Editor’s Note:  According to Neil Glazer in his most recent filing, there are now 12 individuals out of seventy-one who don’t want their full names revealed. Suneel Chakravorty is one of those who believe that all plaintiffs in the civil suit should be named. Some of his colleagues suggest they will name them publicly. The following is Suneel’s editorial, unedited. The opinions expressed by Suneel are his own and do not represent the opinions or position of Frank Report.

Suneel Chakravorty

I agree with Michele Hatchette in that the civil lawsuit plaintiffs should not hide behind anonymity.

They are all adults. This is not about threats or intimidation. It is not about the criminal case, but about the civil, which is all about money.

Glazer’s proposed anonymity has nothing to do with “protecting victims” in the criminal case. It has to do with obfuscating the many lies in the civil and the fact that the whole complaint has been “Bronfmanized.”

Let’s look into this further.

Why Not Have Anonymity?

Anonymity in civil and criminal cases allows accusers afraid of retaliation to come forward. But that doesn’t apply here.

Many have gone public since the criminal trial. Mark Vicente was a star on HBO. India Oxenberg was a star on STARZ. Jessica Joan revealed her identity on the CBS Morning Show to 2+ million viewers. No one has retaliated against them. On the contrary, the public has lauded and supported them.

Victim Mark Vicente starred in HBO’s The Vow

Victim India Oxenberg starred in Seduced.

Victim Jessica Joan has published a book and hosts a podcast.

Victim Anthony ‘Nippy’ Ames co-hosts a podcast, “A Little Bit Culty.”

Victim Bonnie Piesse recently landed a role in a Star Wars spin-off.

As for Camila and Daniela, they have the most sensitive claims in the civil lawsuit and could benefit the most from anonymity.

However, Mexican media has already published their full names more than a hundred times.

If this proposed anonymity were truly about protecting the plaintiffs, there doesn’t seem to be anything legitimate to protect them from.

It’s not to be construed that I don’t like does, and here’s the proof. I just want their names told.

Here’s Why Not

There is another aspect to anonymity for the accusers: the accused gets a presumption of guilt.

The media and the public label anyone who dares to even examine the accusations as a “victim shamer” or even a “victimizer” themselves and they are silenced.

That’s what, in my opinion, is being threatened to be done to Michele.

Alan Dershowitz discussed this very dynamic in his interview with the Jerusalem Post: “This is a call for censorship and for only one side of a disputed accusation to be heard. It is precisely this censorial attitude that prevailed during McCarthyism, when people were falsely accused of communist affiliation and were denied airtime to defend themselves.”

Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz continues, “[t]he result of this one-sided presentation is to deny the public information necessary to evaluate the comparative credibility of the accusers and the accused.”

Due process demands equal justice under the law, but if the Jane and John Does get a bias in their favor because of their anonymity, how can there be equal justice?

In the courts of Garaufis and Glazer, everyone is equal under the law, but some are more equal than others.

Anonymity also can encourage false accusations.

There are many lies that are in this civil lawsuit and most of  the plaintiffs’ claims have nothing to do with the Bronfmans.

That’s a problem, because the Bronfmans have the money, and Glazer’s plaintiffs can’t blame the Bronfmans for everything.

Clare and Sara Bronfman.

There’s no evidence they knew anything about Daniela’s confinement in “the room” or Cami’s alleged abuse in 2005. They didn’t even know about the existence of DOS until after it was public.

Thus, I’m not sure how Daniela, Camila, or the DOS plaintiffs have a case against Sara or Clare.

Should Michele Just Shut Up?

In his letter (no. 136), Glazer writes in a footnote, “Ms. Hachette seems to believe this is protected First Amendment speech, but it may constitute coercion in the third degree, a felony offense under NYS Penal Law § 135.60.”

Michele Hatchette

Neil Glazer wants Michele to shut the frig up.

This footnote about criminal prosecution sounds to me like an implied threat. I’m not sure about attorney ethics but, if so, this is exactly the kind of “extortionate demand” Glazer accuses Michele of earlier in the letter.

If Michele names names, I predict that many of the Jane and John Does who know their claims are false will leave the lawsuit. The remaining plaintiffs will have no case against the Bronfmans, and the payday Glazer promised his plaintiffs will not come to pass.

I believe that is what worries Mr. Glazer about Michele’s statement.

A Final Note

This is a message for those plaintiffs with the “sheep’s eye and licorice tooth.” Let’s have some facts of life. If the judge doesn’t dismiss this case, it’ll be years before it goes to trial. There will be discovery, and depositions and the like.

It will be years before anyone sees any money, because the Bronfmans follow a legal strategy that many wealthy people follow: never settle.

Much like the Glazer lawsuit, this donut looks good but there may not be enough dough to go around.