vector art

The Continuing Saga of a Man who Stretched his 15 Minutes of Fame into 4 months.



Larry Sinclair, the one-man, lawsuit-filing, banana-nut-bread-baking, Obama-accusing, money-begging, blog-spawning, running-from-the-law intimidation machine has had his initial lawsuit (against Barack Obama for intimidation and other Legal Larryisms) dismissed by the courts.

When this FACT (which was linked to the original court documents) was recently reported by DBKP's LBG, we were told (by a loyal Larry Legion enlistee) that our "information was obsolete". Larry himself characterized our reporting as "misinformation". Another Larrysuit was cited--there are several, including one against three anonymous posters who disagreed with Larry's World outlook--as "proof" that Sinclair's struggles against the Man continues.

We're not sure how a lawsuit which names "TubeSockTedD", "mzmolly" and "OWNINGLIARS" as the offending parties affects Larry's Incredible Shrinking Credibility.



Larry Legal Lollapalooza continues. It's the perfect cure for people who feel that their own lives lack drama.

As a scandal, the Obama-Sinclair story is fast sinking into the sunset; it's sadly turned into something altogether different than the story we started covering in the beginning.

Originally, Larry brought forth accusations that he and Barack Obama were the members of an exclusive sex-and-drugs party in the back of Larry's limo in 1999 in Gurnee, IL. DBKP has dutifully reported on the accusations, Sinclair's subsequent flunking of a polygraph, and the many twists and turns in the story of a man who declares he is "interested in revealing the truth about Barack Obama". Say what you will, Sinclair's a public-minded individual, according to Larry.

Initially, we gave Sinclair and his claims a fair hearing. But, when someone brings serious accusations against a presidential candidate--and we can muster little enthusiasm for any of Obama's stands on the issues--the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Sinclair, 4 months and counting after since the release of his YouTube video detailing his initial accusations, has come up empty in the Proof Department.

ALSO at DBKP: Larry Sinclair: Library of DBKP Stories on Obama Accuser

When readers of his accusations--they have grown to include other persons and issues--raise any point concerning the little matter of evidence, they are put into the Larry-O-Matic Response-A-Tator.

1- They're called a name; "Bitch" is popular.
2- They're labeled as an Agent of Obama by Larry or his minions, who lurk beneath the surface of the blog and contribute to the cause; either monetarily or by hounding non-believers.
3- They're threatened. Verbal abuse is the appetizer, then Chef Larry hints at darker legal fates. Now, Sinclair employs a trusty host of Mini-Larries to attack the skeptical. But ocassionally, he will tear himself away from the oven and launch his own verbal salvos.
4- The subject is changed. Can't produce proof about Obama? In LarryWorld, it's an acceptable substitute to offer observations about the inquirer's mother--or about something, anything, different. As long as it's not about the uncomfortable topic raised by the reader, then it works.







Like Forrest Gump, Larry seems to have been present at pivotal moments in history. First, it was his chance encounter with a then-state senator Obama. Then, gay choir master--now murdered--at Obama's Trinity Church, Donald Young, had an itch that could only be scratched by calling--Voila!--Larry Sinclair.

We're still reluctantly holding to the premise that "Even a nutbag can have unbelievable experiences." A look back at early DBKP Larry Sinclair stories will validate our claim of even-handedness when Larry first came forward. We were interested in whether he had a story and getting it out.

After monitoring the situation for four months, it's hard not to conclude that the only story here remains the story of how Larry can grow his PayPal account. The latest is an on-line raffle, the legality of which has been chronicled elsewhere, most notably on the Mitch and Nan Show blog.

But the story of Larry Sinclair will continue.

It just will have little to do about Barack Obama and much to do about Larry Sinclair.

And that's just the way Larry would like it.

If you don't agree with Barack Obama--and his stands on the issues are pure, sweet 100% liberal pap--then there are more valuable ways to oppose him than following the exploits of a gay Minnesota man, wanted by several states, who may or may not be terminally ill, begging people on his blog for money. Time spent for Larry is less time to better acquaint readers with the Man of Audacity, Barack Obama.

Reading Larry's blogs--and the comments of the adoring Larrybots--reminds one of a surreal Jerry Lewis Telethon, where the only handicap they're raising money for is a lack of propriety. Like our earlier post today concerning Ted Kennedy, we don't have to agree with Larry to wish him well and hope that life evens out for him.

The inky, squid-like substance that Larry keeps using as a substitute for any proof of his original accusations has also obscured, up until now, any reason to keep following the story of Larry Sinclair.

Other than for the pure love of a on-going, Jerry Springer-like saga.

by Mondoreb
images/Sources:
* visolve




DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

Clinton's largest donor becomes largest, latest Plaintiff
She says frivolous, he says felonies...

A key case against Bill and Hillary Clinton has been winding its way through the California courts. A businessman, Peter Franklin Paul, has learned the hard way the price some pay to play in "Clinton's World."

California's Supreme Court has been asked to hear a claim Sen. Hillary Clinton wrongly invoked First Amendment protections to remove herself as a defendant from a multi-million-dollar lawsuit in which she and her husband are accused of defrauding the largest donor to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul – who claims former President Bill Clinton destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million agreement – is petitioning the state high court to rehear a recent appeals court ruling upholding a decision to remove the New York Democrat from the case.

The California Supremes upheld a lower-court decision to deny the Clinton's motion to dismiss the case. The well known pattern of the Clinton's strategy in dealing with these types of cases, dragging the lawsuits through the courts, the claimants through the mud, years of litigation, claims of "vast Republican conspiracies." Hillary claimed she should be dismissed as a defendant because she is a "public figure" who by law is immune from "frivolous" lawsuits.

In this case the cry of Republican shenanigans does not apply. Paul was the largest donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.

The lawsuit claims that the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination had knowledge of her husband's intent to defraud Paul and that she committed felonies by soliciting illegal campaign funds from him.

Bill and Hill allegedly intentionally defrauded Paul, not only a Democrat but Hillary's largest backer in her 2000 Senate race. Someone from the West Coast clique of Clinton sycophants. Talk about biting the hand that fed you.

Makes one wonder if Paul has given thought to switching his party affiliation. Large donations may be a thing of the past for Paul as his lawsuit claims the Clinton's actions destroyed Paul's entertainment company.

He Said, She Said

The California Court of Appeal upheld Sen. Clinton's removal as a defendant in the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which was designed to protect public figures, in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, from frivolous lawsuits. But Paul contends the Democratic senator is abusing the anti-SLAPP law as an alternate way to be removed from the case after the state Supreme Court determined it should proceed.

A law, written by public figures designed to protect public figures using the 1st Amendment for protection from "frivolous" lawsuits.

What's even more interesting about this particular law?

As long as one is a politician and to some being a politician is a lifelong calling then one can try to play the "Get Out Of A Lawsuit" Chance Card just like Hillary did. They can claim that any lawsuit is frivolous and thus as a public figure, they are immune from prosecution.

To Hillary, this lawsuit is frivolous, to Paul this lawsuit is his shot at justice and matter of a few felonies alleging Bill and Hill defrauded Paul to the tune of 17 million dollars.

It's not as if Paul is suing the Clintons claiming Lincoln's mattress was too lumpy in the now defunct Clinton White House No-Tell Motel.

Source - hillaryproject.com
Image [Adena.com]

For more on this story check Right Voices: UPDATE:SCANDALS SCANDALS EVERYWHERE……. Will Peter Paul Be Hillary’s Paula Jones?

By LBG



DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.