web analytics

Court Strikes Parisi' Notice of Supplemental Evidence [Dkt 135]

August 17, 2011
By

After being contacted by email by Parisi counsel Richard Oparil claiming that Parisi is the rightful owner of the copyright to video made by Edward Gelb (who in our opinion did so in violation of California Law)

Sent Wednesday August 17, 2011 @ 9:31 AM

Mr. Oparil:

After yet more careful review of your claim that the “Polygraph Release” served as “authorizing” Gelb to videotape my 2-22-2008 polygraph I would respectfully inform you that your video exhibit shows clearly that the videotaping had begun prior to my signing the aforementioned “release.”

I would further point out to you that California Law requires both parties to consent to recording “before” any such recording is made. Considering that Mr. Gelb started videotaping the polygraph prior to any release being signed raises so legal questions for Mr. Gelb in addition to those for his faxing you documents pertaining to me on August 13, 2011 without obtaining my permission to do so. He has been notified in writing any further release of information without my express written consent will be addressed according to California Law.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

I await your response as to who you claim owns the copyright to said video considering your claim to the court that your client had no knowledge of said video until “last week.”

 the Court has entered Minute ORDER striking Parisi’ Notice of Supplemental Evidence

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 8/17/2011 at 3:43 PM and filed on 8/17/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: No document attached
   

Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot [137] Defendant Sinclair’s Motion for Leave to File Response/Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Facts Relating to Sinclair’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. The Court strikes Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Facts Relating to Sinclair’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [135]. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave is found moot.Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/17/2011. (lcrjl3)

 

Today Parisi counsel Richard Oparil emailed Larry claiming that Dan Parisi is the rightful owner of the video Gelb made without consent from Larry and without Larry’s knowledge. Mr. Oparil fails to take notice that the Gelb video was already recording before Larry had even been given the “Polygraph Release” and as such Gelb engaged in illegal videotaping of Larry in direct violation of California Law. Oparil states Parisi paid for the video which if that is in fact true, then Gelb violated even more laws in selling it. Larry makes it clear that Parisi paid for the right to videotape he and his associate Robert Braddock  recorded with their own equipment. See Larry’s email to Oparil and Oparil’s reply email below:

Mr. Oparil: 

In response to your claim in the attached letter, would you be so kind as to state who you feel owns the “copyright” to the video you filed as an exhibit [Dkt 135-3] on August 8, 2011?

In addition I would ask you to point out where in the Declaration of Robert Braddock you say denies my claims of being lied to about the polygraph results by Mr. Braddock, Edward Gelb and your client when asked on February 22, 2008? I simply cannot seem to find any mention of that little fact in the Braddock declaration.

I might also add sir that according to the authorization form signed permitting Gelb to conduct the polygraph does not say I gave him permission to record it nor does it say that Gelb informed me he was recording, it simply says it “may” be  “tape” recorded, no where does it say it may be videotape recorded! It also says “for the mutual benefit of myself …”  In addition you might note that the “Polygraph Release” form is not complete as required by California Law. Note the following which Gelb failed to have completed Certification of the conclusion.

Respectfully,

In Oparil’s reply he simply does not what he is talking about. Parisi’s explanation for releasing the results “early” has nothing to do with the fact that Dan Parisi, Robert Braddock and Edward Gelb LIED to Larry’s face on February 22, 2008 when Larry asked what the results showed and all three said “we won’t know what the results are until Monday at the earliest.” Larry advised Oparil to turn to page 92 in the copy of Larry’s book that he takes into court with him and begin reading from the first full paragraph. Robert Braddock’s “declaration” was not even close to being made before Larry wrote that Parisi, Braddock & Gelb LIED about the polygraph results. In fact the Braddock Declaration contradicts Richard Oparil and Dan Parisi declarations filed in this case. It also seems that Mr. Braddocks “declaration”has a problem with the dates of his employment among other things neither he nor Dan Parisi bothered to make known.  The video made without authorization by Edward Gelb supports Larry’s claims and shows Parisi & Braddock to be liars. Oparil’s email reply:

Wed 8/17/2011 1:56 PM

Not you.  While the video filed with the court was not in plaintiffs’ possession, custody or control until that week, Whitehouse.com paid for it as part of the examination, and has the rights to it.  Your February 21, 2008 email to Mr. Parisi agrees that he has “all exclusive rights” to any videotape.  Certainly, you have no right to publish and mark the video with your own “Sinclair Publishing” logo.

Contrary to your assertion, plaintiffs did not tell the court that they “had no knowledge of said video until ‘last week.’”  Plaintiffs’ opposition to your motion for leave did not claim to lack knowledge of any Gelb videotape.  Instead, they clearly wrote that: “these DVDs were in the hands of a third-party, Edward Gelb. Gelb found them in storage and sent them to plaintiffs last week. Our understanding is that the DVDs of Sinclair’s interview and examination by Gelb are continuous and unedited. Therefore, contrary to Sinclair’s assertion, plaintiffs did not have the DVDs in their possession, custody or control until last week and they could not have been submitted with their opposition to the dispositive motion. As such, they are properly treated as supplemental evidence.”  Dkt. No. 138. 

You do not deny signing the release, which clearly states that the interview and examination may be tape (without specifying audio or video) recorded.  You were aware of video recording and did not object.  Further, I believe that you have long had possession of Dr. Gordon Barland’s February 26, 2008 report, which specifically references his review of the Gelb videotape.  In any event, you had agreed to videotaping before signing Gelb’s release form. 

