Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judicial Watch ^ | Oct 16, 2003 | Press Office

Posted on 10/17/2003 12:19:59 PM PDT by jmstein7


California Lawsuit Over Post-White House Business Relationship That Never Materialized

Federal Government: “We’re Very Much Interested” in Pursuing Campaign Fundraising Violations by Hillary’s Senate Campaign

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates public corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton, among others, on behalf of Peter F. Paul, the Hollywood entrepreneur who underwrote and produced the August 12, 2000 “Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton,” a gala fundraiser that yielded $1.5 million in “hard money” contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Mr. Paul spent over $2 million on the event as part of a post-White House employment package for the former President. The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on October 14, 2003, alleges:

The President, through an intermediary, agreed to work for Mr. Paul’s companies after leaving office in exchange for a compensation package worth over $15 million, including Mr. Paul’s funding of the Hollywood Tribute. No post-White House business relationship ever materialized.

Mrs. Clinton, through campaign officials, repeatedly promised Mr. Paul that the monies he spent on the event would be allocated and reported to federal election authorities in a lawful and proper way, but, to date, the campaign has failed to do so.

After denying to The Washington Post that Mrs. Clinton did not and would not accept any contributions from Mr. Paul, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign coerced Mr. Paul into making an additional $55,000 contribution (also never reported) to a political party in New York on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf.

The President and Mrs. Clinton, through intermediaries, coerced Mr. Paul into remaining silent about his contributions by threatening that the post-White House business relationship with the President would not materialize if Mr. Paul contradicted the public denials issued by the campaign.

Mr. Paul has substantial, documentary evidence detailing his close relationship with the Clintons and his funding of the Hollywood tribute, including cancelled checks, hand-written thank you notes from the Clintons, and photographs. Also named in the complaint is Clinton fundraiser David Rosen, Clinton friend James Levin, and Hollywood celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, who currently is under criminal investigation for his role in other Hollywood fundraisers. As a result of Mr. Paul’s disclosures, federal authorities have launched an investigation into the Clintons and other matters. Mr. Paul, who is facing alleged (and related) stock and bank fraud charges, remains eager to cooperate with federal authorities.

“This lawsuit aims to hold the Clinton’s accountable for their fraud and deceit, which netted them over $2 million and help elect Hillary to the Senate. Mr. Paul looks forward to holding the Clinton’s accountable,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

To view a copy of the complaint, click here. LINK:

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: ar; ca; constitution; crime; culture; dc; elections; extended; foreign; government; hillaryclinton; judicialwatch; news; ny; peterpaul; projecthillary; susietompkinsbuell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
Don't forget to look at the campaign to censure Ted Kennedy:

It takes 30 seconds to do, but will be extremely effective!

1 posted on 10/17/2003 12:20:00 PM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
“Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton,” a gala fundraiser that yielded $1.5 million in “hard money” contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Mr. Paul spent over $2 million on the event

Spend 2 million to make 1.5 million. To a democrat, that's a nice profit.

2 posted on 10/17/2003 12:24:29 PM PDT by Bud Bundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
This is the problem with participating in corruption like the Clintons have done on a wide scale.

There is always bound to be those who pay off the politician and then feel that they got screwed in return. Especially when they look at the others who paid off the Clintons and benefitted handsomely.

The mentality becomes..."Everyone got over while I got screwed" Now I will screw them because I have nothing to lose.
3 posted on 10/17/2003 12:27:25 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (Celebrate Globalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bud Bundy
Spend 2 million to make 1.5 million. To a democrat, that's a nice profit.

It's done all the time in the illegal drug business... it's called Money Laundering... give up $2M of ill-gotten money for $1.5M of "legitimate" money.

