Carol Merchasin - The Cult Assassin: Suing High-Control Groups

Attorney Carol Merchasin didn’t set out to expose cults, but after investigating allegations about a high-control Buddhist organization and discovering that the abuse had run more rampant than she’d imagined, she became a lawyer and focused her practice on getting justice for survivors of cults and abusive groups.

Carol discusses the legal ins and outs of suing cults and spiritual leaders, where American law stands in recognizing coercion and human trafficking, and why the differences in ideologies between high-control groups really don’t matter. Plus: the patterns and red flags she’s learned to spot, why spiritual language is often used to disguise harm, and what to do if you get sued by your group for speaking out.

 

SOURCES:

BITE MODEL of Authoritarian Control 

Heartwood Center

McAllister Olivarius Law

For pro bono legal help, look up your state bar association for a directory of pro bono attorneys.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Trust me? Do you trust me?

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Right? Ever?

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Lead you wish your trust?

Speaker 2 (00:06):
This is the truth, the only truth.

Speaker 3 (00:09):
If anybody ever tells you to just trust them, don't
welcome to trust me. The podcast about cults, extreme belief
and manipulation from two Ellwood's fans who've actually experienced it.
I am Lola Blanc and I am Megan Elizabeth. And
today our guest is Carol Murchison, a lawyer sometimes referred
to as the cult Assassin because she specializes in suing

(00:32):
cults and high control groups for sexual misconduct. She's going
to tell us how she started off as an investigator,
how her work uncovering abuse in a Buddhist organization that
she was initially skeptical about led her down this professional path,
why the differences between various religions and ideologies are actually
not that important when it comes to the abuse of power,
and how we determine whether abuse is a bad apple

(00:54):
problem versus a systemic problem.

Speaker 4 (00:56):
Yep, she'll talk to us about why human trafficking is
more subtle then we typically imagine. How the law and
the US is behind un legally recognizing coersion that happens
to an adult or doesn't involve immediate physical violence. How
cults threaten to sue as a weapon to silence people
who speak out about them, and what tools are available

(01:16):
if you do get threatened with a defamation lawsuit, which
you have been congratulation.

Speaker 3 (01:24):
When's it going to happen again? It's like, what do
you call it? The ritual of thing?

Speaker 1 (01:33):
You pass? Oh? Azing? No, it's a right of past.
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
I literally said the word pass and I couldn't get it. Okay, Okay,
before we get into the legal intricacy use of cults, Megan,
what's your cultiest thing.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Of the week.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
Well, first of all, I'm obsessed with Carol. I want
her to live in my closet.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
You want her to.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
Live is where I thought was over. I was like
me too, they're a problem. Should I be concerned? No,
I want her to live in my closet. Okay, And
he just like that sounds abusive. Okay, you want to
have her in your life. I want to have her

(02:18):
in my life and she can never leave.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
You're going to need a new cult dissassinate from you.

Speaker 4 (02:27):
Indeed, my cultiest thing of the week is a conversation
that I would be interested in.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Having with her.

Speaker 4 (02:32):
Actually, I'll have to go in my closet later and
see if she's up to talking. Do you remember the
guy from San Diego. His name was Matthew Coleman, and
he murdered his two children, and one of the most
horrific cases, he took them down to Mexico.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Do you remember those?

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (02:48):
Yeah, So I was reading that he was actually forcibly
put on medication so he could not plead insanity. Lori Valo,
who also killed her children and kind of a cultic
doomsday psychosis not being allowed to plead insanity being very
help accountable. And then there's this ruby Frankie like mommy

(03:11):
blogger who's being held to the highest degree of the law,
and it just feels like we're kind of going into
a world where the law is really cracking down on
these types of crimes.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
Oh, I thought, okay, so this was not about the medication.
I got stuck on the medication nothing. Okay, So you're
just saying that, like they they are not allowing people
to plead insanity. I guess since I hadn't really followed
any cases like this before, I have no understanding of
the history of whether that's changing or not. But yeah,
that would be a really good question for Carol. Maybe

(03:44):
we can email her and I hope she answers. If
she doesn't, we're very sorry to get your hopes up.
But those are to me though, those are pretty clear
cut cases, because the murder of a child is like,
unequivocally like something that's someone's going to be held responsible.

Speaker 4 (04:00):
Before in Ruby's case, she didn't kill them, she abused
them a lot, and people are shocked at her sentence.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
It's pretty maximum.

Speaker 4 (04:07):
So I feel like there's some leaning into holding people accountable.
And what worries me about that is are people who
are under like control being coerced into the are going
to be like it just brings up a lot of
difficult questions.

Speaker 3 (04:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I think you know, one of
the things we'll talk about in this episode is how
dad is the one area of the law that has
not really been as like it's an obvious crime, and
I think it's historically been very much prosecuted, and the
crimes that maybe haven't gotten as much attention are the
ones that are a little more complex, that don't involve

(04:46):
children or don't involve violence. So those are some questions
we'll get into in this interview, y'all, I can't wait.
What's your cultiest thing of the week? So single again?

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Hell? Single again? Why are you signing like that?

Speaker 3 (05:00):
It's like, it's not what I've desired for my future,
but this is what has happened in my life. So
that means I'm on dating apps again.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
Oh my god, And you know it happened again.

Speaker 3 (05:11):
And in fairness, I was like crashing out post breakup
because this was like pretty immediately.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
After the breakup.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
I immediately found like an obvious, raging, horrific narcissist. Perfect
And I don't use y'all know, I don't throw that
word around, Like I really don't like that word. I
think people over use that word and overdiagnose. He might
not be a narcissist, but I think he has. I
think he is fully on the antisocial rumor that he's

(05:39):
a raging narcissist, some kind of personality disorder. And I
got the full love bomb and I was like I
just need attention. I don't care, and I fortunately cut
it off pretty quick because I was like, this is
a terrible situation.

Speaker 4 (05:57):
Just get the love bomb and then dip before it
could go into the devaluation. It went up like because
I was like, that's brilliant. We should all do that. Okay,
But here's what I noticed happening in my brain. Like
I was like, I feel crazy. I feel high.

Speaker 3 (06:14):
I feel like I'm literally high, and then I feel
like I'm crashing down and I'm not high anymore and
I need the high. And I was like, this is crazy.
I don't even like this person. I think he's like
cringey as fuck, and like if I thought someone else
in my life was a sexatic, this person is like
next level, like the boss level version, you know, like

(06:36):
the final boss type of that.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
So I don't even like him.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
But he was using the techniques of like giving you
the attention and the you're making you feel really good
and then withdrawing it and then giving it to you
and then withdrawing it, and it worked like a child
like a charm.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Even though I don't like him. It's not cool, it's crazy.

Speaker 3 (06:57):
It's like I'm a mouse, like I'm a fucking in
a lab like we are literally we are. So this
is my this is my PSA for all of our
ladies listening and our fellas. You are not stronger than
these manipulation tactics great, because when we've talked about this before,
even when we go in knowing that that's what's happening, oh.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yeah, that's it does not help it.

Speaker 3 (07:21):
It's like taking heroin and being like, I know i'm
gonna yeah, I know it's gonna make me feel good,
but I won't do it again.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
Fortunately I recognized it and I really really want a healthy,
long term relationship, and so I cut it off.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
But it took me a couple of tries, honestly, like, yeah,
that's what I was gonna hearken too. It's just the
only option is to.

Speaker 4 (07:39):
Remove yourself completely, and it's difficult, and your brain is
it's like it was like, yeah, more hair, brain is
gonna want and just like stick back on it and
you have to very consciously just rip it out. No,
and it releases like cortisol or something because you're stressed
that you can't get the dopamine. Yet more stressful than

(08:00):
just feeling good, it's like also adding stress.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
It's so disregulating. Just fucking stay away from them.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
Yeah, I was like, I've known this person for seven days,
how could I feel disregulated by that?

Speaker 1 (08:09):
That's crazy.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
It's like a mixer to the brain, and I was
like calling him out on his manipulations and he was
admitting to it, and he just literally continued to do
the exact same things.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
It was so sociopathic, like I can't.

Speaker 4 (08:19):
Wait to see a picture he's barely cute, Like oh,
just like barely stress just like, okay, good enough, you
know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
Okay, great, it makes it even better, it really does.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
Anyway, if you know me in person, I'll give you
all the all the details, but they do not need
to be described here.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
But it was so stupid.

Speaker 4 (08:39):
I've done this so many times where I'm like, Okay,
I have to get over somebody. I'm just gonna like
go out with this person and it's a total rando.
And then I'm like dating them and I'm sad about
that new person, right, and I'm like, this is my
brain is hijacking itself.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, and I can't do it.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
So I yeah, I have been taking a break from
dating after a wild It wasn't just him too, Like
I kind of went on a frenzy because I was like,
I need to see someone. If he's seeing someone and
the X I see, yeah, yeah, yeah, But now that no,
I do not fuck with that guy A great part,
like once you unbelgiry yourself, like it goes away pretty quickly.

Speaker 4 (09:17):
Yeah, yeah, but it does take some strength. And also
just when you recognize the signs like I'm it might
be fun for the night, but like it is gonna
fuck my.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
Brain up, it will fuck your brain up.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
And I will say withdrawing myself from that need to
fill a void has been definitely the healthiest thing.

Speaker 1 (09:34):
So do recommend that, but.

Speaker 3 (09:36):
Or just go still, Carol out there soon or that
he'll be back out there soon. That's beautiful, It's something anyway.
Should we talk to Carol?

Speaker 4 (09:46):
Yeah? I mean, am I doing too many jokes about
kidnapping or though I think it's.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
Just the right amount of jokes that kidnapping. I love you, Carol,
Let's talk to you.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
Welcome Carol Murchison to trust me. Thanks so much for
joining us today.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
I'm delighted to be here. Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
We're obsessed with you.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
I just thought I should know some people have referred
to you as the cult Assassin, which we will talk
about why, But first, can you give us a little
bit about your background before you kind of got into
the current work that you're doing.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Yes, absolutely. So I'm a lawyer, and I was a
lawyer in a couple of big firms in the United States,
and I did employment law, and as an employment lawyer,
I also did investigations into sexual misconduct in the workplace.
And so I retired and at a certain point I

(10:51):
got involved in doing exactly what I had been doing before,
which was an investigation, but this time it was into
a Buddhist commuity unity in Canada because a woman had
contacted me and said that there was a lot of
sexual assault going on and I honestly had a hard
time believing it. And that was number one, and the

(11:13):
number two was I said to her, well, they need
to do an investigation, because that's what I knew. If
I was in an organization and they had that kind
of report, they would want to do an investigation. And
she said, no, they're not speaking to me. So in
a kind of rash moment, I said, well, all right,
I'll help you out and I'll investigate. And I did,

(11:34):
and a lot of what was reported was true, and
I found a number of victims and that got a
lot of media coverage, and then I had other women
come forward and so I spent four years doing pro
bono investigations into religious communities where women were alleging sexual assault.

(11:57):
After four years, I found out that very few of
these organizations, as you can imagine from your own experiences
and knowledge, they were not going to take responsibility for
what had happened. So I joined a law.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
Firm that'll do it.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
Yeah, because, yeah, because it looked like it was going
to take the you know, the the hammer of the
law to get anyone to change.

Speaker 5 (12:23):
Right.

Speaker 3 (12:23):
This is maybe not an important detailer question to ask,
but I'm curious about why you didn't necessarily think she
was telling the truth at first?

Speaker 5 (12:30):
Well, because I think it was Buddhist, do you know,
it was like Buddhists there do no harm, you know,
their compassion.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
It wasn't that I didn't believe her. It was that
it was hard for me to wrap my mind around
that a religious or a spiritual organization would be aware
and allowing and enabling.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
Right.

Speaker 4 (12:57):
That's a great question, and it just shows theon bias
we all have.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
Yes, absolutely, well, Yeah, the way that religions present themselves
can sort of insulate them inherently from a certain kind
of scrutiny because We're like, they don't believe. Yeah, that
that's right, So they wouldn't do that. Yeah, that's super interesting.
And when you were investigating, what did that look like?
Like just interviewing people or like, were you digging through
someone's trash?

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Like what is it?

Speaker 2 (13:24):
I was talking to people it was not as exciting
as well, digging through trash isn't that exciting? I'm guessing
on the ground. In fact, it was a lot of
time spent getting people to trust me enough to talk
to me, And then it was talking to women who

(13:45):
were survivors of this. And my initial idea had been
that because I wasn't being hired by the organization, so
if I went into a company in the United States,
i'd be hired by the organist. I would go in,
they would put me in a conference room, and HR
would bring all these people down to talk to me.

(14:07):
But this wasn't like that. These were people who had
lost faith, who needed to build trust, and who didn't
really believe that anything could happen because nothing had happened.
So I spent a lot of time with that. But
then I compiled what I would think of is corroboration, right,

(14:31):
So either they disclosed something to somebody at the time.
There's very rarely witnesses to sexual assault, you know, this
is not an area where we think that there's a
bystander who has seen something. And so it was compiling evidence,
and my idea was that I was going to present
this evidence to them so that they would do their

(14:53):
own independent investigation. Sometimes that worked and sometimes it didn't.
Sometimes the organization said, you know, never mind, you know,
basically I don't care about it. But in one or
two cases they did do an investigation, but only after

(15:13):
they had known about the sexual assaults for quite some time,
so this was not something that was news to them.

Speaker 4 (15:22):
What did it look like for you to have it
dawn on you that this was not just a rumor,
that this was actually real.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
For me, it kind of lit a fire. Yeah, you know,
for me, it was wait a minute, yeah, And what
I found was this was not only real, but this
was known, So it just lit a fire that said, wow, this.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Is just wrong.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Later I can find out that these were what I
would call pults. That it's not about being Buddhist, it's
not about being in yoga, which is another one of
the many cases that I have. It's not about the
belief system. It's about all of these markers of high
demand I control groups.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
Right, And any belief system, any religion, any organization or
group period is capable of those dynamics.

Speaker 4 (16:17):
Right. Any ideology which is so sad, it is so sad,
you'd think there'd be one that would be pure and
like no one could pervert it.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
But it turns out now when there are people in
positions of power telling other people what to do with
their lives.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
I mean, it's just and when there's hope and ideology,
we are susceptible.

Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yeah, So what are some of the typical kinds of
cases that you're taking on.

Speaker 2 (16:41):
What does that usually look like? Well, we started out
taking on what we knew, which was sexual abuse in
spiritual communities, and that looked a lot like Holt like
activity where you have the one charismatic leader, you cannot
have any dissent, you cannot disagree, you must have you

(17:01):
must buy into. This person has the only true path,
you know, all of those things that we see in cults,
which leads to people having their agency taken away from them.
And from our perspective as a legal matter, being a
consent is not a possibility in those kinds of situations,

(17:21):
and so we began doing sexual assaults in tulk like
high demand communities. And then we started same kind of conduct,
but we started using the Federal Human Trafficking Act to
bring claims because it's based on coersion and of course coersion, manipulation,

(17:44):
all of those things are what we find in high
demand groups when we started with the Trafficking Act. Then
we have recently taken on some cases that are part
of the Trafficking Act. One part is sex trafficking and
the other part is forced labor. So we find in
a lot of again high demand communities that people are

(18:06):
being forced into labor as well, and so the law
doesn't give us huge number of tools to go after
these organizations. And so those are just a few of
the tools that we are using.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
I want to ask you more about the specifics of
the law in a little bit because my mom ran
into this with our cult leader. But before that, I'm curious,
like I feel like when we think of sexual abuse
that's covered up within a religion, we typically think of
like the Catholic Church or the group that Megan grew
up in as another example two by twos, but you

(18:57):
came from this sort of like yogas spiritual, you know,
more New ag Eastern world, And I'm curious. I mean,
I think I know the answer, but just to hear
you verbalize it, like does it function exactly the same,
Like do the cultural differences make things different in these
cases or is it kind of like same shit every time?

Speaker 2 (19:17):
It is the same every time. I always think that
there's somebody wrote a playbook, you know, and just only
certain people have the playbook. They're the leader of these organizations.
The leaders have the playbook, and honestly, it looks very
much the same in all of it, whether we're talking
about again, it's not the content that they're delivering, it's

(19:40):
the structure and the abusive power within the organization.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
Right, So like in the Catholic Church, it might be
a priest, yes, or a pastor or so, you know,
and I'm more of a Christian based organization, but in
one of these communities, it's like the Yogi.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
Yes, it just reminds.

Speaker 4 (19:56):
Me of a bigger version of an abusive relationship. It's
like the pathology around somebody who's abusive always seems to
be very similar. And this is just it on a
bigger scale, And so the playbook is the same because
it's somebody's insanity.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
Yeah, someone has special access to like.

Speaker 3 (20:16):
The truth, right, And because they have that special access
to the truth, anything they say you must accept, even
if you feel uncomfortable with it. And then if you
begin to question that you're doing something wrong, there's something
wrong with you. You're not righteous enough, you're not spiritual enough,
you're not enlightened enough.

Speaker 4 (20:33):
Yeah, but to your point, like it is shocking to me,
how to their core, they're all almost exactly the same,
no matter if some are standing on their heads, some
are wearing Like the costumes are different, right, the costume,
the hair, the shoes, But like, at the core it
is the same.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, yes, yes, Now you asked an interesting question about
some of the differences. So I think that what happens
with some of the Eastern spiritual groups is that it
comes out of a tradition of having a swami or
a guru who is admired and who is all powerful

(21:14):
and to whom you must take an oath, an actual
oath of loyalty. And so I think that there's more
of a fertile ground for abuse of power in some
of those situations. In some of the more what should
I call them kind of like mainstream religions, there are

(21:38):
structures in place that kind of mitigate against abuses of power.
We had a case that was a young boy who
was assaulted in a Christian denomination and it wasn't what
I would consider to be a coup. It was, you know,

(22:02):
a bad, terrible thing that happened that people didn't they
didn't recognize that it was happening. But it wasn't the
same kind of thing as happens in high demand groups,
which is it's prevalent, it's accepted because there's no way
to speak out against it because you would be speaking

(22:24):
out against the person to whom you have given your
loyalty and you cannot do that. So that makes some
of the Eastern ideologies more susceptible, I think, to the
abuses of power.

Speaker 4 (22:40):
Right, and when you have that invisible playbook of like karma,
because I'm very susceptible to that whole field of things.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
You know, I like to meditate.

Speaker 4 (22:50):
I like karma, and if somebody is telling me, you know,
oh this is your karma, you have bad karma, I'm like, fuck.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
I don't want it.

Speaker 3 (23:03):
You know, I don't want bad cart I don't want
to know.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
Yeah, I think.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
I think on your website, I saw that you said
something like human beings we are we are almost intended
to want to believe in something bigger than ourselves. So
I'm a very big believer in the fact that any
of us, at any time could buy into these situations.

(23:34):
I know that people often say to me, well, that's terrible,
but you know that would never happen to me. You know,
I would never believe that. And and truly I understand
that point of view because some of the things are
really crazy that people are.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
Told totally yeah right.

Speaker 2 (23:52):
But that's what happens. There's a brain science behind how
we are lured in a little bit at a time,
and how our defenses get down, how we are love bombed,
how we'd come to depend on that feedback that happened
to anybody because we trust. We are beings who trust,

(24:14):
want to trust.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
We want to trust.

Speaker 3 (24:15):
We need purpose, we need meaning, we need community, and
when someone is offering it to us on a silver platter,
and it's so simple you have to do, is X,
Y and Z, like of course that we're going to
gravitate toward that, especially because they leave the crazy shit out.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
At the beginning.

Speaker 3 (24:29):
Absolutely, you brought up something interesting, which is the difference
between sexual assault or misconduct occurring versus it being part.

Speaker 1 (24:43):
Of the system.

Speaker 3 (24:44):
How do we determine whether something is like a you know,
as people will say, like bad apple situation, versus like
an endemic and like part of a systemic problem in
an organization.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
From my perspective having been an employment lawyer, uh, in organizations,
every organization has a bad apple. I mean I went
out and did investigations in sexual harassment training and you know,
probably one hundred different organizations, probably more, and there's always
somebody who gets into trouble, you know, of some kind.

(25:17):
But the difference is that for organizations corporations in the
United States, I would not be saying that they have
a higher moral compass than other religious organizations, but they're
afraid of the law, right, you know, there's.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
Money on the line. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 4 (25:36):
Well, and there's nobody holding their eternal damnation or their
karma over their heads, so they can just it's pretty
black and white, like money the law the end.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
Yes, And while that doesn't always play out very well
in society, The reality is that if you're the president
of a big fortune tan company and you CONDUCTORSLF like
some of these organizations that we're talking about, these high demand,
high control cult organizations, you're fired because the money of

(26:09):
the lawsuit and the money of the bad pr and
the money of all of that media is worse. And
so you are kind of forced into a corner perhaps
of doing the right thing. When you get into an
organization where you can't do the right thing, that's when

(26:29):
I think that it becomes endemic. So you know, or
you should have known that the swami or the guru
or the lama or the rimpoche is doing things like this,
but there there's no check and balance system to correct it.

Speaker 3 (26:48):
Right, there's no HR department in your little yoga exactly yes.

Speaker 4 (26:53):
Or any quote yeah, yeah. So people, I imagine have
built their entire narratives being in these groups, and now, yes,
you're confronting them with the knowledge that there is abuse
going on. What does that look like with people trying
to come to terms with it?

Speaker 1 (27:11):
And what often happens.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Well, what often happens is that they cannot do anything.
They don't do anything, And I think that part of
that is because they cannot because if you have an
oath of loyalty, or you have this investment, which is
often more than just psychological. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's

(27:34):
just laboring, sometimes it's belief, you actually cannot do anything
about it. And so that's often what it looks like.
From time to time there are organizations that say, wow,
you know, let us look at this, but not often
when the leader is involved. If there are teachers under

(27:59):
the leader who are involved, sometimes the organization will take
that route. They'll get rid of the teacher, but they
will not get rid of the culture or attack the
culture that's happening.

Speaker 3 (28:13):
How do religious protections in America sometimes enable these groups
to not stop the abuse.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
We have a really good question. We have the First Amendment.
It protects our ability to believe whatever we would like.
It's a very broad power that is there for religious organizations.
I think that the basic thing to understand about the

(28:45):
First Amendment is that it covers our beliefs. We can
believe in karma, we can believe that the Guru is
all powerful, we can believe that he or she knows
the only true way. We can believe all of that,
but behavior is something different. The fact that you may

(29:08):
believe that it is. And this is something that I've encountered.
You know, things like if you have sex with the guru,
you will be on a faster path to enlightenment. Well,
you can believe that, but when you come to coerce people,
then we're beginning to talk about behavior, and that is

(29:32):
a different story altogether. Because it's illegal.

Speaker 4 (29:36):
Yes, so it's like the belief meets the legal system
and then suddenly it's like that's all fun and games
for you to believe it in your head. But if
it's touching reality, Yeah, that's actionable, then that's problematic.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Interesting, Yes, that's exactly right. So the beliefs are fine,
but when you act on them, if it's if it's illegal,
I mean that's the general It has to be a
law that is I think the courts stay neutral. In
other words, it's not aimed at religions. So there have
been some cases in the United States, I think indigenous

(30:12):
religions having to do with the use of peyote or
other things like that. If we create a law that
is directed specifically at a religious group, then that's not good.
But if it's a neutrally applied law, like, you can't
secondly assault people, right right, then generally, that's the argument

(30:34):
that we're making in these cases, that you can believe
whatever you want, but your behavior has to meet societal standards,
legal standards.

Speaker 4 (30:44):
So one of the things that I run into a
lot with the group that I grew up in is
that people go, yes, it's illegal, and yes this person
did something bad, but they're chosen by God.

Speaker 1 (30:56):
They still need to spread this message.

Speaker 4 (30:59):
And so while it's hard, we have to forgive them
so that they can keep doing this work and they'll
just never do it again.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Yes, I hear that all the time. And what I
would say to that is that, of course, is not
the philosophy of the legal system, right right, right. It's
the philosophy of a group that is making a kind
of you know, their weighing harm against some kind of

(31:33):
you know, of benefit. But that's not what the legal
system does, and I think it's wrong. Quite frankly. I
was years ago in in Eastern Europe and I saw
I went to a museum and the title of the
exhibit was Forgiveness is not a possibility. And I read

(31:53):
that and on the you know, on the banner outside
of the of the room, and I thought, wow, you know,
maybe that's true. You know, and since then I have
had occasion to do somewhat deeper dive into this, and
I would say that from my perspective, forgiveness must be earned.

(32:15):
It is not on the on the our survivors, they're
not the ones who need to give forgiveness. The person
who has done this needs to have earned forgiveness, and
going back to doing the same thing over and over
again is not earning forgiveness in my.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
View, right, which typically people who are engaging these behaviors
are doing.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
It's not a one time thing.

Speaker 2 (32:39):
I agree. I think it is often in my experience,
is considered kind of a perk of the job. It's
a you know, it's a it's a privilege that they have.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
Yeah, that might even be the sole purpose that they're
doing it. In fact, in many cases I would assume
it is. Y.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
Yeah, so you bring up what the difference between belief
and committing a crime under the law, But one of
the areas that gets really hairy, because of course child
abuse is always objectively illegal. But you know, in the
case of my mom, and granted this was in like
two thousand ish, with our self proclaimed prophet. She was

(33:19):
sex trafficked while believing in this man, and after she
got out she went to the authorities and they basically
didn't believe in coercion, at least not at that time,
and they were like, you agreed to it. You're an adult,
Well why didn't you just leave? You weren't being physically
violently restrained, exactly, and therefore you consented, which, of course

(33:43):
betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of these dynamics. But
what pathway is there when there isn't violence involved for
an adult.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
Well, you know there is. For example, there's so much
embedded in what you've said. Number one is that, no,
we don't understand coercion at all in our society, and
we don't have laws that are strictly about coercion. You
mentioned domestic violence. A few states are now adding coersion

(34:12):
elements to their domestic violence law because you're exactly right,
domestic violence is so similar to cult dynamics, just the
cult dynamics is a bigger domestic group, and so coercion
is not well understood in our society and it is

(34:32):
not therefore represented very well in the law. We do have,
as I said, we have the Federal Trafficking Act, which
does have an element that recognizes that persion and fraud,
I would say that they negate consent. The best case
that I can give you to understand this and your

(34:53):
listeners as well, is if we think about Harvey Weinstein.
So Harvey Weinstein was I think he was found liable
under the civil Federal Trafficking Act. And when I read
that in the paper that was like twenty nineteen, maybe
I thought, WHOA, what did I miss about Harvey? Because

(35:13):
to me, trafficking was you know, putting women in the
back of a truck and crossing you know, a state
line of you know, a border. But that's not it
at all. Actually, Harvey Weinstein was committing sex trafficking because
he was poersing women into having sex with him through

(35:40):
again coercion or fraud. In his case, it was if
you have sex with me, I will put you in
contact with a big producer and this will make your career.
Those cases were upheld under the Sex Trafficking Act. Now,
if you looked at those situations, you would see that
if you were looking at a film of those incidents,

(36:04):
you would have said that the women consented because they
did not scream, they did not run, they did not
do anything. But we're coming, i think, along to a
better sense that not everything is consensual. You know, we
have the fawn fight fear. You know, our responses are

(36:27):
to freeze, for example, and if a person was holding
a gun to our head in a dark alley, we
would not be told that we were consenting because there
was a danger. What we don't fully understand under the
law is that that same psychological situation exists even when

(36:50):
there's not a gun to people's heads, that there's a
psychological danger in fighting back.

Speaker 3 (36:55):
I want to just use the example of my mom again,
because in her case, she first of all, was begging
to not be kept in this place, was asking to
leave constantly and being told you have to do this.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
Your salvation depends on it.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
Yes, and you will not be with your children, the
most important thing in the world to her, her children
in the afterlife. You will be separated from them for
eternity if you do not obey and engage with these men.
And she ended up being physically abused by them as well.
Very horrific situation. But yeah, it's like on the outside

(37:34):
she's still living there why doesn't she just walk away
and drive away?

Speaker 1 (37:37):
But it's like you literally are.

Speaker 3 (37:39):
Going to lose your children forever, yes, or like burn
in hell forever. That's yeah, absolutely, And in his case
it was also fraud because he was claiming he was
a profit translating the sealed portion of the Book of
Mormon anyway.

Speaker 4 (37:54):
And I think that a lot of people, you know,
they look at the Harvey Weinstein thing and they say, yeah,
but they just wanted to get something. They wanted to
get a role. I'm watching the I'm reading the p
Diddy trials, so allegedly a lot of that things. You know,
they just wanted a record deal and they wanted this,
but they wanted that. And then with Lola's mom, well

(38:15):
that your mom was being like super threatened.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
I get it. But these women just want wanted something.

Speaker 4 (38:21):
They just want something, and they don't understand the Well
number one allegedly with p didty that like you could
be murdered, you know, yes, And with Weinstein, you like,
who knows what could happen? And the cancelations and.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
Well, yeah, with Weinstein, yes, like you have Yes, there's
the dangling of the opportunity, but there's also the threat
that you're you will have no career.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
If you don't.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
Exactly exactly. I think that's exactly what my response would be,
which is, it's not just that that people were going
after this because they wanted something, it's because if they
didn't do it, they were here in their career. And
that we have decided, apparently as a society, since it's

(39:06):
Congress that passes these laws under the Sex Trafficking Act,
we have decided as a society that that is not okay,
thank god, and it isn't okay now, it is n't.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
Yeah, Well, how do you.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
Prove that in court? Like, how do you prove that
coercion has taken place?

Speaker 2 (39:27):
Well, one of the things that and I have it
right here are actually a piece of paper that I
look at all the time, which is called the Byte
model by Steve Hassan, who was himself a member of
a Caulton is a psychologist, and he has four quadrants
behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control. And

(39:49):
he has you know, like ten to fifteen elements under
each of them, and we look at them, and we
have our clients, you know, kind of look at what
was the coersion, the control that was exerted over me,
and then we in order to prove coercion under the
Trafficking Act, for example, then we have to introduce evidence

(40:15):
of all those elements of coercion so that a jury
can understand exactly what you were saying before was that
this wasn't someone's free will. They were not free. They
might not have been tied up, they may not have
been locked in, but psychologically they were not free. They
were being coerced.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
I'm so glad that law was passed.

Speaker 4 (40:38):
What a pleasant yes, surprise, Yes, yeah, progress, yeah, actual progress.

Speaker 3 (40:44):
I want to ask about cults that try to sue
people who leave. My guy has tried to sue me,
even he's an idiot, needed it wrong, And you know
we had connections to Nexium as well. My mom knuw
Keith Vanieri and so I knew some of his victims

(41:05):
and they were so litigious. They were like destroying people
and destroying the ability to speak out.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
How often do you run into that, first of all.

Speaker 2 (41:13):
All the time, all the time, right, because if you listen,
if you have that kind of power and you're abusing,
because you have to have a lot of power to
be able to abuse that power, then you are going
to try to use that power to keep people from
saying anything against you. So one of the big ones

(41:35):
that we see is defamation. So if you say anything
about a cult leader or you know, whoever it might be,
then we are going to sue you for defamation. That's
a very scary thing to have happened to you. And
so that is absolutely a technique that is used to

(42:01):
silence people from speaking out. But in some states New
York is one and there are others. I think California
is one as well, there are what are called anti
slap laws. So we have, again as a society, decided
that it is not good to silence people who want

(42:24):
to say something about something that is in the public interest.
And so if you are sued for defamation and you
happen to have been speaking out in the public interest,
then some states have these anti slap laws, which means
that you can go on a faster track, because litigation

(42:47):
is unbelievably slow, but anti slap you go on a
faster track and you can get attorney's fees. So it's
never good to be sued, and being threatened to be
sued for defamation does silence a lot of people understandably,
but there is a recognition that these things need to

(43:09):
be spoken of and that we should not be allowing
frivolous lawsuits.

Speaker 3 (43:15):
Practically speaking, like, if somebody tries to sue me today
for speaking out about an experience that I had, but
I am in California where there are anti slab laws,
would I still have to hire an attorney? It's still
intimidation tactic because you still have to spend money, right, yes,
and technically if you win, they have to pay your

(43:36):
legal fees. But then it's like, how do you get
someone in the meantime Exactly, it's still a problem. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
It is better than nothing, as so many things are,
but it is none nonetheless still requires as you said,
you have to have the money to put it up upfront,
and then you have to hope that you win. Now,
I will tell you that once I was threatened with defamation,
and even though I'm a lawyer, I had an out

(44:05):
of body experience because it frightened me so badly. So
when I tell you that I understand it is frightening.
I know that from my first hand experience. And I
was about to publish a report on a spiritual cult
group and I got a lawyer and he said to me,

(44:26):
he said, I had done in this investigation. I was
going to publish the results of it. And he said
to me, do you believe that this happened? I said,
without question. You know, if you find, let's say, five
women who've been assaulted over five different time periods by
the same person in the same way, it's unlikely that

(44:49):
they're lying. It's unlikely that it's a coincidence. It's more
than likely true. And he said, then they may threaten you,
but they do not want to a bunch of people
under oath to find out that this is true. It's
a little bit cold comfort. It doesn't pay the bills.
But I find that I just talked to some two

(45:13):
women who were received a cease and desist letter about
something that they were writing. And it was a little
bit like a threat, but maybe not real.

Speaker 3 (45:26):
Yeah, it's like they're assuming you'll back down because it
is a hassle and it is scary and it is expensive.
But like then they have to actually defend their case
in court exactly.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
They also have to pay a lawyer, and they have
to put people under oath. And in the case where
I was threatened. I later came to find out what
I suspected, which is that they knew that this was true.
So if you know it's true, and they know it's true,

(46:00):
they do not want to put a bunch of people
under oath in front of a jury to prove defamation.

Speaker 4 (46:06):
It's an interesting arc to watch these cult leaders confront
the legal system because even in their own brains, they
are such gods, and then you know, they suddenly, like
Keith Nary, the most surprised face I've ever seen on
a human man is him sitting in court like realizing
that other people aren't going to be like, well, you're

(46:26):
the smartest man in the world according to the Australia
and get this book of world records that you made
up and people being like, no, that's so illegal, going
to jail now, and they're like they're shocked because they've
built a world around this being true for them, where
they're like, I'm invincible.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
Yes, it's a very interesting it is.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
It's like a rock and the hard place.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, because.

Speaker 2 (46:52):
When you build you're absolutely right in my experience, when
you build that kind of thing around you that you
are all powerful. But then somebody else is actually more
powerful than.

Speaker 1 (47:04):
You are, right, that the law.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
Has more power over you than you could have possibly imagined.
You have to believe that these are these are difficult.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
They talked about how.

Speaker 4 (47:24):
In the speech, like, I know Keith thinks he's getting
out any day. Do you think, yeah, I'm reading his
mind now he can amazing or like no, you know,
I know, no, But I truly think a lot of
a lot of these self proclaimed super important people are like,
of course I'm getting out God.

Speaker 1 (47:46):
I'm God's channel.

Speaker 3 (47:48):
Yeah. Yeah, although he knew he was deceiving people, he didn't, I.

Speaker 1 (47:52):
Know, like sometimes they just buy their own bullshit. No,
it's true, it's true.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
They do. Absolutely, it's not I think in a certain way.
I don't know this for a fact. I'm just like,
you know, spinning this out here. But I think that
when you have that much power and you're abusing that
much power, you believe in your power because it's proven
to you every day.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
True, you are more powerful.

Speaker 3 (48:15):
True, and I'm able to manipulate this many people to
do what I want. I must be special and important
in God, in a prophet and all the other things.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
It's a soul.

Speaker 4 (48:24):
Yeah, it's just a self contained circle that keeps living
and moving and moving and that and that's why the
lot is just this beautiful little stone to throw into
the channel and watch it.

Speaker 3 (48:37):
Yes, which which isn't perfect yet not perfect, especially in
this era.

Speaker 2 (48:41):
The criminal justice system is difficult. It is difficult for people,
and one of the reasons is there are a lot
of hurdles to get into it. So you mentioned your mother.
You know, your mother went to the police and was
you know, Well, so that's where the criminal justice system starts,
is with the police. So if you can't get the

(49:02):
police interested, you can't get through the door to the
next hurdle of the criminal justice system.

Speaker 3 (49:09):
And police don't know shit about coercion let me tell
you no, or sexual assault.

Speaker 2 (49:14):
No, that's right, they don't. And so you know, I
had a client who did try to go to the
criminal justice route and was completely unsuccessful. She got through
the police part of it, but then they have to
convene a grand jury and then the perpetrator has to
be in the United States or else they have to

(49:35):
be extradited. I mean, these folks on the criminal justice
side have resource limitations. They can't take every case. They
have to feel that they can win it, and there
are lots of lots and lots of obstacles. It's the
same on the civil side in the sense that there
are lots of obstacles. But one of the main differences,

(49:58):
I think two main differences, maybe more three. I'm going
to get up to ten here in a minute. One
is that you have your own lawyer, so I represent
a human being. A district attorney does not represent a
human being. He or she represents the state, the government's
interest and often those are aligned, but they are sometimes not,

(50:21):
whereas civil lawyers represent their clients. So that's one thing.
You have your own lawyer. Another thing is that the
civil justice system allows you to sue not just the perpetrator,
but the organization that enabled the perpetrator, that probably silenced

(50:43):
you as the victim, who probably retaliated against you, shunned you,
threw you out if they were aware of what was
going on. There's potential of a lawsuit of negligence, example,
against the organization, and many of our clients they actually

(51:07):
feel that they were as harmed by the organizational response
as by the perpetrator who sexually assaulted them. The criminal
justice system, we can't send an organization to jail, and
that's the only thing that we have, so we can
send Keith Ranieri to jail. But if I had to guess,

(51:27):
I would say that probably out there somewhere his organization
is still operating in some way. In the civil justice system,
you can sue the organization as well. The third difference
is that you get money. And as you mentioned before,
you know people are like, oh, well, she was only
in it for the money. Well, I have news feeling

(51:49):
from these kinds of things. Takes money. And if you
harm somebody's car, if you smash into it and you
do not have insurance, you pay money for the repair.
I think it's exactly the same thing here. You harm
people in so many ways with these spiritual deceptions. You

(52:11):
take away people's ability to trust you pray because it
costs money to repair.

Speaker 3 (52:19):
I mean it literally, it does, because it is so expensive,
first of all, to get a qualified specialized therapist. That's
not typically something that's covered by your insurance. Also, like
when you're emerging from a system like that, you're starting over,
you're often destabilized for quite some time, and getting your
life back together and back in order and figuring out

(52:41):
what you do now and who you are now, and
often without any resources like.

Speaker 4 (52:45):
What we talk about a lot of like I thought
the world was going to end every day. Yeah, so
like I didn't plan for a future, like what do
I want to be? When I grew up, I was
like tomorrow the world's so No, it's a good's you know.

Speaker 1 (53:01):
That's money.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, money is the currency of justice. That's what the
partner of our law firm, and Oliverius says. Money is
the currency of justice. So that's what you have to do.
You have to come up with money to pay for
the harm that you knew about, right and that you allowed.

Speaker 3 (53:20):
Yeah, it's also like what else are you going to Like,
I mean, I'm sure some people would just really want
there to be like changes implemented, you know, from the
top down, and like survivor assistance. Like I'm sure there
are other things, but there aren't that many options for
like how to repair that's right.

Speaker 2 (53:39):
And some of those things we are able to get
because you're right, a lot of a lot of our
clients at least would like to see change. One of
the reasons that they're coming forward is that they would
like to see no one else harmed in the same
way that they were harmed this but the system is
geared toward money. And while we are sometimes successful in

(54:01):
getting organizations to change, less so than I would have believed.
I would have thought that a no cost, low cost
change would be a no brainer for an organization. You
know that they would say, Okay, well, all right, so
maybe I won't pay you exactly this much money, but

(54:21):
you know I'll pay you this much and then I'll
make these changes. But often I see organizations who are
absolutely unwilling to change, even after having been sued and
having to settle lawsuits.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
Okay, yeah, so keiths and jail, let's go back to NEXIM.

Speaker 4 (54:38):
I know that THEIRNXIM is still operating in some capacity.
So these are the enablers now taking over the organization. Like,
can you say a little bit about enablers, because you
kind of said earlier in the interview something really interesting
where it's like, yeah, there are people who are so
deep in this narrative that there isn't really an option
out for them. So how do we hold these people

(55:00):
in our minds and in our hearts?

Speaker 2 (55:03):
Well, So the enablers are a problem because, as you said,
if they're still out there with Nexium, for example, and
they are still running the organization. Are they making the
same kinds of mistakes that were made before? The only
thing that I can say is that if you have

(55:23):
been through and I feel like all of us have
been through Ranieri's criminal trial because we watched it on
us documentary, I would hope and I hope the same
thing in the cases that I have that having been
dragged through the justice system, that you are loath to
do the same thing again. So do you know what

(55:44):
I mean? It's like you're on somebody's radar now they
know your names, and we would hope that they're not
doing the same thing, that they had some kind of
giant wake up call and they maybe are smarter now
than they were before.

Speaker 3 (56:02):
And do you mean, like how much do they hold
responsibility versus.

Speaker 4 (56:06):
The that answered a lot of it, and just you know,
how do I say it? Like I guess without going
into too much detail. I've just seen firsthand how enabling
happens with followers when they are indoctrinated. And it's tricky
because I know people still inside high control groups. How
do I make peace with some of the choices they

(56:28):
make in relation to something like enabling.

Speaker 2 (56:31):
I have people come to me all the time. They
call me and say, my daughter is in this group,
and I'm sure it's a cult. How do I get
her out? How do I make her see that this
is I demand high control, et cetera. And unfortunately the

(56:52):
answer is you probably can't. You probably can't make or see.
The best advice that I've heard, it doesn't come from me,
but from people who are smarter in terms of psychology
and dealing with survivors and with families, is that you
maintain contact, but you do not argue. Because we should
know this by now, right, Because if you've been like

(57:15):
me and probably spend a year or two arguing with
people on Facebook.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
Totally yep, still doing it.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
And then someone like your husband says to you, why
are you arguing with people you don't know on Facebook?
And you say, oh, yeah, no, good reason for that.
Arguing does not change people's minds. And so what the
experts say is maintain contact because maybe someday something will change,

(57:44):
and if you're still out there maintaining contact, then that's
the most important thing.

Speaker 4 (57:50):
So even if these people are technically enablers unconsciously, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
You know, because I mean enablers is a big word,
isn't it. I mean enabling. We're enabling if we if
we send money to an organization, we're enabling what they do.
We are enabling if we go to a public talk
that somebody gives who happens to be. So there are
many different levels I think of enabling, and so I

(58:19):
think just being in you may have to let that go, right,
you know, yeah, because really you don't have any control
over it anyway.

Speaker 1 (58:33):
Now learn that the hard way. It's true, It's true.

Speaker 4 (58:36):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it is Again, there is that
very strong argument kind of in our Facebook group, our
ex Facebook group, of like you have to cut everyone
up they're enabling and like it's illegal and you can't
do it anymore. And then other people being like, no,
they haven't seen the light yet and we have to
stay in relationship.

Speaker 1 (58:55):
And it is just like a complicated.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
I don't think there's any right answer, right, yeah, you know,
if they're enabling something that is illegal, then they got
to go. Yeah, then maybe that's a different story. But
enabling an organization that we know to be a cult
and that we know are ruining people's lives through their
beliefs but not their behavior. Maybe we just have to

(59:20):
let that go.

Speaker 3 (59:21):
Yeah, I think enabling is there's a spectrum of enabling.
Like attending a church service and saying I still believe
this church is good is very, very different from saying, Okay,
here's the door, now go in there and do the
sex thing.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
Yeah, you know, like those are not the same thing.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
And I think when that is turned into a binary
and painted into as like a black and white thing
of like, if you have any association with this group whatsoever,
you are enabling them and enabling abuse like that isn't
exactly accurate, right, There are shades of it.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
That's my perspective anyway.

Speaker 2 (59:56):
You know, I think a lot also about boundary and
about having your own boundary but allowing other people. Again,
when we're talking about enabling, not as enabling a criminal
activity or illegal activity, but you know, drawing the boundary
for yourself of where you want to be in it,

(01:00:17):
but then letting go of thinking that we're going to
change people's minds because we most often do not never ever.

Speaker 3 (01:00:25):
I know it's so intimately that that is true, But
every time my brain's like, but if I say it
in just the right way. Then they'll finally understand, you know, like, well,
why are.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
We so convinced of that?

Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
Like if I just am a verbal ninja, then I
can like say exactly the right thing, no, never, never ever, Well,
what would you say, are some warning signs to look
out for and spiritual movements and self improvement groups, churches,
any of it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind, and
probably just because of my own perspective, is that somebody
who tells you that they have the only truth is
a problem because I think that when we exist in
a very big world with a lot of wisdom traditions,
that there is no one truth that's right for everyone.

(01:01:18):
So I think that that's kind of a number one thing.
I think the second thing, and I see this in
so many of the groups that we litigate against, is
that you cannot have a dissenting opinion. So if you
are in a group that you are not permitted to
have a dissenting opinion, or it is set up and

(01:01:41):
structured in such a way that you feel manipulated into
hiding your dissenting opinion, those are two, I would say.
The third one is almost always an authoritarian, charismatic leader
and with those three things, I think that there should
be a red flag. And you might not know the

(01:02:02):
authoritarian at first. They might just seem really charming. Yeah,
like they know a lot of stuff. That's the charismatic part, right.

Speaker 1 (01:02:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
But by the time people start telling you who you
have to be with what decisions you need to make
in your life, then you're talking about someone who's authoritarian,
who says this is the only right answer. You cannot
disagree with it, you know, Then you're in an authoritarian system.

Speaker 1 (01:02:31):
Well, how much do I need to pay you to
come live with me?

Speaker 4 (01:02:35):
Tell me what to do every day and how to think,
because I feel like you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
Can fix me. I want her to be your authoritarian.

Speaker 4 (01:02:42):
I want you to bed that's right, and I will
tell you everything that you need to do right.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
In your life.

Speaker 4 (01:02:50):
I'm so grateful for all the work that you've done,
and it's just so important, and you're such a wonderful
voice in this space.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
So thank you for coming on and for all the
work you. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
I have to say that it is and that all
of the lawyers who work with me feel the same way.
It is an honor to be able to help people
in this way and so I appreciate your kind words.
I appreciate your inviting me on for this wonderful conversation
that we had today, and we're all just going to
keep working.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
Before we wrap up here, I wanted to ask you,
are there any resources that you would recommend for people
who need legal help or just like some support.

Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
I want to send people to the Byte model. I'm
going to make a note of this and I can
send it to you. I think that it's helpful for
people to look at the elements of coercion and identify them.
That's one resource. There are a number of therapists who work.
As you said, you know, this is stuff that's expensive,

(01:03:53):
which is why money is helpful. But Dan Shaw, Rachel Bernstein,
or two therapists that I'm aware of, Steve Hassan, who
worked with trauma cult survivors.

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
I was curious, actually, and I meant to ask you
this earlier. Is there anyone doing pro bono work in
the cults or high control group space?

Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
Not that I know of. Now. Having said that, what
I will say is that a number of large law
firms do pro bono work. Of course, many of them
are now doing pro bono work for Trump, So they
may not be available to help actual people, but there
are sometimes I have been able to find. I found
a lawyer pro bono once on a defamation a woman

(01:04:35):
who was threatened with defamation if she used her name
in a media report and she said exactly what you said,
which is you know, I wouldn't have the money to
be able to defend it even if I could get
out on anti slab. So I found a lawyer who
was willing to defend her pro bono because he would

(01:04:56):
get the lawyer's fees at the end of it, right,
So in the anti spe the lawyer would get paid.
So sometimes that's possible. Okay, There's a woman whose name
is Nancy Floyd Floy and if you look her up,
it's called Heartwood h. Eart Wood. She runs a survivors

(01:05:17):
network for people who have been abused in Buddhist communities.
She runs a conference every year for survivors and they
meet online remotely and that's free.

Speaker 3 (01:05:33):
So just to summarize what you said, there isn't anyone
explicitly doing pro bono work in the cold space. However,
if you have a really strong case to defend against defamation,
you would most likely qualify to have your legal fees paid,
in which case you might be able to find a
lawyer who.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
Will that's right exactly, you might be able to find
a lawyer who would do it pro bono.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
So you got to make a bunch of calls.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
Yep, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:05:57):
Do it anyway, Yeah, do it anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
Thank you so much, Carol. And do you have a
website if somebody wants to hire you or contact you.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
Yes, of course it's mc allister Olivarius and it's in London.
The main office is in London, but my practice is
in the United States.

Speaker 3 (01:06:14):
Amazing, Thank you, thank you big, thank you to Carol
for joining us today. Megan, you mentioned something about the
two by Twos, the group that you grew up in,
and their legal sort of strategies.

Speaker 4 (01:06:30):
Yeah, I mean you asked me, would you ever sue
the two by Twos at some point I think or
somebody did, and they are very smart because they don't technically,
I mean, if you dig a little deeper, they do,
but they don't really have an organization or a name
or anything. So there's there hasn't been any money paid
to victims. It's all very individual court cases. And we

(01:06:55):
were taught growing up, or those who who enter the
group are taught. We don't have a name because Jesus
didn't have a name for his group. And it's a
very biblical, beautiful, holy thing, and in the end it's
more of a holy shit.

Speaker 1 (01:07:08):
I can't sue you.

Speaker 3 (01:07:11):
But the money has to be going somewhere. What money, Oh,
their money, God to the overseers. M the overseers are
individually getting sued for like handling abuse cases.

Speaker 4 (01:07:23):
Yeah, but they're not getting sued for who knows where
that money is.

Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
It's like cash. M Oh my god.

Speaker 2 (01:07:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:07:30):
Wow, they're not even they're not even not taxes a church.
They're just not even counting it as a church at all, right, right, yeah, wow, fascinating.
One guy got caught, like one overseer got caught with
so much money in cash, like going over the Canadian border.
And they'll just tell you, of course that it's all
like on the up and up, and it's to spread the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
Gospel, babe, to who to who? Who's joining us? Right right?
Who is?

Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
Because nobody joined they're already in it. Nobody's doing it's always.

Speaker 4 (01:08:02):
A random letter and it's always like semi racist and
like not a mean way, but it's like a Chinese
couple is joining us in gospel meeting.

Speaker 1 (01:08:13):
It's like, why don't you just say a couple, right?

Speaker 4 (01:08:17):
Why are they always like from another country, probably lonely
and lost?

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
Like why are you really spelling it out for us?

Speaker 3 (01:08:23):
That?

Speaker 1 (01:08:24):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
In fairness, I think all white people over fifty do that.
But sure, okay, definitely members of my family.

Speaker 4 (01:08:31):
And I mean, I guess it's better than them not
wanting people that are not white there.

Speaker 1 (01:08:37):
Sure, sure, I guess, I guess. But it's like they're they're.

Speaker 4 (01:08:42):
Not joining a b stop stop it right now, like
I'm gonna stoptop there.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
Also just stop it. Yeah. So yeah, I don't know,
but people are banding together.

Speaker 4 (01:08:58):
Now we have a merry band of soldiers, but no
organization so to speak, to go up against.

Speaker 3 (01:09:07):
That's really really interesting. I mean, I'll be so curious
to see how it all plays out.

Speaker 1 (01:09:11):
Me too.

Speaker 3 (01:09:12):
So if you're starting a cult, don't have a name,
is what I'm gathering.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
Do not write down money, I need doctor and everybody.
Burn every letter and you'll have the two by twas.

Speaker 3 (01:09:26):
Yeah, also separately, not related to the two by twos
I'm gonna throw this in here.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
I talked to my.

Speaker 3 (01:09:33):
Mom about the legal element of the cult community, and
she recommended something that I did just try for California
and see what happened, and it actually was interesting. You
can look up your state bar association and often they
will have a directory of pro bono attorneys.

Speaker 1 (01:09:50):
Cool.

Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
So when you look up California's pro bono attorney list,
often it will intersect with like some specific human rights
org or civil rights org. But I I think in
many cases it's a women's rights issue, with children's rights issue,
with disability justice, you know, like often those things could
intersect with the cult. So always worth looking at if
you are in a legal situation. Also, she recommended to

(01:10:13):
look up previous cases against cults. There are people who
are kind of known for this. There's a man named
Roger Hoole who has sued the FLDS before, for example, Like,
even if they can't take the case on, they might
know someone who can.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
That's dope. I love that.

Speaker 3 (01:10:28):
Yeah, So those are other tips because it again, like
we say in the episode, like it's really really scary
if someone threatens you with defamation, but you are not alone.
There are people out there who will be able to
help you or help direct you.

Speaker 1 (01:10:41):
It's like the cult Avengers.

Speaker 3 (01:10:43):
Yeah, anyway, we'll put all the links, all the relevant
links into the show notes.

Speaker 4 (01:10:49):
Yay, Thank you guys so much for listening to another episode.
We can't wait to see you again next week and
does always remember to follow your gut, watch out for red.

Speaker 3 (01:10:58):
Flags, and never ver trust me.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
This has been an exactly right production hosted by me
Lola Blanc and Me Megan Elizabeth. Our senior producer is G. Holly.
This episode was mixed by John Bradley.

Speaker 4 (01:11:14):
Our associate producer is Christina Chamberlain, and our guest booker
is Patrick Kottner.

Speaker 1 (01:11:19):
Our theme song was composed by Holly Ambert Church.

Speaker 4 (01:11:21):
Trust Me as executive produced by Karen Kilgareth, Georgia Hartstark
and Danielle Kramer.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
You can find us on Instagram at trust Me podcast
or on TikTok at trust Me Cult Podcast.

Speaker 4 (01:11:31):
Got your own story about cults, extreme belief, our manipulation,
Shoot us an email at trustmepod at gmail dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:11:38):
Listen to trust Me on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts.