MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Sex Trafficking Charges Against Smallville Actress Allison Mack Are Totally Bogus

The federal charges against Mack highlight how human trafficking hysteria harms vulnerable women.

LOUIS LANZANO/UPI/NewscomLOUIS LANZANO/UPI/Newscom

Television actress Allison Mack was released from federal custody Tuesday on $5 million bail, after being arrested last week as part of an alleged sex-trafficking operation spearheaded by NXIVM group founder Keith Ramiere.

Mack was indicted on one count of sex trafficking, one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, and one count of conspiracy to commit forced labor, charges she faces alongside Raniere. According to U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue, Mack "recruited women to join what was purported to be a female mentorship group." Once accepted into the group, known as DOS, "the victims were then exploited, both sexually and for their labor, to the defendants' benefit."

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney called DOS—billed as a "sorority" for especially promising NXIVM women—as a "pyramid scheme."

Pyramid scheme is actually an apt way to describe the bizarre group. Cult may also apply.

Meanwhile, Raniere's relationships with Mack and other women suggest what we might term abusive relationships—if not physically, then at least psychologically—conducted under the guise of some sort of mentorship meets dom/sub situtation. Plus, some of the tactics he used to control these women almost definitely fall under the categories of fraud, extortion, or harassment.

Yet the idea that anyone here was actually involved in sex trafficking—i.e., forced or coerced prostitution—is incoherent under legal or common notions of the concept. This is a distinction that matters for reasons far beyond any concern for Raniere's reputation or fate.

To see why, it's important to understand what NXIVM and DOS really were and how they operated.

NXIVM's Secretive Sorority

Founded in 1998, the Albany-based NXIVM is portrayed by Raniere as a career coaching and personal development group. But its secretive, ritrualistic, and seemingly shady ways demand cult comparisons and NXIVM's enthusiastic attempts to silence critics come straight out of the Scientology playbook. Members—who call themselves Nexians—pay hefty fees for the privilege of grueling classes and annual conferences over which Raniere presides.

As early as 2003, when Forbes magazine profiled the group, Raniere preferred for Nexians to refer to him as "Vanguard."

In 2010, Macleans reported that NXIVM's pricey workshops "cost US$6,000 for a 16-day 'intensive,'" in which "14-hour days, warm rooms and protein-poor meals [were used] to push newcomers into a psychologically pliable state." The article cites critics concerns that people "have suffered breakdowns while pursuing the NXIVM curriculum, including an Alaskan who in 2003 paddled a canoe to the centre of a lake and drowned herself." The article also offers allegations that now show up in the federal sex-trafficking indictment: that Raniere liked his lovers thin, asking them to stick to a prescribed diet ("fat, he tells his intimates, disturbs his subtle energies") and wasn't into monogamy ("it was chiefly his philandering that, 14 months ago, led to the mass defection of nine well-placed NXIVM members").

At least some people were happy with whatever it is they got out of NIXVM coaching. "Even former Nexians with good reason to distance themselves from the group say [negative] reports fail to reflect how effective Raniere's program can be in raising self-esteem and erasing anxieties, and stress that good, intelligent people often stay with the program," noted Macleans. "Says a former member who admits she spent US $90,000 on workshops over 10 years: 'I will never regret it.'"

The "women's empowerment" society that the feds now say served as a sex-trafficking enterprise was launched in 2015. Members were recruited mostly from within NXIVM ranks and given only partial information about how the group was to work, according to the federal complaint against Raniere. Prospective DOS members were required to submit some form of collateral—nude photos, signed-over assets, or damaging information about themselves or someone close to them—in order to learn more.

"Once they joined, DOS recruits were required to provide additional collateral, which they did, fearing that their original collateral would be released," according to a letter submitted to the court by Donahue.

Raniere served as the head of DOS, but only select women had direct relationships or contact with him. New recruits to DOS served as "slaves" to senior members, who would test their loyalty by asking for random requests at odd hours and require recruits to run errands and do menial tasks for them, much like hazing in a college sorority.

Some recruits were given "assignments that either directly or implicitly required them to have sex with Raniere, which they then did," according to the complaint against him. Assignments might also include periods of celibacy, including refraining from masturbation; sticking to a low-calorie diet; editing Raniere's manuscripts; and transcribing interviews with high-ranking NXIVM members. Some were also branded with the DOS group emblem—a play on Raniere's initials.

The women in DOS were not required to have sex with other men, and no one was compensated for sexual activity.

Mack a 'Direct Slave' to Raniere

Mack joined DOS once she was already involved in a sexual relationship with Raniere, according to the feds. In an email, she pledged her "full and complete life" to him and DOS and provided collateral (including a contract transferring any future children she had to Raniere's custody and her home to his ownership) to be triggered if she broke this commitment.

Now Mack stands indicted on the same charges as Raniere himself.

This sort of situation is all too frequent these days, as America's carceral approach to sexual exploitation prizes punishing the largest amount of people over actual justice and safety. It's common for sex workers and sex trafficking victims to be charged as traffickers by both state and federal cops—a phenomenon that seems to hit especially hard against younger women (sometimes underage themselves), women of color, and anyone precariously positioned in the sex industry and the larger economy.

Mack doesn't fall into the typical mold targeted by overzealous prosecutors in terms of demographics. Born in Germany to a pair of opera singers, Allison Mack started appearing in blockbuster movies in elementary school and spent a decade starring as young-Superman's best friend on the hit WB/CW show Smallville. Nonetheless, Mack's current legal predicament showcases one of the all-too-hidden harms from human-trafficking hysteria in U.S. government, which winds up revictimizing victims by treating them as criminals.

After Smallville ended in 2011, Mack had a recurring role in the FX comedy Wilfred and a few other guest spots, but nothing longterm. By this point, she had already gotten involved with NXIVM, according to a 2010 Macleans story on the group's rich backers. Mack joined DOS in the summer of 2015. As part of her "vow" to Raniere and the group, she was required to recruit new members and help acclimate them to DOS ways.

In the complaint against Raniere, Mack is described as his "direct slave" within DOS, along with a woman referred to only as "Co-Conspirator 2."

The complaint mentions two "Jane Does," one of whom had a sexual relationship with Raniere and one who did not. Both were allegedly recruited by Mack.

Jane Doe 1—a Brooklyn "actress in her early 30s"—joined DOS around February 2016. She alleges that after she started having sex with Raniere, he offered her a job within NXIVM and also loaned her some money and, when she left him and the group, he demanded she pay back the money. But after an "intervention" staged to pressure her to stay, Doe came away with the impression "that her collateral would not be released" if she left so long as she didn't talk about the group, and it was not.

Jane Doe 2—also an actress—claims to have been recruited by Mack in fall 2016. Her first two meetings with Raniere involved going on walks around Brooklyn, where he offered to help her launch a t-shirt business she wanted to start. Doe 2 said she was "assigned" by Mack to have sex with Raniere but instead declined and left the group. Her "collateral" was not released.

Bad Charges Make Prosecution For Real Crimes More Difficult

If the Does and other women in DOS were powerless against Raniere's coercion and collateral—thereby rendering them victims in this "sex trafficking" enterprise—then surely this is also true of Mack, who was treated to Raniere's same tactics. In that case, it doesn't make sense to charge Mack herself as a sex trafficker.

If Mack is still legally culpable for her outreach to other women while under Raniere's tutelage or control, however, then surely other women in DOS who recruited members (one of their requirements) and "benefitted" from participation (in terms of having new recruits serve them or rising in the ranks of NXIVM) should also be legally culpable. Yet we don't see federal prosecutors rushing to charge the entire lot of DOS members with sex trafficking themselves.

The prosecution's logic doesn't make sense—not when it comes to portraying Mack as both "direct slave" to Raniere and his equal in legal moral culpability, and not when it comes to building this as a sex trafficking and forced labor case. And that's bad for a lot of reasons, the simplest being that ill-fitting human trafficking charges make Raniere's punishment for legitimate offenses less likely.

Overuse of sex-trafficking charges also encourages further criminalization of atypical but consensual relationships. The criminal part of DOS is the alleged extortion and threats, not the sex between certain members per se or the fact that they used master/slave terminology. By bringing sex trafficking charges rather than prosecuting Raniere for fraud, threats, or extortion, authorities are overlooking the actually criminal part of what occured in favor of criminalizing the parts that shouldn't be an issue. To do this, they have had to engage in some pretty tortured logic—accusing Mack of having "received a financial benefit" for her DOS recruitment efforts in the form of "continued status and participation" in the group where she was also allegedly a sex slave herself.

Lastly, DOJ uses inflated sex-trafficking prosecution stats to justify funding and sting efforts that cause more harm than good. The vast majority of these efforts don't wind up leading to sex trafficking convictions, which suggests a lot of prosecutors bringing "sex trafficking" cases that aren't actually about sex trafficking. Nonetheless, crime bureacrats rely on arrest and prosecution numbers, not convictions, to allocate action and money. So the more fake or flawed sex-trafficking cases they bring, the more money that goes to bringing fake or flawed sex trafficking cases. And all the while, the civil liberties of sex workers and their clients suffer along with the safety and well-being of vulnerable women and children.

Photo Credit: LOUIS LANZANO/UPI/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    This woman might be a crook, but I don't see how she is a sex trafficker. The women who got involved with this thing all did so consensually. If this is sex trafficking, then pretty much all forms of kinky sex are as well. This case makes no sense to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The War on Drugs is winding down. Drug Warriors are looking for work.

    Any mention of sex anything brings in the newly trained government Sex Warriors!

  • StackOfCoins||

    It does seem that without a titan of wrestle, Leviathan finds itself without purpose.

    The government needs to be doing SOMETHING to justify it's incredible largesse. In a country as safe as America, that means criminalizing some form of non-criminal behavior, and prosecuting it with maximum zeal. Weed was a popular one, because a whole lot of people like to kick back with a reefer now and then. But prohibition is on it's way out.

    Enter the new Untouchables: people having sex out of wedlock.

  • Quixote||

    But sometimes we need to criminalize non-criminal behavior, so we can secure convictions for very serious crimes. In this respect, "bad" charges actually enable prosecution for real crimes, rather than making it "more difficult" as the article claims. How else did we handle America's leading criminal "satire" case, in which we aggressively litigated 21 nicely contrived convictions that we knew would ultimately be tossed by the appellate courts, so that we could end up with ten convictions that the courts were willing to give us? This is about winning cases, not genteel philosophical inquiries into the nature of "justice." On the other hand, it's a pity we weren't able to get a jail sentence imposed in that case, which is clearly a sign that we should have charged the defendant with even more crimes. See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Just as the Federal involvement in Drug Enforcement racheted up as the threat of an end to Probibition made it necessary (to a certain kind of government stooge) to find something for a bunch of soon-to-be out of work Prohibition Agents to do.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "The War on Drugs is winding down"
    The war on marijuana may be winding down (provided the right people get paid), but the War On Drugs is bigger and better than ever. Have you heard about this opiod epidemic thing?

  • cravinbob||

    Opioid epidemic thing? Yes. That is another "crisis" for government to come to our 'rescue', save us from ourselves while they destroy freedom.
    Too many back up whatever govt does and those that promote and praise police no matter what are called "copsuckers". A quick look at Henry Anslinger's history and the fact that drug laws are based 100% in racism cannot sway some people into seeing our government is corrupt. Obama calling the NRA 'evil' is certainly a telling observation. And that death from heroin overdose is actually quite rare but government will not say that will they?!
    'Sex trafficking' has already been exposed as a made-up crime and that everyone will be guilty if cops want them to be.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Any mention of sex anything brings in the newly trained government Sex Warriors!"

    Sex Warriors you say?

    https://youtu.be/Q_Spg84eNDU?t=78

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Women are vulnerable. All women.

  • Kempis||

    Even the women who were recruited but declined? No, I call BS. Women are capable of walking away from someone trying to extort their money and they are, likewise, perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to have sex with someone else. Some chose to, even though it sounds pretty insane to be, some chose not to. I'm not sure that even fraud charges are warranted. I mean, no one is being prosecuted for allowing Scientology to rip them off. And no one in Scientology is being prosecuted (Belgium excepted but they got a pass for being a religion), for ripping people off, so...

  • ||

    The law defines one type of coercion as "any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person." Raniere not only brainwashed his victims into thinking that civilization would end if they didn't starve themselves and have sex with them, he threatened their families. He quite literally drove people insane.

  • ||

    The law defines one type of coercion as "any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person." Raniere not only brainwashed his victims into thinking that civilization would end if they didn't starve themselves and have sex with them, he threatened their families. He quite literally drove people insane.

  • Kempis||

    You realize, though, from reading the article that he didn't really threaten anyone. They gave him information that they said could be used against them, then didn't do anything with the information they'd voluntarily given when they chose to walk away. I feel no sympathy for women who allowed themselves to get involved with this group. They're not fragile flowers, incapable of making choices. They're adults. Like Charles Manson's followers, who were undoubtedly brainwashed, they are ultimately responsible for themselves.

    Where are you getting the information that he threatened their families or told them that civilization would end if they didn't have sex with him? I've not seen that before.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Like Charles Manson's followers, who were undoubtedly brainwashed, they are ultimately responsible for themselves.

    Couldn't agree more. As the question isn't just about were they brainwashed at some point into doing something wrong, but how many opportunities should they have exercised to remove themselves prior to the criminal result.

    But this is our justice sys...no, it's our legal system and apparently voters don't care, but it's a well researched idea that being an attractive white female as a criminal defendant is a huge benefit, especially if that individual also had resources to competent/not over worked-free counsel.

    Society just doesn't believe females can become ring leaders and any man who would testify they were manipulated by a women would be seen as lying and weak.

    It's similar to the problem of innocent until proven guilty. The trial system is setup to weight towards the defendant, but if 90% of jurors assume guilt based on charges, all those designs to help the innocent are worthless.

    /rant - but of the two things which really disturb me today, the state of our legal system, militarization of the police, over charging for pleas, the feeds 98% win rate (as if anyone or any entity evert was 98% correct, much less toys government), etc, etc, etc.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    If curious, the second thing which pissess me of is the soryyy state of a large percentage of education. Need philosophy and critical thinking at much younger ages. Hell, we just need it as it doesn't exist, but it should start in late elementary school or earlier (10, 11, 12).

    It worked well for hundreds of years as it produced the people which produced this country...but we're so much smarter now and so we don't do that. Just ask educators, many will tell you children that age aren't ready.

    Blow me. If the children were taught a little philosophy at 10, by 12 they would understand what an insult it is for educators to believe and perpetrate the myth that children are incapable of discussing moral issues. Tortoise and the Hare? George Washington and the cherry tree (also a fable)?

    Truth is, the adults are incapable of even settling up an educational system which judges itself, with very high standards and with abject objectively, based solely upon results of students.

    If they are incapable of even appearing to have 100% focus on the child, there's zero chance they will ever be able to significantly improve the current state of education.

    Hey but at least there are a ton of high paying administrator jobs for "doctorates in education" (one of which runs an elementary school nearby and tells people, "call me doctor" - what a f $%k!#g c&$%).

    But that's the problem, it wasn't supposed to be a welfare program....

    Sorry. I'm done.

    /rant^2

  • Kempis||

    You're preaching to the choir, especially about the lack of logic in schools. It's actually something I never considered when my husband and I decided to homeschool our kids, but it's something I realized they needed when they started writing essays for me. And they *do* make logic curriculum for elementary grades. They're not too young to learn how to think logically. Sheesh, my sixth grader can make a logical argument. It's really not that hard.

    /rant inspired by your rant

  • Hank Phillips||

    Think Maharishi Mashesh Yogi, aka Sexy Sadie, meets Anthony Comstock... Remember also that the Democratic party wanted Carbon taxes and enough laws against electrical generation to turn These States into another fifty Puerto Ricos. So according to the looter media, those were the only two vote options. Ducking stools beat windmills... deal with it!

  • Brigid||

    She didn't bother to look up the U.C. criminal code and examine the ACTUAL charges for Raniere and Mack. Had she done so, she would have seen that they are charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1591 - SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN or by force, fraud, or coercion (a1, a2, b1), 18 U.S. Code § 1594 (a.b.c,d), and 18 U.S. Code § 3551, and U.S.C. 853. The two Jane Does are UNDERAGE. He has a history of screwing twelve to fifteen year olds. Grown women were not enough, in spite of him starving them to keep them child-like thin; he insisted they import actual teens and pre-teens, who were also used for labour slavery by the women.
    The primary charge she bases her premise for this article on is utterly without foundation. The charge is for SEX TRAFFICKING CHILDREN, not grown women. They were using illegal alien teens and pre-teens shipped in from Mexico and various other places, away from their parents and homes and in the care of this cult, who used them for sex and free labour. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GROWN WOMEN HAVING BDSM SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. This is about importing underage foreign undocumented workers and exploiting them. Next time, she needs to look at the upper right-hand corner of the indictment and then find the criminal code for the charges. All of this info is available online.

  • Sevo||

    See below. And your ALL CAPS tends to make you less than authoritive.

  • JH1776||

    Thank you for shedding some much needed light on this topic.

  • Kempis||

    That, indeed, changes things. Thanks for bringing this up. I had to look up the actual indictments. The fact that these were minors is included in none of the news stories.

  • Burkhard||

    The actual indictment is linked in the article above, and shows that your analysis is wrong. 1591 applies if the victim is either underage, OR if force, fraud and coercion is used. The indictment makes it clear that the charges are under the second prong: "knowing that means of force, threats off orce, fraud and coercion, and a combination of such means, would be used to cause such persons to engage in.one or more commercial·sex acts."

    So no, this is not about trafficking children, it is about adults who allegedly were forced.

  • Liberty Lover||

    My wife hirradiated meatas been sex trafficking me for years if kinky sex is sex trafficking. Wicked woman!

