Clare and Sara Bronfman.

Part 1: Why the Feds dropped Bronfman charges against Frank Parlato – and and why he will win his multi-million civil lawsuit against them

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.

 

Image result for yuri plyam los angeles real estate clare bronfman
According to a contract, called a Letter of Intent [LOI], Frank Parlato was to be a 1/3 partner with Clare and Sara Bronfman in a Los Angeles real estate development project that included, among other properties, the construction of a condominium complex on Libbet near Ventura Boulevard.
Image result for yuri plyam los angeles real estate clare bronfman
The Los Angeles project also consisted of more than 30 hillside lots where multi-million dollar homes were to be constructed. According to the LOI, Parlato was advanced $1 million against his share of the profits in this $80 million 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].”

One Niagara – developed by Frank Parlato – was a success story.  Parlato built a robust tourist center at 360 Rainbow Boulevard on the site of the abandoned Occidental Building,  transforming it into a giant tourist center  – without a dime of taxpayer money.
Frank Parlato created more than 100 jobs and established a dozen businesses operated by local entrepreneurs. It may be the only development in Niagara Falls in the last two decades that was developed without any taxpayer subsidies.

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, the sinister liar and co-leaderof the cult of NXIVM.

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.

Par for the course, Clare and Sara Bronfman did not sign the LOI agreement – but they wired the $1 million as if the contract was in force. Frank Parlato, anticipating that he was dealing with honest people signed the agreement and performed the necessary work under the terms of the LOI, assuming that since the Bronfmans wired the money, they were operating under the LOI.

 

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.

Former Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce led a grand jury to indict Frank Parlato for defrauding the Bronfman sisters – a charge the DOJ had to drop after Bruce retired.

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.”

In 2012, the Bronfman’s swear that there is no LOI – because there was ‘no written agreement”. But that didn’t stop AUSA Anthony Bruce from criminally indicting Parlato three years later based on an LOI the Bronfmans swore earlier in civil litigation that they never signed.

 

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 – shown the LOI in the Plyam case – says she never signed it and never agreed to the terms of the LOI.

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.

 

Clare Bronfman lies about Frank Parlato caused him to be indicted. He returned the compliment by telling the truth about her – which led to her indictment. It is one of the most unique stories in modern law. How often does a man get indicted by the powerful Department of Justice in one district and then turn it around on his accusers and get them indicted elsewhere?

 

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.

 

About the author

krclaviger

23 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • 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).

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Archives

     
     

CONTACT

frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740
%d bloggers like this: