This is the next in our series on Lauren Salzman.
We have been examining Lauren’s role in the solitary confinement of Daniella, who was placed alone in a room in her family’s house in Clifton Park for 700 days – because she kissed another man.
Dani was in Keith Raniere’s harem and did not have permission to be with any other man for the rest of her life.
She was about 24 years old at the time.
Daniella felt it was unfair that Keith could have a harem and that she must be just one of 20 or so female members of it, without being able to ever have a relationship with any other man the rest of her life.
She told Keith she kissed the man – his name is Ben Myers, a Nxivm member.
Keith told her she must never do this again. Dani was defiant. She demanded the right to have another man as long as Keith had other women.
This was her ethical breach for which Keith assigned her to a room. Not that she kissed a man, but that she did not promise to not do it again.
In fairness, Dani was not an infant. She was an adult woman in her early 20s and she voluntarily went into the room and stayed there.
There was no lock on the door.
Also, in fairness, only Keith and Dani seemed to know what the ethical breach was – her kissing another man.
She chose not to tell it to her family or anyone else, and Keith would not, of course, admit it. His sex life was always secret from those who were not in his harem [and often secretive in the harem as well since the harem members never knew who he was screwing next.]
But there were some conditions of Dani staying in the room that seem quite coercive.
For one, she was an illegal alien subject to deportation. She was an adult when she illegally entered the USA with Keith’s help and planning. But she had no money, no job and had been Raniere’s full-time slave for years.
In addition, her two sisters, Cami and Mariana, were in Keith’s harem and they clearly took sides with Keith. On top of that, Dani’s parents were devotees of Keith and fully supported whatever he said was best for their daughter.
He knew better than they, their parental instincts could not compare with the superior wisdom of the smartest, most ethical man in the world.
Raniere also told Dani that if she did not heal her ethical breach, not only would he never speak to her again, but he would forbid her family from speaking to her ever again; she would lose her family, her Nxivm community – the only community she had known since she was 16, and possibly her freedom since she was illegally in the USA.
Dani had no money, no job, no family support and faced deportation and possible arrest if she defied Raniere, and though no one locked her in the room, she went there and stayed for 700 days.
She was – and then again she was not – forced to go into the room.
Enter Lauren Salzman.
Lauren was Keith’s long time harem member and one of the most competent in running his Nxivm operations. She had been waiting for something very special for her years of service in his harem: she was under the [false] impression that she, above all other harem members, was chosen to have Raniere’s avatar baby.
In anticipation of being the mother of the supreme child, she waited some 20 years.
In the end, Raniere chose to sire his avatar baby with Dani’s sister, Mariana. Then he got himself arrested and never saw the child again.
Back in 2010, faithful Lauren was on hand, as she waited for the blessed day when she would get pregnant, to supervise Dani’s solitary confinement (It appears that Lauren never once advocated for Dani’s release).
In this excerpt from the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, Lauren is being examined by the AUSA Tanya Hajjar and the testimony focuses on one particular event – a note Dani wrote saying she wanted to be released and an email from Lauren and Keith’s response to it.
Q I’m going to show you what is in evidence as Government’s Exhibit 1242. Can you just describe what the bottom e-mail is from, what the bottom e-mail is?
A Yes. Describe it or read it?
Q Well, who sent it?
A I sent it to Keith on November 8, 2010. Daniella wrote a letter saying, “Let me out. I’m coming undone.” And Camila intercepted the letter and didn’t show it –
Q I’m sorry, Ms. Salzman. Just before that. The subject is what?
Q And BoBi is Daniella?
A BoBi, yes, “BoBi/Cami.” BoBi is — I call Daniella “BoBi,” like just an iteration on [her nickname] “BoBo.”
Q And Cami is Camila?
Q And what email address are you using to communicate with the defendant?
Q Okay. Can you read the text of the email?
A “Doomp, [Lauren’s nickname for Keith] I’m going to sleep, but apparently, BoBo wrote a letter that said, ‘Let me out. I’m coming undone.’ Camila intercepted it and didn’t show it to the parents because they are so reactionary. She instead texted me asking for permission to speak to BoBo. I told her no and explained I thought it was bad on a postulate level. I’m not going there tonight because of the letter, but I will stop by in the morning probably around 8:00 a.m. I plan to explain to BoBi that I think she’s had a huge setback and this focus of ‘letting me out of the room’ is totally in the opposite direction of healing the breach.
“If there’s anything that you think I should add or do differently, please let me know. If not and you’re okay with what I’m planning, I will just report in afterwards. I will call you before I go over there in the morning, but I have not been able to reach you mornings this week. If possible, I would like to sleep through the night tonight, but if there’s anything urgent you need to tell me about, best you can wake me up. If not, I’ll be up around 6:30 a.m. Love you.”
Q And Doomp, what is that?
A It’s a nickname that I called Keith.
Q And when you write, “Apparently, BoBo wrote a letter that said, ‘Let me out. I’m coming undone.’ Camila intercepted it and didn’t show the parents because they’re so reactionary?”
Q What was, “Let me out. I’m coming undone?”
A That Dani was having — was feeling emotionally not okay in the room and didn’t — and wanted permission to come out.
Q “ Let me out of the room?”
