Allison Mack turned 39 yesterday, July 29th, just a day after she learned that her fellow DOS founding sister, and senior-to-her in the NXIVM hierarchy, Lauren Salzman, got probation for the same charges to which Allion pleaded guilty: racketeering and racketeering conspiracy.
Mack got three years in prison.
To date, we have Keith Raniere with 120 years.
Clare Bronfman with 6.75 years [triple the sentencing guideline]
Mack with three years [about 20 percent of her sentencing guidelines of 14.5-17 years].
Salzman got probation [in lieu of sentencing guidelines of around 8 years]
While Salzman, 45, can breathe easy, and continue to develop her dog-grooming business – or even switch careers yet again – since there is nothing in the terms of her probation that require the lady to continue in that low-paying field, Mack is preparing for prison. She reports to whatever prison she is assigned to at the end of September.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis asked the Bureau of Prisons to assign Mack to a California prison near to her family’s home in Orange County, something I think will likely be honored by the BOP.
It is perhaps unfair that Mack got prison while the much more high-ranking Salzman got only probation, but that is the nature of the system – the judge has enormous discretion in sentencing.
There are many arguments to be made that if Salzman got probation, Mack should have gotten the same. It is possible that Mack might, based on Salzman’s sentence of probation for similar conduct, appeal her sentence based on disparity of sentencing.
While I am no expert, I doubt this is likely since the sentence Mack got was far lower than her sentencing guidelines suggested – and it is clearly within the judge’s discretion to give Salzman probation and Mack three years.
I find it hard to conceive of a scenario where the appellate judges at the Second Circuit would want to overturn that sentence, adopting the position that the judged erred in some substantive way, instead of presuming he had a better understanding of what was appropriate for each defendant based on his considerable experience, knowledge as the trial judge, and the consequent deliberations on the rightness of each woman’s sentencing.
Why the Difference
Perhaps the signal difference between the two women’s sentences were that Salzman committed a serious criminal act in assisting in the confinement of Daniela – and that she knew far more about Keith Raniere’s history, having been with him some 20 years.
Mack, however, had a more virulent group of victims who wanted her punished. Salzman’s victims, for the most part, wanted leniency for her.
It seems that Mack also pushed a lot harder for her slaves to have sex with Raniere or to at least perform a seduction assignment with him. But both women recruited women as slaves, rabidly took collateral, and some of the women they recruited were branded.
If I recall correctly, Salzman recruited six women and Mack recruited four – and one of Allison’s slaves, India, recruited Jessica who recruited someone else – making a total of six slaves.
About half or a little more were branded. All gave collateral.
The other big difference is that Salzman was utilized by the prosecution and the judge got to see her as she testified for several days.
He saw her up close and heard her voice for hours as she told her story – a tale of victimization far more than perpetration. He heard her cry several times on the witness stand and, finally, when she was cross-examined and she broke down in tears when asked if she thought she had criminal intent, she burst the boundaries of her previous crying and appeared to be approaching a full breakdown.
The judge – whether right or wrong – stopped the cross-examination. It is now an issue on appeal.
Her tears, it seemed, moved him to invoke a very primal instinct – the desire of a man to protect a woman.
And he already invested in protecting her, protected her again by sparing her prison. I am not suggesting for one instant that any of this behavior was wrong – for it is well within his discretion to do all these things – except perhaps the suspending of the cross-examination.
Mack Did Not Get Close to the Judge
Mack did not appear in real-time at the trial as Salzman did for days – seated near the judge on the witness stand. The judge’s only contact with Mack was during brief hearings when she would usually fly in from California and where her lawyers did the talking for her.
The only personal interchange I remember is when Mack’s attorneys requested a brief restroom break for her – and if I recall correctly, the judge in granting it quipped to her, “Didn’t I see you in the café earlier drinking coffee?”
That was the same day when Allison was overheard by a Frank Report correspondent, in the restroom, saying, in response to someone also there who said, “Thanks for getting us the restroom break, I really needed it,” “I’m good at taking one for the team.”
Then We Had the Trial
While Salzman was physically present during her testimony and the prosecution, therefore, was careful not to elicit not too much brutal conduct testimony about Salzman from other witnesses – since Salzman was their star cooperating witness and they wanted the jury to be sympathetic towards her – much of the trial featured a virtual shit show of bad acts about Mack in order to hammer Raniere.
Mark Vicente, Nicole, and Jessica Joan lambasted Mack, portraying her as a zealot with a mean streak, and a view of her which is not how most who know Mack describe her. In addition, we had India Oxenberg, who, though she did not appear as a witness at trial, made a docuseries that certainly did not help Mack’s public image. That – and Vicente’s the Vow – combined to make Mack most villainous – which is something perhaps she deserved or maybe not.
Mack was high profile and attractive –and sympathetic women publicly condemned her as horrific.
Salzman was lower profile and her victims also kept a lower profile – with the exception of Sarah Edmondson, who, ultimately, weighed in to forgive Lauren and ask the judge for leniency for her.
Conversely, Jessica Joan appeared at Mack’s sentencing and called her a monster.
Mack, it seems, almost had to get a prison sentence based on the concept of deterrence. The public knew she was accused of sex trafficking and for her to get probation would have been quite a scandal.
As it was, there were many who condemned the shortness of the sentence of Mack, but few who spoke against the probation of Lauren Salzman. This may be understandable.
Mack is important, while Salzman not – at least not to the public.
[Yet in NXIVM-world – Salzman was important, probably third or fourth in command, and Mack was not – except for recruitment purposes. In NXIVM, there were literally dozens of women who ranked higher than her.]
At their respective sentencing hearings, dozens of reporters swarmed the courthouse to cover Mack. Only a handful was there for Salzman.
There was no hue and cry to crucify Salzman. There was for Mack.
That, more than anything, might explain why two women – who appeared to be equally guilty, and equally victims, or equally both – got such disparate sentences. And they are disparate – for one is going to prison and the other was spared – and that is a huge difference – and a difference that I, for one, do not entirely see in their conduct.
Or even in their efforts at change subsequent to their arrest. Lauren became a dog groomer – and Mack went to college and worked as a caterer.
There is one more thing, something the prosecution said, that rankles me – and perhaps it is something that Salzman takes the cake for – but it was the prosecution who took the trouble to mention it as they recommended a lower sentence for Salsman.
“Lauren Salzman provided extraordinary assistance to the government’s investigation and prosecution of this case. She met with the government on dozens of occasions, both in proffers and in preparation for trial testimony, and answered all the government’s questions, including questions about crimes she committed, as well as criminal activity engaged in by her close friends and family members, including her mother.”
It is the last part of the government’s statement – that Lauren informed on “criminal activity engaged in by her close friends and family members, including her mother” – that stands out in my mind. Not so much that she did it – but that the prosecution would see this as admirable. To inform on your close friends, family members, and your mother.
The prosecution need not have added the last. They could have said she answered all questions about crimes she committed and that Raniere committed – or that she was extraordinarily forthcoming – but they also included the fact that she informed on her close friends, her family [.i.e. her sister and brother-in-law], and her mother. That this could be considered something praiseworthy is a bit jarring to me.
It smells of a woman who would sacrifice anything or anyone to save the most important thing in her life. It may not be true. Maybe her mother was OK with it, but it is bizarre that the prosecution should consider this worthy of note – and laud it or think that it would help her.
Judge Garaufis said of Raniere, “I’m just a local guy here in Brooklyn. But you’ve got a 14-year-old child who’s never been supported by his father who has been busy working the commodities markets for tens of millions of dollars and can’t find it in his heart to send a few bucks to his child. Why should anyone look upon that person as someone who is worthy of respect?”
To paraphrase the judge, I’m just a guy from Buffalo, but as for a woman who would inform on her close friends, her sister and her mother – why should anyone look upon that person as someone who is worthy of respect?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Note the key criminal evidence of restraint during branding logically should apply to surgeons as well since after coercing signed waivers, they then proceed to drugging and often restraining their victims/patients.
Really, tattoo parlors often restrain people asking for branding and even in some cases, more painful tattoos.
Because the court barred asking the key defense question — “What happens if the person is not restrained during branding and they move dramatically?” Yeah, things go from an almost tasteful little brand that heals well to a much bigger smeared rip across serious territory.
Manipulation did go on. And I have no doubt that coercion of some level occurred when people tried to leave. More importantly, situations about location, involved persons and acts performed went far beyond what had originally been suggested without warning. Basically, the concept of safe words and freedom to exit immediately into a safe controlled situation were thrown out the door due to international transport and drugs. But making the branding a key point was just stupid and a travesty of justice.
RE: Rereading this article.
I skimmed through this article, my first read, after reading it again I’m wondering what Lauren said to the DOJ about her sister and brother-in-law.
Her brother-in-law hacked people’s computers, but what did Lauren’s sister do?
Also, I have to wonder if any of the information Lauren shared with the FBI about her hacker brother-in-law could help absolve John Tighe…..
I don’t understand why people seem to have forgotten that Allison Mack’s initials are in the brand along with KR’s… does anyone believe that KR would’ve demanded that inclusion himself? (Hint: NO CHANCE.) They’re all monsters, but Mack seems to be sadistic and into causing pain and disfigurement on a level nearly commensurate with KR, and on top of that, she refused to fully cooperate with the feds. That said, it’s still surprising that Lauren got zero jail time. Snitches may get stitches, but it appears that they also get much shorter sentences!
Because they aren’t. It has been stated time and time again, that they are just Keith Alan Raniere’s initials.
Thanks for a great article, Frank! I really enjoyed it. Well written. As far as the last sentence goes though–
“To paraphrase the judge, I’m just a guy from Buffalo, but as for a woman who would inform on her close friends, her sister and her mother – why should anyone look upon that person as someone who is worthy of respect?”
I can see it from the prosecution’s point of view that it was a good thing. It showed that she was willing to be absolutely honest. She was finally obeying the law and doing whatever was necessary to expose the truth and expose any crimes — regardless of who committed them — herself or even her own mother. Lauren was willing to do what was right. It shows her as upstanding.
I know what you mean, it is weird to rat out your mother. But there were crimes committed and she was being honest and truthful. Her mother wasn’t exactly fair to her — as far as letting her get wrapped with scum bag Raniere — and encouraging her to waste her life on a shady cult. Not to mention, Nancy was the first one to plead, leaving Lauren (and everyone else) in the lurch. Nancy takes care of herself. I don’t condemn Lauren for doing the same.
lol @Frank Parlato To paraphrase the judge, “I’m just a guy from New York, but as for a man who would betray the whole world for his family, even if his family was part of the criminal mafia – why should anyone look upon that person as someone who is worthy of respect?”
Yea. time for you to get over your bias, and deal with the fact that it’s only thanks to your mom that you haven’t betrayed the world yet. In the case of Lauren, she has agency over her loyalty, but you don’t. Sorry, I am sure you’ll continue trying to cry. it’s ok.
If it’s unthinkably disloyal and unethical to turn in your mother, why is okay to turn in your lover, closest friend and mentor?
Because that’s what Mack did. She turned on Raniere a few weeks before her own trial was about to begin, and it looks awfully like she turned on him to save her own skin.
So I’m curious, Frank, how come you seem to have respect for Mack?
Mack was Raniere’s partner in every sense of the word. She was as close to him as any wife could be. She literally worshipped the man, and how many wives are that close to their man?
And yet she sold him down the river. And got the charges against her significantly reduced in exchange. Plus a greatly reduced sentence on the two remaining charges.
How is that honorable? Betraying the man she loved and honored, the man she had devoted herself to exclusively, body and soul?
After all, she chose him above her own family. That was made clear in their letters to the judge.
If we should stick with our family through thick and thin, no matter what, even if they have committed felonies, and never inform on them no matter what crimes they commit, doesn’t that ethical principle apply to husbands and wives (and sister-wives)? Doesn’t it apply to our life partners with or without the bit of paper that’s a marriage certificate?
It seems to me that if Lauren Salzman bears the black mark of turning on family, Allison Mack bears the same mark for turning on her life partner, best friend, lover, and de facto husband.
Just curious how you reconcile this discrepancy. Personally, I don’t think we’re obligated to hold family above the law. Not as an absolute ethical obligation.
I do not have respect for Allison Mack. She is even weaker than Lauren Salzman. She debased and humiliated herself and if she thought it would have helped her to walk in on all fours into court and lick the judge’s hand, she would have done it.
Lauren was just luckier and smarter than Allison. That said, I would still have liked to see both women get probation. I think it is unfair that Mack got three years and Salzman probation.
Finally, I don’t think we’re obligated to hold family above the executive branch of the government. But the reverse is also true. I do not think we are obligated to hold the executive branch of government over family either.
As for the legislative branch – it is clear that the people are empowered by the jury to ratify laws or veto them. There are not a lot of laws I would turn in my mother on.
Yes, if she were a serial murderer. No, if their target was a cult leader whom my mother happened to follow even if she participated in the cult – a cult that is effectively shut down. And I would not turn informant on a sister, as Lauren did, or a brother-in-law when they were not major players.
I would provide assistance for the prosecution of Raniere and conscientiously object to informing on my family, who were not the leaders, and my close friends who were not the leaders. Lauren’s willingness to betray everyone in her life – regardless of how important or insignificant to the case – is really rather an ugly episode and perhaps the ugliest thing about this entire case is not Raniere but the prosecution crowing about how Lauren deserved leniency because she betrayed her close friends, her family, and even her mother.
Keep in mind one more thing. Lauren did not cooperate until the case was only 60 days out from trial. The prosecution is supposed to be trial-ready when they indict and have the evidence to convict. In theory at the time of indictment – which was months earlier – they should have had all they needed to convict Raniere and all the others.
If they didn’t, then they should not have indicted. The idea that the prosecution indicts first and develops a case afterward is designed for such as Salzman, a weak person who would do anything to save her skin. While I agree she should have given information on Raniere, I still think it despicable that she turned on her sister and mother, etc.
But it is merely my opinion.
This is an interesting ethical question, just how much loyalty we owe family. I don’t think there are any absolute answers but I’m interested in your thoughts on the subject.
I don’t see this as a question of loyalty divided between family and the government but between family and society.
In the Phaedo, Socrates has been condemned to death by Athens for the crime of impiety. He knows he is innocent yet he willingly drinks the poison, though his friends try to argue him out of it. It’s a strange book, foreign to our modern sensibilities, yet Socrates’ argument is difficult to refute. He knows that as a civilized man he owes more to society than he owes even to himself. To quote Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. To Socrates, civilized society depends on respect for the law, even from an individual who disagrees with that law.
I think there is much to be said for that kind of austere, coldly logical and objective approach to ethical issues. I wish Judge Garaufis had used more of it.
“and perhaps the ugliest thing about this entire case is not Raniere but the prosecution crowing about how Lauren deserved leniency because she betrayed her close friends, her family, and even her mother.”
This statement undercuts Frank’s stellar work in bringing down Raniere. I guess he’s not entirely serious here, so I take it with a grain of salt…..
The prosecution did a surgical strike to send a message and chose a sympathetic figure to deal with. They did not want to give a probation-only sentence to a trust fund brat, or a celebrity actress. That would look like bias to the elite. Lauren’s Mom fell on the sword and blamed herself for introducing her to the cult. So, Lauren could cooperate and get probation and she is not wealthy or a celebrity. And her actions can be blamed on the mother. I expect that Nancy will get hammered with a tough sentence – the hiding of the illegal cash won’t help any.
Frank: Didn’t you have a tv show on the missing women of Nxvim, who were essentially murder victims?
