In defense of Jeff Peterson – Burke behind ‘Laura D. Esq.’ post?

.By Well Informed

I read the article posted to your blog by an author who claims to be “Laura D. Esq.”, with the title, “Peterson lawsuit not relevant to NXIVM.”

It requires a detailed response, which I will offer here.

I believe the “Laura D. Esq” article was authored by Dennis Burke using a pen name. At the very least, Burke ordered the author of the article to write exactly as he said.

I can speak with authority on this topic because I know Dennis Burke and I know Jeffrey Peterson. I recognize Dennis’s style of writing.

I previously worked with both of them and have watched this dispute between former business partners evolve all the way from inception to its current form, in which Peterson sued Dennis Burke civilly in Federal Court on December 14, 2018, with accusations of retaliation and defamation against Burke.

Considering how long Burke has been harassing and defaming Jeff, those of us who are familiar with the situation were not surprised to see the civil lawsuit filed.

First, I will start with precisely the point about Peterson’s recently filed civil lawsuit against Burke.

There’s nothing that would please Dennis Burke more than to successfully convince a prosecutor to charge Jeffrey Peterson with a crime with respect to the business dispute between him and Peterson, based on Burke’s incessant retaliatory table-pounding and carnival barking about Peterson.

Why?

Because Burke knows if the matter is thoroughly investigated, Burke may again end up being called a leaker and a liar, as he was during that well documented time in history when Burke was sanctioned and fined by the Arizona Bar for his own lawyer misconduct resulting from the Fast and Furious gun running scandal.

Let’s not forget. Dennis Burke resigned in shame from his previous position as a U.S. Attorney, called a “liar and a leaker” in Fast and Furious. At the time — May 20, 2013 — the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a report criticizing Burke for “particularly egregious” misconduct that was “wholly unbefitting a U.S. attorney.”

This was published in the national news and remains the subject of ongoing inquiries by the Trump administration.

However, much to the disappointment of Burke, if a prosecutor (i.e., one of Burke’s former DOJ cronies) charges one of the parties in a business partner dispute with a crime, in order to “help a friend” (i.e., Burke), without adequately investigating the matter, it may amount to prosecutorial misconduct.

Maybe the only thing that would please Burke more than improperly causing Jeffrey Peterson to be charged with a “crime” for Burke’s own gain in a business dispute (on a topic much more relevant to Burke), would be if Burke’s Fast and Furious scandal came with a statute of limitations.

As Burke’s bad luck would have it, credible rumors continue to circulate that Obama officials including Burke are still under investigation by the Feds in connection with gun running to Mexican cartels. Seems a number of folks still don’t understand exactly how or why federal agents, under Burke, smuggled weapons to Mexico. Maybe Burke, now that he’s working with Marco Lopez, Emiliano Salinas and NXIVM, is better positioned to answer those questions.

Second, the business Emiliano Salinas invested in, referenced throughout Peterson’s lawsuit against Burke as “C1”, is incorrectly referenced by your “Laura D.” author as a “scheme.” That is Dennis Burke “prosecutor” language. C1 was not a “scheme.” I know because I worked there.

The C1 business was a legitimate start-up company with a decent sized team among several regional offices. The company employed known executives and reputable law firms. It is highly unlikely illegal activity could have occurred at C1. Why? Candidly, there were enough lawyers around C1 from day one to sink a ship. There were transactional attorneys, corporate attorneys, inside counsel, outside counsel, even compliance attorneys.

Company executives relied on those attorneys.

In fact, our compliance attorney at C1 was Dennis Burke himself, from the very beginning, as evidenced by company records including Burke’s signature on his agreements. If Burke claims C1 was a “scheme,” does that mean Burke is claiming he was part of a “scheme?”

We all know by now that Jeff sued Dennis in federal court a few weeks ago.

Those of us who follow Frank Report have witnessed someone passionately posting comments in recent days, who I suspect is Burke, making much of the fact Peterson filed his initial complaint as a “pro se litigant;” belittling Jeff about alleged deficiencies. So, let’s go with that for a minute. Remember, Burke was the head of compliance at C1 from the very beginning of the company.

Surely, with Burke’s superior legal knowledge, Peterson could not have been involved with a C1 “scheme,” during a period of time when Burke was head of compliance of C1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if such a “scheme” had occurred at C1, as Burke suggests, (it did not), wouldn’t that mean Burke, hypothetically, failed to perform his duties as head of compliance because such an alleged “scheme” would have happened on his watch?

