A Very Sad Day in History and a Reflection of Our Society Today
There is a big problem in today’s society. We have become a culture that celebrates and rewards victims without question. Sadly, many people are lazy thinkers and naively believe mainstream media and television shows. People believe programs promoted as documentaries are sources of reliable news and information. Perhaps this is because many people just want to be entertained. Many empathetic people are “emotional sympathizers.” This is generally a good thing, but it becomes an issue if people blindly believe anyone who claims to be a victim without question. Today, anyone who questions a victim faces criticism and backlash. We are living in a society that favors “trial by media” over due process, and social media only adds fuel to the fire.
Mainstream media creates a digital mob that expresses its outrage and disgust towards anyone who is accused of abuse. Do you think most people believe what the media, legal system, and government tell them to believe? Are there people who make the effort to question people, challenge what authorities and mainstream media say, and investigate the facts critically and logically?
These societal problems are quite evident as I reflect about a very sad and tragic day. On June 30, 2021, Allison Mack was sentenced to three years in prison. Allison is a victim in this case. But not in the way most people perceive. I knew Allison through several personal development training sessions we took together over four years. Allison Mack is not the person the media has portrayed her to be. Her name is now forever associated with a “sex cult.” Allison was betrayed by her government, the legal system, the media, and some of her former friends.
I believe Allison plead guilty because she faced more possible jail time if she chose to go to trial instead of accepting a plea deal. A recent study of roughly 80,000 federal prosecutions started in 2018 reported that more than 97% of federal criminal convictions were through plea bargains because of government coercion known as the “trial penalty.” This is when a defendant is offered a lighter sentence before trial compared to after trial. In Allison’s case (like most other federal cases), there is immense pressure from the government to take a plea deal. It is understandable why she did take a plea deal and renounced Keith. Yet this decision is so tragic because I believe she was not guilty of any crimes.
Allison also probably realized that she would not get a fair trial as a co-defendant of Keith Raniere’s. She, along with his other co-defendants, accepted plea deals shortly after Keith was charged with possession of child pornography. However, now it is clear and conclusively proven by forensic experts that the “child porn” evidence was actually planted and photos were altered while in FBI government possession (which will come out in court shortly). At the time, Allison was probably advised by her lawyers to accept a plea deal because it is very difficult to defend against a child pornography charge because the evidence is supposedly dispositive and because of the tremendous prejudice it evokes.
Do you think Allison was already presumed “guilty” in a trial by media? Did you know that this campaign was organized by her former friends and people who were enemies of Keith? People ask why would a person take a plea deal if they are not guilty? What would you do if you faced a much longer prison sentence if you went to trial instead of a plea deal?
Imagine this scenario: You are part of women’s secret sorority with some unconventional practices. The government presents you with two choices: 1) Disagree with the government’s narrative and face arrest and a potential long prison time, or 2) Agree with the government’s narrative and say you are a victim of Keith Raniere to avoid arrest and prison time. Even if you knew you did not commit any crimes, which would you choose?
Is it possible that the government believed the stories of a few women (who either faced prison time or public shaming, or wanted fame and money) because prosecutors wanted to win this big high-profile criminal case? Imagine this scenario: A young prosecutor who was in charge of a very high-profile case had no hard evidence to support the crimes and was relying mainly on a few witnesses. Is it possible that the government overstepped its authority and criminalized sexual behavior because it was perceived as unconventional?
When one thinks of “sex trafficking,” do you think a common sense interpretation of this qualifies? An adult 29-year old woman engaged in a single consensual sex act with another adult woman while a man watched them perform this sexual act. The man was charged with sex trafficking and sentenced to 40 years in prison for this act. A third woman who did not participate in the sex act was sentenced to three years in prison. No money was exchanged as a result of the sex act and is therefore not a commercial sex act.
