Upload
lewis-clark
View
678
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Parisi v Sinclair : 98- # 1 Declaration of Daniel Parisi, # 2 Declaration of Richard J. Oparil,# 45 Statement of Disputed Material Facts 02/11/2011
Citation preview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) DANIEL PARISI, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0897-RJL ) LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
DECLARATION OF DANIEL PARISI
I, Daniel Parisi, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct.
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon to do so, I
could competently testify thereto.
2. I make this declaration in opposition to the motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment filed by defendant Lawrence Sinclair (“Sinclair”).
3. I am the individual plaintiff in this case and the owner of Whitehouse.com Inc.
and Whitehouse Network LLC (“WN”). I am the President of Whitehouse.com Inc. and White
House Communications Inc. (“WHI”) (collectively referred to as “plaintiffs”).
4. My correspondence and emails with Sinclair all refer to myself as the President of
Whitehouse.com Inc. All of my dealings with Sinclair were as an officer of Whitehouse.com.
5. I am engaged in the business of owning and developing domain names and
websites. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 16). WCI owns the domain name whitehouse.com. Whitehouse.com
Inc. and WNL operate the whitehouse.com domain name and website. They have been and are
engaged in efforts to develop that website into a profitable business venture. In 2008, efforts
were underway to develop Whitehouse.com into a politically-oriented website. Plaintiffs hoped
to follow the model of successful political sites such as huffingtonpost.com, which in December
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com
- 2 -
2008 raised $25 million in a single investment and a total valuation of almost $100 million,
according to published reports. (Id. ¶ 17). In 2009, as discussed below, WNL began efforts to
develop a “Whitehouse Network” television venture. (Ex. 1).1
6. On February 10, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama (“Obama”) announced that he
was running for President of the United States. On January 3, 2008 Obama won the Iowa
Democratic caucus. One of Obama’s campaign advisers and consultants was David Axelrod
(“Axelrod”). Axelrod served as Senior Advisor to the President until earlier this year.
7. Approximately two weeks later, on January 18, 2008, Sinclair posted a YouTube
video in which he made wild allegations regarding the purchase, sale and use of drugs and sexual
activity by and between Sinclair and Obama on November 6 and 7, 1999. (Ex. 42). While
Sinclair’s underlying story gave rise to the events that followed involving the plaintiffs, the truth
or falsity of Sinclair’s statement about Obama is not at issue here; there is no allegation that
plaintiffs were defamed or disparaged as a result of that story.
8. Sinclair is a self-admitted drug user and trafficker. (Book at 25-30, 33).2 Sinclair
has pled guilty and spent years in prison for forgery, theft, and writing bad checks. (Book at 19-
22, 24-28; Ex. 2). Moreover, I understand that there is an outstanding felony warrant for “Larry
Wayne Sinclair” in Colorado. (Exs. 3-6). While in prison, Sinclair was cited for numerous
infractions. (See, e.g., Exs. 7-8). Sinclair has also been involved in bizarre conduct, such as
creating bullet-ridden photographs of Obama and his wife (Ex. 9). Further, while claiming to be
disabled, he has publicized photographs showing him engaged in a series of strenuous activities
(Ex. 10). Last year, Sinclair allegedly tried to commit suicide. (Ex. 43). Further, in a July 16,
1 True and correct copies of the exhibits referenced are being filed separately. 2 It is my understanding that Sinclair’s book (paperback version) has been filed with the Court and may be located at Dkt. No. 61 Ex. 1.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 3 -
2008 interview and at the June 18, 2008 National Press Club event, Sinclair said he has a
“terminal” brain tumor. (Exs. 11-12, 43).
9. In February 2008, after I became aware of Sinclair’s allegations and as part of its
effort to develop a political website, I contacted Sinclair. Whitehouse.com offered to pay
Sinclair $10,000 to take polygraph examinations and to pay him $100,000 if the examinations
showed Sinclair was telling the truth. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 94 Exs. C-D). Whitehouse.com
made the offer to promote the site and to further its goal of becoming a first-class political venue.
10. As a precondition to Sinclair agreeing to be subject to a polygraph test, I made it
clear to him that I had no ties to Barack Obama or his campaign. In fact, I said so publicly. The
following was posted on Whitehouse.com and sent to Sinclair by email prior to test:
We are not affiliated in any way with any of the candidates or any of the parties. I have never met or communicated with David Axelrod or Barack Obama. Obviously since I never met either of them I do not have friendship [sic] with either of them.
(Ex. 13 at 1, February 16, 2008 email). That statement was true when it was made and it remains
true to this day.
11. To be clear, plaintiffs were not contacted by Barack Obama, his campaign, David
Axelrod or anyone associated with him pertaining in any way to Sinclair. I was not asked or
hired to rig a polygraph examination of Sinclair. I have never had any meeting, conversation or
other communication, written or oral, with Obama, his campaign, Axelrod or anyone associated
with him. I have never been paid any money by Obama, his campaign, David Axelrod or anyone
associated with him. The allegations in Sinclair’s book pertaining to plaintiffs’ involvement with
the polygraph to benefit Obama and his campaign are unequivocally false. We hired
independent experts who provided us with results.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 4 -
12. In my February 16 email to Sinclair, I agreed that the parties would use a
“mutually agreeable” polygraph examiner. (Id. at 1). Sinclair never objected to the polygraph
examiner ultimately selected. In the same email, I warned Sinclair that a good polygraph
examination would take about four to five hours.
13. Sinclair replied to that email the same day, February 16. He agreed to
Whitehouse.com’s offer with certain conditions, including the following:
1. You must publicly acknowledge any relationship or have or had with David Axelrod or Barack Obama, if any, including friendships.
2. I pick the polygraph examiner and it must be shown they have no connections with any candidate of either party.
(Id. at 1). Whitehouse.com agreed to his conditions. (Id. at 2).
14. On February 17, Sinclair emailed me and asked me to locate an examiner to
conduct the examination. (Id. at 3). I responded the next day, telling Sinclair that Edward Gelb
(“Gelb”), a certified polygraph examiner and past President of the American Polygraph
Association and well known examiner, could administer the test in Los Angeles on either Friday
or Saturday, February 22 or 23. (Id. at 4). I also provided Sinclair with Gelb’s website address.
Sinclair never objected to the selection of Gelb. With respect to the place and time, Sinclair
wrote back that he would do the examination on Friday, February 22, and return home to
Minnesota on Saturday, February 23. (Id. at 4).
15. Because Sinclair was concerned for his safety, I agreed to post on
Whitehouse.com that the polygraph would be administered in New York. (Id. at 8).