4 posted on 10/17/2003 12:28:40 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. (Recall Davis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Prediction: Mr. Paul wil never live long enough to testify, much less collect!
5 posted on 10/17/2003 12:29:48 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
6 posted on 10/17/2003 12:30:09 PM PDT by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Judicial Watch has taken in $70+ million dollars the past few years. With all that cash eventually they will win a case. Right? I mean someday they should win just one case. The odds should be in their favor by now. Shouldn't they?
7 posted on 10/17/2003 12:32:17 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Even if your friends with the clintons you can not trust them.
8 posted on 10/17/2003 12:34:03 PM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Well, we can forget about Peter Paul's story having any impact.

Judicial Watch is a joke and anything they're attached to is instantly dismissed by the media as whacked out, therefore no one will pay attention to his story.

9 posted on 10/17/2003 12:38:10 PM PDT by Cousin Eddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Unfortunately this story won't even make page 3 of the local newspaper! As usual, it will be ignored by the "mainstream" media.
10 posted on 10/17/2003 12:38:33 PM PDT by EsclavoDeCristo (What is this world comming to?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
I wonder who is funding this lawsuit? Does PP have the cash to do so?
11 posted on 10/17/2003 12:41:48 PM PDT by deport (The Many, The Proud, The Winners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
Bump for exposure!
12 posted on 10/17/2003 12:46:21 PM PDT by TaxRelief (In every coating of armor, a chink eventually appears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Isn't it amazing that this prediction comes up all the time when someone is suing the scum?
13 posted on 10/17/2003 12:48:01 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cousin Eddie
That's not exactly true. When Judicial Watch went after Cheney the were credible. Just coincidence? Nah.
14 posted on 10/17/2003 12:49:09 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
I do wish someone would be able to nail these two for at least one of their criminal activities.
15 posted on 10/17/2003 12:49:29 PM PDT by GretchenEE (Liberals CANNOT be trusted with national security [excepting maybe Congr. Norm Dicks].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister
That should be "they" are credible.
16 posted on 10/17/2003 12:49:55 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
As soon as I see Judicial Watch's name attached to any lawsuit I know it's a non-starter.
17 posted on 10/17/2003 12:52:42 PM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: surrey
I wouldn't put too much belief that JW can recoup any of the Paul money for Paul or his stockholders,etc, but the Feds may well have Paul dancing to another jig as this thing unravels in his other stock dealings, taxes, off shore accounts, etc..... Not too many FEC violations are really dealt with harshly, but we will see.

Clintons' Fall Guy May Turn the Tables (Peter Paul)
Insight ^ | 10/16/03 | Paul M. Rodriguez

Posted on 10/16/2003 8:59 PM CDT by JeanS

Peter F. Paul, the flamboyant Hollywood entrepreneur who says Hillary Rodham Clinton has hidden almost $2 million of in-kind contributions he made to her campaign in 2000, is back from Brazil and promising to raise a ruckus about the New York senator as he fights bizarre securities and bank-fraud charges on which he's been indicted. Aaron Tonken, a political operative in Hollywood and a former protégé of Paul under indictment for a variety of alleged sharp deals with the rich and famous, also is promising to tell everything he knows about behind-the-scenes shenanigans of Clinton and many others.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the IRS have embarked on extensive civil and criminal probes involving a cast of Damon Runyon characters and securities, tax and bank frauds that appear to center on a now-bankrupt company called Stan Lee Media Inc. (SLM). That company is in turn at the epicenter of charges brought against Stephen and Jonathan Gordon, Paul and at least two stockbrokers/advisers and alleged mob figures who helped to perpetrate government-alleged frauds that were used to finance political fund raising for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Professionals at the Justice Department in Washington, along with prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York and the Western District of California (Los Angeles), also are pursuing ongoing investigations stemming from their probes of Paul, the Gordons and others. At least that's what government officials tell Insight when asked about the status of this battery of criminal cases triggered by the Paul et al. indictments issued almost three years ago.

First a recap: Paul and the Gordons were alleged in the indictments to have bilked SLM, Merrill Lynch, U.S. Bank and others out of millions of dollars by floating checks on margin accounts holding SLM stocks for various personal perfidies, with which he says he financed the Clinton fund raising. According to prosecutors, as much as $25 million was stolen or otherwise looted.

Paul, who was in Brazil at the time of his indictment and convinced that the Clintons were out to wreck his credibility lest he become a whistle-blower, decided to fight the charges from South America. Through a series of manipulations he soon was locked up in squalid and dangerous Brazilian jails until extradited recently to Brooklyn, N.Y. The Gordons stayed in California, fought the charges and were convicted this spring of (much) lesser offenses than initially charged. They are appealing. Others indicted in allegedly related schemes have yet to stand trial despite the passage of years.

Tonken was indicted earlier this year on unrelated charges of bilking mostly rich-and-famous types through mail fraud tied to charity events he led as a result of having worked closely with the Clintons and top Democrats in earlier political battles. He claims he has dirt to dish about a number of related high-fliers, including Hillary Clinton and financial supporters of her campaign. Prosecutors are reported to be listening.

Paul charges that the indictments which have kept him in danger in some of Brazil's worst jails were obtained on little evidence as political retribution for his whistle-blowing in early 2001 about the failure of Hillary Clinton and her campaign to report his huge contributions. Stephen Gordon, who was executive vice president of SLM, confirms the in-kind donations to Hillary but side-steps political aspects raised by Paul. Gordon says he can't understand why he was prosecuted for allegedly manipulating the stock of SLM as part of a cash-flow problem even as prosecutors ignored those more senior at SLM and at Merrill Lynch whom he says followed the same procedures and worse - procedures he insists were researched carefully and found to be legal by company lawyers and accountants.

All of these defendants - Paul, the Gordon brothers and Tonken - have raised significant questions and issues concerning monies passed through the once promising SLM Internet company on the one hand, and alleged Clinton connections and abuse of prosecutorial discretion on the other. Despite the hype and rhetoric of prosecutors when these indictments were issued in late summer 2001, except for conviction of the Gordons on the much-reduced charges, little has occurred in the intervening years.

However, since Insight began investigating the Paul/SLM/Clinton connection a year ago [see "Paul Takes the Fall?" Oct. 1-14, 2002], this magazine has obtained volumes of internal SLM records that reveal secret stock transactions and activities by and through offshore companies that either are not referenced in the various indictments prosecutors secured or do not show up in required SEC filings for public companies. Newly obtained documents also show previously hidden deals among top SLM executives that involve insider stock deals, loans and conversion of restricted "144" stocks - unregistered stocks given to insiders - that law-enforcement sources allege show major violations of banking and securities laws not previously disclosed by prosecutors.

According to sources, a key reason for failure by prosecutors to pursue other potential crimes in these cases stems from political concern that to do so would require tracking Paul's claim that his indictments were a Clinton-inspired vendetta to keep him quiet about huge unreported donations to Hillary's campaign that broke the company. That Paul's legal troubles were initiated by a political vendetta is denied by federal officials who nonetheless concede privately that they have steered clear of his significant contributions to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, based on voluminous records obtained by Insight - including canceled checks, bank ledgers and margin-account statements and invoices - there is no doubt Paul funded numerous high-profile and well-reported political events for Hillary Clinton as well as a Hollywood tribute gala for President Bill Clinton.

To meet the increasing demands that he underwrite high-profile luncheons, dinners and galas to raise ever more money for the Clintons, according to Paul he began to borrow ever more heavily against margin accounts that held SLM stock he had received and assigned to shell companies he had created. These are the very shell companies that prosecutors have claimed were used solely for personal gain to defraud stockholders and corporate executives of SLM, as well as financial institutions that handled the checks and managed the margin accounts.

Contrary to claims made in the indictments of Paul and others, however, internal SLM documents - including e-mails, corporate minutes and stock-assignment and transfer records - show SLM executives should have been aware of intricate activities that prosecutors claim Paul et al. orchestrated secretly for nefarious purposes and contrary to corporate interests.

Moreover, documents and interviews further show that many of the activities Paul et al. allegedly engaged in were familiar corporate practice for others at or associated with SLM. This includes apparent efforts to reduce taxes by moving stocks to offshore companies, converting restricted stocks for quick sales and giving stocks to companies that later would lend monies back to SLM. These were reported in SEC filings as private investors without revealing details of the deals.

At the time that Paul paid nearly $2 million worth of bills for Clinton events, SLM was riding high in the tech industry and its stock was stable. However, late in 2000 the value of the stock began to sink on unusual sales from so-called private investors. This prompted the SEC to launch a probe which caused a run and plunge of SLM stocks that led to bankruptcy. Prosecutors claim that it was Paul et al. who orchestrated secretly the demise of the company with a pump-and-dump scheme, though apparently ignoring other insiders who sources say actually did the deals.

"Something stinks," a lawyer for Paul says. It boils down to a theory that exposing the allegedly extended wrongdoing at SLM would require prosecutors to delve into activities by the Clintons and top Democratic political operatives who used SLM as a private piggy bank. Not to mention possible exposure of a confidential informant used by the FBI in unrelated Mafia-type stings, sources confirm. It is a theme about which Vanity Fair reported earlier this year.

One such snarly issue into which prosecutors are accused of not wanting to delve involves demands made on SLM to transfer at least $100,000 worth of company stock as part of an alleged quid pro quo between the Clintons and Paul to enlist Bill Clinton to promote the company after he left the White House. Until recently, Insight could not confirm the alleged demands. However, following up on a Los Angeles Times report this summer, Insight now has obtained internal communications from the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee Inc., the political entity she used to raise funds for her campaign in 2000. These documents, above, appear to confirm the allegations that SLM stock-transfer demands were made and paid.

For example, copies of faxes identified as coming from David Rosen, the national finance director for Hillary Clinton's political organization, do indeed instruct the delivery of $100,000 worth of SLM stock to the Working Families Party in New York state. This was a political-action group that threw support to Clinton's 2000 bid for the U.S. Senate.

In a fax dated Aug. 24, 2000 ("in RE: Stock Transfer"), there is a reference to an Aug. 3, 2000, memorandum from Rosen to Steve Gordon at SLM, in which Rosen reveals the brokerage account for the Working Families Party as Morgan Stanley/Dean Wittier, the account number, and its representative, phone number and address in Staten Island, N.Y. Both documents say at the bottom: "Paid for by the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee Inc. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income-tax purposes."

The Los Angeles Times has reported that neither Working Families nor others would explain the instructions in this document or say whether the authorized stock transfer actually took place. Nor has Insight been able to confirm that the deal was "done" as handwritten on the Aug. 3, 2000, communication. Political operatives tell this magazine that such schemes often have been used by political campaigns to hide movement of funds between and among various like-minded groups that funnel money for campaign expenses without recording it with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and thus revealing it to the public.

Although federal prosecutors, both in New York City and in Los Angeles, were told of this purported stock-related deal to support Hillary Clinton's run for the U.S. Senate, sources claim the prosecution did not report it either to the FEC or the SEC. Nor did the federal prosecutors publicly mention any of the Paul political schemes on behalf of the Clintons that were run through his various companies - the very same companies the indictments claimed were involved in defrauding the public and other illegal activities.

Nor do Clinton's FEC records, which are voluminous, show: 1) any tangible benefit to the company from the alleged pass-through of SLM stocks or 2) Paul's nearly $2 million of in-kind contributions. The FEC records do show about $400,000 received during the summer of 2000 from SLM, but both SLM executives and Stan Lee reportedly have denied making any such soft-money contribution. In fact, it was Paul who made the donation, sources say. And, in the cache of documents obtained by federal prosecutors Insight has found records showing Paul "reimbursed" at least $100,000 for the Stan Lee/SLM contribution claimed by Hillary's campaign.

FEC sources have told this magazine that while they are aware of Paul's claims - and documents confirming that he provided nearly $2 million for Hillary-related fund-raising events - they have not moved to reconcile the senator's campaign records. "I can't explain it to you," said an FEC source. That same source said the agency was unaware of the stock transfer to the Working Families Party and confirmed there should have been a record of it. "But there's not one we can find."

Sen. Clinton, who has declined all comment about these matters, previously claimed through spokesmen that she barely knew Paul, and had returned a $2,000 donation he made to her campaign in the spring/summer of 2000, denied he was involved in setting up Clinton fund-raisers, denied he gave huge in-kind contributions and denied having anything to do with Paul and SLM in any way (except for that disputed $400,000, of course).

This is curious given the personal notes signed by Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea Clinton thanking Paul for all his work on Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising events back in the summer of 2000. And despite the numerous e-mails and faxes sent by Rosen, Clinton's national finance director, to Paul and Stephen Gordon at SLM demanding the transfer of at least $100,000 worth of SLM stock to the Working Families Party.

Insight is told that prosecutors thus far have not interviewed other top executives at SLM or expanded their probe to include the political contributions to the Clintons, the SEC recently assigned a special team to review all such allegations. But SEC officials have declined public comment on their preliminary investigation, first revealed by the Los Angeles Times.

"Based on what we've learned recently, it certainly appears far more than a simple case of fraud by one or two people," an SEC insider confides to Insight. "My guess is that we'll be picking up the ball and running fast in very short order" to pursue suspected additional wrongdoing. This would include looking into the stock transfers that appear to have been orchestrated by Clinton's national finance director, to the Working Families Party.

Paul M. Rodriguez is the managing editor of Insight magazine.
email the author

View documents showing details of a Hillary Clinton campaign demand for $100,000 in SLM stock.

Read "Paul Takes the Fall?" from the Oct. 1-14, 2002, issue of Insight.

18 posted on 10/17/2003 1:04:39 PM PDT by deport (The Many, The Proud, The Winners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cousin Eddie
Judicial Watch is a joke and anything they're attached to is instantly dismissed by the media as whacked out, therefore no one will pay attention to his story.

I beg your pardon...the FBI and DoJ are paying attention...

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign.

"The documents were seized in a May 30 raid of a California storage facility containing documents of Peter Paul, the entrepreneur who funded Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign with over $2 million dollars in direct, in-kind contributions which were never reported by Hillary Clinton or her Senate campaign, as required by law," revealed the public interest law firm Judicial Watch in a press release late last week.

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu

The Bush administration has quietly done an about-face on allegations that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton broke campaign finance laws in 2000 - with the Justice Department preparing to extradite one-time Clinton fund-raiser Peter Paul to the U.S. as part of a plea deal for his testimony. The sudden action on Paul's case comes just weeks after reports surfaced that former Hollywood fund-raiser Aaron Tonken has supplied damaging testimony about Hillary Clinton's fund-raising practices.

"I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton," Tonken claimed in a recent report on his case in Vanity Fair magazine, explaining that prosecutors wanted his testimony about" "fundraising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons." The exact nature of Tonken's allegations against Sen. Clinton remains secret, the magazine said. But the celebrity moneyman is known to have been involved in the August 2000 fund raiser that is at the heart of Peter Paul's allegations.

The End of Hillary Clinton

The following story is void of Hillary references, but does show that Peter Paul has been extradited back to the US and is now in a Brooklyn Prison.

JAIL VISIT LEADS TO CELL-ABRATION (Peter Paul is in Hillary's Clutches in NY Prison)

19 posted on 10/17/2003 1:11:21 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks for that article, it ties everything up nicely, with the exception that it does not mention the raid on Hillary's warehouse. Bookmarked for future reference.
20 posted on 10/17/2003 1:17:12 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 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
Topics · Post Article

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