Posted on 04/07/2008 10:31:29 PM PDT by pissant
Like other readers of this blog, I received an email today from Montgomery Sibley, the distinguished, independent-minded lawyer who practices in Washington DC. Larry Sinclair had provided him with all the evidence he has to support his allegations that when Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate he met twice with Larry Sinclair in in November 1999 in Chicago, obtained cocaine for the both of them and consumed it (crack cocaine smoked through a glass pipe in the Senator’s case). On both occasions they also participated in consensual sexual acts with each other.
After studying and analyzing the evidence, some of which Larry has never revealed to the public, Montgomery Sibley undertook to represent Larry on a contingency-fee basis. This means that he will not be paid any fees by his client but can claim a percentage of any monetary award the courts may order.
On 1st April 2008, Justice Henry Kennedy of the DC District Court responded positively to the first motion filed by Montgomery Sibley since he took the case. He authorized that subpoenas could be issued to discover the real identity and addresses of a number of posters on the Internet who have tried to undermine Larry Sinclair’s allegations by attacking him personally.
I am happy to share Montgomery Sibley’s’ s letter with you. But I would be happier if you had already received your own letter directly from him. Because that would mean that you had contributed to the legal fund - in however large or small amount.
The legal fund is a trust fund controlled by the lawyer. It is used exclusively to pay disbursements - not fees. Disbursements are those out-of-pocket expenses which arise in every legal action. They can include court filing fees, the cost of serving subpoenas, distribution of copies of documents to interested parties and the cost of research. If the fund were to have a surplus when the legal actions are over - the surplus would be returned to the donors. These costs are critical. If the fund runs dry, subpoenas cannot be served. Much time can be lost, And in this matter time really is of the essence.
Because of the sensitive nature of this matter, the lawyer has emphasized that the identity of donors will be treated in complete confidence.
I am not going to comment on the legal strategy I think that Montgomery Sibley and Larry Sinclair are pursing. But would remind everyone that the Watergate Affair began with a brief report of a break-in of the Democratic offices in the Watergate complex.
It is significant that it is Larry Sinclair and not Barack Obama or his supporters who is willing to take a lie-detector test, make sworn affidavits and submit himself to discovery and cross-examination in the courts in full awareness of the penalties for perjury. Nobody has to serve subpoenas to discover who Larry Sinclair is.
I do not have a horse in the Presidential race, but like many others around the world, am very interested in the process being open and fair. Larry Sinclair is not a rich man - he appears to be of modest means and uncertain physical health. He has shown much personal courage in subjecting himself to the derision and wrath of Obama supporters. And the mainstream media seems to be cowering in the bunkers.
It has been interesting to see how Larry has derived renewed strength from the participants on this blog who have become his special support group overcoming the odds to get his story into the public domain and fighting off those who have tried to silence him through intimidation.
What price freedom speech in America? What price victory? The price of a cup of coffee, or of a magazine, or a good meal - and for some who can afford it - the price of a tank full of gas?
Some of you have already been way more generous than I have been. But its not the relative amount you can afford to donate but the fact that you contribute something. Your contribution not only pays the urgent bills but also shows your commitment to freedom of speech and the search for justice.
Thanks for taking the time
Victor
Apparently has a soft spot for gay white coke snorting dudes.
On the down LOW?... Get out of here?...
Could be the Oct. surprise
I sure hope so. Larry better watch his back, or he may commit an Obamacide like Donald Young.
What Donald Had To Say (Obama’s murdered choir director & Larry Sinclair)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1994726/posts
Choir conductor found murdered (From Obama’s church, Dec 2007)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1993099/posts
BUMP!
Go, Larry, GO!
He was approved for discovery by the federal judge in DC. Must have been a Clinton appointee. ROFL
And also, the Watergate break-in had....oh, what do you call those things? Oh, yeah -- arrests.
Wake me up when you have a mug shot of Obama. Until then, enjoy your evidence-free dead-end circle jerk, starring a publicity hound who is nothing without people gullible enough to believe in him because they want to so badly.
Sure thing ace. It is soooooo far out in left field for a sleazy scumbag politician to do drugs and get a BJ, I can see why you would never believe such a thing.
And just why was slick impeached? and how long was it after Paula Jones surfaced? Thought so.
But good to see you defending Obama’s honor, yet again.
And just why was slick impeached? and how long was it after Paula Jones surfaced? Thought so.
You may want to try checking your facts before you go off half-cocked; it makes you look smarter. I hear they got this thing called "The Inter-net" where you can do this. Here's what I found out:
But good to see you defending Obama’s honor, yet again.
