Linda Chung was a member of the sorority, Dominus Obsequium Sororum, better known as DOS.
DOS was a master-slave-based sorority that, unusual for a sorority, had a man as the ultimate master. His name is Keith Alan Raniere.
Raniere is now serving a 120-year sentence in the US Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona, a prison that is specially managed to accommodate a plurality of convicted sex offenders.
DOS ceased to exist in June 2017, following a series of articles that appeared on the Frank Report wherein it was revealed that the sorority existed, that Raniere was its leader, that they employed the practice of branding “slaves” with his initials, and that the group required, collected and held “collateral” on its members which was what some might call “blackmail-worthy” material, often graphic nude photos, by which the threat of these being released was meant to hold the sisters of the sorority to their word and ensure secrecy.
No collateral was ever released.
In late 2020, eight former DOS members, including Linda Chung, started a website called The Dossier Project with the goal of explaining the “Goodness of DOS.”
The women believe the public has largely misunderstood DOS. According to a Dossier Project press release, the destruction of DOS was occasioned by one of its members, Sarah Edmondson, aided and abetted by this writer and this website.
The Dossier Project women wrote: “By May 2017, DOS had 105 participants and was growing rapidly. That same month, one of its newest members, Sarah Edmondson, broke her vow of secrecy and revealed DOS’ existence to Frank Parlato, a self-avowed enemy of Raniere.
“Parlato revealed the existence of DOS on his website, the Frank Report, in a distorted and highly-biased form and, based solely on the skewed narrative of Edmondson and the few women who joined her in breaking their vows. Together, they created and promoted a fictional narrative about DOS that wreaked havoc and spread disinformation within the greater NXIVM community. This effectively ended DOS. Everything ceased. Women who had been happily engaged in the practices of DOS began to fear for their safety and livelihoods due to the highly publicized false allegations.”
As part of the Dossier campaign of “telling our story, on our own terms,” Chung has written an article entitled, “What Do You Make of the Women Who Are ‘Victims’?” which appears in its entirety on the Dossier Project website.
About Linda Chung
According to the Dossier Project, “Chung, 51, is a former lawyer who worked in corporate law and the music industry. She has also worked as a brand marketer for a global consumer goods company and news analyst. She has had several of her own businesses in consulting, coaching and real estate investment. She is currently a business owner in the financial services. She attended Dartmouth College, Cornell Law School and Columbia Business School. She is passionate about helping people through building businesses and relationships.”
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 everyday 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.
“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.” ”
Linda, why do you assume people who don’t agree with you are “hating”? It’s just another opinion from your own that Keith is a criminal. You and your Dossier friends keep insisting that it is all about “hate” when people disagree with your positive perspective about DOS and Keith. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You can’t handle that there is another point of view. No one is keeping you from speaking out. And I’m glad you have the freedom to do that! I read your opinion. And I feel no hate.
But I still disagree because I have seen and heard evidence — very clear evidence — of his guilt and of his powers of manipulation.
Do you think it’s a lie that he ordered someone to stay in a room for two years? Do you think it’s a lie that he was not forthcoming about his involvement with DOS? Maybe you knew, but many did not. Do you think it’s a lie that the branded women believed that the brand was a symbol of the elements and not his initials?
People do lie, yes. Keith lies for sure. And the sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be. I say that to you with compassion and not hate.
Come on? These people are so deluded. Even just at the start “To this date, there have not been any allegations of violence or physical harm”.. that is completely untrue. Women have said they did not know they would have a brand the imposition of which would hurt for 30 minutes. That is physical harrm.
Then a few lines down she says no lawyer would do frivolous law suits. I am a lawyer too. Of course particular groups such as scientology and many a couple divorcing who have only revenge in their minds or parents with a child custody issue or a business intent on suing an ex director they hate will litigate again and again. Sometimes in my jurisdiction eventually usually the litigant in person with mental issues who sues gain and again will have an order made against them saying they are vexatious and cannot sue a particular person again but that is a very strong measure against someone stopping their right to sue and is not often given.
