Barbara Bouchey won a mayor Victory today as the Bronfman Brats lawsuit has been dismissed and they're going to have to assert any claims they have against her back here in her bankruptcy case - and she gets to keep her files and records concerning their $100 million of NXIVM-related expenditures.
Here's to you Ms. Bouchey
Unleash the hounds and let the falcons fly;
our fields are filled with rats and mice and moles
who eat our wheat and tunnel ‘neath our rye.
Unleash the hounds and let the falcons fly,
to hunt the vermin in our food supply,
to rip them from their nests and hidden holes.
Unleash the hounds and let the falcons fly;
Our fields are filled with rats and mice and moles
Statement from Barbara Bouchey
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Re: Ruling in US Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of New York
“I am very pleased with the court’s ruling today to allow my Chapter 11 filing to proceed, and to reject the motion by the Bronfmans to interfere with this process. I am anxious to move forward with the difficult but necessary task of reorganizing my business and personal finances.
My involvement in and cooperation with the extensive ongoing litigation surrounding NXIVM and its principals has been very costly to me personally and I have no choice but to seek relief from the bankruptcy court at this time.
However, I am pleased the judge denied the Bronfman’s request to continue their lawsuit against me in California, and that both parties have now agreed that case (Bronfman v. Bouchey, LA Superior Court) will be withdrawn.
I look forward to getting my financial reorganization plan in place with the federal court and returning full time to my financial planning practice.
I would like to add as a Catholic I am a firm believer in personal redemption regardless of ones beliefs or no beliefs at all. I think Bouchey is well on her way to exposing this cult for the con people they are.
Below her lawyers winning motion
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In Re: Barbara J. Bouchey
Case No. 10-12207
MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY 11 U.S.C. §362(a) STAY
Dated: June 15, 2010
/s/ Richard Croak
Attorney For Debtor
The following is a brief summary of the relevant facts. Clare and Sara Bronfman are
members of the Nxivm cult. The debtor, Barbara Bouchey is a prior cult member. Over the years
it has been the cult’s modus operandi to harass former members with frivolous law suits. Most
relevant to the current litigation is a case in
the Bronfmans and the Plyams. The Plyams subpoena the business record of Bouchey. The
current application pending before this Court is in part to deny the Plyams the ability to
introduce Bouchey’s business records. Apparently these records which have never left New
The LA County case is brought on the assumption that some tort occurred in
But what tort could it be answering a subpoena in
Bronfman allegations is that Bouchey is a fiduciary. She is not. Saying it over and over again
does not make it true. Not one case of a financial planner being a fiduciary exists.
The order to show cause was submitted in violation of F.R.C.P. 65 and F.R.B.P. 7065.
No attempt was made to comply. The answering papers still fail to state any grounds for relief.
No explanation is given for the deliberate violation of the local rule.
There are Four Factors that Must Be Shown to Justify the Issuance of A Temporary
Restraining Order. None exist in This Case.
(1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; (2) whether the injunction will save the
plaintiff from irreparable injury; (3) whether the injunction would harm others; and (4) whether
the public interest would be served by the injunction. See In re: The Fairchild Corporation, et al.,
Chapter 11, Debtors. Case No. 09-10899 (CSS) (Bankr. D.Del., 2009) Docket No. And In re
SHELLY'S, INC., 87 B.R. 931 (Bankr. S.D.
The moving papers failed to set forth any of the four criteria or even mention them. Most
specifically the movants failed to show irreparable injury or any injury that would result for the
debtor maintaining her business records. The argument seems to be that the Bronfmans have an
interest in the debtor’s records. If so where does it come from. There exists no statute or common
law basis for an individual to claim an interest in another’s business records. Saying that these
records are the Bronfmans’ records is a falsehood. The Bronfmans records were returned
already. These are the debtors records maintained in the ordinary course of business. To deny her
use of her own records (as the TRO here does) prevents her from engaging in her occupation.
The California Action is Without Merit, and There is No Likelihood of Success for The Movants
in that Action.
As set forth in the papers of Debtor Bouchey’s
merit to the
there in no jurisdiction exists for the case in
Moreover, the subject matter of the suit is a set of documents that reside in
The question is why go to
Debtor has paid Allred, Maroko & Goldberg $49,905.68 and owes another $32,777.03 in fees for
defending her in what is clearly a frivolous action. See exhibit B
The movants violated both the Local and Federal Rules of procedure bring on what is a
completely meritless motion. The relief should be denied in all respects.
The loosing brief is HERE