Unwrapping the enigma of the Barbara J. Bouchey

You know Bronfman’s, you might wish the public to think that you are some kind of persecuted and crucified women. But I’ll tell you, the view from the foot of Calvary, looks like you’re the ones pounding the nails.

The bankruptcy of Barbara J. Bouchey is starting to resemble the theater of the absurd since the women asked the court to allow her to hire a criminal attorney to protect her from the piranha’s at everyone’s favorite law office O’Connell and Aronowitz, home of SUPERLAWYER STEPHEN R. COFFEY and his trusted partner and Jr.sidekick Ms. Nichols.All of this is supported by documents found at the end of this story and from the June 2, 2009 deposition in the Precision Development lawsuit. Ms Bouchey did not contact me or give me any information in this story directly or indirectly.
It is taken from public records that any blogger with a high speed modem and a chip on his shoulder can access. Seems the Bronfman brats are claiming that Bouchey by insisting that during a 6-8 month period that began sometime in 2001, Raniere lost $7 million in the commodities market that included her life savings of $1.65 million. That somehow by claiming this, she is guilty of extortion for having the audacity to even bring it up. They go on to claim that Bouchey publicly has humiliated them. Richard Croak, Bankruptcy attorney for Bouchey also claims that Albany DA David Soares is in the pocket of the Bronfman brats{see documents at the end} or full motion {here}

Bouchey has gone out and hired Pamela D. Hayes a competent and famous Manhattan attorney. The only problem is she doesn’t come cheap at over $450 dollars an hour. And it seems that this action couldn’t have come at a better time as shyster Steve Coffey filed his own motion today

{HERE}

Also on small point the last notation on the Coffey motion is Scr/Bronfman/afns.doc. I would guess the Bronfmans who are really NXIVM, are still paying little Stevie and Pam

So what else might Bouchey know?

Let’s see what’s in that the June 2, 2009 deposition in the Precision Development lawsuit. in a nutshell
While a member of NXIVM, she:
Started the Vanguard Library Forum Committee;
Started the NXIVM Café (This is an unlicensed facility at the NXIVM
Center at 455 New Karner Road);
Started the Vanguard Library Fund;

Started – and served as President of The Ethical Humanitarian Foundation (She has testified elsewhere that she was merely the Bronfman sisters’ bookkeeper for this entity); and Raised “about $400,000” for The Ethical Humanitarian Foundation (Approximately $168,000 of these funds are unaccounted for.
During a 6-8 month period that began sometime in 2001,
Raniere lost $7 million in the commodities market (This is at least $3 million more than has ever been reported). This included her life savings of $1.65 million;
$1.4 million that was borrowed from Michael Sutton;
$700,000 that was borrowed from her cousin, Chrissey Carey; and
$200,000 that was borrowed from Noelle Nielsen (She said that Noelle Nielsen was “paid back with interest”).
Raniere offered the following excuses to explain his losses
in the commodities market:
The clearing firm was rigging the prices;
There was a conspiracy in the marketplace
against him – and the market was being rigged against him (Note: According
to Raniere, others in the market knew that it was him doing the trading); -
The “universal forces” were working
against him because he was a “spiritual being”; and -
The market was crashing because of
Barbara J. Bouchey s emotional reaction to the loss of her money.

Sometime after the Bronfman sisters became involved with
NXIVM, Raniere started doing commodities trading again. Over a short
period of time, he lost $65-$70 million, all of which was covered via loans
from the Bronfman sisters.

The original budget for the Precision Development project was $13 million. This eventually grew to $26 million.
• She stated that she found the following things objectionable
about NXIVM (It’s hard to believe that this was all she found objectionable):
-The leadership conducts itself in a
personal way at times;-
The leadership shows favoritism and not intragroup exchanges;

- The leadership has secrets and things
they don’t divulge to the community;
-
The leadership is not transparent;
-
The leadership has labeled her a“full suppressive”; and
-
The leadership uses manipulation of people.

• She has relied on a psychic named Robert Petro “for coaching
and psychic means” – and has paid him “thousands a year” for his
services. She also said that she had used other psychics over the past 5 years.
• She stated that she is aware that “…most of NXIVM is funded
by the Bronfmans” (The quoted language actually came from the Bronfman
sisters’ Robert D. Crockett).

So you can just imagine what else she knows
Coffey is dragging her in for a Rule 2004 examination in his office September 24 from 1 to 4 o’clock. Just to be a pain in the ass.
Note of legal point for Bouchey you do not have to acquiesce to the demand that this Rule 2004. Examination be held in the law office O’Connell and Aronowitz,.You can have it almost anywhere. I would also be happy to attend on your behalf just ask.





Rule 2004. Examination
(a) Examination on motion.
On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.
(b) Scope of examination.
The examination of an entity under this rule or of the debtor under § 343 of the Code may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate, or to the debtor's right to a discharge. In a family farmer's debt adjustment case under chapter 12, an individual's debt adjustment case under chapter 13, or a reorganization case under chapter 11 of the Code, other than for the reorganization of a railroad, the examination may also relate to the operation of any business and the desirability of its continuance, the source of any money or property acquired or to be acquired by the debtor for purposes of consummating a plan and the consideration given or offered therefor, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.
(c) Compelling attendance and production of documentary evidence.
The attendance of an entity for examination and for the production of documents, whether the examination is to be conducted within or without the district in which the case is pending, may be compelled as provided in Rule 9016 for the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial. As an officer of the court, an attorney may issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of the court for the district in which the examination is to be held if the attorney is admitted to practice in that court or in the court in which the case is pending.
(d) Time and place of examination of debtor.
The court may for cause shown and on terms as it may impose order the debtor to be examined under this rule at any time or place it designates, whether within or without the district wherein the case is pending.
(e) Mileage.
An entity other than a debtor shall not be required to attend as a witness unless lawful mileage and witness fee for one day's attendance shall be first tendered. If the debtor resides more than 100 miles from the place of examination when required to appear for an examination under this rule, the mileage allowed by law to a witness shall be tendered for any distance more than 100 miles from the debtor's residence at the date of the filing of the first petition commencing a case under the Code or the residence at the time the debtor is required to appear for the examination, whichever is the lesser