Deception Indicated

Larry Sinclair Guilty of Defamation – But Who Was Defamed?

I thought it worthwhile to further bring out an issue in Larry’s inconsistencies that has previously been referred to on this site.

Why?  Because, by his own words, we know he has engaged in defamation, we just can’t be sure who has been defamed.  Let us consider the evidence:

02/08/08: The Right Perspective Interview with Larry Sinclair

I’ve been trying to get this out since last fall and, umm, You Tube was pretty much a last resort…It’s like, you can come out with anything on any other candidate but the you know, but the golden child and it will be reported… I mean, it should’ve come out back last fall when I first reported it, umm, to NBC [corrects self] MSNBC. Now they ignored it… then I understood why because one of their co-anchors on Morning Joe is actually a family member of the people running his campaign.

03/10/08: Rense Interview

I told you on the first interview that I had with you in January that I had only myself attempted to take this to the press at the 1st of the year and people have been constantly implying that this story was leaked back in October/November, referring to Robert Novak or the Hillary Clinton campaign whispers and I have told people that I don’t think it was my story that was being whispered about and if in fact it is this story that was being whispered about then the only people that could have leaked this story back then would have been the Obama Campaign because I had not even gone to the media with it.

05/29/08: Rense Interview

…I went to the DNC, I had made it clear that I would go to the DNC’s offices on south capital and asked to speak to someone face to face regarding the complaint that I filed against Barrack Obama last year and why that complaint has been ignored and swept under the rug.


IF Larry had not gone to anyone else BUT the Obama campaign prior to 1st January 2008 then he has defamed both MSNBC and the DNC.

IF Larry did go to both the MSNBC and the DNC in the fall of 2007 then he has defamed the Obama Campaign as the ‘only source’ of a leak.

Which do you think he defamed?  Whoever it is has legal recourse against him based on this inconsistency.

Sinclair Duplicity Regarding Nate Spencer

I thought it worthwhile to note that Larry has been, in my opinion, duplicitous on the topic of Nate Spencer.

In recent days he posted on his website a correction to a reader that Nate Spencer died from AIDS, was not murdered, as was recorded on Nate Spencer’s death certificate.

Larry knew long before he attempted to get copies of the death certificates of Nate Spencer, Larry Bland and Donald Young that Nate had died of an illness, was not murdered.  He was TOLD this clearly and he also knew that a lot of people had made an incorrect assumption that Nate was also murdered and that this rumor had circulated online.

So why then, aware of Nate’s death by illness, did he get a copy of Nate’s death certificate, stating on an earlier blog that he had gotten Nate’s and Larry’s death certificates but had been unable to source Donald’s, unless he was tacitly and indirectly feeding the false premise that Nate had been murdered by doing so?

His actions fed the established mis-interpretation, as three murders are more sensational than two are they not?  And yet he did so in an indirect way, where he didn’t say Nate was murdered – so you couldn’t pin that on him, but where people would assume that was the case or why else get the death certificate?

From my perspective this is a classic example of the way that Larry operates.


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: