BY: J.J. O’Hara
[This is Part 10 of a series of articles that I am writing about the pending prosecution of Frank Parlato (Frank’s trial is scheduled to start on May 19th). As usual, readers are encouraged to ask questions – which I will endeavor to answer on a timely basis.
Regardless of the specific crimes that are alleged to have been committed, most criminal cases are pretty straightforward.
The prosecutors allege that the defendant did something illegal – and they introduce witnesses and other evidence to prove that this allegation is true “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Depending on the specific crime that the defendant is alleged to have committed, the prosecution will also have to prove “general intent” (i.e., the defendant meant to commit the alleged act) or “specific intent” (i.e., the defendant intended to cause the actual outcome of the act). Examples: Assault and Battery are “general intent” crimes – and embezzlement and robbery are “specific intent” crimes.
The defense attorneys counter in one or more ways.
They may challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and/or the admissibility of its other evidence.
Or they may claim it was not the defendant who committed the illegal activity: i.e., it’s a case of mistaken identity. In cases like this, they may offer an alibi for the defendant with respect to the time and location at which the alleged illegal activity took place – or they may even identify someone else as the likely perpetrator.
Or they may simply claim that the defendant did not commit the specific criminal acts (s)he is accused of committing – and challenge whether the prosecution has proved its assertions “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
And, if the defendant is charged with a “specific intent” crime, the defense attorneys may also argue that the defendant did not intend to cause the actual outcome that occurred.
In the case of the U.S. v. Parlato, Frank has been charged with “specific intent” crimes.
And, since it does not appear that there are many facts that will be in dispute, Frank’s case will likely turn on the question of what his intent was in terms of operating several companies — and opening up multiple bank accounts.
This Appears to Be a “WHY” Case Rather Than a “WHAT” Case
Although I have not – and will not – discuss this matter with Frank’s legal representatives, it appears to me that the real legal battle in his case will not be about WHAT he is alleged to have done but rather WHY he did what he did.
As noted in previous posts, the pending charges against Frank are as follows:
• One (1) count of Conspiracy to Impede, Obstruct and Impair the IRS and to Commit Wire Fraud;
• Seven (7) counts of Wire Fraud; and
• Ten (10) counts of Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity.
And, as also noted in previous posts, if the Feds didn’t resort to “crime stacking”, Frank would likely be facing only two charges: i.e., one count of Impeding, Obstructing and Impairing the IRS – and one count of Wire Fraud.
Instead, of course, Frank is facing eighteen felony counts.
What’s unusual about Frank’s case is that it does not appear there will be many factual disputes.
The Feds will assert that Frank created fifteen (15) different business entities over a period of several years – and Frank will likely not contest that assertion. That’s because he did not do anything to hide his ownership interest in those companies.
The Feds will also assert that Frank opened approximately fifty (50) different bank accounts over a 12-year period, many of which were just companion savings accounts to checking accounts – and Frank will likely not contest that assertion. That’s because every bank account that he opened was registered under his name and his social security number.
Finally, the Feds will assert that Frank made several cash transfers between/among his various bank accounts – and Frank will likely not contest that assertion. That’s because all of those transfers were done through normal banking mechanisms and were, therefore, well-documented.
So, left with little, if any, disagreements over WHAT Frank did in terms of his business dealings, the Feds will try to convince the jury that the reason WHY he did those things was to conceal financial transactions from the IRS and from the late Larry Reger, one of his business partners.
In making its argument that Frank’s actions were done for illegal purposes, the Feds will insinuate that owning multiple businesses – and having multiple bank accounts – is an indication of criminal behavior.
And to increase its likelihood of success, the Feds will try to stack the jury with the least sophisticated people in the jury pool.
The Feds won’t want any business owners on the panel – and they probably won’t want anyone who’s ever been the defendant in a civil lawsuit either.
They will also try to exclude anyone who has very much in the way of assets – and whose annual income is above $40,000.
From the Feds perspective, the ideal juror will be someone who dropped out of high school or never went to college – and who, if they ever had a job, has worked for the minimum wage for their entire adult life (I know what you’re thinking Frank Report readers but don’t be alarmed. Even though she does live in the Western District of New York, it is highly unlikely that Toni Natalie will be called as a juror in Frank’s case).
Those are the kind of people who never considered owning one company, let alone fifteen of them.
And they’re also the kind of people who are much more likely to have just one checking account and one savings account because they’ve never had to worry about the fact that the FDIC only insures bank accounts for up to $250,000 per account.
So, What Exactly Is Going to Be the “Beef” in the Feds’ Case Against Frank?
Answer: INSINUATIONS, INUENDOS, AND IMPUTATIONS.
That’s really all the Feds will be able to do because:
(a) Frank paid all of the taxes that were due on every dollar that he earned from his businesses. That’s why he wasn’t charged with tax evasion.
(b) Frank did not cheat Larry Reger – or anyone else – out of any funds that they were due. That’s why he wasn’t charged with any fraud-related crimes.
(c) Frank did not touch one cent of the $1 million that he received from Clare and Sara Bronfman (The Feds actually froze the account holding those funds at the outset of their prosecution of Frank in order to ensure that he could not utilize any of those funds to pay for defense attorneys – which is another favorite ploy of prosecutors).
(d) Frank registered every bank account in question in his own name and in his own social security number.
(e) Frank set up multiple companies and multiple bank accounts upon the advice of his attorney in order to ensure that Shmuel Shmueli was not able to tie up funds that were in dispute (Shmueli lost all ten of the lawsuits that he initiated against Frank and Larry Reger).
(f) The Feds are sure as hell not going to call Shmueli or the Bronfman sisters as witnesses even though it was their complaints that led the Feds to start investigating Frank.
(g) And the Feds are also not going to call any of Larry Reger’s heirs as witnesses because they’re still receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the investment that is at the core of this case.
So, all the Feds are going to be able to do is try and convince 12 people that a guy who owns fifteen companies and who has had fifty bank accounts [over the course of 12 years] – and, of course, a guy who has been charged with eighteen felonies – must be guilty of something.
But you know what really stinks to high heavens about this case?
As you’ll find out in the next post, the Feds had all this information BEFORE they indicted Frank.
Just how fucking outrageous is that?
Previous posts in this series can be accessed at:
Part 1: The Buffalo News Raises Questions About Frank Parlato’s Case – More Detailed Analysis Needed
Part 2: The Convoluted History of U.S. v. Parlato Began With Bronfman Sisters
Part 3: The Federal Case Against Frank Parlato – a Prosecution in Search of a Crime
Part 4: What Are the Charges in U.S. v. Parlato — and What Do They Mean?
Part 5: The Conman Cometh – Schmuel Schmueli – Who, Combined With the Bronfmans, Led to Parlato’s Indictment
Part 6: Fate Brings Conman Shmuel Shmueli Into Frank Parlato’s Life
Part 7: Why Frank Parlato Established Several Companies and Multiple Bank Accounts
Part 8: Why Did Anthony Bruce’s Boss Not Intervene in the Case of the U.S. v. Parlato? – Governor Cuomo’s Lt Governor Was Married to the US Attorney at the Time!
Part 9: The Persecution of Frank Parlato: What Have We Learned so Far?
Without Frank’s dogged determination to take NXIVM down, NXIVM would still be in business. In addition to convictions of the key players, the Feds were able to conviscate properties and money. I can not believe this was not dropped. Thank you for this detailed account of these bogus charges. I hope that this will be over soon and it will be in Frank’s favor. Perfect example of no good deed goes unpunished.
Reading this series of articles is somewhat chilling….in the sense that Frank is getting railroaded by the system, all because he stood up to a rich cunt.
Very chilling. It’s time for someone to grow a set and put this to rest.
If James P. Kennedy, Jr., the current U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, doesn’t step in and dismiss this case – which was initiated long before he was appointed to his position – then the only hope to get this case dismissed before it goes to trial is to get the Central Office of the DOJ to intervene. Hopefully, both Kennedy and the DOJ are reading Frank Report.
My best guess is a mistrial in the first week and eventually another following. After some time dropped and dismissed to save some face.
Just my prediction call it a hunch.
So the earlier claim that Frank hasn’t touched the $1 million is because he can’t, instead of being made to look innocent because he chose not to? If the Bronfman charges were dropped, why hasn’t Frank tried to get the hold on the money dropped?
Scott – I chose not to touch the Bronfman million until it was determined by a civil trial jury whether it was a loan or income.
Just prior to when I was charged criminally, in 2015, the DOJ seized the bank accounts where the $1 million was on deposit. The US Marshals are holding it and I understand it is in an interest bearing account. When I am acquitted, I will get the money returned to me, and as I understand it –plus interest.
However that still does not settle the question of whether it was a loan that must be repaid, or if it is my rightful earnings. If a jury determines it is a loan I will return the money to the Bronfmans. If however it is determined that it is rightfully my earnings – then I will keep the money and declare it as income – and pay whatever taxes are legally required on that income.
There is a civil lawsuit ongoing with the Bronfmans over this million. In fact the Bronfmans retained Michael Avenatti to represent them – just prior to his being arrested on the Nike matter.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Why did you sell substandard water filters for Amway after you supposedly left Amway?
Let me guess..No answer to my question.
Shadow….Castrated you I guess…
What makes you think I sold water filters?
What makes nicefag think at all??
You admitted to selling them.
Did you sign a contract with the Bronfmans? Either a Note or some fee agreement? What was the date it was signed, if you can share.
Yes I signed a contract with the Bronfmans – in Jan, 2008. Clare Bronfman treated this agreement most peculiarly. She and her sister Sara never signed the agreement but she and Sara wired one million to me the same day I signed the agreement. As I have explained before, in her civil lawsuit she claimed there was no written agreement [because that would help her win the civil suit] in the grand jury on my criminal case – she told the grand jury that there was a written agreement and she signed it [she lied]. She lied about there being a written agreement because that would help, she thought, in the criminal case against me.
Her lie to the grand jury was I believe one of the main reasons the Bronfman charges were removed and Clare and Sara’s names [initials] were removed from the 18 counts in the indictment.
One last point – from the day I received the money in Jan 2008 to the date it was seized in August 2015, I never touched the money. This is because I realized from almost the start that there would be litigation over it. How the Bronfmans breached the agreement and how Raniere was giving the orders is a story for another day. And I plan to tell it.
We’re all blessed to know you, Joe. Frank’s got an earth-angel (as the new agers call them) in you, for sure. I hope you can someday share your own NXIVM horror story without any ignorant assholes butting in.
FR readers should know that Joe O’Hara’s over 2-year incarceration at MDC — yep, KAR’s current address — was directly and entirely related to his NXIVM whistle-blowing activities and his valiant efforts to directly help rescue victims INCLUDING the Bronfman sisters. Joe also first hooked NXIVM up with many of their top political connections, whose first order from Raniere was to undo him. Oh, the twisted irony.
Just as a drowning person often takes his rescuer under with him, Joe’s been dunked and held down a number of times but he’s always back up swinging before the final count ends. Talk about a grand prize fighter!
(BTW, I can’t remember exactly but I think that “where’s the beef” commercial actresses name was Clare or Clair, wasn’t it?)
Nobody is keeping Joe from speaking out about his experiences. In fact, I’ve invited him on my radio show several times.
You have repeatedly been an asshole towards Joe. When you treat people poorly, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when they turn down your offer to appear on your buddy’s tin-can and string podcast.
Did you read the recent insult Scott dumped on Heidi regarding her sister?
Scott is a low life scum.
I was unaware that such detailed personal information about potentional jury member would be made available to the lawyers.
When I’ve received a notification for jury duty what happened was that all potential jurors were brought into a courtroom, and anyone that had a good enough excuse to get out of serving were dismissed.
The rest of us were assigned to various trials that were starting that day.
The lawyers never asked us many questions (I cant remembe if they even asked us any at all…); they just basically looked at us and pointed out who they wanted…they were not very choosy.
Everything is done publicly, so it seems it would be an invasion of privacy to question jurors on private information, such as their income or financial history. I don’t believe that’s allowed in Canada, but maybe it’s different in the US.
It varies by state, but in my state (in the SE USA), attorneys on both sides are given a list of potential jurors prior to trial. The list has their names, year of birth and address. Once in voir dire (jury selection), the potential jurors are asked to fill out a questionnaire that tells a little about themselves, with questions that are related to the trial. For example, if you were called as a potential juror for a DUI trial, you may be asked if you have ever been arrested or convicted for such a crime, if you have any family members who have (there are usual more questions than this – I’m giving these as examples). For a case like Frank’s, if he were being tried in my state, potential jurors could be asked if they own a business or if they have ever been audited by the IRS. It is not considered an invasion of privacy.
Thanks for explaining, Le Gal. I have only been called for jury duty once. The trial I was selected for was a civil case, and after 2 days of testimony, both parties decided to settle out of court.
I’m sure that the potential jurors would have been asked more questions if it had been a criminal case.
Don’t forget–that’s how Dr Phil got started!
In federal cases, it’s quite common for potential jurors to fill out questionnaires before they show up for jury selection. Those questionnaires are developed by the presiding judge based on questions suggested by both the prosecution and the defendant – plus anything else the judge might want to include. Go back and read the posts about the questionnaire that was used in Raniere’s case (It was quite lengthy).
Hey Joe — According to the Niagara Gazette, in 2010 Frank owed $1.57 million in outstanding city and county taxes on One Niagara. When did he pay all of that back?
The Gazette also said that “Parlato failed to disclose the $1 million in income on a 2008 federal income tax return. In 2013, after the federal grand jury investigation was underway, Parlato filed a 2008 income tax return, but claimed the $1 million payment from the Bronfmans was a “loan.” So are you saying this isn’t true, that the FBI and IRS are lying about this?
Also all you need to do is look at this site to know that Frank routinely disregards laws. He is constantly using copyrighted images without proper attribution and probably without permission as well. And he can’t claim ignorance either https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/niagara_falls_reporter.php. Pretty hypocritical and ironic considering he made a point of noting that the “lost” and never seen Necker Island photos were copyrighted.
Thanks for your comment — Joe O’Hara has given your comment extra exposure by posting it – along with his response in a separate post –https://frankreport.com/2020/01/09/commenter-tries-to-trash-frank-parlato-using-same-tactics-that-prosecutors-will-likely-use/
Another thing Joe is Frank has 18 counts. No one has 18 counts if he is not guilty of at least one. The feds know what they are doing. Stop defending a man with 18 felonies. 18 counts show is prima facie evidence that he is guilty of something. Either that or you’re implying the DOJ is either corrupt or incompetent. You can’t have it both ways.
Janet Mueller, aka Nicki Clyne:
How come you weren’t so suspicious of Keith Raniere?
A man who had no bank accounts and sponged off of his 50 or more girl friends who gave him money for food, clothing, recreation (SEX) and let him live for free in a nice house.
And on top of that chauffeured his carcass to local hamburger restaurants so he could seduce the local waitresses.
And this state of affairs went on for years.
All your old boyfriend Keith Raniere ever did was masticate, fornicate, urinate and defecate.
Your pet cat or dog does that much.
BTW Nicki, MK10Art has a new drawing showing you and Allison holding on to Keith Raniere’s penises.
It’s a real hoot.
With all of the sex the Vanguard engaged in he needed more than two penises.
My pet dog does not fornicate. She’s been fixed.
“My pet dog does not fornicate”, except with you. 😉
You’re projecting again.
I disagree that the DOJ is corrupt or incompetent, because they are corrupt AND incompetent. Otherwise, they would have shut down Amway and other MLM scams decades ago.
How could anyone have 50 bank accounts? Come on that’s obvious fraud right there. Give it up Joe. You can’t have 50 bank accounts when others are poor and have nothing. It’s prima facie evidence. 15 companies and 50 bank accounts. And he’s Italian. And they are known -let’s be honest -to be kind of greasy sleazy. Nuff said.
“Give it up Joe. You can’t have 50 bank accounts when others are poor and have nothing. It’s prima facie evidence.”
Janet Meuller, aka Nicki Clyne
How many bank accounts do Clare Bronfman and her sister Sara have?
These ladies financed dozens of bogus lawsuits to harass people they or Keith Raniere regarded as enemies.
And they not only had numerous bank accounts, in the US and overseas, they also had numerous shell corporations to hide their dirty deeds.
How come the Bronfman sisters’ multiple bank accounts and shell games don’t bother you?
“And he’s Italian. And they are known -let’s be honest -to be kind of greasy sleazy. Nuff said.” Janet Mueller, aka Nicki Clyne
And for the record there are good Italians and bad Italians.
Just as there are good Irish and bad Irish.
Or good Germans and bad Germans.
Or good Jews and bad Jews.
Frank Parlato is a good Italian.
Keith Raniere is a bad Italian.
Keith Raniere is a very bad Italian.
Keith Raniere is an extremely bad Italian. Nuff said.
But, Nicki, for the record there are no good members of NXIVM.
Oh, Nicki, after studying German in both high school and college I can tell you that Janet Mueller’s name is not spelled “Meuller”.
It is spelled “Mueller.”
The “ue” is called the “u umlaut” in German.
“Need advice on Mueller versus Müller”
“I lived in Germany a couple years. A word with an umlaut — ä, ö, ü — can be spelled, when the umlaut character is not available, as ae, oe, and ue. So, yes, an American Mueller would be a German Müller.
answered Oct 6, 2017 by Paul”
Nicki Clyne, since your character “Pea Onyu” claims to be the daughter of a Bavarian Princess, you should know some proper German.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
You have a serious vindictiveness.
Having multiple bank accounts is prima facie evidence of NOTHING. Absolutely zero.
In fact, multiple accounts are absolutely necessary for the proper sequestration of funds.
It’s obviously clear Frank’s motivation surrounding NXIVM centered on the pending charges against him. Were he interested or invested in sex slaves, brandings or the MURDER of Kristin Snyder his pedestrian “journalism” would have began PRIOR to HIS involvement with KR/NXIVM not after the shady real estate deals! Hello!!!
There were no branded sex slaves when I was indicted. That occurred after I was indicted – almost as if the DOJ had given Raniere an enormous gift – by indicting his enemies. He probably felt free to begin branding women. He must have felt he was untouchable.
Indeed I tried – even with my “pedestrian’ journalism – to persuade the DOJ to take an interest in Bronfman-Raniere and the racketeering and immigration crimes they were committing. I laid out a complete case. But the DOJ’s AUSA Anthony Bruce preferred to indict me and ignore the Bronfman-Raniere crime organization.
Almost immediately, as if Raniere got a green light from the DOJ, he began his sex trafficking, branding and blackmail scheme. He started it and I finished it – pedestrian style.
There are no saints only sinners who become heroes.
None of us is born perfect. Are you so pious? When is the last time you took down a cult that victimized women and girls?
Let me add I believe Frank is telling the truth; and it doesn’t matter if he isn’t. The outcome is the same either way. There is one less evil schmuck running around in the world and no women or girls will ever be victimized by NXIVM ever again.
“Contemplate this on the tree woe.”
In regard to points (f) and (g) – will Frank be calling any of those people as witnesses? Obviously, the former will be hostile, but Reger’s heirs could be helpful. The challenge here is going to be to make boring math/banking interesting to an average juror. I suggest lots of great info-graphics and high quality a/v. Modern jurors are easily swayed by a full multi-media presentation over mere words. It’s a sad state, but we all seem to just want to be entertained, even when being asked to mete out justice for our fellow citizens.
I’m not privy as to which people Frank and his attorneys plan to call as defense witnesses. But were it me, I would certainly try to subpoena both Shmueli and Clare Bronfman as witnesses (Shmueli won’t show up without a subpoena and I’m not even sure if he’s still in the U.S. – and Clare will likely be in prison by the time of Frank’s trial). And I would likewise call anyone who could testify about Larry Reger’s business dealings with Frank because as he himself testified in a civil case shortly before his death, he was quite pleased with them. .
I also agree with your suggestions regarding the use of a high quality A/V presentation on behalf of Frank. The prosecution’s case is likely to be pretty dull unless they can line up some witnesses who will perjure themselves. And a sharp presentation by the defense could be very persuasive.
People can be removed from prison to testify. However, with the Bronfman related charges removed, the challenge will be to convince the judge she has something to contribute.
Maybe the beef “lies” between Bruce, Savino and Bronfman?
Sad but true!