A commenter, who uses the name John Elsomre, has this to say:
If you truly had evidence that Clare Bronfman committed perjury your case would have been dismissed by now.”
Unfortunately, the legal process to get a case dismissed doesn’t happen as quickly as that.
I have proof, but it still has to go through due process.
The reverse is also true: If the government and Clare Bronfman had proof I defrauded her, wouldn’t I be convicted by now? After all, she went before the grand jury and perjured herself in June 2011.
No, there is due process.
The fact of whether there was a written agreement in your case or not matters little in terms of common law in NY and Federal Law. If there was a verbal agreement that you acted on or acknowledged in any way shape of form proves an agreement was in place.
Too bad you’re not a lawyer.
Whether there was a written agreement or not is, in fact, the whole case.
Somewhere, the terms of any agreement must be spelled out.
The problem with your argument is that Clare Bronfman testified to the grand jury that there is a written agreement [even though she did not sign it]. But in two separate civil suits, she says there is no written agreement. But THEN she repudiates all of the terms of the so-called written [or unwritten] agreement in sworn testimony.
You cannot have it both ways: A party cannot be held to the terms of an agreement that the other party is not held to.
A contract by definition requires both sides to uphold their end – written or otherwise.
This will come out at trial [or beforehand.]
Clare Bronfman perjured herself.
She got the jump on me by lying to the FBI and the grand jury – where it is all one-sided.
But now there is a judge and maybe very soon a jury. Then both sides are heard and too bad for whoever is lying.
If Clare Bronfman had a lapse in memory as to whether she signed a document evidencing that agreement or not is minor. The bottom line is this, did you acknowledge that agreement?
The simple answer is “No.”
But it’s not as simple as that.
An agreement requires two parties to agree to certain things. One party cannot be held to an agreement while the other party has no obligations and is free to choose whether it is an agreement or not depending on what suits her on any given day.
The agreement called for, among other things, 1/3 of the profits from a project in Los Angeles to be paid to me as developer.
Miss Bronfman repudiated she ever agreed to that in sworn testimony before a jury in a civil trial in Los Angeles. She cannot pick and choose which parts of an agreement she will honor – and also pick and choose which ones I must honor. You either honor the entire agreement or you breach it.
That said, Miss Bronfman said in open court and in a sworn verified complaint there never was an agreement.
Then in the secrecy of the grand jury, she says there is a written agreement even though no one can find a signed version of it.
This will all come out in due course.
Based on your indictment and prior statements to the Press you said the monies you earned were a loan. I think you are fucked. I also note that you have stated repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere that you simply put the $1 million you received from the Bronfman’s in a “trust” account and never touched it. ONE SINGLE TRUST ACCOUNT. Yet based on your indictment when the Feds raided you to retrieve the $1 million dollars they seized three separate trust accounts. So was it three accounts or one? Why did you distribute the monies across three different accounts and then lie about it here?
No, Keith Raniere and Clare Bronfman are, as you so inelegantly put it, “fucked”, as you will soon see.
By the way, I never said the money was held in one escrow account – and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I simply said the $1 million was in escrow.
In other words, I never spent the money.
It was placed in three accounts – with my social security number on all three accounts – for greater FDIC protection. No attempt was made to hide it. The US Attorney’s office was made aware of the three accounts more than a year before they seized the money. And, of course, I have proof of that.
The money is now being held in escrow by the U.S. Marshal’s office earning interest. When it is returned to my possession, as I expect, it will be increased substantially by added interest.
Your indictment said you fraudulently used your 90 yr old fathers attorney bar number to set up those “trust” accounts, presumably without his knowledge. This all sound really fishy and bad, especially considering the gross misrepresentations on this site. It makes you look guilty as hell and like Joe O’Hara desperate to throw the CULT MUD against the wall in hopes you’ll get off your crimes. Which by the way, two thirds of the charges against you have nothing to do with the Bronfmans. At a certain point, one has to think. Really?
My father opened the accounts. I was added with the bank’s consent and full knowledge of everyone. This is a matter of public record.
This will all come out at trial.
If you say there are “gross misrepresentations” on this site, would you be kind enough to point those out – with a little evidence, please?
If I am wrong about something, I want to correct it.
Unlike Mr. Raniere – who, in fact, may be you – I am interested in the truth.
While I enjoy a battle with Mr. Raniere as much as I assume he enjoys battling with me and others, my weapon of choice is the truth.
His is trickery.
We shall see who wins in the end.
If you weren’t guilty you would post your indictment with an explanation of the charges on this site. If I was innocent I would be doing that. I would also be publishing the specific “proof” of Clare Bronfman’s perjury. Anything less signals desperation and that this site is all bullshit.
My indictment is posted online. Google it and find it easily.
I have published specific proof of Clare Bronfman’s perjury. Google Bronfman Perjury and Frank Parlato.
Easy to find.
I dare you to post this comment. As you said earlier, “You don’t delete comments”
I not only allowed your comment where you posted it but I re-posted it here for a second bite at the apple for you.
Now, since I answered all of your questions, would you answer just one of mine.
You don’t have to of course, but are you Keith Raniere?