Sinclair Responds To Appellant Parisi’ Opposition

Updated June 25, 2012 @ 1:43 PM ET

The Sinclair Reply to Appellants Parisi Opposition to Motion for Leave To File Amicus Brief has been input into the Courts PACER system by the Clerk of The Court on June 21, 2012.

In addition Appelees has also filed an Opposition to Appellants Motion for Judicial Notice  on June 18, 2012.

United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 06/25/2012 at 11:15:18 AM EDT and filed on 06/21/2012

Case   Name: Daniel   Parisi, et al v., Inc., et al
Case   Number:   11-7077
Document(s): Document(s)


Docket Text:
REPLY FILED [1380512] by Lawrence W Sinclair to opposition to motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief [1377437-2] [Service Date: 06/18/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-7077]

As was reported earlier Larry Sinclair filed a Motion with The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit for Leave To File Amicus Brief. Appellants Paris filed an Opposition to Sinclair’s Motion and took steps which resulted in the Clerk of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to revoke Sinclair’s Electronic Case Filing of ECF privileges.

Sinclair has notified the Clerks office who has noted the case docket that a Reply to Appellants Opposition is forth Coming by way of US Mail. In addition Sinclair sent to Appellants Parisi et al via Appellants Counsel Richard J. Oparil of Patton Boggs LLP a request to cease any further engagment in what we believe can be considered Web/Internet Stalking.

The Emails are below:

You may see Appellant Parisi’ Opposition To Motion For Leave To File Amicus Brief by clicking HERE.

As of June 18, 2012 Sinclair has deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid his Reply to Appellants Opposition to Motion for Leave To File Amicua Brief. It is Sinclair’s position that he is entitled to defend himself from the deliberate personal attacks Appellants Parisi and Appellants Counsel have chosen to use the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit as their forum.

It should be noted that our OPINION as to the actions and intention behind the actions of Appellants Parisi and  Appellants Counsel are protected and are just that, our OPINIONs. For anyone to claim they have been injured to the extent that they are unable to interact with their wife or children while themselves continuing to engaged in behavior which borders on web stalking is ludicrists to say the least.

It should also be noted that it is our OPINION that Appellants are engaged in what we term ‘Blackmail by Litigation.’

Appellants in their Reply Brief has demonstrated another example of Appellants dishonesty. Appellants filed an Exhibit with a Motion Judicial Notice inwhich Appellants note Appellant Parisi’ address on the exhibit. See HERE

The above exhibit shows Appellants were 1.) dishonest it their representations to the United States Court of Appeals when they claimed said product was purchased from It is clearly stated on the above exhibit that Appellant Parisi ordered the product from “ROBERT37081” but Appellants chose to ignore that little fact fact.

2.) In addition, the above image which is from Appellants own exhibit shows Appellant Parisi in our OPINION lied in Feb 2008 to the Hilton Checkers Hotel in Los Angeles when he gave the Hotel his address. In fact that address on the Hotel Receipt while contains the correct number and street name, the City name and zip codes are however not correct. It is OUR OPINION that the incorrect City and zip code was knowingly provided to the Hotel by Appellant Parisi with full knowledge and intent to provide incorrect information. See Hilton Checkers Hotel Receipt HERE  Bottom line, in our OPINION, you don’t give a misspelling of the City you live in nor do you give a completely different zip-code unless you intended to mislead the Hotel from the start.

It is perfectly clear that Appellants have no intent to comply with a Non-Disparagement clause they signed. It should therefore be made perfectly clear that Appellants will be called out and taken to task when Appellants engage in any behavior that IN OUR OPINION serves to attack, harass, intimidate or statements which in OUR OPINION are false and made by Appellants in OUR OPINION with full knowledge that they are fasle.

You can read Sinclair’s Response HERE

We also encourage readers to stay tuned to SinclairNews.Net as we move forward with a series of reports which will expose those who have engaged in the acts of hacking; identity fraud by representing themselves as being Sinclair; internet stalking; internet threats; internet intimidation and who have associated themselves and their actions with Appellants and according to their own claims, Appellants Counsel.

One of those is:

Host Name:

Browser: Firefox 3.6

IP Address: — EyesOpen

Operating System: MacOSX

Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States

Resolution: 1440×900

Returning Visits: 18

Javascript: Enabled

Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day

ISP: Verizon Internet Services

Then you have those who have tried to appear as if they reside in France who have come out of the wood work since the Parisi case failed to do what they had hoped it would do.

Host Name:

Browser: Unknown

IP Address: — Mitch and Nan aka Covington Bryant

Operating System: Unknown

Location: Paris, Ile-de-france, France

Resolution: Unknown


Visit Length: 11 hours 39 mins 29 secs

ISP: Dedibox Sas


Despite Appellant Parisi claiming he resides in the State of PA (this after filing multiple sowrn declarations claiming to be a resident of NJ and District of Columbia) we have reason to believe Parisi resides in Montville, NJ:

Host Name:

Browser/OS: IE 9.0/Win7

IP Address: — Daniel Parisi

Mobile Device: Apple iPad

Location: Montville, New Jersey, United States

Resolution: 1366×768

Returning Visits:

Javascript: Enabled

Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day

ISP:Optimum Online





Leave a Reply

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