ICSA with Carol Merchasin

Hey, it's Sarah. If you're enjoying our show and looking for your next listen, I've got just the thing. It's a brand new podcast from Crime House called conspiracy theories, cults, and crimes. Each week Vanessa Richardson will uncover the true stories behind the world's most shocking crimes, deadly ideologies, and secret plots, from mass suicides and political assassinations to secret government experiments and UFO cults. If you love mystery, madness, and diving deep into the world's most unbelievable true stories, you won't want to miss this show. We have a clip here from the first episode about the Heaven's Gate cult, which is out now. If you like what you hear, don't forget to follow conspiracy theories, cults, and crimes on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen. You will have heard the name of the International Coltic Studies Association, or IXA, at the end of just about every episode of this podcast over the years. And you will have also heard the name of Carol Mergerson if you listen to my interview episode with her a few years ago about her work in taking cults to court as off-counsel from a callister Olavarious. Well, Carol has now retired from that position, and she is the recently appointed president of IXA. Carol is an attorney, investigator, and advocate whose work focuses on coercive control, abuse, and exploitation in religious, spiritual, and institutional settings. So I was delighted to speak with her about IXA's work, including its upcoming conference, and some of the changes she's seen in this area over the last few years. Welcome to Let's Talk About Secrets, a podcast about cults around the world. I'm your host, Sarah Steele. Before we get into this episode, a content warning. This podcast deals with issues that some people may find disturbing, related to emotional abuse and controlling behaviors. Please use your discretion as to whether this will be suitable for you and those around you who may be listening to. Please also consider supporting the show through Patreon, or perhaps even becoming a seasoned sponsor. Let's talk about IXA's now been running for coming up to nine years, and has always remained completely independent. It relies on listening support to remain viable. Now on with the show. Carol Merchinson previously headed the legal practice group at McAllister Olivearius, that worked on matters involving sexual misconduct and abuse in faith-based and spiritual communities. Before entering this field, she was a partner at the Philadelphia Office of Morgan Lewis and Bocchius and Director of Morgan Lewis Resources. During her corporate legal career, she conducted dozens of workplace investigations and trained human resources professionals and leaders at numerous Fortune 50 companies in investigative techniques, organizational accountability, and abuse prevention. Drawing on decades of experience in law, investigations, and survivor advocacy, Carol has led inquiries into allegations of misconduct within prominent spiritual and religious organizations and has worked extensively with survivors of coercive control and abuse. Through her legal practice, public education efforts, and leadership at IXA, she has become a leading voice on cultic abuse, human trafficking, labor exploitation, and the protection of vulnerable individuals within high control environments. I hope you'll enjoy hearing what she had to share with me for this interview episode. Carol, thanks so much for speaking with me today. Since we last spoke, you have become president of the International Cultic Studies Association. So, what can you tell me about the work that IXA does? Well, so first of all, thank you for having me on again. It's delightful to be on the show and speaking to your listeners. And yes, so now I'm the president of the International Cultic Studies Association. And I think of it like what we do is all around coercion. So, the word cultic is in the title, right? But I think that we've come to broaden our understanding of the word cult, which is hard to define what is a cult, and really understand it as a coercive organization. So, what IXA does is that it brings together a kind of ecosystem of people who are all having the same goal, which is to help us recognize what coercion is, help us challenge it in our societies, and also to kind of promote healing for survivors, and to disrupt this coercive environment. And so, that's basically what it does, and it's completely interdisciplinary. So, we've got survivors, we have families of survivors, we have therapists and academic researchers and lawyers and media, and everybody who has some stake, you know, some place in that ecosystem. So, it's a kind of people in different relationships to it, but we're all kind of moving in the same direction, which makes it really, really interesting to work with. Wonderful. And yeah, in Australia and in a few places around the world, we have been talking a lot more about coercion, but I think that the laws that we're seeing here, they're very much about coercion in the familial and one-on-one relationships, rather than the good dynamics. So, it's interesting to talk about it in a group dynamic. It is, and that has been my kind of, I've come to that understanding as well, which is, as you said, that in the States it's the same. We have maybe, I don't know, less than 10 states that have something related to coercion, but they're all in that domestic violence, interpersonal violence, familial violence setting. But I think it's a good thing. I think it points to the fact that we can understand coercion. And I think of it as, now we've taken this one step, and we've said, okay, this, we can understand this, we can, if we can understand it, then we could expand it beyond the one into a group. So, that's my hope. Yes, yeah, I couldn't agree with you more, and I think that's what we're seeing in some of the pushes here in Australia as well, around we've got a current parliamentary inquiry happening in Victoria. And there's a few interesting movements. And I suppose coercion is also mentioned when it comes to trafficking and modern slavery legislation as well. And we can get into that a little bit later. Yes. But I was just wondering what trends XA is seeing at the moment across coercive control and the high demand groups. Well, I think that just as we were just talking about, I think we're seeing more expansion of the role of coercion into different settings. So, where we have in prior decades, maybe talked about cults, we're now talking about coercive organizations. And they can be as diverse as gangs, as the kind of domestic situation. Sometimes, well, we had a, at last year's conference, I remember there was a presentation on the wellness movement as coercive. And so we really are seeing that there are, you could have coercion in any kind of an organization. And that's really where the focus has to be. And so I will see all of these new applications, if you will, of the coercive theory to different settings. And one of the newest ones, and that I've come across just a couple of times, is online coercion, which brings its own difficulties in holding people accountable, which is what we're really trying to do, at least partly. And without any physical presence, it's difficult to get that accountability. But I see that as a trend there. Well, and if anyone is the person to talk to about holding some of these groups to account and accountability, I think it might be you, Carol, because I remember when we last spoke. We spoke a lot about how do you even hold a group accountable if it's really nebulous around the leadership structure and the corporate structure, and if there isn't an actual entity to hold to account. It is hard. It is hard. And do you know, it raises a very good point, which is what is that accountability that we're after? And one of the things that I found is that first, you know, I started out doing investigations, and I thought, well, if I just investigate this, which I had been doing in my prior years as a lawyer investigating sexual misconduct in corporate settings, I thought, well, if I do this, then people will recognize that this is a problem. But after four years of doing it, Sarah, I was not able to hold anybody accountable. So I went back into the practice of law, and I spent three or four years there where I found that the law is an imperfect tool for holding people accountable. So, you know, I'm thinking about But what's the next thing that we can do here? Because what is the accountability under the law? It's a civil, generally civil or criminal, and civil is money. And that's not always accountability for survivors. I mean, it's good. People should be compensated for the harm that has been caused. But it doesn't always bring them, you know, the kind of sense that there, somebody was held accountable. Yeah. Yeah. That's very true. And I guess when we're talking about coercion and group coercion, rather than cults, you get out of that field of trying to label, is it a cult or isn't it a cult? It's not a yes or no question. It's like, what is the level of coercive control that's happening in this organization? And if you've got a group that wants to be healthy, they can take a look at that and say, actually, we don't want to have coercive behaviors in this group. What can we do about it? Yes, and absolutely true, and you know, it is very, very clear. The law that we have been using in the United States is the federal trafficking law, which sounds odd, right? Because trafficking, I don't know, before I got involved in this, I would have said trafficking was, you know, moving people across the border or another country or whatever. And it turns out that's not even remotely much of a big deal on it. It really is about coercion. Did we use coercion? Did this group use coercion or fraud in inducing, enticing, luring people into either some kind of sex or forced labor? And so we've, as we've done these cases, we have built for every case a system of coercion so that you can go down almost like a checklist to what you're saying. You know, if you're an organization that cares about not being coercive, you could look at the things that these other organizations are doing and say, those are not things that we want to do. Yeah, and I think when we're looking at that sort of trafficking and exploitative labour type of situation in Australia, we're looking at it from a modern slavery framework. It can be really tricky to recognise it in a cultic context because it doesn't really neatly fit with some of the things we're more used to seeing where someone's paying off like a debt bondage or their passport's being held or, you know, someone has opted into it in a way, but we know that coercion is involved. So I guess this might encompass some of my next question. You may have covered it a little already, but when we last spoke, which was back in 2023, can't believe that's how long it has fun believable. It was about your legal work in taking on cults. And so I was wondering if you'd seen any recent developments in those areas of legal accountability for abusive organisations and their leaders. Yeah, so I think that, you know, litigation takes a very long time or it can take a very long time. So we haven't really begun to see the full effect of everything that we began in 2021-2022. However, we've had lots and lots of success in a number of different areas and to give you kind of a quick thumbnail sketch of the US system, very few cases go to trial. So, you know, there's anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of these cases actually settle. So we've had quite a few organisations that have settled. And that is really, first of all, it is brought to our clients millions of dollars. That, as I said before, that people deserve, you know, if I was in an automobile accident and I hit someone's car, I would be expected either through my insurance or my own self to pay for the damage. That's just the civil justice system. And so that alone, I think, has been a very positive testing of the use of the human trafficking act in the United States on both sex and labour. Another one that your listeners might be interested in because I was just talking with someone yesterday who's doing research on defamation, meaning that when you speak out against the coercive organisation, maybe they then send you a cease and desist letter that they're going to sue you if you don't be quiet. And so this is a very difficult, it's a very difficult thing to come bad. But we filed a claim on behalf of two clients against a coercive organisation. And they counter sued. So that means that they brought their own claims against the two clients and it was for defamation. And so that went all the way up to the New York appeals court and we won. And it was a victory for what the laws are called in the United States, our anti-slap S-L-A-P-P, which is really speech in the public interest. And so we were able to defend under that law and we were able to win. And so it has huge impact in litigation. So that was a very, that was a big victory. Outside of my own group and my own litigation, we've seen a number of interesting cases in the US. We've seen, well, look in France, we saw the paracol, right? The woman whose husband was, yeah, dragging her and bringing them in to rape her. That was a very inspirational moment, I think, for those of us who work in this field and survivors as well, to see someone who said, I want to be public because shame needs to change sides. We have nothing to be ashamed of when we are the ones who are harmed. So that, I think that was a case that had a lot of influence. I think that, I don't know if you're familiar with the one-taste case. Yes, very much so. Okay, so that's the sex positivity organization and those two leaders were convicted in a criminal trial, which is now on appeal. So I think this is going to be a very interesting case for us to watch how the appeal goes because the defense of the appeal is that our reliance on coercion has gone too far. And it's nothing more what the one-taste was, was nothing more than persuasion. And so we're going to see now how an appeals court thinks about that particular thing, which is of tremendous interest to me because it is the force labor under the Federal Trafficking Act. So we would not want to see that particularly reduced. So that's one that we're watching. And then of course we've seen Keith Ranieri go to jail for 125 years. And we've seen P. Diddy not convicted on the human trafficking charges. And so we're looking at that to see what happened there. And I think part of it is was the judge would not allow their expert to testify on the framework of coercion for a lot of very technical legal reasons. And so it's like we want to look at that and see, except particularly, do we need more research? What do we need in order to make sure that we're getting the progress under the law that we need? And that's such a great illustration of where Ixa can fit into that ecosystem as well and start to ask those questions and see where the gaps are. And yeah, it's interesting to have your insight on those cases because I've definitely been following them and my listeners have been following them too. But just to go back to what you were talking about regarding defamation, it's congratulations on that result. That's fantastic. Australia is sometimes referred to as the defamation capital of the world. So we have. Oh my goodness. Yes. Yes. Pretty rough defamation. They have improved slightly here. So there were some changes a couple of years ago. But what is really interesting to me is a couple of cases that have happened over recent years have been where cult leaders have sued for defamation. One is a blogger called Esther Rocket, who was sued by this man, Serge Ben Hayan, who runs a cult called Universal Medicine. And it's fine. Well, it seems that it's okay to say that now because she won that case. He lost that case. Wonderful. And it's found to be factually true to say that he was an abusive cult leader. And so the same thing happened when very recently Natasha Leque of sued a woman named Carly McConkey and that cult was called Universal Knowledge, quite a similar sounding name. And in a similar part of Australia, but Carly actually defended herself in the court case in Tasmania, which was really incredible of her. She has no legal background and she did all this work and she won that case. That case was dismissed and it was found to be factually accurate what she had been recounting about her. experiences in that cult. So and in those processes, I don't think that they did the cult leaders any favors at all because the evidence that came out in those trials was not at all favorable for them. Exactly. You know, I was threatened with a defamation suit when I was investigating a particular organization and honestly it just scared me to death and I'm a lawyer. You know, I can imagine how, I mean, it's just tremendously frightening to have that happen. And so I got a pro bono lawyer and he said to me, do you have you investigated? Yes, do you believe that this is true? I said, I know it is true. You know, I've just spoken to too many people for it to be a coincidence. You know, yes, it's true. He said, then they should not want to put a bunch of people under oath and go to trial and lots of times these are just threats. However, what we know about coercive organizations and particularly charismatic authoritarian leaders who have bought their own message of their infallibility, they don't always make reasonable decisions. They're not always right. They're not always listening to their lawyers. They're not, they are not making reasonable decisions all the time. They don't make necessarily reasonable decisions and be often if what they believe is they're answering to a higher power or that's the position that they put to their leaders, then the end justifies the means and they will position it as totally fine to lie in a court of law. Yes, yes, absolutely. We see that in a lot of different of the different religious groups is that people have taken an oath to support the leader, which often means really almost explicitly lying for the leader because that is for the good of the organization. Had a case like that in which the leader actually reached out to a woman who was a witness and asked her to lie because it was for the good of the organization. Yeah, it's shocking actually. Yeah, that's right. And I did want to touch on while we're on the subject, just a specific case that you were working on in your previous role with McAllister Olivarius, because I did an episode fairly recently about Fallen Gong and you were working on a case brought by a former Shen Yun dancers. So I just wondered if you could tell me a little bit about that case, what it involved and where that one stands at the moment. Yeah, exactly. So yes, I was representing them having retired, well I put retired in quotes Sarah, because I failed at it so many times, you know, anyway, but I'm not their lawyer now, but I think that I can tell you that the the allegations in the complaint, which is on the court docket, so it's a public document, are that a forced labor. So they they meet all of the requirements that we're talking about here, systems of coercion and, you know, that they were not paid, for example. And so that's the basis of that claim. And where it is now is the defendants had moved to dismiss the case, but the the judge denied that. And so now it will go into a phase that's called discovery. So each side, the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side will now take depositions, they will look at documents, they will try to build their case. The fact that the plaintiffs in the Shenyang case won the motion to dismiss just means that the judges are allowing it to go into the next phase. It doesn't mean that they've won. It means now, you know, the door has opened for some discovery and for the ability to build the case. So that's where that's act. Thanks so much. We'll be keeping an eye on that one as well for sure. Yes. And so we've kind of looked at the areas of legal accountability and trends in coercive groups themselves and understanding. But I also wondered whether you've noticed any changes in the cultural and media conversations around some of these subjects, which I feel I've noticed some changes. I mean, I've been doing this podcast now for I think we're probably at about nine years, which is shocking. But if, you know, if you told me at the start, I'd still be going, I would have, I would never have believed you. But I do think, you know, there are so many documentaries these days. And even though there is still a lot of coverage that that positions these groups is maybe a bit of a sensational story that's over there. And it is, you know, but I do think a lot of them do have a more nuanced portrayal of how people get enmeshed and how it can happen to anyone. So what's your perspective on some of those conversations? Absolutely the same as yours. I'm seeing, you know, I hesitate to say something as optimistic as coercion is having a moment. But I do kind of feel that it has built a little bit on the Me Too movement that happened in 2018. No coincidence Harvey Weinstein was really a cult of one person because he was sued under the Human Trafficking Act as well because his behavior was based on fraud and coercion. So I think that that kind of started a sense that survivors were telling the truth. There were more people who felt that people who came forward could not that easily be dismissed. And I think that was a big boost for the people who followed. I think that I've seen a focus shift from cults to coercion just as we were talking about before. So the cults is a kind of sensationalized perhaps. But the coercion is much more demonstrable. We're able to research it. We're able to study it. And of course, that's what the academics and the researchers in Ixa are doing. They're studying what I think of as your brain on coercion. So it answers the question, why didn't they leave? For example, and so I think that whereas before the kind of whole discussion of cults revolved around kind of sensationalism, the discussion of coercion I think offers the opportunity to have more reliability. Instead of being a label, it's a system. And as a system, it can be studied. And when we have that kind of research, then we are able to use it when we go to trial. For example, that's our kind of ecosystem, right? Because without that, I can't with, well, you see in the PDD trial. Without that, the prosecutors could not get a conviction. And there may have been other, you know, reasons as well. We don't know because we don't know what the jury was thinking. But we need those experts to be able to tie the whole thing up together. And that I see as a very positive move that's happened recently. I think also that the documentaries, like you said, that have done a good job have really promoted public awareness. And sometimes not even only public awareness, I had a client who told me that first for wherever she was in the her cult, she was not allowed to watch television. But she was allowed to go out and visit a relative who was ill. And she and her sister went. And they saw the first two episodes of the vow. And they looked at each other and they said, we're in a cult. And so it's not just the rest of us and the public. But sometimes these wake up moments can occur as a result of a podcast like you're doing. It can, so many people are being educated by the kind of podcasts that you're doing. It's amazing. And it's tremendous because it gives survivors language. It gives families language. It gives the general public language. It's just terrific. So I think that that has the vow other documentaries that have really delved into the issue of coercion have done us a great service. Again, media being one of the ecosystems. I just saw, I think it's not been two weeks ago. In the New York Times, one of their journalists very, very well-known, she has a podcast to her name is Emma Gesson and G-E-S-S-E-M. And she had, there was an opinion dialogue with her and a woman who covers domestic violence. And it was called something like America has a coercion problem. So when I see that, then I'm saying there's been a lot of advancement right in the journalism and the media field. And it's fed by again some of the research survivors speaking out families, all of that. I think it's having an impact. impact. And then I think it's, we've spread. We're past, you know, these are just little religious groups that are crazy, you know, to these are groups who are enriching themselves through force labor, who are coercing people to do things that they would not ordinarily be able to do. And I think we're going to, we see it in domestic violence, we see it in all kinds of areas, internet, the new frontier, probably, all of those places. I think it's been very positive. That's, yeah, that's so great to hear. And I think that that's my experience of it as well. And as you say, I think really so much credit to those survivors who are speaking out, because that is not an easy thing to do. And that definitely, that there've been platforms that they've been able to do. So on, I think podcasts have been great for that as well, just because there's like a long form that you can do where you can tell a story in detail and not be sort of time limited by pulling a couple of quotes out for an article or whatever it is. But I have definitely also spoken to many people who watched the vow and realized that they had been involved with the cult. That that's a story I've heard a number of times. So I think you're absolutely right. And you touched on the research being really important for when it comes to court trials, but the research is also so important when it comes to advocating for any kind of legislative approach to this. Absolutely. That is probably as important, if not more important, right, because we need more laws. That's an area where we are deficient. And we need longer statutes of limitations. We need more laws. We need to have more speech in the public interest laws on the defamation front. But particularly on the coercion thing, yes, the research is tremendously important because we don't understand it. You know, I will speak as an American to say that this country is one that believes a great deal in free will. You know, we're all going to like grab a machete and go out and conquer the wilderness. And you know, if you put your mind to it, you can do it. And so it's it is somewhat difficult then to get people to not buy into the why did you join why didn't you leave? The kind of twin questions, you know, the book and questions. So nobody joins cult. Nobody joins a coercive organization. And so yeah, they thought they were joining something else. And that's the answer to that that we need to understand what took that, what did coercion do that made that person not free to leave? Not only physically not free, but also psychologically not free. 100%, 100%. And I often feel like, okay, that we may start to feel that the job is getting done when those two questions are not the questions being asked first anymore. And I think we are getting slightly closer towards that, which is encouraging. We are. You know, if you think about the domestic violence kind of trajectory, you know, probably a decade ago, maybe longer. But in some time in the past, people said to women in domestic violence situations, why didn't they leave? That's what they said. And now I think, I mean, there's obviously always going to be at people out there who are saying that. But I think the general consensus now is that there are enormous considerations, including coercion, about why women do not leave a coercive domestic partner relationship, lots of things. And so I think we only have to scale that out now. That's our opportunity. Yep, totally agree. And so Exha has a role there when it comes to that research piece. What role does Exha play in other respects around advocacy for cult survivors? Yeah, that's an interesting question. So I think the way I think about it is that everything that we do is advocacy for survivors. Because without survivors speaking out, you and I were just talking about this without their testimony without their bringing it forward. There is no action that any of us can take. And because everything needs them. And so I think from Exha's point of view, the survivor is the heart of everything. It's like the center. And then all of these things come out from there. So we think, for example, survivors who speak out ideally, they're in therapy because that, as you said, this is not an easy thing to do. Sometimes people need to be in therapy for years in order to be able to speak out, which is not uncommon because these situations, families have been left behind. There are all kinds of difficulties that they have experienced and that they need to process and resolve before they can speak out. So we need those therapists. We need the, as we've talked about the academics doing research, we need the media. So all of these things really circle around the survivor. So Exha's role is to equip all of those constituencies, including the survivors to be able to advocate for more recognition of coercive control. We need more challenging of the system. We need more public awareness of it. We need more disruption of it. And so our advocacy is arming the people with that so that they can make those inroads where they can, where their own field is. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the conference every year probably very much adds to that ecosystem. And so Exha does run a conference every year, which one of these days, I really hope to make it too. Your next one is very soon. It's from the 1st to the 4th of July. And I was wondering if you could tell me about some of the themes and speakers at this year's conference. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. So I think what I'm struck by this year is the kind of breadth of the program. And it really reflects in a lot of ways what we've been talking about because there is so, there's so much programming that is about all of those things that we've been saying. There's programming about domestic violence. There's programming about all different kinds of survivor situations. There's a panel, which I'm really excited about with all of the different constituents about what they need in their field sitting here right now. Talking like we are today about where we are and where we need to go and what do we need to get there? What what what are the researchers need? What are the academics need? Where what do the cult interventionist need? You know, all of these groups need something that we hope we can begin to provide for that. So the programming is is very, very diverse. I looked through the program tonight as I was thinking about our call and I'm just amazed. In addition, we have a speaker from the Harvard program on flourishing and he is going to be speaking on autonomy and the, you know, kind of the ethics of autonomy, which is really an interesting topic that I don't think we've touched on before. And so I think that we're what we're hoping is that we can begin to focus this upcoming year on more flourishing. Both for us have word I love. I just love that word flourishing not only for survivors, but particularly for survivors, but also for those of us who work in this field because we are also bicariously affected by the trauma that we carry for other people. And so I'm looking forward to that. We also have a speaker on that same theme. We have a woman who's a psychologist who's done research into sleep. And the effect of sleep on trauma, which I'm just fascinated just absolutely fascinated by this. And so I'm really looking forward to hearing her because apparently when you sleep, you have different phases of sleep that your brain goes into and REM sleep is where we process trauma. And so think of how many of our survivors or any of us for that matter have sleep disruption. And when we don't get enough of the different phases of sleep, it slows down our ability to process whatever trauma that we're dealing with. And so I think that's going to be very interesting as well. A very, very full lineup. It's always a full four days. The first day is workshops. on a variety of things. One thing that I saw that I thought was interesting is a little bit about financial health after you leave a coercive organization because so many of our survivors had not had any kind of financial education of how to manage money. And so a very practical approach. Well, that all sounds fantastic. And yeah, I mean, you know, speaking about the sleep thing, I'd be so interested in that as well because we know how many cults kind of do as one of their methods of coercive control impact people's amount of sleep and put demands on them to have less sleep. Yes, yes. And I don't know this because I am not a sleep scientist, but I could imagine couldn't you that sleep deprivation, which is a part of coercion, by the way, that sleep deprivation for years must just make it difficult to normalize sleep. And yet we don't really think of that due way. We're thinking of therapy and we're thinking of a lot of things, but our brain is a magnificent machine. It just really is a magnificent machine. And being able to do a better job of sleeping as part of a flourishing, really, I think it's going to be fascinating. I'm a big fan of sleep, so I couldn't agree more. Me too. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. So that I mean, you've spoken about the breadth of the types of sessions at the conference. And there really is a lot of breadth to it, but that it does bring me to a question that I do have, which is around the exoconference having a history of inviting some pretty contentious speakers in the survivor world, which it has included academics who have testified at legal proceedings in ways that have favored the cults and the leaders, and who have in journal articles framed survivor stories as those of disgruntled apostates not to be paid much heed. And I was wondering what you could tell me about this. Yeah. So first of all, that is true. And I'm aware of that. So I'm really delighted to address it. So anyone who is speaking at Exa has had an abstract that has been accepted. And they're not speaking because they're contentious. They're speaking because some or many of our constituency needs to hear and learn from them. So this is one of the difficulties Sarah of having that kind of big ecosystem. Right? Everybody is not the same goal, but people have different ideas about getting there, which is completely normal in a, what I would think of as a non-coercive, you know, organization. So for example, if we think of those people as being on the other side, right, of the, you know, of the, of the coercion discussion, then what the academics tell me is they need to hear that. They go to hear this because they want to know what that person's research has been. They want to know what their, you know, kind of what their premise is because then on our side, our research and our premise has to defeat that. And if we don't know what it is because we're not willing to hear it, then we can't succeed. It's the same thing for lawyers. We can't win a case for survivors without understanding the other side's theory. And so if I have a contentious speaker, so to speak, or I think of this as someone who's on the other side, the side that I'm not going to agree with, by the way, but which I need to listen to in order to be successful in, you know, in working with the survivors that I'm working with. So I have to know what are they saying about coercion? What is the research that they're using? Because when I, when I go to pick an expert, I want somebody whose research counters their research so that I can win a trial. I think that, here's what I also think. I think that we don't want to make an assumption about what survivors do and do not want to hear. I don't want us to be in the position of, of making decisions for them in somewhat of the same way of the organizations that they've gotten out of. And so these, these sessions, while they can be contentious, and certainly that we do not agree with, are there if people choose to hear them. Some survivors have chosen to and have found it interesting to understand, for example, one survivor told me was interesting to understand why her family stayed in the cult. And it gave her a better understanding of that. Others listen to it and they say, this is completely hogwash, which is perfectly okay. But for many of our constituencies, we need to see the whole system in order to disrupt it. And so we need to have that dialogue with the people who see it differently. We don't agree. We don't have to agree. But we have to learn. We have to do our best to learn so that we can do that challenging and disrupting that we need to do. So I think that's kind of the story there. And I think that, you know, what we need to do is to help survivors understand that that's, you know, it fits into the goal. You know, it's not just as I said, inviting somebody contentious for the, for the sake of listening to them. But that it actually helps us. Thanks for giving that perspective on it. It is a really interesting one. And I know that it's one that survivors are interested in and who have had questions about some of that programming in the past. So I think it's important. Of course they have. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. So yeah, I appreciate you shedding a bit of light on where that sort of sits in the in the program. Yes. So you have retired now from your legal work to focus on EXA and non-legal work. Let's use the word retired rather loosely again. So to focus on non-legal work with survivors. Looking back, what do you view as some of the highlights of your legal career? And what are you looking forward to in this next phase? Oh my goodness. Highlights. You know, I worked with a really wonderful team of lawyers that were so they were just brilliant and just really survivor oriented and caring and really caring about the work. And I miss that. You know, and that's really I think that was the highlight for me. And also that we were able to help and are still helping other survivors. You know, that we've kind of made a path there for ourselves that's able to be followed. So I, you know, just as absolute demonstration that the retirement is something that I have failed at completely. I am actually working with some a few other law firms on some cases. And so because I love the law, I really do. I love it. It's like a challenge. It's like a puzzle to be solved. And there's just something in me that hasn't been able to give that up completely. So that's kind of my part time job, Sarah. And then my other part time job is of course with EXA, where I'm really hoping that we can now where we are again, where we are meeting this moment that we're able to look at laws around the world, not just in the United States. And maybe pull together some groups where we can begin to look at legislation. As we said, maybe we can help those of you in Australia get better defamation laws, although good to hear that there have been some successes on that front, yeah. But legislation, you know, that really makes it not so frightening to be able to speak out. So I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to, you know, just seeing what the need is for the next couple of years so that we take advantage of the moment. Because I think if you and I were saying before, there's a moment happening, I feel it. Even just since 2023, when we last spoke, we didn't feel it then. So I'm looking forward to all of that. Well, I was delighted to hear that you'd come into this role at EXA and that the organization has your leadership to take in some of this amazing experience in to this next phase of their work too and so I can't wait to hear what comes of it all. Is there anything else you'd like to mention before we finish up today Carol? You know what I'd like to say and I always want to say this which is that I so appreciate the work that you and the other people in podcasting documentaries and whatever media in the New York Times and you know in the small to hometown newspapers that they do because no coercive organization is kind of brought down you know I have a lot of people who think we're just going to bring them down and I don't know of a single survivor or a lawyer who has brought down any of these organizations we've dented them we've maybe heard their public image maybe we have enough media on Google that when somebody looks them up they see something about you know the harm that they've caused and they don't join but the media has been a great partner in this and so I thank you for your nine years well there you are nine years that's very fun thank you thanks so much and yeah I mean it's it's one thing that I always think of as well and I do hear from people who having a podcast episode out there about a group that's maybe one of the less covered groups and not in the in the mainstream media it has caused them to think twice about joining a group and I think that if a single person managed to avoid getting enmeshed in one of these groups then that work has been worth it so yes absolutely the case isn't it and and I think that for the folks who did the vow think of you know they must I hope that they think every day I changed people's lives because they did and you know it's so you never know who you're going to reach out there and it I'm positive it's a lot of work to do this for nine years and so hats off to you well hats off to you to Carolyn thanks so much for making the time to speak with me today thank you for having me you can find out more about ixa and the upcoming conference via their new website at international culticstudies.org and links are of course in the show notes as well let's talk about sects as an independent listener funded project please consider supporting the show via patreon as your support is what makes it a viable endeavor you can access episodes early and add free with your contribution at patreon.com/ltaspod you can also listen to my audiobook do as I say which is linked in the show notes or grabs a merch something you can always do for free is give the podcast rating on the podcast platform of your choice or share it with a friend this episode of let's talk about sects was produced by me Sarah Steele and the music was by Joe Gould grab yourself a copy of his soundtrack album nobody joins a cult if you've been personally affected by involvement with a cult or would like to support those who have been you can find support with or donate to cult information and family support if you're in australia via cifs.org.au and you can find resources outside of australia with the international cultic studies association international culticstudies.org catch you again next episode thank you so much for listening to catch the rest of this episode and so much more search for conspiracy theories cults and crimes wherever you get your podcasts will also drop a link in the show notes