Question: With Bronfmans out of the indictment – why is DOJ using a dead man to prosecute Parlato?

Based on my recent article Bronfman charges dropped against me, but commenter wonders about other charges, a reader had a question:

“How can they prove you defrauded your ex-partner if he’s not around to testify? [He’s dead]. Seems like the monkey with his hand in the jar grabbing the food. With a fist he can’t get the food out, but to let go means he can’t get the food. Another example of the government wasting our tax dollars.”

The answer is: The DOJ can’t prove I defrauded my deceased partner, but the DOJ still needs a felony fraud count, as well as a tax count, for their stats.

The FBI and the IRS worked on the case for 7 years and they do not want to go away empty handed. Now that the alleged Bronfman fraud has been dropped from the case, they are basing the fraud charge on my interactions with a dead man who cannot testify. It is weak, but they lost their only living chance when they found out that the Bronfmans had lied to them. There are no living people who can say I defrauded them. The Bronfman sisters are perjurers and incredibly tainted – so the Feds had to go to the next best option – which, in my case, is a ‘dead guy.’

While my ex-partner cannot testify against me – he also cannot testify for me either.  The prosecutor’s play here is to throw enough innuendo and supposition out there that maybe the jury will get confused.  They can argue, “if only Parlato’s partner were alive today, he would have learned he defrauded him.”

Unhappily for the prosecution, less than two weeks before my ex-partner died, he testified in a civil case that I was a most excellent partner. That establishes he went to his grave thinking well of me. But really and truly, the DOJ has no case whatsoever and a dead man now is their best last hope.

Remember, of course, they are not seeking justice, but convictions and they cannot, under any circumstances, admit they are wrong. To admit they are wrong means they could be wrong in other cases. If juries were to get a whiff of that, then the DOJ would lose the presumption of guilt that follows almost every defendant into court.

Now, the whole criminal justice system relies on the assumption of integrity and infallibility of the prosecutors. If they lose that, they would not be able to over-charge defendants, people would demand trials more frequently instead of taking plea deals, and America would no longer lead the world in prison population.

As for my case, I did not defraud my late partner or anyone else. But that hardly matters to the DOJ. They need to try to destroy me. Not because I’m guilty. Not because they hate me. They simply spent a lot of time on this case and they need a conviction.

Imagine their disappointment when the Bronfman thing exploded in the media.

They knew all along that I did not defraud the Bronfmans. They only dropped the Bronfman charges because the Bronfmans are now nuclear. Otherwise they would have kept the bogus Bronfman charges in. They are now trying to use a dead man because living people can be cross examined.

It’s logical. Only one thing matters to the DOJ – to not admit they are wrong. It is not justice they seek. They seek convictions and with it – whether they convict the innocent or guilty, it matters not – they must uphold the ‘honor’ of the institution – to preserve public trust and confidence.  If they admit they are wrong, then that trust could evaporate. If they hang an innocent man, that’s the price they are willing to pay to get the guilty and preserve the perception of infallibility so they can continue with their inordinately high conviction rates [95 percent +/-].

It’s not personal. I don’t begrudge them for their injustice. It is what they have become. In a broad sense, it is what America has become. After all, you don’t put more people in prison than anyone in the world without a mean streak and a desire to win that runs deeper than a desire for justice.

%d bloggers like this: