Linda Chung: Allison Mack, a Victim of Government, Media, and Former Friends 

Linda Chung

Dossier Project cofounder, Linda Chung, has written a thoughtful article on Allison Mack entitled A Very Sad Day in History and a Reflection of Our Society Today  – the sad day being June 30, 2021, the day when Mack was sentenced to three years in prison.

Chung, 51, a former lawyer, is currently in the financial services industry.  She knew Mack personally from having taken NXIVM training sessions together over four years. Chung believes “Allison was betrayed by her government, the legal system, the media, and some of her former friends” but presumably not by her former friend and master, Keith Raniere.

I am reprinting below a substantial portion of her article with my comments interspersed to encourage debate.

Linda Chung: Allison is a victim in this case. But not in the way most people perceive….  Allison Mack is not the person the media has portrayed her to be. Her name is now forever associated with a “sex cult.”…

I believe Allison plead guilty because she faced more possible jail time if she chose to go to trial instead of accepting a plea deal.

Frank Parlato

In her article, Linda Chung writes about how 97% of federal criminal convictions come through plea bargains, which she calls “government coercion” – and which is also “known as the “trial penalty.”


This is when a defendant is offered a lighter sentence before trial compared to after trial. In Allison’s case (like most other federal cases), there is immense pressure from the government to take a plea deal. It is understandable why she did take a plea deal and renounced Keith. Yet this decision is so tragic because I believe she was not guilty of any crimes.


Allison’s view of Raniere changed. Once, they were kisses sweeter than wine. Somehow, perhaps under the coercive control of the government, Allison began to realize they had turned to vinegar.

Chung:  Allison also probably realized that she would not get a fair trial as a co-defendant of Keith Raniere’s. She, along with his other co-defendants, accepted plea deals shortly after Keith was charged with possession of child pornography.

Parlato: Once the government announced they had child porn charges – which occurred about a year after Raniere’s arrest – all his codefendants (who had previously stuck together aided by Bronfman-paid attorneys) fell like dominoes and took plea deals leaving Raniere to stand trial alone.

Chung: However, now it is clear and conclusively proven by forensic experts that the “child porn” evidence was actually planted and photos were altered while in FBI government possession (which will come out in court shortly).

Parlato: Chung does not state how or to whom this was conclusively proven – other than herself and other Raniere supporters. Did the FBI tamper with child porn evidence? Raniere’s defense team retained three forensic experts who prepared reports indicating they believe tampering occurred. However, these have not been submitted to scrutiny nor have the authors stood for cross-examination in an evidentiary hearing. They have also not been officially submitted to the prosecution for rebuttal.

For almost a year supporters of Raniere said they planned to file a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on this new evidence.  Their deadline is June 19, 2022 to do so, or lose the claim. If and when they do file the Rule 33 motion, then we will see if there is conclusive evidence of tampering.  I look forward to the filing. In the meantime, I cannot say it is anywhere near conclusive.

Chung: … Allison was probably advised by her lawyers to accept a plea deal because it is very difficult to defend against a child pornography charge because the evidence is supposedly dispositive and because of the tremendous prejudice it evokes.

Parlato: And her lawyers were right. She would have been convicted of sex trafficking and have gotten a minimum 15-year sentence instead of the three years she got.

Chung:… People ask why would a person take a plea deal if they are not guilty? What would you do if you faced a much longer prison sentence if you went to trial instead of a plea deal?

Imagine this scenario: You are part of women’s secret sorority with some unconventional practices. The government presents you with two choices: 1) Disagree with the government’s narrative and face arrest and a potential long prison time or 2) Agree with the government’s narrative and say you are a victim of Keith Raniere to avoid arrest and prison time. Even if you knew you did not commit any crimes, which would you choose?

Is it possible that the government believed the stories of a few women (who either faced prison time or public shaming, or wanted fame and money) because prosecutors wanted to win this big, high-profile criminal case? Imagine this scenario: A young prosecutor who was in charge of a very high-profile case had no hard evidence to support the crimes and was relying mainly on a few witnesses. Is it possible that the government overstepped its authority and criminalized sexual behavior because it was perceived as unconventional?

Parlato: The young prosecutor Chung is referring to is Moira Kim Penza, who first read about the story in the New York Times and decided to run with it, to find federal crimes and make a case. She succeeded.

AUSA Moria Kim Penza

Chung: When one thinks of “sex trafficking,” do you think a common sense interpretation of this qualifies?

An adult 29-year old woman [Nicole] engaged in a consensual single sex act with another adult woman [Camila] while a man [Raniere] watched them perform this sexual act.

The man was charged with sex trafficking and sentenced to 40 years in prison for this act. The woman [Allison Mack] who did not participate in the sex act was sentenced to three years in prison. No money was exchanged as a result of the sex act and is therefore not a commercial sex act.

Parlato: The sex trafficking of Nicole consisted of a solitary act when Nicole was led blindfolded and tied to a table where Camila performed oral sex on her while Raniere watched. No money changed hands, but Mack was said to profit from it by rising in the esteem of Raniere.

Chung: Sex trafficking laws were intended to make it a crime to sexually exploit people for profit and as an economic activity. A key element of the crime is that the sexual act must be a “commercial sex act” that is “on account of” anything of value is given to another person.

In other words, there needs to be a causal relationship between the sex act and the item of value. It does not appear the prosecution met this burden of proof. Moreover, the judge in this case did not instruct the jury to determine if the sex act was “on account of” anything of value.

Parlato: It is true that the judge did not give the standard federal jury instruction for the sex trafficking of Nicole charge, which is one of the issues of Raniere’s appeal. He changed the instruction at the request of the prosecution over the objection of the defense.

Chung:  In this case, [the sex trafficking charge involving Nicole] where no money was exchanged, does this constitute a “commercial sexual act”?

Does this seem like an example of government abuse of power and overstepping its jurisdiction? Do you really want the government involved in private sexual acts of its citizens? By this example, a co-worker who sets up her colleagues on a date and the founder of the company could be accused of “sex trafficking.” Again, quite absurd.

Did you know that this woman [Camila] who participated in the sex act was also represented by a class-action lawyer [Neil Glazer] who along with other “victims” were planning to sue Keith Raniere and the Bronfman sisters for millions of dollars?

Parlato: Camila has joined a civil lawsuit with about 70 other, former NXIVM plaintiffs who are suing 11 NXIVM defendants, including the Bronfman sisters, who have the deep pockets.

Camila’s claims are that Raniere and Nancy Salzman groomed her from age 13 to be a sex object for Raniere, in part by isolating her from her family, that Raniere took sexually explicit photos of her and had sex with her starting when she was 15, then forcibly raped her on occasion after she reached the age of consent and numerous other claims.

Chung: Do you think that this [the lawsuit] could be a motive to testify against Keith Raniere? She was recently awarded $400,000 restitution even though there was no evidence of any damage or physical harm. People ask why would people misrepresent or lie? As was said in the show Breaking Bad, “just follow the money.”

Parlato: Actually I think Camila was awarded $500,000, but I do not think Raniere paid any of it to her or any other adjudicated victim, who in total were awarded some $3.4 million.  That could be because he has no money.

Chung: Another “victim” in this case is India Oxenberg who claims she is scared of Allison. Did you know that India participated in DOS for almost three years with no complaints and praised both Allison and DOS consistently for helping her improve her life? Yet after the media and government became involved, India now claims she was abused and coerced. What could explain this change?

Allison Mack with India Oxenberg
Allison Mack with India Oxenberg.

Parlato: One of the things that explain the change is that India realized she might land in prison for something she did not create and could not defend. Right or wrong, her self-preservation instincts kicked in, perhaps with a little help from her family and friends. She saved herself from what Allison experienced.

Of note here is that both women came to the same place with Raniere – that he is a monster. India came to it before she was charged. Allison came to it after she was charged. Right or wrong, their timing was critical. Allison had a chance early on to escape the penalty and do what India subsequently did. Instead, she stuck with Raniere and it was to no avail. She later renounced him. If she was going to renounce him, early renunciation would have spared her immeasurable pain. Allison could have come out as a victim too by saying everything she said a year and three months earlier. Had she done that, Allision would probably have had a docuseries instead of a prison cell in Dublin CA.

Chung: …. India did the same practices as Allison (e.g. acts of care, readiness drills, acts of self-discipline, etc.) and had slaves just like Allison.


India was Allison’s slave, who was Raniere’s slave. One big difference between the two was that Allison knew Raniere was the founder of DOS, and recruited women under false pretenses that he was not. India did not know Raniere was the founder when she was recruited. Allison also deceived people into thinking that the brand was something other than what it really was – Raniere’s initials.

Chung: India was originally “co-conspirator #2” (Allison was “co-conspirator #1″). India was never even arrested. I believe India was rewarded for betraying Allison and blaming Allison for her own choice to join DOS and get a brand.

Parlato: Again it was just a matter of timing. India was in the USA working for near-minimum wages, remaining loyal but not funded by Bronfman millions. Allison was down in Mexico, preparing to give Raniere a joint blow job with four other women on the day he was arrested. After Allison’s arrest, India was tardy but ultimately got advice from her mother, Catherine Oxenberg, and her lawyers, and used common sense to avoid a cruel fate. India likely realized her chance at staying out of prison lay at denouncing Raniere and Allison – and by cooperating with the feds. So she did both.

Allision came to the exact same conclusions but a year too late. By then, her hand was weak and she got the best deal she could make – by denouncing Raniere. She got three years instead of life in prison.

Chung: This is a familiar pattern used by prosecutors to put innocent people in a situation that puts one person against others. India probably had to cooperate with the government or else she would be arrested. Can you see how this is a horrible situation to put people in?: Be a victim or else you are a “victimizer.” India was never charged yet she was co-conspirator number two. In contrast to Allison, India came out as a hero. Did you know she was paid by Starz to executive produce and also star in the show?

Do you think this could be a reason why she changed her view of DOS and Keith Raniere? The show seemed like more of a public relations show used to exonerate India’s role and responsibility in her own life and her choices.

Parlato:  If that is so, then let’s give credit to India for a great comeback. How many people can be involved in the most odious public relations nightmare of the decade – NXIVM – stick to it to the last minute, and then turn it around and come out a hero? In a world of survival of the fittest, India is fit. Allison is far less fit. Raniere is the least fit of all. He got life in prison.

But this does not mean India’s story should be dismissed. It should be evaluated carefully. In contrasting Allison and India, I only wish to point out that they both did the same thing – they were both in DOS. They both denounced it.

India’s timing was a hell of a lot better.

Chung: The judge in this case sentenced Allison to three years while Lauren Salzman, a co-defendant, was sentenced to no prison time. Allison was isolated from some of her wife [Nicki Clyne] and closest friends for several months and she chose to accept a plea deal instead of facing potentially more prison time if she went to trial. I don’t envy her position. I have seen many pictures, emails, videos taken during her time in the years prior to her arrest. She looked happy and full of life. In my opinion, her words renouncing Keith did not sound like the Allison I knew. I believe she had to renounce Keith Raniere and go along with the government’s narrative so she could get a more lenient sentence of less prison time.

Parlato:  I think this is true. Even her decision to divorce Nicki as a lead-up to sentencing was meant to show she was renouncing and repudiating Raniere and all his supporters. She had the example of Clare Bronfman’s sentencing beforehand. Bronfman determined not to denounce Raniere and the judge sentenced her to three times the sentencing guidelines or 81 months. Mack got 20 percent of the approximate15-year sentencing guideline, or 36 months. The message was clear – denounce Raniere and be free or support him and spend years in prison.

Chung:  This is such incredible coercion and an example of government abuse. Such a tragedy that she is serving any prison time.  Given what happened, is it possible that the people involved did not commit any crimes? Is it possible that crimes were committed by the government, prosecutors, and lies were perpetuated in a hate campaign orchestrated by people who wanted money, fame, and media attention? Too many people believe the sensationalized horror stories that mainstream media and so-called “docudramas” perpetuated. This too shall be one of those sad times in history that innocent people were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit…

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Allison divorced Nicki because it was never a real marriage. It was immigration fraud. Allison and some of both their closest friends, fellow DOS members and Allison’s family have all corroborated that it was a marriage for immigration purpose at the behest of Raniere.

  • Linda,
    You’ve already told us how DOS helped to stop your nighttime snacking. But honestly, was it that hard?? You’re THAT grateful that you continue to peddle this shit??

  • Frank-

    Brilliant ‘color’ commentary. I greatly enjoyed this piece.
    Chung makes some good points regarding the federal criminal system and then reverts back to attacking the victims as money hungry she-wolves.
    …And what is Chung, the pedophile rapist?!?!? She’s more out to lunch than everyone’s favorite ‘cult lover’.

  • A former lawyer? Well, that is curious. Former lawyer, former doctor, former actress, formerly wealthy until joining the cult. I see a trend.

    • Maybe.

      The bar’s not high. Any grandma who was catfished can get on Dr. Phil. He has A LOT of content to produce.

      The Dr. Phil show casts a wide net. Until they catch a fish willing to humiliate themselves publicly in return for a short trip to California.

      Dr. Phil is an ambulance chaser. It’s just one of those long-gone freak shows on the side of a road. People tune in to watch people dumber and/or worse off than themselves. It’s cringe-watch TV…So, yeah, Nicki fits in.

      It’s a weird flex. Odd to brag about on a random tweet.

  • Linda is wrapped around Nicki Clyne’s little finger. She’s admitted “maybe we are brainwashed and we just don’t know it” on an interview (YouTube). And yet, she’s still willing to play the fool writing her tiresome essay to please Clyne. Try pleasing your family, Chung and get help!!! It’s no fun to eat shit but at least you’ll have your real family again. Imagine that.

  • Linda Chung is an Agency owner of a third-tier life insurance and annuity company “Symmetry Financial”. Should we believe someone who oversees life insurance and annuity sales for commissions from a company no one has even heard of? I would side with Frank and Aristotle and would place bets 5-to-1 that “Linda Chung” will no longer be associated with “Symmetry Financial” in 5 years or less.

    • Symmetry Financial seems to actually be a type of MLM sales operation that just happens to be based around insurance as the product rather than say home care merchandise, which generally seems to have been a fairly common occupation for dedicated Nexians. There are typical complaints that people who sign up have to pay for training, leads, and so on (“Symmetry operates in your usual multi-level marketing hierarchy that other large organizations like Herbalife, Mary Kay, etc. do.”

      Since leaving the legal profession, Chung has worked for either NXIVM and its front groups, or dubious ‘coaching’ type businesses (there’s a place for that, but anything coming out of NXIVM is almost certainly more hype, and based on Raniere’s faulty teachings rather than substance).

  • Way to make yourself look like a complete idiot, Linda. Allison is a criminal and a piece of trash that belongs in prison. People often take plea deals when they are criminals and they can clearly see there is a mountain of evidence against them. I am someone who knows this case inside and out – and personally know some of the people Allison abused. Much of the really horrible shit Allison did never made it in the news – so, from my perspective, Allison can burn in hell. Don’t @ me!

  • Allison Mack, Jizzlane Maxwell and Liz Holmes should serve time together.
    They can commiserate how they were abused by the men in their lives.

    Boo Hoo Hoo, the evil men talked us into doing bad things.

    We want equal rights except when it comes to equal consequences.

  • On Account Of and Because Of Linda Chung’s ariticle, I conclude that she is a blind, retarded, idiot cultie.

    It gives me joy to know she will be forever sad that her Vanguard will rot in federal prison and die there along with all her bitter ender buddies and pitifull after-the-fact hangers on.

  • Parlato,

    Did you play a role in this “hate campaign”?

    Did you regularly demonize everyone associated with Nxivm regardless of their involvement or guilt?

    Did your reporting whip everyone up into a frenzy where people lost sight of what happened and who was guilty?

    Are you benefiting from it financially and via media attention?

    • Did you play a role in this “hate campaign”?

      Yes I fought back against Raniere’s hate of me.

      Did you regularly demonize everyone associated with Nxivm regardless of their involvement or guilt?

      Yes, to an extent. I demonized those who loved their demon.

      Did your reporting whip everyone up into a frenzy where people lost sight of what happened and who was guilty?

      Raniere should have thought of that before he attacked me first.

      Are you benefiting from it financially and via media attention?

      I am benefitting from successfully fending off people who attack me.

    • Frank,

      “I bet $10 bucks it’s Alanzo.”

      P.S. Alanzo, I owe you $10 bucks, you were right last time, it was me. 😉

  • I would be so annoyed if a former “friend” decided to write an entire (poorly written) essay about what I was presumably thinking while I sat in prison.

    Remember when Michelle Hatchett got so angry after India spoke just one or two sentences about her own first-hand experience of Keith Raniere’s racism toward Michelle? The resulting lecture from Michelle Hatchett that is was HER story to tell. Or not. Even though it happened to India and was India’s direct experience.

    What gives Linda the audacity to undermine Allison’s guilty plea? And Allison’s own court statements? The letters Allison wrote to those she wronged? Allison’s decision to end her fraud of a marriage with Nicki?

    It’s really self-serving. Linda and the other cult slaves don’t care enough to booty dance their support every night for Allison outside her prison home.

  • Ninety seven percent of Federal convictions are via plea deals. I guess that’s supposed to be suspicious. Because it’s a big number. Well, about 97 percent of the people in prison for murder are men. Is that suspicious too? Are we supposed to suspect some government / media conspiracy out to get males?

    Chung is arguing absurdities.

    The reason Mack took the plea deal is because the evidence against her was overwhelming. And it wasn’t just the testimony of her victims. Chung conveniently ignores the audio recording of Mack and Raniere conspiring about the branding procedure. And the e-mail exchange revealing Mack’s pay was withheld by Raniere until one of Mack’s slaves completed her sex assignment for Raniere.

    Money did change hands. She was engaging in sex trafficking. Voluminous evidence confirmed this.

    Mack got a sweet deal from the Feds. Given the slam-dunk verdict against Raniere, it’s a pity the prosecution offered her such generous terms. Mack is clearly guilty of sex trafficking and should be serving time for it.

    Chung and other dead-enders would make the government the villain of the story. Government as villain is a popular narrative and they’re exploiting that. Clyne in particular bases her schtick on this narrative. Don’t be fooled by their cynical power play. And note how readily they adopt crowd-pleasing narratives, despite all their yammer about independent thinking and bucking the crowd.

    • “Ninety seven percent of Federal convictions are via plea deals. I guess that’s supposed to be suspicious. Because it’s a big number. “

      No, not because it’s a big number.

      It means that 97% of US citizens are sentenced by the federal government without their constitutional right to a fair trial.

      It means that the government can use their power to deprive you of your property and your liberty without having to prove you are guilty of a crime. And when the feds can coerce you to plead guilty to a crime that you didn’t commit? it is literally totalitarianism. It’s Stalin. It’s Iran. It’s North Korea.

      That Aristotle’s Turd would distract away from this is yet another astoundingly ridiculous move of his.

      It proves that the government dead-enders here will defend their leaders no matter what they do – to the bitter end.

      Anticultists would rather the US abandon all our laws and civil procedures as long as it will make a few cult members wrong. I’ve seen it repeatedly over the years.

      Remember “First they came for the communists and I did nothing because I wasn’t a communist?….”

      Remember that?

      What a joke you anticultists are.


    • Agree with Aristotle’s Sausage and will add – are we supposed to believe someone who is running a second tier life insurance and annuity agency? Linda Chung is running an agency for “Symmetry” , a life insurance and annuity company no one has heard of, just like most people had never heard of Allison Mack until her exposure. People who sell life insurance and annuities for commission may not have our best interests in mind????

    • Aristotle-

      I enjoy reading your comments. You always tear apart the the Nex’ers B.S.

      Don’t let the ‘RingDing King’ get to you. 😉

  • I’m sure Mack feels unjustly convicted, and maybe even regrets “trafficking” Nicole…but I also believe that as she rots in prison she wishes at least it could be for sex trafficking Kristin Kreuk. Mack was always in her shadow, in Smallville and in Nxivm, and sexually humiliating Kreuk might be almost worth the prison time..

    • The time until Allison Mack’s release date of 3/29/2024 is far too short for her to “rot” by then. And the prison is of the more pleasant variety than those that were available for selection. It’s more like an extended summer camp for Girl Scouts.

  • I cannot decide if this write up paints Chung as a really good lawyer or a really bad lawyer. My guess is the latter because if refuse to confront the weaknesses of your case, you tend to lose your case.

    Let us start with the definition of sex trafficking:

    Sex trafficking: the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.

    The shortened version: sex trafficking is using leverage in some form to force a person to engage in sex acts when they otherwise wouldn’t.

    Now notice in the article above that Chung makes every effort to avoid mentioning “collateral.” This is a key pivot point around which the sex trafficking charges for all involved were about. Did Keith, Mack, and even India recruit, transport, harbor a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. Yes. Multiple times. Was that sex act induced by “coercion”. Yes, via collateral. Did Keith “induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.” Yes. Camila has since come forward and verified this. Also, note that nowhere in the code or definition is the exchanging of money a requirement for it to be trafficking. Something I would think Chung would also know.

    To key points of Chung’s diatribe – the system abuses its own leverage to force plea deals that often require betraying others, no argument here. I think I was one of the first to point this out way back when. Does this apply to Mack and the convicted NXIVM members? Most definitely not. If anything, more of them should have been convicted including the entire inner circle. Weirdly, the whole plea deal system likely saved most of them because they cooperated. Those that didn’t until forced (Mack), got convicted.

    Which brings us to her main second point on how India Oxenberg was given better treatment. Again, no argument here. India unintentionally confessed multiple times on her own program that the only thing that stopped her from following Mack’s path was the luck of timing with Parlato’s articles on branding scaring her slaves away. It is pretty clear India would have moved forward on orders if that had not happened. So, while she can make every effort to make her story heroic, India is no hero. She was a coward who just happened to make the only smart decision she had made in the last decade at the right time because her mom forced her to with the inside knowledge on events that none of the others had. Dumb luck combined with usual special treatment only the wealthy can enjoy. Doesn’t make it right, just makes her accidentally smarter than Mack at that moment in time and she has now reaped the benefits of it financially and personally.

    Chung makes valid points about the problems with the justice system, they have been brought up frequently by Frank, I and others. This does not mean that NXIVM was a victim of the justice system. Coercion was used to induce women into sex acts, aka sex trafficking. If anything, the system worked right here. Even the sentences in most cases were fair and just (tragically a rare event since jails are now for profit).

    More importantly, the implication from Chung is “victim” means “innocent”. This is a false binary position. None of them are innocent, and never assume that someone being a victim suddenly absolves them of being a victimizer. Mack victimized others while also being a victim. She was sentenced accordingly and fairly based on that.

    There are three things that brought NXIVM down. Three things that NXIVM fans, especially the DOSsier Project, continue to refuse to confront and acknowledge: (1) collateral; (2) branding; and (3) Camila. Chung avoided those three things – and that tells you everything you need to know about the pile of bullshit she is trying to sell.

  • I was born and raised in Sarasota so it’s no surprise to me that 2 of Keith’s cult members have taken up residence here. Sarasota is a sunny place for shady (AF) people!

    • I tried to do a bit of background on Chung, as I’ve often found that these people’s experience and work history is not quite what they claim they are. I came across references to her owning a local office of Symmetry Financial Group, which is pegged as an insurance-related MLM, and which she got into after more than a decade of working for NXIVM and its front groups, and doing various sorts of “coaching” type work, so it’s a stretch for her to be positioned as a financial services industry professional. Reportedly several ex Nexians work with her.

  • Linda, there are no ultimate victims according to NXIVM “philosophy”. Perhaps AM believed she was “at cause” and so that is why she took the plea deal.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083