Does it mean they have broken up?
According to Caleb Torres García for Quien Magazine in Mexico, Emiliano Salinas has stopped following Alejandro Betancourt on Instagram.
“The official account of Emiliamo on Instagram, @salinasemiliano, with almost 23,000 followers… no longer follows Alejandro Betancourt (@alexbetancourtl), who is not [Salinas’] follower either,” writes Torres Garcia.
Salinas and Betancourt were friends, lovers and business partners for years.
The horrible strain on both of them, because of the Mexican national scandal caused by their following the despicable Keith Alan Raniere may have caused them to part.
Betancourt has told former Nxivm [Executive Success Programs] members that he is deeply sorry for his role in trying to extort DOS women and others into remaining silent in 2017.
Betancourt signed off on attorney letters, composed by Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere, and sent to DOS women who were about to speak out against the abusive DOS sex slave sorority, that if they did not remain silent they would be subject to arrest.
Frank Report published his letters and it was confirmed in the recent court case against Raniere that this was the case. Betancourt was an extortionist, in partnership with Raniere and Bronfman.
The attorney letters, signed by Diego Ruiz Duran, attorney at law, represented that Betancourt was his client and that he was considering pressing criminal charges against the women and several others for extortion.
Betancourt, in his bogus extortion claim, named a group of Nxivm defectors and adversaries, including Toni Zarattini, Barbara Bouchey, Susan Dones, Joe O’Hara, Mark Vicente, Sarah Edmondson, Catherine Oxenberg, and Frank Parlato, as enemies of Nxivm and falsely alleged that this group was trying to extort him and Nxivm demanding $4 million dollars “or else”.
It was a complete lie and now that Nxivm [Executive Success Programs] is in tatters, Betancourt’s reputation is ruined and he faces possible arrest, he has expressed deep regret for his role in this deceitful reverse extortion plot.
However, Betancourt, a wealthy trust fund baby, has not offered to reimburse any of the people he harmed.
Zarattini had to retain attorneys. [He was the most vulnerable since he lived in Mexico]. Bouchey was advised by US Customs that she should not travel to Mexico or she might face arrest.
None of the so-called enemies of Nxivm should feel safe to travel to Mexico.
Since Raniere’s conviction, Salinas has gone largely underground. Following a story in Frank Report that quoted sources who said he planned to leave Mexico and flee to Cuba if he was indicted by US authorities, Salinas left Mexico. He posed for a social media photograph in London with his actress wife, Ludwika Paleta, and actress, Grettell Valdez at the end of June.
Betancourt and Salinas operated Nxivm Mexico for more than 15 years, obeying their lord and master Raniere for all those years, up until Raniere was arrested in his Mexican hideout in Puerto Vallarta in March 2018.
In November 2017, Frank Report first revealed that Raniere fled to Monterrey, Mexico and posted pictures of him walking there with his sex slave Jimena Garza.
The FBI came to Monterrey to interview him but he fled to Puerto Vallarta.
Frank Report published the photo of one of his closest followers, his sex slave Nicki Clyne, in Puerto Vallarta – again disclosing his location.
This time he did not escape. Mexican federal police arrested him and deported him to the USA where he was immediately detained and charged with sex trafficking and other crimes.
On June 19, 2019, he was convicted in federal court in Brooklyn, NY. He remains in federal custody awaiting sentencing. He faces a minimum of 15 years and most likely a much longer sentence.
During the investigation and prosecution, there were many who thought Salinas and Betancourt would be arrested. So far they have avoided arrest. The investigation by US authorities is ongoing,
Were the two men victims?
To illustrate how complete the control Raniere had over Betancourt and Salinas – it is well known that Raniere told Betancourt that he was Benito Mussolini in his past life and he had much to atone for in his present life, because of the crimes he committed as Mussolini.
Betancourt asked him what he should do.
Raniere told him that atonement for his past life was only possible if Betancourt obeyed Raniere for the rest of his present life.
As for Salinas, Raniere explained that the only way he would become elevated to a higher spiritual platform was to follow his true nature.
At the time Salinas, following in his master’s footsteps, was having sex with many of the Nxivm women who found him more available, and less jealous than Raniere [not to mention a better lover].
But Raniere realized that Salinas was valuable to his organization. By that time, Mexico was already the largest source of money and recruitment in Nxivm.
