Paul vs. Clinton Fraud Case, Let the Dispositions Begin

Hillary will not be deposed until after the election. Don't panic, it will be okay. Yes, of course, it was a political consideration. Disney did not release THE PATH TO 911 on DVD to protect Hillary.

Judge Aurelio Munoz, who appears rather friendly with Clinton attorney David Kendall, requested that Kendall say hello to a friend named Bill at Kendall's firm, Connolly and Williams. Munoz went to law school with him. Isn't that nice.

Even though Hillary will be delayed, there will be numerous witnesses who have important things to say. They include defendants former President Bill Clinton and Jim Levin, Chelsea Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Gov. Ed Rendell, Gray Davis, Howard Wolfson, Kelly Craighead, Andrew Grossman, Patti Solis Doyle, Larry King, Barbra Streisand, Cher, Diana Ross, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Stan Lee, Haim Saban, and many others.

Even before her testimony, the voters will learn about her obstruction of justice and the false FEC reporting. Perhaps a sitting federal judge and an assistant US Attorney will be subpoeaned. Are you listening Clinton-appointed Judge A. Howard Matz, you who pulled off the legal equivalent of the 1919 Black Sox in the David Rosen trial?

By: Doug Cogan 

Yes, Hillary Clinton has been caught in a big lie that seems to keep getting worse as she tries to lie her way out of it. No, it was not sleep deprivation. No, she doesn't speak millions of words per week. No, she didn't just misspeak. SHE LIED about the supposed sniper fire in Bosnia.

When will the press finally be willing to talk about the biggest lie of all? In 2000, Peter F. Paul spent approximately $1.6 million on her campaign with the promise that the President would join Stan Lee Media for one year when he left the White House.

When Ed Rendell, then chair of the DNC, was alerted that Lloyd Grove of the WASHINGTON POST was writing a story about Peter's felony past from two decades earlier for his involvement in the CUBAN COFFEE CAPER (that was really a good thing, ripping of Castro), Rendell advised Peter that he and the rest of the gang were going to lie.

Hillary trotted out her lying weasel campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, who told the Post that the campaign would take no money from Peter Paul. Through four false FEC reports and a massive conspiracy, she has continued to lie to this day.

April 25, 2008 is the next Paul v Clinton status conference, and we expect that the judge will finally set the trial date and open the way for discovery. We are hoping that Hillary will finally be under oath in August during the Congressional recess and just before the convention

Peter Paul says this photo shows him, and his wife, Andrea, celebrating his business deal with President Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)

A judge in Los Angeles yesterday allowed Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul to begin taking sworn testimony in his $17 million fraud suit against former President Bill Clinton, but a technicality delayed establishment of a trial date.

 

California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz ruled Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up.

 

Munoz is expected to set the trial date at an April 25 hearing. He said yesterday in court he could not set the date, because defendant Jim Levin, an aide to President Clinton, must be served notice again. Levin did not respond to the original complaint, and Paul's legal counsel at the time – the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch – did not file a notice of default to verify that fact before filing an amended complaint.

The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND she has 30 days to service notice to Levin, and he will have 30 days to respond.

adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";

Levin is a key figure in the case, Wilson said, because he helped conceive the Hollywood event then contacted Paul to underwrite the costs. Paul claims Levin later was directed by President Clinton to sabotage Stan Lee Media by convincing Paul's Japanese partner – in violation of a confidentiality agreement – to incorporate a new company instead of investing another $5 million with Paul. The loss of that badly needed capital ultimately caused Stan Lee Media to fold, Paul maintains.

Wilson said she had a brief discussion yesterday with Hillary Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, outside the courtroom and came away with the impression Kendall was not going to make it easy for Paul's team to depose the senator.

Paul said he is working on securing one of the country's top lawyers to lead the discovery process.

Kendall, who was traveling back to Washington yesterday, has not replied to a request for comment. Los Angeles-based Clinton co-counsel Jan Norman also did not reply.

Sen. Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant, but Munoz already has made it clear he won't accept any attempts to block Sen. Clinton from serving as a material witness.

In court April 7, 2006, a Paul attorney told Munoz he "anticipated opposition to taking the deposition of Senator Clinton. I assume we'll be back to court on motions of that."

The judge replied: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall."

   Paul v. Clinton: Motion to admit documentary evidence in Paul v. Clinton case   Posted by: Admin on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 03:22 PM PST
     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 7

PETER F. PAUL,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

vs.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,

Defendant,

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC.,

Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appeal No. B191066

(Superior Court
No. BC 304174)

(Honorable Aurelio N. Munoz, Judge)

MOTION TO ADMIT NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
(Code Civ. Proc., § 909; C.R.C. Rule 8.252)

Gary G. Kreep (SBN 066482)
D. Colette Wilson (SBN 123112)
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
932 D St., Suite 3
Ramona, CA 92065
Tel. (760) 788-6624
Fax (760) 788-6414

