ZDN Exclusive -- I Smell A Rat: the Obama - Sinclair Sex and Drug Scandal

26-FEBUARY-2008

UPDATE #1 27-FEB-2008

Larry Sinclair alleges that Dan Parisi from WhiteHouse.com has broken parts of the agreement between himself and Parisi. On the 25th of February Sinclair posted the contents of several emails between Parisi and himself which seem to support his claim.

Also, WhiteHouse.com specifically stated that the video of the polygraph test would be posted on their website, as well as the transcripts of the 2 polygraph tests, then refused to post it making the following comment:

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.

I think the childish "if you touch me i'm telling mom" reason given has a lot more to do with the contents of the second report, which we'll get into in a bit. Parisi said he would make the reports and video available. In the end, he posted only a very small, nearly useless snippet of the first report, nothing from the second report, and no video of either polygraph examination. Why? Let's find out...

The original story below indicates one possible reason, having to do with Edward Gelg, the person who issued the polygraph test, misrepresenting himself and being involved in an ethics issue. He claimes to have a PhD when it appears he actually does not. Read the original story for more.

If we look at the report from Gordan Barland, the second person to evaluate the polygraph test results, which was made available by Sinclair, we find some noteworthy items. Under the "materials reviewed" section, we see the following:

5. A DVD containing the audio/video recording of the pretest interview and the initial test series regarding oral sex. I was not provided a DVD of the second series regarding cocaine.

Why wasn't a video of the second test provided?

In the "observations" section we see:

5. There was a bathroom break after the pretest interview, during which Dan Paris and his video technician entered to reposition the cameras. They were still working on that when Mr. Sinclair returned and sat in the polygraph chair. It took an additional eight minutes before they completed the task, during which the examination was on hold. At one point, Mr. Parisi started asking Mr. Sinclair some questions about the matter under investigation, but Mr. Gelb cut him off. Mr. Parisi and his technician exited the room shortly thereafter, and the examination resumed.

Then, in the "findings" section:

1. Except for the two disruptions by Mr. Parisi (who requested the examination) and IMS technician, I found the examination to be professionally conducted and in compliance with ASTM and APA standards.

And then:

3. When Mr. Sinclair returned from the break after the pretest interview and before the cameras had been fully repositioned, his presence in the room allowed the opportunity for Mr. Parisi to ask questions. There should have been a clearer understanding that there must be no outside interference with the examination process. Mr. Gelb acted professionally in quickly terminating that, but in hind sight it would have been better to avoid the situation altogether. That could have been done either by having the cameras better positioned prior to the examination (for example, having an additional camera positioned to view the polygraph chair), or for My Sinclair to have been seated in the waiting room until Mr. Gelb could resume the examination.

Next is this:

5. I scored the printout of the first series of charts (regarding oral sex) using the Federal 7 position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria. There were strong and consistent reactions to the relevant questions. I scored the charts as 17 (Deception indicated) I was unable to score the charts using a computer algorithm. as I do not have the digital data for the first series.

Why does he not have the digital data? Did WhiteHouse.com not make it available?

So far we are left to question why the video of the second test was not made available to Barland and why he didn't have the digital data from the first test. At the very least it appears WhiteHouse.com was sloppy by failing to provide the necessary data to the examiner so he could more accurately score the test results.

Parisi failed to publish the full findings of the first test results on the WhiteHouse.com website as he clearly stated he would, choosing instead to publish only a few sentances from it which, somehow, took the better part of a day to convert from a handwritten document to typed text (other deadlines set by WhiteHouse.com were missed as well).

The results of the second test were never published on the website. According to Parisi, the reason is because the website was verbally attacked and has received "hate mail" and they are "very disturbed". Using this as an excuse to withhold the full report of the first test, the text results of the second test and the video of both tests is almost certainly a cover. Obviously Parisi knew this was a very violate situation and any thinking individual can correctly assume they will be taking some heat considering the subject matter.

