web analytics

When Is Enough, Enough?

June 6, 2012
By
NOTE: This article is written based on clearly available information which is PUBLIC RECORD as filed by Daniel Parisi by and through his Counsel Richard J. Oparil of Washinggton DC’s Patton Boggs LLP. In addition some OPINION’s have been expressed as to the actions of Parisi and his Counsel which are protected by the United States Constitutions First Amendment. 

We have tried to sit back and allow the Plaintiff’s in Parisi et al v Sinclair et al make fools of themselves without commenting too much, but there comes a time when enough BS is enough, and you have to call it what it is. We are going to do just that.

On February 28, 2012 the Honorable Judge Richard J. Leon granted Sinclair’s Motion to Dismiss the claims brought by Daniel Parisi and in his decision ruled that the Book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder? Was not defamatory as alleged by Parisi and his host of Whitehouse.com named businesses. Though Sinclair did not move to certify Judge Leon’s dismissal as a Final Judgment, Parisi did file on March 13, 2012 a Motion to Reconsider and in said Motion noted that though the Feb 28, 2012 ruling had not been formally entered as a Final Judgment, Parisi was going to consider it as such for the purposes of his March 13, 2012 Motion to Alter etc…

Sinclair then moved for an extension of time for which to file a response to Parisi’ 3-13-2012 Motion which was granted to April 2, 2012. On March 29, 2012 Daniel Parisi by and through his counsel Richard J. Oparil contacted Sinclair via email proposing a settlement as is clearly stated in the Stipulation and Voluntary Dismissal filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on March 30, 2012. While we will not discuss the contents of the “purported settlement” as is noted in the Stipulation and Voluntary Dismissal, we are simply noting what is part of the PUBLIC RECORD. The dismissal was filed before any response to Parisi’ March 13, 2012 Motion whereby making said Motion a moot issue, yet Parisi in his Appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of Amazon.com in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided to file the March 13, 2012 Moot Motion with the Appeals Court in the Appendix. The filing of the Motion was clearly inadmissible as it had nothing to do with the District Court’s ruling as to Amazon and was included for the very specific purpose of doing what Mr. Parisi (in our Opinion)has been doing from the beginning; using the United States Courts to defame and slander Sinclair.

Today June 5, 2012 Mr. Parisi filed his Reply Brief to the Amazon.com Brief which was filed on May 17, 2012.

United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 06/05/2012 at 9:45:46 AM EDT and filed on 06/05/2012

Case Name: Daniel Parisi, et al v. Lawrence Sinclair, et al

Case Number:   11-7077

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1377061] filed by Daniel Parisi, White House Communications Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC and Whitehouse.com Inc. [Service Date: 06/05/2012 ] Length of Brief: 6780 words. [11-7077] (Oparil, Richard)

As has become a standard practice of Mr. Parisi he has yet again filed items with the Court which were not ever a part of the Lower Courts case leading up to its ruling, nor is it admissible, and lastly it again contains outright falsehoods. The fact that Mr. Parisi continues to allow his counsel to engage in these practices demonstrates his intent to use the Court’s to attack Mr. Sinclair after dismissing his claims against him because it prevents Sinclair from being able to challenge him. Or so it appears they think anyway.

Unlike Mr. Parisi as is clearly demonstrated by the multiple differing Sworn Declaration in the PUBLIC RECORD of the US District Court and the US Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Parisi and his Attorney Richard J. Oparil; Sinclair throughout the Court case has not filed any sworn declarations claiming one thing only to have to file another one claiming something different. Parisi and Oparil on the other hand have filed at least three (3) separate Sworn Declarations under penalty of Perjury swearing Parisi was a resident in at least three (3) different area’s in order to attempt to have a more favorable law apply to a case they had already failed on. Unlike Parisi, Sinclair did not have to file multiple sworn declarations as is clearly demonstrated in the Courts PUBLIC RECORD, swearing under penalty of perjury that Tammy Byrnes was a relative of Sinclair’s, only to have to file six (6) months later a Sworn declaration claiming Byrnes was not only NOT a relative of Sinclair’s but that as Sinclair swore to six (6) months earlier, Byrnes not only did not know Sinclair, but she had never spoken to him, which is exactly what Sinclair had always said. But Parisi goes one step further. Parisi pays a Private Investigator to sign a sworn declaration stating Byrnes told him one thing, while filing a sworn declaration by Byrnes herself saying something different. Only Parisi failed to note the Private Investigator had already been sanctioned by the State for perjuring himself on an application for licensing in the State of Maine. But that still wasn’t enough. After having the declarations stricken from the record, Parisi on March 13, 2012 files yet Two (2) more sworn declarations from Byrnes signed in October 2011 and December 2011 contradicting what was sworn to on the previous four filed sworn declarations. Again, all is PUBLIC RECORD.

Today, June 5, 2012 after failing in the US District Court to refute solid verification supporting Sinclair’s claims about receiving phone calls; about former Chicago Tribune Reporter John Crewdson confirming he had personally spoke with the individual who called Sinclair; and the individual confirmed for Crewdson the same information provided Sinclair; Parisi files a March 28, 2012 statement from Maryland Private Investigator Karl Milligan attempting to represent that Mr. Crewdson now is claiming different.

United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 06/05/2012 at 9:42:10 AM EDT and filed on 06/05/2012

Case Name: Daniel Parisi, et al v. Lawrence Sinclair, et al

Case Number:   11-7077

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: MOTION filed [1377060] by Daniel Parisi, White House Communications Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC and Whitehouse.com Inc. for judicial notice. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 06/18/2012) [Service Date: 06/05/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 11-15. [11-7077] (Oparil, Richard)

The statement from Mr. Milligan by Court Rules is hearsay and inadmissible but Parisi and counsel know that. See its file it electronically, get in the Court record and worry about the Court throwing it out later. Funny thing is, when you consider that Parisi filed multiple filings with the Court attempting to paint Crewdson as being uncredible and making statements about how he was fired by the Chicago Tribune in 2008, its almost laughable that he now wants to file a hearsay statement from a private investigator rather than an affidavit from Mr. Crewdson himself, and then only point out what Sinclair has already made clear in his book no less; which is no different from what Sinclair has stated all along throughout Parisi’ continued abuse of the Courts for the mere purpose of defaming Sinclair (in our opinion!): that Crewdson stated he would not write a story until he had been able to speak with the Limo driver. The Declaration of Mr. Milligan however states

Mr. CREWDSON was asked some additional, basic questions but stated that he did not recall much about LARRY SINCLAIR. Mr. CREWDSON stated that he never ‘did anything with it’ referring to information provided by LARRY SINCLAIR, and SINCLAIR’s story.

Oh, but the investigator had to make the standard reference that has become a trademark of Parisi’ litigation against Sinclair and other defendants by claiming

“Mr. Crewdson eventually acknowledged knowing LARRY SINCLAIR by describing him as “oh that nut job.””

You can see the Declaration of Mr. Milligan HERE

Despite Parisi’ continued efforts to defame and attack Mr. Sinclair using the Courts under the cover of claiming Sinclair somehow defamed Mr. Parisi for telling a truthful accounting of his story in his 2009 book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? The result remains the same, Sinclair’s story remains unchanged, while Parisi’ changes based on every filing he makes with the Courts. First Parisi by and through his counsel paints Mr. Crewdson as some unreliable fired reporter and now he tries to imply with a hearsay declaration from a paid private investigator that Mr. Crewdson is now changing what he communicated to Sinclair via email in 2008 would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that Parisi has abused the Courts and the Courts integrity to wage this ridiculous farce.

While we do not have any knowledge which would allow us to state as a matter of fact, we do hold the OPINION and BELIEF that the April 4, 2012 letter sent to Amazon.com with the March 28, 2012 Declaration of Karl Milligan attached was done so in an effort by Parisi to attempt to scare Amazon.com into settling with Parisi. We are entitled to our Opinion’s and Belief’s and that’s ours as it relates to Parisi’ efforts to use this ridiculous hearsay declaration from yet another paid Private investigator.

So with that said, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, IS ENOUGH already, as despite Mr. Parisi’ strategic move to remove Mr. Sinclair from the case so he can continue to make completely baseless and distorted representations to the Court, as of 7:29:26 PM EDT Mr. Sinclair has filed a MOTION Pursuant to FAR Rule 29(b) For Leave to File An Amicus Brief, with the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals

for District of Columbia Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 06/05/2012 at 7:29:26 PM EDT and filed on 06/05/2012

Case Name: Daniel Parisi, et al v. Lawrence Sinclair, et al

Case Number:   11-7077

Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text: MOTION filed [1377292] by Lawrence W. Sinclair for leave to intervene [Disclosure Listing: Not Applicable to this Party] [Service Date: 06/05/2012 ] [11-7077] (Sinclair, Lawrence)

First Amendment Case The Media Should Be Covering

Parisi v Sinclair Still Active As To Defendant Amazon.com: Why?

Parisi V Sinclair Now Dismissed As To Lawrence W. Sinclair & SPI.

Daniel Parisi Files Motion Confirming Sinclair TRUTHFUL About Feb 2008 Phone Calls

 

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

Leave a Reply

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

SHARE THIS