Also can’t she see the evidence? Take any of those involved near the start who chose to leave and look at how many legal actions and complaints were made against them and it is very high.
Also for the good of themselves they should “never apologize, never explain” – and just carry on doing what lawful activities they want. They will not win a public argument on this or convince people – and will just waste a lot of their time and emotional energy. That game is not worth the candle.
They keep insisting over and over and over that they aren’t brainwashed and keep posting articles saying brainwashing doesn’t exist.
People who think for themselves don’t feel the need to prove themselves like that.
Holy filter. Is that Linda’s daughter?
—Holy filter. Is that Linda’s daughter?
Nope! You are just drunk.
Where and what was the noble DOS mission statement PRIOR to the execution of their “compassionate” deeds – the blackmailing, sextortion, starvation and branding of the DOS “slaves” – from at least over 5 years ago?
What was the DOS mission then?
This looks a little like a post facto attempt at justification but IDK since, like Ms. Chung says, I wasn’t there, didn’t see it, guess it didn’t happen.
Every article written by one of the leftovers is exactly the same nonsensical drivel. What exactly is their goal at this point? Who are they even appealing to? It’s been 3 years since the infinite pile of evidence has been out. This is making the whole brainwashing theory harder to swallow (so to speak). It’s beginning to reek of ego and desperate shame. And most stunning and stomach turning of all is when she wrote she can only judge KR by her own interactions with him. That’s like saying “I met Ted Bundy once and he was really sweet and charming with me so I can only judge him based on that.”
If they were rational, then it wouldn’t be a cult. It’s endless, irrational, false drivel.
I think Frank shouldn’t publish their words. It’s not fair to the victims who can’t speak. They are still silenced, while Frank is hosting their abusers every week.
Are you just sayin’ and critiquing? Or are you genuinely interested in understanding? Can you elaborate on which part does not make sense? There’s a lot being said.
You seem like a critical thinker who values evidence. If so, you should check out: https://www.makejusticeblind.com/evidence
And since you seem to value evidence, you should also know that there is no evidence that brainwashing exists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp2vGAD-BGw.
So that’s probably not a word you should be throwing around unless, of course, you don’t actually care about evidence.
And I won’t respond to the rest of your comments because they seem like nonsensical banter. Your logic and conclusions are faulty.
All this supposed evidence should have been offered at trial.
Good luck on the appeal. HA!
Face reality: your Vandouche will die in prison.
If your tech is so bad-ass, restart your cult and figure out how to hide your crimes better.
—And I won’t respond to the rest of your comments because……Your logic and conclusions are faulty.
Whatever you say, Dr. Spock.
Nice Guy, right?
But they ALSO wrote, “you seem like a critical thinker”.
So… That’s a mixed message.
Pretty arrogant (no surprise most Nxivm dead-enders are very self Important) and unable to accept that a person can simply have a different opinion.
That is a sure sign of SOME kind of brain issue. Their inability to comprehend that a person can think Linda Chung wrote an unsuccessful piece. In spite of their own overly emotional attachment to perceiving that it MUST be universally seen as a groundbreaking written work that changes everything about reality.
And that reality is that crimes were committed. And people were hurt. At the direction and actions of Keith Raniere and DOS.
This kind of sad blog attempt will not stop the civil case. And it won’t convince Nicki’s mom that Nicki is innocent.
I agree with you. There is a strong similarity to the NXIVM-hubris and the type of arrogance you can see with overzealous religious adherents. If you are a nonbeliever, you’re an ignorant miscreant.
Linda Chung might be the most arrogant person in NXIVM not named Keith Raniere.
Does Nicki’s mom believe Nicki is guilty/wrong?
I don’t know what to think about what’s going on in their brains. I mean, 3 years and NO change? You’d think being away from KR would have put a dent in their perspective.
Also, Nicki’s Mom believes (knows) she’s guilty?? Did I understand that correctly?
Just sayin’ made an excellent point regarding Ted Bundy.
That argument is solid.
Your argument that brainwashing doesn’t exist, is not.
While just sayin’ may have been using the colloquial term, brainwashing, its still a meaningful term. I think what he is trying to say is more appropriately called psychological manipulation.
I wasn’t trying to imply that brainwashing doesn’t exist. I was just questioning how it could stick for 3 years after they’ve been separated from their Master Keith? Not to mention the infinite pile of evidence. It’s ludicrous and horrifying at the same time.
You ask me to “elaborate ” then end with “your comments seems like nonsensical banter…my logic and conclusions are faulty.” Way to win points for your cause, Leftover.
The willful blindness of these women is shocking. Their leader is in prison and it’s like they didn’t even notice there was an entire trial that happened. With evidence and witnesses and a jury.
I mostly skimmed because Linda’s opinion sounds the exact same as the other supporters but there is one specific element that really bothered me.
She writes “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?”.
And then she carries on to say, “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?”
It’s so crazy!!! Makes no sense at all!! On the one hand, everyone is supposed to report their fears to the thought police (aka, third parties, Keith Raniere and DOS). Yet, on the other hand, she’s questioning it and seemingly doesn’t like this idea.
I hope she keeps questioning. And hopefully, she can employ some real critical thinking instead of leaning on this hive-mind they seem to have created that makes them all sound completely the same as each other (and identical to Keith!).
Furthermore, it’s actually sickening to me that Linda believes that the victims who were scared shitless should have reported this to the same people who instilled the fear. This asshole Keith actually ordered human experiments to be conducted whereby women were shown actual murder and dismembering of fellow women. I mean seriously, Linda, what do you think was the purpose of that?
Linda, you need to be told that it is not okay, never okay, to terrorize people, ever! And that if this happens to you, the correct thing to do is to report it! Not to the people who are responsible for leading you to feel afraid but to the authorities. Whether this is the police or human resources, maybe even the folks who govern the landlord and tenancy act. Many examples here.
Also, for the record, while you think people like me are all hate, hate, hate, I actually feel bad that this vanguard guy has convinced you to believe so many awful things about gender differences. You seem like a smart person with a lot of potential but he seems to have convinced you that women are weak, that men can’t be monogamous, and that nobody would care if men were being branded and blackmailed. You are wrong! If this ever happened to any of the men I know, I would never tell them to suck it up. Too bad. You gave signs of consent. Your problem, now. No. Never.
I would encourage the men to do exactly what these brave women did and stand up to say, “No more”.
This vanguard guy seems to gambled his whole entire life away on the idea that consent makes anything okay. I would strongly encourage you to learn a little more from some outside sources about consent, coercion, gender differences, and also a little bit about the fundamentals of human rights.
After all, according to the UN charter of human rights, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade are prohibited in all their forms.”
–This Vanguard guy seems to gambled his whole entire life away on the idea that consent makes anything okay.
Consent has got to be the loosest arbiter of subjective morality because humans can practically choose to do or allow anything. It is necessary but insufficient, and it is worthless as such without a more rigorous basis.
Someone should ask them what they make of the child rape victims Raniere apparently had. Seriously, what’s their problem? Is it really that hard to understand coercive control and human trafficking are evil? Why do people have to act like they were dropped on their heads as babies? That’s my question! 🙂 Love you, Frank
— Edmondson and the few women who joined her in breaking their vows.
Sorry, but the “vows” the women broke are not legal contracts, verbal or otherwise. In fact, there was no legal “consideration”.
No matter the “contract” in the United States, you can not sign your life away or your rights, and enter into a lifetime of servitude. WTF planet are you on?
— While I am not a trial lawyer
I fully respect your candor. Are you a lawyer or an attorney?
The New York Bar can be tough.
—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.
Congratulations! You have an Ivy League pedigree. BTW, your legal interpretation of the law is ridiculous. Being Korean and a woman probably helped you get accepted into Cornell.
Your perspective and wisdom are a wee-skewed.
— The United States is a litigious society.
No shit! There are more lawyers in the United States than the rest of the world combined. Tell us something we don’t know, princess.