Does “Laura D.” mean to suggest Peterson’s legal knowledge was previously more sophisticated than that of Burke, during the time C1 was operating (2013-2015) in that Burke was unable to detect an alleged “scheme”, but now in late 2018, somehow, Burke is back to being more sophisticated than Peterson, because Peterson filed a complaint as a “pro se litigant” while Burke has not?

Working with the logic of “Laura D”, if Burke answers the lawsuit with his ECF account as a “pro se litigant,” should such an action suggest Burke is less sophisticated? Will anyone truly believe Burke was a “victim” of what the author implies was, at one time, Peterson’s superior legal knowledge over Burke? It’s an absurd attempt for Burke to use the “victim card.”

It won’t work.

Clearly, at all times pertinent to his involvement in C1, Burke knew what he was doing.

Third, in his lawsuit and otherwise, Peterson never claimed he was threatened by Salinas. Peterson’s lawsuit describes the circumstances whereby Peterson’s former best friend, Marco Lopez, who now works with Salinas, threatened Peterson with respect to Lopez’s Salinas-related activities in 2014. Peterson has publicly stated on his social media that he never personally witnessed any wrongs pertaining to NXIVM with respect to Salinas.

It may be an appropriate moment to mention, in light of the “Laura D.” article, that the single largest recipient of C1 funds was Grupo Carso, Carlos Slim’s real estate conglomerate in Mexico City. Conveniently, Marco Lopez, Burke’s business partner, was promoted within the organization to become one of Slim’s top advisors, in proximity to the period in which those funds were paid by C1 to Carso. This timeline and progression is documented by photographs, emails, legal audio recordings of phone calls, and other evidence.

“Now, all the money is gone,” writes the author in a disingenuous manner. It is one of the favorite accusations Burke has made throughout his retaliatory campaign against Peterson. In speaking this way, Burke tries to create the impression that C1 money was somehow made to “disappear,” (it was not) while implying, of course, the funds must have been . . . . (shudder, brace for it. . . ) “stolen.” Because, that would make the matter “criminal,” right?

To the contrary. The former Chief Financial Officer of C1 is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner licensed by his state board of accountancy. No missing funds or fraud were reported by that former CFO or any other C1 executive. Moreover, C1 was subject to oversight from a top-40 accounting firm in the U.S. and passed detailed financial audits by that firm. Such financial audits are a matter of C1’s corporate record. C1’s accounting firm never reported irregularities.

The only person, as far as we know, who has ever made a report of alleged wrongs in connection to C1, is Dennis Burke, who as we all know, was previously fined by the Arizona Bar for, and I quote: “engaging in misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

Furthermore, Burke’s reports of alleged wrongs at C1 contradict Burke’s own documented actions at C1.

Fourth, the article fails with credibility because its only source to cite a supposed “fraudulent aspect to his start-up” is a vague reference to “some reporting in some Arizona media.” The “Arizona media” reference is clearly meant to invoke a defamatory article published by the Arizona Republic newspaper, December 14, 2017, (referred to throughout Peterson’s complaint as the “December 14 article”). Defamation is one of the materially adverse actions in connection with a retaliatory campaign described by Peterson’s Complaint vs. Burke.

According to Peterson’s complaint, the December 14 article was conceptualized and orchestrated against him by Burke. So, the only article “Laura D” cites, is the same article that forms a large part of the basis of Peterson’s defamation claims against Burke.

I find the “Laura D. Esq.” article even more interesting because while acknowledging the existence of the “Arizona Mafia” it states: “I would not be surprised if there were suspect activities involving these people, some kind of corrupt use of their official positions; maybe the ability to do influence peddling with others in official positions.” Is that an admission? Did Dennis Burke write an admission pertaining to Arizona Mafia corruption using a pen name of “Laura D”? All while saying Peterson should be investigated?

Where’s the FBI to look at this potential admission of corrupt acts by Burke or his colleague?

While criticizing Peterson for filing his complaint against Burke as a “pro se litigant”, as if such an action itself would render the claims invalid, the author fails to acknowledge Peterson has publicly stated his complaint was authored and filed expeditiously in light of certain potential scenarios relating to statutes of limitations, after several attorneys opted out of representation due to the existence of the Salinas parties in the lawsuit.

Nothing precludes Peterson from amending the complaint and there is nothing stopping Peterson’s counsel from filing an appearance in the future. Simply because it has not been done yet does not mean it will not happen. The first complaint was filed only two weeks ago.

“Laura D” writes, “If I were judge, I would likely rule the complaint frivolous…” Wishful thinking?

Peterson’s complaint is not frivolous because Peterson has extensive proof, including documentary evidence, audio recordings and other evidence supporting his claims against Burke and others. With evidence in hand of a legitimate dispute, it is highly unlikely the judge will “rule the complaint frivolous” or dismiss it on summary judgment. Furthermore, Mr. Burke with his vast legal knowledge should know it is extremely rare for a court to declare a Plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.”

There is an example from the Supreme Court of Virginia, Dora L. Adkins v. CP/IPERS Arlington Hotel LLC, known as the Adkins decision, where a pro se party was found to be a vexatious litigant. In the Adkins decision, the plaintiff had filed 14 different suits, 27 petitions for appeal with the Supreme Court, and “at least” 41 pro se (not represented by counsel) lawsuits in Northern Virginia. Even then, she was not prohibited from moving forward with her case; she was ordered to retain an attorney.

Indeed, Peterson’s lawsuit against Dennis Burke is the first civil matter Peterson has ever filed in a Massachusetts court. “Laura D’s” invocation of a hypothetical “vexatious litigant” outcome in this matter is enough to cast doubt on the amount of commercial litigation or trial experience “Laura D” has, “herself,” as opposed to Government paid minions who may have done her (his?) legal work in the past while “she” sat back and arranged for the delivery of “certain items” to foreign “organizations.”

Lastly, the author states, “Regardless, and most importantly to your readers, there is pretty much nothing about Peterson’s story that is materially relevant to NXIVM.”

Did you spot it Frank? This sounds like a familiar plea for Frank Parlato to stop his investigative reporting about a high value topic of interest too close to NXIVM, such as Peterson’s lawsuit against Burke!

To be certain, Peterson’s complaint has a lot to do with NXIVM because it has a lot to do with Dennis Burke. And despite his attempts to remain “invisible,” Burke has a lot to do with NXIVM… oh yes, he does.

Dennis K. Burke has been called Clare Bronfman’s “invisible lawyer.” Burke may have been coordinating other NXIVM lawyers behind the scenes. Burke was likely responsible for causing Mark Sullivan, the former director of the United States Secret Service (Burke’s former business partner in GSIS), to show up at a court hearing to offer assistance to Vanguard.

Several NXIVM defendants have Arizona lawyers, which didn’t make sense until Burke’s involvement in NXIVM was revealed. Burke obviously has a lot to do with NXIVM because of Burke’s connection to Salinas, and it is a widely known fact published in the media in Mexico and the U.S. that Salinas was deeply involved with NXIVM.

As outlined by Peterson’s lawsuit, Peterson believes Burke and his Arizona Mafia colleagues orchestrated a retaliatory campaign against him so as to damage Peterson’s credibility in order to cover up ongoing bad acts, including their involvement in NXIVM, among other things. It makes perfect sense. And we still don’t understand the extent of Burke’s involvement in NXIVM. For that matter, we still don’t completely understand many elements of NXIVM itself. Clearly, Clare Bronfman is one of the keys to NXIVM’s many secrets. And Clearly, Dennis Burke is one of the keys to Clare Bronfman and Salinas. As such, Dennis Burke is in the chain of unsolved mysteries when it comes to the many secrets about NXIVM.

Peterson, in his recently filed civil lawsuit against Burke, accuses Burke of orchestrating a “hit piece” article against him in the Arizona Republic newspaper on December 14, 2017. I will state for the record I believe the article recently posted by “Laura D” on Frank Report is yet another Burke “hit piece” against Peterson; made of lies, innuendo, intentional misdirection and misstatements. If that is correct, the fact Burke would be desperate enough to author such an article on Christmas Eve brings us back to the same gargantuan question raised by Burke’s entire retaliatory campaign against Peterson.

If Peterson’s claims were truly frivolous, if there was nothing to all of this, would we be seeing such a effort to discredit Peterson? The AZ Mafia people would simply laugh at Peterson and ignore him. Burke would simply file a motion to dismiss, and they’d be gone. No posts, no debate, no arguing, nothing. End of story. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, we continue to see significant efforts to silence and discredit Peterson.

What in the world can be so important, so significant, that a man such as Dennis K. Burke, a former United States Attorney who resigned in the midst of one of the top scandals of the entire Obama Presidency, would go to such lengths to discredit a former longtime friend such as Peterson who has extensive knowledge about Burke’s inner circle? Why is he trying so hard to manufacture the appearance of wrongs by Peterson, considering ample documentation to prove Burke’s claims false? The answer to this question, when and if it is discovered, may have significant implications in the history of American and international politics.

These days, I don’t make a lot of bets. However, here’s one I’m willing to consider. The chance Frank Parlato will listen to “Laura D” and cease his investigative reporting about Clare Bronfman’s lawyer, Dennis Burke, or anything relevant to NXIVM for that matter, is probably about as likely as Vanguard getting an early release from the slammer.

Frank Parlato