Breaking News! Bill Clinton's Peter Paul Court Date April 25, 2008!

Naaaaa Naaaaa Heeeey Heeeeey Good Riddance!!! :toast:

<snip>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.<snip>

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/breaking-news-bill-clintons-pe.php

<snip>The first law suit in American history to bring a President and a Senator to court for defrauding the Senator’s largest campaign donor and his public company will be set for trial and discovery at the Case Management Conference before Judge Munoz. Discovery and depositions of key witnesses, including the Clinton family, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes, Howard Wolfson, Kelly Craighead, Barbara Streisand, Brad Pitt, Larry King, Mike Wallace among an array of political and entertainment leaders, will present an inside look at a culture of corruption that will shock the public.

The history and significance of this lawsuit is featured in the internet phenomenon - documentary Hillary! Uncensored and in the court filings posted on the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project web site.<snip>

http://www.peterfpaul.com/2008/01/29/exposing-hillarys-illegalities-in-los-angeles-court-to-begin-feb-21/

GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

This should be interesting.

Although I like mounds better.

:kick:

Peter pauls almondy joy has nuts, peter pauls mounds dont,

be... cause

sometimes you feel like a nut (hillary)
sometimes you dont (Obama)

Paul claims "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."

He has already been found to be a liar about the fund raiser - the case against Hillary he has already lost.

In his past he directed a fraud on the Cuban government of $8.75 million dollars by selling agents of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro nonexistent coffee. The plan apparently also involved sinking the ship that was to deliver the nonexistent coffee to hide the fraud from Castro and, according to TIME Magazine, to defraud its insurer, but the ship was abandoned in Costa Rica and never sunk.

Paul pled guilty to federal conspiracy charges. When his home was raided by the police in connection with this crime, they found cocaine in his garage, and Paul also pled guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.He was sentenced to eight years in prison for the cocaine charge, and a concurrent three years for fraud; he was paroled after three years. His license to practice law was suspended as a result of the convictions

1983, Paul was caught traveling to Canada using the identity of a dead man; he pled guilty to federal charges of making false statements to customs inspectors. This was a violation of his parole terms from the 1979 felonies, and he went back to jail.

Paul's efforts on behalf of the "Foundation" were derided in the Los Angeles Times, in part because the commission was selling a book that described blacks as "pickaninnies," and slaveowners as "the worst victims of slavery," and in part because Paul referred to the founding fathers of the United States as "39 sweaty old men arguing in Philadelphia", and remarked that most Californians weren't able to understand the 18th century language in the constitution anyway.

Paul pled guilty to the securities fraud charge for he had been indicted in 2001. The government characterized his conduct as causing "losses to the investing public and financial institutions of approximately $25 million". As of February 2007, he had not been sentenced.

Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser, though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party. Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected, and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.

Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting" his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.

SOURCE: WIKI

The DOJ prosecuted Hillary's campaign manager for this in 2005. Peter Paul is filing a suit in which he calls people like Barbara Streisand and Al Gore for what---? Because he wants to create a media show trial.

Just call him the new Paula Jones, trying to get famous off Bill Clinton's amazing you know what.

To see Democrats salivate at the thought of some cheap stunt like this is truly appalling.

If JFK and LBJ were alive they would both scold you. And so would FDR. And his wife.

And no, I'm not a Hillbot. I'm a Democrat and proud of it!

:dem:

:thumbsup:

just wish I could figure out how to copy it and put it in my sig line.

and enlarged it. You can shrink it in a photobuclet account.

Try this.

I'm sure the Clintons will "disappear" him so that he can't be served again.

Was he that hard to find?

Interesting indeed.

They fraudulently ran up unauthorized charges on Kathy Callahan's credit card. You can see the charges she had to fight to get refunded here. She's supporting Barack Obama now.


The HRC campaign is currently refund over $2.5 million to donors who didn't the authorize charges on their cards.

HRC donors should check their credit card statements carefully unless they don't mind.

What's all this about Peter F. Paul?

Talk about implosion. Bwaaaaaahaa! Hilliary It's not Inevitable!

