By K.R. Claviger
For those interested in the law and how the Bronfman sisters use and abuse it – and why it will benefit the publisher of the Frank Report – Frank Parlato – I submit this article.
In November 2015, the US Attorney for the Western District of NY alleged that Frank Parlato defrauded Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman-Igtet. They later dropped those charges.
Here is what they alleged at the time they indicted Parlato:
Frank Parlato entered into a contract – a Letter of Intent (LOI) – dated January 8, 2008, with the Bronfmans. Per the LOI, the Bronfmans wired $1M to Parlato, to “be deducted and repaid” to the Bronfmans against Parlato’s ultimate compensation in a Los Angeles real estate project.
In the LOI, Parlato agreed to a “lien on [his ownership] interest in One Niagara,” a building in Niagara Falls that he owned in part – and he further agreed “…not to dilute or dissipate [sell] said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million].”
The government alleged that, based on the terms of the LOI, Parlato owed the Bronfmans $1M when he wrongfully sold his interest in One Niagara in July 2010. These actions, according to the Feds, constituted a felony scheme to defraud.
Clare Bronfman lied about the LOI
In order to convict Parlato, the government needed to prove the LOI was a valid and binding contract because the LOI was the sole basis for the promise “not to dilute or dissipate said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million] Draw.”
Without an enforceable Letter of Intent, the Government’s theory had no basis whatsoever.
The Government could not prove Parlato entered into the LOI. The reason for that is that Government had no fully executed LOI because the Bronfmans never signed it.
At one time, the US Attorney’s Office stated it had an LOI signed by the Bronfmans – and the FBI agreed to provide a copy to Parlato’s defense team. The U.S. Attorney’s Office later confirmed that the FBI was unable to locate any LOI signed by the Bronfmans.
The lead prosecutor, then-Assistant US Attorney Anthony Bruce, was aware, prior to the indictment, that the Bronfmans had sworn in other courts that they never signed the LOI. But that did not stop him from indicting Parlato.
AUSA Bruce knew the Bronfmans had filed a civil complaint against Parlato, dated April 2, 2012. He also knew that complaint did not contain any statement by the Bronfmans that they had entered an LOI with Parlato. The Bronfmans’ civil complaint states that “..the Bronfmans loaned Parlato $1.0 million as a demand loan,” “without a written agreement.”
What they swore to in their civil lawsuit against Parlato flatly contradicts the existence of the LOI as a binding contract.
The Bronfmans also denied, in courtroom testimony, that the LOI governed their loan to Parlato. Clare Bronfman testified in Precision Development v. Plyam in LA, on March 28, 2011. Clare Bronfman was presented with a copy of the Letter of Intent.
Q: And does that have Mr. Parlato’s signature on it to your knowledge?
A: Yes, it does. I believe that’s his signature. [Trans. at 36:12‐21.]
She testified that it did not reflect the agreement on the $1M.
Q: Well, let’s go to the language on the million dollars. Is that the language that you agreed to for the million dollars?
A: I don’t believe it was. [Trans. at 37:1‐4. 1]
Bronfman contradicts herself in Grand Jury
But three months later, in her grand jury testimony on June 23, 2011, Clare Bronfman was shown the same LOI she testified about in the Plyam case that she did not enter into.
AUSA Bruce asked her: “And this was at least the initial agreement between you and your sister and Mr. Parlato?
A: That’s correct.
Q: There is a signature on the last page. It appears to be Mr. Parlato’s?
A: Yes.
Q: But there are no other signatures on the document?
A: Correct.
Q: Do you recall the document actually being- entered into? [i.e. signing it.]
A: Yes
Clare Bronfman told the grand jury – under oath – that she recalled entering into the LOI.
But under oath before and after her grand jury testimony, Clare Bronfman swore she did not enter into the LOI.
Entering into the LOI helped her in her criminal pursuit of Parlato. It hurt her in the civil case – which may be why she denied entering the LOI in the civil cases, while, within the secrecy of the grand jury, she recalled entering into the LOI.
In my next post, I will explain how Clare Bronfman f—-d herself by her own lies…. and why the Feds had to drop the Bronfman charges against Parlato.
I support Frank and I hope he gets all charges dropped.
But this article is a bit misleading, since although it’s entirely true that Bronfman is a lying sack of female shit — the indictments which began from this “contract dispute” have evolved into other charges unrelated to the Bronfman contract.
I agree that the government is overreaching and overcharging Frank, but the Bronfman testimony is meaningless to several of the other charges.
Several of the indictments are related to the movement of money thru various bank accounts and shell companies, based upon what I read in the PDF that Frank posted a while back.
I hope they drop ALL charges against Frank asap, but I’d love to know how that ‘other’ part of his case is proceeding (since he hasn’t given us many details on how it’s shaping up).
Frank has claimed he moved the money around to keep it away from a known criminal partner.
Wow! This makes it perfectly clear — by comparison of the Bronfman pleadings alone — that Frank Parlato is an innocent, unjustly accused man.
Even *were* the LOI legitimately entered into, the Bronfman’s admit to opting out of, reneging on it first. Breaking the contract down to it’s foundation on the funds being repaid as a “deduction” against future commission of 1/3 interest in an $80M venture.
It’s just mind-boggling how they so obviously set this up to “criminalize” vilify and/or impoverish perceived opponents and would-be scapegoats like Frank.
Good on ye!
Well said. It certainly is an obvious set-up.
When Clare’s father was on his deathbed, Clare bought in a film crew to coax her dying dad to praise Keith Raniere.
Clare is a typical member of NXIVM.
Clare would screw over a dying man to advance the cause of her cult.
While creepy, none of that is illegal.
No, Schlock, perjury IS illegal. Contractual fraud is illegal. Vexatious litigation is also illegal and prosecutable under original RICO laws but very rarely charged for obvious reasons — it’s become “unprecedented.”
Heinous Heidi, where in the preceeding comment is the perjury or contractual fraud?
Fake News, you missed Heidi’s bullying comment here!!
Add up her comments, too!
And Scott’s!
That will keep you busy for a while…..
Oh, don’t forget to add up all of YOUR posts that bully Shadow. That’s a lot of posts to count.
Cry me a river, Flowers. No one, but you, has whined about being “bullied” and then claimed they are a victim. You put the spotlight on yourself and the way you conduct yourself, Toots!
I caught some of Clare’s performance at the Plyam trial. She’s a very good little liar. As I reported to her Dad’s agent who requested notes, she deftly slides around before locking in an answer — the one her attorney leads her to.
Clare deftly contradicted herself about Frank a number of times. A good attorney could have nailed her but the good attorneys (and, quite possibly, some jurors too) were all being paid by her.
You’re implying that Clare’s lawyers are guilty of several felonies here, Mr Clicky No Brains.
Better hope they aren’t reading this.
Name two
Lawyers get dragged through the mud all of the time. They just smile and watch their bank accounts grow.
This is 5.
She certainly is a liar. We will find out as the case unfolds, exactly how many lawyers and other state officials are/were involved in her nxivm related, by now very well documented, deception.
I do hope he you are right and he wins. The problem seems to be how these expensive attorneys keep things held up with all their motions year after year.
I’m not familiar with New York state law, nor am I a lawyer, but if Frank received the $1 million and used it as defined in the LOI he signed, do the Bronfmans need to counter sign the LOI for it to be a legitimate contract?
Contracts may be binding even if both parties don’t sign. I think it would depend on the individual case. Someone could write up a fake contract, or forge the other parties signature or something similar, so I don’t think it’s a set rule.
Thanks for saying what I already said.
You asked if it needed to be signed by both parties to be a valid contract, and I answered your question. It doesnt need to be signed.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
Good for Frank ! Contract Law trumps JAP (Jewish American Princess) lies!