Peter Paul

www.hillcap.org

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PETER F. PAUL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. ____________________

)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, )

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, ) COMPLAINT FOR UNJUST

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR ) ENRICHMENT; FRAUD;

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., ) BREACH OF SPECIAL DUTY;

NEW YORK SENATE, 2000, and ) AND CONSPIRACY;

DAVID ROSEN, and AARON ) JURY DEMAND

TONKEN, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff, Peter F. Paul, hereby sues William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, David Rosen, and Aaron Tonken, and as grounds therefor alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Peter F. Paul is a citizen of the State of California and at all relevant times resided at 23586 Parksouth, Calabasas, California 91302.

2. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is a citizen of the State of New York and resides at15 Old House Lane, Chappaqua, New York 10514. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton was formerly the President of the United States.

3. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is a citizen of the State of New York and resides at 15 Old House Lane, Chappaqua, New York 10514. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is a U.S. Senator from the State of New York. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton and Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton are husband and wife.

4. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and has its principal place of business at 450 7th Avenue, Suite 804, New York, NY 10123-0073. At all relevant times, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. was the agent of Mrs. Clinton.

5. Defendant New York Senate 2000 is a joint federal/non-federal fundraising committee affiliated with the New York State Democratic Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. Its principal place of business is located at 430 South Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003. At all relevant times, New York Senate 2000 was the agent of Mrs. Clinton.

6. Defendant David Rosen is a citizen of the State of Illinois. His address is c/o The Competence Group, 1248 W. Altgeld, Chicago, IL 60614. At all relevant times, Rosen was the agent of Mrs. Clinton.

7. Defendant Aaron Tonken is a citizen of the State of California. His address is 1650 Veteran Avenue, #107, Los Angeles, CA 90024.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. In 1998, Plaintiff and popular culture icon Stan Lee, the creator of the X-Men, Spider Man and Incredible Hulk global character franchises, co-founded Stan Lee Media, Inc., a publicly-traded, Internet-based multimedia entertainment company.

9. In 2000, Plaintiff also founded MondoEnglish, Inc. (“Mondo”), a company established to enable a global audience to obtain basic English fluency over the Internet, free of charge.

10. Plaintiff had also practiced international corporate law for foreign governments and political figures, and had a successful career in international trade and real estate development, including founding the Miami World Trade Center, developing the 65-story tower designed by I. M. Pei over the Miami Convention Center, and founding the largest Foreign Trade Zone in the U.S., the Miami Free Zone.

11. In 1979, Plaintiff pled guilty to felonies charges arising out of anti-communist activities against the government of Cuba and its dictator, Fidel Castro, in which he had been engaged. Plaintiff was also later convicted of a third offense.

12. After serving thirty months in a federal correctional institution, Plaintiff established a distinguished career as the president of two foundations. As President of the California Bicentennial Foundation for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which was created by the California legislature and required appointment by the Governor of California, Plaintiff successfully enlisted the presidents of the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank for the Western Region to serve as Fundraising Co-Chairman to fund the establishment of one of the largest grass roots, statewide organization ever created to educate the people of California about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Plaintiff worked closely with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in establishing California as the most active state in the three-year celebration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights Bicentennial. As a result, Plaintiff was appointed by the National Park Service to a distinguished, five-person committee to design the National Monument to the Constitution on the Mall at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff also funded and produced a project that enabled the governors of five western states to contribute and deliver ten-ton state stones for the monument. By the conclusion of the Bicentennial celebration of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff had received commendations from President Ronald Reagan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, the entire California delegation to the U.S. Congress, five governors, and numerous civic, business, and military leaders, including the award of the George Washington Honor Medal by the Freedom’s Foundation in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, for the numerous projects and activities he conceived of and implemented to educate the public about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

13. With the momentum created thorough his leadership of the California Bicentennial Foundation, Plaintiff was induced by legendary actor Jimmy Stewart to found and preside over a new foundation dedicated to enlisting Hollywood’s entertainment industry to develop and support innovative approaches to education revitalization and reform for youth at risk. Plaintiff’s efforts in channeling entertainment industry talent and resources towards education reform resulted in accolades for Plaintiff from President Ronald Reagan, President George H. Bush, President William Jefferson Clinton, The Smithsonian and the National Education Association, among others. Plaintiff also was an associate producer of President Reagan’s “Welcome Home” dinner in Beverly Hills.

