One of Frank Report’s most prolific and valued commenters, Shadow State, recently commented on the article Clare Bronfman Replaces Mark Geragos; Hires Famed Black Lawyer Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.
Part of his comment was critical of Allison Mack. Shadow wrote:
There is a good reason why some 100 people came forward to state their lives were ruined by Clare Bronfman. What she pled guilty to was just the tip of the iceberg.” Frank Parlato.
That is true of all the defendants with the possible exception of Kathy Russell.
Allison Mack claimed that NXIVM DOS had over 100 women in it. Perhaps as many as 150 women. Each of those women can claim to be a victim…
A frequent, anonymous commenter, whom I shall call “Mack-Defender,” and who is very close to being the first commenter ever banned on this site, made the following, [yet another] insulting comment in reply to the comment made by Shadow State.
Mack-Defender wrote:
If only the first few lines were not that false and twisted… i might have given some interest to answer further but i’ll just say: STICK TO THE FACTS… Not one thing of what you say is true…and this within the first 5 lines!!!
Can’t you, for once, stay in the real world instead of you fantasy? just once?
These are the kind of comments I am specifically trying to avoid. And it’s become very tedious to redact portions of them. I can understand someone trying to defend Allison Mack. But why insult people that disagree with you?
Why does Mack-Defender have to call anyone’s opinion that opposes her own position a “twisted” position?
I replied to Mack-Defender:
I am not redacting your comment at all because I want to use it to illustrate something.
You always have to be rude to other commenters. If you won’t abide by my request, I am simply going to delete all your comments going forward. It is not worth the time to redact your insulting comments to others. Please, I ask you for the last time, make your points – disagree with the comments – but stop calling others names.
It is not necessary to say that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not in the “real world” but in a “fantasy” world.
***
Nutjob, despite his unusual moniker, is a highly esteemed commenter. He shows us how to respond to a commenter who he disagrees with. He is, in fact, responding to the same anonymous Mack-Defender, who seems to always respond with rudeness to anyone who suggests Allison should be punished for the crimes she pled guilty to.
Nutjob wrote a model reply to Mack-Defender:
I type this with sincerity. How do you know Allison was forced to have relations with him [Keith Raniere]? Did Allison tell you that? I ask because her interviews of the pig [Raniere] show her gazing at him as if she’s in love with it/him.
That’s etched in our memories and it makes many readers read your claims with a raised eyebrow. I’m not saying you’re wrong – I just think you should back your shit up.
I honestly don’t have much of a problem with your posts EXCEPT when you call Allison a victim and find her unique in this label. IMHO, basically EVERY female and most males that ever crossed paths with Keith ended up as victims.
I’d love to see Allison (and pretty much everyone but Keith) walk and get a slap on the wrist. But you very vocally wanting to make every other female fry and make Allison walk free, is detrimental to both of our desired outcomes.
Note how Nutjob disagrees with Mack-Defender but is not rude about it. He invites intelligent debate.
What’s so hard about that?
[By the way, I agree with Mack-Defender that Allison does not need to be punished with prison.]
My desire for a better comments section is one that I am going to achieve, even if it means doing, as some publications do, not taking any comments. I do not think we will have to get to that.
Another anonymous commenter criticized Fred, one of our contributors, who has made an important study of the effects of radiation from wireless towers. Fred’s work is thoughtful and well researched. But that does not stop trolls from criticizing him.
Anna Lee, one of our commenters, praised Fred’s work and a troll commented, “You can borrow Fred’s tinfoil hat 😉.”
I don’t see it that way. I understand that the easy put down of anything that might threaten Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Surveillance is that their critics are insane and, hence, they wear tinfoil hats.
I’m not going to approve these kinds of trolling comments anymore.
It insults our writers, without substantive argument in rebuttal.
If you think Fred’s work is wrong, give us a reason. Instead, Fred’s work is simply dismissed as garbage and he as worthless by some anonymous troll.
Yes, it is necessary to delete comments like this.
There is another species of commenter who are specifically trolling me. This is part of the terrain of being public and taking a stance on anything. I have been trolled by Nxivm supporters and other bizarre and strange beings for years.
Here is a comment from an anonymous troll. It is ostensibly about my comment policy, one which, by the way, I adopted from other major platforms, such as the NY Times, the NY Post, the Washington Post, and InfoWars. But it is really about attacking me.
The anonymous, anti-Frank troll wrote:
I think your new policy is to protect your own sensitivities, Mr. Parlato. You don’t care about anybody else’s feelings. You set the vile tone for your own site and now you are back peddling like a good’un.
We all know that’s because you face criminal charges yourself and you have shown yourself to be every bit as Machiavellian, and lacking in integrity as any thieving liar that dishonoured you. The proof is all here, up to and including your volte face and the nominating/naming of your chosen claque, your very own, acceptable to you, ‘inner circle’ LMFAO. What a shower. Good luck out-manouvering Clare.
She may yet get the better of you. You’re both gangsters. Both doomed.
***
Of course, I know I am doing a good job when I get comments like this. And it gladdens me and often amuses me. But it doesn’t help the site. It does not make it more professional. And it does not even help the person behind the trolling.
After all, who can feel good about being an anonymous troll, lacking the courage to stand behind what you have to say? Who can feel brave attacking someone anonymously, saying what you would not dare to put your name to?
Cowardice can never feel good. As for the point of the anti-Frank troll – we shall see how it all ends.
So far, I am one up on Clare Bronfman. She started the fight with me, her and Keith Raniere, by filing a perjurious criminal complaint with the FBI [at Raniere’s behest, I have no doubt] then going in and perjuring herself before a grand jury.
She got me indicted on false charges. The charges fell apart, and the Department of Justice, ever-loath to ever let go of anyone once they are indicted, tried to shift the focus, with their alleged victim being a dead man now, who never complained about being a victim, a man who was anything but a victim. As I shall prove in court.
I understand how the Orwellian named Department of Justice works. It is never about justice, it is about conviction stats and the brutal fact in support of conviction stats, that prosecutors understand so well: that even innocent men and women will plead guilty to things they did not do because of the opprobrium of being indicted, the pressure of preparing for a trial that is an “all or nothing” proposition, and the natural advantage the government has, with its unlimited resources, and ability to effectively witness tamper with impunity.
It’s part of the fight to do battle with them to not allow innocence to be punished, however mildly, in order to seek convenience and to put this behind me.
It is also part of the fight to battle trolls, who for all I know are Nxivm trolls, or possibly a disgruntled former Assistant US Attorney, who led the charge for my unjust indictment and will have to wear it, when my acquittal comes. Or it could be someone who is butt-hurt about something I wrote about them or failed to write about them. It does not matter.
It comes with the territory. The day will come when I am vindicated. But Clare won’t be vindicated. She started the fight with me and she is a cooked goose. I am not.
Yes, Clare and her sister Sara and others would like to see me cooked, no doubt. But I am not such an easy mark. I fight back. And I have the truth on my side. That’s a big advantage. Time will tell.
In the meantime, except as it serves my purpose, I will not be publishing trolls who predict my doom.
While I am amused by the puriele nature of the infantile trolling, it serves no purpose to include these comments on my website – except when I want to make a point, not when they do.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Can you explain me why you didn’t post my comment which answered to both you and nutjob?
Tell me how what i said was insulting in anyway…especially after YOU posted as an article a message from the one of the rare people who really insult others…
Is that your view of freedom of speech? accusing but not allowing to give a point of view?
Because you call other people twisted and tell them they are in a dream world – why? Because they don’t agree with you on the topic of Allison Mack.
No, I’m not referring to your complaint and what I said. They are twisting the facts…something you can’t argue has many use rumors, hearsay to make “statements”… I stick by what is factual…I don’t care they don’t agree, what I care is that they don’t spread lies.
And the person I “insult”, you could have named them as they are counted on the fingers of 1 hand…always the same persons.
I stand for the truth…they stand to make up lies.
And excuse me, once again, but how is it an insult to say they are in a dream world when they make up unreal, inaccurate, and biased versions of the stories? When someone reinterprets the facts and makes a choice to ignore the fact, how do you call that…It’s not an opinion at this point.
To clear up this specific comment I made, it was posted because you post questions by Nutjob and yet, you didn’t post the answer I gave…
You ended up posting it but not immediately. If I was into conspirations, I would say that it’s so Nutjob doesn’t see the answer to the question.
It is curious how you have done a complete turn around in which comments you allow. I remember all the racist anti-muslim comments directed at Sultan that were never censored….
The proof is probably still posted, unless you deleted the evidence.
Yes, Flowers, the site is evolving. I allowed a lot of vitriolic comments, among which, yours were very consistently nasty. I am now changing the site, as is my right to do, since it is my site. I do not want nasty, bigoted comments. I used to think that maximum freedom of expression was preferable, but now I see that trolls will use that to ruin conversation. So I will ask you too to be polite something you have failed to do more often than not.
Heya Frank
Ghislaine Maxwell just got arrested thru the SDNY…. thought you would want to know. Happy July 4th
Frank, I have never submitted a single racist or misogynist comment, ever. The “nasty” comments you refer to were purposely submitted in response to the abusive comments you allowed others to post. They were submitted to prove a point, which they did. Lol.
“I do not want nasty, bigoted comments”
Says after posting bangkok…
When it takes several hours and sometimes days for my comments to be published, then another several hours/days for the response, which are often non-responsive, to be published, that is not a conversation, particularly when new articles take the attention away from the “conversation.” LOL
As Scott has suggested in the past, in order to improve the level of discourse in the comments section, assuming that is what is truly desired:
1. Publish all comments immediately, but only if the individual is linked to a social media account;
2. It is preferable that they use their real name and more latitude should be given to those who do so, as their reputation is on the line, rather than anonymous folks who have zero accountability;
3. There are only a handful of people making most of the comments, so this is not a difficult arrangement to manage, and their unacceptable comments can be easily removed after being posted;
4. Repeated violators can then truly be banned from the site (which includes non-responsive comments, because that is NOT a conversation – of course, if the original comment is nasty, and/or personal in nature, the original comment should be removed in the first place), can regain access only if they use another social media account and can be banned again if it is determined they have already been banned, which is usually obvious given their positions on issues; and
5. Publish the above commenting policy prominently on the website.
The above makes puts most of the burden on those making comments rather than you, where it should be in the first place. LOL
“A frequent, anonymous commenter, who I shall call “Mack-Defender,” and who is very close to being the first commenter ever banned on this site, made the following, [yet another] insulting comment in reply to the comment made by Shadow State.”
Go ahead and ban me…Jeeesh how old are you?
But little correction here: I don’t insult, I corrected him …you spend your time “redacting” my comment that has no insult in it so I don’t know where you see a reason to ban (yet ignoring others who genuinely insult…)
Question:
“Childish” is an insult? No, it’s not,…and it’s appropriate when it’s childish…comments on the physics (when someone lacks argument), how do you call that?
You have vulgarity for years but talk about banning me over a proper statement and correction made to the many lies that Shadow spread for YEARS…
If you really want to change the image of your BLOG, start by redacting the lies and conspiracies instead of correcting those who point them…
“But why insult people that disagree with you?”
Where is the insult?
“Why does Mack-Defender have to call anyone’s opinion that opposes her own position a “twisted” position?”
I don’t say anyone opposed to my opinion is in a “twisted” position…only those who temper the FACTS…
If the person is giving fact, I often don’t comment (while I also don’t comment some of the most childish (yet not redacted) content)
“You always have to be rude to other commenters.”
I think you have a problem with the tracking because I’m not rude to others…I’m rude (sometimes) to you, I’m rude atSshadow because he rarely says the truth (and brings back debunked stories)
I’m rude at a couple of others who have been obsessed with Allison in the most absurd way and decided that everything is a reason to accuse her for everything.
But I’m not rude with others and if I sound like I’m rude, I’m not. It just sounds like it.
Still, it doesn’t make sense that you go after me while there is way worse…especially since I don’t insult anyone.
Want to be fair? Redact everyone, not just those that you dislike.
“disagree with the comments – but stop calling others names. It is not necessary to say that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not in the “real world” but in a “fantasy” world.”
Excuse me, but how do you call someone who is adding extra crime to someone while the investigation and the PROOFS demonstrate that it didn’t exist? Someone who willingly ignore the facts to present their visions as fact…it’s not an opinion anymore.
But let’s say fair enough…I’ll try to try …but how about you start to be fair, you too…because there is WAY worst than saying someone lives in a fantasy world…
I hardly call it a “calling others names”.
“I type this with sincerity. How do you know Allison was forced to have relations with him [Keith Raniere]?”
No relation was seen with him until after the coercion started. But also, the mail that prosecution presented show that Allison didn’t do willingly what was presented in the said mail (threesome mail).
While Allison admired him, she was never attracted by him, she even sometimes avoided him
“Did Allison tell you that?”
All I can say is that she wasn’t interested in him…at least not until after DOS
“I ask because her interviews of the pig [Raniere] show her gazing at him as if she’s in love with it/him.”
Her interview was staged (as he was doing all the time)…you can see the list of questions is something HE prepared.
She admired him, that much is true (at least before knowing the real Raniere)…But for the interview, between the starvation (started since 2013), the sleep deprivation (started whenever it happened but like summer 2015) and she could have been drugged (I still would love to know the content of the powder she was pouring in her water).
“I’m not saying you’re wrong – I just think you should back your shit up.”
Why should I be the only one to back my shit while much of what I say has been confirmed by the facts themselves?
A genuine question to you:
Why is it more believable that she was in love without any proof?
Because at the moment, except allegation, nothing fits with “love”
She never said she loved him, she avoided him often and left NYC for a time WAY LONGER than necessary between November 2016 and June 2017.
She also didn’t go to Mexico until the last second (a couple of days before his arrest)…She was in LA a couple of days before his arrest, spending time with friends and family.
“I honestly don’t have much of a problem with your posts EXCEPT when you call Allison a victim and find her unique in this label. IMHO, basically EVERY female and most males that ever crossed paths with Keith ended up as victims.”
I don’t know if everyone can be seen as such…
I do agree about the VAST majority (including, to an extent, the Bronfmans). I even stated this several times. But as for the Salzmans, I fail to see victims there…
Let’s point clearly the why:
Neither of the Salzmans lost anything to the cult, they both gained everything (especially money…they never could have made as much without this cult).
I don’t have a problem in seeing the others as victims at all…
I insist on Allison because many still refuse to see the victim in her while she was in the exact same situation as all the other crime victims of the cult…
The coercion, the abuse (physical and mental), the starvation, and all the other stuff are all things that Allison was a victim of.
YET many prefer to ignore this.
To be honest, I’m quite tired to repeat the same thing over and over but while some start to accept the fact, many still prefer to occult the coercive and manipulative part.
Pretending that Allison enjoyed her position (while the proofs, the witnesses and her own writings show the exact opposite…she was destroyed, she was forced to fake the smile (at the cult demand…she even said it herself).
India, Sylvie, Nicole, and the other all ended up in the exact same situation.
As for some other, it’s not that I reject the victim status, it’s that I defend one of the most aggrieved victims.
“I’d love to see Allison (and pretty much everyone but Keith) walk and get a slap on the wrist. But you very vocally wanting to make every other female fry and make Allison walk free, is detrimental to both of our desired outcomes.”