Raniere informed Salinas that he was not really heterosexual as Salinas had thought, but actually gay.
Raniere further told Salinas that his true soulmate was Betancourt, who is gay.
Salinas – although not attracted to Betancourt – knew that Raniere was the world’s smartest man and the most ethical person in the world.
Salinas then obeyed his Vanguard and began a long term relationship with Betancourt who was already his business partner in the Executive Success [Nxivm] business.
In 2013, Salinas reverted back to his old heterosexual leanings and married actress Ludwika Paleta. Salinas broke off his relationship with Betancourt for several years.
Betancourt was utterly despondent. He started having a fling with Justin Elliot and it is also said that Betancourt took off to foreign lands where boys were free to be enjoyed by men his age.
But when Paleta began having affairs with other men, Salinas – deeply hurt himself, yet willing to be a cuckold – reluctantly returned to the arms of Betancourt.
He continued to be in cuckold relationship with Paleta and bed Betancourt for quite some time.
Salinas would often tell women and men he wanted to bed that his wife sleeps with other men and he sleeps with both men and women.
Salinas because of his randy and open nature earned the nickname Puto.
Betancourt earned the nickname El Duce, which was also the nickname of Mussolini.
And by 2016, things were back to normal until the DOS branding scandal hit when Frank Report revealed it in June 2017.
Then came the arrest and conviction of Raniere. At first Salinas and Betancourt distanced themselves from Raniere publicly.
Now Salinas is distancing himself from Betancourt and vice versa.
Their love affair may be over in reality. Or they may be just doing it for optics, since they were so well known as partners at Nxivm. It might seem wise to appear to be distant from each other.
Viva Executive Success!
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Personal lives aside, what and who did illegal activities on the Mexico side that can be tried in the USA? Is there proof? How does the story go?
” what and who did illegal activities on the Mexico side that can be tried in the USA? ”
Here is how conspiracy law works:
One phone call about the so called kidnapping conspiracy or the extortionate letters between Raniere or Bronfman in the US from either Salinas or Betancourt in Mexico can bring the entire conspiracy into the US court system.
And the fact that the intended victims of this scheme, with the exception of Sarah Edmondson, are all American citizens can also give the US courts jurisdiction over this crime.
Emiliano and Alex are potentially in Deep Doo Doo.
Or another way of putting it is that Emiliano is in deep guano.
Alex:
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
Under United States Conspiracy law your letters sent to American citizens and other people who complained about NXIVM could be considered evidence of a conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
If these letters were generated by consulting anyone in NXIVM headquarters in Clifton Park, New York (Clare Bronfman and Keith Raniere) then the US authorities in the NDNY can claim jurisdiction over the case and ALL of the co-conspirators.
You and Keith and Clare also engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by intimidating witnesses.
Sarah Edmondson, a Canadian citizen, had already gone to the FBI to complain about the branding.
And Sarah Edmondson had gone to Canadian authorities with blackmail material collected by Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman as part of their sex slave program.
Clare also went to Canadian authorities in a vain effort to retrieve that blackmail material and obstruct the investigation.
Alex, you and Clare and Keith are in Deep Doo Doo, to borrow a phrase from the late President Bush.
In order to abandon your involvement in a conspiracy to kidnap NXIVM critics you have to do the following:
1.) Engage in no further efforts to advance the conspiracy
2.) Immediately go to the proper authorities (the FBI) to report the conspiracy.
Alex, it looks like you made absolutely no effort to inform US law enforcement authorities of a conspiracy to kidnap US citizens in Mexico.
Hasta La Vista, Alex!
Shadowstate
You really should consult a lawyer before giving forth false legal opinions:
1. In the US federal conspiracy law requires that both a collusion and a crime by one of the colluders take place. Since there was no kidnapping there cannot exist a crime of conspiracy to do it.
2. Since Sarah Edmondson’s allegations were not ( yet or ever) a crime, again there could not exist a crime of intimidating witnesses to a crime since there was no crime to witness.
Your advice to report a nonexistent “conspiracy is infantile.
Calm down.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but the conspiracy itself is a crime.
Even if the crime itself does not come to fruition just having two or more people planning an abortive crime is a crime of itself.
That’s why prosecutors love conspiracies.
Planning to commit a crime is a crime.
As for the collection of blackmail information that is also a crime in and of itself even if the blackmail is never released.
