When he spoke in Albany on behalf of Nxivm, the Dalai Lama was diplomatic but he made some verbal hints, especially regarding honesty and transparency. Perhaps he wasn’t aware of the disappearance of Kristin Snyder in 2003 from a Nxivm intensive in Anchorage, when he visited Albany to speak, six years later.
I do have a sense that the Dalai Lama smelled a big rat, though. Probably he wasn’t made of aware of certain details, from his distance.
He was wanted as a celebrity guest, to endorse what Keith Raniere and his group were doing. His own cause could benefit via a hefty slice or two of Bronfman “large$$e,” and then there was that mess with one of the Tibetan celi-BUM-bate monks and Sara Bronfman.
That could have been something that was brought up and discussed, later and privately, with the easily temptable “monkey monk” himself.
But Raniere and company always made promises which they had zero intention of keeping, as what they were heading was a con game, packed with elaborately designed bait-and-switch, short and long cons, with no hesitancy to behave criminally, in order to protect their entire con game setup, irregardless of what was true or false.
Deceivers cannot afford to confront truthfulness.
Nancy Salzman can be seen in photos taken with the Dalai Lama. She can be seen, sitting tensely and literally CLAMPING her mouth down, shut.
I look at her and have no doubt what that clamped mouth signifies, out of Nancy Salzman. It is, essentially fear. She had too much that had to be suppressed and concealed, personally and as a so-called leader.
And Nancy Salzman knew that back then in 2009, and most likely is still contending with what she wants to hide, even now.
This appears to be the only thing authentic about Nancy Salzman. The mouth that roared so vaingloriously as a “leader” is really a mouth clutched in rigid tension, and she has one helluva task, keeping that mouth of hers shut.
Salzman, like Raniere, is totally unprepared.
She never will be ready, from her position, to contend with anyone who can see through her. She has been attached to her role as a complete phony and seems to not want to find the courage, or the honesty, to come clean. Who can guess what goes on in her mind now, really? Her fake reputation as a reliable light, on the road to self-enhancement, is officially dead.
The many faces of Nancy Salzman:
Having watched quite a lot of others play Nancy Salzman’s starring role, to me, Nancy has always been a repugnantly falsified fool, attached to gratifying her ego and gaining a lifestyle based upon outright deception.
Not that she has been the only one next to Raniere who disguised her materialistic, egotistical motives and pretended that Nxivm, Executive Success, Nexium, etc. was selling self-help. There are more of these sorts of personalities, still hoping to hide in plain sight.
In spite of being involved with a power-mad, salacious, very destructive criminal cult, I find Nancy really boring.
I agree with Shivani. Nancy is despicable. I disagree with Shivani when she suggests that Keith is not the most desirable man in the world. She never exulted in his presence or saw his golden member or felt the succulent tongue placating the ever needy feminine orifice.
Shivani, dear lady, you just don’t know what the divine experience is. Until you do, my advice is to listen and learn from Vanguard himself.
Tell it, sister!
If Keith had been given just five minutes with Judge Garaufis to work the lower chakra magic with his tongue… His Honor’s eyes would have been rolled back in his head, Keith would have walked free and everyone who gave a victim statement would be serving 120. How do you think he recruited Emiliano so quickly?
Viva Executive Success!
Pea Onyu is one of the funniest FR commenters. She and Two Lawyers should have a child together.
Re: ‘She never exulted in his presence or saw his golden member or felt the succulent tongue placating the ever needy feminine orifice.’
Unfortunately, Vanguard is indispensable for the next 120 years and, therefore, it is impossible for Shivani to have and enjoy these magnificent sexual experiences with Vanguard.
Is it just me or does Nancy Salzman look like The Joker when she smiles?
Editorial: No, we’re not letting up: Release the full Jussie Smollett report
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
MAR 16, 2021 AT 10:58 AM
[If you want to read the entire content, please go to the link, because this way you are supporting the newspaper through clicks and through advertising they generate on their site.]
