Posted on 09/22/2006 11:49:46 PM PDT by doug from upland
Clinton lawyer Kendall accused of filing false statement
Suit by top donor claims ex-president in scheme to destroy business
Posted: September 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Clinton attorney David Kendall (PBS.org)
Bill Clinton's longtime attorney David Kendall is accused of filing a fabricated statement in a court brief to quash a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the former president.
In legal pleadings filed this week with Los Angeles Superior Court, business mogul Peter Franklin Paul claims Kendall cobbled together two unrelated quotes from a March 2005 federal court hearing in an attempt to pin on Paul the very charge Paul is making against Clinton.
As WND has reported, Paul claims Clinton destroyed his entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, to get out of a $17 million deal in which the former president promised to promote the firm in exchange for Paul's massive contributions to Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign. Paul alleges specifically that Bill Clinton's agent diverted a key investment away from Stan Lee Media – a partnership with the creator of Marvel Comics' Spiderman – causing it to fold amid the dot-com meltdown in December 2000.
A hearing on Paul's second amended complaint in the lawsuit is scheduled Monday morning in Los Angeles.
Paul alleges that after he donated $1.9 million of cash and in-kind contributions for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, Bill Clinton directed his associate, Jim Levin, to convince Paul's Japanese partner – in violation of a confidentiality agreement – to incorporate a new company instead of investing another $5 million with Paul. The loss of that badly needed capital ultimately caused Stan Lee Media to fold, Paul maintains.
In legal pleadings filed ahead of Monday's court session, Paul claims Kendall manipulated quotes from the March 2005 hearing to make it sound as if Paul admitted personal responsibility for the collapse of Stan Lee Media. If Kendall's argument were to succeed, it would undermine the basis of Paul's case, which asserts Clinton was the cause of his company's demise.
Kendall did not reply to WND's request for a response to Paul's charges. Previously, he told WND he would not comment on the case. Kendall stopped commenting to the media last December when Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign fund-raising group, New York Senate 2000, was fined for filing false reports. Kendall had maintained consistently since 2001 he had filed "proper reports" and that Paul was not credible.
The protest by Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson of the United States Justice Foundation, asserts Kendall misled the court in his opposition brief.
Wilson says Kendall pieced together a sentence from Paul's allocution – a defendant's formal explanation of his actions to the judge before sentencing – and another from final comments to the judge to make it sound as if Paul were apologizing for the collapse of his company.
Peter Paul says this photo shows him discussing his business deal with President Clinton in 2000 
In the March 2005 hearing, Paul pled guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks and for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value.
Paul points out Federal Judge Gary Feess ruled in his dismissal of a civil lawsuit brought by Stan Lee Media against him and Merrill Lynch in July 2003 that the "collapse of the margin scheme did not cause SLM's stock to decline in value" and therefore was not responsible for the demise of the company. Paul says the judge's ruling supports his case, by determining it was the financial condition of the company that caused the collapse. The purpose of the margin scheme, the judge determined, was to benefit Stan Lee Media.
"I did everything humanly possible to save the company after Clinton did everything possible to destroy it," Paul contended in an interview with WND.
But on page five of Kendall's opposition brief, the Clinton attorney inserted a footnote that suggests Paul admitted causing the collapse of Stan Lee Media:
Plaintiff's version of events is markedly different than what he described in his March 7, 2005, plea allocution (Plaintiff pled guilty to securities fraud in the Eastern Division of New York and a true and correct copy of the allocution transcript is attached as Exhibit A). In his plea allocution, Plaintiff stated – referring to the collapse of SLM – that "I and other borrowed money on margin … using my stock … as collateral. In this way, I concealed from the investing public that I was leveraging and in effect, liquidating a substantial part of my holdings … I am extremely sorry for the harm my actions have caused."
Paul calls Kendall's notation "a contrived effort to deceive the court into believing that I admitted to collapsing my company – which is the exact charge I'm leveling against Bill Clinton."
Wilson told WND she believes Kendall's footnote is "either a deliberate lie or a very cavalier and irresponsible" handling of the facts.
Kendall has no basis for making the assertion that Paul's actions caused the downfall of his company, let alone that Paul takes claim for it, Wilson insists.
Kendall says in his opposition brief President Clinton "strongly objects" to Paul's "attempt to blame" (Clinton) – for the first time – for the collapse of Stan Lee Media, Inc. and to increase the alleged damages over fifteen-fold."
Kendall asserts Paul has been constantly changing his story –and his legal claims – for over five years."
The first complaint, June 19, 2001, Kendall argues, contained only one cause of action against Clinton, for unjust enrichment, and mentioned the Japanese partner, Tendo Oto, only briefly.
"The original complaint did not allege an employment agreement between Paul and Clinton, that President Clinton committed fraud and that he interfered with Paul's relationship with Oto or that former President Clinton was responsible for the collapse of SLM," Kendall stated in his brief.
Paul says Kendall's claims are "patently false," pointing out the assertions were included in the original 2001 complaint, which attributed the damages done to his company to Clinton directing Levin to interfere with Oto.
Regarding the damage amount, Paul says the previous two complaints have had enough facts from which to infer the figure, but the new amended complaint states it explicitly, although there is no obligation to do so.
"I was worth $50 million when I met the Clintons, I was worth zero after the frauds they perpetrated on me," Paul said. "Those facts never change."
The reason the complaint was amended again, Paul said, was because in an April 7 hearing in which Sen. Clinton was released as a defendant, the court said it believed the case to be a political vendetta between two families. The pleadings, therefore, were changed to emphasize that Paul sees himself not as an aggrieved political contributor but as a victim of fraud in the loss of his business.
Paul said he hopes the lawyers' code of professional responsibility is applied to Kendall.
"This is an egregious violation of the responsibility of an officer of the court," Paul said. "It's on a par with the violations that President Clinton committed in the Paul Jones suit which cost him his license to practice law."
Will he be taking his briefcase to sit on this time?
I've got a big headache and I'm quite tired, so maybe this is harder than it would be normally to grasp:
"As WND has reported, Paul claims Clinton destroyed his entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, to get out of a $17 million deal in which the former president promised to promote the firm in exchange for Paul's massive contributions to Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign. Paul alleges specifically that Bill Clinton's agent diverted a key investment away from Stan Lee Media – a partnership with the creator of Marvel Comics' Spiderman – causing it to fold amid the dot-com meltdown in December 2000."
But this sounds as convoluted as almost everything bubba and his WINO got involved in.
After a few years of bubba's presidency, you'd think people who had a lot of money to throw around would have been smart enough to keep their finances out of the hands of those grifters.
I'm not sure, but I intend to harrass him again. I have a new movie camera.
The news just keeps getting better and better! :-)
- Hillary has been part of a conspiracy since 2000 that is the largest campaign finance fraud every
- Paul was building a company with Spiderman creator Stan Lee
- Getting a former president aboard as a rainmaker would raise huge sums of money for the company
- the deal was that Peter had to help Hillary's campaign....Peter had no interest in the politics
- Jim Levin was Clinton's eyes and ears and, despite signing a non-circ agreement, he went directly to Peter's Japanese partner and made a deal for himself and Clinton
- when the $5 million did not come into the company from
Tendo Oto as promised in November, the company stock collapsed
- Hillary has provided the court with a totally lying declaration
- our film is going to expose her and hopefully destroy her hopes for the White House
Another good story from another source is coming out on Monday.
Oh good; be sure to ping me.
Just what I was thinking!
BUMP
Kendall has been bs'ing the public for years with his claim that the case had no merit. See you in depositions, Bill and Hill.
LOL!
It is amusing to see "Clinton" and "false statement" in the same sentence.
Here is the witness list --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614617/posts
How cool would it be to be able to serve the subpoena on Streisand for her deposition?
Hillary's declaration is a work of fiction. It will be eviscerated.
Hillary is a work of fiction. An evil one at that.
I posted it on another thread related to Clinton's behavior but is'nt it amazing how it only took the Klintons 8 years to get revenge on Joe Lieberman who publically said he was ashamed of President Clintons behavior which he called reckless and dishonorable during Monicagate?
I am not a big conspiracy theorist BUT (LOL, I hate when others do that) is'nt it interesting that all of this grass roots support for Lamont suddenly sprang up? Lieberman was about as liberal as you could get on everything but the war and all of a sudden he is the #1 target of leftist?
Food for thought or a dish from the Clintons served cold?
The Clinton fantasy is caving right before our beady little eyes.
Donchya just love it when liberals eat their own?
Good luck.
Yes, very good luck! Thanks for what you are doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.