16. On February 20, Sinclair wrote to me that someone posted on Whitehouse.com
that the $100,000/$10,000 challenge was bribery. (Id. at 9). In response, I offered to try to
resolve that concern by offering Sinclair to pay him $20,000 whether he passed the examination
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 5 -
or not, plus $2,000 to charity. (Id.). I also wrote that: “If you do that way then you get rid of all
these bribe accusations. You will also look very good to the media and public as well.” On
February 21, Sinclair counteroffered for a flat payment of $20,000 to him and a donation of
$5,000 to the Salvation Army and the Boys & Girls Club. (Id. at 9). Whitehouse.com agreed to
the new payment amounts. (Id. at 11). I told Sinclair that the checks would “not be certified but
we are a big organization here so I do not see where there is any issue. They will be
Whitehouse.com Inc. checks signed by me.” (Id. at 11).
17. On February 21, Sinclair agreed that “no other polygraphs can be done for 4
weeks.” (Id. at 10; Dkt. No. 94 Ex. D; Ex. 47). Sinclair later acknowledged that “I have to wait
4 weeks before I can do another polygraph with anyone else.” (Id. at 21).
18. I first met Sinclair in-person on February 21, in Los Angeles where his polygraph
examination was to take place.
19. On February 22, 2008, Gelb conducted a pre-examination interview and
polygraph examination of Sinclair. at his Los Angeles office.
20. Gelb’s polygraph focused on two underlying issues, Sinclair’s drug and oral sex
allegations. The examination was videotaped.
21. On Friday, February 22, we received a verbal report that Sinclair’s polygraph test
on the key questions indicated deception. On Saturday, we received the results of Sinclair’s drug
test confirming that there were no drugs in his system that would have interfered with the
deception-indicated results. Before releasing the report, we had a handwritten report with the
polygraph results. Also, Gelb’s results had been reviewed by a second examiner in his office.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 5 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 6 -
22. We also received a February 26 report from Gordon Barland (“Garland”), was
one of the foremost experts in the world on polygraphs, who confirmed Gelb’s report that
Sinclair’s polygraph indicated deception.
23. Exs. 14-16 are true and correct copies of the experts’ handwritten and typed
report.
24. We posted the results of Sinclair’s polygraph examination by Gelb on Sunday,
February 24, 2008. We had not planned to release the results that early. We were originally
going to wait to release the polygraph results until we received drug test results and written
reports from Gelb and Barland. However, Sinclair had boasted that he had not failed the tests
and rumors started to spread around the Internet that he had passed. A site called “The Way it
Is”, a pro-Sinclair blog where Sinclair had commented frequently, had a February 23, 2008 post
suggesting that Sinclair passed the polygraph. (Ex. 17).
25. Inasmuch as the polygraph test revealed deception, I thought it was unfair and
irresponsible to allow Sinclair and his supporters to continue a character assassination of Obama,
so we released the tests early to attempt to end the rumors that Sinclair had passed the polygraph
tests. Links to the test results were posted on Whitehouse.com. (Dkt. No. 94 Ex. W).
26. There were also inconsistencies in Sinclair’s story that supported the polygraph
examination results showing deception. For example, he said in his first YouTube video that he
had oral sex with Obama a second time, two days after their first meeting. (Ex. 42). During the
polygraph test, however, he said it was the next day. He also provided us with a photo,
allegedly of Sinclair in 1999, which he said was him in 1999 in a taped polygraph interview. I
did not believe the photo to be that of a 38-year-old man. In addition to the inconsistencies, I
was aware of Sinclair’s long criminal history, discussed above. The night of the polygraph
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 6 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 7 -
exam, Sinclair had gone on YouTube making belligerent posts and asked for money. He later
denied it was him but that seemed unlikely due to the information that was released. He also
sent me an email that night asking for $2,500 cash.
27. Further, Sinclair had agreed to put Whitehouse.com in touch with the alleged
limousine driver who was said to have witnessed Sinclair’s drug and sex allegations. He failed
to do so. Despite telling us that he was in constant contact with the driver, he has never put
anyone in touch with the alleged driver. I wrote Sinclair an email on February 24 noting his
failure to give us the information:
We have been waiting 2 days to speak the Limousine driver. You were at the hotel about 4:00 PM on Friday so you had all afternoon and night to reach the limousine driver. I called you last night again on the limousine driver and you still did not give information on driver. You had told me you had a 5 hour layover at the airports which would have given you more than ample time to get in touch with him. You told me last night you would have the information to us in the morning. Please contact us immediately with the driver information so we can speak to him. Thanks.
(Ex. 13 at 14). Sinclair responded: “I told you and Rob I would try to put you in contact with
the driver. Last night when I spoke with you I told you I would deal with calling the driver today
. . . .” (Id. at 16).
28. Also, Sinclair was asked the following questions by the polygraph examiner:
a. Unrelated to this matter, did you ever lie for revenge or for personal gain?
Sinclair answered no.
b. Unrelated to this matter, did you ever try to appear truthful when you
knew you were lying more than once? Sinclair answered no.
c. Unrelated to this matter, did you ever manufacture a false story to get out
of trouble? Sinclair answered no.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 7 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 8 -
It is highly unlikely that a person could truthfully answer “no” to all three of those questions.
Especially not a person who repeatedly pled guilty to crimes such as forgery, theft and fraud.
29. While prior to the examination Sinclair expressed concern about his safety and
security (Ex. 13 at 2), after the examination he eagerly met with two bloggers at a hotel bar,
telling them all about the polygraph test. He also went out on the town in Los Angeles that
night.
30. True and correct copies of my emails with with Sinclair between February 16 and
26, 2008 are attached as Ex. 13. On February 25, Sinclair charged that Whitehouse.com and I
been working David Axelrod and the Obama campaign to rig the polygraph examination. I
understood those allegations to mean that Whitehouse.com and I had some secret relationship
with Obama, his campaign, and his consult, Axelrod. I also understood Sinclair to mean that the
plaintiffs here had engaged in criminal conduct, such as bribery or extortion. As stated above,
these allegations have no basis in fact. Sinclair’s allegations did not deserve any reply. In fact,
he assumed that we would deny those false allegations. He wrote me: “I assume by your failure
to reply you are denying prior knowledge of misrepresentation by Mr. Gelb and the information I
received early this morning advising me that you were paid $750,000 by Axelrod associates to
set me up? Do I assume correctly.” (Id. at 21). Sinclair’s assumption was correct – the alleged
wrongful conduct did not occur.
31. There is no mention in any of the February 2008 emails about a purported tipster
telling him that I would bounce Sinclair’s $20,000 check from Whitehouse.com.
32. Contrary to the suggestions in Sinclair’s motion, I do not recall ever speaking to
Sinclair at any time regarding Gloria Allred and I certainly could not and did not leak any
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 8 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 9 -
information about his dealings with her, if he in fact had any. We also did not leak any
information on his relatives as stated in his book.
33. Sinclair’s declaration states that Whitehouse.com stopped payment on the
$20,000 check two days after the alleged tip that he received in the middle of the night. We did
so because Sinclair said in a February 25, 2008 blog interview (Ex. 18 at 3-4; 19) that he was
doing another polygraph examination and the results would be posted on Tuesday, February 26.
I believed this was a repudiation and violation of our agreement, and the sole reason
Whitehouse.com stopped payment on the check. On February 26, I explained to Sinclair that:
I saw this interview this morning and posted your response in regards to another polygraph test. It shows that you are doing another polygraph with results in this afternoon in violation of our agreement. I have instructed bank to stop payment on the $20,000 check this morning. The $10,000 in checks going to the charities are not effected and will be paid.
(Ex. 13 at 21). Even though Sinclair claimed that the polygraph was rigged, he nevertheless
wanted to be paid for it. (Id. at 24).
34. Whitehouse.com never stopped payment on the checks for the two charities (in
the amount of $5,000 each). The charities returned the checks to us of their own volition.
(Exs. 20-21). Sinclair posted an article stating that myself and my assistant, Robert Braddock,
had attacked the charities causing them to return the money that we sent them as part of our
modified agreement with Sinclair. That allegation is simply not true, as shown in letters from
charities to me.
35. We did not publicly comment about the Sinclair matter from end of February
2008 until June 2008. In June 2008, Sinclair announced that he was holding a press conference
at the National Press Club in Washington. A pro-Sinclair blog, “The Way It Is”, as well as
others, had posted that Sinclair was going to release the source of the alleged anonymous bribe
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 9 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 10 -
tip, a true and correct copy of which is at Ex. 22. Sinclair's own (suspended)3 attorney, in a June
18 Politico article, said that Sinclair would address the allegations that the sponsor of the
polygraph had been bribed to skew the results against him. (Ex. 23 at 2).
36. In response to Sinclair’s announcement, Whitehouse.com set up a last-minute
press conference to protect ourselves on the bribe allegations and issued a release stating that
Whitehouse.com would hold its own press conference at the National Press Club to respond to
allegations made by Sinclair. (Ex. 24).
37. On June 18, 2008, Sinclair held his press conference and repeated his drug and
sex and rigged polygraph allegations. He also alleged that he believed that a church choir
master, Donald Young, was murdered on December 23, 2007 and suggested that Obama or his
campaign was somehow involved in the murder. (Book at 163-72; Ex. 44). However, Sinclair
did not mention anything about Young’s murder during his interview with Gelb or during the
polygraph examination itself.
38. After hearing from reporters how poorly Sinclair’s conference went and that he
had not released any information to corroborate his bribe allegations or the source of the alleged
tip, we trimmed our press conference to about two minutes, during which I reviewed Sinclair’s
polygraph test results and categorically denied his bribe charges. We did not take any questions.
At that point we believed that the story was dead and that Sinclair would fade away. We never
again publicly addressed Sinclair or his assertions about us until plaintiffs filed this case in May
2010. However, defendant Jeff Rense was told on his radio show by a reporter who had attended
the press conference that I denied the allegations.
3 In 2008, Sinclair’s then attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, had been suspended from the practice of law. (Ex. 25, Mem. Op. at 3).
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 10 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 11 -
39. In June 2009, Sinclair self-published through SPI the copyrighted book at issue
here. (Dkt. No. 61 Ex. 1). SPI, Sinclair, B&N, Amazon, and BAM have offered for sale and
sold Sinclair’s book throughout the United States, including in the District of Columbia, in stores
and/or through internet order and delivery. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 34). Sinclair and the bookstore
defendants continued to sell his book even after this case was filed. For example, in September
2010, Amazon.com sold me and I received an autographed book, numbered 115 of 1000. Ex. 26
hereto is a true and correct copy of the page autographed by Sinclair. Amazon has continued to
sell the Kindle version of the book to the public. (Ex. 27).
40. Sinclair’s book repeated his story about drugs, sexual activity and Donald
Young’s murder. Relevant to this case, however, is the book’s attacks on Parisi and
Whitehouse.com. Sinclair’s book is replete with false, defamatory and derogatory statements
regarding Parisi and the website, including without limitation, the following:
▪ In fact, at 12:48 a.m. on February 25, 2008 (the day before Barland’s review was even conducted), I received a telephone tip from 207-252-2796 and 207-899-0872, advising me that the polygraph was rigged and was arranged by Dan Parisi and Obama Campaign advisor David Axelrod. The man giving me the tip stated that, “Axelrod and the Obama campaign had agreed to pay Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com, $750,000 to arrange a rigged polygraph. Parisi and Axelrod were in a heated argument because the Obama camp wanted Parisi to publish that you had failed the polygraph faster than what Parisi had said. Parisi was refusing to publish anything further on the polygraph until he was paid the other half of the three-quarters of a million dollars agreed on.”
When I received this information, I contacted Dan Parisi and informed him of what was stated, and I asked Parisi to confirm or deny the allegations. Instead of Parisi denying or confirming the allegations that he refused to respond to the statements and then posted a statement on Whitehouse.com that he had been threatened repeatedly by “Sinclair’s supporters and that Whitehouse.com would not publish anything further regarding Larry Sinclair.” In addition, Parisi immediately shut down Whitehouse.com, completely scrubbed the site of all posts and comments on the Larry Sinclair/Barack Obama story, and revamped the format of
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 11 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 12 -
the website requiring individuals to register with Whitehouse.com before being able to comment. It was at that time, Whitehouse.com became the staunchest promoters of Barack Obama, while slamming Hillary Clinton non-stop. I also had asked Parisi to respond; I forwarded the information to Chicago Tribune reporter John Crewdson and asked him to look into who the tipster was. Crewdson actually spoke to the tipster and was told the same thing. In addition, the tipster stated that I should look very carefully at the FEC campaign finance reports for the period from January 1 through March 31, 2008 for the payments to Parisi. The tipster also advised me that Parisi had many different holding companies, and the Obama campaign would not have made a single individual payment.
Immediately after confronting Whitehouse.com’s Dan Parisi about the allegations that he arranged a rigged polygraph exam, he issued a stop payment of the check issued to me for the polygraph exam. You see, Parisi had made a deal with David Axelrod and the Obama campaign. All of this occurred on the very day that I published emails to Mr. Parisi asking for his response to the claims made in an anonymous telephone tip.
▪ The information Edward Gelb had obtained from the extensive pre-polygraph interview suddenly was being posted on the internet at DemocraticUnderground.com, MyBarackObama.com, HuffingtonPost.com, and others. Only the information had been distorted and edited. In fact, it was after the rigged “polygraph/fishing expedition” arranged by Dan Parisi in a deal with advisor David Axelrod, that direct attacks began on the internet and by phone against my father’s last wife, my nieces and nephews, my mother and my brothers and sisters.
▪ Finally, in February 2008 I was told anonymously that Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com received $750,000 from the Obama campaign through AKR Media to organize an effort to publicly discredit me. When I confronted Parisi with this allegation, he did not deny it but instead withdrew the second exonerating polygraph report of Dr. Gordon Barland. He also failed to post the video of my polygraph as he and Whitehouse.com promised they would do. He even removed posts from their web site altogether, claiming that they had “had enough of the attacks by Sinclair’s supporters and Sinclair himself.”
