Tuesday, February 26, 2008

New Larry Sinclair Polygraph results raise even more questions.

Look at the forth page. It states, "I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithum PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the chart as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less that .01 on a scale of .00 to 1.00.This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis."


gb1

gb2

gb3

gb4

gb5

Was this Whitehouse.com, which used to be a porn site trying to set Mr. Sinclair up? They made him sign a contract stating he wouldn't take another polygraph for four weeks. I think in four weeks Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominnee for President.

Larry added this on his site;
http://larrysinclair0926.spaces.live.com

This is to explain my position on the Barland QC report.


Barland was smart enough to point out the data that was and was not provided to him for review. He was smart enough to point out the uncommon methods used and the lack of control over the situation by Mr. Gelb.


Yes, Barland still concurs with Gelb, which I had no doubt he would under the circumstances, but he was smart enough to protect himself by pointing out concerns.

I also want people to look at the actions of Whitehouse.com over the last 24 hours alone, something is truly not right here.

You do not just up and shut down your operation and revamp it in the manner that Parisi has done. What is there to hide.

Was it not Parisi who said "Put up or Shut up?"

Why would you stop payment on a check that you pay for services and you received those services and then you claim you are entitled to because you think a breach of contract may occur at some future time. Mr. Parisi breached our agreement as early as Friday afternoon 2-22-08. I have not submitted to another polygraph, I stated I wanted to do another one in full disclosure which was what Parisi said he was doing and then did not.

Thank you,

Larry Sinclair

More email to/from Larry Sinclair and Mr. Parisi from Whitehouse.com just released

From:
The latest WH emails on Expert Reports and intent to commit check fraud

Lawrence Sinclair (lws)

Sent: Tue 2/26/08 3:01 PM
To: Dan Parisi (dparisi@house.com)
Cc: Rob Capriccioso (rob@bigheaddc.com)


I believe your refusal to post it will only allow others to believe you are in bed with Axelrod, you have already posted the photos, the drug test and Gelbs report so you not posting this one isn't going to stop you from legally owing me the funds you are now refusing to pay or from criminal charges for check fraud.

Thanks,

Larry Sinclair





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: No Polygraph
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:55:17 -0500
From: DParisi@house.com
To: lws


We will not post the report. You will have it in about 30 minutes. Thanks



Dan Parisi

President

Whitehouse.com Inc.





You have just stated that you are not paying for the rights so why are you reporting or posting any such claim?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: No Polygraph
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:47:14 -0500
From: DParisi@house.com
To: lws


We just received the written results form Dr. Gordon Barland. As soon as we scan it we will forward copy to you. He concurred with Dr. Gelb. The last sentence reads as follows:



“Based upon my review of this examination, I concur in Mr. Gelb’s finding that Mr. Sinclair was not telling the complete truth in his claims to have engaged in oral sex with Senator Obama and that Senator Obama used cocaine in his presence. “



Dan Parisi

President

Whitehouse.com Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lawrence Sinclair [mailto:lws]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:39 PM
To: Dan Parisi
Cc:
Subject: RE: No Polygraph


No I have not, but have you seen any such polygraph test been done? Sir you can do what you want, you cannot say I have breached any agreement until I have actually done it. If you think that my expressing my desire to have a polygraph done in full disclosure constitutes a breech, then you go right ahead and refuse to honor your check, because in MN giving a bad check is a Felony and it is not excused by the maker claiming breech of contract. Presneting a check for services and not honoring that check is a CRIMINAL ACT and the maker of the check is civilly liable for three (3) times the amount of the check.

You either honor the check issued as payment for fee's or you face Felony check charges, I personally do not care. But you will not exploit my mothers situation and then make her physically ill because she see'e you stating you have stopped payment of the check based on a 'perceived' future breech.

Thank you

Larry Sinclair


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: No Polygraph
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:29:58 -0500
From: DParisi@house.com
To: lws

Did you forget about this email you sent on 2/21 which I just took off your live.com page.