The Braddock declaration speaks for itself.  Mr. Braddock denies under oath the polygraph was rigged.  His declaration was signed before your specific allegations were made, as you can see from the date on it.  Mr. Parisi’s declaration filed in opposition to your motion to dismiss explains why the examination results were released early — public assertions that you had “passed” the polygraph, when in fact the examination showed deception.   

Richard J. Oparil

and then Larry replied to Mr. Oparil with the following sent Wed 8/17/2011 3:20 PM:

Mr. Oparil: 

You again amaze me with your logic. My agreement with Dan Parisi your client was that HE had exclusive right to the videotape he and Mr. Braddock recorded with his camera’s which I assisted him in taking into and out of Mr. Gelb’s office. I have not, contrary to your claim, taken any video and put it under my “logo.” The SP logo is embedded into the video player not the video itself. 

I will respectfully disagree with your position that your client owns the copyright to this video, your client is clear that he was given exclusive rights to all video that he recorded with his equipment! 

I was aware of your client videotaping the polygraph, at no time was I ever informed by Edward Gelb that he was videotaping the event, nor did Edward Gelb inform me he was videotaping the event and had in fact began videotaping before the Polygraph Release was even signed (which Gelb’s video clearly demonstrates on its own).

Mr. Oparil, what is written in my book as to the lies by your client, Robert Braddock and Edward Gelb relating to the polygraph results are shown by the video tape you filed as “evidence” to be truthful and to be exactly what Braddock told Gelb in your video they had planned all along on telling me. You have to be a complete idiot to try and say your client, Robert Braddock and Edward Gelb did not lie to me about the results of the polygraph. You also have to be a complete idiot to try and claim that Gelb’s video was that which was provided to Gordon Barland, or to claim that a Gelb associate conducted a “Blind Score Analysis” when Gordon Barland was hired to perform that function.

 None of this video you are fighting over, which you claimed was Gelb’s, was made with any of Parisi equipment and in fact had begun recording before any release was signed or offered for signing. Your client does not own the copyright to this video and considering the California Laws that Edward Gelb violated in making it even Gelb would have troubling claiming ownership of it.

 Mr. Oparil, that copy of my book that you carry into court with you, open it to page 92 and begin reading from the start of the first full paragraph where it starts “It became perfectly clear…..” I wrote that passage more than 3 years ago without having ever set eye’s on this video. How is it that I wrote exactly what Robert Braddock told Gelb they (Braddock & Parisi) planned to do, more than 3 years before ever seeing this video? I will tell you how, because that’s what your client said and it was an outright lie and your video exhibit proves that.

 Thank you sir for your response to my request. I will save this email exchange with all the others. Again I respectfully disagree with your position that your client somehow owns the right to videotaped polygraph that Edward Gelb videotaped in violation of California Law and without my consent to do so, as well as his failure to acknowledge that he was doing so.

Respectfully,

Mr. Oparil claimed in the emailed letter yesterday that the Declaration of Robert Braddock made Larry’s claim that Braddock, Gelb & Parisi lied to Larry about the results of the polygraph untrue. Only the Braddock declaration makes no mention whatsoever of the matter (nor can it considering that video released more than 3 years after Larry wrote that statement shows Braddock tell Edward Gelb of his & Parisi plan to lie about the results!)

So which is the truthful one, Braddock’s Declaration or his LinkedIn profile???

Rob Braddock Jr.
Principal at Progressive Capital Strategies
Location Hartford, Connecticut Area
Industry Fund-Raising

Overview Current

  • Principal at Progressive Capital Strategies
  • Executive Board Member / Director of Fundraising at The Open Source Democracy Foundation
Past
  • Senior Associate at L.A. Harris & Associates
  • Finance Director at Mary Norwood for Mayor
  • Finance Director at Harry Taylor for Congress
  • Director of Business Development at WhiteHouse.com
  • Director of Sales and Business Development at House.com
  • Corporal at United States Marine Corps
Education Full Sail University
Recommendations 14 people have recommended Rob
Connections 500+ connections
Websites Company Website
Public Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/robbraddockjr
 Summary  Democratic Political Fundraising Consultant.
Specialties I am an amateur cigar smoker and a professional political fundraiser

Its always best to fight with the truth as opposed to making things up to try and fit your need at the time, which in our opinion is exactly what Dan Parisi and his counsel Richard Oparil have done from the filing of the original complaint.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to Court Strikes Parisi' Notice of Supplemental Evidence [Dkt 135]

  1. August 17, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Mr. Oparil, contrary to your claim that Gordon Barland viewed video made by Gelb, according to Edward gelb, your client and Mr. Braddock (the Democratic Political Fundraiser) Mr. Barland was supposedly provided copies of video recorded by Dan parisi. Either way, your client has no legal copyright claim on the video recorded by Gelb.

  2. August 17, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Mr. Oparil, contrary to your claim that Gordon Barland viewed video made by Gelb, according to Edward gelb, your client and Mr. Braddock (the Democratic Political Fundraiser) Mr. Barland was supposedly provided copies of video recorded by Dan parisi. Either way, your client has no legal copyright claim on the video recorded by Gelb.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SHARE THIS