Shadowstate
1. Wrong. Planning to commit a crime is not sufficient to be a crime under US Federal law. Action must be taken by a colluder.
2. Wrong. Collection of potentially blackmailworthy information if obtained legally (e.g given voluntarily) is not a US federal crime.
Have you consulted a criminal lawyer? Apparently not.
Calm down and get some advice.
Shadowstate
Re US criminal conspiracy,
even a quick Google of Wikipedia proves you are wrong…
…
United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[22][23] A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act.
Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime.[24] However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this “overt act” element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy.[25]
California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. [2]
One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.
One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun, leaving two sets of fingerprints and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). A conspiracy conviction requires proof that (a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and (b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.
It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though the existence of all members may be mentioned in an indictment). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown, or when the prosecution is concerned only with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime leader, and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.
…
Shadowstate
Re blackmail or more accurately extortion
suggest you read the following to get your head around the difference between
1. collecting or obtaining information that can be used for blackmail … legal
and
2. using it as a weapon for gain…criminal.
…
Blackmail and Extortion
The Paradox Of Blackmail
One of the most intractable intellectual problems in the criminal law is what Glanville Williams called the paradox of blackmail (p. 163). The problem is that combining two rights makes a wrong. For example, if I threaten to expose a businessman’s income-tax evasion unless he gives me a lucrative contract, I have committed blackmail. I have a legal right to expose and to threaten to expose the tax evasion, and I have a legal right to seek a lucrative contract, but if I combine these rights I have committed blackmail. If both ends and means are otherwise legal, why is it blackmail to combine these legal ends and means? Since the 1920s, many theories have been offered to explain this paradox, and a few scholars, led by Walter Block, argue that blackmail ought to be legal since it violates no basic legal right of the “victim” (e.g., Block, p. 225). Even among scholars trying to resolve the paradox, there is no consensus on its resolution (Symposium, pp. 1565–2168).
One approach that is at least descriptively powerful is to look at the relationships between the parties. Consider first informational blackmail. Here the blackmailer threatens to tell others damaging information about the blackmail victim unless the victim heeds the blackmailer’s request, usually a request for money. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using extra leverage. But that leverage belongs more to a third person than to the blackmailer. The blackmail victim pays the blackmailer to avoid involving third parties; he pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. When the reputation of a person is damaged, he is punished by all those who change their opinion of him. They may “punish” him by treating him differently or he may be punished merely by the knowledge that others no longer respect him.
Thus when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. The blackmail victim pays to avoid the harm that the state would inflict. Of course, this does not effect a legally binding settlement, but the leverage is effective precisely to the extent that the victim believes that he has reached an effective settlement. Likewise, when a blackmailer threatens to expose damaging but noncriminal behavior unless paid money, he is also turning third-party leverage to his own benefit. What makes his conduct blackmail is that he interposes himself parasitically in an actual or potential dispute in which he lacks a sufficiently direct interest. In effect, the blackmailer attempts to gain an advantage in return for suppressing someone else’s actual or potential interest. The blackmailer is negotiating for his own gain with someone else’s leverage or bargaining chips.
This misuse of another’s leverage is perhaps seen most clearly in noninformational black-mail—for instance, where a labor union leader threatens to cause a strike unless he is given a personal payoff. There the labor leader is turning group power and a group dispute to personal benefit. Whoever seeks a personal payoff by credibly wielding the power of a third party to harm the victim is a blackmailer.
…
BTW here is the source of the blackmail quote:
https://law.jrank.org/pages/569/Blackmail-Extortion-paradox-blackmail.html
Salinas’ Clan criminal defense attorney sent to jail on serious charges. How will Emi turn to now?
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/07/10/world/americas/ap-lt-mexico-attorney-detained.html
Who will Emi turn to now?
Michael Avenatti to the Rescue!
LOL
Take THAT, “As The World Turns,” and “Guiding Light.” You soap operas would still be around if you had just fired your writers and designed your stories around NXIVM.
Scott,
LMAO!!!!
Nothing short of comedic brilliance.
Thanks for laugh!
This story should be published in Queen Magazine as well as Quien Magazine.
I suppose the guilty plea of Clare Bronfman has had a sobering effect on Alex Betancourt.
And the recent charges against Jeffrey Epstein should also serve as a wake up call.