— A lawyer could lose their license if they brought about frivolous lawsuits. Such lawsuits are usually quickly dismissed.
Then you should report Clare Bronfman’s attorneys to the New York BBO. Her attorneys repeatedly filed frivolous lawsuits.
— mental distress
You mean like the “distress” the women felt who had collateral over their head?
FYI: Sarah Edmondson’s collateral was released; so the threat of releasing collateral was/is very real.
— Do People Lie?
Yes, you just lied throughout your essay.
You should go back to being in-house counsel at a major corporation and move on with your life.
Nicki Clyne without a college education makes better arguments and legal points than you or Suneel.
Linda you are just another brainwashed Happy slave. Or worst a sadistic luciferian con Happy slave. So if you knew about the luciferian aspect of the cult, whatevs or if you agree with all the horrible things they did thats not fine, i mean you clearly have some Sort of mental problem, but for the rest of beings, yeah dos was a luciferian cults inside of a cult , destroyed females. I mean just the collateral or.extortion material is a trauma, and you are a liar because loret de Mola showed the video ofnsara edmonson a part of the collateral that you never release. You minimize these sick behavour like if is just a carismatic action, when is ilegal in probably every single way, actually is the exact oposite of uncoditional love, you see when you need to have something to give love, is at best, mutualism. But what dos did was criminal . Plus what about the snuff videos? The ilegal experiments? Of course you dont Talk about that, theres no excuze . You can call india a Liar, and a fame whore, but for everyone else Who is not BAT shit crazy or.you know what people call a bad person, these things have to be known by people, for.something as atrocious like these , never repeat itself. Know se.know that Raniere is a pedophile, or a sociopath that ritualize rape, Even of children, and enjoyed in the process. Some documents forget these, and of course the media also. But we.know these for a while, i am sure you have Heard these, or you are more ignorant than what i Will expect from a Happy slave. So i put your own morals on the line in here. And credibility because you support a pedo, no Matter what. The worst crimes of Nxivm where never prosecuted, which of.course means that the goverment has to loose something if they do, we all know that usa goverment maybe is stupid and corrupt, but never let past a oportunity for fucking someones Life. Probably the worst crimes is the ones that you make when you make a plan to intervene in american, mexican and Canadian goverment . From Emiliano traveling in México spreading the idea of the war of.narcos being just a victim mentality ( look one of your dumb argumenta and lingo!), The obvious conection with Obama, epstein, the Clintons, clare bronfman financing the hillarita campaign, or the trudeau relationship the the bronfmans you can bet Nxivm intervene in some ways or at least tried very hard. Of course the brain wash on masses is maybe more dangerous. By the way Cathy o Brien describes how Hillary was fascinantes by the scarifiction she had in the vagina shaped like a demon/Witch etc that they made her un a satanic ritual, how trudeau father rapped her when she was 9, Miguel de la Madrid was also delighted in that fucked Up scar while he rapped Cathy and her daughter, that Carlos salinas was the true infiltratio americans in México . So yeah Nxivm was way more horrible that we can see , not the contrary..nivel try linda, i.mean a stupid,fake, poor un reason one, you should.be ashamed to even put hoy name in these dumb bullsit but what do i spect forma a Happy slave?
They did release collateral. The branding of Sara Edmonson.
According to Neil Glazer, both Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman supposedly edited Sarah Edmondson’s branding video to her detriment.
Where did you find that?
Post a link for everyone. Please!
Here it is right from the website of Kohn, Swift and Graf Pages 145 and 146
“792. In fact, at least one DOS member’s collateral was released in retaliation for her
speaking out against Defendants, NXIVM and DOS. That collateral had been edited by Lauren
Salzman and Allison Mack, at Raniere’s direction, to make it appear as if the DOS “slave” had
asked to be branded. ”
Editing a video clip to the detriment of a person is “Obstruction of Justice” and both Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack are GUILTY.
“Sarah Edmondson’s collateral was released.” -Nice Guy
It was edited by Allison Mack and Lauren Salzman.
Here it is right from the website of Kohn, Swift and Graf Pages 145 and 146
“792. In fact, at least one DOS member’s collateral was released in retaliation for her speaking out against Defendants, NXIVM and DOS. That collateral had been edited by Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack, at Raniere’s direction, to make it appear as if the DOS “slave” had asked to be branded. ”
Editing a video clip to the detriment of a person is “Obstruction of Justice” and both Lauren Salzman and Allison Mack are GUILTY.
I’m sure quite a few other people appreciated the link and explanation as well.
The individual who shot and killed ten people in a grocery store yesterday asked for his mother, as he was being removed from the carnage, worried about himself. He was seemingly oblivious to the harm, the tragedy, the fatalities which he had just “created.”
Now, one could ask, did this murderer think that Mommy could fix it all for him?
The Raniere supporters, including the amazingly empty and tedious Linda Chung, have something in common with this Boulder murderer. Each one ignores the criminality (of their group) and continues to rely upon Raniere as their “sanctified” leader. Raniere is still their poster boy, their shining example of intelligence, of ethical behavior, of superiority, tacked together to be symbolic of human advancement.
How appalling it is, really.
Reading this literally made me sick to my stomach. While I was not a victim of DOS or Keith Raniere, I am a survivor of both sexual and physical assault over a period of years. This happened in my late teens and early twenties. I am now 54 and just in the last year found the courage to tell my sisters. The two people that are the closest to me, and I still did not reveal every vile detail of what happened. Simply because I did not tell anyone at the time out of fear both for myself and my family who were threatened with death should I tell anyone does not negate the fact that I had been raped and beaten. There are MANY reasons why victims try to swallow their fear and memories. I literally could not even say the word rape until I was in my 40s and in therapy. It would stick in my throat.
How dare you question those that bravely came forward with their stories of manipulation and abuse by not just their “masters” but by Vanguard himself. I pray that he never gets out of prison so he can never again make anyone feel less than they are.
I hear you, stronger now.
And I’m sorry to hear about what happened but I’m glad you’re feeling better now.
Frank your comment: “No collateral was ever released” probably needs to revised. There are some reports that in Mexico the branding ceremony of Sarah was aired on TV. Linda Chung seems like an intelligent, articulate person. I think that from her extensive legal background what she is missing is that was she is calling consent will probably be easily disproved as such. The consent ability of the victims was impaired by calorie and sleep deprivation. Moreover, a lot of the victims were lied to about the branding meaning or were not told at all until the branding ceremony.
Chung doesn’t seem to make up her mind. On one hand, she writes “I can’t state that the women are lying or not because I was not there. I am not them.” But on the other hand, she continues to constantly insinuate that they are lying.
Anonimo? Yup! So many contradictions!
Move on, Linda!! It’s over.
Based on the reasoning she presents here, it was a wise move on her part to change professions.
Wonder what her “financial services” firm does. Money laundering, maybe?
From one Multilevel marketing scheme to another.
Let’s talk about real victims, not these naive, stupid rich women.
Two months ago Joe Biden flung open America’s borders to illegal alien invaders.
Biden literally invited invaders to illegally enter America telling them they would not be deported.
On top of That Biden criticized Donald Trump for keeping children in cages.
(Cages built by the Obama-Biden administration.)
Well now it is two months later and what happened?
An estimated 15,000 children, unaccompanied by adults, flooded into America.
Some of these children to survive might resort to sex trafficking or sexual slavery.
And where is Biden housing these children in the meantime?
In cages in Concentration Camps along the border.
Joe Biden is a bigger sex trafficker than Keith Raniere.
BREAKING: Project Veritas Obtains Never-Before-Seen Images Inside Texas Detention Facility
Oh gosh.. What a nightmare. It’s just awful. My heart goes out to all of those children.
Two things particularly stick out for me. The first is that she completely avoids the fact that the victims went to the FBI. The feds did not investigate before Mark, Sarah, et al approached them, practically begging for them to look into NXIVM. Given such, it would be impossible for the FBI to coerce victims to implicate Raniere in criminal activity.