Get your head out of Sinclair's posterior and smell the coffee -- there is NO reason to believe this idiot UNTIL HE BRINGS SOME MADDOG EVIDENCE. He's got NOTHING but you want it to be true so badly, you're trying to convince yourself and other people based on NOTHING.
You're like Patsy Ramsey, who really, really wanted to believe that John Mark Karr killed JonBenet when, in reality, he was just a sick little twerp with a screw loose and an overwhelming need for attention, even if it was in the form of hatred. Even worse, you're just as delusional as people who believe Obama is qualified to be President.
Wasn’t Patsy Ramsey already dead when John Mark Carr claimed to have killed JonBenet?
Amazing. For someone who knows so little about the situation, you seem pretty sure of yourself that Obama is above this type of behavior.
And FWIW, you might want to check your obviously superior sources to see what the status of Sinclair’s lawsuit against the internet defamers (dem operatives) is. He was granted a motion for discovery by the DC District Court. MEANING that he will get have to show that these defamers are lying about him and his claims about Obama.
Stay tuned, sally. You might learn somnething
Someone here wrote: “Get your head out of Sinclair’s posterior and smell the coffee — there is NO reason to believe this idiot UNTIL HE BRINGS SOME MADDOG EVIDENCE. He’s got NOTHING but you want it to be true so badly, you’re trying to convince yourself and other people based on NOTHING.”
Sinclair states that he has a lot more to say. I’ll just bet that he does. He has a first-rate Washington, D.C. attorney, I hear. I know that the attorney and Sinclair requested the phone records of Donald Young. I just wonder if the phone records corroborate Sinclair’s story that Young contacted him several times, which for reasons Sinclair states, he would not be able to do without getting his phone number from Obama or the Obama campaign.
Sinclair was granted a motion for discovery so there is definitely something there for the judge to rule in this way. Was it phone records?
I listened to 3 interviews with Larry Sinclair. I’ve read hundreds of his comments on his youtube site. If I were to place odds on if he is being truthful, I’d say at this point it is about a 85% probability, in my book.
On Sinclair’s blog I read about three murders of gays which many say are related, Donald Young’s among them. (The victims were Larry Bland, Nathaniel Spencer, and Donald Young). I saw the rapid disappearance of virtually all of the information about that on the Internet in a short period of time. Somthing is afoot. It’s like the muderer(?s)’ mopping up all the blood and fingerprints at the crime scene.
I think this needs to be factored into Larry Sinclair’s story when trying to assess its credibility.
Hey, pissant -- may I call you "piss?" -- Just who is it that is NOT "above this type of behavior"?
It wasn't too long ago that some people thought Ted Haggard was far above it, but he turned out not to be. Ditto David Vitter, the guy who replaced Bob Livingston, the Speaker-designate who resigned from Congress after admitting his extramarital affair. If anyone thought that Mr. Clean-Law-&-Order-Fearless-Leader Eliot Spitzer was above whoring around, they probably didn't think he would be stone cold stupid enough to make the same type of mistakes that Jerry Springer made thirty years ago.
One thing is certain; we can't count on ANYONE in public to be as pristine as their image. I don't care if it's Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, Billy Graham or the Pope himself; all are fallible, sinful, and less than worthy of the worship that often comes their way.
you might want to check your obviously superior sources to see what the status of Sinclair’s lawsuit against the internet defamers (dem operatives) is. He was granted a motion for discovery by the DC District Court. MEANING that he will get have to show (sic) that these defamers are lying about him and his claims about Obama.
Uh huh. He's serving as his own attorney, and you know what they say about someone who does that. He's going to be awfully busy trying to prove to polygraph experts he's not a liar while proving that Democrats who tell HIS dirty little secrets ARE liars.
Regarding Obama, you have fallen into the trap that many Clintonphobes did years ago; just because they all are dishonest, duplicitous, hypocritical slimy weasels, you'll believe ANYTHING anyone says against them even it if doesn't make a lick of sense. You may have heard some moonbat nonsense about a plot to create a phony national emergency that would give President Bush an excuse to suspend the November elections, and remain in the White House in an America under martial law. This past March marked my tenth year as a registered Freeper, and I remember as if yesterday the threads suggesting that Clinton was going to do exactly the same thing in 2000, especially after the Millennium bomb plot was foiled. Thankfully, those idiots have mostly moved on from FR to drink the Kool-Aid served up in Alex Jones-town (hello, Michael Rivero!). Good riddance.
You have to be deliberately dense to believe that Sinclair doesn't have credibility problems that are almost insurmountable. Is Obama full of crap? No doubt about it. Has his reputation sunk below the level of a loser like Sinclair? Absolutely not.
No -- Karr anonymously corresponded with people investigating the case that kept touch with Patsy Ramsey. Supposedly, in believing Karr's tall tale of having slain JonBenet, the dying Patsy found comfort in knowing what had actually happened -- or so she thought. It was after Patsy's death that Karr -- thought to be the real killer by myopic Colorado detectives -- actually was tracked down in Thailand.
Personally, I am cheering for Obama’s gay lover/cocaine buddy, Larry Sinclair, to relentelessly pursue Obama until Obama’s reputation is at the bottom of the sea and his political career is wiped out forever. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving individual.
Go, Larry, GO!
Jennifer, meet "someone." It's customary to ping someone when quoting them in a response.
Sinclair states that he has a lot more to say. I’ll just bet that he does. He has a first-rate Washington, D.C. attorney, I hear.
You're referring to Montgomery Blair Sibley. As a matter of fact, the Washington Post wrote about Mr. First Rate back in May of 2007:
While this 50-year-old scion of the highborn has recently been suggesting that he could make public the names of the 10,000 in order to protect his client Deborah Jeane Palfrey, he had to pay less attention to urgent business in two other places.One was Florida, where the state bar was seeking to yank his license for at least two years. He was found guilty in absentia (in part for being a "vexatious litigant") and now faces suspension if not disbarment. "He is someone who abuses the legal process," says Barnaby Min, counsel for the Florida Bar.
The second was in Montgomery County, where he was to stand trial for failing to pay $11,218.20 in past-due rent on office space in Gaithersburg for a tiny shipping-crate company he heads. That trial was continued.
Something is amiss here, and we haven't even gotten to the part where he sued the U.S. Supreme Court for treason (twice!), asking for $1 million in damages. Or that he spent 77 days in a Miami jail for refusing to pay child support. Or that Maryland has stopped him from running a law office in the state. Or that federal prosecutors in Palfrey's case say Sibley's filings are so ignorant of basic legal tenets that they are "almost incoherent."
(snip)
About his divorce, back in 1994: Sibley had been married for 13 years. It didn't seem to end well.
"I've filed more than 60 lawsuits. It's a little hard to put in a nutshell."
According to court files, Sibley once threatened his wife: "We will litigate until I am disbarred and bankrupt if necessary."
Barbara Sibley could not be reached for comment for this article. The court file says the ordeal started when Blair Sibley left the Miami area, triggering $4,000 per month in child-support payments, which he failed to make. The 77 days in jail eventually followed.
Among the dozens of defendants Sibley has sued in the wake of the divorce are the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This case exposed a real abuse of the family court system," he says. "Some have called my filings themselves to be abusive. I don't. I consider it my patriotic duty to expose a horrible system."
He filed so many suits against so many people, almost all of them immediately dismissed, that Florida courts ordered the clerk's office not to accept any more filings from him relating to the divorce unless another member of the Florida Bar also signed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said his suits amounted to a "multi-headed leviathan of meritless litigation."
Yeah. First rate, all the way. Just like Larry Sinclair.
“Uh huh. He’s serving as his own attorney”.
As I said, for someone who knows so little about the story. I’ll fill you in someday.
I admit I erred in saying he was STILL serving as his own attorney. I reacted to viewing the first spelling and grammar error-filled brief he filed in his suit against Obama, Axelrod and Dean, which can be seen at The Smoking Gun. I ain't a lawyer, but I have read a LOT of opinions and verdicts. Come freakin' on -- "First Amendmant"..."two separate ocaissions"..."Senator Barack Obam", etc. Sinclair seems to have something against apostrophes, too -- he doesn't use a single one, even when referring to himself ("plaintiffs").
Even worse is his mushheaded idea of what the rights of the accused are. Sez he, he went on YouTube with his tale of debauchery with B.O. (with no evidence whatsoever), does media interviews with Chicago reporters, and was shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that he was threatened over the internet! Who could have predicted that?! On top of that, an unnamed Chi-town reporter told him that Obama and his posse "were conducting and (sic) undercover investigation into plaintiff and plaintiffs (sic) associates." What's wrong with that, you may ask? His answer, verbatim:
In the words of Dark Helmet, "Everybody got that?"
Actions of defendants are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, violate plaintiffs right to free speech, conspire against the rights of citizens as a whole. Defendants investigation is believed by plaintiff to be illegal and questionable as to the funding used for said alleged investigation.
