Frank Report continues its study of Lauren Salzman, who seems to be both an insane victim of Keith Raniere and a perpetrator of his insane evil. It is becoming increasingly clear that Lauren is a mentally defective person who followed a psychopath who led her to her own destruction.
This is Part 7
Part 1 How Lauren Salzman Described Her Branding Session
Part 3 Lauren Salzman Describes Collateral She Got From Her Slaves, After Lying to Them About DOS
Part 5 Lauren Salzman and Her Slaves Got Bare-Ass Paddling
Part 6 Lauren Salzman Manages Her Slaves – With Cruelty and Insanity
The series is based on Lauren’s testimony in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.
In this next part, we learn a little more about their history together and how Lauren – served up by her mother, Nancy – became a deranged individual who let a creepy monster take possession of her whole life.
Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar is examining Lauren.
***
Q Can you describe your relationship with [Raniere] over the past 20 years?
A Yes. He was my mentor and teacher…. we had a romantic relationship, a physical, sexual relationship from mostly between 2001 and 2008, or ‘9. And then not for a period of almost ten years, and then briefly in 2017, and he was my master.
Q Was your relationship with him important to you?
A Very important to me. Yeah.
Q Why?
A Um, he was my most important person. I mean, I respected him and trusted him and looked up to him; wanted to be like him. Um.
***
Q How often while you were part of DOS?
A Every time I was in town in Albany, we met three times a week, about ten hours a week.
Q And where were those meetings held?
A Initially, they were held at people’s homes, and then later we bought a house and they were held at the house. It was considered the sorority house.
Q Were these meetings secret?
A They were, yes.
Q Can you describe these meetings to the jury?
A So, the start of every meeting, we would take a naked photograph and – as a group – and send it to Keith. And the photograph had to be fully frontally naked and our brands had to show. We have brands. And we were to be – look uniform and happy in the photographs, and then we would get dressed.
***
Q Can you describe what happened in those meetings when the defendant [Raniere] attended?
A When he would attend, we would all get undressed, totally nude, and sit on the floor below him, and he would usually sit on, you know, above, on a chair. And depending on what the focus was, he talked to us about a number of different things…
Q You said you and the other first-line slaves removed your clothes. Did the defendant remain clothed?
A Remained clothed, yes.
***
Q How old were you when you first met the defendant?
A Twenty-one.
Q How old are you now?
A Forty-two.
***
Q Ms. Salzman, did there come a time where you and the defendant began a sexual relationship?
A Yes, there did.
Q When did that begin?
A In April 2001.
Q What was the date?
A April 1st.
Q Who initiated that?
A He did. But I was open to that.
Q And what happened on April 1st, 2001?
A We began a sexual relationship.
Q Was that date later commemorated in any way?
A Yeah, as an anniversary. We considered it our anniversary.
Q And the word “anniversary,” was that used to describe the first date you had sex with the defendant?
A Yes, that’s correct.
Q Did you celebrate your anniversary with the defendant?
A Yeah.
Q How?
A Um, when we celebrated it, I mean, generally we would spend time together or just acknowledge it as the date of the anniversary. Wish each other a happy anniversary.
***
Q Now, at the time you began your relationship with the defendant, did you openly or discuss it or acknowledge it?
A No. He asked me not to.
Q Did you speak with your mother about it initially?
A No, he asked me not to.
Q Was it difficult not to tell your mother about the relationship?
A Yes.
Q How long did you have a sexually intimate relationship with the defendant?
A It was mostly between 2001 and 2008 or ‘9. And decreasing, you know, towards 2000, you know, ‘6, ‘7, ‘8, ‘9, so during that time. And then we didn’t for, you know, nine or ten years. And then he initiated again just for a brief period after DOS became public in 2017.
Q And during that entire period of time from 2001 to 2017, were you in sexual romantic relationships with anyone besides the defendant?
A No.
Q And was that a requirement?
A Yes.
Q Can you explain that.
A Um, yeah, well, for – I mean, for me it was a monogamous relationship, and at one point in time he – after we had stopped being intimate and weren’t spending – intimate sexually -–- stopped spending a lot of time together, he had told me he had made the decision to put the relationship on hold.
But it was my understanding that that wasn’t a permanent decision and so, you know, it was my understanding that if I had a relationship with somebody else, that would be leaving the relationship. So I didn’t, you know. I stayed.
Q You said you considered the relationship monogamous. Was that monogamous on both sides?
A No, for me.
Q Did you ever express wanting to have a relationship with someone else to the defendant?
A Yes. I – yes. In 2013, I wanted to have a relationship with somebody else, and I discussed it with him and told him I was thinking of leaving the relationship.
Q What happened?
A …. there were a couple of things that happened. So, he told me that if I stayed, he would reinvest in our relationship and that we would have children. And I asked him when? And he said, “Soon.” And I said, ‘”Soon like a year or soon like five years?” But I wanted to say “Soon, like a month or soon like five months,” you know? And he said, um – between that time, within that time, a year to five years was his estimated time frame.
…. I [had] been spending time with someone else… that was not part of our community and that I had gone to high school with, and I shared a kiss with that person and I went and I came back and I told Keith and I said if you want – I understand if you want to end the relationship because I did this. And I was hoping that he would end the relationship because I did that. And he didn’t. And I said I was trying to get myself to a place where I felt strong enough to leave.
And so, then he made the promise that if I stayed, he would invest …. but then we had a subsequent walk where he told me that he had considered resigning as Vanguard because of what I had done. [kissed a man.]
Q Was that a big deal to you, resignation as Vanguard?
A It was, yeah. It was a huge deal to me. Because – and I couldn’t make sense of why he would like leave the community without a leader because I had done this [kissed a man].
So then … I just always thought of it like if I ever wanted to leave, or how I would leave, or I always had to be much more mindful that I would do something that would be so, um, lacking in such care for the community that I loved and cared about, that I could do something that would make it so that he wouldn’t be the leader for them anymore. It was really upsetting for me. And I took it very – I took it to heart.
Q Did you check in with the defendant before making decisions in your life?
A Yes. Most of my decisions.
Q Can you give some examples of that?
A Sure. Like if I wanted to go and visit my grandparents out of town. Or if I wanted to buy a house. Or plan a work trip out of town. I would check … if those things were, like created any difficulties for him, or he was on board for those decisions, if he thought they were good. I checked with — I mean, medical advice before like medical decisions. I checked most things.
Q Did you receive medical care without his permission?
A I mean, basic medical care. Like annual medical care, you know, but not major medical care. [Raniere controlled the medical care of his slaves – and some of them died, possibly poisoned.]
Q Before you began a sexual relationship with the defendant in 2001, did you have a discussion with him regarding your weight?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he thought a good weight for me would be around a hundred pounds.
Q And how did he make that decision?
A … he – I mean, basically saw me in my underwear and assessed whether there was fat on my body, and what a good weight would be, based on looking at me and my body constitution.
Q So he told you – is it right that he told you you should be a hundred pounds after looking at you?
A Yeah. Yeah.
***
Q Now, at the time, did you consider the defendant an authority on your weight?
A Yeah. I considered him an authority on almost everything, on most things.
Q And to your knowledge, was that view shared by others in the community?
A Yes.
***
Q Were there certain myths about the defendant that were repeated within the community?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe some of them to the jury, please.
A Yeah. Like that – like a lot of times when there – if there would be like a big – if we were teaching like a big – if we released like a new curriculum, and he gave us this curriculum and there would be like a big snowstorm or something, like a lot of times the weather, we would attribute to that these things happen around Keith a lot of times. Or like if technology didn’t work, it would be like technology acts funny around Keith. Like these kinds of phenomenal things or there are these phenomena of – but like, yeah, attributed to around him this stuff happens.
Q Did the defendant himself encourage or reinforce that in some way?
A Yes, I believe so. He would say that his technology was acting up and that he has those types of problems or – yeah.
Q Did he attribute that to something specific?
A Just that it was this unique thing about him where these things happen. And, yeah. I mean, like that it was – that it was something special about him. And then, I mean, my perception of it and the way that people related with it, that it was something about his energy or his impact on the world somehow.
Q What about the weather?
A Yeah. That – yeah, like, um – well, he told me this one story a few times that there – that he was on a walk with somebody, and that they were behaving somehow in a way that wasn’t good, and that it was – he was trying to show them some point, and that it was raining, but that it wasn’t raining on him. It was raining on them. And that he pulled them to show them that the rain wasn’t happening in here and that, you know – and that that was to convince them or to show them something that he was trying to convey that there was something about him that was different or something about his perspective or the way he was viewing the world that was really important. And that he was proving it to them by demonstrating this point. And he told me that story a number of times
***
Q Did you interpret that to be a metaphor or –
A No, actually. Actually.
Q Did there come a time when the defendant took intimate photographs of you?
A Yes.
Q When approximately was that?
A Somewhere before 2006. Like around 2005, I think.
Q So how old were you approximately if you recall?
A I think I was late 20s.
Q Where were those photographs taken?
A At 8 Hale Drive.
***
Q Where at 8 Hale Drive were the photographs taken of you?
A In the loft bed.
Q Can you describe what happened to the jury.
A Yeah. … I remember that we had been intimate and then afterwards he wanted – he had a camera that was on the – there was like a shelf above the bed, and there was a camera. And he took the camera and said that he wanted to take a picture of me. And I was very shy about that and didn’t want to have a picture taken of me. And he was like, no, let me. It’s going to be nice. And so he took, I think, two pictures. But they were like – they were looking up at me from like the angle of – it’s like an up-close crotch shot, like – like vagina looking up where you could see my whole upper body and face.
Q Did you see the photographs at the time the defendant took them?
A I saw one briefly. Quickly.
***
Q Did you express concern to the defendant about someone seeing the photographs?
A Yes. I said I didn’t – that I was concerned that some – yeah, I was worried that somebody might see it and he was like nobody will see it. Don’t worry.
***
Q Did the defendant ever give you instructions about grooming your pubic hair?
A Yes.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he thought that if I – that if I loved and cared for him, I would care for his preferences. So his preference was that it be natural. So not groomed. And not – he thought that was loving, that I would keep it that way.
Q Did he tell you anything about what that preference is based on?
A I don’t know if it’s the basis for the preference, but he said it held the pheromones and he liked that.
Q Did you ever ask him permission to change that, to change your pubic hair grooming?
A Yes.
***
Q Did you engage in sexual activity with the defendant and other women?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A Well, mostly Pam. Sometimes Barbara [Jeske]. Once Marianna [Fernandez] and more limited interactions with Kathy [Russell] and Siobhan.
***
Q Who initiated these sexual encounters?
A Keith.
Q Why did you participate in them?
A Well, initially I participated in them because I was curious and I … had questions regarding my sexuality, and I wanted to explore that. And then sometimes because Keith wanted to. Wanted that.
Q Were you ever approached about having a sexual encounter that you didn’t want to participate in?
A A few times.
Q From who?
A Well, …. early in my relationship with Keith, Dawn approached me and said that she was inviting me if I wanted to have that with them. Daniella [Padilla] also approached me…. And then later Allison [Mack] and also Kryslana (phonetic).
***
Q Was there something that happened with Dawn Morrison?
A Yes.
Q What happened?
A We were … at 3 Flintlock hanging out one night, and …. Keith was like tickling me or it started out as tickling, roughhousing, but then tried to pull my pants off. And I didn’t want them to come off. And I interpreted that as him initiating a sexual interaction, and he was just very like persistent and forcible about it, and I had to say no several times until he acquiesced to the no.
Q Did the defendant ever frame his sexual relationships in terms of personal growth?
A Yes.
Q Can you give some examples of that?
A Like early on in our relationship he asked me how I would feel if he took on Dani [Padilla] and Monica [Duran]. And taking them on, to me, meant starting a sexual relationship with them to help them grow. …. I think, generally, he related with it a lot that way. Like he would say that …. sometimes the sexual relationships were very difficult, but he was helping them.
***
Q Did other women express unhappiness to you in their sexual relationships with the defendant?
A Yes. Many. Most.
Q Can you name them? Some of them?
A I mean, different people at different times for different reasons, but I think that generally, it was difficult to be in a relationship with somebody who had relationships with so many people. But, yeah. Ivy. Barbara. Both Barbaras [Bouchey and Jeske]. And myself. Kristin. Marianna. Camila. Monica.
Q Were you ever asked to intervene?
A Yes.
Q Who asked you?
A Keith. Kristin. Pam. Most often.
Q Can you explain that to the jury.
A Sure. That someone he was having a relationship with would be upset with him in some way, and sometimes maybe even be threatening to leave or wanting to leave or end the relationship, and we would be asked to help them. And help them, ultimately, was to work through whatever their upset was so that they would be happy with him instead.
Q So when you say “help them,” what does that mean? What did you do?
A Looked at why they were having an emotional reaction and I mean oftentimes it was – like within the ESP model and the framework that we were working with, there was a lot of focus on it. It was believed – we all believed that we are responsible for our own emotional reactions, and that if you have an emotional reaction to something, the thing that you’re having the emotional reaction to is just triggering a reaction that you have inside yourself. It’s not causing you to have that reaction, it’s giving you an opportunity to see the issues that you struggle with. And so, generally, if somebody had an emotional reaction to something, and in this specific case, something with Keith, we would look at the fact that they were having a reaction, and look at this as an opportunity to work it through and – and the thought was that if you left the circumstance to be more comfortable, you would be covering up that issue and your opportunity to work it through.