What's all this about Peter F. Paul? Google search.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNA_enCA240CA241&q=peter+paul+bill+clinton+lawsuit+2008&btnG=Search&meta=

"Paul alleges after he donated $1.9 million of cash and in-kind contributions for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, Bill Clinton's agent used proprietary information obtained from Paul to convince Paul's Japanese partner to incorporate Venture Soft USA with him, not invest another $5 million with Paul."

Wonder what Brad Pitt has to do with it?

but I can take a hint. Time to let my fingers do the walking!

Thanks :hi:

The unauthorized charges on a campaign workers credit card can not be linked in any way to the refunds that have been given to contributors. Do you know why there were refunds?

Obama's campaign has refunded almost $800,000 to contributors. Can we assume those were fraudulent credit card charges?

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Here's a hint. Parentheses around the sums under Callahan's name are for refunds being made to her.

As a former Finance staffer of the HRC campaign, she's tracking the fraud for everyone on her blog. Sorry if the truth offends you and don't blame me if you see a link somewhere. I never asserted any such thing but defrauding donors is an interesting tidbit for people reading this thread.

for charges made to her credit card. I am questioning your assertion that you can extrapolate that to the other refunds. I will also now question your assertion that it was fraud and not just error.

This is swift boating. It may gain you points with other strong Obama supporters here, but it kills your credibility with everyone else.

are a bit too touchy and see a conspiracy everywhere :shrug:

Everything is swift-boating. Everything is persecution. Just count me as one of the many who's dead to HRC supporters ok?

Being all over the MSM while she tries to continue on.

this over and over again like they did Pastor Wright? Or Dean's "scream"?

all sorts of celebrities, too. Juicy.

primary is April 22 and this starts the 26th. Obama doesn't need to smear hilary(he wouldn't anyway..that's not his style)..she manages that all on her own.

It's just the style of people like this who posted the OP.

and just slobber all over it without knowing anything about it at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul

Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee.

Please take the time to read about him. Otherwise, all of you just show yourselves to be tools.

Can't wait untill the trial begins and hits the MSM.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/06/44491

But the OP had a kewl graphic and everything. Let em' have their 'feel hate' moment. :eyes:

I just can't see this kind of BS and let it ride.

The utter ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills displayed by some of the posters here is truly frightening.

I should just leave them alone.

:hi:

contributor while she is complaining about Rezko

I would encourage all to go to the TPM website linked in the OP and read the responses. Mostly from Obama supporters and mostly calling the OP author a troll and trashing his post.

And the other link above? It's to the site of the plaintiff in this case.

...I had all ready come the the conclusion by the last (June 3/South Dakota) primary Obama will have the neccessary 2025 delegates needed to win. This just clinch's it. :toast:



GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

You must, if you feel it is good to emulate it.

Well, good for you.

guaranteed. This ain't going to Denver. Well, too bad for the Clinton Dynasty.

GObama!
Go Dean's 50 State Strategy!
Go Grassroots!

your position is correct. This could still be a major problem for Clinton because they will have to give depositions. A skillful lawyer can use that to embarass them - if that is the goal.

Paul claims "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."

He has already been found to be a liar about the fund raiser - the case against Hillary he has already lost.

In his past he directed a fraud on the Cuban government of $8.75 million dollars by selling agents of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro nonexistent coffee. The plan apparently also involved sinking the ship that was to deliver the nonexistent coffee to hide the fraud from Castro and, according to TIME Magazine, to defraud its insurer, but the ship was abandoned in Costa Rica and never sunk.

Paul pled guilty to federal conspiracy charges. When his home was raided by the police in connection with this crime, they found cocaine in his garage, and Paul also pled guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.He was sentenced to eight years in prison for the cocaine charge, and a concurrent three years for fraud; he was paroled after three years. His license to practice law was suspended as a result of the convictions

1983, Paul was caught traveling to Canada using the identity of a dead man; he pled guilty to federal charges of making false statements to customs inspectors. This was a violation of his parole terms from the 1979 felonies, and he went back to jail.

Paul's efforts on behalf of the "Foundation" were derided in the Los Angeles Times, in part because the commission was selling a book that described blacks as "pickaninnies," and slaveowners as "the worst victims of slavery," and in part because Paul referred to the founding fathers of the United States as "39 sweaty old men arguing in Philadelphia", and remarked that most Californians weren't able to understand the 18th century language in the constitution anyway.

Paul pled guilty to the securities fraud charge for he had been indicted in 2001. The government characterized his conduct as causing "losses to the investing public and financial institutions of approximately $25 million". As of February 2007, he had not been sentenced.

Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser, though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party. Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected, and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.

Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting" his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.

SOURCE: WIKI

for "underreporting"? Sounds like they can't stop entangling themselves with dubious characters for money--Chung, Hsu, Paul, Giusta, etc. What's up with that? Do you think the GOP will leave all this alone? Suuure. I'm sure these aren't 527 ads waiting to happen. Nahhh.

Google Hillary: The Movie to see the trailers.

The Peter Paul fundraising scandal is among the headliners in the movie -- complete with his tapes of their conversations as well as him taping Fast Ed Rendell (Gov PA) explaining how to cook the books to avoid getting caught in campaign finance fraud.

They got caught anyway and had to pay $35,000 in fines.

Clinton is vetted. Nothing like this could ever be true, she is vetted. Vetted vetted vetted.




Vetted.

If it were in the Times, that would be one thing, but I don't know about these sources.

http://www.peterfpaul.com/2008/01/29/exposing-hillarys-illegalities-in-los-angeles-court-to-begin-feb-21/

Free Republic
Hillary Wiki Project
New Media Journal
Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (HILLCAP.ORG)
U.S. Justice Foundation
a Paul v Clinton et al
Liberal Whiners
Media Research Center
Just Say No To Hillary Clinton
Hillary Crime Page
No Hillary Clinton
The Hillary Project
The Truth About Hillary Clinton
Bullwinkle Blog
Peter Paul Photo Bio
Paul, Reagan & Friends in Pix
at You Per View
Doug Ross Journal
a DONATE To Paul v Clinton

The "Liberal Whiners" link is a nice touch.

The U.S. Justice Foundation is fronting this lawsuit.

http://www.usjf.net

Nice company you keep.

That's all that matter's. It's in the bag. Don't shoot the messenger. Blame it on Bill. Hillary held up her end of the political alliance/marriage/fautian bargain. Bill won't deliver Hillary's repayment.

<snip>The Case Management Conference hearing in Paul v Clinton et al on
February 21, in Los Angeles Superior Court will finally set a trial
date in the long delayed civil fraud case and it will set a schedule
for discovery that will include the sworn depositions of the entire
Clinton family and the Clinton hierarchy of the Democratic Party.

A trial was set for March 2007, but it was delayed due to an appeal of
a lower-court's decision to dismiss Sen. Clinton as a defendant. The
California Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Sen. Clinton,
nevertheless, will be required to testify under oath along with her
husband as material witnesses.

Seven years ago Peter Paul began whistleblowing to the government and
alerting the media of numerous illegalities committed by Hillary and
Bill Clinton in order to win Hillary's first election to public
office.<snip>

http://hillaryandpeterpaulcasegoestocourt.blogtownhall.com/

And I say this as an Obama supporter. Don't be distracted by junk like this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I watched a video of him making his pitch, maybe 2-3 months ago. He was just coming on the radar.

Here's my distinct impression. If he'd been in the room, I'd have said "STFU you total cry baby." I
never talk to people like that, btw. But he might have been a first. He thought he'd use them, they
treated him like they treat most everybody, but there was little if any legal claim. It would have
to be an oral contract, which in California, doesn't count for much, at least that's that's how it
seemed.

But basically, this guy is full of it. He's probably trying to parlay this in to some ready cash or
a movie deal;)

(Paul evidently had a falling out with Judicial Watch which was previously representing him. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDD123CF936A25750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all )

They seem to want this, as someone else mentioned above, to be the Hillary equivalent of the Paula Jones suit.

Difficult to find MSM sources on this suit. What can readily be found is usually on dubious winger sites and that's putting it mildly. The TPM reader's blog is a copy/paste of Worldnutdaily.

Media Matters on some claims made in that "documentary:" http://mediamatters.org/items/200710270001

(On a side note: is that "WStarr" in the TPM comments none other than our former DUer, Walt?)

I don't pretend that politicians are necessarily unsullied paragons of virtue in regards to fund raising and the people they deal with.

But embracing and citing RW sites as if they were valid credible sources of info about Dem candidates is another matter entirely. These are the same disinformation sources we've been fighting against for years.