"Laws only apply to you peasants. We Royalty carry a deck of Get-out-of-Jail-Free-Cards. My friend Benito, however, did run into an unpleasant major speed bump late in his career ... "
Posted on 05/13/2005 11:46:36 PM PDT by Libloather
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
PETER F. PAUL,
Plaintiff, Appellant, and Second Respondent,
vs.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
Defendant,
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE, INC.,
Defendants and Second Appellants, and DAVID ROSEN,
Defendant and Respondent.
________________
2d Civ. No. B178077
Superior Court, Case No. BC 304174
(Honorable Aurelio N. Munoz, Judge)
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE HONORABLE AURELIO N. MUNOZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
_________________________________
REPLY BRIEF OF SECOND APPELLANTS
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE, INC.
Service on Bill Lockyer, Attorney General for the State of California, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17209
(Counsel Appear on Next Page)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
DAVID E. KENDALL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
SUZANNE H. WOODS (State Bar No. 177853)
CHRISTIAN A. WEIDEMAN (State Bar No. 226339)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 434-5000
Attorneys for Defendant and Second Appellant
Hillary Rodham Clinton
RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT & MACKINNON
CAROLYN UTRECHT (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 293-1177
Attorneys for Defendant and Second Appellant
Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Committee, Inc.
JAN B. NORMAN (State Bar No. 117117)
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90017-5624
(213) 629-9066
Attorney for Defendants and Second Appellants
Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Committee, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
On September 8, 2004, the Los Angeles Superior Court (“lower court”) improperly denied Appellants’ motion to strike (“Motion”) on procedural grounds.[1] Plaintiff argues at length that the lower court’s ruling was correct because the Motion was untimely filed.[2] The lower court, however, never reached this issue. It never decided whether to exercise its discretion and allow the late filing of the Motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments are little more than a distraction.
The central issue of this appeal – and the sole grounds for the lower court’s decision – is whether Appellants failed to notice a timely hearing. The lower court’s ruling on this issue was incorrect for two reasons. First, it measured the timeliness of the hearing in relation to the date the motion was filed, not when it was served. This violated the plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute. Second, the lower court incorrectly concluded that the “docket conditions of the court” did not require a later hearing. If the circumstances of this case – i.e., the absence of the trial judge due to medical reasons – do not require a later hearing, then the statutory provision would never apply. This cannot be correct. For both reasons, the lower court erred in denying Appellants’ Motion.
The Beast goes to the next level...
I know i could use an explanation too.
Hillary is trying to escape. That's all i understand.
She says that because her last name is Clinton and her first name is Hillary that she can't be charged.
LOL, That about sums it up :-)
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Hillary the Felon? Does Hillary Have Reservations at the Graybar Hotel?
This one's gaining momentum rapidly folks.
Today Sean Hannity had Peter Paul on his show. Who is Peter Paul? Well you may ask, he is the primary organizer of the August 12, 2000 Hollywood Gala Salute to President Clinton. According to the website Hillcap this was a combination Salute and Fundraiser for Hillary's 2000 Senatorial campaign. The gala ended up costing Paul 1.2 million dollars and raised one-million dollars in hard money for Hillary's coffers. The problem, Hillary's campaign only declared a cost of $400 thousand resulting in a net additional $800 thousand of "in kind" contribution by Paul. Why is this a problem? Because under Federal Election Law, Paul's "in kind" contribution is considered a hard money contribution. Had the Clinton campaign declared the full amount, it would have bankrupted the campaign. Can you say "victory through fraud?"
Federal prosecutors, in January, unsealed an indictment against Hillary's National Finance Director, David F. Rosen. In the indictment, which neglects to mention Hillary by name, instead calling her "Senator A" and names Paul as contributor "C-1," indicts Rosen on four counts of knowingly filing, or causing to be filed, false disclosure information with the FEC and of knowingly causing to be written false documentation to the fact that the total in kind contributions from C-1 were limited to $200,000. Each of the four counts is punishable by five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The trial was scheduled to begin yesterday, but was postponed until next week.