Based on your own show and investigation, you cannot rule out that Nancy Salzman is a murderer. Maybe Lauren now sees it for what they are. You don’t know. It is a bit arrogant to claim that you would be different and that is morally better.
If your mother is a murderer (which nancy appears to be), you need to turn her in.
We don’t know also what sick dynamic Lauren’s sister and her husband also played. He was dating Daniela and was OK with her being locked away. That says a lot about the guy. He was also using brain monitoring tech. Maybe he is another Doctor Porter. They could be dangerous.
It is important to stop evil…
Didn’t Nxivm try to kill Rick Ross? In India’s show ‘Seduced’, Ross talks of being invited out to sea by Nxivm for a ruse ‘client’, after he tried to extract some people from that cult for their parents… – easy way to get rid of someone.
That’s interesting and a good point, Frank. I don’t know much about what Lauren shared or what she was obligated or not obligated to share. It doesn’t seem like anything she told the Gov’t about her sister and brother-in-law had any adverse effects, though. Did they? And as far as Nancy.. she was a huge criminal in that organization and I think it was absolutely necessary for Lauren to tell whatever she knew about her actions– regardless of the fact that she’s her mother.
But you have raised some interesting points.
In the eyes of the court, I can see how Lauren did the right thing.
But in the eyes of another judge… maybe not so much.
Is Lauren a Licensed or Unlicensed dog groomer?
Unlicensed Dog Grooming Alarms Local News Reporter
https://reason.com/2021/07/29/unlicensed-dog-grooming-alarms-local-news-reporter/
New York State does not require any sort of certification or license to work as a Dog Groomer. Nor does it require any sort of certification or license to work as a Counselor.
So, Lauren and her Mom can continue working in their chosen professions without any concern that they’re breaking any laws by doing so.
Counselor? Like msw, family counselor?
Licenses are required for certain types of counselors in New York State:e.g., Mental Health Counselors. But, under the applicable statutes, anyone can engage in the practice of counseling — and call themselves a Counselor — without having any sort of license or any specific training. That’s how Nancy originally started out in her pre-NXIVM/ESP days — and why she had to run her bills through someone who actually had the credentials that the Medicaid program requires before it will pay for such services.
The one who should have gotten probation is Keith. He never lied to any of his slaves. They knew the brand was his initials. Lauren lied. Allison lied.
Keith never branded anyone. It’s always blame the man. All they wanted to do was give him tribute.
I’m so tired of this. Lauren gets probation. Allison gets three years and Keith gets 120 years. And Lauren and Allison committed all the crimes.
So unfair
Lucy Brown = Loosey Brown stains = anal leakage
You are right. I had not seen it that way. very crazy how the women are getting off. Nancy Salzman will likely also get a tiny sentence
Ok, pea.
That’s the entire point of RICO. None of this would’ve happened without Keith manipulatively, deceptively and coercively suggesting or ordering it.
I think they should say something like, “Master brand me. It would be my honor.” — so I can “get off” (double entendre) from being held accountable.
It was ever Keith’s BS way of shirking any responsibility — “Well, I didn’t do it”. He’s a conniving, overcompensating little man.
He went after women for years and years, litigated them into the ground. He did a ton of harm, never mind the earlier MLM losses and the money he lost commodities trading, he didn’t pay child support and all sorts. Without him, I doubt many of the various wrongs would have taken place. He seems to have gone to bed with girls who were under age too. He brought all this on himself. He could instead have pursued a career that did not break the law like the rest of us.
One doesn’t “go to bed” with “girls who are under age”. Adult men. (like Raniere) rape children if they have sex with them.
It’s rape. Not a mutual sex act.
If you are sexually using or exploiting children, you are raping them.
There are legal statutes. It’s against the law. Adults are prohibited from having sex with children.
He’s a rapist. Rhiannon was raped. Repeatedly.
Keith Raniere is a sexual predator of children.
Frank, after KAR’s arrest and extradition, I recall you wrote a piece to the inner circle. That it was time to turn on KAR, and help the prosecution’s case. Prefect was the first. It’s interesting that Lauren just did it better and was more valuable. I also recall you tried to sway Mack. But she stayed married to Cline and supportive of KAR.
In my recollection, you said the last one would get the longest sentence.
Seems you forecast the outcome but are too paternal of Mack. She made her decision on how and when to come forward. At least she did not get charged with sex trafficking.
Lauren, I have not decided if she is just lucky and listens well or is just really evil and SUPER SMART.
Hopefully, the judge and prosecutors got it right.
A small point in the context of your overall comment but since this issue may be raised in conjunction with Keith’s appeal, I want to once again clarify that he was not extradited from Mexico. Instead, he was expelled from that country – and delivered back to his home country, the United States of America, whereupon he was arrested by U.S. authorities.
From what I know,
Mack didn’t help the prosecution until after India had turned in a bag of recordings between Mack and Raniere about DOS
These recordings were left in their apartment when Mack was arrested.
India turned herself in to avoid being arrested. I’m assuming she used these tapes as a chip to avoid criminal charges for herself.
The importance of these tapes showed that Raniere was the head of DOS and proved, among other things, that it was Raniere’s plan to have the women say “Master, please brand me”, so it didn’t look like they were forced brandings.
That is very different from how Lauren Salzman helped the prosecution by providing them with a wider scope of the crimes committed in NXIVM and the people who were involved.
Lauren asked her attorney to call the prosecution to help them as one way to heal the damage she had caused to others.
Lauren was also ready to testify on the 5th day after the Judge cut off the line of questioning the 4th day she was on the stand. Raniere’s attorney failed to recall her to the stand.
There will be very little punch in his appeal regarding this issue due to the fact it was his attorney’s choice to not ask any more questions of Lauren.
Mack never committed to any one thing to move her life forward. No schooling, no job, nothing. She wasn’t moving forward as a rehabilitated member of society like Lauren had done.
Lauren had a history of good mental health recovery work where Mack didn’t have that yet.
It was recommended that Mack get help while in prison
Lauren had letters of support from family and friends.
She also had them from the people she worked for and from clients who had used her services.
Mack didn’t produce any such letters because she failed to put in the effort.
All and all, there were many factors that the Judge clearly made a decision on who during the time from their arrest to sentencing had put their best foot forward to rehabilitate themselves to become a productive member of society.
Mack 3 years prison – 3 years probation
Salzman 5 years probation
Mack could have worked harder during her home confinement but didn’t.
Good analysis, agree with all the points. The differences in victim statements are probably a significant part considering the huge contrast of “she is evil” vs “we forgive”.
My only add is Mack’s pseudo-fame worked against her here because I suspect Jessica and India wouldn’t have bothered to speak against her if a) she wasn’t semi-famous b) there was no money about to be distributed to them shortly after her sentencing so saying something about it benefited them for trying to get more money and c) they are using their victim-hood as a source of financial gain elsewhere (podcast, TV show, other stuff we don’t know about yet). In short, speaking against Mack benefited them at that moment in time and didn’t with Salzman.
Urban Dictionary
TOP DEFINITION
Semi-famous
When you have more than 28 followers on your social media account.
Van has 29 followers on Twitter – which means he’s Semi-famous!
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Semi-famous
Urban Dictionary
TOP DEFINITION
Famous
Having your own Wikipedia page.
“Dude! I looked that guy up on Wikipedia; he really is famous!”
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Famous
Sorry, Frank, Dude, I got more respect for a woman who would betray her mother for her criminal acts, than a guy like you who would betray the world if he had a mom who was a criminal.
Does Nicki Clyne have a urinary retention problem?
“Everybody my age pees their pants.”
Let’s ask Pea Onyu.
Nicki Clyne
@nickiclyne
·
21h
Who does this remind you of?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1420927939244220416
I agree laurwn got off she knew what she was doing she a smart womem no excuses
Nicki Clyne Tell’s Her Story! From NXIVM to EDNY Prosecution
Convict Life
@Convict_Life
·
3h
This is Nicki Clyne, actress and activist. In a conversation with Chad Marks , she talks about her experience with the criminal justice system, the corrupt tactics used by the FBI, and her involvement in prison and criminal justice reform.
Nicki made a vow not to have sex with anyone but Keith. She’s forbidden to masturbate as well. This explains SOOO much! Do yourself a service and rub one out, Clyne. You’ll feel so much better.
Will not lie, Clyne still has that actress charisma. I would almost watch these vids she is doing just cause she is so pretty and pleasant on camera. Shame she is done with acting, be interested in whatever show she would do.
Without filters and make-up and probably botox, Nicki looks like a piece of chewed gum.
It is disgusting to watch Nicki manipulate this guy’s feelings about his own incarceration and wife – by lying and pretending that her marriage to Allison was a real one.
Congratulations, dude! You are so desperate that you have a pedophile apologist on as a guest!
Ever think about why Nicki will not have a real journalist interview her? Because a real journalist does their homework. Nicki could never answer their questions. But you are so pathetic that you are willing to accept any spin Nicki puts on the cult and Keith Raniere. Just to get more views on your lame basement show.
OMG, Frank, Nicki is a complete MORON in this video. Please use this as a main story. I would love to see what the Shadowstates and Bangkoks have to say. If she is the future of ESP, there are no worries people!
As the commenter named “Just Sayin'” pointed out: Nicki Clyne seems to have a case of arrested development.
There was also a commenter who posted about how a cult member can get stuck at the age they were when they entered the cult. And then they never really progress from that point on.
Never heard about that concept before, but see it on display with Nicki Clyne.
And especially with the die-hard DOS women. How they never went back to their careers, started a family, traveled beyond the cult trips, got an education or skill etc.
if your mother is a murderer and you turn her in, that is worthy of respect. You care more about justice and stoping dangers to society than a family relationship.
I was annoyed with Lauren’s sentencing (she incarcerated a woman for two years yet she did not receive any incarceration??!!!) but I can kinda understand the judge. I think the judge sees Lauren as someone who knows and understands that Ran iere’s and her mother’s activities were criminal. So she is turning them in. It is not simple to turn in your loved ones.
She might have done it to save her ass. But she might also have done it because she finally saw they are wrong and are a danger to society and needed to be stopped.
Actually Daniela’s family incarcerated her
With the help of Lauren, no?
No.
Lauren — from my understanding — was a sort of ambassador for Raniere. She communicated with Daniela and was supposed to keep an eye on her “progress”. But it was not up to Lauren to say she was better and could be freed. She was just a messenger.
Although, who had Daniela’s papers? If Lauren had access to what Daniela needed to go safely back into Mexico and was withholding it from her, then she is also to blame. But I doubt she had that. But who knows?
It might have been mentioned here already and I might have missed it, but what about the other 1st line DOS slaves/masters? What about Clyne, Padilla, Duran, etc.? Why haven’t they been arrested and prosecuted? They are rarely named or mentioned and, forgive my lack of knowledge here but what’s the reason for it?
There may have been jurisdictional issues that prevented the EDNY from indicting and prosecuting the other first-line DOS masters and a lot of others who were involved in NXIVM/ESP’s numerous criminal activities. And as has been widely speculated and seemingly true, it appears the federal prosecutors in the NDNY are simply too compromised to ever bring any NXIVM-related charges against anyone (Even Judge Garaufis took note of the NDNY’s complete failure to do anything to stop NXIVM/ESP despite the fact that its criminal enterprise was well-known — and well-publicized — throughout the area).
To Laetitia W
If you watch my posted 50-minute video with Nicki Clyne, you’ll see she claims that she spent 6 months expecting to be indicted.
Nicki and her lawyer attended conferences with the other female defendants and their lawyers.
In the end, Nicki was passed over.
Who knows what the judge was thinking, and is not likely to explain himself. As far as the legal penalties go, both women got off lucky, and I hope that they rebuild their lives. I am grateful that I do not know either of them, as the road ahead for both will be painful to their friends and loved ones.
Frank, come on, move on with your life. It’s over.
Thirty-three years in a Turkish prison for Mack and twenty-two years in a Mexican prison for Salzman.
Who could be at fault for the implications given, by using these words to frame Lauren Salzman’s cooperative disclosures to the prosecution?
“Informing upon” this and that, he and/or she was a given, as Lauren operated within a GROUP prior to her arrest.
The prosecutors who wrote these words could be the ones who might learn some subtlety. It was not necessary to put Lauren’s cooperation with them into these precise terms at all.
More thought and care could’ve been used regarding this by the professionals who wrote or who spoke in this manner.
Yes?
Yes. Shivani
Yes, it’s because Allison was an actress. When people ask me how she was as a neighbor, I answer back that she was friendly when she wanted to be the lady who loves thee is so sweet. just glad they are all gone.
I agree with everything you said: she was used as a scapegoat to bring down this cult. It’s sad how people condemn her but defend others who are equally responsible. I’ve always found that unfair. I hope she rebuilds her life away from this madness after leaving prison.
If I recall correctly, Lauren did not steer her “slaves” to have sex with Raniere, as Allison did.
True, but if I recall correctly, Mack told Lauren she was preparing India to be offered to Raniere for sex and Lauren apparently was OK with that because she did nothing to stop it….
Lauren was complicit in this…..
I think Lauren should have been sentenced to at least 2 years in prison. One for every year Daniela was in that room…
Yes. The sentencing annoyed me because it really is some white women claiming #meToo as the prisoners said of Raniere. How come women cannot be responsible for their actions? Lauren was a grown adult when she decided to incarcerate Daniela. How did she not question that was wrong? Lauren was complicit. She is an adult woman.
Right now, it does feel as if the judge sees these women as innocent children who were manipulated so badly by Raniere.
They need to be held responsible for their actions.
I believe in karma and think Lauren will get what she deserves.
What has belief got to do with karma? Do you think not believing in gravity will prevent you from following the laws of gravity and save you from jumping without a parachute from the roof of a tall building? No.
You must take into account that neither Allison nor Lauren decided which slave would have sex with Keith, only Keith decided that. It means either it would happen eventually or it happened and Lauren’s slaves didn’t have much problem with that, at least at that time.
True enough. It’s not as if Lauren stuffed her slave wimmen into any big dark green Hefty* bags, obediently trotted over to Raniere’s shack and dumped them on the bed.
This was really a big mutual clusterfuck.
Butt
so far nobody had vouched for Allison Mack and any Hefty* bags. Maybe Allison’s mother knows, though.
Nancy pimpmama ( Kardashian) Salzman was too weatherbeaten to be invited into DOS. By cracky! Never mind Clare Bronfman, for the love of Gawd.
Pardon me. It’s Friday.
Lauren did her fair share of helping keep women under control for Raniere who wanted to leave him due to his controlling behavior
One only needs to read Ivy’s letter to Lauren to understand how, over the years, Lauren managed his women for him.
Evidently the group itself, as an entity, was into the same trips as was Lauren Salzman, though. The tales of being shunned or made to feel unworthy are common territory herein. It was practiced regularly and consistently, routines of exclusion versus inclusion being used to control others.
Ivy Nevares could have made different choices for herself all along and even before she hooked up with Raniere’s dreck. Every day and hour or minute, there’s another choice to be examined and made, so Ivy and most others had plenty of time to decide, when each felt unhappy or that Nxivm, etc. was not working out well or positively for her on a personal basis. The exit could always be seen and also taken, one way or another.
Many of us would not have ever been attracted to such crap as has been operating within this entire group. Many can also see through these layers of deceptivity even from a distance.
The blame game does not interest me, ever. The individual choices do, however. And unless someone was under the age of consent for sexual activity with Raniere, to me there’s mutual responsibility for the decisions which were and are being made.