▪ [T]he polygraph exam was announced by the internet pornography fraud Dan Parisi on Whitehouse.com . . . .
(Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 32).
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 12 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 13 -
41. In addition, Sinclair purportedly drafted and published marketing materials --
“product descriptions” -- of Sinclair’s book that also made false and defamatory statements
regarding plaintiffs. The description included the false statement that: “You’ll read how the
Obama campaign used internet porn king Dan Parisi and Ph.D. fraud Edward I. Gelb to conduct
a rigged polygraph exam in an attempt to make the Sinclair story go away.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 35-
36, 38-39; Exs. 28-31).
42. On July 9, 2009, after publication of his book, Sinclair did a one-hour radio
interview with Rense where I am referred to as an Axelrod hack, they laughed about potential
lawsuits regarding the book and discussed Sinclair talking to Barnes & Noble about potential
book signings at their stores. On the tape, Sinclair said: “I’m looking forward to being sued
with you and everybody else who has brought this story forward.” (Ex. 45).
43. In September 2009, Sinclair posted on his site that he was having a friend go to
Los Angeles District Attorney in regards to his bribe allegations, obviously meaning that I was
guilty of a crime, and my alleged involvement with Acorn, a now reviled group.
44. After this case was filed in May 2010, Sinclair and others continued to make false
and derogatory statements about me. For example, Sinclair posted a video on the internet stating
that I was a “lapdog” for the Obama administration. (Ex. 46). On June 8, Sinclair issued a press
release saying that I was a “fraud.” (Ex. 32).
45. Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the defamatory statements are false and that
the following statements are true:
Plaintiffs have never discussed Sinclair or his allegations with David Axelrod or the Obama campaign, or anyone acting on their behalf.
Plaintiffs have never conspired, criminally or otherwise, with Obama, the Obama campaign or Axelrod or anyone acting on their behalf.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 13 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 14 -
Plaintiffs have never entered into an agreement, contract, or understanding with David Axelrod, the Obama campaign, or anyone acting on their behalf.
Plaintiffs never agreed to accept or be paid money or other benefit by David Axelrod, the Obama campaign, or anyone acting on their behalf, for any purpose.
Plaintiffs have never “made a deal with David Axelrod and the Obama campaign” for any purpose, including without limitation, to arrange a rigged polygraph examination of Sinclair.
Plaintiffs did not “rig” Sinclair’s polygraph examinations.
Plaintiffs have never helped anyone to get away with murder.
Parisi is not and has never been a pornographer. He has not produced, created or made any pornographic material.
During the relevant time period, Whitehouse.com did not contain pornographic material.
(Id. ¶ 44).
46. The false, defamatory, and derogatory statements at issue in this case fall into two
categories:
(a) Sinclair’s numerous statements that (i) plaintiffs had a relationship with Obama,
his campaign, Axelrod, and persons associated with them, (ii) Axelrod or others
offered to pay or paid Parisi or the other plaintiffs $750,000 to conduct a rigged
polygraph examination of Sinclair, and (iii) plaintiffs did rig his examination and
publicly released the results showing deception in order to discredit Sinclair’s
credibility; and
(b) Sinclair’s repeated assertion that I was a “pornographer” or that Whitehouse.com
was a porn site.
As discussed above, none of Sinclair’s statements are true.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 14 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 15 -
47. The primary basis for the claims in this case relate to Sinclair’s Axelrod/rigged
polygraph statements. As I have said publicly and sworn in this declaration, I have never had
agreements, communications, relationships, or understandings with Obama or anyone connected
with his Presidential campaign, including Axelrod. I was never offered or paid any money to
arrange Sinclair’s polygraph examination. Plaintiffs certainly dispute the truthfulness of
Sinclair’s statements.
48. The sole basis for Sinclair’s allegations is an anonymous telephone tip that he
received from two Maine telephone numbers on February 25, 2008 in the middle of the night. In
his book (Dkt. No. 61 Ex. 1 at 95), Sinclair describes this supposed tip:
In fact, at 12:48 a.m. on February 25, 2008 (the day before Barland’s review was even conducted), I received a telephone tip from 207-252-2796 and 207-899-0872, advising me that the polygraph was rigged and was arranged by Dan Parisi and Obama Campaign advisor David Axelrod. The man giving me the tip stated that, “Axelrod and the Obama campaign had agreed to pay Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com, $750,000 to arrange a rigged polygraph. Parisi and Axelrod were in a heated argument because the Obama camp wanted Parisi to publish that you had failed the polygraph faster than what Parisi had said. Parisi was refusing to publish anything further on the polygraph until he was paid the other half of the three-quarters of a million dollars agreed on.”
49. To the best of my knowledge, Sinclair does not have audiotapes, telephone
records, or other documents corroborating his story about plaintiffs’ alleged illicit criminal
conduct or communications with the alleged tipster. If he does have such material, he has
certainly never released it to me, the press, or the public, and it was not included in his book.
50. I have reviewed the exhibits that Sinclair filed in support of his motion (Dkt. No.
94 Exs. B-DD). None of them provide any factual support for the notion that Sinclair received
an anonymous tip on February 25, 2008, let alone support for what the tipster supposedly told
him.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 15 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 16 -
51. Moreover, the information that Sinclair’s book provides about the tip is both scant
and unclear. The book says that he received “a telephone tip” at 12:48 a.m. from two telephone
numbers. It is unclear to me as to how Sinclair could have one conversation with a single
anonymous tipster from two different telephone numbers.
52. The 207 area code for the two numbers is in Maine. As Richard Oparil explains
in his accompanying declaration, one of the numbers (207-899-0872) was registered to Tammy
Byrnes. (Ex. 33). It is my understanding that Ms. Byrnes has some kind of family relationship
with Sinclair. A call from a family relation would certainly negate any belief that such a tip was
credible.
53. Sinclair has not said if asked the anonymous tipster how he became aware of
alleged information about Parisi and Axelrod. Sinclair has not said what, if any, questions he
asked the man. Sinclair’s motion does not set forth what effort he made – if any – to try to
confirm the alleged tip.
54. Sinclair has not provided any evidence as to the tip or the truthfulness of the
allegations against me and the other plaintiffs. Sinclair is basically asking the Court and
plaintiffs to take his word for his contention that the statements in his book and elsewhere about
the polygraph examination are true. However, given his admitted criminal background and the
evidence of deception shown by the polygraph reports themselves, his word is highly suspect.
