Here is a guest view from someone who apparently does not like the fact that Suneel Chakravorty has issued me a challenge and I accepted it. I have added images with captions, and will answer her questions at the end of the post.

By Fay Ray

Frank how do you know Suneel won’t cherry pick the information he is giving you to prove his point?

How do you know he will only show you all the information between the two parties that proves his point?

The other missing information is the you don’t have the full story from the victims themselves.

Some cannot speak at this time, due to pending litigation. some don’t want to go public, they want to move on with their lives.

Another factor, that while under certain situations, people, while in NXIVM under the influence of Raniere, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman and other NXIVM leadership, when “released” from NXIVM’s spell had time to reconsider their situation, and realized what was happening to them emotionally.

Wake up to what Raniere was really doing to them.

Look at India Oxenberg, She was a day away from being arrested. Once she was able to take time away from the influence of NXIVM, she was able to see what they had done to her emotionally and physically. The power of “Group Think” is amazing when they have their claws into you.

Some still call it brainwashing now it is called Coercive Control

If you remember Patty Hearst, here is her story:

Around 9 o’clock in the evening on February 4, 1974, there was a knock on the door of apartment #4 at 2603 Benvenue Street in Berkeley, California. In burst a group of men and women with their guns drawn. They grabbed a surprised 19-year-old college student named Patty Hearst, beat up her fiancé, threw her in the trunk of their car and drove off.

Thus began one of the strangest cases in FBI history.

Hearst, it was soon discovered, had been kidnapped by a group of armed radicals that billed themselves as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA. Led by a hardened criminal named Donald DeFreeze, the SLA wanted nothing less than to incite a guerrilla war against the U.S. government and destroy what they called the “capitalist state.” Their ranks included women and men, blacks and whites, and anarchists and extremists from various walks in life.

They were, in short, a band of domestic terrorists. And dangerous ones. They’d already shot two Oakland school officials with cyanide-tipped bullets, killing one and seriously wounding the other.

Why’d they snatch Hearst? To get the country’s attention, primarily. Hearst was from a wealthy, powerful family; her grandfather was the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.– The Times Union in Albany NY

The SLA’s plan worked and worked well: the kidnapping stunned the country and made front-page national news.

But the SLA had more plans for Patty Hearst. Soon after her disappearance, the SLA began releasing audiotapes demanding millions of dollars in food donations in exchange for her release. At the same time, they apparently began abusing and brainwashing their captive, hoping to turn this young heiress from the highest reaches of society into a poster child for their coming revolution.

That, too, seemed to work. On April 3, the SLA released a tape with Hearst saying that she’d joined their fight to free the oppressed and had even taken a new name. A dozen days later, she was spotted on bank surveillance cameras wielding an assault weapon during an SLA bank robbery, barking orders to bystanders and providing cover to her confederates.

Meanwhile, the FBI had launched one of the most massive, agent-intensive searches in its history to find Hearst and stop the SLA. Working with many partners, we ran down thousands of leads. But with the SLA frightening potential informants into silence, using good operational security, and relying on an organized network of safe houses, it was tough going.

A break came in Los Angeles. On May 16, two SLA members tried to steal an ammunition belt from a local store and were nearly caught. The getaway van was discovered, which led authorities to an SLA safe house. The next day, the house was surrounded by L.A. police. A massive shootout ensued. The building went up in flames; six members of the SLA died in the blaze, including DeFreeze.

But where was Hearst?

She and several others had escaped and began traveling around the country to avoid capture. FBI agents, though, were close behind. We finally captured her in San Francisco on September 18, 1975, and she was charged with bank robbery and other crimes.

Her trial was as sensational as the chase. Despite claims of brainwashing, the jury found her guilty, and she was sentenced to seven years in prison. Hearst served two years before President Carter commuted her sentence. She was later pardoned.

And the rest of the SLA? We caught up with them all. The last two members were arrested in 1999 and 2002.

Why the long winded story?

It plays both ways Frank

Women like the Salzman’s, Mack and Clare Bronfman broke the law with Raniere. Other women under control of Raniere, his women gang members did things for the gang for the pleasure of Raniere.

Just because Suneel has emails, text message etc. making these people look as if they were active participants in the Raniere games doesn’t mean they were not victims in the criminal enterprise of Raniere as the Mob Boss of NXIVM. Suneel doesn’t have what was going on inside of them all the time.

This is what the EDNY did with their case of RICO charges for six weeks of trial.

Why didn’t Raniere put on a defense? Why are the NIXVM 5 plus members now trying to fight and prove they are not guilty of participating.

If Raniere is not guilty nor are they. Danielle Roberts and Brandon Porter want their Medical licenses back.

Suneel has spent too much time with Raniere and “Group Think” of the NXIVM Five.

Raniere is running out of time to get out of prison and so this challenge is an attempt to do what Frank?

What are your motives Frank? Why do you give Suneel and this group a platform and a voice to further Raniere’s voice and do more harm to his victims?

What is in it for you? It isn’t the Truth, we have no idea if Suneel is make any of this up do we.

You let him expose Doe’s, Why Frank, What did you get out of that?

What was in it for you Frank?

Still makes me wonder what the pay off for you is?

We know you have a court case coming up, they get expensive, just saying.

***’**

Parlato Responds to Fay’s Questions

Frank Parlato: Thanks Fay for your questions and comments. I will now attempt to answer them:

Fay: Frank how do you know Suneel won’t cherry pick the information he is giving you to prove his point?

Parlato: I suspect he will cherry pick info. It’s up to me to question him thoroughly.

