.

net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0897-RJL

gulator
)
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
TheRe

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

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com

 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 22

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

gulator
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-
TheRe

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.

-2-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

-3-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 22

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.

gulator
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.
TheRe

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

-4-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 5 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

-5-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 6 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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

-6-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 7 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

. . . .” (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.

-7-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 8 of 22

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,

gulator
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
TheRe

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

-8-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 9 of 22

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

gulator
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.
TheRe

(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

-9-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 10 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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).

- 10 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 11 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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

- 11 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 12 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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).

- 12 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 13 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

- 13 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 14 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

- 14 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 15 of 22

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

gulator
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.”
TheRe

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.

- 15 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 16 of 22

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.

gulator
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
TheRe

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

- 16 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 17 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

- 17 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 18 of 22

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.

gulator
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
TheRe

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.”

- 18 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 19 of 22

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.

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

- 19 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 20 of 22

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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

- 20 -
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 21 of 22

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.

gulator
TheRe

- 21 -
 Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-1 Filed 02/11/11 Page 22 of 22

.net
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

gulator
TheRe

- 22­

 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0897-RJL

gulator
)
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”).

TheRe

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
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 4

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.

gulator
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
TheRe

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

-2-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 4

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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.

-3-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-2 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 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.,

gulator
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
TheRe

-4-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)

gulator
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
TheRe

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.
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 2 of 9

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

gulator
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.
TheRe

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

-2-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 3 of 9

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

gulator
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).
TheRe

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

-3-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 4 of 9

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).

gulator
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
TheRe

“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

-4-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 5 of 9

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

gulator
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.

TheRe

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

-5-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 6 of 9

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

gulator
. . . .” (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.
TheRe

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

-6-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 7 of 9

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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

-7-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 8 of 9

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

gulator
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
TheRe

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

-8-
 .net
Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 98-45 Filed 02/11/11 Page 9 of 9

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.

gulator
s/ Richard J. Oparil
Richard J. Oparil (DC Bar No. 409723)

TheRe

-9-
5148685