Commenting on a recent post, Will a jury find Allison Mack guilty because she ‘should have known‘, Florin Elena Milea wrote:
Just because behavior is deviant and offends “whitebread” folk does not necessarily make it illegal.
In your list only force feeding drugs would be clearly illegal in a voluntary S&M/B&D relationship.
For the innocent of heart — bondage and imprisonment are common part of the S&M/B&D role-playing. However sessions longer than a weekend are unusual for people with jobs or family. Lack of “safewords” would be stupid too.
Neither brandings or tattoos are illegal even if the pain makes you cry. Getting drunk/high before such processes is extremely common.
Being held down… is something not uncommon for branding since movement smears the result.
Prosecution will need to show “victims” could never have given prior agreement — if not continually high, then mentally incompetent due to temporary insanity.
Regret and repentance by former members does not make them “victims”… especially 10 year members who clearly could have left at anytime. Absolutely no one claims imprisonment for months at a time. But lots of regretful people do like to blame others for their decisions.
How can it be blackmail when you begged to give them the materials [collateral] so you can join?
Keeping materials? Well tons of celebrity signed away nude photo rights early in life then regretted it.
It’s not even clear whether anyone filed legal writs to attempt to get materials returned. I suspect not.
None of the material taken has been revenge posted. Its much more likely to be leaked by federal court system. FFOA or something.
But take heart. Clearly Mack and associates will burn. Juries can convict due to outrage alone regardless of laws actually broken – just as easily they can nullify laws.
Ain’t Democracy great?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
“I would think that Allison Mack admitting ownership in the fact that she came up with the concept of branding women while naked, force feeding them addictive drugs, imprisonment, etc, for not following the instructions to have sex with Keith & document all that, the collection of collateral, kinky sex she participated in, the [starvation] diet, pubic hair & all sexual requirements for Keith’s pleasure, for starters makes it hard to believe that a reasonable jury will overlook finding her not guilty by reason of “false self” or any such associated excuses. But I’m not a legal scholar, just my good common sense.
***
In response, Observation2019 wrote: