Affidavit of Frank Parlato, Jr.
State of Florida
County of Monroe
COMES NOW Frank Parlato, Jr., being first duly sworn, under oath, and states
that the contents of Attachment 1 are true and correct statements of relevant facts
and his opinions, to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the contents of
the redacted emails in Attachment 2 are true and accurate.
Date: June 21, 2022
June 21, 2022
My name is Frank Parlato. I am a resident of Florida.
I am 67 years old. I have no criminal record. Though I stand indicted by the bad faith efforts of the US DOJ and Keith Raniere – starting in 2011.
I am not a supporter of Keith Raniere. I am not now and never was a member of NXIVM. I worked as a consultant for Raniere in 2007-08.
Mark Vicente, filmmaker, whistleblower, former Executive Board Member of NXIVM, said on HBO’s The Vow: “Frank Parlato used to work for Keith and NXIVM. He left on bad terms, and the company went after him. To fight back, he created the blog called the Frank Report, to share news he was hearing about NXIVM.”
I have published around 5,000 stories on NXIVM and Raniere. These stories have had more than 20 million views.
The New York Times acknowledged in their seminal story that I broke the story of DOS and the branding of women.
“Many of Mr. Raniere’s followers learned of the secret society from a website run by a Buffalo-area businessman, Frank R. Parlato Jr. Mr. Parlato had been locked in a long legal battle with two sisters, Sara and Clare Bronfman, who are members of Nxivm, and the daughters of Edgar Bronfman, the deceased chairman of Seagram Company….
“In early June , Mr. Parlato published the first in a torrent of salacious posts under the headline, ‘Branded Slaves and Master Raniere.’”
Sarah Edmondson told her story to HBO. She said, “I told Frank about my branding experience, so that he could expose DOS in time to stop the next session…. We were successful. The word about Frank’s blog spread in the community. And because of this heat, the next branding ceremony was called off.”
DOS ended with my reporting – four months before the New York Times story. No woman was branded again.
India Oxenberg told her story on Starz ‘Seduced.’
India said, “Even within NXIVM, no members outside of DOS were supposed to know that it existed. As soon as the [Frank Report] posts started coming up, there was a ton of questions, and a lot of chatter. My slaves left immediately after that. And none of them had to complete the seduction assignment or be branded. That was a huge relief.”
Her mother, Catherine Oxenberg, first told me of this shocking sorority. She wanted to get her daughter out.
She wrote, “Frank was fearless. And once I’d given him this information, he ran with it. And he didn’t stop…. He was an unstoppable force.”
Vicente from The Vow: “When Frank came out with the news, it set the whole organization into panic. A lot of people began asking questions. And that was the idea – it’s not just to expose what’s going on, it was also about getting people to leave, getting people away from danger.”
The danger was Raniere. I present this to show that I am not a supporter of Raniere.
The DOJ in their sentencing memorandum of Keith Raniere wrote:
“Raniere’s crimes were difficult to investigate and were uncovered due to more than a year-long investigation that required significant government resources, including interviews of more than a hundred individuals.”
That was a lot of investigating for it all to shift at the last minute and come down from 100 to one.
I am a private citizen without authority. I agreed to investigate the investigation and publish the results.
I am publishing the report, “Analysis of Allegations of FBI Tampering of Evidence in US v Raniere.” I will publish it on http://www.frankreport.com.
Suneel Chakravorty co-authored the report. We have different views of Raniere. Chakravorty is Raniere’s power of attorney.
I am Raniere’s adversary. I am opposed to Raniere and deplore what he has done.
I believe Raniere is guilty of abusing the victim, Camila. He abused her. It was child sexual exploitation.
Chakravorty believes Raniere has been falsely convicted.
Both Chakravorty and I investigated the competency of the evidence. I spent more than one year in my investigation.
For my part, this is an unbiased investigation. I am as interested in exonerating the FBI as I am in proving they tampered. Which is to say there is a lot of evidence.
I do not claim to know the definitive answer. We are not prosecutors who seek only evidence of guilt and wear trial, or truth blinders. Our report will lay out a clear path to finding the answer.
At a pretrial hearing, AUSA Moira Penza said Camila “goes throughout this case. I mean, there will be almost – there’s very little evidence in this case that does not relate to that victim.”
It became a trial about Camila without Camila.
An FBI SA agent actually portrayed her on the witness stand, reading what she wrote in her texts for hours, as an AUSA read Raniere’s writings.
They presented her medical history. Her sister and others spoke about her. Her landlord, her nurse, and others spoke.
An FBI agent testified he saw so many naked photos that he could identify dates without the metadata.
Another agent discussed the evidence of dating her photos with metadata.
Then there was the most dramatic scene in the trial. An FBI agent walked her photos in, in a red binder – and everyone sat in stony stillness. She opened the red binder before the judge, and he turned away. The jury saw, and then she brought them the binder – of Camila. The jury shuddered. They looked down. They turned away. All the while, Camila was not at the trial.
Her abortion records – her appendectomy scar – were openly discussed. Her extremely private texts were read. The most private personal texts.
Her diary was shared. They had pictures of her and discussed the reasons for her alleged suicide attempt. Pictures, medical records and hearsay.
She was a conspirator when that let evidence in, and a victim when that helped.
Despite being the crucial victim, Camila did not testify at the trial.
This was a trial about Camila without Camila.
And digital evidence supplanted the live witness.
Raniere’s counsel did not get the digital evidence on a timely basis either. The evidence that convicted him – the digital evidence – was withheld until days before trial. Some of it was never provided.
It is understandable that the government might not have wanted her to testify. She was no longer a child. She was 28. She was one of the First Line of DOS. A DOS First Line master.
AUSA Penza said of the First Line. “Every member of the first line was a co-conspirator. There is no question; there’s no distinction about that… When they joined DOS, they knew that the defendant was their grandmaster…. They conspired with the defendant to conceal his identity and to recruit new people… to get naked pictures. To get property. And… to get women to have sex with the defendant.”
Camila was part of the scheme that confined her sister, Daniela.
At trial, Judge Garaufis would ask: Is Cami a co-conspirator?
AUSA Hajjar: Your Honor, she was involved – as Daniela and Lauren Salzman testified, she was involved in the confinement of Daniela in the room, and so, in that respect, she was assisting in a criminal scheme. She is, however, a victim in other respects.
The Judge later said, “She is a co-conspirator or alleged to be a co-conspirator.”
The allegation came from the prosecution, not the defense.
And Camila participated in the sex trafficking count when Raniere blindfolded and tied Nicole to a table in her apartment.
There was very little evidence that did not relate to that absent victim.
New evidence suggests the DOJ calculated they did not want Camila to appear as a witness.
New evidence suggests the DOJ could have called her but decided not to.
They might have put in place mechanisms available to federal prosecutors to have a witness come to court and testify.
Yes, She Is a Victim.
I was present when Camila said she was a victim of sexual abuse at Raniere’s sentencing. She spoke after the trial, after his conviction.
I heard Camila say Raniere abused her when she was 15. I heard her say he took pictures of her when she was 15. I believe her.
But the forensic evidence is questionable. Evidence seems to have been withheld from the defense. Expert witnesses seemed to have made misrepresentations. The FBI bungled evidence. There were instances of evasive testimony.
And new evidence contradicts the idea that the DOJ could NOT produce her.
I had many communications with attorney Niel Glazer, as a reporter. Before and during the DOJ investigation, alluded to above.
Sometimes we had conflict. I also have tremendous respect for his advocacy for clients who were victims of Raniere. Glazer is one of the most zealous advocates for clients I ever saw or can imagine.
There may not have been a case against Raniere, but for his efforts.
I have included in my report a few small excerpts from our correspondence. They are probative to the tampering investigation. They show his zealous advocacy. They can also answer if the FBI tampered.
I do NOT think Glazer would participate in tampering or permit a client to do so. One of the best reasons to doubt FBI tampering is Glazer. He represents Camila and her sister, Daniela.
The photos and the digital evidence are at the heart of the allegations.
Glazer would not tolerate tampering or suborn perjury.
Yet, if tampering had occurred, it might have come through other sources.
I have redacted the great majority of the text of the scant few emails Glazer and I exchanged. But they constitute new evidence.
His client Camila stated Raniere abused her and took photos of her. I believe her.
But the question is, are the photos the government used as evidence that they purport were her at 15, found accidentally as they claim?
Are the forensic dates accurate? Or were they tampered with?
Some of his clients may know the answers.
If the photos are accurate, were they found where the FBI said they found them?
I am not interested in proving Raniere did or did not take photos of Camila. I assume he did.
What I want to know is did the government tamper with evidence to convict Raniere of a crime he DID commit?
My colleague Chakravorty does not believe Raniere is guilty. He believes the FBI tampered.
I have reviewed enough evidence that I believe Raniere abused Camila. And I believe the FBI may not have had the evidence to prove it.
I think it is also likely that the FBI did not “accidentally discover” the evidence as they claim.
Special Agent Michael Lever swore he found the Camila photos accidentally. Some evidence causes me concern. I will address that in our report.
Either the photos in question were there at 8 Hale Drive or they weren’t. Either they were there from the start, or they made a belated arrival.
Either they are Camila when she was fifteen, or they are not.
A non-party may have supplied evidence beneath the nose of official actors.
Or maybe the photos were there for years – hiding in plain sight. Despite evidence contradicting it.
I reject these false equivalences:
Camila said Raniere abused her when she was 15, hence the evidence used by the FBI is competent. Raniere is guilty, so the FBI evidence is competent. Camila said Raniere took photos of her when she was 15, so the evidence must be competent.
The DOJ made this argument. It is illogical.
Camila has not identified the actual evidence.
Due process for those law enforcement know are guilty:
The FBI should not present tampered evidence against a guilty defendant.
If we allow this perfidious camel to nose into the tent of our enemy, we invite his presence in all our tents. He will be our constant companion.
Camila is a victim; Raniere committed the crime. But the FBI has to prove it. They cannot cheat the jury.
If they are innocent, we should find out. Soon.
That is at least partly because Neil Glazer represents clients who may hold the key.
Either those photos were sitting on the hard drive or they came from somewhere else.
Our report will appear on FrankReport.com.