  • Jerryskids||

    This sounds like a really weird cult - probably need to send Janet Reno and a few hundred feds in with incendiary grenades.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    She ded.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which would make a Reno lead assault even scarier when you think about it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah but HRC is still around.
    http://www.rense.com/general8/tripp.htm

  • John||

    And it is hard not to have sympathy for a cute girl next door type who has a secret freaky side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She was in Smallville too. She knows Superman!

  • sarcasmic||

    I would think she was too skinny for you.

    JUST KIDDING! I'm over the whole John pron thing. Mostly.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yeah, I thought John would have a problem with the whole forced calorie restriction thing. The genital branding is probably ok with him, as is the wearing of cow udders.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm trying to be nice while trying not to laugh!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Kaatje||

    Brilliant Vice article. I hate cults, but this wasn't sex trafficking. At all.

  • Paloma||

    "If you liked What the (bleep) Do We Know you should meet this guy". I HATED WTBDWK because it was lame as fuck. So glad not to ever know that guy.

  • Ariki||

    Hahahah god dam.
    Should change the above post to:

    "Women are stupid. All women."

    God you have to be dumb to ignore all those red flags.
    I mean common,
    "if you give me naked photos and family skeletons ill let you into this super special club that empowers women!"

    Translation:
    "If you are my slave you will be empowered!"

    How fucken stupid do you have to be?

  • Mark22||

    The weird thing is that the author thinks that somehow this makes the woman look less stupid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is udder nonsense.

  • John||

    Thanks. And she is wickedly cute.

  • sarcasmic||

    Aye. When the show came out I hinted to my girlfriend at the time how the two female leads would, well, she didn't appreciate it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That and fucking Clark Kent flying is what I was waiting for with Smallville.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They certainly dragged that out far too long.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Is NXIVM going to get sued by Scientology for IP infringement?

  • Sevo||

    "Is NXIVM going to get sued by Scientology for IP infringement?"

    It might be "a division of"...

  • ||

    No, but Fundamentalists Mormons might.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The bail was excessive under the 8th Amendment which tells you the government case is bullshit.

    The Government convinces women to saddle up with creepy people all the time and not a single bureaucrat gets charged with sex trafficking. I mean college of course and the creepy college professors.

    All the "victims' were adults, so their decisions to get sucked into a cult were theirs to make.

  • ||

    "The Government convinces women to saddle up with creepy people all the time and not a single bureaucrat gets charged with sex trafficking."

    Evidence?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Two of an infinite number of examples, more of which can be found today and throughout history:

    #1: Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer

    #2: Monica Lewinsky

  • Eidde||

    This is weird stuff. The alleged behavior of some of these folks sounds criminal, but it doesn't sound like your stereotypical sex-slaving ring.

    Maybe like ENB suggests, putting it in the sex-trafficking box assures more funding?

  • Ron||

    it definately assures media coverage for those who prosecute so they can move on with their next political campaign.

  • DJK||

    Could also be the prosecutor trying to get a plea deal by loading up on charges.

  • DJK||

    Or to convince her to testify against the cult leader.

  • sarcasmic||

    Totally hot. Not guilty.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • sarcasmic||

    page not found

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "page not found" was the nickname my teachers gave me in elementary school.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I laughed.

  • Slocum||

    Probably just one of the leftover copies from Battlestar Galactica

  • TuIpa||

    You have extremely low standards for hot.

  • StackOfCoins||

    She's on the high-end of realistically obtainable women.

  • Eidde||

    This is annoying because one of the federal government's core responsibilities (going back to the The Late Unpleasantness) is to enforce the 13th Amendment and punish slavers. Literal slavers.

    It would suck if they're being irresponsible in carrying out that responsibility.

    Aren't there *real* slavers out there to prosecute?

  • sarcasmic||

    Aren't there *real* slavers out there to prosecute?

    They all work for the government. So, no.

  • Eidde||

    I knew I was setting up that joke.

    But seriously, we know actual slavers and human traffickers exist, but the whole issue seems (according to ENB's research at least) to have gotten politicized in a search for funding.

  • sarcasmic||

    we know actual slavers and human traffickers exist

    With very few exceptions, not in the First World. Slavery and human trafficking in America is an intentional misuse of language to justify force upon people who are engaging in voluntary activity.

  • juris imprudent||

    Insert South Park Mr. Slave joke here.

  • FlameCCT||

    Government run Progressive Plantations with Elitist Masters, Uncle Tom Overseers, and Proletariat Serfs.

  • Eidde||

    Though, if it's true they use threats and extortion to force people into servitude - whether it's farm labor or sex work - then by all means throw the book at them.

    Now I guess it's up to the jury.

    Or to the lawyers who negotiate the plea bargain.

  • sarcasmic||

    The term slavery has been distorted by the left. If you voluntarily work for someone for wages that a leftist feels to be unfair, then you are a slave. If you voluntarily do work that a leftist just wouldn't do, then you are a slave. Shit, it's not even limited to the left. Conservatards twist any voluntary sex work into slavery.

    It's a work that has been so abused that it is now meaningless.

  • sarcasmic||

    *word*

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""It's a work that has been so abused that it is now meaningless.""

    Sadly it has. Like much of everything else the leftist believe, there is a spectrum. In this case the slave spectrum which seem to be anything from not earning a living wage, to being someone's property.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It also includes professional athletes, who earn far more than a living wage.

  • Sevo||

    "The term slavery has been distorted by the left. If you voluntarily work for someone for wages that a leftist feels to be unfair, then you are a slave."

    Interestingly, the phrase "wage slave" was used by the South prior to the war to make the bogus claim that slavery was practiced by the north also.
    Proggies have an interesting history.

  • Eidde||

    "...slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism....

    "We cannot believe that the Socialists do not see that domestic slavery is the only practicable form of socialism - they are afraid yet to pronounce the word."

    /Slavery apologist George Fitzhugh

  • Microaggressor||

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I have a thought that socialism is an attempt by humans to domesticate humans as beasts of convenience, much like horses.

