Rick Alan Ross

Rick Alan Ross testified for the prosecution on Day 22 about publishing critical reports on Executive Success Programs, NXIVM's resulting lawsuit, and investigative activity directed at him. He traced the reports to interventions requested by the Sutton family and training notes from Stephanie Franco that reached doctors John Hochman and Paul Martin. Ross said the civil lawsuit lasted 14 years and ended in summary judgment, which he believed occurred in December 2017.

Ross described receiving unsolicited copies of private bank and telephone records and being told that NXIVM investigators had obtained them. He also recounted an Interfor-arranged intervention proposal that he said he later learned was staged. No intervention occurred. On redirect, he identified an unfamiliar folder bearing his name and containing personal information marked private and confidential.

The government also elicited Ross's account of an earlier involuntary adult intervention. He acknowledged an adverse civil judgment despite a criminal acquittal and said he subsequently stopped accepting involuntary adult interventions. When the defense objected that he was offering unnoticed expert opinions, the government identified him as a fact witness and the court directed narrower, case-specific questioning. The court admitted the Forbes article only to establish steps taken by people involved, not for its truth.

On cross-examination, Marc Agnifilo questioned Ross's payment by Michael Sutton's parents, his hope that family members would leave NXIVM, and his refusal to remove the reports after the family requested it. Ross disputed the defense's account of the family conflict and defended continued publication as helpful to other families. He acknowledged that Hochman and Martin had not interviewed the Sutton family or taken NXIVM courses and that their reports were not peer-reviewed, while emphasizing their experience and the materials they reviewed.

Agnifilo also displayed three Bronfman checks, two for $5,000 and one for $2,500, after Ross initially recalled only one. Ross acknowledged the additional checks without recalling them and corrected his account of a check's deposit into the Institute account rather than direct endorsement to a law firm. He attributed the July 2004 check to the Landmark Education defense fund and maintained that its proceeds ultimately paid legal costs. On redirect, he confirmed litigation contributions but retained his qualified recollection. The defense declined recross, and Ross was excused.