Roberts Defends Her Role in Branding Women

In Danielle Roberts’ Declaration in Opposition to Granting the Plaintiffs Leave to Amend their Complaint in Edmondson et al v. Raniere et al, she gets into a point-by-point debate with the plaintiffs’ proposed Third Amended Complaint, as it refers to her role in DOS.

Defendant Roberts’ actions evincing her knowledge of the conspiracy and agreement with co-conspirators to facilitate it, include branding DOS victims’ pubic regions without their informed consent [and] continuing to promote DOS well-after the details of DOS related crimes came to light.

…The who, what, when, where and how are all missing. This fails to raise the connection beyond mere speculation, and doesn’t cure deficiencies.

DOS was a sex trafficking pipeline operated and furthered by Raniere, members of the Inner Circle… and Defendant Roberts to provide Raniere with sexual prey and “slaves” who would perform uncompensated labor.”

Certainly this statement alone is not indicative of any action or knowledge of these horrific allegations above speculation… providing no basis of “knowledge and support” beyond their mere assertion of such.

“[Roberts] branded women without obtaining their informed consent. This was a severe deviation from the standard of care…”

“Roberts admitted that she never obtained such [informed medical] consent.”

These facts are irrelevant. Medical informed consent is not needed between two adult parties to have consent to the activity, and shows no foundation for knowledge of anything bad occurring between consenting parties at that time, much less sex trafficking or human trafficking.

It is also highly controversial that branding is a medical procedure at all. Certainly at the time of the branding this connection was not established, and medical informed consent was not necessary to infer or obtain verbal consent between parties.

The OPMC [that ruled to revoke Roberts medical license] also held that ‘informed consent must be voluntary and not in connection with coercion under the threat of disclosure of personal and potentially damaging or destructive collateral’ and characterized Roberts conduct as ‘medically reckless.’”

This is irrelevant and prejudicial to me. The OPMC opinion of my medical skill has nothing to do with my knowledge of criminal intent. The choice of women (including myself) to give collateral also does not insinuate criminal intent or my knowledge of any.

Furthermore, Roberts intentionally concealed a known fact and never informed the women she branded that the brand was KAR to represent Raniere’s initials or that it would measure two inches by two inches.

This is categorically false. “Intentionally concealing” is an embellishment of the quoted text from my testimony in my medical hearing and is prejudicial to me. I never said I intentionally concealed anything. Not informing (because it wasn’t my role to, but rather their masters’ role) and intentionally concealing are two very different things.

Each woman also had a stencil applied with the exact size before the branding took place at all.

Again this is  irrelevant (shows no tie to me knowing about any criminal intent) and is prejudicial to me.

Outright lies; bad faith

As a member of DOS, Roberts knew that DOS members were not told that they would be branded when they were recruited into DOS.

This fact is verifiably false.

As [Lauren Salzman] testified [in criminal trial of Raniere] the brand was an explicit part of the enrollment process into DOS.

Salzman testified: Members knew… about it and consented, knew it was not a tattoo. I went through this exact process and assumed they did too.”

“they [members] were not told that the brand was Raniere’s initials…”

This assumes not disclosing information is intentionally concealing and tied to bad intent. There are many other reasons information may not transpire between two parties. In this context, it also insinuates, the only option to receive a brand with someone’s initials is for the purpose of ownership in a commercial sex act. Certainly, people choose to have the initials of their loved ones branded on them for many other reasons besides this,
and there are no laws indicating being branded with someone’s initials means you are their property.

This makes no meaningful connection that I knew and supported furthering an act to sell my friends into sexual slavery at the time of the brandings.

that all DOS members had provided collateral and therefore could not consent to the branding.

Before receiving my brand, I had consented to giving collateral and to receiving a brand. I assumed all other women who choose to join did as well, and that women had the agency to make their own decisions.

At that time there was no media narrative or legal processes spun to tell (or reward) me (or them) for anything different. Again, there is no meaningful connection as to the “knowledge or furthering” of a sex trafficking ring or forced labor camp.

Roberts admitted to the OPMC that she purchased the electrocautery device, that she knew that the brand was KAR to represent Raniere’s initials, and that Raniere was the grandmaster to the First Line Masters who were his slaves. 

This, also shows no knowledge of any sex trafficking or forced labor scheme. As an aside, I can guarantee Sarah Edmondson also knew Keith was involved before she chose to give any collateral at all as a green [sash] in the organization (with much more insight than I would have had as a [zero] 0 Stripe Coach [yellow sash]).

The term “slave” was metaphoric in this organization to encourage inner reflection of the ways we enslave ourselves to things in the world. The was a growth program aimed at helping each other gain internal freedom. “Slave” was not literal. Even if it was, it was disclosed at invitation and acceptance consensual.

[Roberts] knew or should have known that DOS First Line Masters and Defendant Raniere were engaged in sex trafficking because she was a member of DOS specially deputized by Keith Raniere to brand DOS members with his initials—a mark of their sexual servitude and Defendant Raniere’s predation” (PTAC).

They claim “specially deputized” but show no conversation, texts, or anything substantial that show I had any knowledge at the time of anything sinister or even sexual in nature. On the contrary, I had been told at the time, the brand served as “a reminder for women of their commitment to themselves and their sisters for when things get hard and they want to bail on themselves.”

I was told of its symbology of the elements and chakras, and of its tribute “to the founding members KR and AM, to honor them a century from now when the organization has helped grow thousands of women.”

Certainly, “sexual servitude to a predator” can’t be the only meaning a symbol containing anothers’ initials can hold? Seems I was misinformed as well….

Frank Parlato