Here's the bombshell. Mr. Paul will provide testimony and hard evidence that Hillary not only knew of the misrepresentation, but that she orchestrated it and other activities in violation of federal election law. The reason for these machinations? Had the Clinton campaign declared the full amount of these campaign contributions, it probably would have bankrupted the coffers. Can you say "victory through fraud?" For those of us who have always known the Clintons for the team responsible for the most corrupt administration in the last century, all of this should come as no surprise. To obsess, we had "filegate," "Monicagate," "Whitewatergate," "Fostergate," "travelgate," "IRSgate," "pardongate," and now we've added "Galagate."
Watch for the MSM to be on a full court press with this story. Dave Kendall, the Clinton's spin control (read scandal-remember the impeachment procedings?) lawyer has already alluded to Mr. Paul's prior criminal record. In the eighties, Paul was convicted of cocaine possession and attempted fraud. He is currently out on bail for an appeal on a conviction for securities fraud stemming from the dot-com bubble of the 90's. If it wasn't for the evidence he brings to the table, I would be inclined to dismiss all of this as an attempt to curry favor with the Department of Justice. However, having read the documents including faxes signed by Hillary and Bill, I am inclined to believe that this is major stuff.
Hillary's Lawyer David Kendall has appealed the Superior Court's denial of her Motion to Dismiss under California's Anti-Slapp Rule, to the Appellate Court of California. It is Hillary's position that the First Amendment protects her from being held liable for committing business frauds in order to fund her election to the U.S. Senate. Come on Hill! The first amendment? Are you now claiming that fraud and extortion are now forms of free speech? I know you and Bill have no shame, but really, the first amendment? This is the best that "Wonder Woman" can do?
I have always stated that I believed that Bill and Hillary are sociopaths, completely amoral, and probably certifiable. This information has only strengthened my opinion. Others believe this to. In a hand delivered letter to Hillary in 2001, Mr. Paul stated the following:
"Rather than perpetuating the signature Clinton ethic of denial, semantical and rhetorical responses to valid requests and questions, and stonewalling,it is time to accept your responsibility as a Federal elected official and do the right thing according to the letter of the law, the position your campaign spokespeople have taken, and natural laws of right and ethical conduct and return the contributions I made, which you have by your collective actions, made illegal."
Hold on to your hats folks, this one’s got legs, and because of Hill’s sacred status, it’s gonna get nasty.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven/2005/05/hillary-felon-does-hillary-have.html
I want to smack Newt in the head and tell him, character matters. Propping up this turd is a crime.
--------------------------
Attorney for Defendants and Second Appellants
Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Committee, Inc.
------------------------------
IMHO she has been named as a DEFENDANT :-)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Hillary's a crook and she intends to skate like she always does.
What amazes me is the fact that we have heard from the MSM for the past week that this case really doesn't concern Hillary. With that logic, the case of Genocide of the Iraqi Kurds doesn't concern Saddam Hussein
"Laws only apply to you peasants. We Royalty carry a deck of Get-out-of-Jail-Free-Cards. My friend Benito, however, did run into an unpleasant major speed bump late in his career ... "
I hope her career ends just like Benito's ended :-)
I agree. Newt has gone off the deepend with his politics of joining with the demorats. He was more logical before he insinuated that he could be in the running in 2008. Well if he is, he won't be getting my vote. He is coming out as a RINO.
<< I have always stated that I believed that Bill and Hillary are sociopaths, completely amoral, and probably certifiable. >>
Close -- but no Christmas box.
They're Narcissistic psychopaths: absolutely amoral, and absolutely certifiable.
[And Newt has exposed and has played his hand.
His last hand]
preference in lamp posts ???
It really doesn't matter the witch has more dirty laundry than a Chinese laundry mat. I'm sure someone is saving the best for last.
As far as location, Ft. Marcy Park :-)
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.