The New York Times Magazine cover story, by Vanessa Grigoriadis, paints a benign picture of the cult that brands women.
It ignores that sex-slave master Keith Raniere raped girls as young as 12, holds himself out as the world’s smartest man but concealed that his college G.P.A. was actually 2.26, and claims to have the world’s highest IQ based on a take home IQ test that, sources say, was completed by his girlfriends.
In the article, he admits to not having paid taxes because he lives below the poverty level, while not mentioning he enjoys millions in “gifts” from Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman-Igtet and others.
The big take away from the story is Allison Mack’s assertion that the idea to brand was hers and appears to be an effort to tamp down on criminal liability for Raniere. The Mack admission in her interview with Grigoriadis shows Mack was set up.
Here are the operative three paragraphs from the story:
In her apartment, I was surprised to hear Mack take full responsibility for coming up with the DOS cauterized brand. She told me, “I was like: ‘Y’all, a tattoo? People get drunk and tattooed on their ankle ‘BFF,’ or a tramp stamp. I have two tattoos and they mean nothing.’ ” She wanted to do something more meaningful, something that took guts.
To be honest, I was surprised that she was sitting there at all. And Mack told me that she’d been experiencing some anxiety talking to a reporter. It felt “scary and pressureful,” she said. But Lauren Salzman, who along with Raniere and Clare Bronfman had guided my highly controlled tour of their world, helped her by telling Mack to cast her mind back to when she was a child and received praise at the same time that other kids didn’t. This made Mack feel uncomfortable. But now she was surmounting her fear. “So when I was 8, I created a conclusion and built a foundation of my assumptions that was faulty,” she told me. “Now that I’m 35, I can look back at that 8-year-old’s belief. And I can say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t make any sense anymore.’ ” She continued, “Boom, my belief system is upgraded.”
Belief is a tricky thing, particularly when it involves taking responsibility for the idea of branding women and being encouraged to talk to a journalist when it may not be in your self-interest to do so. All the more when you include a guru who is an “evolved” being, Explorations of Meaning, “integrations,” joy, hierarchy, money, the stripe path, extreme dieting, secret polyamory and outward-facing benevolent ventures. By the point that many women signed up for DOS, they had taken many steps where they felt they had given consent.
In other words, Lauren Salzman, Keith Raniere and Clare Bronfman encouraged her to interview with Grigoriadis – something she did not want to do and which even Grigoriadis knew was not in her best interest. Quite possibly Raniere, Lauren Salzman and Bronfman coached Mack in advance to tell Grigoriadis that it was she, Mack, who came up with the idea of branding.
Following the original October NY Times’ story by Barry Meier, Raniere went to Mexico. Federal authorities in the Eastern District of New York allege that, after law enforcement began interviewing witnesses after the October New York Times story broke, Raniere “fled” to Mexico where he began using encrypted emails and stopped using his cell phone.
This is classic consciousness of guilt evidence.
Given months to contemplate how to spin, and head off negative publicity, and legal jeopardy, Mack seems to have been coached to concoct an alibi or defense: Raniere knew nothing of the secret DOS branding rites. It was all Mack’s idea. She was served up to the New York Times Magazine by a calculating trio. By asserting this, and that the crying by women while being branded was all in good fun, and consensual, as was the sex, arguably there is no federal jurisdiction to be had, no federal crime to allege.
Problematically, there is too much evidence for Mack to talk away, in the form of emails, collateral, non-consensual sex, the fact that women were lied to in the inducement into DOS, that they were lied to that it was an all-female group, and lied to about getting a brand, which came as a surprise to some who were told it was to be a tattoo.
Then there was collateral taken from women, and demands for more and more collateral – once the first collateral was given; and the demands Raniere and others made of the women, both sexual and otherwise.
In the recent NY Times Magazine article, Raniere’s feeble dribbling that he never would have betrayed the trust of women by publishing the collateral does not exculpate him; the fraudulent inducement into an all-women’s group, the payment to Mack to solicit women for Rainere, the demands made of women after collateral was in the cult’s possession, gave women the sense they had no free will and must do as Raniere and other slave-masters told them [including giving more collateral].
This is coercion.
Less talked about, is the subtler form of coercion that the cult, led by the Bronfmans and Raniere utilized: lawyers, confidentiality agreements, private investigators, lobbying to prosecutors and law enforcement to indict ex-members, ex-girlfriends, critics of the cult, ex-employees and anyone who tried to leave or was defiant!
Upon admission into the cult, non-disclosure agreements were signed. These confidentiality agreements provided the cult with a guarantee of silence and legal grounds to commence costly, financially ruinous litigation. This was the start of coercion.
Curiously, the cult rarely if ever gave copies of signed confidentiality agreements to members. Most members do not have a copy of their agreement to be silent. This, in itself, suggests a sense of deception, non-transparency, bad faith, intimidation and coercion. It is hard to imagine how Allison can be persuasive that she was responsible for all that too.
they were all in for the MONEY, sex was a bonus
IMO this article was designed exactly to illicit the couple of responses we see below along the lines of “what did anybody do wrong” “why’s anybody charged with anything”.
