Download the court document here: attorney-appearance.pdf
 |
BIG HEADLINE NEWS, featuring AP reports
|
................................................................................................................................................................................................
|
|
|
|
e-mail this
 del.icio.us  stumble |
- 142 Comments to 'Larry Sinclair’s ‘mzmolly’ Has an Attorney'
my my this continues to get interesting.
i’d say about now mzmolly is a bit constipated.
Ah, poor barry’s taste for cock is going to be pried out into the open sooner or later. Ten to one he was partying w/Levine, the mountains of coke, and all the pretty, pretty boys they called friends, at some point.
I’d say mzmolly is simply doing what and sensible person would do if they were being sued for a million dollars. It’s call insurance.
It’s doubtful the lawsuit is going to get as far as identifying who mzmolly really is, but no matter how small the chance Larry has of winning the suit, the prospect of going bankrupt is not a happy one. Getting her own lawyer involved is simply a precautionary move and says nothing about the merits of the case (which are few indeed).
I’ve got legal discussion of the Sinclair situation on my blog. http://www.danisoutthere.com
MITCH ASKS THE QUESTION:
IS LARRY SINCLAIR GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND/OR AIDING AND ABETTING A CRIMINAL?
http://themitchandnanshow.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/is-larry-guilty-of-obstruction-and-ading-and-abetting/
Its more likely that Mitch is guilty of slander and libel.
Your question is misleading–an affadavit was faxed to the CPD. You failed to mention that piece of information because you are spinning some crazy story. The CPD has a copy of that document and they can follow up with Larry anytime they want desire. what makes you think he is in this for financial gain? Its easy for you to dish out abuse and attack him but where is your proof? Who are your sources? Lets get the truth handled right now. I challenge you to post your proof of financial gain related to the chicago murder story of D. Young and to provide your sources for validation. If you can’t provide that basic information then you are just making up more unfounded stories.
Who is Mitch?
L. RON OBAMA ASKS THE QUESTION:
Is Mitch a bitter old queen jealous of Sinclair’s night of sin with Barry?
L Ron…TELL US! Since my 8-track went poopie yesterday, I can’t listen to any of your old 70’s pick-me-ups! Nurse!
NURSE!!!! (They’re never around when you need them)…NUUURRRSSSE!!!!!
“They have already sent investigators to Hawaii to talk to all his little butt buddies from high school. You know like Keith, Jay and Richard. Obama knows who they are and what he did”
I wonder who “they” are? However, it sounds like we’re back to were I think we need to look.
All the way back to Hawaii and “Frank”. Obama’s mentor was very influential in Chicago. That helps explain why Obama went to Chicago verses somewhere else.
And that brings us back to Larry. Is his claim unreasonable because it is out of context. Well, no.
If Larry’s accusations are true, Obama would have to be a homosexual or bi-sexual drug user.
1. Larry has hotel receipts.
2. Obama wasn’t in congress that day.
3. Larry’s lie detector test is indeterminate.
4. Donald Young, is the homosexual choir director at Obama’s church.
5. According to “Tim’s blog, it is not only Donald, but “Nate” that the apparently large gay population in Obama’s church need to morn.
6. Obama’s church is listed on gay sites as gay friendly.
7. Historically, Chicago has been the center of the Black and of the Gay universe in the United States since Frank’s and his friend Robeson’s time there.
8. Finally, Levine testifies to heavy drug use with “male friends”. The judge will not allow the homosexual aspect to be pursued by the prosecution.
In short, Larry’s past is irrelevant because his accusation could very well be true in Chicago. That is, they’re not out-of-place.
have copied this directly from Public Citizens Litigation Groups website, and their advice for internet blogging.
“Just because someone says – or even reports in writing – that Joe Smith has committed a serious crime does not mean you can safely repeat it
Republication of a libel can be equally a basis for liability as the original statement
consider whether others will deem the source reputable”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFE6B9.pdf
Larry’s past is also his present. That’s why it’s relevant. He’s shown very little evidence of changing his ways. He still lies and deflects from the truth every day he posts on the blog. For example, when faced with questions about his claims of being “terminally ill” he posts a list of medications that he takes. While that seems to be the act of a person who is open and honest about his past, you will note that it doesn’t address the issue of his terminal illness at all. Yet again, he is simply obfuscating and deflecting from questions he doesn’t want to answer.
And how many people were at Levine’s parties? Dozens? And none of them is willing to come out and say that Obama was there too? Not one person is willing to take a big check from a newspaper to tell his story to bring down a candidate for president? Now *that’s* unbelievable.
Every person is Terminal from the time of their birth.
Get real. Sinclair owes none of you people any answers.
I have copied this directly from Public Citizens Litigation Groups website, and their advice for internet blogging.
“Just because someone says – or even reports in writing – that Joe Smith has committed a serious crime does not mean you can safely repeat it.
Republication of a libel can be equally a basis for liability as the original statement consider whether others will deem the source reputable”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFE6B9.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
copied directly from Public Citizens Litigation Groups website, and their advice for internet blogging.
“Just because someone says – or even reports in writing – that Joe Smith has committed a serious crime does not mean you can safely repeat it.
Republication of a libel can be equally a basis for liability as the original statement consider whether others will deem the source reputable”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFE6B9.pdf
In other news, New Zealand is laughing their heads off at Hillary Clinton AGAIN:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10505484
Hillary, us Kiwis have been talking about your dirty tactics for weeks. You might say we have developed a somewhat non-favorable impression of you.
And don’t worry Larry - I don’t know how many Kiwis are aware of you - probably not a heck of a lot but rest assured we would have an unfavorable impression of you too
I may have changed my name to HellHathNoWrathLikeHell, but my I.Q. is still the lowest of anyone on this site. I was an idiot, I am an idiot and I will always be an idiot.
I hate myself.
SueCitySue a.k.a. HellHathNoWrathLikeHell….who LOVES my new name?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
copied directly from Public Citizens Litigation Groups website, and their advice for internet blogging.
“Just because someone says – or even reports in writing – that Joe Smith has committed a serious crime does not mean you can safely repeat it.
Republication of a libel can be equally a basis for liability as the original statement consider whether others will deem the source reputable”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFE6B9.pdf
507 new Felons wavered into the Miltary in 2007!
Amazing that they are fighting for our freedom to gripe on the net.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
copied directly from Public Citizens Litigation Groups website, and their advice for internet blogging.
“Just because someone says – or even reports in writing – that Joe Smith has committed a serious crime does not mean you can safely repeat it.
Republication of a libel can be equally a basis for liability as the original statement consider whether others will deem the source reputable”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFE6B9.pdf
******
HellHath,
How many of you nitwits have repeated Larry’s claims over and over again? You better hope he’s telling the truth–about all of it.
What will BHDC do when this gets thrown out? Will they be lining up in the Kool Aid line, too?
Which must mean that everyone repeating the claims of Larry Sinclair can be sued for defamation.
Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama
ARE AMERICANS REALLY THIS STUPID?! DO WE CARE ONLY ABOUT OBAMA’S COLOR….FORGETTING WHO HE REALLY IS?!
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:0UvmO8TvTgsJ:christianforums.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D7168317+contribution+list+loren+davis+ministries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
Sam, the poster child for religious bigotry! I am sure Satan has a nice warm seat waiting for you! BTW: He isn’t a Muslim!
Duck, get your head out of the sand…and Obama arse!
He is what he is…quit denying. He’s free to practice whatever he chooses, but he can not expect to become POTUS, all the while denying who he really is. Americans will not allow that to happen.
The MSM has allowed him to skate without exposing him thus far, for no other reason except they do not want to be forced to ruin the mans life by publicizing what they know.
However, it WILL be quite different IF he were to get the nomination.
That is the day I live for.
http://newsbyus.com/index.php/article/233
Bigotry…shmigotry
Racist…shmacist.
Those words have been so loosely used and over used, they have lost their impact. The days of the destructive PC movement are a think of the past.
Now is the time for truth to make it’s comeback.
Larry Larry Larry, regarding post 10, your reply won’t hunt. Too many coincidences not to take a second look ………. Too much of a pattern not to take a closer look ……….. and now someone is looking into high school? ……. I’ve thought for sometime we need to go back to “Frank” (and Robeson) …….. Your ignoring all but the Levine testimony makes me even more suspicious …. thanks
have you seen this new video?
http://www.exposeobama.com/obamanationbe.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IF you are going to accuse someone of being another person, be sure you know what you are saying. False accusations don’t go well with many people!