Two Cook County judges connected to the Jussie Smollett case face weighty decisions. The circumstances are poles apart, but the goal should be the same — justice that’s fair and transparent and rebuilds public trust.
The TV actor was charged […] with faking a hate crime against himself, […]. A month later, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx abruptly dropped the charges against Smollett, with little explanation. Later, Cook County Judge Michael Toomin appointed Dan Webb as a special prosecutor to investigate Foxx’s handling of the case.
Webb found that, while Foxx had not committed any crimes, she and her subordinates abused their discretion and misled the public. Webb convened a special grand jury that essentially reinstated the charges against Smollett. That case continues through the courts.
And in the latest twist, prosecutors want to keep Smollett from being represented by the defense attorney he selected due to a potential conflict of interest. With so much skepticism in the case already, the judge now overseeing Smollett’s prosecution would be wise to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. Pick a new lawyer, Smollett.
Toomin has a very different problem on his hands.
Webb had concluded that Foxx’s office engaged in “substantial abuses of discretion and operational failures” in its handling of the Smollett case. In a brief summary of its findings, Webb’s team stated Foxx and her office “breached (their) obligations of honesty and transparency.”
What evidence drove Webb and his colleagues to such damning judgment of prosecutors?
That’s not known, because Toomin continues to shield Webb’s 59-page report from public view. Webb’s full report was to go not only to Toomin, but also to the Cook County Board of Commissioners. That hasn’t happened either. Webb, who wanted his report made public, won’t release it without Toomin’s approval.
This lack of full disclosure only fuels public suspicion that somebody wants to protect someone from something. More than two years after the incident, and with public money — ours — being spent on resources dissecting this case, the public still has a right to see Webb’s findings. Keeping it under wraps only feeds the perception that Cook County has different standards of justice for different defendants.
It also raises concerns about judicial independence. Toomin nearly lost his seat on the bench in November after Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, a Foxx ally, tried to wedge him out. She campaigned hard against his retention. Is he fearful now that releasing the report would put him in a politically delicate position again? Did Preckwinkle’s muscling create a chilling effect on all judges?
At issue is not a verdict of guilt or innocence. Foxx and her subordinates aren’t criminal defendants whom a judge must protect from pretrial publicity. She’s an officeholder routinely subject to public scrutiny on the conduct, or misconduct, of prosecutors deciding who faces trial and who walks free.
There is no obstacle to releasing Webb’s report that can’t be overcome.[…] Or if Toomin was hesitant to disclose the full report before the November election, well, it’s now March.
The Smollett case damaged the sense of trust people have in Cook County’s justice system and who gets favorable treatment.[ …]Releasing the full report would help rebuild it.
“somebody wants to protect someone from something. ”
That’s the official motto of Cook County, Illinois.
Another Cook County motto is;
“we don’t want nobody nobody sent”
And the State of Illinois, which used to have the motto “The Land of Lincoln”, is considering a new state motto:
“Illinois, Will the Defendant Please Rise?”
“somebody wants to protect someone from something.”
Who needs to be protected from something?
I’ll break out my Ouija Board.
O — B — A — M — A
Cuomo has always been a reprobate, repulsive person, and as a governor endowed with power, even more so, using and abusing his position to his advantage. That’s what Cuomo and Nancy Salzman have in common.
President Biden says Gov. Andrew Cuomo should resign if allegations of harassment are true
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden said Tuesday that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo should resign if an investigation into allegations he sexually harassed multiple women finds the claims are true.
“Yes,” Biden said when asked in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos set to air Wednesday morning. “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.”
Biden said “it takes a lot of courage to come forward. So, the presumption is they should be taken seriously. And it should be investigated. And that’s what’s underway now.”
By BENJAMIN DIN 03/16/2021
More women reaching out with Cuomo harassment allegations, accuser’s attorney says
Charlotte Bennett’s lawyer told CNN that others who have experienced similar behavior by the New York governor have been in touch privately.
