I cannot decide if Linda Chung’s Allison Mack, a Victim of Government, Media, and Former Friends paints Chung as a really good lawyer or a really bad lawyer. My guess is the latter because if you refuse to confront the weaknesses of your case, you tend to lose your case.
Let us start with the definition of sex trafficking:
Sex trafficking: the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.
The shortened version: sex trafficking is using leverage in some form to force a person to engage in sex acts when they otherwise wouldn’t.
Now notice in the article above that Chung makes every effort to avoid mentioning “collateral.”
This is a key pivot point around which the sex trafficking charges for all involved were about. Did Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, and even India Oxenberg recruit, transport, harbor a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act?. Yes. Multiple times.
Was that sex act induced by “coercion”? Yes, via collateral.
Did Keith “induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.” Yes. Camila has since come forward and verified this. Also, note that nowhere in the code or definition is the exchanging of money a requirement for it to be trafficking.
Something I would think Chung would also know.
To key points of Chung’s diatribe – the system abuses its own leverage to force plea deals that often require betraying others, no argument here. I think I was one of the first to point this out way back when. Does this apply to Mack and the convicted NXIVM members? Most definitely not.
If anything, more of them should have been convicted, including the entire inner circle. Weirdly, the whole plea deal system likely saved most of them because they cooperated. Those that didn’t until forced (like Mack), got convicted.
Which brings us to Chung’s main second point on how India Oxenberg was given better treatment. Again, no argument here. India unintentionally confessed multiple times on her own program that the only thing that stopped her from following Mack’s path was the luck of timing with Frank Parlato’s articles on branding scaring her slaves away.
It is pretty clear India would have moved forward on orders if that had not happened….
She… happened to make the… smart decision… at the right time because her mom forced her to, with the inside knowledge on events that none of the others had.
Dumb luck combined with usual special treatment only the wealthy can enjoy. Doesn’t make it right, just makes her accidentally smarter than Mack at that moment in time and she has now reaped the benefits of it financially and personally.
Chung makes valid points about the problems with the justice system. They have been brought up frequently by Frank, I, and others. This does not mean that NXIVM was a victim of the justice system. Coercion was used to induce women into sex acts, aka sex trafficking. If anything, the system worked right here. Even the sentences in most cases were fair and just (tragically a rare event since jails are now for profit).
More importantly, the implication from Chung is “victim” means “innocent”. This is a false binary position. None of them are innocent, and never assume that someone being a victim suddenly absolves them of being a victimizer. Mack victimized others while also being a victim. She was sentenced accordingly and fairly based on that.
There are three things that brought NXIVM down. Three things that NXIVM fans, especially the DOSsier Project, continue to refuse to confront and acknowledge: (1) collateral; (2) branding; and (3) Camila.
Chung avoided those three things – and that tells you everything you need to know about the pile of bullshit she is trying to sell.