Dr. Brandon Porter, like his co-defendant, Nicki Clyne, has filed a letter with the court of Judge Eric Komitee seeking to be excused from a personal appearance on Thursday.
Porter, like Clyne, claims he is impecunious. But he had a good deal more to say than did Clyne in her relatively demure request to Judge Komitee to be excused.
In fact, Dr. Porter, who rose to fame through his “human fright experiments,” which Suneel now advises is to be henceforward called [at least by him] “the emotions study” — you know the one, where they showed a snuff film – and 17 other mildly gruesome and gotesquely boring clips to volunteers over at NXIVM. [BTW, I think they missed the boat on those 18 clips. It could have been a breakthrough cure for insomnia – for I, like many others, would have fallen fast asleep if required to view all 18.]
But returning to Dr. Porter, he does not hesitate to blame his impecuniousness on the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, Edmondson et al, against Raniere, et al.
But no wordsmith can do justice to Dr. Porter’s own heartfelt prose. So let us hear it in his native tongue:
First his request to appear by teleconference or by videoconference.
February 13, 2022
Brandon B. Porter
500 W. Hickman RD
Waukee, lA 40263
Hon. Eric R. Komitte:
The next Status Conference is scheduled for February 17, 2021. I am asking if I may attend the Status Conference remotely via teleconference or by videoconference. I live in central Iowa and travel to the court will incur substantial expense in time and money for me and my family (over $1000 for travel, expenses, and accommodations).
I can share with you my current finances if necessary. The malicious allegations within this suit significantly contributed to the difficulty I experience finding and keeping gainful employment and financially supporting my family.
Respectfully,
Brandon B. Porter
****
Om top of this Dr. Porter also advised the court in a letter that the attorney for the plaintiffs Neil Glazer got it all wrong in his filing that led to the Thursday court conference.
He wrote:
Hon. Eric R. Komitte:
I just saw Mr. Glazer’s request for an emergency status conference (Dkt. #140). I have no opinion on whether an emergency status conference is necessary.
I am writing to correct an error Mr. Glazer made while representing a social media post that I made. Mr. Glazer said that I posted on Sarah Edmondson’s public Facebook page. I didn’t post on her page, I posted on a common acquaintance’s page (Exhibit A).
Maybe this distinction doesn’t matter because I linked her name to my comment. I don’t know.
I will describe what I did and my intent.
A common acquaintance of Ms. Sarah Edmondson’s and mine posted links on his Facebook page to a recently released podcast (“A Little Bit Culty”) by Plaintiffs Sarah Edmondson and Anthony (“Nippy”) Ames.
Ms. Edmondson and Mr. Ames are married and have been profiting in the media off of their new expertise on cults. Their guest on the podcast was Plaintiff Mark Vicente. The three Plaintiffs spoke in two episodes for about two hours about their NXIVM stories, some of them fabricated, related to this civil complaint.
Mark Vicente was a board member for NXIVM and co-owner of two Executive Success Programs centers. Sarah Edmondson was a co-owner of an Executive Success Programs center. Nippy Ames was a professional coach in Executive Success Programs and a leader in a men’s organization that was part of NXIVM.
Sarah Edmondson, unknown, Anthony Nippu Ames and Alejandro ‘Alex’ Betancourt.
The Plaintiffs have extensively told their partially fabricated stories in multiple media outlets, including an HBO entertainment series starring them (Dkt. 88-2).
Ms. Edmondson wrote on our common acquaintance’s Facebook page “Thank you.” This was in response to a positive comment from our acquaintance and, I suspect, for sharing her podcast on social media.
I responded to her “Thank you,” with the following: “Sarah Edmondson, why are you suing me for racketeering, forced labor, forced sexual slavery, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and peonage? It looks like a joke, but this is very serious. When I applied for a medical license, they had a state prosecutor in the room because of these very serious charges.”
I wrote this question to Ms. Edmondson for a few reasons. First, I don’t know if she is aware that she is suing me for these charges. I knew Sarah for almost her whole time in Executive Success Programs, close to 12 years. Our children played together. It surprises me that she would make such egregious claims against me.
The First Amended Complaint (“FAG”) is so long, maybe she didn’t read the whole thing. My concern that Ms. Edmondson might not be fully aware of the specifics of her complaints against me also arose because I am aware that Jane Doe 51 asked to be removed from the suit before the FAC was filed on August 13, 2021.
For some reason, she: wasn’t removed from the complaint until November 5, 2021. This misrepresentation may have been a clerical error, but it suggested to me that there may be some confusion between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel elsewhere in this (not so) civil action.
Second, I wanted Sarah Edmondson and our common friends to see that the Plaintiffs are making preposterous claims against me and the other defendants. Maybe I made an error in doing so. I was thinking that this was a public forum and that my question to Ms. Edmondson would be supported by the First Amendment. I made this assumption based upon the three above mentioned Plaintiffs’ decisions to release a podcast talking about the narrative that brought us to this civil action, while their civil action was in process.
I suspected, and support, that they had a First Amendment right to do so, even if their stories included lies, lies that might, unfortunately, stand to enrich the plaintiffs even more than their multiple media deals have already.
These Plaintiffs made a significant amount of money (likely millions of dollars, together) in the NXIVM companies they are now calling a cult, they are making money taking down their former friends in the media, and now, they are seeking even more money in this court.
I was hoping to speak to Sarah’s conscience and the terrible reality that she is accusing me and her former friends of racketeering, forced labor, forced sexual slavery, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and peonage.
In my opinion, if Ms. Edmondson is actually threatened by the question I posed to her on Facebook, it might be a sign that she is feeling threatened by her conscience. Or, perhaps she is scared that her false narratives will tumble down. I don’t know. She is well-aware that I am non violent, and continue to be so, despite sustaining significant abuse from the entertainment “docuseries” and podcasts she and other Plaintiffs participated in and created.
I state that all of the information described above is true.
Respectfully,
Brandon B. Porter