So sometimes you would talk about that, like this is for your growth. This is an opportunity, how are you ever going to get through their issue if you leave?
Q Was the intention to persuade them to stay or to leave?
A Stay. Stay. And work through whatever you have to work through so you stop having that reaction. So stay and feel happy. Be joyful.
Q Did you consider that reenrolling them?
A No, but I think it was.
Q Can you explain that.
A Well, at the time I considered that helping them. Or helping Keith with them. But I think often if somebody – if they wanted to leave, we would reenroll them. And this is a good idea. This is for your growth. This is very helpful for you. Keith only has your best intent in mind, you know. And how are you going to get through this if you leave? So it was reenrolling them in this idea of growth and this idea that this relationship is especially helpful and effective for growth. And essential. Because if you left it, you wouldn’t have that same opportunity.
Q Did the defendant ever tell you in the context of these interventions that not to say that he had sent you?
A Yes.
Q Did that happen often?
A Frequent.
Q Looking back now, do you have an opinion about what you were being asked to do?
A Yeah. I mean, there were times – I mean, there were lots of times I wanted to leave the relationship and somebody reenrolled me back into it or talked me back into it. And there were times also where I was talking to somebody who wanted to leave and wasn’t happy, wasn’t either getting through the issue or finding a way to exist there in some kind of healthful way or healthy way, and I talked them back into staying. And I do think some of them, it would have been good for them, healthier for them to not be there.
***
Let’s recap this insanity:
Lauren had a sexual relationship with Keith from 2001 to 2008- ‘9. Then no sex for almost ten years.
At the start of DOS meetings, she and the other first-line slaves would take a full-frontal naked picture and their brands had to show.
When Raniere attended, they would all get totally nude and sit on the floor below him, and he would sit on a chair dressed.
She kept her sexual relationship with Keith a secret.
He stopped having sex with her. She went out with a guy – after four years of no sex – and kissed him.
Keith said he was thinking about resigning as Vanguard because she kissed another man. And dunce Lauren – who wanted to leave him – stopped dating the other guy – despite Keith not having sex with her for more than 4 years. Lauren felt guilty about it and determined never to do anything that would cause the great one to quit.
She made no decisions – even on medical health without his approval.
She believed in his supernatural bullshit stories.
She posed for graphic nude photos though she did not want to.
She had threesomes with Pam, Barbara Jeske, Marianna Fernandez, Kathy [Russell and Siobhan – and Keith.
Despite her own desire to leave him at times [and the lack of a physical relationship], she would follow Keith’s direction to persuade women to stay in this unhappy harem-style relationship.
And, in turn, other women were sent by Keith to work on her to stay.
Women hurting women was the hallmark of Raniere’s mad rule.
Lauren was a big part of it – both as a victim and an enabler.
But when you look at it – look at the big picture – it is utterly mad. The women are insane. Lauren is insane, just like Raniere.
.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
[…] Part 7: Lauren Salzman Describes Sex Life With Keith, Threesomes, Nude Photos, How She Kissed Another Man an… […]
Ok. It is weird, but anyone else think that Lauren was invited late to the DOS party as punishment?
I am thinking that Lauren “knew” as did Prefect and the Old Lady Gang, and by “knew,” I mean they realized Vanguard was playing them—again. People talk, all that Vow secret club crap aside.
Freaking Keith, playing all of them.
To be honest, I kind of thought Frank might have had a thing for Nan because she’s such a classy lady, lol.
All I can tell yiz is that dear Prefect and Mistress Lauren still have a very dedicated crew. They party! With audacity.
Man, I wonder about that!
[…] Part 7 Lauren Salzman Describes Sex Life With Keith, Threesomes, Nude Photos, How She Kissed Another Man an… […]
The disgusting, phony martyrdom trip of Raniere pretending that he was “thinking” of quitting his dictatorship, after Lauren Salzman told him she kissed someone else was such blatant manipulation. How could she fall for it; how could Lauren tiptoe through life with zero self-respect? It’s appalling.
My theory is that Lauren never learned any self-respect being Nancy Salzman’s daughter. There’s a sense about Nancy and Lauren, that Nancy didn’t see her, or either of her daughters, as individuals with their own lives, thoughts or desires. She used them as if they were her possessions, her bargaining chips, hers to sell off. Everything had to be all about what Nancy Salzman wanted. She wanted ego food, status, power, money. She tried to conceal her malignqntly sociopathic narcissism behind her big act, portraying herself as a spritely mother superior (with a $40,000 per year wardrobe budget) full of self-help crap, as if she had it all so together and could offer counsel and special wisdom.
While Lauren was falling all over herself to satisfy Raniere, to please her mother and even Raniere’s ghoulish inner circle, Lauren was Raniere’s terribly dutiful sub-lieutenant, who doled out Raniere’s rules, requirements, punishments, and Lauren upheld his needs to dominate everyone. Lauren contributed to and individually did so many, many ugly acts of cruelty, deception and insanity.
She does not seem to comprehend the context of her entire, chosen atmosphere; she has been too submerged in it all to have any overview. She cannot seem to examine her own mind at all. All that she can admit to is her self-pity, spread over more than twenty years of shutting off her own conscience or self-awareness. Once in awhile she came out in testimony with commentary such as “yeah. Like I know now some of what I’ve done was like, not so good.” This is such weak sauce. Also, this is not a direct quote from Lauren. I’m using an example of the impression Lauren has made upon me.
Lauren let herself become a criminal and then has expressed self-pity about it. Her testimony in court was crammed full of self-justifcations, blind to the hideousness which she devoted herself to promoting, for her entire “adult life.”
Lauren was born into this self-abnegation and, even in court, she appeared BLIND about her choices. If she lives into her seventies, Lauren is likely to learn nothing. She imitated her mother but never could carry it off, as she hasn’t got her mother’s act down and is incapable of manufacturing her mother’s pretentious cover-job or her ambitiousness.
Nancy Salzman has been a hungry freak. Lauren has been an eighth of a soggy ham sandwich that Nancy kept stepping on and grinding into the floor, since Nancy was too self-absorbed to pick up the scraps she spit out while chewing and delegating misery. This is all so fucking pathetic, rotten, stinking, nauseating. Allow me to thank the late Frank Zappa for his song, “Hungry Freaks, Daddy.”
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Lauren still seeks advice and “counsel” from her mother and is forever Nancy Salzman’s flunky. Nancy Salzman is really a hardened criminal who ought not to be given an opportunity to reenter any society ever again.
I question whether Judge Garaufis will take Nancy Salzman’s character into account when he delivers her sentence. Nancy Salzman probably thinks that she has the judge snowed.
Nancy Salzman is not even going to want to change or to face herself. Her evilness is permanent. Lauren is a total shipwreck. Nancy Salzman is still actively pursuing her pipe dreams and believing her hallucinations about herself. Her toxic pride and egotism surrounds her with foulness. One can see that Lauren is still lost. Her sister Michelle was easier for Nancy to sell off. Nancy has all of that monstrous pride that “goeth before a fall.” It is obvious that she continues to see herself, her heartlessness and her one-pointed selfishness as being righteous thought and behavior.
I am still trying to understand how anyone could possibly believe the sociopath when he said his energy was causing the rain, or the computer to malfunction. This is a huge sign of evil.
But they also asked him permission for everything, including how to wear their pubic hair.
This is sick, disgusting, and a sign of a toxic bastard who had complete control over these women.
God knows how it happened, but it did.
My opinion. KAR is a very dangerous person. I hope his flock sees it. He’s a monster.
You picked the wrong name. They fooled you. The ridiculous claims aren’t communicated on the first day, it’s a slow boil. Raniere found fellow evil partners, all who were offered what they were looking for, money, power, group sex, the ability to inflict cruelty, etc., and he satisfied that need. It’s actually quite simple.
“It’s actually quite simple.” Scott Johnson
Let’s hope Scott Johnson does not decide to create his own cult.
I agree on the slow, meticulous, well-contrived boil.
He destroyed live – but do they “get it” yet?
I maintain: Battered Women’s Syndrome.
Maximum sentences will give them maximum time to “get it” and protect society from them.
I would hope that the NXIANS who so faithfully followed Raniere would understand that their stupidity and gullibility has hurt a lot of people.
Here it is:
“Q …did you grow to have a relationship with Pam yourself?…
A Pam … was a mentor, an advisor to me. She was a close personal friend. We had an intimate and sexual relationship for some period of time. I loved Pam very much. She was one of the closer friends I’ve had in my life.”
She describes the intimate sexual relationship as being with Pam herself, not just a part of some threesome she was enduring on Reniere’s behalf, yet she claimed that from 2001 to 2017 she was exclusive (threesomes aside) to Reniere.
What is the point of this? That she was not considering Pam?
I think Keith didn’t realize how much Pam helped him. She was his main enabler in keeping everyone “happy”
Pam is dead, Mexican lady.