If we look at the last item in the "findings" section from the second report, a possible motive for withholding it becomes clear:

6. I scored the printout of the second series of charts (regarding cocaine), but was not satisfied with the quality of the electroderrnal channel on one of the charts. When I received the digital data and optimized the channel, I used the Federal position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria to evaluate the charts. I scored the charts as -7 (Deception Indicated). I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from 00 to 1.00. This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DECK guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner's or reviewer's score and PolyScore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive. I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb's conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.

So Gordan Barland concurs with Gelb, even though the data he analyzed was not complete and the PolyScore software indicates "no deception".

It appears that WhiteHouse.com broke it's agreement with Sinclair by stopping payment on some of the checks sent to him. In an email made available by Larry Sinclair, we see the following:

Dan Parisi (DParisi@house.com)
Sent: Tue 2/26/08 12:05 PM
To: Lawrence Sinclair (lws022737@hotmail.com)

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.

Sinclair responds with the following:

Lawrence Sinclair (lws022737@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 2/26/08 2:38 PM
To: Dan Parisi (dparisi@house.com)
Cc:

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

My conclusion remains largely the same; Larry Sinclair is likely telling the truth, or a version of the story which closely resembles it. This latest news only reinforces my belief.

Original story below...

I smell a rat, and it's name is not Larry Sinclair.

On the 18th of January, 2008, an internet scandal erupted when Larry Sinclair, a gay male few have heard of, posted a video on YouTube in which he claimed he had sex and used cocaine with 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama in the back of a limo at a motor lodge in Gurnee, IL, in 1999.

Larry added 3 more videos over the next few weeks which provided more details about their encounter and a subsequent incident which occured at his hotel. He then agreed to be interviewed by Jeff Rense who runs a well known website and radio show. He did another radio interview later, though i don't recall with whom.

On the 11th of February, 2008, Larry Sinclair filed a lawsuit with the Minnesota District Court against Barack Obama, David Axelrod and the Democratic National Committee.

On the 15th of February, the website WhiteHouse.com publicly challenged Larry Sinclair to take a lie detector test, offering him $10,000, pass or fail, and another $90,000 if he passed. Preliminary results of the test were posted on the WhiteHouse.com website on the 24th, indicating that Larry had used deception.

The Rat:

There are several problems with this whole mess. Let's look at what i'm seeing here:

Barack Obama admitted to having used cocaine in the past.
According to Larry, he has been trying to get this information in the public domain through mainstream news media for some time, but none would publish the story. He said that a reporter for a Chicago newspaper was working on it, but the editor got cold feet. He says this is why he resorted to posting the first video on YouTube.
Larry knowingly took a huge risk by exposing his story, opening himself to character attack, law suits and personal threats. Why would he put himself in this position?
He filed a lawsuit against Obama, his campaign manager David Axelrod, and the DNC. He says he is not at all interested in money, so why would he do this?
Why would WhiteHouse.com offer Larry up to $100,000 when it appears Larry is a) not interested in money, b) gives the impression that he is fairly wealthy and c) was the first one to challenge Obama to a lie detector test?

Things were looking pretty good as far as Larry's credibility in my opinion, at least until the preliminary results of the lie detector test were published. Time to dig a little deeper...

There is a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of polygraph tests, though i was unaware of the extent. According to Wikipedia:

There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.[dubious – discuss] Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[15] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable” and “Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion.

Further discrediting the validity of polygraph testing is the website AntiPolygraph.org. On their homepage we find a bulleted "did you know" list:

The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?
The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?
The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?
The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?
A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem?
The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?
The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?"
The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?"
Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph?
One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again?
Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus?
You don't have to be a psychopath, go to spy school, or somehow believe your own lies to fool the polygraph? (We'll reveal how it's done.)

I came across AntiPolygraph.org looking for information about one Dr. Edward I. Gelb who was one of the 'experts' who evaluated the results from Larry Sinclair's polygraph test. These are highlights from some of the material i found on their website:

Polygraph Operator "Dr." Edward I. Gelb Exposed as a Phony Ph.D.

Why would one of the most prominent polygraph operators in America falsely pass himself off as a Ph.D.? Edward I. Gelb of Los Angeles isn't saying.

Since 1969, after completing training at the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, Gelb claims to have conducted in excess of 30,000 polygraph examinations. Along with attorney F. Lee Bailey, Gelb appeared on a nationally syndicated television program called "Lie Detector." Gelb has been interviewed about polygraph matters on such national television programs as "Entertainment Tonight," "Geraldo Rivera Live," "CNN Newstand," and CNN's "Larry King Live" show. His high profile clients include O.J. Simpson and John and Patsy Ramsey (parents of JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder remains unsolved). Gelb is a past president, executive director, and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and in 1998 earned the association's Leonarde Keeler Award "for long and distinguished service to the polygraph profession."

Gelb has publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least 1996. In 1997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."

But compelling evidence pieced together by discussants on the AntiPolygraph.org message board indicates that Gelb never earned a doctoral degree from any accredited university. The comprehensive Dissertation Abstracts database (the definitive worldwide collection of doctoral dissertations including over 1.6 million records dating back to 1861) includes no doctoral dissertation by an Edward Gelb.

Polygrapher Ed Gelb Removes Educational References from Resume

Some four years ago, AntiPolygraph.org confirmed that Los Angeles polygraph operator Edward I. Gelb, who styles himself as a Ph.D. in marketing his services, never received a doctoral degree from an accredited university. Last year, I filed an ethics complaint against Gelb with the American Polygraph Association, which declined to discipline Gelb for his fakery.

Nonetheless, it appears that Gelb has now removed references to his educational background from his official resume (if not from his website, where he continues to refer to himself as "Dr. Edward Gelb, Ph.D."). The website Big Head DC has made public Gelb's report of a polygraph examination he administered on 22 August 2007 to Wendy Ellis (AKA Wendy Cortez), a former New Orleans prostitute who claims to have been patronized by U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA). The report is attached to this post. Gelb's "Summary of Qualifications and Professional Experience," which appears as the last page, makes no reference to any university degrees, nor does he refer to himself as "Dr. Gelb" in it (as he did in his resume of 2002).

Isn't it time you corrected your website, too, Mr. Gelb?

More issues involving Edward Gelb can be found here.

On February 24th, Larry Sinclair made this statement after completing the polygraph tests:

STATEMENT FROM LARRY SINCLAIR

I am making this statement regarding the claims recently made against me and attributted to the WASHINGTON POST.

FIRST

The claims that I have an “extensive record of drug convictions” is in fact completely false and according to both the national new desk and city desk at the Washington Post has never been reported by anyone employed at this newspaper.

SECOND

The claims made that I “have been investigated eight times over the past 25 years for trying to secure money through “black male” and two of those involving politicians in IL and IN” also is in fact false and according to the Washington Post has never been reported by anyone employed at this newspaper.

THIRD

Dan Parisi of Whitehouse dot com has decided to ignore the conditions and agreement we entered into regarding the polygraph examination. Mr. Parisis has failed to provide the identity and contact information on the second Expert and in doing so has never obtained any agreement from me for using this individual.

Mr. Parisi failed to provide information that I recently received from emails from people I do not even know, which shows Dr. Edward Ira Gelb has in fact misrepresented his own credentials before a case filed in front of the US Supreme Court. (attached below)

fyi

www.antipolygraph.com/articles/article-036.shtml Gelb has publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least 1996. I***997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D." No, the "LaSalle University" that awarded Gelb his "doctorate" turns out to be a defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Mandeville, Louisiana that was owned and operated by one Thomas James Kirk, A.K.A. Thomas McPherson. I***996, LaSalle was raided by the FBI, and i***997 Kirk pled guilty to federal fraud charges. (For more on the bogus LaSalle University, Mr. Edward I. Gelb is no Ph.D., and he should stop masquerading as such.

In addition Mr. Parisi and his assistant refused to inform or allow me to be present during their meetings with Dr. Gelb in his office before, during and after the exams. Mr. Parisi and his assistant spent approximately two hours behind closed doors with Dr. Gelb before I was even introduced to him. During the examination process Dr. Gelb printed something off his computer and left the room telling me he would be back in five, only to return some 30 to 45 minutes later with Parisi’s assistant and an associate of Dr. Gelbs and then asked me to step out side for another 20 minutes before calling me back in to proceed with the exam.

