Posted on 10/23/2006 2:29:16 PM PDT by doug from upland
I can't answer all the legal questions.
Her removal as defendant, which is under appeal, is based on an "anti-SLAPP" law. Peter's attorney believes the judge wrongly interpreted the facts relative to the statute and it doesn't apply here.
We hope that the civil trial is going to expose a wealth of information about what the Clintons have done in this case. Here declaration will be shown to be disingenuous, if not perjurious. Whether a judge will do something about it, we don't know.
Peter has extensive documentation and evidence that will paint a very damaging picture for Hillary.
Discovery will begin after the appeal is heard on whether she is brought back into the case. Who knows, maybe Kendall will take it to the Supreme Court if she is brought back in.
I don't know what the judge will do about the declaration when it is ripped to shreads.
We are going to be showing lie after lie in the declaration. Peter's home video is very damning.
When the press finally starts reporting on the fourth fraudulent filing she did in January and the evidence of the Clinton role if the collapse of Stan Lee Media, perhaps people will finally get it.
Kendall is still the attorney. For five years, he said the case had no merit and that Hillary fully cooperated. After the FEC determination and admission by her treasurer of 721K hidden, he has been strangely silent.
Kendall was served with the lawsuit on July 11, 2001. Included was documentation for $1.6 million spent by Peter and a demand that she report accurately. Nevertheless, his client allowed her treasurer (who had the same info on July 3) to file a third false FEC report on July 30, 2001.
Peter sent a facsimile to Lee a few days ago telling him that he has a legal obligation to correct the record. When I informed him several months ago, he was shocked. Yes, he has obligations relative to falsely naming him as a donor.
The treasurer signed the FEC report. The candidate has a clear legal responsibility if she knows that the treasurer is violating the law.
Stan Lee was claimed to have given an in-kind contribution --- paying for expenses to put on the event. They can claim confusion if they wish. Peter has done everything he could to get them to correct the record.
Hillary ordered her campaign treasurer to ask for more money, then had it illegal diverted to a state committee in New York --- the Working Families Party.
This really would be easier if you could watch the videos. :) Go to the library and use their computer.
It's an unfortunate fact, I think, that a complicit media results in a situation where legal decisions are the only thing that get any traction. Rosen's acquittal was a big win for the conspiracy.
I think I heard the other day that Hillary has a campaign war chest of about $50 million. If that is true, it will be used to challenge the significance of donation reporting "errors" in the range of less than a million.
Nevertheless, hers is the biggest campaign finance fraud on record. This became even a bigger deal when we were able to find the recorded document of Nov. 13, 2000. Clinton and Jim Levin stole Peter's Japanes business partner and collapsed Stan Lee Media. It cost the investors in the company a hundred million dollars.
Is it the case that Paul is claiming that a contract existed to exchange one valuable consideration for another? And that violation of the terms of the contract create an obligation on the part of others to pay damages?
Rural living has distinct advantages. Unfortunately, fast Internet connections and easy access to a library aren't among them.
Do the videos add up to less than 300Mbytes? Easiest for me would be to download them to a USB drive and plan to view them at home.
I think they are all under 7 megs each.
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.