimony with one’s true name.”
The judge, Diane Gujarati agreed.
She said:
“Although the court recognizes that particular testimony is likely to involve highly personal matters, indeed matters that are often kept as private matters, and that there may be some negative consequences of the public airing of those matters, the court is not convinced on the particular circumstances of this case that those factors outweigh the relevant Sixth Amendment considerations here and general considerations of fairness.
“Under the particular circumstances of this case, defendants’ argument that it is ‘far easier to come to court and lie anonymously than it is to stand on testimony with one’s true name’ has some force.”
This legal perspective stands in contrast to the demands of my critic, Mr. Anonymous, who wants anonymity extended indefinitely.
Mr. Anonymous justifies this by calling Raniere’s victims brainwashed.
Raniere’s tools were fraud, collateral-backed blackmail, false accusations, paying lawyers to use their contacts with prosecutors to get people indicted, perjury, and aggressive litigation financed by Clare Bronfman.
To call it “brainwashing” is dangerous not just for Raniere but for other cases in the future.
The law should be simple: punish what people do, not what someone thinks they might have meant.
Keep charges tied to verifiable acts, not speculative mental states.
A free society punishes bad acts (not thoughts) proved in open court. Punishing thoughts (brainwashing) with anonymous “victims” testifying is a recipe for injustice.
When the court allows accusers to be called “victims” before they testify and inform the jury that there is a blackout on the name, that’s not justice.
There’s a workable middle:
Use neutral terms, such as “complainant” or “accuser,” at trial, not “victim.”
Issue firm jury instructions that labels prove nothing.
If anonymity is used, require more rigorous corroboration.
Remember the judge’s caution: it is easier to lie without a name.
Victim protections are essential, but they are not more important than the presumption of innocence.
I encourage an end to anonymous testimony except for children and the end of calling accusers “victims” before the jury finds guilt.
There will come a time when people will realize that courage is the most important thing – and anonymity is not courage.
No offense, Mr. Anonymous.