FOURTH

Tonight (2-24-08) after Mr. Parisi refused to respond to my emails I posted on Whitehouse dot com the fact that Parisi this afternoon claimed he had not sent me copy of the results because he had not received them. Shortly after making that statement this afternoon Parisi’s assistant called saying they would fax the results in 15 minute, needless to say that never happened. Later Parisi claimed he had only then received a handwritten report faxed this date to him from Dr. Gelb and that he would wait to fax me the typed report.

If Mr. Parisi fails to comply with our agreement by Monday 2-25-08 I will post all email communications with him concerning this matter and which clearly state the conditions for this arrangement. These emails will clearly show Mr. Parisi did not follow our agreement and I will consider at that time what course of action should be taken. It is only natural that I would become suspicious of Mr. Parisi after finding out he has misrepresented this expert, he has claimed I was examined by two (2) experts of which I agreed and yet I only met one and still have not been given the contact information to this date on the second.

It needs to be made perfectly clear that I have from the very beginning demand all of this be done openly and with credible, unbiased, and apolitical individuals. These facts about Dr. Gelb make it hard for me to believe that Mr. Parisi can claim this person is unbiased and credible when he has misrepresented himself before the highest court in this Country.

Mr. Parisi’s claims that I approved both experts is untrue because I was never given this person whole name or any contact information on him/her. I was simply told Gordo something in Salt Lake City.

Thank you,

Larry Sinclair

The verdict?

Inconclusive, but i lean heavily toward the side of Larry.

According to the little bit of research i've done on the validity of polygraph testing, they simply cannot be trusted and therefore the test results are meaningless. Furthermore, the background, education and ethics of Edward Gelb seem to be in question which only further discredits the poly results.

From this authors point of view, i am left with what we started with, which is several videos and audio interviews featuring Larry Sinclair in which he gives a very detailed account of the events that transpired between himself and Barack Obama. Considering the risk he is taking, the heavily disputed credibility of polygraph tests and the Edward Gelb's background, i believe Larry Sinclair is telling the truth or, at the very least, a version of the story which is close to the truth.

Since part of the encounter between Larry and Barack took place in a limo that was on the move, we have a limo driver. According to Larry, the driver is hesitant to come forward and refused to name him for some time, however he finally did so on his YouTube page. I was unable to find the particular page, but the name he gave is P. Multani from the 5 Star Limo Service.

In a late development, it appears that Larry intends to take another polygraph test. Also, WhiteHouse.com has apparently stopped payment on the checks it gave to Larry.

In yet another late development, WhiteHouse.com announced they will break their promise to post the video of the polygraph tests, further discrediting the website.

Resources:

ZDN Exclusive -- I Smell A Rat: the Obama - Sinclair Sex and Drug Scandal

Polygraph Operator "Dr." Edward I. Gelb Exposed as a Phony Ph.D.

84,394 MEMBERS ON THE CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY

THE 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF 9-11 AND THE CYCLE OF WAR

CONGRESS TO 'REVIEW' CHARGES CIA PREPARED FORGED IRAQ, 9/11 LETTER

MASSIVE US NAVAL ARMADA HEADS FOR IRAN

CHEMICAL TRACES OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES IN WTC DEBRIS

DEAR WORLD, PLEASE CONFRONT AMERICA

ISRAEL THREATENING WORLD SECURITY

ACTS OF WAR: THE WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAN IS ON

AUSA OFFERS $5000 FOR CITIZEN'S ARREST OF RICE

CONFERENCE TO LAY PLANS TO PROSECUTE HIGH LEVEL US WAR CRIMINALS

BOHEMIAN GROVE GUEST LIST 2008

MICHAEL MUKASEY CALLS ON CONGRESS TO TAKE DRAMATIC STEPS TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION

RON PAUL: “SOME BIG EVENTS ARE ABOUT TO OCCUR”

OBAMA TO ESTABLISH "NATIONAL CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE"

NINE HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARING

HISTORY OF OIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST FROM WWI TO THE PRESENT: Iran eliminates the US Petrodollar and kills the American Empire