    Also like horses, while frequently this domestication can be straightforward and contentedly accepted, poor technique unfitted to the horse can result in a crazy, vicious, or skittish horse. This is often when the trainer asks, "What's wrong with this horse?"

  • Nardz||

    Good observation, blue Hihn.

    See Nietzsche on the taming of man

  • Nardz||

    George Fitzhugh is a wonderful source for exposing the fundamental truth of Progressivism.

    His quotes basically form the Ds platform (then, and now)

  • Eidde||

    At least if she's innocent, Superman can spring her from prison. Unless that would violate his law-and-order principles. Or make Lois Lane jealous.

  • sarcasmic||

    Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

  • ||

    At least if she's innocent, Superman can spring her from prison.

    I assume you mean if she's innocent and found guilty.

    Or is your last name Mxyzptlk?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Have you seen the jugs on Smallville's Lois? Doubt she's too jealous.

  • Ron||

    People who spend lots of money on bogus info for some reason will never admit to their stupidity by claiming it was worth it. I've seen this from car buyers to condo buyers. No one wants to admit to throwing money down the toilet

  • Paloma||

    When they claim "This will totally change your life", why does nobody ask exactly HOW? And for what purpose? And how have all you secret society people actually changed the world at all? It's all very vague.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed completely there should be followup questions, but they most likely they all have semi-reasonable answers that are believable to most.

    And even if others didn't/don't believe the reasons they would give, their reasons to them are both very real and self evident, So even if 90% of the population openly thought the reasons were wrong/stupid, they would most likely still be secure in knowledge that they know better.

    Now, this is what effective con-men/rainmakers do - claim to as many as possible they can make it rain. And by statistical power alone, some of their protégés will become rainmakers and they'll take the credit for those wins, while blaming lack of focus/dedication/etc for the failures of all other followers.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Possibly, but if asked they could just decline to comment. Saying it changed their lives however isn't something people do for things they dint believe in. So I'd say it's more likely they truly believe, irregardless of what a careful analysis may show.

    Think Tom Cruise: crazy and stupid, but he doesn't praise Scientology for saving his life just to justify whatever money he's spent. He truly believes and credits them for his success and thinks that money was well spent.

    Even if careful analysis of his career showed he most likely would've gotten to where he is without Scientology, there's so many variables in why someone succeeds it can never be proven they didn't help.

    And just like Jenny McCarthy who noticed signs of autism near the same time her child was vaccinated and assumed the two were related, a lot of Cruise's early career successes coincided with him and Scientology and he saw and sees a connection.

    And much like the god fearing man who knows angels help him daily, they all truly believe it and are highly unlikely to ever believe otherwise.

    Even if just found confirmed LRH writings said the whole thing was a hoax, even if LRH stated so on camera and the video was just recently found, Cruise will in all likelihood die a believer.

  • lap83||

    who would test their loyalty by asking for random requests at odd hours and require recruits to run errands and do menial tasks for them

    Huh, sounds like some of the employers I've worked for. Maybe I should've done more than just leave a bad Glassdoor review. /checks self into sex trafficking shelter

  • Just Say'n||

    Just to recap: Russia fever dreams are totes true, but a celebrity involved in a sex cult is totes bogus. We need Gawker back

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I just noticed that Allison Mack was born in West Germany. Germans and Russians had the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact.

    Dots connected.

  • ||

    ^^ This guy gets it.

  • Mcgoo95||

    DOS = Dick Operating System

  • Joe_JP||

    I think the reasonable thing for me to do is to remain agnostic without knowing all the details.

    The article suggests the head person here might be guilty of something but it should not be approached as a sex trafficking crime. Looking it up, one Washington Post article included in part:

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Moira Kim Penza also said in court that "under the guise of female empowerment," Mack "starved women until they fit her co-defendant's sexual ideal," the AP wrote.

    If this and other activity is actually true, that is, in a criminal sense, it to me is proper to include that in the indictment because it is an additional crime beyond fraud or so forth. Allison Mack's specific involvement, including the proper crime for her (especially if she is somehow also a victim, which I don't know), might be different. But, she might have helped a scheme that sexually abused people.

    Libertarianism should be particularly appalled at that in my view as a violation of basic liberty.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If sex trafficking down include false imprisonment, violence or threats of violence if victims don't comply there there is no crime.

    How is peacefully convincing adults to engage in sex a crime again?

  • Sevo||

    "How is peacefully convincing adults to engage in sex a crime again?"

    Or even if he convinced her to lose weight?
    I think Joe's mask is slipping a bit.

  • Joe_JP||

    There seems to be a typo or two in your comment, but consensual sex should not be a crime in my view, though that isn't the law now in all ways (prostitution etc.). I am agnostic about the prosecution here because I don't know all the details. If there was some coercion, it might not be legally consensual. I think at some point that should be a crime.

  • Cloudbuster||

    As far as I can understand, these women weren't locked in a dungeon and starved. They willingly followed the instructions to restrict their diet. I don't see how that's a crime.

  • Joe_JP||

    IF there was consent, it shouldn't' be a crime.

    IF there wasn't, it would be appropriate to specifically add that in.

  • Sevo||

    Joe, if you didn't keep back-stepping on every bit of bullshit you posted, you probably wouldn't be considered a bullshitter.

  • dave b.||

    Where the hell is this white woman's mugshot?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Allison Mack was born in West Germany.

    She is a legalized immigrant.

    All I need to point out to connect the dots.

  • ||

    "Legalized immigrant"? WTF are you talking about. She was born an American citizen to American parents.

  • MarkLastname||

    That chip on your shoulder looks heavy

  • Eidde||

    You want mugshots of white women? Crusty can give you some links.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The courtroom sketch of her I saw in an article on this the other day did not put her in a good light.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I'd rather see her in her master/slave costume.

  • dave b.||

    Pass

  • DajjaI||

    "the victims were then exploited, both sexually and for their labor"

    Wow this sounds like me 5 years ago railing against the 12 Steps.

