Cult News

Today the Albany Times-Union reported about the last gasp of NXIVM’s injunction dreams to purge criticism of the group from the Internet.

Self-proclaimed “Prefect” nurse Nancy Salzman, top disciple of so-called “Vanguard” NXIVM creator Keith Raniere, released a prepared statement to the press.

“We’re obviously disappointed with the court’s decision, which we believe is a blow to the sanctity of copyright protection. We believe there are fundamental property rights issues at stake, and we intend to continue to pursue vigorously all possible causes of action against the defendants.”

“A blow to the sanctity of copyright protection”?

That’s not what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in Manhattan when it ruled.

“Defendants writings are undoubtedly transformative secondary uses intended as a form of criticism. All the alleged harm arises from the biting criticism of this fair use, not from a usurpation of the market by…defendants.’ Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction on the copyright infringement claim because plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits,” the court decision stated.

Interestingly, the court ruling also included a substantial smash against NXIVM’s effort to essentially gag its students through a confidentiality agreement. The court said that “even a finding of bad faith [i.e. violation of that agreement] by defendants would not automatically preclude that their use was fair use.”

And as the Albany Times-Union reported today NXIVM’s appeal to overturn that definitive ruling at the Supreme Court was answered with silence, allowing the previous court ruling to stand as definitive.

NXIVM’s “Prefect” says she will now “pursue vigorously all possible causes of action.”

But what cause is left in NXIVM’s crusade against public criticism?

A motion for summary judgement to dismiss the entire NXIVM lawsuit is now pending before the same Albany federal court that first rejected its injunction request.

The judge in Albany may find himself in agreement with his Manhattan judicial colleagues, who found that the controversial organization’s “causes of action” were “without merit.”