I feel like I was misunderstood here:
Except for Raniere and the Salzmans, I don’t feel the need to punish the others (even the Bronfmans)…
But I feel that a fair position should be kept:
Allison should be punished for being a victim forced to commit 1 crime? I don’t think so…especially because of the coercion.
Kathy doesn’t deserve punishment either (and I would never say she does).
Clare, she was a bully but she doesn’t deserve more than a few months (or maybe probation)
But Lauren participated for 20 years in many crimes!
Her mother did the same for even longer!
A slap on the wrist would be like a slap in the face of the real victims.
I’m not the only one who believes it.
Heck, you have ex-members of the cult who also agree with this.
The Salzmans are the base of this cult…without them, you have a useless Raniere…Sadly, the other way around, without Raniere, they would likely have a nice life, love, and maybe money.
“Note how Nutjob disagrees with Mack-Defender, but is not rude about it. He invites intelligent debate.”
I agree but you ignore the fact that not everyone invites others to intelligently debate…and this you know it.
When the debate is interesting and arguing is possible, I also answer properly.
OK, Frank… You specified your parameters on the comment section now no need to make the comment section it’s own subject .. Just delete what you want.. That will be obvious enough to the offenders…Rise above it…Don’t go down and Wallow in the muck of it for crying out loud!… Rise above it, Mr. Frank…
Frank:
You don’t need to ban any commenter to protect my “sensitivities.”
Unlike the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, I do not hide in the basement for fear of being offended.
I do wonder why anyone would defend any of the NXIVM defendants with such ferocity.
Perhaps they are still members of NXIVM waiting for the Vanguard and his entourage to rise again.
“My desire for a better comments section is one which I am going to achieve, even if it means doing, as some publications do, not taking any comments.”
Please don’t do that!!! The comments here are awesome and super entertaining. I feel like I know these people. It’s not like these are the foxnews commenters. People here are somewhat educated and interested in the topic at hand, generally speaking, and not just bashing others all the time. And I hope Bangkok returns!
See Frank, the problem with this whole story is we’ve only got your experiences and your subjective opinion.
Not a word from Allison
Not a word from Clare
Not a word from any of the inner circle women.
Only a few words from Lauren, if indeed that was Lauren.
Everyone is just constantly re-hashing YOUR story points, YOUR story universe.
Even the books that have been written were bare sketches of events with little underlying analysis.
There’s nothing new. We could have learned so much! I assume they’re resisting the impulse to talk for fear of civil and criminal litigation.
I’ve reached the point with the stories on Frank Report that I reached with Game of Thrones at the end of season 7. Is it ever going to end? And if so can’t we just cut to the chase and finish it off with a few short paragraphs. Needless to say, I couldn’t be bothered watching the final episode of GOT. I was just too exhausted.
Same here. Hope the ladies all get off with time served and a new perspective on sororities. Then they can disappear into the netherworld where naughty girls go to hide from their past, dye their hair, change their names, re-write their histories and agree among themselves, never to tell what really went on.
I forgot to say that I expect you to be fully cleared of any wrongdoing, despite Clare’s best efforts. I just don’t see a credible case against you. I expect the case to be dismissed.
You should come on Scott’s radio/podcast and discuss the commenting policy. LOL
You could cover a lot more ground in a lot less time. LOL
You have his phone number. LOL
Frank has better things to do, like sticking his d*ck in a light socket. LOLA
Best post in a while. Just as impressive: you snuck it in the five-hole.
—You have his phone number. LOL
Scott, your phone number is gold. How dare Frank not call it.
Frank is an ingrate.
Onward and upward, Frank.
You’ve made yourself perfectly clear.
All the best to you and the excellent Frank Report.
BRAVO, Frank. There’s just no way to control the trolls except blocking them, IMO. At least, that will delay the most stubborn lot of them while they seek new, unblocked VPN’s.