By Heidi Hutchinson
In the December 2017 tightly-staged New York Times Magazine interview with Vanessa Grigoriadis – which was published after Allison Mack’s arrest – Allison was not even asked (at least not on the record) by Grigoriadis if she had a brand herself.
Lauren’s testimony shows that Keith created the brand. It was his idea and, hence, in the Times Magazine interview, Allison falsely “admitted” that branding was her idea.
It was not. These are indications that Allie was meant to “take the fall” for Keith, with Lauren’s assistance.
Highlighting Allison Mack’s “AM” in the stories about the branding in the media may have been exaggerating the misinformation — that the branding was Allie’s idea and that she superseded Lauren & Nancy in authority over the slaves.
It screams “set-up.” Keith may have been behind some of this.
If it had been one of Allie’s slaves who blew the whistle instead of Lauren’s slave, Sarah Edmondson — and maybe if Allie hadn’t run into her childhood pal at CBC — I wonder if Lauren may not have escaped arrest altogether?
I think Lauren has lied on the stand, claiming she didn’t know “AM” was in her brand, IMO, when it’s head-on view is far more obvious than KAR seen sideways. That spells Allison Mack set-up to me.
Lauren also told Sarah and others that it was a symbol of the elements so she must have missed the KAR, too. But to me that spells PERJURY.
Late innings remorse for Daniela
According to her testimony, Lauren took a call from Hector, Daniela’s dad, telling her that his intelligent, college-bound daughter “wanted” to take Nxivm classes. How well did she know Hector?
I admire your show of remorse for what happened to Daniela but how did you get into a mental state so unfeeling toward another human that you jailed and tortured an innocent, smart, rebel little girl you arranged with her Dad, Hector, to import for KAR – as surely as you were on the Bronfman jet to scoop up the sappy Allison Mack?
Fondling Fathers?
KAR mentions the “founding fathers” of our nation in his proposed defense of DOS.
That brings back memories of some pretty anti-patriarchal discussions I had with the Vanguard and with my sister Gina — starting with him discussing those pretty ‘disreputable sluts’ those ‘fondling fathers’ of our nation ‘enjoyed. They kept slaves and did all manner of hedonistic things to suppress women, Keith said then.
Agnifilo, a pretty tricky lawyer
During Stephen Herbits’s testimony in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere, his attorney, Marc Agnifilo asked the following question.
Agnifilo: All right. And I think you said on direct examination that Clare and Sara won that lawsuit against Parlato?
Herbits: My knowledge was that they won the lawsuit in LA, which was the Plyam lawsuit, and that’s the one where the suit was 28 million. They won 10 million.”
This is textbook, top-dollar, lawyer-lying at work and it ought to be illegal because it’s about tantamount to perjury. Agnifilo put words into Herbits mouth. A lie was slyly fed to Herbits in the form of a query.
And because Herbits did not directly negate that lie in his response, nor did the prosecution object, it’s perfectly legal slander, leading jurors to believe a complete falsehood about Frank Parlato, unintentionally substantiated by the credible Mr. Herbits.
Almost anyone reading the above question about Frank Parlato would presume there is a $10 million judgment against Parlato in the “Plyam” case?
That “Clare won”, as Herbits said, in some case against Frank? That a court of law pronounced Frank guilty of something he did to NXIVM?
Guess what? There’s no “judgment” against Frank Parlato for a single red cent in any case, anywhere and certainly not in the “Plyam case”.
I happen to know exactly the extent of Frank’s role in the “Plyam” case {I attended the trial] and, these same NXIVM swamp scum sharks were trying to do the same to Frank then, at that 2011 trial, as they are in this one — which Frank is, likewise, not a party to.
In both cases — the “Plyam” Case — actual title is: Precision Development v Plyam— and, now, this one, USA v Raniere – Frank was villainized in an effort to make the whistleblower the scapegoat – to try to blame him in absentia – for whatever sympathies the jury might have toward the Plyams (the defendants) or poor little Keith Raniere.
Frank came out to LA, hired Robert Crockett Esq. from Latham & Watkins, LA, on behalf of the Bronfmans, [Crockett has since made a fortune for himself suing Keith’s and Nxivm’s “enemies” with Clare’s money].
The good news is that the whole world now knows what Nxivm is all about — in no small part thanks to Frank Parlato and there is no lie about Frank or anyone in that courtroom that is going to acquit KAR.