There Will Be No Driver Verification…Ever

    

Driver Claims Blow Up in Larry Sinclair’s Face

I do not know that anyone has realized the significance of Larry Sinclair’s “goofs” over the last 24 hours.  He has managed to effectively wipe out any semblance of credibility among supporters and fellow bloggers by making a few critical blunders.  Indeed, when you are juggling that many plates in the air, they are bound to start falling and for Larry Sinclair, they have come crashing down.

Larry Sinclair’s “limo-driver” has been a source of great interest since Larry’s claims first became known.  Indeed, the corroboration of an eye-witness who can place Barack Obama inside the limousine with Sinclair would be staggering.  In fact, other than the “murder” accusations, placing the two men together for an extended period of time inside a limousine and the verification that indeed the mysterious driver introduced the pair would create an unprecedented media storm the likes this country has never seen.

For many, it would seal Obama’s fate and rightfully so.  There would be no unimpeachable explanation why Senator Obama would have joined Sinclair for a “ride” beyond what Sinclair has claimed.  The burden of proof would indeed shift to the Senator and as Ricky often told Lucy, Mr. Obama would have “a lot of ’splainin to do”.

Larry Sinclair has displayed several instances of “impulsivity” and “burst of anger” throughout this affair.  Indeed, there is a real reason for many to speculate about his “mental stability” and certainly his credibility.  Many examples exists of Larry writing or posting in a threatening manner or with an obviously frustrated style.  Many times these types of hastily written responses or claims disappear within minutes, hours or days.  As much as some enjoy using these emotional outbursts to try and trip up Mr. Sinclair, most of them are not of great consequence.  

However, given its significance to his story, issues concerning the driver have been saved, copied, printed and archived more than any other topics of Larry’s focus.  Indeed Sinclair has made so many professions and denials about whether or not the driver has been named and/or what the name is, it seems logical to focus only on the incontestable.

Toward the beginning of this controversy, Larry Sinclair did a “radio interview” on the Right Perspective.  In the interview, Larry makes it very clear he has been in contact with the limo-driver who he claims introduced him to Barack Obama.  He stated on a few different times during this interview that he “had the limo driver”.  He then claimed the “limo-driver was willing to come forward” but because the driver was a personal friend of Obama and he was afraid.  Before the end of the interview, Larry again assures that the “limo-driver would come forward”.

In the early days of the WhiteHouse.com fiasco, after the polygraph test in Los Angeles, Sinclair decided he would have a better chance of “getting his story out to the Mainstream Media in LA” rather than in Duluth.  Larry made an offer to people following his YouTube pages that if they would “invest” in his staying in Los Angeles, he would double their money up to $20,000.  Meaning, had someone sent him $10,000 at that time, Larry would have paid them back $20,000 collected from WhiteHouse.com and Dan Parisi.  While no one seemed to take Larry up on the offer, before he returned to Duluth he posted the following as a “pay it forward” to anyone who might take him up on his offer:

LarrySinclair0926
The following is a gift to all in a “pay it forward” dedicated to thedon, the name of the driver for 5 star limo service is P. Multani

Within just a matter of hours of this post, many people on the internet began researching P. Multani to find what they could about the driver Sinclair so obviously named.  It is important to note that at the time of this (and other) interviews and posts, Sinclair had already been interviewed by John Crewdson, Pulitzer Prize winning author from The Chicago Tribune.  

It was within the same week that Larry Sinclair began claiming he had not released the name of the limo driver and would not for a variety of reasons.  He promised it once during the WhiteHouse.com fiasco and said the name would be released and the driver would come forward the next day- only after security had been arranged for the man.  

His denials about exposing the name of the limo-driver have continued until present, but seem to have reached a high point in an exchange with an avid Sinclair supporter/blogger: Citizen Wells.  This exchange included the following quotes from Sinclair in a response to Wells’ comments about P. Multani:

“Thought you should know I did not state the above was the limo drivers name. That is an assumption that internet warriors for Obama made and claimed.