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant

Appellant, Peter F. Paul (Paul), through his attorneys of record, requests that this Court admit new documentary evidence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909 and California Rules of Court, Rule 8.252, subdivision (c). The evidence sought to be admitted consists of a five-minute, videotaped recording of a July 17, 2000, telephone call between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC), on the one hand, and Paul, Stan Lee and Aaron Tonken (Tonken) on the other, jointly chatting with her by speakerphone (the July 17 DVD). The July 17 DVD is labeled “July 2000 Conference Call – Hillary Clinton & Peter Paul, Stan Lee & Aaron Tonken” and is being submitted with this motion.
GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION
The grounds for this motion are as follows: (1) Paul has exercised due diligence and could not have presented this evidence in the trial court or at any time earlier in these appellate proceedings, (2) the evidence contained on the July 17 DVD is extraordinary, (3) the July 17 DVD is conclusive evidence of the issues to be considered, and (4) admission of this evidence would serve the ends of justice.
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED
Paul requests that this Court admit the July 17 DVD into the record on appeal for consideration as to two issues: First, the issue of whether HRC personally solicited, coordinated and accepted Paul’s expenditures for the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton (Tribute), and second, the issue of whether HRC had sufficient knowledge of Paul’s business enterprise and the President’s involvement with Paul that it would not have been a “fishing expedition” to depose her to obtain the evidence necessary for a prima facie case.
DUE DILIGENCE
As described in detail in the accompanying declarations of Peter Paul and D. Colette Wilson, the five-minute videoclip contained on the July 17 DVD just came into Paul’s hands two months ago. Although Paul participated in and personally filmed the telephone conversation captured by this videoclip, Paul has not had possession of the original or any copy of the VHS tape containing it since December 2000. That VHS tape, along with 81 other original videotapes Paul filmed during and prior to 2000, has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc. After years of trying to obtain copies of these videotapes, Paul was finally able to get the necessary authorization on April 11, 2007. This motion is therefore the earliest Paul could have presented this evidence to any court.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
1. None of the Reasons for Denying a § 909 Motion Applies Here.
An appellate court can take additional evidence of facts at any time prior to the decision on appeal, for the purpose of making independent factual determinations “or for any other purpose in the interests of justice." (Code Civ. Proc. § 909) Whether or not to grant a section 909 motion to consider additional evidence lies entirely within the appellate court’s discretion. This power is rarely used, primarily because “reviewing courts are not equipped to undertake any appreciable amount of evidence-taking on appeal.” (9 Witkin, Cal.Proc. 4th (1997) Appeal § 798, p. 830) In this instance, however, the Court is not being asked to conduct a hearing to take oral testimony. In fact, the evidence is a mere five-minute videoclip that can be watched on any DVD player.
The power is never invoked (1) where the evidence existed at the time of trial, (2) where the evidence is cumulative of contradictory evidence, or (3) where the evidence is not conclusive on the question for which its admission is sought. In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1423, fn.1. Nor is the power invoked where substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guar. Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App. 3d 1058, 1090. None of those conditions exists here.
This motion also meets the requirement that it concern an appeal that did not involve a trial by jury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 909)
Additionally, this evidence is not being submitted for the purpose of reversing a factual finding by the trial court, since, as to the first issue, the lower court never considered the question of whether HRC solicited, coordinated and accepted Paul’s expenditures for the Tribute. As to the second issue for which this evidence is being offered, the trial court’s denial of Paul’s motion for limited discovery was premised on a lack of evidence, not on a finding of fact.
2. This Is an Extraordinary Circumstance.
Although section 909 motions are concededly rarely granted, where there are extraordinary circumstances, an appellate court will, in the interests of justice, admit new evidence. Conservatorship of Hart (1990) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1257 (reviewing cases and admitting federal income tax return showing, contrary to what trial court found, that gifts from conservatorship estate would incur substantial tax liability ); In re Marriage of Rhoades (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 169, 172-173 (new evidence admitted on showing of near impossibility of obtaining evidence previously and on strong showing of equity and interests of justice).
This is such an extraordinary circumstance. The evidence is of that rare type that captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000. The elements of this crime are explained in detail in the Reply Brief filed herewith.
3. The July 17 DVD Is Determinative As To the Issues Presented.
a) Whether HRC solicited, coordinated and accepted Paul’s contributions.