RE: Dear murray‏


From:
Lawrence Sinclair (lws)

Sent:
Thu 2/21/08 9:35 AM

To:
Dan Parisi (dparisi@house.com)


If you want to do this without doing the 100K yes, Because even the part coming to me is going to pay my mothers back bills and medication so yes, if that is acceptable to you. You still have all exclusive rights to video as you want, and I still agree that no other polygraphs can be done for 4 weeks.
Dan Parisi
President
WhiteHouse.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lawrence Sinclair [mailto:lws
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:21 PM
To: Dan Parisi
Subject: No Polygraph



No polygraph has been done and You changed the terms of the agreement on your own on 2-21-08 so your refusing to honor your payment sheds light on your intent.

You have no grounds to stop payment on what you think might happen when it has not happened.

If you decide that you are going to stop payment on the check that clearly states it is for 'fee' charged, then understand that by MN State law, I will be entitled to 3 times the amount of the original check.

Also, You posted my photographs which were acquired by and for the check for $20,000.00 as was the video tape and exam. Therefore, I am advising you that failure to honor your check will result in 'theft by Check' over $100,000 which is what could be made for the photos and video tape you acquired by fraud.

You can be a man and honor your agreement set forth by you on 2-21-08 and go about your business, or you can proceed with this fraud and deal with both civil and criminal actions against you and your company.

It is your choice.

WhiteHouse.com will not release video footage or final report of Mr. Sinclair's polygraph

According to WhiteHouse.com

"After the events of yesterday and this morning we will no longer be posting the video of the Polygraph testing or the secondary Polygrapher Expert’s results. To be accused of taking a bribe to suppress this story along with all of the hate mail and messages sent by Larry Sinclair supporters who believe we did something to taint the results has been very disturbing.

No matter what we put up it will never be good enough for his supporters. Mr. Sinclair was also given every opportunity to let us talk to the limousine driver to corroborate his story and he failed to do so. This will be the last post on this matter as this matter needs to be put to bed. We will be going back to regular reporting."

What are they hiding? They said they would disclose everything and they clearly haven't. We learned they are canceling the checks issued to Mr. Sinclair and earlier today I reported about how they used to be a porn site.

UPDATE

From:
The latest WH emails on Expert Reports and intent to commit check fraud

Lawrence Sinclair (lws)

Sent: Tue 2/26/08 3:01 PM
To: Dan Parisi (dparisi@house.com)
Cc: Rob Capriccioso (rob@bigheaddc.com)



I believe your refusal to post it will only allow others to believe you are in bed with Axelrod, you have already posted the photos, the drug test and Gelbs report so you not posting this one isn't going to stop you from legally owing me the funds you are now refusing to pay or from criminal charges for check fraud.

Thanks,

Larry Sinclair



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: No Polygraph
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:55:17 -0500
From: DParisi@house.com
To: lws

We will not post the report. You will have it in about 30 minutes. Thanks


Dan Parisi

President

Whitehouse.com Inc.

WhiteHouse.com was a porn site until 2004

WhiteHouse.com was a porn site until 2004. Mr. Parisi used the name WhiteHouse.com to lure unsuspecting visitors into a porn site. It got so bad that in 1997 he was sent a letter from the real White House.

The White House
Washington

December 8, 1997

Mr. Dan Parisi
Secaucus, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Parisi:

It will come as no surprise to you that the White House Counsel's Office is aware of your Internet Web site, "www.whitehouse.com," and that we object to your use of the names and images of the White House, the President, and the First Lady on that Web site to sell memberships in an adult video club. We also recognize that you undoubtedly will use this letter as an object of humor and as an invitation to advance the claim that you are merely exercising your rights under the First Amendment.

We too believe in the First Amendment--and in humor, although we see nothing humorous in your use of the White House domain name to draw children and other unwitting Internet users to your Web site. However distasteful your business may be, we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences. As your own online disclaimer implicitly acknowledges, the foreseeable result of your use of the White House domain name is that children will access your Web site inadvertently. Your customers will understand that such a result is unconscionable, and so, we submit, should you.

Sincerely,

Charles F.C. Ruff
Counsel to the President
http://www.news.com/2009-1023-207800.html?legacy=cnet

According to archived CNN.com artlcle;
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/02/10/whitehouse.com.ap/

Mr. Parisi the owner decided to make a change with the site when his son started kindergarten in 2004. He initally decided to sell it then changed his mind and kept it with a different theme. In November 2005 it became a real estate site. In March 2006 it became a "Free Speech Forum". July 2006 saw it go back to a real estate site. Novemeber 2006 it became a search engine for people. Only in June of 2007 did they start covering politics. It even says on the "About Us" section (pictured below)that "We are rebranding and relaunching as a Political/News/ Entertainment site in January 2008."

wh

Now this same man and site is coming under fire for not being forthright with the way they handled Larry Sinclair. They offered him a challenge to take a polygraph and release all the findings on the site. They did release some of the "findings" but not after stringing everyone along for a few days. Mr. Sinclair claims that Dr. Gelb, who isn't even a doctor walked away from him several times and talked to Mr. Parisi in private. Mr. Sinclair was kept out of the loop for days and now there are allegations that Mr. Parisi took money from Senator Obama's campaign to get the desired results.

WhiteHouse.com cancels checks issued to Larry Sinclair because he is taking a new polygraph today

This is an email that was just sent to me from Mr. Sinclair;

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE BELOW PASTED EMAIL FROM DAN PARISI MAKES IT CLEAR THIS MAN IS A FRAUD, HE HAS NOTIFIED ME THAT HIS CHECK WILL NOT BE HONORED. I HAVE ADVISED HIM THAT I WILL FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAISNT HIM IF THIS CHECK IS RETURNED UNPAID.

ch

From: Dan Parisi (DParisi@house.com)
Sent: Tue 2/26/08 12:05 PM
To: Lawrence Sinclair (lws)


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.
LS: I will continue to put my story out there. I am getting some assistance in amending the lawsuit for refiling, and please note, it has not yet been dismissed, nor has the recommendation to dismiss been received or written as claimed by the judge identified on the Web. I am not going away, I am not recanting anything, and I am fighting on, especially with the tip I received this date. I will do a polygraph arranged by me, video tape it non-edited and with the findings released before stopping the camera and will post it before Tuesday if all goes well.

Dan Parisi
President

Interview with Larry Sinclair

This is an interview Larry did with a website called Bighead DC yesterday

Big Head DC: Do you think that Dan Parisi or anyone else who works for WhiteHouse.com is or has been employed by David Axelrod and/or other members of Sen. Obama’s campaign for president?

Larry Sinclair: I believe Dan Parisi and Robert Braddock were acting as agents of David Axelrod and the Obama camp in making the offer for me to take the polygraph. I believe this to be true as I received a tip via phone at 12:43 a.m. instructing me to find help in obtaining financial records from the Obama camp and Axelrod because an account and communications were accessed in which WH.com and Parisi were having a dispute with Axelrod over the payment of the remaining part of $750,000 to get a polygraph stating I was lying posted fast enough.

BHDC: What do you make of the “deception” finding from WhiteHouse.com’s polygraph conducted by Ed Gelb?

LS: I honestly believe that these results and the claims by Gelb are false, I believe he knowingly accepted money to provide WH.com with the desired results. This is based on the request upon arrival by Gelb’s office for payment of an additional amount that I personally heard a receptionist tell Parisi that Gelb said there was an extra charge and Parisi acknowledged he was advised. I believe this based on all the whispering done while I was present and the amount of time the three spent in closed door discussions before, during and after the exam.

BHDC: There have been several claims that Gelb is not a real PhD — did he present himself as one to you? Did he seem professional?

LS: Gelb did in fact represent himself to me as having a PhD that I found out after returning home was in fact not the case. He did appear somewhat professional with a constant shaking, however he did not control anything about the process and in fact was taking his direction from Robert Braddock of WH.com and Dan Parisi.

BHDC: How did Parisi act toward you throughout the polygraph process?

LS: Parisi did not even look me in the face from the time I met him that Friday morning through the entire visit. He continued to look down toward the floor every time I spoke to him or he was in my presence. He did not at any time produce any ID for me to verify he was who he claimed to be. Not even when he wrote out the checks and I asked for ID, he laughed and said, “I am me.” Mr. Parisi and his assistant Robert Braddock were rude and attitude changed considerably after the exam was done. They met behind closed doors for another hour or so with Gelb.

BHDC: What do you make of all of the false information that is being passed around on the Internet about you?

LS: I find it appalling that most of it is being paid for by Axelrod and the Obama camp by use of paid bloggers who are being fed information that Axelrod and Obama know to be false, know not to be me — but know that these kids will sit up and post it as fact and they (Axelrod and Obama) will not have to answer for it. But I say they will.

BHDC: Would you have come forward with your claims had you known what has happened would happen?

LS: I had put out everything about my past from the start, so I did not worry about what they tried to say about me. I will get vindication against all the knowingly false claims made when this is over because slander and libel is easy to prove when they keep repeating it after being told to retract it.

BHDC: Do you stand by your claims about Barack Obama 100 percent, given the polygraph results?

LS: 1,000 percent, and I have stated from day one, polygraph or not, I will not recant or back down because I am stating truthful claims.

BHDC: Some people will say Big Head DC is biased for even interviewing you. What should we say to those people?

LS: What is biased about trying to get to the truth? The bias is on those media outlets who see the false claims made against a U.S. citizen by a candidate for the president of the U.S., and they still do not report anything. The media knows these attacks against me and the claims made in these attacks are false but they ignore it.

BHDC: What do you make of Obama’s increasing popularity?

LS: Does the phrase “snake oil sales man” give you a hint?

BHDC: Do you think Obama has been well enough vetted on the national political stage?

LS: Obama is not even close to being vetted; everyone says I am a kook, well I am not a kook, and I expect that I am not going to be standing here alone much longer. I expect we will see others come forward before this is over.

BHDC: Have you recently spoken to the limo driver you say was with you and Obama in 1999? What does he think about what you’ve been put through? Has it discouraged him from coming forward?

LS: I placed a call to him Saturday that was not returned. I had spoken with him last week, and he thinks I am crazy for going through this over a lying fraud like Barack Obama and David Axelrod. I truly believe he will come forward, and he knows I am not going to back down.

BHDC: Who is your lawyer in the lawsuit against Obama?

LS: The suit will be dismissed, it will be re-filed. It is being dismissed for failing to state a claim in which entitles me to relief, not because as claimed by others I am not credible. I am attaching a copy for your verification of this statement. WH.com leaked that I was in talks with Gloria Allred to discourage her, which they accomplished.

BHDC: Have you heard from anyone in the Obama campaign since you came forward with your claims?

LS: I have not. I received an e-mail via YouTube asking me to confirm or deny claims made by some Ron Allen of the Obama camp, which I stated were false. I will attach. I will forward copy to you.

BHDC: When did you first realize that Obama was a U.S. Senator?

LS: I became aware he was a politician during watching the 2004 DNC speech while residing in Mexico.

BHDC: How is your health? Are you afraid that this publicity is harmful to your health?

LS: I have some very serious heath problems, which I deal with according to decisions that I made. I do not use my health as an excuse for anything. I live alone, I care for myself, I do not reside in any assisted living complex, nor do I receive an assistant in my daily life.

BHDC: What are you going to do next regarding this whole situation?

LS: I will continue to put my story out there. I am getting some assistance in amending the lawsuit for refiling, and please note, it has not yet been dismissed, nor has the recommendation to dismiss been received or written as claimed by the judge identified on the Web. I am not going away, I am not recanting anything, and I am fighting on, especially with the tip I received this date. I will do a polygraph arranged by me, video tape it non-edited and with the findings released before stopping the camera and will post it before Tuesday if all goes well.
Larry Sinclair comes clean about his crimial record. Read about it in the latest update.

http://mrsircy.blogspot.com/2008/03/larry-sinclair-comes-clean-about-his.html
Google
 

VerveEarth

Quick Linker