Sex trafficking laws were intended to make it a crime to sexually exploit people for profit and as an economic activity. A key element of the crime is that the sexual act must be a “commercial sex act” that is “on account of” anything of value is given to another person. In other words, there needs to be a causal relationship between the sex act and the item of value. It does not appear the prosecution met this burden of proof. Moreover, the judge in this case did not instruct the jury to determine if the sex act was “on account of” anything of value. In this case, where no money was exchanged, does this constitute a “commercial sexual act”? Does this seem like an example of government abuse of power and overstepping its jurisdiction? Do you really want the government involved in private sexual acts of its citizens? By this example, a co-worker who sets up her colleagues on a date and the founder of the company could be accused of “sex trafficking.” Again, quite absurd.
Did you know that this woman who participated in the sex act was also represented by a class-action lawyer who along with other “victims” were planning to sue Keith Raniere and the Bronfman sisters for millions of dollars? Do you think that this could be a motive to testify against Keith Raniere? She was recently awarded $400,000 restitution even though there was no evidence of any damage or physical harm. People ask why would people misrepresent or lie? As was said in the show Breaking Bad, “just follow the money.”
Another “victim” in this case is India Oxenberg who claims she is scared of Allison. Did you know that India participated in DOS for almost three years with no complaints and praised both Allison and DOS consistently for helping her improve her life? Yet after the media and government became involved, India now claims she was abused and coerced. What could explain this change? Do you think this is problematic? There was no problem or issue until mainstream media featuring India’s actress mother created a media campaign that helped convict Allison in mainstream media. Anyone associated with NXIVM or DOS was a government and/or media target. Don’t you think justice would require some other evidence or facts that would support claims of abuse other than when a person cries “abuse”?
India did the same practices as Allison (e.g., acts of care, readiness drills, acts of self-discipline, etc.) and had slaves just like Allison. India was originally “co-conspirator #2” (Allison was “co-conspirator #1"). India was never even arrested. I believe India was rewarded for betraying Allison and blaming Allison for her own choice to join DOS and get a brand. This is a familiar pattern used by prosecutors to put innocent people in a situation that puts one person against others. India probably had to cooperate with the government or else she would be arrested. Can you see how this is a horrible situation to put people in?: Be a victim or else you are a “victimizer.” India was never charged yet she was co-conspirator number two. In contrast to Allison, India came out as a hero. Did you know she was paid by Starz to executive produce and also star in the show? Do you think this could be a reason why she changed her view of DOS and Keith Raniere? The show seemed like more of a public relations show used to exonerate India’s role and responsibility in her own life and her choices.
The judge in this case sentenced Allison to three years while Lauren Salzman, a co-defendant, was sentenced to no prison time. Allison was isolated from her wife and some of her closest friends for several months and she chose to accept a plea deal instead of facing potentially more prison time if she went to trial. I don’t envy her position. I have seen many pictures, emails, videos taken during her time in the years prior to her arrest. She looked happy and full of life. In my opinion, her words renouncing Keith did not sound like the Allison I knew. I believe she had to renounce Keith Raniere and go along with the government’s narrative so she could get a more lenient sentence of less prison time. This is such incredible coercion and an example of government abuse. Such a tragedy that she is serving any prison time.
Given what happened, is it possible that the people involved did not commit any crimes? Is it possible that crimes were committed by the government, prosecutors, and lies were perpetuated in a hate campaign orchestrated by people who wanted money, fame, and media attention? Too many people believe the sensationalized horror stories that mainstream media and so-called “docudramas” perpetuated. This too shall be one of those sad times in history that innocent people were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. Sadly, this is not the first time and won’t be the last time. However, reality has a way of continuing to be true. No one is powerful enough to keep the truth hidden forever.
Isn’t it suspect to believe mainstream media? Don’t we have enough examples of this today and yet at a very young age I can remember the Tawana Brawley case. Tawana Brawley was a black woman who falsely accused several white men of kidnapping her and raping her. She was completely discredited after a thorough investigation. Reverend Al Sharpton was held liable and had to pay the men for defamation. Sometimes people lie to get out of trouble. The NXIVM case is another sad reminder of how easily people can lie and gain sympathy.
The victim stance has become a powerful way to gain sympathy and attention, but sometimes it is used by some people to avoid responsibility and accountability for their actions and their own life choices. This case perpetuates a misogynistic stereotype that women are helpless and incapable of making their own decisions or living with the consequences of their own choices. And that is truly another sad day in history.