Perhaps Pam Cafritz was set-up to “take the fall” for all the dirtiest of their deeds (not that Pam wasn’t guilty in her own right, as you imply) — I know they also set-up my deceased sister — IDK if before but most certainly after her demise — in Pam’s case, though, I suspect it was before and after she died that she was the Luciferian next in line after Barb Jeske and others who had too much info on Nancy and Keith — were fatally or near fatally poisoned — including the early inner-circle harem members — some of whom have not been questioned by investigators, held to account in any manner — which indicates Lauren has not been entirely forthcoming but not as prone as you apparently are to implicate the dead before the living.
I pray for you and the many who may not yet have fully recovered from impact of these ruthless crooks on their lives — their families, fortunes and their futures for their fresh scars to heal emotionally, spiritually, physically and materially.
Muchas gracias por tu llamadas aqui’ y tu ayunda para comprende mejor que pasa y como tu siente.
Feliz Navidad! Going out to the lovely, lyin’ Lauren and her fans.
My point is that her story is not consistent, so we cannot be sure of the truthfulness of anything she says. It is clear that all her testimony was meant to cast herself as one Reniere’s victims rather than what she was: one of his chief henchmen. It would be akin to Beria complaining about how mean Stalin was to him — it doesn’t change how cruel Beria was to everyone else. She’s no victim.
Gotcha. Good point. Hope the judge thinks about this. Maybe someone could include it on their impact statements.
Great points, John
Totally agree.
What is it? What is your point?
“Women hurting women was the hallmark of Raniere’s mad rule.” Keith Parlato
Another way of looking at NXIVM DOS.
In NXIVM DOS and the massive regular collection of blackmail material by Keith Raniere’s Flying Monkeys, Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack were engaged in the world’s biggest case of Revenge Porn.
Every month Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack had to collect blackmail material from each and every sex slave.
If a sex slave were later to flee NXIVM that Revenge Porn, which was stored on computers, would be released for the whole world to see.
Unfortunately Scott Johnson fails to understand NXIVM’s Revenge Porn blackmail operation.
Scott Johnson
December 20, 2019 at 7:21 pm
There is no need to return the blackmail to them. It’s probably electronic or it could easily be converted to a digital format. The order should be to destroy it and all copies, under penalty of severe punishment.
https://frankreport.com/2019/12/19/clare-bronfman-to-be-sentenced-on-valentines-day-likely-to-get-far-longer-sentence-than-two-years/
Scott Johnson fails to understand that digital files are very easy to duplicate and can travel around the world just short of the speed of light.
This simple fact means that the women in NXIVM DOS will never be free of the fear that these salacious pictures and videos taken by Lauren Pimp Salzman and Allison Pimp Mack will not one day reappear to embarrass the one hundred plus women..
Not that Lauren Pimp Salzman and Allison Pimp Mack care.
Any sorrow and remorse these ghouls feel is for the exposure of their massive criminality.
The ease of duplicating digital files is exactly my point. It is YOU who fail to understand the files can easily be copied before they are “returned” and nothing will be accomplished. Note to Mr. Shadow: your stupidity is showing. Again. LOL
“I am educated about the scam called Amway. ” Scott Johnson
Scott,
How much money did you piss away to learn that Amway is a scam?
Maybe NXIVM has a colored sash to sell you.
I lost enough money, and more importantly, enough time, that makes me totally dedicated to continuing the oath I took when I became a US Navy officer to protect the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. I talk about the money I lost on my website and radio show, it would be smart to educate yourself, I’m not going to spoonfeed someone who is too scared to use their real name. LOL
By the way, I never resigned my commission, so technically I never dropped that commitment. For all I care, you can have my sash and Epstein yourself. You’re just a worthless piece of flesh, albeit a handy foil/useful idiot. LOL
Scott Johnson:
If you’re still in the US Navy, all I can say say is “God Save America!”
“Q And during that entire period of time from 2001 to 2017, were you in sexual romantic relationships with anyone besides the defendant?
A No.”
– I thought she said elsewhere, under oath, that she had a romantic relationship with Pam Cafritz?
The question was regarding other males, not females. Salzman had group sex with all kinds of other females in threesomes (or more) with Raniere. Good job, Inspector Clouseau.
Salzman first got f*cked by Raniere on April Fools’ Day. How appropriate. Even better, it lasted a lifetime. LOL
I prefer the term “evil” more than “insane.” None of the defendants even attempted to use the “not guilty by reason of insanity” angle. Even “stupid” is more of an appropriate description than “insane.”
I think it helps to look at this in the context of flying monkeys of psychopaths:
https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/6891/avoid-flying-monkeys/
Lauren was Keith’s flying monkey or minion. I think the main problem is the lack of critical thinking skills. Keith unbalanced them. They stopped using logic.
It is nice to hear how Dani was so much wiser than Lauren. Unlike Lauren, she was able to get out on time. Lauren was her bully. But Dani was much smarter.
I hope Dani is living a good life. She is a person to admire. All her family deep within this cult and she has such strength in character to resist it. She had no mother or father to turn to for help, as they agreed with it all. Lauren did have people to turn to and chose the easy way. Weak
great points Natashka…
Not really. Dani should have spoken up sooner.
Thank you for the link, Mexican lady. I’m reading everything I can about narcissists to help me cope with, chiefly, the one I married and — God help me and my son — reproduced with. This more simplistic guide is a lot more useful for a simpleton like me than the complex psychological abstracts I’ve been tormented by. (Immigrants aren’t the only folks in the U.S. who have trouble speaking English. I think most doctors and lawyers need a remedial “basic English” translation course to pass the bar or get their PHD’s!
My heart goes out Dani and her family, especially her relatives who are still smitten with THE BEAST (not my ex but the other narc out to ruin my life)! I’ll “confess” Dani’s trial testimony (wasn’t there but got the play-by-play reports) really hit me hardest of all.
[I’m sure Gina, my dead sister, was ONE (that’s *one* for any one-uppers reading this who insist ‘‘twas she, herself alone, who suffered most and served as Keith’s blueprint for all his evil-doings) of the “prototypes” he and his minions perfected (or Prefected) their masterful manipulation skills on before the Fernandez family and all who succam thereafter exponentially fell prey to.]
As a sister who “lost” a sister — in a spiritual sense in Dani’s Case but survived myself; I can imagine Dani’s frustration — having to testify against her captors while her sisters are still, essentially, being held hostage, in part, by the dynamics of her family NXIVM destroyed. I suspect Kristin Keeffe, for one, knows a lot about this cult technique Nancy Salzman and Keith Raniere ET AL Prefected — with the help of some of the best mind-warping methods and actors Clare & Sara Bronfman’s loot and clout could buy beyond my and Gina’s days of reckoning with the “Devil aka “El Diablo!” — even still today, that family remains torn asunder and all but forgotten in the U.S. media fictions — not a single Mexican has appeared so far in ANY of the NXIVM shows here.
Keep going off! For all the Sunday morning quarterbacks who talk dirt, we can just say that they do not know what it means to get caught in a psychopath’s web of craft.
It all sounds so convoluted and, “crazy.”
thanks for
the article lady, mexican, especially on the part _
: These new people are likely to be compassionate and empathetic, and they will immediately want to comfort and protect the narco as best they can.
They can offer help as they can, which gives the narco a perfect opportunity to continue working with his evil magic in his life.
These Flying Monkeys can be manipulated to help the narcissist by.
it is important to remember this in the context of manipulation within a cult, they begin being only people with good intentions and too much naivety and end up being Flying Monkeys
Thank you for sharing your story . I will keep you in my prayers.
I also like these YouTube videos to understand psychopaths. It is from a psychopath himself. He explains things very clearly. Best of luck.
https://youtu.be/ePizh34if1M
Here is all the proof needed; Lauren is a very sick puppy! She stayed for the money and power to abuse others.
Thank god I found her transparent early on.
These NXIVM people like to talk about “growth” so much. What were they growing in and where were they growing to? All they grew in was the capability to deceive and invoke confusion. This is fitting because their emotionally stagnant leader with a comportment still stuck in the post-puberty phase before growth into adulthood was good at both of these non-skills.
They were growing Raniere’s f*ck toy selection.
I think this is also a reflection of how evil Nancy is. She enrolled her own daughter, exposed her to this creep and put her own hunger for power above her daughter’s wellbeing. Lauren’s adult life sounds like one tragic gaslit year after another.
That said, she did commit crimes when other people under similar circumstances did not. A perfect example of the cycle of abuse.
I wonder if Keith stopped having sex with Lauren to punish nancy also for the Nxvim 9?Kinda saying “I don’t need you guys”
Who did Keith fuck in 2009-2016? Alisson Mack?
Mexican Lady,
It does take quite a bit of mental flex to even try to figure it, but I think you are onto something. Also, the complicated sexual connection to Pam, as Lauren obviously had — which she shared, likely, *with her mother*.
I think Nan Prefect always had issues with Pam Cafriz.