55. Sinclair’s motion claims that he “subjectively” believed his statements to have
been true at the time that they were made. Plaintiffs have not yet had any discovery from any of
the defendants or third parties. I believe that it would be grossly unfair to grant Sinclair’s motion
to dismiss or for summary judgment without giving plaintiffs the opportunity to obtain
documents, interrogatory responses and deposition testimony related to Sinclair’s argument that
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 16 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 17 -
his statements were truthful. One example of such third party discovery would be telephone
records to identify whether calls were made to Sinclair from the two Maine numbers and the
identity of the alleged tipster. Another example would be a subpoena duces tecum and
deposition for the polygraph experts, Gelb and Barland, to confirm that the examination was not
rigged in any way.
56. The secondary defamation claim pertains to Sinclair’s “pornographer” statements.
57. Contrary to the statements in Sinclair’s book, at no time did I produce or create
pornography. All of the adult material on the site was purchased from third parties or
Whitehouse.com linked to adult content from third parties. Whitehouse.com never operated a
studio and never took pictures or made videos of anyone. The employees of Whitehouse.com
Inc. would then add the third party content to the site. I originally started Whitehouse.com in the
1990s as a free speech site so the average person could have a say in how their government
worked. The site did not generate any significant income, however, which led to the business
decision to post adult content on the site. By early 2004, Whitehouse.com decided to no longer
display adult content (Dkt. No. 94 Ex. B at 5), a decision that was fully implemented by about
April 2005.
58. After meeting Sinclair in Los Angeles in February 2008, we discussed the fact
that whitehouse.com ceased to be an adult site in April 2005, which had fulfilled a promise I had
publicly made in 2004.
59. We had offers to purchase the whitehouse.com domain in 2004 including one
from Larry Flynt and others from foreign buyers. We did not want to sell the site to an adult
company. We did not want to sell to a foreign entity either as we did not want the domain to fall
in the hands of an anti-U.S. entity such as Al Queda.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 17 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 18 -
60. During a one-hour interview with defendant Jeffrey Rense on February 26, 2008,
Sinclair talked about whitehouse.com being shut down as an adult site years earlier and my
conversation with Sinclair on that matter. (Ex. 47). This clearly shows Sinclair knew that
whitehouse.com was not an adult site in 2008 as alleged in book.
61. Ex. 34 is a March 9, 2004 letter from the General Services Administration
thanking me for my donation of the domain whitehousekids.com to the government. It was a
domain that I thought the government could use it as part of their White House Kids Initiative.
62. Sinclair’s motion refers to a dispute with Madonna Ciccone. This was a
trademark dispute before the World Intellectual Property Organization and in a declaratory
judgment lawsuit involving the Madonna.com domain name. The case was settled confidentially
in the early 2000s.
63. Plaintiffs were not the only persons that Sinclair accused in 2009 of being bribed.
Sinclair’s blog, dated May 31, 2009, accuses Judge Bates of inappropriate behavior and possible
bribery in connection with rulings that the Court made in a defamation case that Sinclair filed on
March 13, 2008 against four unidentified bloggers for defamation and “reckless
misrepresentation”, in an action captioned Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, et al., Civil Action No. 08-
434-JDB. The case was dismissed on February 10, 2009. (Exs. 25, 35-37).
64. Sinclair’s motion to dismiss contends that the plaintiffs have not been injured or
damaged since publication of the book. Nothing could be further from the truth.
65. After release of the book, I received derogatory comments from third-parties and
even death threats. For example, attached as Ex. 38 is a true and correct copy of an email from
the “Kill Dan Parisi Fan Club.”
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 18 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 19 -
66. The release of Sinclair’s book and the resulting negative publicity has hindered
our ability to obtain any significant revenue from the Whitehouse.com domain.
67. I attended a Domain Name Conference in the fall of 2009, at which I sold several
domains. During the conference, I was asked many questions of about Sinclair's allegations.
Despite my efforts, I was unable to sell the Whitehouse.com domain. I believe that my difficulty
in selling Whitehouse.com is directly related to the allegations in Sinclair's book.
68. We incorporated Whitehouse Network as a New Jersey corporation to own and
operate a video website. Our vision was that Whitehouse Network would provide an internet-
based hybrid of talk radio and cable news shows, focused on politics and issues of public
concern. Not only would the Whitehouse Network produce its own content, but users would be
able to post their own shows. The site was similar to Ustream.tv, which raised $12 million after
the launch of its platform. Ironically, Sinclair had set up a site on Ustream, which was shortly
pulled off the air by management. A true and correct copy of Whitehouse Network’s business
plan is attached as Ex. 1 (with confidential information redacted).
69. I sent copies of the business plan to several venture capitalists I had met over the
years as well as others I thought would be interested in the project. I spoke to several of those
people about the project. I was asked by some of them about the Sinclair allegations as they had
heard about them in the past or they had found out about it when they Googled Whitehouse.com
to get more information on the company. One of the first steps any investor does before deciding
to invest in a venture is to Google the principals, company and website name. In 2009 there were
millions of web links on the term “Whitehouse.com Polygraph Scam.” I was specifically asked
about Sinclair's book by potential investors. None of these persons invested any money in the
Whitehouse Network.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 19 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 20 -
70. Whitehouse Network spent approximately $250,000 setting up the software and
network. We had brought in several people to work on Whitehouse Network and had the beta
site up. There was a television studio set up in Washington, DC. We were in negotiations with a
famous on-air conservative radio personality to host a flagship show for the Network, which
ultimately failed. Several people we spoke to regarding the White House Network asked us about
the Sinclair matter. Due to Sinclair’s book and the allegations in it against me and the website,
we were being forced to pay above market rates for talent. We also were being rebuffed in our
attempts to raise working capital for the venture, which I believe was due, at least in part, to the
Sinclair book and his allegations. We were also concerned that Sinclair and his supporters would
call in to our shows looking to drum up publicity for Sinclair's book and would start trouble. For
this same reason, we did not allow users of the site to leave comments which severely detracted
from the value of the shows. For example, sites such as Huffington Post and Politico allow
people to comment on articles and posts, which we could not do due to fears of Sinclair
supporters using the comments as a vehicle to promote Sinclair’s agenda and the defamatory
statements made against the plaintiffs. We decided to not launch the White House TV Network
citizen platform after Sinclair's book came out.
71. As a result of the allegations in the book, we decided to shut down our business,
Whitehouse.tv and Whitehouse.com TV Networks, in Fall 2009.
72. On February 7, 2011, I read that Huffington Post was sold for $315 million
dollars to AOL. But for Sinclair’s false and derogatory statements in the book, I believe that
White House TV and Network would have been off the ground and launched in 2009. We had
everything in place, a world class domain name, a fully operational website, a working business
model and experienced management and talent. Sinclair’s book, with its defamation and
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 20 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 21 -
disparagement of me and Whitehouse.com, prevented that from happening. Based on the AOL
announcement, it would appear that the $10 million in damages sought in the complaint is
understated.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 21 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing statements are true and accurate.
Dated: February 10,2011 Daniel Parisi
- 22
-
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 22 of 22
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) DANIEL PARISI, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0897-RJL ) LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
DECLARATION OF RICHARD J. OPARIL
I, Richard J. Oparil, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and
correct.