Second, Linda gives only a bald assertion regarding unproven crimes. No argument detailing how the prosecution failed to meet their burden. Just a statement saying they did not. Sorry, that does not cut it. Could it be, perhaps, that there is no legitimate argument to make here? Didn’t she study law? It’s hard to believe that she could not formulate some type of argument supporting her position if there was a valid one to make.
I have read tweets by leftovers where they say the same thing: “I have looked at the evidence and the prosecutors did not meet the elements of the crimes,” “I have done research and they did not prove his guilt.” Really? Then why not share your research and knowledge instead of making baseless claims.
Aside from that, the rest is also BS.
Well said, Sherizzy.
Linda’s experience was different because Linda wasn’t his type. Same with all of NXIVM. If you were incidental to Raniere’s main purposes of sticking his dick wherever he wanted and undermining anyone who might surpass or oppose him, you didn’t get the full Raniere treatment. Your luck in that respect does not negate the harm done to those who were targeted. “Ethics” was always just a means to an end for him.
L. Spot on. Standard MO of a narcissist. If you’re ‘incidental’ to them (neither an enemy to quash, nor someone (usually rich) to woo for their own purposes), you’ll usually just see the ‘decent, charming’ side of them. So that may well have been her experience, which does not obviate that of the others.
Other than that, I’d like to hear Linda C’s. public opinion of M Markle (another raging narc. imo) interview on Oprah. In the UK, a major broadcaster was made to resign for stating he did not believe her tales of victimhood and the mental anguish she suffered. Disclosure: I call BS, too. Should LC be ‘canceled’ for stating she does not believe R’s victims and thereby ‘victim shaming’? Or is she right to express her opinion? If so, why wasn’t the journalist not afforded the same courtesy?
Why don’t you just name the person it’s about? It is not a secret.
GMB breaks Ofcom complaints record with Piers Morgan Meghan episodes
Regulator received 57,121 complaints as presenter criticised duchess and stormed off set
Two episodes of Good Morning Britain in which Piers Morgan made comments about the Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey that led to him quitting the show have attracted the most complaints to the TV regulator in its history.
Ofcom said the episodes of the ITV programme that aired on 8 and 9 March had sparked 57,121 complaints, surpassing the previous record of 44,500 set in respect of Shilpa Shetty’s 2007 appearance on Celebrity Big Brother.
Over the course of the two episodes, Morgan dismissed the Duchess of Sussex’s account of her struggles with mental health and other issues, then stormed off the set when criticised by another presenter.
After hearing Meghan discuss her personal experience of mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, as well as royal officials’ knowledge of them, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.”
He claimed later that he was dismissing Meghan’s suggestion she had been discouraged from seeking help with her mental health issues, rather than the suggestion she had been suffering them.
He accused Meghan of sparking an “onslaught” against the monarchy.
The mental health charity Mind said it was “disappointed and concerned”, adding: “It’s vital that, when people reach out for support or share their experiences of ill mental health, they are treated with dignity, respect and empathy.”
Morgan’s final episode of the show saw him storm off set after a heated exchange with his co-host Alex Beresford, in which Beresford accused Morgan of “trashing” Meghan.
It later emerged that Meghan also made a formal complaint to Ofcom, raising concerns about the effect Morgan’s comments may have on the issue of mental health generally and those attempting to deal with their own problems – not about the former newspaper editor’s personal attack on her.
ITV announced Morgan had “decided to leave” the show on the evening of 9 March, shortly after Ofcom said it had launched an investigation under its harm and offence rules, having received more than 41,000 complaints in two days.
But Morgan later claimed to be the victim of “cancel culture”.
There’s a reason Linda is a former lawyer. And collateral was released, if that’s a key factor here.