A “Let me out of the room.”
Q And when you write, “Camila intercepted it and didn’t show the parents because they are so reactionary,” who is they?
A The parents.
Q And when you say, “they’re so reactionary,” what does “reactionary” mean as you meant it?
A That they would take action on getting the letter by communicating with her in some way that would again be viewed as thwarting the process [of keeping Dani in the room in solitary confinement until Keith felt she healed her ethical breach].
Q So, in other words, that they would want to contact their daughter?
Q And thwart the defendant’s project?
Q And so when you write, “She instead texted me asking for permission to speak to BoBo,” who is she in that sentence?
Q So Camila asked you for permission to speak to her sister?
Q And when you write, “I told her no, and explained why I thought it was bad on a postulate level?”
Q What did that mean?
A It meant that similar to the birthday, that the decision was that she was not — that the family was not to speak to her and that if they did speak to her, she would learn that she could get upset and get things that she wanted.
Q And “on a postulate level,” that phrase, is that a term used in ESP?
A Yes, it’s an ESP term. Basically, it means — postulate is like your belief about how the world works. So if like she feels upset and then her parents communicate with her, then she has a belief that if she gets upset, they will communicate with her and that’s how a postulate is formed.
Q When you write, “I plan to explain to BoBi that I think she’s had a huge setback and this focus of ‘let me out of the room’ is totally in the opposite direction of healing a breach.” Just very plainly, what are you conveying to the defendant [Raniere]?
A I’m conveying to him that similar to the way I described it before, she’s having an emotional reaction and focusing on what she wants to get out of the experience instead of what she was trying to earn through the experience.
Q And so you’re connecting her desire, her statement, let me out of the room to not being helpful to healing her breach, whatever that meant?
Q Did the defendant respond?
A The next day in the morning.
Q November 9, 2010?
A Yeah, I’m sorry.
Q And what did the defendant write?
A “Hi, Honey. You do not want to buy into BoBo’s tantrum or externalization. Likewise, you do not want to tell her what to do or how to be. You might try asking her the difference between being in the room for a day… or as long as she has. From a present time perspective there is no difference except suffering and entitlement…. Hope this helps. Keith.”
Q And when the defendant wrote, “You don’t want to buy into BoBo’s tantrum or externalizations,” what did that mean?
A It meant that she wasn’t — that she was that her emotional reaction and communication that she was coming undone is a temper tantrum — is simply a temper tantrum and her focus on what she wants to get from the outside world is her, you know, blaming that on the outside world or looking to the outside world to get something that’s going to change how she’s going to feel on the inside. And if you give her things or change the circumstances outside, then she won’t be able to have this experience of being complete on the inside. So you shouldn’t do that.
Q And by BoBo’s tantrum, is he referring to fact that she’s expressing, “Let me out. I’m coming undone?”
Q After this, after Daniella said, “Let me out. I’m coming undone –”
Q — how much longer did she stay in the room?…
A Like a year — no like, over a year and almost a half.
What a great examination by Hajjar, saving the punchline on this exchange of emails for the end: Dani is coming undone in 2010 and when did you let her out? — ah, oh, ah… 2012.
And, in this post, we again observe how Lauren like Raniere utters the most exquisite word salad to justify her insane cruelty.
Let’s look at the emails –how Lauren and Keith communicate over the confinement of a woman in a room.
“Doomp, …. BoBo wrote a letter that said, ‘Let me out. I’m coming undone.’ Camila… didn’t show it to the parents because they are so reactionary. She instead texted me asking for permission to speak to BoBo. I told her no and explained I thought it was bad on a postulate level… I plan to explain to BoBi that I think she’s had a huge setback and this focus of ‘letting me out of the room’ is totally in the opposite direction of healing the breach…
Yeah, a 24 year old woman wanting to get out of the room and start living again is “a huge setback.”
“Stay in my pretty – and heal the breach.”
Then, always deferring to her cruel monster avatar wannabe baby father, even if it means being sleep-deprived, Lauren continues:
“If there’s anything that you think I should add or do differently, please let me know. If … you’re okay with what I’m planning, I will just report in afterwards…. I would like to sleep through the night tonight, but if there’s anything urgent you need to tell me about, best you can wake me up…. Love you.”
And the monster replies:
Hi, Honey. You do not want to buy into BoBo’s tantrum or externalization. Likewise, you do not want to tell her what to do or how to be. You might try asking her the difference between being in the room for a day… or as long as she has. From a present time perspective there is no difference except suffering and entitlement…. Hope this helps. Keith.”
Fucking bullshit language. Dani wants to get out of the room. And, for Keith, it is her “externalization,” whatever that means.
Then he tells Lauren, don’t give Dani any advice either. Let her linger and suffer.
For Lauren, wallowing in immense selfishness and stupidity, all she could figure out was that Dani wanting to get out of her prison meant that it was “bad on a postulate level.”
On a postulate level, I would postulate that it will be very bad to let either Keith or Lauren get out of prison too soon.
Otherwise, they will never heal their ethical breaches, one of which was to work together and conspire to keep a woman coerced and mindfucked into staying in a room for 700 days.
If that is not an “ethical breach,” on a “postulate level,” I don’t even know what “externalization” is.