By K.R. Claviger
For those interested in the law and how the Bronfman sisters use and abuse it – and why it will benefit the publisher of the Frank Report – Frank Parlato – I submit this article.
In November 2015, the US Attorney for the Western District of NY alleged that Frank Parlato defrauded Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman-Igtet. They later dropped those charges.
Here is what they alleged at the time they indicted Parlato:
Frank Parlato entered into a contract – a Letter of Intent (LOI) – dated January 8, 2008, with the Bronfmans. Per the LOI, the Bronfmans wired $1M to Parlato, to “be deducted and repaid” to the Bronfmans against Parlato’s ultimate compensation in a Los Angeles real estate project.
According to a contract, called a Letter of Intent [LOI], Frank Parlato was to be a 1/3 partner with Clare and Sara Bronfman in a Los Angeles real estate development project that included, among other properties, the construction of a condominium complex on Libbet near Ventura Boulevard.
The Los Angeles project also consisted of more than 30 hillside lots where multi-million dollar homes were to be constructed. According to the LOI, Parlato was advanced $1 million against his share of the profits in this $80 million project.
In the LOI, Parlato agreed to a “lien on [his ownership] interest in One Niagara,” a building in Niagara Falls that he owned in part – and he further agreed “…not to dilute or dissipate [sell] said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million].”
One Niagara – developed by Frank Parlato – was a success story. Parlato built a robust tourist center at 360 Rainbow Boulevard on the site of the abandoned Occidental Building, transforming it into a giant tourist center – without a dime of taxpayer money.
Frank Parlato created more than 100 jobs and established a dozen businesses operated by local entrepreneurs. It may be the only development in Niagara Falls in the last two decades that was developed without any taxpayer subsidies.
The government alleged that, based on the terms of the LOI, Parlato owed the Bronfmans $1M when he wrongfully sold his interest in One Niagara in July 2010. These actions, according to the Feds, constituted a felony scheme to defraud.
Clare Bronfman, the sinister liar and co-leaderof the cult of NXIVM.
Clare Bronfman lied about the LOI
In order to convict Parlato, the government needed to prove the LOI was a valid and binding contract because the LOI was the sole basis for the promise “not to dilute or dissipate said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million] Draw.”
Without an enforceable Letter of Intent, the Government’s theory had no basis whatsoever.
The Government could not prove Parlato entered into the LOI. The reason for that is that Government had no fully executed LOI because the Bronfmans never signed it.
Par for the course, Clare and Sara Bronfman did not sign the LOI agreement – but they wired the $1 million as if the contract was in force. Frank Parlato, anticipating that he was dealing with honest people signed the agreement and performed the necessary work under the terms of the LOI, assuming that since the Bronfmans wired the money, they were operating under the LOI.
At one time, the US Attorney’s Office stated it had an LOI signed by the Bronfmans – and the FBI agreed to provide a copy to Parlato’s defense team. The U.S. Attorney’s Office later confirmed that the FBI was unable to locate any LOI signed by the Bronfmans.
The lead prosecutor, then-Assistant US Attorney Anthony Bruce, was aware, prior to the indictment, that the Bronfmans had sworn in other courts that they never signed the LOI. But that did not stop him from indicting Parlato.
Former Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce led a grand jury to indict Frank Parlato for defrauding the Bronfman sisters – a charge the DOJ had to drop after Bruce retired.
AUSA Bruce knew the Bronfmans had filed a civil complaint against Parlato, dated April 2, 2012. He also knew that complaint did not contain any statement by the Bronfmans that they had entered an LOI with Parlato. The Bronfmans’ civil complaint states that “..the Bronfmans loaned Parlato $1.0 million as a demand loan,” “without a written agreement.”
In 2012, the Bronfman’s swear that there is no LOI – because there was ‘no written agreement”. But that didn’t stop AUSA Anthony Bruce from criminally indicting Parlato three years later based on an LOI the Bronfmans swore earlier in civil litigation that they never signed.
What they swore to in their civil lawsuit against Parlato flatly contradicts the existence of the LOI as a binding contract.
The Bronfmans also denied, in courtroom testimony, that the LOI governed their loan to Parlato. Clare Bronfman testified in Precision Development v. Plyam in LA, on March 28, 2011. Clare Bronfman was presented with a copy of the Letter of Intent.
Q: And does that have Mr. Parlato’s signature on it to your knowledge?
A: Yes, it does. I believe that’s his signature. [Trans. at 36:12‐21.]
She testified that it did not reflect the agreement on the $1M.
Q: Well, let’s go to the language on the million dollars. Is that the language that you agreed to for the million dollars?
A: I don’t believe it was. [Trans. at 37:1‐4. 1]
Bronfman – shown the LOI in the Plyam case – says she never signed it and never agreed to the terms of the LOI.
Bronfman contradicts herself in Grand Jury
But three months later, in her grand jury testimony on June 23, 2011, Clare Bronfman was shown the same LOI she testified about in the Plyam case that she did not enter into.
AUSA Bruce asked her: “And this was at least the initial agreement between you and your sister and Mr. Parlato?
A: That’s correct.
Q: There is a signature on the last page. It appears to be Mr. Parlato’s?
A: Yes.
Q: But there are no other signatures on the document?
A: Correct.
Q: Do you recall the document actually being- entered into? [i.e. signing it.]
A: Yes
Clare Bronfman told the grand jury – under oath – that she recalled entering into the LOI.
But under oath before and after her grand jury testimony, Clare Bronfman swore she did not enter into the LOI.
Entering into the LOI helped her in her criminal pursuit of Parlato. It hurt her in the civil case – which may be why she denied entering the LOI in the civil cases, while, within the secrecy of the grand jury, she recalled entering into the LOI.
Clare Bronfman lies about Frank Parlato caused him to be indicted. He returned the compliment by telling the truth about her – which led to her indictment. It is one of the most unique stories in modern law. How often does a man get indicted by the powerful Department of Justice in one district and then turn it around on his accusers and get them indicted elsewhere?
In my next post, I will explain how Clare Bronfman f—-d herself by her own lies…. and why the Feds had to drop the Bronfman charges against Parlato.