As both our Opening Brief and our Reply Brief point out, criminal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment, nor by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP law). Consequently, a determination that HRC knowingly and willfully solicited, coordinated, and accepted Paul’s expenditures for the Tribute would be determinative of the issue of whether HRC was entitled to bring an anti-SLAPP motion in the first instance. The telephone conversation captured on the July 17 DVD is conclusive of the fact that HRC did engage in that activity.
The conversation in question took place the Monday following a large conference call on July 11, in which David Rosen, James Levin, Tonken, Paul, fundraising consultant Terri New, members of Gary Smith’s production staff, and others, participating from Paul’s office, strategized with members of HRC’s campaign committee in New York (including HRC’s campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson), as they worked out the details of the exact nature, size and anticipated cost of the Tribute. (1CT022:16-023:9; 5CT981:13-982:5) By the time HRC called Paul in his office on July 17, Paul had already entered into what he believed was a solid agreement with President Clinton that Paul would underwrite half the anticipated $1 million cost of the Tribute as part of President Clinton’s compensation package for working as a “rainmaker” for Stan Lee Media, Inc. when the President left office in January 2001. (1CT023:20-024:5)
The July 17 DVD evinces seven key facts, all showing conclusively that HRC was directly and personally involved in soliciting Paul’s contributions and coordinating his expenditures for the concert portion of the Tribute, which was that portion of the event designed to generate federal (“hard”-money) contributions for her campaign.
First, the July 17 DVD records a candidate (HRC) talking directly with a donor (Paul) on the subject of preparations being made for a large campaign fundraiser.
Second, HRC includes herself as among those who are working on organizing the Tribute.
Third, HRC admits to having intimate knowledge about what Paul and Tonken are doing for her, based on reports being made to her by Kelly Craighead, HRC’s senior staff official (4CT790:9).
Fourth, HRC implies that because Kelly, her highest staff member, has been and will continue to be involved with the organization of this event, she herself will continuously be keeping tabs on the preparations.
Fifth, HRC promises to make herself available to assist them.
Sixth, HRC admits that she “closed the sale” in calling and convincing Cher to perform at the event, after Tonken had apparently paved the way. Obtaining a commitment from a big name like Cher had a direct bearing on potential guests’ willingness to pay $1,000 to attend HRC’s private concert, especially given the short notice for such a major event.
Seventh, HRC effusively thanks all three -- Paul, Stan Lee and Tonken -- and encourages them to keep up their efforts. This constituted both an acceptance of Paul’s contributions thus far and a solicitation for Paul’s future expenditures.
b) Whether HRC had sufficient personal knowledge of Paul’s business enterprise and the President’s involvement with Paul that it would not have been a “fishing expedition” to depose her to obtain the evidence necessary for a prima facie case.

The July 17 DVD provides direct evidence of HRC’s knowledge of Paul’s business enterprise, which existed to market Stan Lee’s comic book creations, such as the X-Men. Throughout the conversation, HRC made numerous comments that demonstrated a familiarity with Stan Lee’s comic book characters. Ordinarily, a candidate is not that knowledgeable about contributors’ business enterprises.
These comments may have also been made for Paul’s benefit, as seeming to acknowledge Paul’s supposed future business relationship with the President and to suggest to Paul a willingness on her part to share in that relationship. Additionally, towards the end of their conversation, HRC states that what Paul, Tonken and Stan Lee are doing is going to “mean a lot to the President, too.” (DVD Transcript 8:13-14) This comment implies she knew of the President’s role in arranging for Paul to underwrite the Tribute.
At a minimum, then, the July 17 DVD demonstrates that HRC had sufficient personal knowledge of Paul’s business enterprise and the President’s dealings with Paul that it would not have been a “fishing expedition” for Paul to depose her in order to obtain the evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case.
4. Admission of This Evidence Would Serve the Ends of Justice.
In Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, the California Supreme Court noted (quoting from the Attorney General’s amicus curiae brief):
“If the courts rule that a defendant who has engaged in indisputably illegal behavior ... has met the first step of the motion to strike, the defendant can then shift the burden to the plaintiff and force his victim to [marshal] and present evidence early in the litigation before the commencement of full discovery...[I]f the plaintiff/victim is unable to show a probability of prevailing, he will have to pay the defendant’s attorneys fees. (See § 425.16, subd. (c).) These are ...grossly unfair burdens to impose on a plaintiff who is himself the victim of the defendant’s criminal activity.” (Id. at 318) (brackets and ellipses in Court’s opinion)

In light of this videoclip – which clearly demonstrates HRC’s willingness to illegally solicit and accept excessive campaign contributions – it is obvious that HRC would not have had any interest in defrauding Paul but for her intent to engage in illegal conduct in order to finance her Senate campaign. Paul was clearly a victim of her criminal activity.
For the reasons just noted in Flatley, therefore, it serves the ends of justice to admit this videoclip into evidence because it is direct and conclusive evidence of HRC’s commission of a crime. The anti-SLAPP statute does not exist to protect criminal conduct. Hence, the July 17 DVD is also conclusive as to the ultimate issue on this appeal, which is whether the judgment granting the anti-SLAPP motion must be reversed.
Even if this Court determines that HRC’s conduct was statutorily protected, fundamental fairness dictates that Paul be permitted to depose HRC based on this proof of her direct knowledge of issues necessary to establishing Paul’s prima facie case. Therefore, for that reason as well, it would serve the interests of justice for the Court to admit this evidence.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant this motion.
Dated: June 20, 2007

Respectfully submitted,
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION

D. COLETTE WILSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant

Paul vs. Clinton website launchedBy Kathy Miller | The Hillary ProjectPeter F. Paul has launched a new website to expose and inform the public of the upcoming landmark civil trial of Paul vs. Clinton.  The case is pending in a California court against former President Bill Clinton, with Senator Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media.

Since the media still refuses to cover Senator Clinton's involvement in the largest campaign finance fraud case in U.S. history, Paul will report on much of the news himself in this historic landmark case.

For news and information on this case, you can visit PaulvClinton.com