The article did not really address in any depth whatsoever the meat of the actual charges.
Something all public officers are very good at…
Every single step takes consent. It doesn’t matter how many times someone has consented before.
Allison Mack’s confession of Guilt to the New York Times reporter is the equivalent of O.J. Simpson writing the book “If I Did It.”
The sleep and food deprivation are enough brainwashing techniques to make almost any vulnerable woman easy prey. It is an awful thing to watch self-discipline turn into full-fledged eating disorders through positive reinforcement, as well as the superiority and control one feels when they believe they have “conquered” the need for food. When you are starving to death, you will do anything. A good example is the use of this tactic is the African food-for-sex scandals hitting the news these days. https://nypost.com/2018/05/29/un-knew-years-ago-about-refugee-sex-for-food-scandal-leaked-report-reveals/
Allison is stupid for creating this branding. But I’m reading the Times story Keith seemed like he did not think of it as bad but something the women do to make them strong why should Keith get blamed.? This is Allison fault. She admits. He says he did not know about the branding on his website. Yet they arrest him. Where is the justice? I’m not saying he didn’t do other bad things but he weren’t charged with anything else. He is charged with sex trafficking. He knew nothing about if he says. Allison said she was behind branding. The case against him should be dropped. I’m not sure Allison committed any crime. Maybe stupidly. Last I looked that’s not a crime.
FYI, No where will you find any document with Hitler’s signature on it ordering the extermination of Europe’s Jews.
FYI 2, No where will you find any document with Vladimir Lenin’s signature on it ordering the murder of Russia’s Royal Family the Romanovs.
But Keith did not brand the women. Allison did at her apartment.
Allison didn’t brand them either, the doctor did if you want to use that logic. You can’t believe because Keith wasn’t there holding the pen, that he didn’t have total control over the situation.
And Charles Manson didn’t kill anyone….
So what if it was Allison’s idea? As I stated in another comment to a different article posted on this website, the seed for this type of behavior was planted in her by VanDouche. Also, VanDouche knew about the branding and *never* stopped it. He didn’t say to her, “Allison, this is disgusting! How can you brand women near their vaginas?” No. He relished in it. The brand takes the form of his initials which he knew was tribute to him. Who really cares if he didn’t say “let’s brand women” and then gave the order to it? He accepted it as acceptable behavior within his value system and that is enough to condemn him as a so-called “ethical leader”. Also, whether it is a brand or not has no impact on the validity of the blackmail, sex-trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking charges that he has been charged with.
I suggest we find Dr. Danielle Roberts. She will brand you in a sensitive part of your anatomy. Then you can tell us (let Mom or Dad correct the grammar this time) if branding “made you strong”.
What the reporter is saying is exactly the same thing you wrote in this post. You’re not uncovering anything you are just trying to put her down. The whole point of her story was to make NXIVM sound creepy as they said on the cover.
What’s the penalty for being an idiot?
In Allison Mack’s case, 15 years to life.
The difference between a cult and a legitimate church:
A legitimate church does not require confidentiality agreements.
If he’s so poor, how did he afford the legal fees to personally sue Mircosoft / ATT and Toni Natlie for the patent rights?
Is he pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes?
Bahahahaha fat smell man.
Whatever Allison Mack said to a reporter is irrelevant in court, although it may be relevant to public relations. From a legal standpoint it is all inadmissible as hearsay.
Incorrect. Allison is a party. An admission by a party is not hearsay uncer the Federal Rules of Evidence.
No, you’re wrong. It is not admissible.
I’m not wrong. FRE 801(d)(2) Admissions by a party are not hearsay by definition in Federal Court.
I think that this question is only relevant if she flips and takes a plea deal. Otherwise, the admission seems clearly designed to insulate Raniere.
Admission to a NYT Reporter? Who knows what was actually said to a NYT Reporter?
Ben Carver, a look at the rules you cited show that whatever Allison Mack allegedly told a reporter are in fact not admissible.
Allison Mack has cooked her goose.
This would be a Statement Against Interest. So even if Allison Mack chooses not to testify, the reporter could testify that Allison Mack told her ‘XYZ’.
Hearsay is someone saying ‘He/she told me’ when the he/she is not in court. There are hearsay exceptions under the FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence). Mack’s statement could qualify as a Statement against Interest or Admission by a Party.
Since Allison Mack is not a confidential source, it would be hard for the reporter not to testify in Court to ‘protect her sources’. At least, the reporter could not claim confidential source, etc.
Allison Mack’s statement to the NYT reporter is basically an admisssion of her own involvement in the planning and execution of the branding and the sex trafficking.
And the statement has more apparent validity because it is against her own personal interest and Mack was not in police custody when she made the statement, i.e. the statement was not coerced out of her by the government.
Allison Mack’s Admission Against Interest constitutes for all practical purposes a confession.