  • Eidde||

    If they take you all the way to Step 69, things may have gotten out of hand.

  • ||

    Plus, some of the tactics he used to control these women almost definitely fall under the categories of fraud, extortion, or harassment.

    Yet the idea that anyone here was actually involved in sex trafficking—i.e., forced or coerced prostitution—is incoherent under legal or common notions of the concept.

    Wait, from the outside looking in we can make the call on fraud, extortion, and harassment but not prostitution? So no agency when it comes to business dealings, consent, and communication but absolute unquestioned agency when it comes to sex?

    Seem like even Mr. Soave would throw a 'to be sure' in there.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    DOS, DOJ, NXIVM... all these cults are hard to keep track of.

  • albo||

    Someone is defending this dirtbag?

  • TuIpa||

    It's a woman, and involves sex, of course ENB is white knighting for her.

  • ||

    But only on the sex part. It's obvious that the fraud, harassing, and extortion charges that weren't filed by the investigators would've been legit, especially against the man behind it all.

  • ||

    "would've"? You seem confused. He hasn't been formally indicted yet because more charges are coming. Now that Mack has seemingly defected from the cult she will sing. This story is only beginning.

  • ||

    You seem confused.... This story is only beginning.

    So, I'm not confused as much as just not willfully following along with the narrative that has yet to be written. That is, the narrative that ENB and/or you are asserting is bogus.

    It's a pyramid scheme and she's about as close to the top as you can get and, per ENB's own written words, Raniere wasn't directly involved in the enslaving or tasking of the subordinates and lower tiers. If he enslaved her, unless he specifically commanded her for every subsequent slave and task, then she made a decision to enslave/task people without him. More overarchingly; taking her agency to make her innocent and giving it back to her to implicate him isn't doing anything for women's agency in general whether the State or ENB does it.

  • ||

    Not to mention, I've never spent a day in a DA's chair, but I don't think it's considered a 'win' to file and then drop sex trafficking charges in lieu of fraud and harassment charges. I understand the field to be very career-driven and self-oriented and 'sex trafficking' charges against a TV-star seems like a more sensationalist place to hang your hat than fraud against a no-name cult leader. But, even then, if the sensational charges against a has-been TV star are fabricated, why would we assume the lower-level charges against a cult leader aren't.

  • StackOfCoins||

    DOJ is relying on your lack of understanding to make this sex trafficking charge stick.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How does convincing other adults to have consensual sex with someone else make them a dirtbag?

    The majority at the SCOTUS convinced the USA that adult men having consensual sex with other men was fine.

  • StackOfCoins||

    The majority at the SCOTUS convinced the USA that adult men having consensual sex with other men was fine.

    Is this sarcasm?

  • TuIpa||

    That uggo couldn't convince me to buy here a drink, much less join a cult.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, most people don't join two cults at the same time.

  • TGoodchild||

    There should be an app for that: Culter, or something. You can only swipe up.

  • Mark22||

    You don't understand female psychology. She isn't saying to other women "join this cult so you can have sex with me", she is saying "join this cult so you can have sex with this powerful man, like I am having". And then othe women think "well, if she's the competition, I can snatch that man for myself".

  • Empress Trudy||

    It sounds like Hollywood w/o making the movies, which is also like Hollywood

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    And I said look here brother
    Who you jiving with that cosmik debris?
    Now what kind of a guru are you, anyway?
    Look here brother, don't waste your time on me

  • ||

    Dear Author,

    This is how you write an argument using "Reason" [EXPLANATIONS LIKE SO]:

    The author says that Mack's actions do not meet the definition of sex trafficking, but she does not offer a definition of sex trafficking that could support this claim, at least not an accurate definition of sex trafficking, under U.S. law. She does describe sex trafficking as "forced or coerced prostitution"—implying that the victims have to have been forced into receiving money for sex." Aside from the fact that this (mis)equates victims of sex trafficking with prostitutes, this definition misrepresents what U.S. law actually says [THIS IS MY CENTRAL CLAIM, OR THESIS].

  • ||

    To attempt to support the claim that the alleged actions do not meet the definition of sex trafficking, the author says that members joined the cult consensually and were not compensated, resting on her previous definition of sex trafficking as "forced or coerced prostitution" [THIS QUOTATION IS MY FIRST PIECE OF EVIDENCE]. This claim is both dubious—numerous victims have alleged through legal due process or otherwise that they were blackmailed, threatened, and coerced into having sex with Raniere, while both victims and recruiters were allegedly promised some form of compensation (which usually never manifested)—and irrelevant to the legal definition of sex trafficking [THIS SUMMARY OF SOME ALLEGATIONS IS MY SECOND PIECE OF EVIDENCE]. So, the allegations do meet the author's own (wrong) definition of sex trafficking, in so far as victims were both coerced and offered compensation [THIS STATEMENT STATES THE POINT/OUTCOME OF COMPARING THE PREVIOUS TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE].

  • ||

    Furthermore, to show you why the author's definition of "sex trafficking" incorrect, one needs only look at Title 22 U.S. Code § 7102 (here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7102), from which I shall quote.

    U.S. law defines sex trafficking as such (emphasis mine): "the RECRUITMENT, harboring, transportation, PROVISION, OBTAINING, PATRONIZING, or SOLICITING of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act" [THIRD PIECE OF EVIDENCE]. The court documentation details in multiple ways how Mack engaged in these activities, not least of all by instructing female group members, that she herself had recruited, to engage in sexual activities with Raniere, lest they face retribution from herself, Raniere, Salzman, or Bronfman. This clearly meets the definition of at least recruitment and and soliciting, and problematizes the author's uses of the word "prostitution," which cannot be equated to "commercial sex act." It is, thus, nonsense to call the charges "totally bogus," even if they do end up being dropped or lessened [THIS PARAGRAPH USES EVIDENCE #3 TO SHOW WHY THE AUTHOR'S DEFINITION IS WRONG, AND HOW IT CLOUDS HER INTERPRETATION OF THE CASE].

  • ||

    In sum, the author does not back up her claims with any evidence, only her own opinions and misrepresentations of both the law and the details of the case (about which she seems ill informed). Meanwhile, the case is ongoing, and not all evidence has been presented, further making the author's claims illogical. Her conclusions are drawn from partial and inaccurate knowledge that precludes the possibility of deducing Mack to be innocent or not. Only time will tell the full truth of this case [THIS PARAGRAPH TIES MY CLAIM AND POINTS TOGETHER INTO A SUCCINCT CONCLUDING STATEMENT/DEDUCTION].

    And, on a final note, I sympathize with the author's concern for sex-trafficking victims and misuse of related laws. However, I suspect this case is going to become much larger, as it is likely that Mack is going to flip on the group and on Raniere, which is likely the real reason the prosecution has so aggressively pursued her while Raniere sits in a jail cell. She will likely get off easy by testifying against Raniere in court and possibly offering evidence of further crimes committed by the group, with the biggest prize for prosecutors being to charge Clare Bronfman, who could be implicated not only in the sex-trafficking charges but also possibly numerous financial and other crimes going back decades.

  • ||

    In Title 22 U.S. Code § 7102, "commercial sex act" is defined as such: "any sex act on account of which ANYTHING OF VALUE is given to or received by ANY PERSON" [FOURTH PIECE OF EVIDENCE]. The court documents allege that Mack was promised financial compensation in exchange for recruiting members and COERCING them into having sex with Raniere (albeit, of course, after Raniere had fleeced, brainwashed, and solicited Mack herself). The fact that Mack was promised compensation for doing so clearly fulfills the criteria to consider the alleged coerced sex acts with Raniere "commercial." It does not matter whether the victims themselves were compensated [THIS PARAGRAPH CLARIFIES WHY THE AUTHOR'S DEFINITION IS WRONG, AND HOW IT CLOUDS HER INTERPRETATION OF THE CASE].

  • Mark22||

    I would add that it is hardly upsetting that prosecuctors charge crimes they can't prove; they do that all the time, in fact. Grand juries throw those out before subjecting people to the ordeal of a trial, and regular juries throw them out if they believe the evidence doesn't match the legal definitions.

  • Brigid||

    Except, they weren't charged with that statute, and the indictment has been out online a week with the REAL charges listed in plain sight and easy to look up--no excuses for this author constructing an argument when this is NOT what they were charged with.
    They were charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1591 - SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN or by force, fraud, or coercion (a1, a2, b1), 18 U.S. Code § 1594 (a.b.c,d), and 18 U.S. Code § 3551, and U.S.C. 853. The two Jane Does are UNDERAGE. My full comment is below. This is so shoddy, it should be taken down at once.

  • Brigid||

    The charges:18 U.S. Code § 1591 Sex trafficking of CHILDREN by force, fraud, or coercion
    (a) Whoever knowingly (1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; or
    (2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1), knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is (1) if the offense was effected by means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means, or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, advertised, patronized, or solicited had NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 14 YEARS at the time of such offense, by a fine under this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or for life

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Just as the logical response to the 'drug problem' is to legalize most drugs, the solution to 'sex trafficking' is to legalize prostitution, so that women who are under threat will feel able to go to the Law.

    But that would give men easy, legal access to sex without having to deal with feminist shrews and associated head-games. Which is why it will never happen.

  • ||

    Actually, a lot of feminists ARE pro-prostitution. The level of delusion and ignorance on a site called "Reason" is astounding.

  • Mark22||

    Except that progressives still want society to pick up the tab for the consequences of such behavior: STD coverage under mandatory health plans, financial support for single mothers, free public schools, free abortions, etc.

    If the state and society have to pay for the consequences of sex, then the state and society have a justified interest in regulation and contraining it. Privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs is unacceptable whether we are talking about investments or vaginas.

  • ||

    Nice "whataboutism."

  • Number 2||

    "The 'women's empowerment' society that the feds now say served as a sex-trafficking enterprise was launched in 2015. Members were recruited mostly from within NXIVM ranks and given only partial information about how the group was to work, according to the federal complaint against Raniere. Prospective DOS members were required to submit some form of collateral—nude photos, signed-over assets, or damaging information about themselves or someone close to them—in order to learn more.

    " 'Once they joined, DOS recruits were required to provide additional collateral, which they did, fearing that their original collateral would be released," according to a letter submitted to the court by Donahue."

    So...women were recruited to join an empowerment group, were told that to join they either had to sign over ownership of their homes (or some other asset) or provide nude photos of themselves..and they COMPLIED?

    I'm sorry, but after reading this, my question is why the people who bought into this DOS nonsense weren't themselves arrested for criminal stupidity.

  • ||

    "my question is why the people who bought into this DOS nonsense weren't themselves arrested for criminal stupidity."

    MY question is why the people who bought into this RELIGION nonsense weren't themselves arrested for criminal stupidity.

    Seriously, Raniere just copied Joseph Smith.

  • ||

    The women believed and supported him for the same reason that Elizabeth Smart complied with her captor: Immanuel/Raniere exploited Smart's/Mack's affinity for Mormon/New Age beliefs into thinking that following their every command was the path to Heaven/Enlightenment. Same schtick that basically every cult leader in history has used, regardless of whether they fill in the blanks with progressive or conservative drivel.

  • Mark22||

    There is a big difference: these women made a voluntary choice to join; they were not coerced. It's far from clear to me why my tax dollars should go to financing a police and legal system that protects people from the consequences of their bad choices. And one of the most common bad choices is for women to submit to exploitative men. Seems to me the problem is self limiting if society doesn't intervene.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    As Mark32 stated, your analogy is very flawed. These are adults who were not abducted and imprisoned against their will.

    Note with more facts, I might change my mind, but right now it seems as though this is similar to rape now including "sexual experiences I later regretted".

    And if you're one of those insane enough to agree with that definition, then these people were raped.

    But given they appear to have consented the whole time on multiple occasions and when they wanted to leave they were allowed, I cannot understand how someone else is to blame for them engaging in legal consensual acts voluntarily.

    Even if he lied about what his program was truly capable of, doesn't every successful self-help guru and religion do the same?

    Seriously, what's the difference in his promises and those made by others marketing their self-help remedies? Since none really work (as one size fit all solutions always fail when the solution is only effective of defined individually), it seems he's a cult because weird sex, and all the others are just more clever and more successful marketers we can all learn from.

    So even though they all use the same false promises, our government had chosen to make one illegal while ignoring all others. And they do so under the implication they must because adult women are not able to be responsible for their own decisions.

    Making this protection both sexist and hypocritical - in today's double speak, they call that a two-fer or a win-win.

  • ||

    My analogy is NOT flawed. Read about what happened to Smart. She was abducted forcibly but then brainwashed. She had numerous opportunities to leave but didn't. She was left alone without her captors and heard people looking for her,, but remained silent. When the police did finally find her, she lied about who she was. The difference is that Smart was kidnapped overnight whereas Mack and the others were slowly brainwashed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I think Allison Mack would make a good libertarian party candidate for Mayor, State Legislator or any of hundreds of offices. Her spoiler votes will make Comstock Law looters, blackmailers with badges and Prohibition Party regulars wet their diapers in the rush to repeal those laws. Someone hand her an mp3 recording of the Libertarian Party platform, dammit!

  • Mark22||

    ENB, stop circling the wagons around the sisterhood. In a pyramid scheme, Mack is necessarily both a perpetrator and a victim. But she's a human being with free will who used blackmail to coerce others into sex and defraud them of money. And the fact that "sex trafficking" doesn't actually mean "trafficking in sex" didn't start with this case, it's been true of pretty much every so-called sex trafficking case.

    I'm not sure that any of this conduct should be criminal or subject to prosecution: after all, all the participants made free, if stupid, choices and they ended up punishing themselves. But given that the conduct is being prosecuted and can legally be prosecuted, I see little reason not to go after Mack, and I see little reason for the prosecution to happen consistently at all levels of the pyramid.

  • Brigid||

    You didn't bother to look up the U.C. criminal code and examine the ACTUAL charges for Raniere and Mack. Had you done so, you would have seen that they are charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1591 - SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN or by force, fraud, or coercion (a1, a2, b1), 18 U.S. Code § 1594 (a.b.c,d), and 18 U.S. Code § 3551, and U.S.C. 853. The two Jane Does are UNDERAGE. He has a history of screwing twelve to fifteen year olds. Grown women were not enough, in spite of him starving them to keep them child-like thin; he insisted they import actual teens and pre-teens, who were also used for labour slavery by the women.
    The primary charge you base your premise for this article on is utterly without foundation. The charge is for SEX TRAFFICKING CHILDREN, not grown women. They were using illegal alien teens and pre-teens shipped in from Mexico and various other places, away from their parents and homes and in the care of this cult, who used them for sex and free labour. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GROWN WOMEN HAVING BDSM SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. This is about importing underage foreign undocumented workers and exploiting them. Next time, look at the upper right-hand corner of the indictment and then find the criminal code for the charges. Or do more research in the first place, it is all out there online.

  • Sevo||

    Brigid|4.26.18 @ 9:35PM|#
    "You didn't bother to look up the U.C. criminal code and examine the ACTUAL charges for Raniere and Mack. Had you done so, you would have seen that they are charged with 18 U.S. Code § 1591 - SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN or by force, fraud, or coercion (a1, a2, b1), 18 U.S. Code § 1594 (a.b.c,d), and 18 U.S. Code § 3551, and U.S.C. 853. The two Jane Does are UNDERAGE."

    The charges are less important than the actions. If what you say is true, I'd hope it will be clear as the case continues. Until then, well...

  • Dan S.||

    provided collateral (including a contract transferring any future children she had to Raniere's custody and her home to his ownership) to be triggered if she broke this commitment.

    Is such a contract legal? Children are not property. A provision triggering a custody transfer as part of a "penalty clause" certainly seems to treat them as such. I would hope such a provision would be deemed null and void if there was ever an attempt to enforce it.

  • Paloma||

    Would anyone like to guess the political leanings of these women in the cult? Before, after, or during? If you had to take a guess.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since most cults from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were mostly lefty boomers....

  • ||

    Since most cults from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were mostly lefty boomers....

    I think the 'cult' label can be exceedingly broad and that aligning people on the left/right spectrum who's political view could possibly be described as 'orange' or '42' is a fool's errand.

    Jim Jones - religious pro-socialist and pro-diversity cuckoo cultist, self-loathing suicidal anti-left terrorist, or obvious conclusion of plain and clear ideological path? Yes? No? You decide!

  • MikeP2||

    Lots of similarities in this cult to the Gor book series. It will be fascinating to hear the details as they emerge.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Members—who call themselves Nexians"

    They sound nice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What Mack and the leader guy did sounds exactly what Scientology does, the Mormon church does, and what Islam mosques do.

  • SomeDude68||

    After Mack was branded with his initials, and became his "slave"... Mack rose to the leader's "second in command" and supposedly participated in the branding of other women, with Mack administering his brand, with a piece of hot iron. If so, she should do SOME amount of time in prison... even if she helps the prosecution... some REAL form of punishment should take place.

  • Robert||

    The Masons require members to sign over everything they own to them as well. It's just that they have a tradition of signing them back over immediately after the member's induction. Similarly, for a later degree, they "bury" the inductee, but get him out of the coffin immediately afterward.

  • Ron||

    The free thought project paints a different picture than Reason does

    https://thefreethoughtproject .com/allison-mack-accused-trafficking -children-billionaire-backed-sex-slavery-ring/
    spaces added to conform to rules

  • Toko Mesin Pompa||

    The "women's empowerment" society that the feds now say served as a sex-trafficking enterprise was launched in 2015. Members were recruited WLS Logistic mostly from within NXIVM ranks and given only partial information about how the group was to work, according to the federal complaint against Raniere. Prospective DOS members were required to submit some form of collateral—nude photos Billiton Capture, signed-over assets, or damaging information about themselves or someone close to them—in order to learn more Terbaik.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online