Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battling the Clintons, and Each Other (Judicial Watch may tie up Peter F. Paul)
NY Times ^ | 3/15/05 | IAN URBINA

Posted on 03/16/2005 4:47:57 AM PST by Libloather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 03/16/2005 4:47:58 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Mr. Paul says that the organization used his case solely to draw donations while doing little to solve his legal troubles.

Shocking! Shocking! /sarcasm off

Mr. Paul says Judicial Watch let his civil suit against the Clintons linger in court while using it to raise more than $15 million since 2001 from people who dislike the Clintons.

Just to clarify. The $15 million must be what they raised just from Mr. Paul's case. JW in total has taken in $75+ million over the past few years according to their IRS 990 filings.

I'm still wondering why JW is a nonprofit. It's hardly a charity.

2 posted on 03/16/2005 4:58:45 AM PST by isthisnickcool (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

It's been obvious for about 5 years that no client with a legitimate claim should hire Judicial Watch.


3 posted on 03/16/2005 4:58:53 AM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The fact that the Clintons are still stuck in the civil lawsuit speaks volumes to our success in the case," Mr. Fitton said

so JD's goal is to be stuck in court for four years? Wow, what an endorsement.

I wonder if they tell all their clients, we'll tie up your claim in court for decades.

4 posted on 03/16/2005 4:59:09 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Judicial Watch operates on Jessie Jackson's business model.

(steely)

5 posted on 03/16/2005 5:03:16 AM PST by Steely Tom (Fortunately, fhe Bill of Rights doesn't include the word 'is'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

"I'm still wondering why JW is a nonprofit. It's hardly a charity."

It hardly has a purpose other than mailing shocking circulars and cashing checks.


6 posted on 03/16/2005 5:04:07 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Every morning we awaken to a new dawn is reason enough to celebrate - have a drink, Teddy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

I'd suspect the Clinton machine broke a few kneecaps and convinced Mr. Paul to turn on Judical Watch-or else!


7 posted on 03/16/2005 5:19:49 AM PST by libertylover (Being liberal means never being concerned about the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Will someone please tell me if Judicial Watch has brought a single one of its cases against the Clintons to a successful conclusion? All it seems to do is file the suits and use the filings for publicity so it can raise more money.


8 posted on 03/16/2005 5:25:27 AM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I have long suspected that Judicial Watch is an arm of the DNC. It milks money from conservatives with the promise of great results while actually accomplishing nothing. By taking on these cases and then doing nothing it acts to protect the guilty parties. This case only strengthens my suspicions.


9 posted on 03/16/2005 5:30:28 AM PST by joshhiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
the organization caused his unnecessary detention in a Brazilian jail for two years while he awaited extradition to the United States

As I pointed out after his arrest, the fugitive Peter Paul could have waived extradition and returned to the U.S. immediately.

10 posted on 03/16/2005 5:31:01 AM PST by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshhiggins

BINGO!!!! IMHO JW is the DNC mop to clean up and control any potential or real liability blowing back into the Democrats.


11 posted on 03/16/2005 5:37:05 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Any "dream team" of Republican lawyers must include the incomparable Ann Coulter. (My dream at least).


12 posted on 03/16/2005 5:59:52 AM PST by Shisan (Jalisco no te rajes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shisan
Da rulz, Shisan...

A dream team of lawyers to bring the clintons down? Like Ann Coulter...only in your dreams, I'm afraid.

13 posted on 03/16/2005 7:07:36 AM PST by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
JW has taken in 10's of millions of dollars the past few years. In his last year as "Chairman" of JW Larry Klayman was paid a little over $90,000 a month (guidestar.org). That does not include perks and expenses.

JW currently has over $16,500,000 in assets.

This is a "charity" we exempt from taxes?

14 posted on 03/16/2005 7:32:34 AM PST by isthisnickcool (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Judicial Watch; the Mig 29 of legal organizations. Never shot down shit!


15 posted on 03/16/2005 8:06:11 PM PST by Atchafalaya (When you're there, thats the best!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Some smart people may say that your analysis is correct. :)


16 posted on 06/18/2005 1:20:46 PM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

And people are beginning to wonder how much was actually spent on Peter's case.


17 posted on 06/18/2005 1:24:44 PM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

With all due respect Hal, under the laws of Brazil, unique in the world, all extradition proceedings must be determined by the Supreme Court of Brazil with absolutely no possibility of the defendant waiving that process. The US government, in its own opposition to my bail request when I was finally returned to the US in September, 2003, advised the court that once they commenced extradition, it takes a minimum of 18-24 months to complete. However, the US at all times had the power to withdraw the extradition request, terminate the process, and allow me to return voluntarily (with an escort)the very next day, if it wanted me back. It refused to allow me to do that, even after 59,874 supporters filed petitions (along with contributions toward my case through Judicial Watch) with Attorney General Ashcroft in November, 2001, asking him to allow me to do just that, so I could give testimony about the Clinton's misconduct. Not only did the US refuse to allow me to return voluntarily, it used the progressively worsening prison conditions I was illegally subjected to, at the direction of the US Embassy, to try and coerce me to plead guilty to the original "pump and dump" stock fraud indictment filed against me as the only way it would allow me to return to the US immediately. Then, the government waited 58 days AFTER it was notified to pick me up and return me to the US. That notification was delayed procedurally by the US for EIGHT MONTHS after the Supreme Court found that I was extraditable and after I waived any appeal of that 5-4 decision, to finally pick me up. Upon my return the original pump and dump indictment that the government demanded I plead to was superseded by a new indictment that radically changed the charges against me to misusing margin accounts under the supervision of Merrill Lynch.


18 posted on 06/18/2005 1:37:31 PM PDT by krucader_bravepages_com (the mother of all whistleblowers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

To HAL9000 and the rest of the FReepers, krucader_bravepages_com is the real Peter Paul.


19 posted on 06/18/2005 1:41:40 PM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

Your assessment is incorrect.


20 posted on 06/18/2005 1:46:21 PM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson