Posted on 01/12/2007 3:04:49 PM PST by Mia T
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Court brief alleges crime by Hillary
Posted: January 12, 2007
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who claims he was the largest contributor to Clinton's 2000 campaign, alleges the New York Democrat solicited and accepted his illegal contribution of more than $1 million and falsified statements to the Federal Election Commission.
Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton's actions violated Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."
(Story continues below)
The Clintons' longtime attorney, David Kendall, told WND yesterday afternoon he had not seen Paul's filing, but he offered a brief response to the charge Sen. Clinton violated the criminal statute.
"Any such allegation is totally false and totally unsupported," he said.
Arguing for the strength of his case, Paul asserted "even David Kendall can't argue with the application of the law."
"He's going to try to use some magic tricks to divert attention from it, but Hillary Clinton has never denied any of my allegations," Paul told WND. "Even when she filed a sworn declaration, which is her only comment about my allegations, there was not one denial."
Paul called the declaration "a new first in non-denial denials, in which Hillary Clinton has extended her trademark poor memory to stating that if she doesn't remember something happening, it didn't happen."
Nowhere in the declaration, Paul argues, "does she say Peter Paul was a liar."
Paul's new brief is an appeal pertaining to his civil fraud suit claiming Bill 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. Clinton's 2000 campaign.
The businessman claims he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic operatives to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost about $2 million.
The brief filed yesterday is an appeal of an April 7, 2006, decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, granting Sen. Clinton her motion to be dismissed from the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns.
But in the brief, Paul's attorneys argue Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
In his April 2006 ruling, Munoz scheduled a trial to begin March 27 this year, but it was delayed when in September he ruled the discovery process ñ which likely would require the former president and his wife to testify under oath ñ could not proceed until the anti-SLAPP appeal is resolved.
Paul is asking that in the event the anti-SLAPP order is not reversed, the appeals panel allow him to proceed with limited discovery.
Paul's current appeal likely will further delay the trial date. Wilson told WND she estimated oral arguments for the appeal might not take place before fall.
Paul said he finds it "perplexing" that the Federal Election Commission, in all its investigation and analysis of the funding of the Hollywood gala, never referred to the specific statute cited in his brief.
In January 2006, responding to a complaint by Paul, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to a joint fund-raising committee that included Clinton's campaign, New York Senate 2000, for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from Paul.
In May 2005, Clinton's former top fund-raising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul points out the trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Sen. Clinton's campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.
He contends his new appellate brief is significant.
"This is the first time a court of competent jurisdiction ñ not a grand jury or prosecutor ñ will be reviewing a charge of criminal conduct against Hillary Clinton," he said.
Paul acknowledged, however, that the appeals court could rule in his favor without a finding on the alleged criminal violation.
Wilson said that if the court does find Sen. Clinton engaged in criminal conduct, the finding would not compel the FEC to take action.
But it would be "very persuasive," she said, and the FEC could refer the case to the attorney general for a criminal indictment.
Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com. |
Ping
Ruh Roh
Bookmark for sure
From elsewhere on the web...
Yes, sometimes a suicide really is a suicide. And let me emphasize that at this point we don't have all the facts.
But, sometimes a "suicide" is something else. Sometimes a "boating accident" is something else also. At this point it's hard to say for sure what happened, but here is what I have gathered so far, from early press reports and other sources.
Admiral Boorda is said to have been a short man, about 5 feet 6 inches or less. It has also been reported that he shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. This would be hard for a tall man, with long arms, to accomplish. It would be even more difficult for the presumably shorter-armed Boorda.
Early reports hinted that Boorda had been "caught in the act" of wearing a "v" for valor emblem on his uniform. Boorda supposedly felt disgraced and it is hinted that this led to his "suicide". Yet Boorda himself had already issued a statement indicating the issue was no big deal, words to the effect of "I had thought I was qualified to wear the 'v' emblem but was informed otherwise. I have accordingly stopped wearing it."
Admiral Boorda had risen to the rank of Chief of Naval Operations; he was the highest ranking Navy officer and was on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hence this death absolutely *demands* that a full, *open* investigation be conducted. The late Admiral Boorda presumably was of higher equivalent rank than the late Vincent W. Foster, Jr. His death deserves that public officials must strive to avoid the appearance of cover-up. Will they do so? Or will they make "mistakes" again?
Sherman Skolnick, in his latest recorded message (312-731-1100), sees a larger significance in the Admiral's death. Reminding us of recent (and not so recent) history, he points to the April 17, 1995 Alabama plane crash which killed high-ranking military personnel, the Bosnian plane crash that killed Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and the recent death by "boating accident/heart attack" of former CIA Director William Colby, as links in a chain. Is Boorda's death part of a bigger picture? Are all these violent deaths connected somehow, a part of something going on beneath the surface, something *we* aren't allowed to see?
According to Mr. Skolnick, a long-time investigator into such matters, a homicide investigation team was turned away, at gunpoint, from the Washington Navy Yard where Boorda is said (already) to have been an "apparent suicide". This smacks of a similar dispute of jurisdiction in Dallas in 1963, when JFK's corpse was whisked away to Washington, D.C. and away from Dallas County authorities.
Supposedly *two* "suicide notes" were found, according to television broadcasts. Not said is that this information most likely comes from federal authorities, the same authorities who are said to have blocked the homicide investigation team from investigating. These would also be the same federal types who "discovered" the "suicide note" of the late Deputy White House Counsel Foster.
Chuck Hayes, whistleblower on insider skullduggery, misses his Value Jet flight, which then explodes in mid-air; Bob Dole startles us all by suddenly abandoning his powerful Senate position; and Bill Clinton is seen wiping a little tear from his eye: Hey. What's going on?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bump for later
This woman has committed so many crimes that we don't have time in the world to charge her with all of them.
She'll be paying for these when satan hands her the bill.
One - None of this is new or a surprise
Two - Anyone that believes or even hopes that Hillary Clinton will ever face charges of illegal activities in a court of law is severely deluding themselves.
The only punishment that we can mete out to her will be to deny her the White House. And that will be painful, I assure you.
BTTT
Cunningly criminal.--PGalt I disagree. The declaration boils down to this: HILLARY DOES NOT RECALL, DOES NOT REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE SAID IT BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IF SHE DID Absurdity has never stopped a clinton. This is so in part because the clintons think we're all a bunch of idiots, and in part because, they, in fact, are. Remember what clinton administration veteran, Berkeley professor Brad deLong said about that woman-- and I paraphrase-- hillary clinton is too stupid to know that she is too stupid.
|
Who was that she use to talk to in the WH who was deceased?
Yeah, good luck with that...
Vince Foster?
Will she be charged?
Under Kerry's bill, if she is convicted, she would lose her pension.
Can pigs fly?--TET1968
;)
For sure, a fate worse than death:
THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HILLARY CLINTON'S DISCLOSED ASSETS: An Alternative Theory
WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE:
HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC
How To Get Rich Quick In Shady Land Deals Like Harry Reid and hillary clinton
ON ICE: WM. JEFFERSON'S FREEZER vs. THE WM. JEFFERSON CLINTONS' SWISS ACCOUNTS
But under her bill, at least she would still be able to vote.
"But under her bill,"
That was a pun !
Unintentional... and unrealized... to be sure. ;)
You're thrice welcome. ;)
What is 'a real post' anyway, and did you scroll down? ;)
fyi
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.