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon to do so, I
could competently testify thereto.
2. I am a member of the Bar of this Court. I am a partner at Patton Boggs LLP and
am one of the attorneys for Daniel Parisi, Whitehouse.com Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC, and
White House Communications Inc. (collectively referred to as “plaintiffs”).
3. I make this declaration in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment filed by defendant Lawrence W. Sinclair. (“Sinclair”).
4. Sinclair has argued that he cannot be held liable for defamation because all of the
defamatory statements at issue are true. However, as reflected in the accompanying declaration
of Daniel Parisi, plaintiffs dispute Sinclair’s allegations about the supposedly rigged polygraph
examination and the plaintiffs contacts and relationships with then-Senator Obama, his
presidential campaign and Axelrod. Sinclair did not come forward with evidence that even
suggests he could have a good faith belief in the truth of the statements made in his book and
elsewhere. Further, his declaration and numerous exhibits did not contain any evidence that he
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 4
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 2 -
actually received the alleged “anonymous tip” on February 25, 2008 or any reason to believe that
the alleged statements made by the “tipster” had any credibility.
5. Plaintiffs have not yet obtained any discovery from any party or non-party to this
case, including Sinclair. Sinclair’s motion is based on broad and conclusory generalities.
Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to obtain discovery from Sinclair and third parties
pertaining to the issues raised by the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Thus,
Sinclair’s motion should be denied or continued pursuant to Rule 56(f).
6. For example, it will be necessary for plaintiffs to seek the production of
documents from Sinclair and telephone records for himself and the alleged “tipster” who called
Sinclair using two different telephone numbers from Maine, communications regarding the
allegations against Parisi and Whitehouse.com and the like. Plaintiffs would also seek to depose
Sinclair and others with whom he had oral or written discussions about the facts at issue,
including his suspended attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley. No privilege should apply because
on a March 10, 2008 Rense radio interview, Sinclair stated that he had reviewed alleged facts
with him and disclosed that Mr. Sibley was said to have opined that he was “satisfied” with
Sinclair’s case and that Sinclair’s claims were valid. (Ex. 48). Such disclosures have waived
any privilege, particularly where Sinclair knew that Sibley had already been suspended from the
practice of law. The Court should deny or continue Sinclair’s motion for summary judgment
pending discovery.
7. In another example, Sinclair alleges that the polygraph examination was rigged.
In discovery, plaintiffs would seek documents and deposition testimony from the primary
examiner, Edward Gelb, the second examiner in Gelb’s office who confirmed the results before
they were released by Whitehouse.com, and Gordon Barland. Because they conducted and
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 4
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 3 -
reviewed Sinclair’s examination, evidence from them that it was not rigged would support
Parisi’s claims.
8. Among other things, Sinclair’s book alleges that, at 12:48 a.m. on February 25,
2008, he received a telephone tip from 207-252-2796 and 207-899-0872, advising me that his
polygraph examination was rigged and was arranged by Parisi and Axelrod and that Axelrod and
the Obama campaign had agreed to pay Parisi of Whitehouse.com, $750,000 to arrange a rigged
polygraph.
9. The 207 area code for the two numbers is in Maine. I conducted electronic
searches to try to identify the owner of the two telephone numbers in February 2008. I did not
find any definitive results for the 207-252-2796 number. However, using a well-recognized
Lexis service, I discovered that in February 2008 the other number (207-899-0872) was
registered to Tammy Byrnes of Maine. (Ex. 33). I have heard reports, but cannot confirm, that
Ms. Byrnes has some kind of family relationship with Sinclair. Plaintiffs will need discovery
from Sinclair and third parties on this question.
10. In addition, Sinclair’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment contends that
Sinclair had the subjective belief that the alleged defamatory statements were in fact true and that
the Court should find Sinclair did not act with actual malice. Once again, plaintiffs have not had
discovery from Sinclair and third parties, including document requests and depositions, to test
Sinclair’s argument. Having had no discovery on Sinclair’s mental state, pursuant to Rule 56(f),
Sinclair’s motion should be denied or continued.
11. Sinclair also asks the Court to dismiss Parisi’s claims against the book’s
publisher, SPI. The parties have already briefed the issue of Sinclair’s inability to act on behalf
of a corporation and Sinclair has represented to the Court that he is unable to retain counsel.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 4
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 4 -
(See, e.g., Dkt. No. 29). However, Sinclair now argues that no cause of action can be asserted
against SPI because it “was solely owned and operated by Sinclair.” (Dkt. No. 94-1 p.26).
However, SPI was incorporated as a Florida corporation with several officers. (Exs. 39-40).
Moreover, Sinclair has made public statements that SPI had numerous shareholders. (See, e.g.,
Ex. 49). Sinclair has recently represented that he intends to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition
as to SPI. (Ex. 41). Delaying issuance of a default judgment would unfairly prejudice plaintiffs.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing statements are true and accurate.
Dated: February 11, 2011 /s/ Richard J. Oparil Richard J. Oparil 5147834
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 4
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) DANIEL PARISI, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:10-cv-0897-RJL ) LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Plaintiffs, Daniel Parisi (“Parisi”), Whitehouse.com Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC
(“WNL”), and White House Communications Inc. (“WCI”) (collectively referred to as
“plaintiffs”), submit this Statement of Disputed Material Facts with their opposition to the
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by defendant Lawrence W. Sinclair
(“Sinclair”).
The following paragraphs in Sinclair’s “Statement of Irrefutable Facts” that are not
material: 2-4, 9, 13, 14, 17, 24, and 27-29.
Plaintiffs dispute the following facts, numbered as they are in Sinclair’s statement, and
provide the bases for disputing the purported facts.
2. Before posting this YouTube video, Sinclair had been verbally asked by The New York Post (“The Post”) if Sinclair would agree to take a polygraph exam. Sinclair told The Post reporter that he would take the test. When Sinclair asked The Post reporter if The Post would pay for the polygraph The Post reporter told him that it is not proper for a news organization to arrange and/or pay for a polygraph.
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 2 -
Basis for Disputing: Assuming arguendo that this statement is material, Sinclair has not come
forward with any evidence supporting this alleged fact. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),
plaintiffs require discovery on this allegation.
3. Shortly after posting the YouTube video, Sinclair was contacted by a Chicago Tribune Washington, D.C. reporter, John Crewdson, and asked if Sinclair would agree to a face-to-face interview. Sinclair agreed to the interview. At the same time, Sinclair was contacted by a New York Times reporter also seeking an interview. Sinclair met John Crewdson, of the Chicago Tribune, in Duluth, Minnesota for five days in late January or early February in 2008.
Basis for Disputing: Assuming arguendo that this statement is material, Sinclair has not come
forward with any evidence supporting this alleged fact. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),
plaintiffs require discovery on this allegation.