There are more women with sexual harassment allegations against Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York who have not come forward publicly, an attorney for one of his accusers said on Tuesday.
Debra Katz, who represents Charlotte Bennett, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that she had been contacted by other women who had experiences of harassment similar to those of her client, but that they have not shared those allegations publicly.
Maggie Haberman [Washington correspondent for NYTimes, analyst for CNN. RTs don’t imply agreement. firstname.lastname@example.org]
Statement from lawyer Debra Katz, representing Charlotte Bennett, who has accused Gov. Cuomo of harassment:
KatzMarshall&Banks has retweetet
The Situation Room
Debra Katz, lawyer of Gov. Andrew Cuomo accuser Charlotte Bennett: “There are certain patterns that are quite evident… the kind of misconduct that the governor engaged in, that Charlotte disclosed, is what other women are saying as well… there are clear abuses of power here.”
12:08 am · 17 March 2021·SnapStream TV Search
Given her lack of personal hygiene and her horrible breath, the greatest public service the Prefect can offer is keeping her trap clamped shut. That woman has an odor that can curl wallpaper.
““You found how much money in my house?” Nancy”
About half a million dollars, Nancy.
Much of it in foreign currency.
No wonder Joe O’Hara accused the members of NXIVM of money laundering!
Now a short while ago Frank Parlato wrote a story where he said that the members of NXIVM really wanted to make the world a better place
What do the members of NXIVM really think?
What do the members of NXIVM think of Frank Parlato?
Well, Acting Vanguard Nicki Clyne and her Dossier Project just this past evening published an essay concerning their real thoughts on how Frank Parlato and other “Luciferians” spoiled their fun.
What follows are the words of Acting Vanguard Nicki Clyne and her friends particularly Linda Chung:
DOS Mission Statement
In the summer of 2017, when false and defamatory information starting coming out in the media about DOS, the women in the “first line” intended to speak out. They were preparing to launch a website that detailed the essential information about DOS, and clarifying what it was, and what it wasn’t. They also wrote a Mission Statement for the organization that reflected its intent and purpose, and acknowledged the attacks. Below is this never-before-published statement in its raw form.
(Master / Allegiance / Sisterhood)
We are a sorority of women seeking to bring out the best women can be, working together to become wise and principled. We are bonded by our shared values: strengthening our word and directing our will to better our lives and those of the people we love.
Despite material abundance, we live in a world where children starve to death. A great portion of humanity does not benefit from technological advances. Abuse and violence are still prominent in society. The world still utilizes war and killing as a means to resolve disputes. We believe this lack of humanity is wrong. This needs to change — and it starts with each one of us.
We, the women of the world, have a capacity to harmonize and work together that is underutilized. We have a keen ability to be empathetic and nurturing, and have a clear moral compass toward ecological living. Yet women have been kept as the weak and the protected, disabled to deal with the world, reactive to male-dominated society. Our communities cannot truly evolve without the growth of its women.
For our communities, for our husbands, for our children, but mostly for ourselves, the women of our sisterhood make a solemn vow to become the best version of ourselves.
We believe discipline and accountability are key in our success. We practice discipline and accountability with each other. We believe humility and service build empathy and compassion. We practice humility and service with each other. We believe leadership and authority are needed to guide ourselves and others in authoring moral lives. We practice authority and leadership with each other. We do it in an environment that fosters connection and trust, and enables us to build the moral character the world needs.
We put our hearts, minds, and bodies in alignment toward creating our best selves, and we become empowered to uphold our families and our communities.
We uphold true freedom, which is earned through building self-reliance and a strong will. Only then can we live proactive, purposeful lives that allow for a principled existence.
Some women have broken their word and disclosed information about us that has been distorted in the most dishonorable of ways: twisting honor and nobility and presenting it as evil. This, we believe, is the worst of crimes, as it tarnishes goodness itself.
We reach out to you to put a stop to the destruction. May the freedom and honor of human spirit triumph over fear and hate; may the dishonor be exposed and devalued as such.
What Do You Make of the Women Who Are “Victims”?
What is a “Victim”?
What is a “victim”? According to the dictionary, a “victim” is a person harmed, injured or killed due to a crime, accident or other event or action.” (Oxford Languages) Some may believe that any questioning or criticism of someone claiming to be a victim is “victim blaming” or “victim shaming.” I firmly believe that people who have suffered actual measurable harm or injury caused by another person’s actions should be fully supported and protected under the laws and our legal system.
In the case of Keith Raniere and DOS, several women have testified, or come forth, stating they were victims. I want to examine the exact nature of the “harm” or “injury” in question. What is the specific harm or injury? To this date, there have not been any allegations of violence or physical harm. In general, the harm or injuries cited were either related to being the defendants in lawsuits, emotional injury or mental distress. Physical harm is more measurable and verifiable. Emotional or mental harm is harder to measure or subjective in nature. In the case of NXIVM, Keith Raniere and DOS, the alleged harm is mostly “emotional” or “mental.”
Harm from Litigation
First, I will address the harm from litigation. I graduated from Cornell Law School. I worked at a top 5 global corporate law firm and as in-house corporate counsel for over eight years. While I am not a trial lawyer, I do have knowledge of the legal system. The United States is a litigious society. It is not a crime to sue in the United States and there are measures in place to protect against frivolous or meritless lawsuits.
A lawyer could lose their license if they brought about frivolous lawsuits. Such lawsuits are usually quickly dismissed. Does the fact that a lawsuit exists necessarily mean there is harm or injury? No, of course not. Nor does bringing a lawsuit necessarily mean such a suit is intended to cause harm or injury, as Judge Nicholas Garaufis (the federal judge in Keith Raniere’s trial) has asserted. To make bringing lawsuits against people who claim to be victims grounds for injury or harm makes no sense, especially without examining the cause for the lawsuits to begin with. The fact that these suits were not quickly dismissed indicates there could very well have been merit to the allegations against these so-called victims.
The emotional harm from being in a relationship (whether it was a romantic, platonic or sexual) is not a crime either. Otherwise, anyone dating could have grounds to sue or be charged with crimes. Furthermore, how is this kind of harm measured or quantified? Do we really want to criminalize every day interactions with people? Do we want to criminalize any comments made — whether a joke or insult that could cause emotional harm? Just because someone feels emotional pain or harm does not necessarily mean there was a crime or assault. If so, then dating, comedy, parents with children, or anything that could be subjectively interpreted by a person could be criminal with the right framing.
Then there is the issue of consent. In the NXIVM / Keith Raniere case, there were no charges of rape or assault. It is important to draw distinctions between DOS and private relationships that existed outside of DOS. Some women in DOS were in long-term relationships with Keith Raniere. What Keith Raniere and other people did in their private adult relationships is frankly none of my business. My understanding is that there was never any requirement or command to have sex with Keith Raniere as some have alleged. I have not seen any evidence to support this claim. Retroactive testimony after being subjected to pressure by the media and the government is not sufficient evidence, in my opinion. Just because some women happened to be in DOS does not mean that every choice they made was under duress and at the threat of their collateral being released, especially when there has been no evidence shown of such threats, nor any collateral released by women in DOS.
If the victims were afraid at the time, I’d be curious whether this feeling was communicated or confirmed by any third parties in testimony or closing statements? How would Keith Raniere, or any women in DOS, know there was fear if there was no communication or other indication at the time? Moreover, a feeling of fear that comes up after one gives consent does not invalidate consent retroactively. For example, a person who goes to the dentist consents to have a cavity filled. That person may feel fear when they get their cavity filled but this does not negate the consent that was given previously. Nor does feeling fear mean their consent was automatically withdrawn. A feeling by itself does not communicate to others that consent is withdrawn.
The alleged mental distress of people who said they were misled or brainwashed is questionable as well. Even if they were misled and lies were told, there were no charges of fraud. Not all lies are a crime. Assuming people were brainwashed, how do we know when they were “unbrainwashed”? What’s the difference between “unbrainwashed” and recognizing you always had choice in your actions and beliefs? Who has the power to brainwash anyone against their will? Anyone who could do this would be a trillionaire. It seems that if Keith Raniere had the power to brainwash people against their will, he would not be in prison right now.
Do People Lie?
This brings me to the question asked most about the victims. Are we saying the victims are lying because our experiences were so different? No one can really know if another person is lying about their opinions, personal experience, or how they feel. We all know people can lie for various reasons. Let’s ask the question, “Why would the people who claim to be victims lie in this case?” That is a question that is often asked as well. The simple answer is to look at possible motives.
We all know people lie. The question is why do people lie? What is a lie? The dictionary defines a lie as “an untruthful assertion.” This assertion could be driven by fact, belief, opinion or feeling. The key is the intent and context. While facts are easier to verify as true or false, opinions, experiences or feelings are subjective in nature — so can they even be considered lies? Is a lie always bad? When is it ok to lie? Is it ok to lie if the intent is to not hurt someone’s feelings? Or if they can’t emotionally handle the truth or if they can’t be trusted with the truth?
We all know people can change their opinions of other people and situations for a variety of reasons, and they have every right to do so. However, I do not believe it is right to change one’s opinion of someone and charge them with crimes simply because one’s thoughts or feelings about them changed afterwards. If a person is a victim of a crime, where is the concrete proof and evidence? Is this harm based on anything other than what a person says or feels? Do we really want to have a society that condemns people based solely on what another person says or feels? That is a very slippery and dangerous precedent. We have all seen people’s lives destroyed simply with a mere assertion.
I can empathize with the women who claim to be victims in this situation. It is extremely hard to say what I would have done if I was in their shoes. Some women were facing felony charges of sex trafficking and decades in prison after years of working and teaching within a humanitarian company and having no previous records. They were now positioned to potentially lose or jeopardize their family relationships, friends, credibility, or good reputations because of their involvement or association with NXIVM, Keith Raniere or DOS. The FBI claimed that NXIVM was a “criminal enterprise” and anyone involved could be charged with a crime. I get it. If you were confronted with sticking to the truth of your experience or going to prison, would your opinions and feelings about the people involved change? I think this is not only possible but very likely.
I don’t know if my opinion of Keith Raniere or DOS would change if I was in the same position as some of the women who claim to be victims and were also named as co-defendents or co-conspirators. Believe me, my life would be easier if I just said the charges were true and Keith Raniere and DOS were bad. However, I know that is not true to my experience. I would not be able to live with myself because even if no one else would know it was a lie, I would know.
I also took the time to review the facts of the trial and transcripts. I found that the government did not prove all of the elements of the crimes. If even one element of a crime was not proven, then the crime was not proven. (Many of the alleged criminal acts portrayed in media were not charged as crimes.)
I am simply asking questions. Some people may accuse me of “victim shaming” or “victim blaming.” My intent is to understand this situation and how to make sense of it. Do we really want to believe anyone just because they say they are a victim? Why not ask for proof or evidence? Remember that some people do lie. Shall we shame or insult a person because they question a victim? Where is the actual harm or injury? Was this reported or told to anyone at the time the victim was supposedly injured? If the women felt they were abused, did they say something? Did they say “no” or object? In general, I am skeptical of people saying they were harmed yet provide no evidence or anything to indicate this harm to anyone else at the time. How could, would or should anyone know? Can any of the women who claim injury point to a time where they tried to say something to anyone, or even said anything to Keith Raniere or other DOS women at the time in question? Where is the personal responsibility if the victims felt this way or thought there was harm or abuse? No one can read another person’s mind or feel another person’s feelings.
I can’t state that the women are lying or not because I was not there. I am not them. However I honestly believe they changed how they feel or think about the whole situation because of the government, social, and media pressure.
I am skeptical when I see strong motives to change a perspective. What do some of the women who claim they are victims stand to gain by their seemingly new position? As in the show “The Wire,” one wise detective Lestor Freaman said, “follow the money.” There are book deals, television series, publicity and media attention for many of the so-called “victims.” Furthermore, several “victims” filed a class action lawsuit to collect money for this alleged “emotional” harm from involvement with NXIVM, Keith Raniere or DOS, and many are in line for large sums in “restitution” from Keith Raniere’s criminal trial.
Belief in Myself
On the side of the women of DOS who still view their experience with DOS as positive and support Keith Raniere, we do not have much to gain financially or otherwise from our perspective. In reality, many of the women who have not renounced DOS have lost jobs, friends, family relationships and much more by not blaming others for our choices and experiences. While the “victims” have public sympathy and support, the women supportive of DOS have been attacked in the media and subjected to much hate. In fact, that is why many friends, families and complete strangers assume we are “brainwashed.” It seems they can’t believe we stand for what we believe in, at great personal risk, because they would not make the same choice. Even if we were brainwashed, why is there such hate against us?
Goodness of DOS
We, the women of DOS who believe in the goodness of DOS are speaking out, knowing that people will write and say hateful things to us and about us. The hate and threats against us is exactly the reason we have not shared our side or perspective publicly before. This was not an easy decision to speak publicly about this knowing the response would be met with mostly hate. We hope that at least a few people will see what we are really standing up against even if they remain silent in support.
Why do we support Keith Raniere and believe in the goodness of DOS? I am open to the possibility that I was misled. Were mistakes made? Yes. Were these criminal acts? No, I don’t believe so. I know I don’t know everything that happened and probably never will. However, I do know my experience and interaction with the women of DOS and Keith Raniere for the past several years. I judge people based on my experience of them and not based on what other people think or what the media writes about them. I especially don’t consider the opinions of people who don’t know me, or DOS, or Keith Raniere, or have never taken a course in NXIVM. When people ask me how I can support someone like Keith Raniere or DOS, the answer for me is simple but not easy. I have a very different firsthand experience of DOS and Keith and I am not willing to delete or distort that opinion because of what the media, government or other people say. I am not willing to rewrite my personal history of people. I would do the same for anyone else I know personally, a friend or family member. I do not blindly believe what others say or write about another person. I do recognize that sometimes the media, the legal system and the government do not stand for the pursuit of truth and may have other agendas.
Standing Up for Our Beliefs
Even in the face of adversity, fear, and social pressure, I stand up FOR justice, due process, love and truth. I stand AGAINST hate, bullying, fake news and trial by media. Why? The simple answer is we stand up FOR what we believe in because it is important to live a life based on our highest values and beliefs.
Our country was built on the fundamental right to freedom of speech. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. However, this should be balanced against hate speech. It is a dangerous situation if we only allow to have one perspective or only allow one side of the story to be voiced. This reminds me of a George Orwell quote, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
Moreover, in our society today, there is immense pressure to think and state what is the popular opinion or viewpoint or what the government says, or else… Are we in a society now like George Orwell’s 1984 where we can’t think, ask questions, or our thoughts are monitored and censored? What does it mean if we can’t question people, victims included, even if it makes one feel uncomfortable? In the case of Keith Raniere, Judge Nicholas Garaufis stopped the cross-examination of a key government witness because she began to cry. In my opinion, this paternalistic act does not move women forward, but instead treats women as if they can’t be questioned like an adult. It takes a courageous person to be willing to ask those tough questions in the pursuit of truth. Are we so afraid of asking simple questions that we are willing to sacrifice seeking facts and truth? I hope not. For all of our sakes.
By Linda Chung
So, Frank, it looks like the members of NXIVM think you are a Luciferian.
I would bet that even Allison, Lauren, Nancy and Clare would agree.