Stop with the Eric Blair aka George Orwell schtick, or at least avail yourself of some understanding of that writer’s MO. He was a complex character, came from a wealthy colonial family who served the empire in India, so Eric was in such bad faith with his class that he changed his name to something a bit more ‘horny-handed son of toil/salt of the earth’ so that his endless moralising and patronising of the poor, might seem a bit more like it came from a ‘brother’ rather than an overseer. By the time of his death he had accused in writing, nearly every writer and writer’s spouse and family, that he knew, of activities inimical to the British State. Yes. He was among other unsavoury things, a very clueless snitch. A kind of forerunner of what happened in the US with the House Of Un-American Activities. V. hit-and-miss. Is it very important to you Nx redux to stay as ignorant of factual knowledge as you can? Is this a source of pride for you?
The word ‘Dosser’ has had a fixed meaning in the UK forever. To me It will always mean willfully homeless. it invokes heroin, dirty alchohol and mattresses, dossing down in the saddest, sh*tiest parts of town with your dosser mates – any of whom would roll your unconscious bones into the canal for a fag or a can of Stella, or even, just for a laugh..
You nxium Dossers manage to be as, or even more willfully tragic than this old chestnut scenario. Great PR as ever from the Nx redux.
“No collateral was ever released.”
This is not true. Sarah Edmondson’s branding video was released on Mexican television.
Linda, your intent is to understand the situation? 12 jurors came back with a guilty verdict.
You don’t know of anyone harmed? You weren’t on the jury.
You don’t like the verdict? Fine, no one is stopping you from continuing your “good” works if there were any that were legal.
The world needs more good works, can’t wait for your next article hopefully about your DOS group bringing food to starving children.
Great point about doing something purposeful that demonstrates actual good works to help others — not just some idealized self-help sorority involving group blow jobs for personal empowerment. However, I wouldn’t want these women anywhere near children. We have all heard of atrocities within Foster Care. These women, under the guise of feeding hungry, vulnerable children, could groom them at a minimum to follow their doctrine or for pedophiles to exploit. It is people like this that need to stay out of any role influencing public policy or working with the public. Leverage against someone, such as blackmail collateral, is character building to them. I can’t think of how I would want them involved in any social program or charity, as even at a fundraising level there is leverage. Perhaps, their best bet is to raise money and awareness for justice reform, penal reform, the Innocence Project or for resources for unsolved murders to use latest DNA and other testing techniques to find killers or identify the victim. As for her essay, it reminds me of looking at a prism of the color spectrum with clarity what is real in the light knowing each is defined, measurable and carrying energy … or looking into a kaleidoscope with an obtuse slant. Psychotropic drugs are now being used legally (mushrooms, LSD for example) to help those rewire their brains and reality. DOS 8 could volunteer for clinical trials.
The feds didn’t shut down DOS, they just convicted most of the top leadership.
If DOS is such an awesome organization filled with bad-ass womyn (not a spelling error), why has it shut down? As she correctly points out, branding isn’t illegal per se. If women consent to having little Keith’s initials slowly cauterized into their nether regions, no one is stopping them.
Why don’t the DOS8 burn their flesh, starve themselves and engage in sleep deprivation even more to prove just how self-actualized they are?
Stop whining like victims and either continue your “empowerment sorority” or shut up.
We can pick her write-up apart but why bother.
Anyone have a clue what statements like this are even supposed to accomplish?
It’s a long-winded way of saying “everyone but us is lying” and “DOS was awesome”. Ok. Whatever, it doesn’t matter anymore.
That ship sailed a few years ago and 8 women finding different ways to make the same statements isn’t going to change much. Raniere is stuck in jail until he dies of old age (or some other event) and his appeal will not work. Their statements will have no impact on any appeal. At this point, they don’t have statements about “what is next”. Instead, they seem like that old man who keeps relating stories of his high school glory years. After a certain period of time, it just becomes sad. Time for them to move on.
First, I will address the harm of alcoholism. I graduated from Bunker Hill Community College. One Friday, I got tossed out of all 6 Beacon Hill bars in Boston (true story). I worked as a bartender at the top dive-bars across Boston…….
……Lah-de-dah! Blah! Blah! Blah!