Seems to this layman that Larry Loser thinks he should be able to say whatever he wants on YouTube, but if anyone wants to fight back by investigating his butt, it "violates" his "right to free speech."
The right to free speech is really, really important to Larry. So he brings in one of America's most notorious liti-bators, Montgomery Blair Sibley. As the Washington Post wrote before Sinclair retained him, Sibley's the guy who -- on behalf of a guy nicknamed "Big Pimping Pappy" -- sued his clients for having sex with his escorts. I'm not making that up. Anyway, Sinclair and Sibley make a bold move to protect freedom of speech on the internet by suing three net monikers (TubeSock TedD, mzmolly, and OWNING LIARS) for a million bucks apiece.
I can tell Sibley did the brief for Sinclair vs. TubeSock TedD himself (probably at his local Kinko's -- I'm not making that up either) rather than Sinclair. While there is a misspelling of Obama's name with two r's ("Barrack"), the preparer of the new brief DID use apostrophes.
But to folks like you, none of these details are important. You want to hitch your wagon to this human/turd hybrid because nobody's more anti-Obama than him. He isn't just saying "F--- Obama." Having already supposedly done that literally, now he wants to figuratively as well. And that's OK with you. The electorate will see things your way.
Pathetic.
I’ll fill you in someday.
If Sinclair had evidence, now would be the time to show it instead of wasting time suing a hand puppet on YouTube. What makes you think he's got it?
Thanks.
Because I can smell a rat from miles away. The rat in this case is named Obama.
Just like I knew right off the bat that the Runaway Bride was a fraud, while freepers were tripping over themselves to say their prayers were answered when she turned up in New Mexico unharmed.
BTW, do you think Larry is making up the phone calls he got from Donald Young (RIP) too?
Apparently, you only can smell one kind of rat. There are many other varieties.
Just like I knew right off the bat that the Runaway Bride was a fraud, while freepers were tripping over themselves to say their prayers were answered when she turned up in New Mexico unharmed.
Believing Larry will even things out for you. Hey, you can't win 'em all.
BTW, do you think Larry is making up the phone calls he got from Donald Young (RIP) too?
I don't even care. What I care about is whether or not he's telling the truth, and so far, he's failed, failed, failed to prove that he is anything but a publicity-seeking parasite. And he's got a scuzzy deadbeat dad attorney suing everyone who calls him a liar instead of laying his cards out on the table and proving his allegations.
By contrast, when called upon, Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp proved that Monica Lewinsky wasn't a fabulist stalker when the likes of Sidney Blumenthal were suggesting that. Has Larry got surveillance video? Polaroids? A mirror with a fingerprint? Was Larry wearing a blue dress that bears a telltale stain?
Are you going to answer those questions or just stall for time again, hoping that tomorrow, there will be a reason to believe there is more to Sinclair than meets the eye?
Of course you don’t care that there are phone records of Donald Young, Obama’s gay choirmaster, calling Larry Sinclair this past fall, and that Larry has sent an affidavit to the Chicago PD. Just as you have no curiosity of how Donald Young would have Mr. Sinclairs phone number to begin with. Just as you don’t care that Larry has already proven with receipts that he was in Chicago the time of the alleged incident. Just as you don’t care that Obama was in town during that time frame. Just as you don’t take into consideration that Obama is an admitted coke user. Just as you don’t consider that it is illegal to make false claims about people in court documents, yet Larry has filed two lawsuits where those claims about Obama have been repeated.
Is it possible this is a Clinton “dirty trick” or that Sinclair is just a independent nutjob? Sure it is possible. But stay tuned, they have been granted discovery by the DC Court.
...when called upon, Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp proved that Monica Lewinsky wasn't a fabulist stalker when the likes of Sidney Blumenthal were suggesting that. Has Larry got surveillance video? Polaroids? A mirror with a fingerprint? Was Larry wearing a blue dress that bears a telltale stain?
Are you going to answer those questions or just stall for time again, hoping that tomorrow, there will be a reason to believe there is more to Sinclair than meets the eye?
You responded:
Is it possible this is a Clinton “dirty trick” or that Sinclair is just a independent nutjob? Sure it is possible. But stay tuned, they have been granted discovery by the DC Court.
If only I could pick lottery numbers so accurately.
It is not important whether or not Larry Sinclair is truthful - - though I happen to believe his story. What is important is that this Marxist snake-oil salesman Obama gets destroyed. Personally, I don’t care how it happens.
I confess I only glanced at the lawsuit that Sibley filed for Sinclair. That said, my impression is that it concerns statements about him made on DU that are provably false. For ex, one poster claims to have discovered that Larry was in a mental hospital during the time period when he claims to have had his night of drugs and sex with Obama. Larry does have proof that he was in fact in Chicago.
I would guess that Larry is a public figure for purposes of this dispute and will have to show actual malice. He may be able to do that. Proving damages from what some idiot posts on DU I suspect would be more difficult.
That's sad, but instructive. I'll keep in mind that is your outlook on things the next time there is an intra-GOP debate you participate in.
Feel free. Especially if somebody participating in the "intra-GOP debate" is a Marxist scumbag like Obama.
Well, I read the whole ridiculous thing. What he and his vexacious litigant lawyer have successfully done is taken your eye off the ball. Sinclair is an accuser of a public figure without a shred of evidence, and he's turning things around on his doubters, calling himself a victim with the help of a sleazebag with a law degree and a deficit of decency. Some of you seem to be forgetting that the burden of proof is NOT on Obama to prove he didn't score some blow and then get blown by Sinclair.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say that the three people behind the nicknames Sinclair sued were indeed making false statements (BTW, only "mzmolly" was on Democratic Underwear; "TubeSock TedD" was on YouTube and "OWNING LIARS" was on Digg). Specifically, mzmolly and OWNING LIARS furthered an account suggesting Sinclair was institutionalized at the time of the alleged limo party. Sinclair & Sibley include in the brief a receipt showing that on the alleged date, he was billed for a stay in the Chicago hotel central to the allegation. That makes his doubters' posted remarks prima facie false.
However, as the Clintons have taught us all over the years, sometimes it's not what you say, it's what you DON'T say. It may very well be that the only thing untrue about the stories Sinclair's detractors have posted are the dates. What is left unsaid in the brief is whether or not Sinclair has ever been institutionalized, and if so, when. If I was desperate enough to be his attorney, I would state for the record that my client had NEVER been institutionalized...if that was true. Sibley, who as of last spring was so hard up for cash he was operating his practice out of Kinko's, didn't do that. To me, that says something about Sibley's competence, Sinclair's sanity, or both.
Most of the people who have made allegations about public figures in the manner Sinclair has have proved to be touched in the head, like Margaret Ray, the woman who believed with all her heart that David Letterman was the father of her youngest child. She was a schizophrenic who would go on such flights of fancy and fantasy when she wasn't medicating herself. She actually made it into Letterman's home one time and peeked through the bedroom door, where Dave and his girlfriend were in bed. Eventually, she ended her life by kneeling in front of a train.
Whether Larry did or did not meet Obama and whether they did drugs together and/or had a sexual encounter strikes me as irrelevant to his lawsuit against the internet posters. I think it is an interesting question ... whether someone making a demonstrably false claim that an individual was institutionalized on a crazed website like DU can sustain a defamation claim. Speaking only for myself, I am hard-pressed to think of ANYTHING I have ever read about ANYONE on DU that I consider credible. The site is just bonkers.
Granted there is some good stuff on YouTube, but there is so much silliness, I would have to say the same thing about that site. Don't reasonable people take stuff there with a grain of salt unless it comes directly from a source of well-established credibility? I think this might be an interesting case if it tests questions of this sort. I sure as hell would not believe a YouTube allegation about someone's mental health history without documents to back it up.
As for whether most allegations against public figures are false, I would have to differ with you as it pertains to sexual allegations. It seems to me that many of these allegations turn out to be true. Remember Eliz Ray who worked for the Ohio congressman? Fanne Foxe. The page scandal, on and on. It never ends with politicians.
Whether Larry's allegations about Obama are true or false, I really don't know. Sometimes he sounds believable and sometimes he sounds a few anchovies short of a pizza. I doubt there will be any resolution about this aspect of his story.
Here's the big diff: Elizabeth Ray and Fanne Foxe were revealed by scandal-scooping reporters and political operatives. They didn't come out of dense obscurity and say to the media hordes "I've been balling (fill in the blank) and he's a dope fiend too."
The most recent person to come forward like Sinclair was Gennifer Flowers. Flowers, though, had audio tapes of herself and Bill Clinton. So far, Sinclair's got bupkes.
I'm not convinced this would make a whole lot of difference. Regardless, I believe your memory is wrong. Eliz Ray went to the press after she felt the Congressman had slighted her. Wilbur and Fanne were stopped by the cops. The whole thing went downhill from there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