5. Beginning [in] the late 1990’s, Plaintiff, Daniel Parisi (“Parisi”) operated the website, WhiteHouse.com, (as well as other websites) as a pornographic website.
Basis for Disputing: Whitehouse.com Inc. operated the site. (Parisi Decl. ¶ 3-5). The site
contained adult material only until April 2005. (Parisi Decl. ¶¶ 57-60).
10. On February 17, 2008, Sinclair received a telephone voicemail message from Mr. Trimarco informing Sinclair that he could not perform a polygraph exam of Sinclair.
Basis for Disputing: Sinclair has not come forward with any evidence supporting this alleged
fact. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), plaintiffs require discovery on this allegation.
12. In an e-mail sent by Parisi to Sinclair on February 18, 2008, two hours and forty-four minutes after publishing the polygraph had been scheduled, Parisi indicated that the Polygraph Challenge had not yet been scheduled and would be administered by “Dr. Ed Gelb” asking Sinclair to pick either Friday or Saturday. See Exhibit K (February 18, 2008 3:44 p.m. Parisi e-mail).
Basis for Disputing: See Parisi Decl. ¶ 14. On February 17, 2008, Sinclair emailed Parisi and
asked him to locate an examiner to conduct the examination. (Ex. 13 at 3). Parisi responded the
next day, telling Sinclair that Edward Gelb (“Gelb”), a certified polygraph examiner and past
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 3 -
President of the American Polygraph Association and well known examiner, could administer
the test in Los Angeles on either Friday or Saturday, February 22 or 23. (Id. at 4). Parisi also
provided Sinclair with Gelb’s website address. Sinclair never objected to the selection of Gelb.
With respect to the place and time, Sinclair wrote back that he would do the examination on
Friday, February 22, and return home to Minnesota on Saturday, February 23. (Id. at 4).
14. From February 16, 2008 through February 21, 2008, Parisi and Sinclair traded numerous e-mails arguing about, inter alia, payment terms for the Challenge and who would be permitted to witness the polygraph exam, and Parisi promise[d] to disclose the verbal results of polygraph at the time they are[sic] given (which is always immediately after the test is completed.) See Exhibits L-S[.]
Basis for Disputing: Assuming arguendo that this statement is material, the emails do not reflect
any understanding that verbal results are “always” given immediately after the examination.
(Ex. 13).
15. . . . . Parisi and Braddock both personally stated to Sinclair, while he was in route to and in Los Angeles on February 21 and 22, 2008, that “they” were still producing and distributing pornography.
Basis for Disputing: Whitehouse.com Inc. operated the site. (Parisi Decl. ¶ 3-5). The site
contained adult material only until April 2005. (Parisi Decl. ¶¶ 57-60).
16. On February 22, 2008, at 11:15 a.m. eastern standard time, Parisi published an article on WhiteHouse.com entitled “Larry Sinclair agrees to reduced payout with $10,000 going to Charity.” In that article, Parisi falsely published “Larry Sinclair wants to change the payout of our Polygraph Challenge and we’ve agreed.” See Exhibit U (Screen shot of WhiteHouse.com’s “Larry Sinclair agrees to reduced payment with $10,000 going to Charity” as it appeared on February 22, 2008).
Basis for Disputing: See Parisi Decl. ¶ 16. On February 20, Sinclair wrote to Parisi that
someone posted on Whitehouse.com that the $100,000/$10,000 challenge constituted bribery.
(Ex. 13 at 9). In response, Parisi offered to try to resolve that concern by offering Sinclair to pay
him $20,000 whether he passed the examination or not, plus a $2,000 donation to charity. (Id.).
Parisi also wrote that: “If you do that way then you get rid of all these bribe accusations. You
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 4 -
will also look very good to the media and public as well.” On February 21, Sinclair counter
offered for a flat payment of $20,000 to him and a donation of $5,000 to the Salvation Army and
the Boys & Girls Club each. (Id. at 9). Whitehouse.com agreed to the new payment amounts.
(Id. at 11).
18. Sinclair was driven to the offices of Edward Ira Gelb (“Gelb”), the self-proclaimed polygraph operator to the stars, by Parisi and Braddock. . . . After the entire process was completed, Gelb, Parisi, and Braddock told Sinclair that the results of the test “would not be known until Monday at the earliest after Gordon Barland reviews the data.” Allegedly, Gordon Barland of Salt Lake City, Utah was supposed to conduct a “Blind Score” of Gelb’s chart before any public disclosure of Gelb’s polygraph results would be made. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs chose to publish the scores of Gelb before Barland ever received the data he was supposed to blind score.
Basis for Disputing: Sinclair has not come forward with any evidence supporting this alleged
fact. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), plaintiffs require discovery on this allegation; see also
Parisi Decl. ¶ 14.
19. On February 22, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. eastern standard time, Parisi published a false and fabricated article on WhiteHouse.com titled “BREAKING NEWS - Larry Sinclair Completed 4 Hour Polygraph Test Today.” See Exhibit U. Parisi’s article began with the statement “Due to security concerns, we had to move the Larry Sinclair Polygraph up a few days,” however, the polygraph was never scheduled with Sinclair for any time other than February 22, 2008. The “BREAKING NEWS” article also stated that “The results [of the polygraph exam] are being confirmed by a second expert and we’ll have conclusive word, along with video of the whole thing, Monday or Tuesday.” See Exhibit U.
Basis for Disputing: Such statements were publicly made by Whitehouse.com at Sinclair’s
request because he was concerned for his safety. See Parisi Decl. ¶ 15. Sinclair’s polygraph
examination results were reviewed by a second examiner in Gelb’s office before
Whitehouse.com published the outcome on its site. Parisi Decl. ¶ 21.
20. . . . . During Sinclair’s flight from Los Angeles back to Minneapolis, while his cell phone was off, Parisi and Braddock had left numerous voicemail messages on that cell phone threatening Sinclair, saying that Parisi and WhiteHouse.com would publish that Sinclair had failed the polygraph and that he was lying if
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 5 -
Sinclair did not give them the name of the limo driver who witnessed Barack Obama with Sinclair in November 1999 and copies of e-mails between Sinclair and attorney, Gloria Allred. During the layover at Minneapolis Airport, Sinclair received a telephone call from Parisi and Braddock in which they again demanded that Sinclair turn over the name and phone number of the limo driver, as well as the e-mails between Sinclair and Allred, or else Plaintiffs would publish on WhiteHouse.com that Sinclair had failed the polygraph Challenge. Sinclair made it clear to both Parisi and Braddock in that call that Sinclair had no intention of providing copies of e-mails between Sinclair and Allred, nor would he provide any information on the limo driver without the permission of the driver.
