Guest View: In Defense of Frank Parlato and why you should not care?

Frank Parlato’s trial date [no trial date has been set] is irrelevant to either the truth of the allegations against Raniere-world, or to the truth of the charges against Mr. Parlato.The truth of the charges against Mr. Parlato is irrelevant to the truth of the allegations against Raniere-world.

A standard Raniere-world legal tactic is to find compliant prosecutors to bring criminal charges against their enemies. Mr. Parlato got on the enemies list by implying to the Bronfmans that Keith Raniere’s investment advice was less than omniscient.

There is a genuine dispute about compensation for work Mr. Parlato did on behalf of the Sara and Clare Bronfman. His work clearly saved them $10-26 million. He was supposed to be compensated by a share of profits from the development project he salvaged, but he was fired for no cause except implying Mr. Raniere wasn’t the smartest man in the world before receiving compensation. A $1 million advance to pay taxes on an unrelated project is the subject of the dispute. It is very hard to see how Mr. Parlato’s conduct could be construed as fraud or theft, while that of Mr. Raniere and the Bronfmans seems to be, at best, unethical and much closer to fraudulent.

The whole dispute would best be considered a.civil action, not criminal.

There DOES seem to be an open and shut case that Clare Bronfman has given blatantly contradictory testimony, under oath in cases related to the development project:

When it was to her or Mr. Raniere’s benefit, she testified in some cases that there was a written contract for Mr. Parlato’s involvement. When it was to her or Mr. Raniere’s benefit, in other cases, she testified that there was NOT a written contract.

It is helpful to Mr. Parlato in the current case if Clare’s inconsistent testimony in the past causes her to be disregarded. Then the remaining evidence points to there being no valid written contract for Mr. Parlato’s participation. That makes the fraud charge dismissible under statue of limitations. And if not dismissed, fraud implies misrepresentation about an agreement, and what was the agreement?

Clare Bronfman going to jail on fraud would be a separate thing.

And still would have no effect on the truth of the allegations about Raniere-world.

 

[Editor’s note: See: Previous post on Parlato Case:]

 

 

2 thoughts on “Guest View: In Defense of Frank Parlato and why you should not care?

  1. Neither Mr. Parlato’s legal situation, nor Ms. Bronfman’s, have anything to do with the truth about whether Raniere-world has degenerated into a cesspool of blackmail, slavery, and genital branding.

    Mr. Parlato’s offer to post verbatim the response from Raniere-world remains in effect.

    Your move.

  2. If Frank Parlato’s whole case rested on Clare Bronfman’s loan to Mr. Parlato and her testimony regarding it that would be one story. Yet the indictment against Frank Parlato involves 19 felony counts, only a small portion of which have anything to do with Clare Bronfman. The attempts of this site and the above commentator to obfuscate these facts point to a desperation similar to Joe O’Hara and John Tighe both criminals who desperately tried to put forth the “it’s a cult therefore I am innocent” defense.yet went to jail. Deservedly. No matter what Clare Bronfman or Keith Raniere did with DOS in 2015- to the present it will not have any bearing whatsoever on whether Frank Parlato goes to jail or not. And even if the claims regarding Clare’s assertion of fraud against Parlato are dismissed, he will still be facing about 12 felony counts of fraud unrelated to Clare.

    I mean, who are we kidding here? Since my prior comments have been deleted, I dare Mr. Parlato to print this comment.

Leave a Reply