Thank you,

Larry Sinclair”

Pressing further, Citizen Wells brings up the following about the name Multani including some of his results after having researched the name.  Again, Sinclair makes it very clear (though having mentioned it earlier) that this is NOT the name of the driver:

Hi Larry.
I am not trying to jeopardize your position.
Can you confirm or deny what this commenter on your blog
posted on Mar 20, 8:14 PM. It was posted by ravin kaur.

“When you were in Florida, you help him, Paramjit Singh Multani, come to the States? Yes? He arrested and ordered deported but did not show? Later he and wife try to get citizenship but her I-130 revoked cause his to fail and again order for him to deport out of Chicago? Final order 2000 Yes? He work for Limo service: was it for Nemcovic or Nastev?”

Citizen Wells

“ADDED BY LARRY:I believe I included a comment that this was an example of people putting other peoples names out there with no facts to back it up. I can state that no I did not help this individual enter the US nor did I ever state he was my limo driver or that he worked for five star. I will tell you flat out this is not the driver.”

Finally, Sinclair posted the following about an email exchange between he and John Crewdson, the reporter mentioned above.  And remember, Crewdson had interviewed Sinclair before the YouTube mention of Multani and before the “Right Perspective” interview in which Larry claimed he COULD and WOULD produce the limo-driver/ friend of Barack Obama:

Re: ‏
From: Crewdson, John M. (JCrewdson@tribune.com)
Sent: Mon 5/05/08 6:26 PM
To: lws022737@hotmail.com

You’re right. I should have checked with you before I answered Mitch. But I answer all email from readers and my answer would have been the same-because its true.If you’re talking about Multani, I haven’t ‘had him the whole damn time.’ The trail went cold in Tupelo where his wife and son insisted he had returned to India. If you know different please let me know.
Jc
John Crewdson
Senior Correspondent
Chicago Tribune
1025 F Street NW STE 700
Washington DC 20004
Tel: (202) 824-8261
Fax: (202) 824-8268

Very clearly, John Crewdson references the driver and the name Multani.  Unless he has lied to his “best-shot-ever” at the Mainstream Media, Larry Sinclair’s alleged limo-driver was P. Multani.

Mr. Crewdson talks about how impossible it is to reach Multani and that the trail has grown cold.  He also re-iterates the claim we have made from the beginning:  without a limo-driver, Larry Sinclair has no story.  Try as he may, grow as frustrated as he has, create or make up as he must, but the story stops and starts with the limo-driver P. Multani.

Mr. Crewdson suggests the limo driver has returned to India.  Wherever he has gone…he will NOT come forward and it is here that Larry Sinclair’s story will end.

Here is information from the Illinois Secretary of States business identification on Five Star Limo:

CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT
 

——————————————————————————–
 Entity Name  FIVE STAR TRANSPORTATION INC.  File Number 60444633 
 Status DISSOLVED  
 Entity Type CORPORATION  Type of Corp DOMESTIC BCA 
 Incorporation Date (Domestic)  04/14/1999   State  ILLINOIS  
 Agent Name RASHPAL MULTANI  Agent Change Date 04/14/1999 
 Agent Street Address 529 G R WEST LAKE HURST ROAD  President Name & Address  
 Agent City WAUKEGAN  Secretary Name & Address INVOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION 09 01 00 
 Agent Zip 60085  Duration Date PERPETUAL 
 Annual Report Filing Date 00/00/0000  For Year 2000

It seems likely that P. Multani might actually be “Mushpal” Multani the owner or perhaps just a relative.  Larry did state once that the limo-service was a family owned operation.  This shows the company inactive after 2,000 but this still fits within the timeframe of the incident.

   

We believe P. Multani to be Parajimit Multani, a man who according to this INS report was deported to India as he was in the country on the basis of a “sham” marriage.  Please read the attached record:

PARAMJIT SINGH MULTANI, Petition for Review of an order of

Petitioner , the Board of Immigration Appeals

v. No. AXX-XXX-XXX

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General of the United States,

Respondent .

