If you're new to DBKP, you may want to subscribe to the DBKP.com RSS feed. Thanks for stopping by!

The Larry Sinclair story has been filled with accusations and allegations but interspersed between the innuendo and claims of illicit sex, illegal drugs, and now murder, are some cold, hard facts that Sinclair hasn’t been eager to share: the February 25th ruling made by Judge Raymond L. Erickson in the District of Minnesota Federal Court.

Sinclair has upped the ante by personally attacking Michelle Obama referring to her today in a post entitled: Michelle Obama: The Reason She Is A Bitter, Evil Bitch; She Just Can’t Toss Barack’s Tea Bags!”

The website Overlawyered.com has posted an update on the status of the first Federal lawsuit filed by Sinclair in the District Court of Minneapolis versus Senator Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC. A direct link to the magistrate’s thorough report and recommendations can be found at Overlawyered.

The final judgment was rendered on March 19 where Judge James M. Rosenbaum dismissed Sinclair’s case. Ted Frank at Overlawyered points out that the judge dismissed the “plainly frivolous case sua sponte without requiring the victimized defendants to expend legal fees in responding”.

Here’s a summary of Judge Raymond L. Erickson’s decision rendered back on February 25, 2008:

Calling Sinclair’s allegations “scant”, the Judge wrote that Sinclair was attempting to sue the three defendants, Obama, Axelrod, and the DNC, for “allegedly violating his (Sinclair) right to free speech”.

Sinclair seeks an injunction that would:

1. Compel “defendants to cease any investigation and turn over any fruits from said investigation”.

2. Compel “defendants to cease all acts of intimidation and instruct their staff and supporters to cease with intimidation and threats”.

3. Compel “defendant Democratic National Committee to remove all attack statements, smear and slanderous claims made against (Sinclair) on any and all of its sections of its official website”.

Sinclair’s IFP application was denied and the action dismissed because he (Sinclair) filed a pleading that failed to “state a claim on which relief may be granted”.

To state an actionable claim for relief, a Complaint must allege a set of
historical facts which, if proven true, would entitle the complainant to some legal
redress against the named defendants, based upon some recognized legal principle or
doctrine. While Federal Courts must “view pro se pleadings liberally, such pleadings
may not be merely conclusory: the complaint must allege facts, which if true, state
a claim as a matter of law.” Excerpt from Judge Erickson’s Decision

Sinclair, who’s claimed on previous websites that he has extensive “legal” knowledge and that he has a “degree in law” was shot down by the judge who wrote that Sinclair had resorted to making his Youtube video after his allegations against “Obama did not receive the publicity that Sinclair intended, by all appearances, to generate“.

The judge found that Sinclair’s allegations were “scant” and that he had “failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted”.

The judge found that Sinclair had not “alleged a set of historical facts which, if proven true, would entitle the defendant to some legal redress” that must be based on “some recognized legal principle or doctrine”.

The judge found Sinclair’s pleadings “conclusory” and that Sinclair “must allege facts“. The judge found Sinclair had failed to “explicitly identify any legal basis” for his lawsuit.

The judge found that “Sinclair has failed to state a cause of action, because the minimal facts, which are alleged in his Complaint, do not state an actionable claim under any cognizable legal theory”.

The judge found that the two statutes Sinclair cited were not applicable. Title 42 U.S.C. 1982 is available for only for claims of racial discrimination. The judge noted that Sinclair never provided any allegations that “so much as intimate is the victim of any racial discrimination” nor that Sinclair never mentioned nor alluded to his “race”. The judge noted that the second statute cited by Sinclair, Title 18 U.S.C. 241, is a criminal statute, “which affords no basis for a private, civil cause of action by Sinclair against the defendants”.

The judge noted that Sinclair had made an “unexplained reference to the First Amendment” and conclusory allegation that the “[a]ctions of defendants are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, violate [Sinclair’s] right to free speech, conspire against the rights of citizens as a whole.”

The judge found that Sinclair had “no standing” to “prosecute his alleged claims on behalf of “citizens as a whole”.”

The judge ruled that while Obama was a federal or state official back when Sinclair alleges Obama engaged in gay sex and illicit drug use with Sinclair, that Obama was not acting under “the authority” or under a “federal color” to raise a Bivens claim.

The judge ruled Sinclair’s complaint was “devoid of any factual allegations which demonstrate that their acts (Obama, Axelrod, DNC), violated his rights under the First Amendment”.

The judge noted that Sinclair has had “unfettered opportunity to exercise his constitutional right to free speech”. That Sinclair “exercised that right by posting his video on Youtube” and “otherwise publicizing his accusations against Obama”.

The judge found that Sinclair’s complaints that “publications of his allegations has received public criticism” that the First Amendment “provides no absolute protection from critical public comment”.

The judge ruled that the alleged “undercover” investigations” by the defendants are not a violation of Sinclair’s First Amendment rights.

The judge ruled that the DNC is not liable for “3rd party” comments on its website forums.

Judge Erickson pulled the plug on Sinclair’s lawsuit against Obama, Axelrod, and the DNC on February 25, 2008.

One side note: Sinclair has decided to go after Michelle Obama, his latest post is titled: Michelle Obama: The Reason She Is A Bitter, Evil Bitch; She Just Can’t Toss Baracks Tea Bags!

For all of Sinclair’s claims that he’s being “intimidated” by Obama and his supporters, this post is an inflammatory, vulgar and obscene reference to Senator Obama’s wife. We wondered, what legal course did Sinclair learn this type of attack?

By LBG

Source - Overlawyered - Larry Sinclair Versus Barack Obama
Image - Gavel