I had attended a hearing yesterday in the L.a. Superior Court of downtown L.A. regarding the Peter Paul case number BC252654 Peter Paul vs. William Jefferson Clinton, et al
Mr. Klayman and Mr. Norris were present on behalf of Peter Paul to somehow get Judge Munoz to bring Peter Paul back to the U.S. to stand trial against the Clintons regarding contribution fraud which Paul claims the Clintons defrauded him of in the amounts of two million. Mr. Klayman states this fraud is unjust enrichment to the Clintons. The Court claims that since Paul is being detained in a Brazilian jail under international law the U.S. has no jurisdiction over Paul.
Larry brings up a legal issue of color of federal law in that this is not just an issue of international law we are dealing with. The defense counsel for Clinton claim that according to a case Rogue vs. Thornburg two points are stressed here pertinent to the federal election commission.
1)Nowhere in the F.E.C. regulations is the federal commission liable for campaigning fraud even if they were aware of it. (I find that hard to believe such liability may be waived here)
2) The trial court could not determine liability where violations were committed by the F.E.C.
Well, here's my input. Mr. Klayman brought up a very good legal point which is color of federal law. Under color of federal law, whether the F.E.C. knew of such campaign fraud taking place or not, they acquiescenced to such activity. Whether indirectly or directly involved... they (F.E.C.)did nothing about this activity. The F.E.C. cannot claim immmunity of liability. Someone put in charge from the higher up is responsible for allowing this fraud to take place.
Another issue I wish to bring up is this:
Does international law supercede color of federal law? I do not think so.
Although case law may be relevant it should not take precedent over the statutes at issue here. The issue here is color of federal law. Once that had been established than jurisdiction no longer is the problem.
Mr. Klayman may appeal the matter.