By Suneel Chakravorty
There are some things I agree with Frank Parlato on but not very much – and I don’t agree with hardly a thing he wrote in his last article.
Parlato says the collateral was coercive. I disagree. The collateral was voluntary and transparent and made known to the DOS members prior to their submitting it. It should not have been made into illegal conduct by biased prosecutors.
Hear me out. If you were a stranger listening to what these adult women did, that these women were told they could join a sorority but had to be in a “master/slave” relationship for life, then give blackmail-worthy material, and they chose to do so and later regretted it, you’d call them fools, not victims.
You can say they got into their own mess and now they want to get out of it. But in order to collect money from this, it requires a lie.
Happily to fulfill that requirement, we have the Earl of Exaggeration, Neil L. Glazer. (Don’t ask what the “L” stands for.)
The 1-Collateral/2-Collateral Lie
I believe Glazer had to make the collateral sound like it was coercion instead of stupidity, otherwise you’d have to conclude that the women complaining are the authors of their own problems.
I am told that some DOS women went to a lawyer before seeing Glazer. Apparently, when he heard the unvarnished story, he concluded it was all voluntary.
Then they went to Glazer. My take is that they had a chance to modify, and Glazer, that Monarch of Modification, helped them get their $tories $traight. The $ecret of the $tory, the essence of making voluntary actions turn into hard cash was a lie.
Here’s the lie:
Glazer writes in his First Amended Complaint, “After supplying collateral … they were told that now, before they could learn about the structure and nature of this sisterhood, they had to provide additional humiliating and damaging collateral… they were trapped, fearful… Once that second collateral had been given and approved, the recruiter/master revealed … that it was a pyramid of “master/slave” relationships … [that would] require absolute trust and obedience…”
Now let me show you why this is a lie. You don’t have to believe me. Look at the testimony.
Testimony at Trial
Glazer said they didn’t learn about “master/slave” nature of DOS until they gave second collateral and were by then trapped.
Here’s what FBI Special Agent Michael Lever said in his affidavit , which authorized the capture of Raniere:
LEVER: “…a master would tell her prospective slave that the prospective slave had an opportunity to join an organization that would change her life. The master then told the prospective slave that, in order to learn more, she had to provide “collateral,” which was meant to ensure that the prospective slave would keep what she was about to learn a secret. After prospective slaves provided collateral in order to learn more about the organization, the masters informed them that DOS was a women-only organization… The masters also told prospective slaves that their respective relationships would be of “masters” and “slaves,” using those words.”
It’s clear, according to Lever, that DOS recruits learned about “master/slave” after the first collateral, not after the second, third or fourth collateral. It’s after first collateral, you chose to vamoose, or join.
One single piece of collateral [usually a nude picture] was used to ensure that if you didn’t want to join, you would at least keep it a secret. That’s a far cry from what that Emperor of Embellishment Neil Glazer’s contortion where he says it was only after multiple collaterals that you learned you were to be a “slave”.
It is so wrong, so defective and in such contradiction to his own plaintiffs’ experiences that it is a fatal flaw.
Here’s what Lauren Salzman, one of the first-line women of DOS, said in her testimony at the criminal trial (Pgs 1602-1603, May 20, 2019) about the protocol of enrollment into DOS:
L. SALZMAN: “… first thing that happened is that the person who would approach you to enroll you … would ask for collateral… Then once you gave that collateral, you were told a certain number of things about the sorority, about the lifetime vow of obedience, the concept of the master and slave. There was an idea of a collar… And the brand. And then if you decided you wanted to go forward and do this, you would collateralize all areas of your life.”
This flatly contradicts Glazer’s allegations. One collateral, then you heard the salient, necessary information to make an informed decision to join or not to join.
Not multiple collaterals where you were trapped forever, as Glazer ridiculously alleges.
Here’s what Sylvie, one of the prosecution’s witnesses, said on May 7, 2019, about her recruitment of “Sam” into DOS:
SYLVIE: “Yeah, with Samantha, Monica told me that I could, once she had given me the collateral and it had been approved by Monica, then I could ask — I could tell Sam what the project was and she could say yes or no, whether she wanted to join it. Like she wasn’t — she wasn’t obligated to join it when she knew about it, but she just couldn’t say anything about it, or we’d release the collateral.”
Sylvie confirms that the first collateral was for secrecy. Glazer’s allegation is contradicted by Sylvie. If you want more proof, here’s what Nicole, one of Glazer’s plaintiffs, said at trial, on June 6, 2019:
NICOLE: “[Allison] said that if I wanted to get more information on this mentorship, that I had to provide collateral…. [Then after giving the collateral] She told me more about this women’s empowerment group… So, she said, like, that The Vow that you would make to this women’s organization would be a lifetime commitment… like everyone did or would have a matching necklace and, like, a small, like, brand, like a tattoo…”
A prospective DOS member learned about the “master/slave” relationship before giving a second collateral, and, according to Nicole, even learned about the brand – all before deciding whether to join.
Let’s look again at what Glazer said: “After supplying collateral … they were told that now, before they could learn about the structure and nature of this sisterhood, they had to provide additional humiliating and damaging collateral… they were trapped, fearful… Once that second collateral had been given and approved, the recruiter/master revealed … that it was a pyramid of “master/slave” relationships … [that would] require absolute trust and obedience…”
Glazer, the Duke of Deception, is contradicted by his client Nicole, FBI Special Agent Lever, and others who testified at the trial – a trial in which Glazer represented four of the major witnesses.
Frank Parlato says he interviewed Nicole and other DOS women prior to trial. I challenge him to disclose what she and others said about collateral, whether it supports his buddy Glazer, or exposes his lie and this will show whether her story shifted with a little Glazer influence in order to support his second collateral revision of the truth.
What Does This Mean?
Glazer is conflating first collateral and second collateral.
One collateral and you learned everything you needed to know – including you’d be a life-long “slave” to the one recruiting you.
I want you folks who don’t know, “slave” means she would have to do things she might not want to do and do them anyway because that’s what “slaves” do. A “slave” does what their master says.
A “slave” knew this, going in. As for what was not told, such as Raniere being the leader, nowhere is it written that a slave is entitled to know everything their master knows. In fact, by virtue of being a slave, they’re entitled to know only what the master wants to tell them.
To make a finer point, they were told they were going to be slaves. Then, if they wanted to be a slave, then, and only then, they gave second collateral. Once you’re a slave, by virtue of what a slave is, you sacrifice, you surrender the right to equal knowledge, equal position, power, authority and rights. They must do what they are told and can’t demand anything, including information. It is irrelevant that Raniere may have been the head of DOS or whether a slave’s master’s master [grandmaster] was Raniere. The slave only agreed to be a slave to their one master and the master agreed to be the master. The master wasn’t obligated to tell everything to a slave.
From the onset, women who joined DOS knew there would be things they might not like but that was the agreement they made. The tradeoff was they would get guidance, mentorship, training and discipline. This was to train and strengthen and whether you want to scoff at that or believe it, it doesn’t matter.
The bottom line is women who gave second collateral did so with eyes wide open. That’s why the first group of lawyers said it was voluntary. The only way to get around voluntary was to do the Glazer shuffle and say it was more collateral than it really was.
The reality was women weren’t trapped. Women volunteered every inch of the way. She gave a nude picture, and all she had to do to walk away, simply keeping DOS a secret, and many women, I understand, did just that.
It’s not so onerous, not dangerous, not coercive, totally voluntary. (If she didn’t want to learn about DOS, she didn’t even have to give first collateral. The fact that she gave a nude picture to learn about DOS shows it wasn’t so horrible for her.)
DOS masters kept their word. It is DOS plaintiffs who don’t keep their word. I think it is despicable if they are agreeing to the Count of Conflation, Neil Glazer’s lie.
Here’s the Glazer lie again:
Glazer writes, “After supplying collateral … they were told that now, before they could learn about the structure and nature of this sisterhood, they had to provide additional humiliating and damaging collateral… they were trapped, fearful… Once that second collateral had been given and approved, the recruiter/master revealed … that it was a pyramid of “master/slave” relationships … [that would] require absolute trust and obedience…”
Why First and Second Collateral?
The whole point of first collateral was to ensure secrecy and tell you about DOS enough so that if you didn’t want to do it, you didn’t do it. If someone tells you you’re going to be a “slave” for life and you need to give more collateral, if that isn’t enough of a wake-up call to not go ahead with this extreme thing, I don’t know what is.
Women got fair warning.
If DOS wanted to be coercive, there would only be one extreme collateral and then you’re in and no way out.
They wouldn’t have first collateral to learn about it – and then tell you the most extreme things before you join and give you a choice to join or not.
The fact that there even was second collateral shows non-deceptive, non-coercive intent.
They were trying to weed out girls from women. If you weren’t ready to do this and it seemed crazy to you, you had your chance not to do it.
If that Crown Prince of Prevarication, Neil Glazer, were not to lie about this, everyone would say the truth: DOS women had fair warning. This is why Glazer’s lawsuit falls to pieces. It depends on a lie.
What Will Happen With the Civil?
If the civil case goes to trial, the women who are complaining will have to get on the witness stand and tell the truth. They’re not going to get away with the lie, which would be perjury.
Glazer can say anything but a jury is going to think these women are fools. If they didn’t want to be “slaves” for life, then they shouldn’t have given second collateral.
It seems obvious that Glazer, that Shah of Shifting Narratives, understands this is a problem for him. He shifts the narrative and says they only learned about “master/slave” AFTER second collateral. That is false.
They learned about master/slave before they joined, before they gave second collateral. The testimony proves it. The affidavit of Special Agent Lever proves it.
In conclusion, Glazer, the Baron of Baloney, is not going to win a dime for anyone. This case will implode as it was poorly conceived and based on a bad foundation. He’s spent all this time and his law firm’s money and got everyone’s hopes up.
At the end of the day, none of the plaintiffs are going to get money.
Viva Executive Success!
The Glazer lawsuit: the holes are too big and there’s not enough dough to go around.