It would make sense that if Nancy Gold Sash was a narcissistic personality type to Lauren growing up, that would further predispose Lauren to falling prey and into a cycle of abuse quite easily as an adult. It’s crazy because this cult literally took important aspects of psychological development that are valid and twisted them into ideas that always deflected blame from the precious Vanguard. I don’t think Lauren had much of a chance really with a mom like that. She’s probably been gaslit since leaving the womb.
That’s no excuse even if it were true and it isn’t. Nancy didn’t rear — or more commonly “raise” — a term used for animals — Lauren or Michelle. They were brought up by their dad, a Doctor — a laser surgeon, in fact — who studied down your way in Guatemala, Mexico.
So, either Lauren is a natural born sociopath or she sure became one in her own right once her Mom, Nancy, recruited her to follow in her own evil footsteps — which doesn’t say much for Daddy Dr. Salzman’s child-rearing skills but may speak well of his laser-wielding prowess.
Why Dr. Salzman is not being investigated for his potential role in the branding or any potential cover-up of the disappearance of Kris Snyder — seeing as Nina Cowell worked in his office a number of years — Nina being a prime suspect in Kris’ wrongful death or murder due to the fact she apparently lied to Anchorage police about seeing Kris alive, etc. — is beyond me.
It’s all completely consistent, however, with the fact that law-enforcement in the Albany area has not even scratched the surface on any NXIVM crimes but done just the opposite and buried the truth along with any NX opponents — even with dead bodies possibly buried in Keith’s yard — if they haven’t already been dug up and flown down to Guatemala or mixed in a Cemex, cement truck.
How’s that for a merry Christmas conspiracy theory?
Season’s Greetings, btw, to Dr. Daniella Roberts hangin’ down on those Sunny Beaches with the Sinoloan cartel Sons of Bitches. Hope she, at least, is scoring some good Ganga while scouring skin with her laser strokes…Just MAYBE. And maybe not so willingly but, as you say Mexican lady, they got nudies galore of Dr. Daniella, I’m
sure and I doubt she’ll ever tell who trained her on the laser — and if not Dr. Salzman, I, for one, would really like to know WHO DID?????
Of course, coulda been Nina Cowell — Dr. Salzman’s Luciferian assistant being framed to take the fall for accessory after the fact if Kris Snyder’s disappearance is a homocide or something resembling one.
Love hearing your thoughts as to that scenario. I don’t know about you but after what I’ve seen on the road somewhat with Frank and the Investigation Discovery crew — nothing is out of the question.
Femme,
But! Nan is….somehow innocent? You must understand–she knew nothing! Right? Even though she knew all. Huh, an “all or nothing” scam. Total bs.
Right guess. You get full marks for that.
Lauren testified she was invited to join in group sex with “Allison [Mack] and also Kryslana (phonetic).”
Here’s a guess—to distinguish the various “Kristen/Kristins” the blended nickname of “Kris + Lana” was used for Kristin Kreuk (Lana Lang on Smallville)—just a guess.
Not the first time Kreuk has been associated with Keith in a sexual way. Pea has mentioned in the past that Keith “ravaged her body” so all the pieces to that puzzle fit. This is going to mess up the dreams of the Mad Spanker (sultan of six) who idolizes her cowardly ass.
The crazy thing is, our actress has got her best friend, a foreign born B+ list movie and television actress from the same show also thinking this guy is incredible. No word on whether the pair were involved in a threesome with the cult guy, since our second actress claims to have a boyfriend, but if they did, Comic-Con probably would have exploded. This will be revealed:
Allison Mack
Kristin Kreuk
Keith Raniere
Sorry to burst your Kreuk obsessed lalaworld, but back when the trial was originally being reported on, the spelling of the name would indicate Lauren was referring to Loken, whose first name is Kristanna.
It’s really too bad these Smallville starlets were ever involved with NXIVM. The comments here would be so much better without all of you batshit obsessed loser freaks. Notice there’re no batshit Battlestar groupies incessantly interjecting Grace Park’s name everywhere.
Read the article dumbass, she was talking about sexual encounters with Keith and other women, so, she (Lauren) doesn’t count as two of the women participants.
I think it is a foreign name, not Kristin Crook(ed).
Careful, bringing up Kristin Kook’s name might trigger the spank radar of Rasheed the Rancid Beetle.
He posted in response as “Anonymous December 21, 2019 at 11:22 am”.
Wrong Omar. Maybe you should stick to lying in court. I’m Robyn Casper. Pyscho Sultan is probably 8:19am
aka “Michael Ferraro”! It’s Christmas time, bulk containers of Vaseline must be on sale!