Basis for Disputing: On Friday, February 22, 2008, Whitehouse.com received a verbal report
that Sinclair’s polygraph test on the key questions indicated deception. On Saturday, February
23, it received the results of Sinclair’s drug test confirming that there were no drugs in his system
that would have interfered with the deception-indicated results. Before releasing the report,
Whitehouse.com had a handwritten report with the polygraph results. Also, Gelb’s results had
been reviewed by a second examiner in his office. Whitehouse.com also received a February 26
report from Gordon Barland (“Garland”), was one of the foremost experts in the world on
polygraphs, who confirmed Gelb’s report that Sinclair’s polygraph indicated deception. Parisi
Decl. ¶¶ 21-23; Exs. 14-16 (reports). There were other indications that Sinclair lied during his
polygraph. See, e.g., Parisi Decl. ¶¶ 26, 28.
Further, Sinclair had agreed to put Whitehouse.com in touch with the alleged limousine
driver who was said to have witnessed Sinclair’s drug and sex allegations. He failed to do so.
Despite telling us that he was in constant contact with the driver, he has never put anyone in
touch with the alleged driver. Parisi Decl. ¶ 27. Parisi wrote Sinclair an email on February 24
noting his failure to give us the information:
We have been waiting 2 days to speak the Limousine driver. You were at the hotel about 4:00 PM on Friday so you had all afternoon and night to reach the limousine driver. I called you last night again on the limousine driver and you still did not give information on driver. You had told me you had a 5 hour layover at the
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 5 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 6 -
airports which would have given you more than ample time to get in touch with him. You told me last night you would have the information to us in the morning. Please contact us immediately with the driver information so we can speak to him. Thanks.
(Ex. 13 at 14). Sinclair responded: “I told you and Rob I would try to put you in contact with
the driver. Last night when I spoke with you I told you I would deal with calling the driver today
. . . .” (Id. at 16). Sinclair never provided Whitehouse.com with any contact information.
Further, Parisi does not recall ever speaking to Sinclair at any time regarding Gloria
Allred. He could not and did not leak any information about Sinclair’s dealings with her, if he in
fact had any. Parisi Decl. ¶ 32.
21. On February 24, 2008, Sinclair returned home to constant harassment, demands and threats by Parisi. Parisi began e-mailing Sinclair on February 24, 2008 claiming that Parisi would publish on WhiteHouse.com an article reporting that Sinclair had failed the polygraph. When Sinclair failed to give in to Parisi’s demands for information, on February 24, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. eastern standard time, Parisi published an article on WhiteHouse.com titled “We will be releasing results of Mr. Sinclair’s 2 polygraph tests done by first expert at Noon today.” See Exhibit V (Screen shot of WhiteHouse.com). This article falsely stated that “[W]e have just received word that the second polygraph experts [sic] results will be done in about an hour,” thereby falsely implying that Sinclair had been examined by multiple polygraph examiners. Upon information and belief, Dr. Gordon Barland had not at that time received the data necessary to conduct a “blind score” and he never personally administered a polygraph exam to Sinclair.
Basis for Disputing: See number 20 above.
22. On February 24, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. eastern standard time, Parisi published on WhiteHouse.com an article titled, “Deception Indicated in Both of Larry Sinclair’s Polygraph Tests by First Polygraph Expert,” see Exhibit W (Screen shot of WhiteHouse.com), again falsely suggesting that Sinclair has [sic] been examined by someone other than Gelb.
Basis for Disputing: Prior to making that public report, Sinclair’s polygraph results had been
reviewed by a second examiner in Gelb’s office, who confirmed the report of deception. Parisi
Decl. ¶ 21.
23. On February 25, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. eastern standard time, Sinclair received a phone call from an anonymous man who informed Sinclair that the polygraph
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 6 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 7 -
exam arranged by Parisi of WhiteHouse.com was a set-up; that Parisi had been paid by the Obama campaign and/or David Axelrod to rig the polygraph; that Parisi would be placing a stop payment on the check Parisi had issued to Sinclair, and that Parisi had been paid to arrange the polygraph. Sinclair emailed Parisi at 1:46 a.m. central time on February 25, 2008 concerning this information that Sinclair had been given in the 12:48 a.m. central standard time phone call. Instead of responding, Parisi published on WhiteHouse.com on February 25, 2008, at 4:15 p.m. eastern standard time “WhiteHouse.com Releases Larry Sinclair Official Polygraph Results by Dr. Gelb.” See Exhibit W (Screen shot of WhiteHouse.com).
Basis for Disputing: Plaintiffs emphatically deny the allegations of a relationship with Barack
Obama, his campaign, David Axelrod or anyone associated with him pertaining in any way to
Sinclair. They were not asked or hired to rig a polygraph examination of Sinclair. They have
never had any meeting, conversation or other communication, written or oral, with Obama, his
campaign, Axelrod or anyone associated with him. Neither Parisi nor Whitehouse.com have
never been paid any money by Obama, his campaign, Axelrod or anyone associated with him.
The allegations in Sinclair’s book pertaining to plaintiffs’ involvement with the polygraph to
benefit Obama and his campaign are unequivocally false. Whitehouse.com hired independent
experts who provided it with results of the examination. Parisi Decl. ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs also require discovery from the polygraph examiners to show that they did not
conduct a rigged examination.
With respect to the alleged telephone calls, Sinclair has not come forward with any
evidence supporting this alleged fact. Plaintiffs have not had discovery from Sinclair or any third
party. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), plaintiffs require discovery on this allegation. While
Sinclair asserts that there was one call, his book states that it came from two different telephone
numbers from the 207 area code, which is Maine. Plaintiffs have determined that one of the
numbers (207-899-0872) was registered in February 2008 to Tammy Byrnes, who may have a
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 7 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 8 -
family relationship with Sinclair. (Parisi Decl. ¶ 52, Oparil Decl.; Ex. 33). A call from a family
relation would certainly negate any belief that such a tip was credible.
29. In early 2009, based on his own personal experiences, Sinclair wrote and published his book “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?” (“the Book” or “Sinclair’s Book”). Sinclair’s Book is a first person account of Sinclair’s personal life, the events which took place between Sinclair and then-Senator Obama, and what transpired after Sinclair made his allegations about then Senator Obama public.
Basis for Disputing: Sinclair’s underlying story about his alleged November 1999 contact with
Obama is not at issue here and immaterial. The accompanying declaration of Parisi and the
exhibits filed by plaintiffs show that Sinclair’s allegations in the book regarding the “rigged”
polygraph examination are absolutely untrue. Further, Sinclair has not come forward with any
evidence suggesting otherwise. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), plaintiffs require discovery on
this allegation.
Dated: February 11, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard J. Oparil Richard J. Oparil (D.C. Bar No. 409723) PATTON BOGGS LLP 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 457-6000 (202) 457-6315 (fax) Kevin M. Bell PATTON BOGGS LLP 8484 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102 (703) 744-8000 (703) 744-8001 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 8 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et
- 9 - 5148685
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 11, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel
for the parties that have appeared in the case by the Court’s ECF system.
s/ Richard J. Oparil Richard J. Oparil (DC Bar No. 409723)
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 9 of 9
The
Reg
ulat
or.n
et