Don’t try to deny it. It’s easy to who you are.
P.S. I see you are still loving those *E*motion icons. Here’s a tip, if you want to change your name and pretend to be someone else, you might want to think about changing how you write and *gasp* what you say. You say the same things over and over again. They are probably some of the most ridiculous arguments (if you can even call them that) on this board. It’s okay to disagree if at least you can debate intelligently. Repetition and *E*motions, not so much. I know you are old Sue, but come on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prove who I am if you dare?
Evidently you have been sipping to much kool-aid to think intelligently.
Emotions bother you?
Why?
Are they not for use by everyone that so chooses to use them?
Best try the crystal ball again like your female posters were instructed to do.
Well…I know Larry claims he’s a private citizen on his blog, but I think when you manufacture a youtube video to promote your cause you might lose the private citizen label and become a public figure. In that case the law is clear that actual malice is intended.
Also, I want someone to tell me how Larry’s “good name” was damaged by anything anyone said? No one changed their minds. Those who believe still believe and think he’s come clean with his past. Those who don’t went out and found all the info old and new to prove a pattern and STILL don’t believe Larry. He didn’t lose a job, house, family….nothing at all.
This is all a backdoor attempt to put Barack Obama’s name out there, though I’m sure winning some money wouldn’t bother Larry. If he says it’s not for money, then it is obviously for another reason. Correct? If so, the intent is to expose “Larry facts” in an unrelated case.
Let him have that damn press conference if he has the proof. IF HE HAS THE PROOF, HE SHOULD HAVE SHOUTED IT OUT LONG BEFORE HE STARTED BLURTING OUT HIS MEDICATIONS AND ALL THE HARASSING ANSWERS. You say he’s not harassing. I found it harassing when he asked me about the place from which I was posting. Who does that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~~~~~~~
Interesting point. I found the following on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
U.S. law
The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
* a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
* a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” A “particularized determination” is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of unwanted publicity. For example, a person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis.[1]
A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, jokes about Terry Rakolta, an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children, are fair comments within the confines of her public conduct and are protected because she was a “limited public figure.”[1]
Another excellent point.
From attorney USA.
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html
Practical Considerations
If you are considering filing an action for defamation, you may wish to consider the following:
High Cost - Defamation actions tend to be costly to pursue. When brough against major media companies or publishers, or their employees, you should expect that the case will be capably defended by highly skilled defense attorneys.
Low Recovery - Defamation actions rarely result in sizeable awards of damages, and it is not unusual for the cost of pursuing a defamation action to exceed the ultimate recovery.
Publicity - The publicity associated with litigating a defamation claim can actually serve to expose a greater audience to the false allegations than they previously enjoyed. In the event that a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the defamation lawsuit, defamatory statements previously known to only a handful of people can suddenly become known by the entire community - sometimes the entire nation or world. Sometimes the media will do a poor job of subsequently covering the verdict, such that the public hears the defamatory allegations but doesn’t learn that the plaintiff was successful in the lawsuit.
Difficulty of Proving Defamation -
It is sometimes not possible for a plaintiff to establish all of the elements of a defamation action, even where the defendant’s statements were entirely false. Most people who hear that a plaintiff lost a defamation action aren’t interested in the nuance - they will instead assume that the loss means that the allegations which inspired the suit were true.
3. What Constitutes Injury to Reputation?
The plaintiff must establish proof of damage to reputation in order to recover any damages for mental anguish; see Gobin v. Globe Publishing Co., 232 Kan. 1, 649 P.2d 1239, 1244 (1982); Swanson v. American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 705, 707 (Minn. App. 1984) (rev. denied) (”To establish a claim in a defamation action [plaintiff] must prove that the [defendant] made false and defamatory statements about them which injured their reputation.”
.
Evidence of plaintiff’s poor reputation is generally admissible to mitigate damages. Davis v. Hamilton, 92 N.W. 512, 515 (Minn. 1902); Finklea v. Jacksonville Daily Progress, 742 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tex. App. 1987). If an individual’s reputation cannot be further damaged, a defamation suit serves no purpose, wastes judicial resources, and hinders First Amendment interests. Id.
The “libel-proof” plaintiff. A plaintiff is “libel-proof” when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications. At the point the challenged statements are published, then, plaintiff’s reputation is already so damaged that a plaintiff cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements. Marcone v. Penthouse Int’l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985).
http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
I don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere good for Mr. Sinclair.
Publicity - The publicity associated with litigating a defamation claim can actually serve to expose a greater audience to the false allegations than they previously enjoyed. In the event that a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the defamation lawsuit, defamatory statements previously known to only a handful of people can suddenly become known by the entire community - sometimes the entire nation or world. Sometimes the media will do a poor job of subsequently covering the verdict, such that the public hears the defamatory allegations but doesn’t learn that the plaintiff was successful in the lawsuit.
I think this would be the reason Obama wouldn’t file a defamation suit against Sinclair.
Evidence of plaintiff’s poor reputation is generally admissible to mitigate damages. Davis v. Hamilton, 92 N.W. 512, 515 (Minn. 1902); Finklea v. Jacksonville Daily Progress, 742 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tex. App. 1987). If an individual’s reputation cannot be further damaged, a defamation suit serves no purpose, wastes judicial resources, and hinders First Amendment interests. Id.
Mmmmmm, can’t wait to see how Larry supporters will refute this information. Especially SueCitySue, she always offers such a high degree of intellect with her e-motional icons. I wonder which one she will choose. Will it be
? Or maybe her favorite 
. At any rate, you can bet that she will stand by her man…who cares about the law when you follow Larry Sinclair? Right Sue? You will win because “Larry stands tall?”
Law, schmaw.
Mitch who?
Hmmmmm…..I think I sorta remember him?????????
I have no doubts about Larry Sinclair. I believe he has made a BIG impact on this country without MSM coverage.
Kudos Mr. Sinclair.
Tee hee.
At least he’s good for some entertainment.
Yes, helping America out is VERY entertaining!!!!!!!!!!
MOLLY….
If you frequent here, please visit our spot. You have friends.
And Sue….Post 32 was right. You’re a cunt.
http://themitchandnanshow.wordpress.com/
OH….DEGA….BITE MY ASS YOU FREAK OF NATURE! IF YOUR HEAD WERE ANY FURTHER UP LAR-TARD’S ASS….YOU COULD PEEK OUT OF HIS NECK!
SueCitySue is still a fuckwit. I am only doing this for the money so I can finally fund my dream of paticipating in a 2 girls 1 cup style video with my mom. Mitch is right, I am a liar. What happened to that dumbass Danielle? She believed me, maybe she would film my video for me. I eat poop. I eat poop. I got an itch for the goats and sheep. BHDC is my partner for this scam. Give me money.
* CHOMP CHOMP
Sorry to interrupt, but who the heck is Larry Sinclair?
***********************************************************
A nobody
Elizabeth Edwards is a very intelligent Lady. Her coming out for Hillary will make a huge impact on NC. I think John Edwards might just follow & support Hillary. If not that is his choice. A Hillary/Edwards ticket would be a win/win in my humble opinion.
Has anyone considered that Hillary and Obama may end up on one ticket and those Hillary supporters who wish to take Obama down may take HER along for the ride?
Play this insanity through people.
Mitch, do you have a blog out of Minnesota? Oh, the Chicago Police has made contact concerning the affidavit you claimed they were not the least bit interested in. Just thought I would let you know. You can call Molly directly if you wish. Just call DU.com, I am sure they can put you in touch with her.
Have a nice day Mitch. Will be seeing you soon enough. Oh, and how can you even try to say I am obstructing anything? Seems you and the Mitch/Bitch/Nan/Paul/Denise/Eric/Eric/Marie/Nate/Mark/et.al. are the ones obstructing and tampering. Bye now.
By golly I sure am popular with that ole mitchbitchmurraykeving R whath the heck ever his ole name might be.
I luv it!
To bad for them folks though, I use my name when I post.
Not hiding behind no bakers dozen different names.
Any how I don’t much have the time to sit on any web site as do they.
But I shore does appreciate them thunking about me often.
Just to dang bad they don’t have enough knowledge of the English language to crawl out of the gutter.
But what in the heck better can one expect of them ‘downowpeeps?’
Oh and I just gotts flash my emotions.
Did I gots em all??????
**downlowpeeps**
YeeeeHaaawwwww!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I doubt seriously that Hillary would ever consent to sharing a ticket with baaaarack under any conditions. So really not much to worry about there.