In books and online writings about extreme trauma and mind control, two words show up constantly: contract and consent.

We see this clearly in Encrypted Allyson (written by Allyson Carter and her adoptive mother, Shelly Carter) and in the online posts of survivor-activist Sarah Ruth Ashcraft. At first glance, these accounts are filled with talk of dark rituals, evil networks, and demonic forces. But if you strip away the supernatural claims and look at how these groups actually operate, a chilling pattern emerges: abusers use the language of contracts and dark spirituality as a practical psychological tool to dominate their victims.

Perpetrators do not need to genuinely believe in the occult to use it. They use the imagery of blood oaths, demons, and permanent spiritual laws because it works. It traps the victim in a world of fear and makes them feel completely helpless.

Most importantly, it twists the meaning of consent—the very concept that our legal system relies on to distinguish between a crime and a voluntary choice.

The Trick of the “Contract”: Making Abuse Look Like a Legal Agreement

In Encrypted Allyson, Shelly Carter describes a world where people are treated like property through unseen “contracts.” She writes that handlers hold a victim’s contract, that different factions trade contracts like mafia families swapping territory, and that enemies even bid at “auctions” to buy a contract to harm or abduct Ally. Carter explains that evil operates on “patterns and contracts,” treating everything from Child Protective Services files to hospital admission papers as binding deeds of ownership.

Why do abusers use this business-like, legal language? They do it to systematically break down a victim’s ability to resist:

1. Making Slavery Feel Official: A contract means that one party owns something or is owed something. By telling a victim they are bound by a contract, the abuser convinces them that their abuse is not an ongoing, illegal crime, but the fulfillment of an official deal.
2. The Illusion of Inevitability: Victims of coercive control are taught that the system is too big to fight. Calling human ownership a “contract” makes brute force look like orderly procedure. The victim starts to believe that the police or the courts cannot save them because a binding deal has already been signed.
3. Blaming the Victim: Contracts require two sides to sign. Abusers often convince a survivor that an alternate identity (“alter”), a family member, or their younger self agreed to the deal long ago. This makes the victim feel intense guilt. They are tricked into thinking, I brought this on myself because I signed this deal.

The dark themes—demons, curses, and blood oaths—are not about religion. They are psychological stage props. They are designed to convince the victim that their “contract” is backed by terrifying forces far stronger than normal laws or human advocates.

Twisting the Word “Consent”: The Trap of False Agreement

The most dangerous part of this tactic is how abusers redefine consent.

In criminal law and normal relationships, consent is simple: it must be informed, freely given, and able to be taken back at any second. In high-profile sex trafficking lawsuits—such as the landmark civil cases filed by anonymous survivors known as “Jane Doe”—the entire battle comes down to this single word. Defense teams argue the victims consented; the victims prove that true consent is impossible when you are terrified, isolated, and under total psychological control.

Abusive systems deliberately destroy the true meaning of consent in three specific ways:

1. Claiming That Silence Means Agreement
   In early 2020, Sarah Ruth Ashcraft wrote extensively about what she called “Manufactured Consent” and the “False Contract.” She argued that abusive systems rely on a manipulative rule: they drop hints or openly reveal what they plan to do. If the victim or the public does not immediately stop them, the abusers claim that silence, shock, or confusion counts as “consent.”
   In psychology, freezing in terror is a standard human survival response. When a victim is frozen and terrified, the abuser uses that reaction against them, claiming: You didn’t fight back, so you must have agreed.
2. The Trap of the Physical Signature
   In Encrypted Allyson, Carter points out how normal paperwork can become a weapon. If a traumatized person is forced or tricked into signing hospital admissions forms or intake documents, the handlers treat that signature as absolute proof of consent. Carter notes that once a signature is on paper, bad actors can use that document to bypass a family’s authority and keep control of the victim under the guise of “medical care.”
   This mirrors real-world legal battles in trafficking cases. Abusers routinely force victims to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), apartment leases, or model contracts. Later, in court, their lawyers wave those papers around to argue that the victim agreed to everything.
3. Pretending Consent Can Never Be Taken Back
   In genuine law, you can withdraw consent at any time. If you say “stop,” everything must stop. But abusers train victims to believe that once consent is surrendered—even as a small child, even under duress—it can never be revoked. It is framed as an eternal pact that follows them forever.

The Hollywood and Music Industry Parallel: Contracts That Claim Ownership of the Self

The same contract-and-consent machinery appears in high-visibility form in the entertainment industry, where Hollywood stars and musicians routinely sign agreements that transfer sweeping control over their image, labor, personal conduct, and creative output. These deals are often described, even by the artists themselves, in language of ownership or self-sale.

Record labels have long used multi-album contracts, 360 deals (which take a percentage of touring, merchandising, endorsements, and other income streams), and perpetual ownership of master recordings. Artists sign away rights to their own name, likeness, and voice under broad exclusivity and morals clauses. Prince repeatedly compared standard record contracts to slavery, writing the word “slave” on his face in protest and changing his name to a symbol in an attempt to escape control of his work and identity. Taylor Swift’s long public battle to regain ownership of her early masters illustrated how an artist can lose control of the core product of her labor for years or decades after the ink dries. Similar patterns appear in talent agreements that lock actors into multi-picture options, grant studios extensive rights of publicity, and impose NDAs that silence complaints about working conditions or misconduct.

Non-disclosure agreements function as a particularly effective control tool. Campaigners and industry voices have described NDAs as remaining “rife” in film and music, used to cover up exploitation, bullying, and, in extreme cases, criminal behavior. Guests at parties, dancers, and collaborators have been required to sign restrictive confidentiality agreements simply to enter a space; once signed, the documents are later brandished to argue that participants consented to whatever followed. The Weinstein cases and subsequent litigation involving figures in music demonstrated how such paper trails were used to manufacture the appearance of voluntary agreement and to deter public disclosure.

In its most extreme legal form, control can shift from private contract to court-ordered authority. Britney Spears’s 13-year conservatorship gave appointed parties power over her person and estate: medical decisions, personal relationships, travel, spending, and career choices. Spears later described the arrangement as an oppressive and controlling tool; court records and her own testimony showed how ordinary legal instruments were used to override her stated wishes and to treat her labor and body as assets managed by others. The structure relied on the same core claims seen elsewhere: a formal document or court order had transferred decision-making authority, silence or compliance was treated as ongoing consent, and withdrawal of that authority was portrayed as nearly impossible until sustained public pressure and legal challenge intervened.

These industry practices do not require occult belief to function. They operate through ordinary commercial and probate law, leveraging the power imbalance between young or desperate talent and well-resourced institutions. The language of “the deal,” “the paper,” and “what you signed” is used to convert raw leverage into an aura of legitimacy. When an artist later says they “sold their soul,” they are usually describing the psychological and practical effect of having transferred ownership of their work, image, and autonomy under terms they could not freely exit. The mechanism is the same one described in survivor accounts of more extreme abuse: the contract is framed as irreversible proof of consent, and any subsequent resistance is cast as breach of a legitimate bargain.

Fighting Back: The War Over Definitions

Because abusers build their control on fake laws and distorted words, survivors and their protectors often fight back using that exact same legalistic framework:

• The Counter-Contract: In Encrypted Allyson, Shelly Carter describes having Allyson sign an official Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order before a public speaking event. In Carter’s words, the DNR was a “contract that overrode theirs.” It was used as a practical, legal tool to block the handlers from faking a medical emergency to kidnap her. Later, completing an adult adoption worked the same way: it was a superior legal decree that permanently severed the claims of biological handlers and outside agencies.
• The Public Refusal: In Ashcraft’s writings, the defense is verbal and public: the collective declaration of #WethePeople DO NOT CONSENT. If the abuser’s system relies on the fiction that quiet compliance equals agreement, the antidote is loud, active, and continuous refusal.

Conclusion: Control Without the Mysticism

When we look beneath the disturbing rituals, we find a cold, calculated strategy. Abusers do not use dark language because they have mystical powers. They use it because convincing a human being that they are trapped in a binding, self-inflicted contract is the most effective way to break their will to fight.

By turning consent into a trap and dressing up raw violence as a legal contract, perpetrators build a prison inside the victim’s mind. The purpose of serious analysis—and the ultimate standard in any courtroom—is to expose that lie, tear up the fraudulent terms of the agreement, and affirm that genuine consent cannot exist where there is fear and coercion.

Sources and Reference Material

1. Carter, Allyson, and Shelly Carter. Encrypted Allyson: MK Ultra Blueprint. Self-published, 2023.
   • Chapter 4 (pp. 59–64): Details the author’s framework regarding how “consent, signatures, and contracts” grant unseen operational authority, the strategic use of a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order to override a handler contract, and the claim that emergency medical calls surrender parental authority.
   • Chapter 5 (pp. 84–87): Discusses the movement of “contracts” between institutions (mental hospitals, Child Protective Services, and biological families), comparing trafficking operations to territorial mafia syndicates, and frames adult adoption as a binding override of prior claims.
   • Questions & Answers sections (pp. 94, 107): Explores the concept of contract “auctions” used by alleged handlers to authorize hits, staged violence, and psychological triggers.
2. Ashcraft, Sarah Ruth. Public Threads and Blog Archives (2017–2020), preserved or described by Dannielle Blumenthal (author).
   • January 11, 2020: Blumenthal post analyzing “Manufactured Consent” and the nature of the “False Contract” used by alleged control networks.
   • February 2020: Blumenthal archive of public threads detailing how high-control groups interpret non-resistance or silence as implicit consent, and the introduction of the counter-declaration #WethePeople DO NOT CONSENT.
   • December 31, 2017: Blumenthal post describing Ashcraft’s definitions of cult-based psychological coercion, free-will usurpation, and legalistic mind control.
3. Legal Precedent on Coercion and Consent:
   • Jane Doe v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al. (Central District of California): Landmark litigation analyzing how commercial contracts, NDAs, and purported consent forms are legally voided when obtained through duress, fraud, and severe psychological coercion under federal trafficking statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1595).
   • United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988): Supreme Court precedent establishing the legal boundaries of involuntary servitude, psychological coercion, and the invalidity of consent obtained from vulnerable, isolated individuals.
4. Entertainment-industry reporting on restrictive contracts, NDAs, master ownership, and conservatorships (Prince’s public statements, Taylor Swift masters dispute, Britney Spears conservatorship proceedings, and coverage of NDAs in film and music).