O R D E R

This petition for review requires us to untangle a snarl of procedural steps that the petitioner, Paramjit Singh Multani, has created for us and the immigration authorities. Multani would like his removal proceedings stayed or administratively closed while his wife appeals from the revocation of the approval of her I-130 petition, which entitled Multani to a visa based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Relying on Multani’s record of “flouting” the immigration laws in various ways, the IJ denied this request; indeed, he went further and ordered that Multani be deported to India. Multani petitioned for review. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over this petition. Notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Immigration Appeals has, since argument in this case, vacated the revocation of the I-130 petition and remanded for further proceedings on the bona fides of the marriage, we see nothing in the decision of the IJ or the BIA before us that would justify granting the petition for review. Multani must therefore seek whatever further relief may be available to him from the BIA or the appropriate agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

I

Multani, a citizen of India, first entered the United States illegally in 1987. He was arrested by immigration officials in Florida in 1991, at which time the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) charging him with deportability for illegally entering the United States. Multani failed to appear at his hearing and was ordered deported in absentia . In 1996, he turned up in California, where he applied for asylum. In that application (in which Multani used a shortened version of his name, Paramjit Singh), he claimed that he was tortured and beaten in India in 1993, and that he first entered the United States in 1994. He made no mention of his prior immigration proceedings. The application was denied and Multani received another OSC, based on illegal entry. Once again, Multani failed to attend his deportation hearing, and once again, he was ordered deported in absentia . Then in 1998, Multani was again found in the United States and charged with deportability for entering the country illegally. This time, a warrant for his deportation was issued, but in February 1999 he sent a letter to the INS, notifying it that he had “self-deported” to Canada and that the INS was “not to bother” him at his new address.

Apparently Canada was not to his liking, because he illegally reentered the United States eight months later. The INS caught up with him quickly and charged him with removability for the illegal reentry. Multani denied that he was removable and requested an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status. His case was transferred to Chicago, and in October 2000, the IJ ordered him deported to India. Multani then filed a motion to reopen his case, arguing that he was denied an opportunity to apply to have his status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident, based on an approved I-130 petition filed by his wife, who was a U.S. citizen. Multani concurrently applied to adjust his status, but his application falsely claimed that he had never previously been deported. At the same time, Multani appealed the IJ’s October 2000 decision to the BIA, which remanded his case so that the IJ could consider his application for adjustment of status.

At the hearing on Multani’s application to adjust his status, the IJ informed him that because of his “self-deportation” in 1999, he was ineligible to adjust status and become a permanent resident. Multani’s attorney, however, then informed the IJ that four days earlier, he had filed an I-212 application on Multani’s behalf, requesting permission for Multani to reapply for admission to the United States after deportation. The IJ decided to continue the hearing. Before it resumed, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) (a bureau of DHS) revoked the I-130 visa petition that Multani’s wife had filed. When the status adjustment hearing resumed, Multani requested that the IJ continue his case, pending resolution of an appeal of the visa revocation. As we noted above, on April 7, 2006, the BIA ruled favorably on Multani’s appeal, ordering “the District Director to provide the petitioner an additional opportunity to submit evidence in support of the bona fides of the marriage.” The BIA’s order does not comment on any other aspect of the case, although it includes a footnote detailing the various names that DHS asserts Multani has used. Interestingly, the BIA’s order of April 7 identifies him as “Paramjit Singh,” not as Multani. We think it is fair to conclude, from counsel’s submission of the Board’s April 7 order, that he concedes that he has used both names.

Back in 2003, however, the IJ refused Multani’s request to continue the case or to adjust his status; instead, he issued an order dated June 18, 2004, that concluded with the following language: “IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s request for a continuance be denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be deported from the United States to India on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.” The IJ explained in the order that Multani’s record was “replete with misrepresentations, deceptions, and utter disregard for the laws of the United States.” The IJ recognized that he had discretion whether to grant Multani’s request for a continuance, but that given Multani’s history, this relief was not warranted, nor was any further delay in resolving the case as a whole.