How do you know he will only show you all the information between the two parties that proves his point?

I suspect that is what he will do. Just like prosecutors did in the trial. I think Suneel is suggesting that Raniere did not get competent legal representation. I have no opinion about that at this point.

The other missing information is, you don’t have the full story from the victims themselves.

I will try to get that info.

Some cannot speak at this time, due to pending litigation. Some don’t want to go public, they want to move on with their lives.

Many have spoken to me before the criminal and civil case commenced. I recorded many interviews, much like Mark Vicente did.

Raniere is running out of time to get out of prison and so this challenge is an attempt to do what Frank?

Raniere is running out of time. Any new evidence he has to present must be done by June 19, 2022, the three year anniversary of his conviction. That’s the deadline for any new Rule 33 Motions [for new trial.]

What are your motives Frank?

I like to accept a dare. People are interested. It might get at the truth which might be that Raniere is a rapscallion, a ragged rascal and a reprobate – but possibly the gods and demons are alike. Maybe some of the methods used to prosecute this devil should be evaluated. What are you afraid of?

Why do you give Suneel and this group a platform and a voice to further Raniere’s voice and do more harm to his victims?

The truth can never harm anyone though it might appear to be painful at first. If Suneel has a truth, let him prove it. If he doesn’t, he will fail. The victims put people in prison with their narratives and their testimony. I helped craft the narrative on this website. I can stand to have some scrutiny of this.

Remember the world only sympathizes with strength and courage. That is what the fool forgets.

If they are true victims, then they will become stronger by the truth coming out and, if on the odd chance that they exaggerated, then that too may come out.

I’m tired of whiny, weak victims. I like the India Oxenberg model, the Sarah Edmondson, the Bonnie Piesse, the women who came out, used their names and did something. But for them, Raniere might have gotten away with it.

What is in it for you? It isn’t the Truth. We have no idea if Suneel is making any of this up do we?

I do not think you can rule out our getting to the truth, even if Suneel is making anything up – which I really don’t think he is. I do not think he will present false evidence. He might provide evidence in a manner that is biased. But isn’t that what prosecutors and defense attorneys do?

You let him expose Doe’s, Why Frank, What did you get out of that?

I did not let him expose any Does. The three women he exposed had already agreed to reveal their names in the court filings. There are 12 women who are still hoping to remain anonymous – though I heard two just dropped out of the lawsuit – leaving 10 women. I have scrupulously avoided publishing their last names.

But, if I found that if any one of them were lying or faking it, I would have to consider whether their names should be published.

I also find it troubling that accusers can be anonymous to protect their reputation while the accused is always named, yet it is the accused whose reputation is instantly damaged by the accusation alone.

To me, justice is naming both the accused and the accuser, except in child abuse cases.

What was in it for you Frank?

I am covering NXIVM.

Still makes me wonder what the pay off for you is?

Please do wonder. I also wonder, but not strenuously, why you are writing this. I mean why do you care?

We know you have a court case coming up, they get expensive, just saying.

Yes, I have a court case. It is from that case that I learned that the government does get it wrong. That may be my motive — the government falsely charged me. I am not angry about it. This is business. It is not personal. They are driven by conviction stats. They spent a lot of time on my case. They were misled by attorneys for the Bronfmans. They had to indict. I get it.

But I don’t like the system – where the feds overcharge and, like you said about Suneel, only present info that supports their narrative – an often untrue narrative.

I think Raniere is a scoundrel, but I want even a scoundrel to have due process for this will help ensure all of us get due process. Once it is abrogated, it is a slippery slope.

What harm is there in double-checking even for the rat Raniere, to make sure the process was fair?

I will give you one example. Let us say Raniere did sexually abuse Camila, which I think he did.

And let’s say, as Suneel alleges, the FBI really did not have the evidence so they fabricated it. Is that OK?

I mean after all, the prosecutors know he is guilty. They just can’t prove it. So should they fabricate evidence to get conviction of someone they know is guilty?

If you answer yes, you do not understand due process. It is not up to the prosecutors to decide who is guilty. Due process assigns this to the jury. The jury is entitled to honest evidence.

If that is not provided, it is better that even a guilty man go free rather than eliminate due process.

English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s, had it right, though his ratio might be a little on the light side.

He said “Better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”

Ben Franklin upped the ratio, writing, “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved; never, that I know of, controverted.“

I am not concerned about Raniere. I want due process.

In case the devil Raniere did not get it, then I want him to get it and whatever remedy is indicated.

For instance, if the FBI really did plant evidence, then vacatur is the remedy. Not a new trial but his release.  It is not that I want his release, though it doesn’t frighten me. But if the FBI cheated and I am not saying they did, I have no evidence, but that is what Suneel is claiming, then I’d rather correct the FBI and I would not hesitate a moment to advocate for vacatur.

On the other hand, if there are more minor corruptions of due process, it should be exposed, perhaps it warrants a new trial or perhaps not.

For instance, the Rule 33 motion already filed regarding whether Dani and Nicole lied about not being involved in the civil suit prior to the criminal trial.

If they lied and I am not saying they did for one minute – but that is what Raniere says – then they lied. I do not think it warrants a new trial.

But the cutting off of Lauren Salzman’s testimony, combined with other matters, including potentially the contorting of what happened to Nicole into sex trafficking and 40 years – should be explored and maybe, possibly, a new trial is indicated – though I rather doubt it.

But tampering is another matter. If on the odd chance it is true, we should investigate it thoroughly for if it happened here, it must be exposed, for it may happen elsewhere.

And vacatur will be the method for its prevention.

Frank Parlato