Multani appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ had violated his due process rights by not acting impartially, and that the IJ abused his discretion by denying a continuance knowing that Multani’s visa had been “revoked in violation of the law.” Unmoved, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Foreshadowing its later ruling in the visa appeal, it expressed concern about the revocation of Multani’s marriage visa, noting that the only apparent basis for that action was that Multani was “the kind of person who would enter into a sham marriage.” This, it concluded, would be an improper reason for such an action. Nevertheless, the BIA found that Multani did not merit discretionary relief, because he “flout[ed] immigration laws” by making misrepresentations in his application, failing to appear for prior hearings, and twice ignoring deportation orders. The BIA’s order concludes with the statement “[a]ccordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

II

The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Multani’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of his request for a continuance pending his appeal of the revocation of the marriage visa. It argues further that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision to deny Multani’s application for adjustment of status. It is true that the governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which is entitled “denials of discretionary relief” says that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law … and except as provided in subparagraph (D), … no court shall have jurisdiction to review… (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security….” SeeSubhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating in dicta that ordinary denials of continuances are covered by the statutory ban on judicial review);Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990, 995 (10th Cir. 2004); but see Zafar v. U.S. Attorney General, 426 F.3d 1330, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the authority for an IJ to grant a continuance is derived solely from regulations promulgated by the INS, and thus the ban on judicial review does not extend to rulings on motions for continuances). In some situations, however, the denial of a continuance is functionally the final substantive order in the case. See Subhan, 383 F.3d at 595-96; see also Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2005). In those situations, we have held that substance should prevail over form, and that we have the power to review the ultimate decision in the case.

In its zeal to protect the Attorney General’s discretion, however, the government has overlooked the fact that, in the final analysis, this is not a petition for review of the denial of a continuance. It is a petition from the final order commanding that Multani be deported to India. As is often the case, Multani is complaining that various procedural steps along the way to that outcome require reversal. But that does not mean that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the deportation order, as we normally do under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that scope of appellate review now includes review of constitutional claims and questions of law). Our jurisdiction over this petition is secure, even though there may be particular rulings that receive special deference.

Unfortunately for Multani, however, this procedural victory is of little avail. His protestations about his inability to gather together all of his prior records ring hollow, especially since he has now conceded the fact that “Paramjit Singh Multani” (whose case was docketed as AXX-XXX-XXX by DHS) and “Paramjit Singh (whose case was docketed as AXX-XXX-XXX by DHS) are one and the same person. The IJ did not abuse his discretion when he found that Multani did not merit either a continuance or any other kind of discretionary relief. We have no reason to second-guess the IJ’s finding that Multani’s “record is replete with misrepresentations, deceptions, and utter disregard for the laws of the United States.” Finally, we reject Multani’s claim that the proceedings before the IJ infringed his due process rights. Among other problems with this argument is the fact that an alien’s right to due process does not extend to proceedings that provide only discretionary relief. SeeCevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2006); Hamdan , 425 F.3d at 1060-61. In addition, Multani has given us no reason to think that the IJ and the BIA were anything but impartial and conscientious.

The petition for review is DENIED .

Again, John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune certainly used every resource available to him to find the ellusive Mr. Multani, but as reported in the email, Multani’s wife reports her husband has long since returned to India.

So produce the driver’s name Mr. Sinclair.  If it’s Parajimit Multani, he is in India.

If it is his cousin Kavel Multani, he was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security for of all things, human trafficking.

Regardless, there will be no verification from a limo-driver for Larry Sinclair.  Sinclair himself can’t seem to remember from one day to the next who he tells which name or if he has mentioned a name at all.  It comes as no surprise Sinclair now offers to name the driver on Network News.  There is no longer a “risk” or “security concern” because the driver is long gone and Sinclair is left to dream up his next plan, next scheme or next lwa suit.

 

Coming up soon:  Mitch and Nan share Larry’s post to our very own comment boards this morning.  We will print them in their entirety and answer them as well.

         

Later- Mitch and Nan prepare to leave the U.S. and add two new writers to our “well-paid” staff.  Don’t miss the heart-felt goodbye.

(And if you , our faithful readers, do NOT catch the sarcasm in the “heart-felt” goodbye, you have all morphed into giant DOUCHES!)

M&N