14. After concluding these charitable activities in 1991, Plaintiff established a successful career in event production, entertainment marketing, and media positioning. Plaintiff also conceived of and packaged best selling books for Muhammad Ali, Tony Curtis and Buzz Aldrin. Plaintiff’s marketing successes were the subject of articles and commentary by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Larry King.

15. In addition, Plaintiff also was a pioneer in the digital revolution. In 1986, Plaintiff worked with GTE to create the first computer-designed telephone directory cover, which conveyed educational imagery to twenty-eight million telephone subscribers. Plaintiff also founded and supervised a company that created a pioneering, highly interactive computer-based English language program to teach English-language skills to non-English speakers in the U.S. and around the world. Plaintiff also produced the first highly realistic, computer-generated, live-animated Marilyn Monroe-like “intelligent agent” in 1995 that was recognized by Sony as the preeminent example of the future of computer interfacing.

16. By early 2000, the company Plaintiff had co-founded in 1999, Stan Lee Media, Inc. (“SLM”), was publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange and enjoyed a market capitalization of approximately $350 million.

17. In order to further increase the business prospects of SLM, Plaintiff sought to enhance the global recognition of his business partner, Stan Lee, whom he considered to be the “Walt Disney of the comics industry.” Plaintiff sought to transform Stan Lee into a universally recognized cultural icon.

18. In early 2000, Plaintiff was approached by a former protege, event producer Aaron Tonken, about enhancing Stan Lee’s public profile by contributing money to the Democratic Party. After being introduced to the President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President and Mrs. Gore by Denise Rich at a small reception held at Mrs. Rich’s home in October 1999, Tonken was becoming a trusted producer for the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). Tonken was working directly with DNC Chairman Edward G. Rendell and DNC Southern California Finance Chairwoman Stephanie Berger on various DNC fundraising events, and was providing support and widely-recognized Hollywood talent for DNC fundraising events featuring President Clinton and other prominent Democratic Party politicians.

19. Tonken convinced Plaintiff to contribute $30,000 to the DNC to co-host a fundraiser keynoted by President Clinton at Café Des Artistes in Hollywood, California. The dinner, held on February 17, 2000, was chaired by California Governor Gray Davis. In addition to Plaintiff, other co-hosts included entertainer “Babyface” Edwards, actress Calista Flockhart, Gregory Peck and two real estate developers.

20. Plaintiff was seated with President Clinton at the Café Des Artistes event. Plaintiff also was introduced to Governor Davis, DNC Chairman Edward G. Rendell and California DNC Finance Chairwoman Stephanie Berger at the event.

21. During the Café Des Artistes event on February 17, 2000, Plaintiff, Tonken, Rendell and Berger began discussing how Plaintiff could provide more substantial support for the Democrats. Tonken, Rendell and Berger represented to Plaintiff that, by making substantial contributions to DNC fundraising events, Plaintiff could gain access to President Clinton and thereby be in a position to enlist the President’s assistance in increasing Stan Lee’s public profile. Plaintiff, Tonkin, Rendell and Berger specifically discussed enlisting the President’s support for a highly deserved Kennedy Center Honor for Stan Lee and a Presidential Medal of Freedom to be presented to Stan Lee at The White House, in recognition of his significant contributions to literacy and global popular culture.

22. In order to gain access to the President to enlist his assistance in increasing Stan Lee’s public profile, Rendell, and Berger suggested that Plaintiff and Stan Lee co-host a DNC fundraiser to support Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Rendell and Berger also suggested that Plaintiff and Stan Lee co-host a DNC fundraiser at Plaintiff’s home in Los Angeles, California, which the President would attend.

23. Based upon the representations of Tonken, Rendell and Berger, Plaintiff was thereby induced to become a major contributor to Democratic Party causes. Plaintiff, who admittedly had no experience or direct knowledge about major campaign contributions or federal campaign finance regulations, was prepared to commit a significant portion of his family’s share holdings in SLM, then valued at approximately $90 million, to further his strategy enlisting the good offices of The White House to elevating Stan Lee’s public profile.

24. In May 2000, Berger asked Plaintiff to make a substantial contribution to attend a June 8, 2000 fundraiser at the Beverly Hills Hotel for Vice President Gore’s presidential campaign. Berger promised Plaintiff that he and Stan Lee could co-host the fundraiser if Plaintiff agreed to make a $150,000 commitment to Vice President Gore.

25. By that same time period, Mrs. Clinton had become a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the State of New York. Berger and David Rosen, the Director of Finance for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, asked Plaintiff to make a substantial contribution to attend a luncheon fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton the following day, June 9, 2000, at Spago in Beverly Hills, as well as a tea at the home of Cynthia Gershman, a wealthy Democratic contributor, following the luncheon. Tonken also encouraged Plaintiff to participate. Berger and Rosen promised Plaintiff that he and Stan Lee could co-host the luncheon and the tea if Plaintiff agreed to make a $150,000 commitment to Mrs. Clinton.

26. By that time, Plaintiff’s plans to increase the public profile of Stan Lee, and thereby benefit SLM, had evolved to include trying to recruit President Clinton to work with SLM and/or Mondo after he left office. While Plaintiff believed it might be beneficial to SLM if, through campaign contributions, he was able to develop a close personal relationship with Vice President Gore in the event that the Vice President Gore won the 2000 presidential election, Plaintiff’s primary interest was in building a close personal relationship with President Clinton while he was still in office, and close business relationship with President Clinton after January 20, 2001 when he left office.

27. Plaintiff thus agreed to co-host the luncheon and tea for Mrs. Clinton. In order to do so, Plaintiff committed himself to transfer $150,000 worth of SLM stock when it had matured and was transferrable in September 2000. Plaintiff agreed to attend, but not co-host, the fundraiser for Vice President Gore.

28. At the June 8, 2000 fundraiser for Vice President Gore, Plaintiff met privately with the Vice President, and sat next to him throughout the dinner and a musical performance by Olivia Newton John. Plaintiff and Vice President Gore discussed Plaintiff’s desire to support Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign as a way to build a relationship with President Clinton to encourage him to work with SLM and/or Mondo after the President left office.

29. At the June 9, 2000 luncheon fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton, Plaintiff sat next to Mrs. Clinton for ninety minutes, during which time they discussed Plaintiff’s career, experiences they had shared at Dartmouth College when they were students, and Plaintiff’s interest in working with President Clinton when the President left office. In addition to his $150,000 stock commitment,

Plaintiff paid for most of the event’s expenses. Tonken, who served as Mrs. Clinton’s escort at the event, worked closely with Plaintiff. During the event, Mrs. Clinton publicly thanked Plaintiff for his generous financial support in front of the small group of contributors and supporters who were present, including Barbara Lazarus, Dionne Warwick, Olivia Newton John, John Bijan, Mrs. Larry King, Alana Hamilton Stewart, Suzie Buell Thompson, Cynthia Gershman, Mr. and Mrs. Gerry Harrington. Mrs. Clinton raised funds from most of the attendees. Both Plaintiff and his wife, and Stan Lee and his wife, each contributed checks for $2,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign.

30. At a tea later that same day at the home of Cynthia Gershman, Plaintiff again was seated next to Mrs. Clinton. Again, Tonken was Mrs. Clinton’s escort. In the presence of Melanie Griffith, Sean Young, and Morgan Fairchild, among others, Mrs. Clinton again thanked Plaintiff for his generous financial support.

31. Throughout June 2000, Plaintiff, Berger and another DNC fundraiser, along with Tonken and event coordinator Bretta Nock, continued to make plans for a DNC fundraising event to be attended by President Clinton at Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff, Berger and other DNC fundraisers held numerous meetings at Plaintiff’s home and at Plaintiff’s office, and conducted several different “walk-throughs” of Plaintiff’s home in anticipation of a variety of proposed events there for the President and Mrs. Clinton.

32. Rosen, Senator Clinton’s National Director of Finance, also participated in several of these meetings. Plaintiff explained to Rosen about his objective in contributing to Democratic Party causes in order to gain access to President Clinton. Plaintiff also explained to Rosen that he hoped to establish a close personal relationship with the President while he was in office, leading to a business relationship with the President after he left office.

33. Rosen counseled Plaintiff on how best to approach the President about establishing a business relationship with him after he left office. Rosen suggested that Plaintiff should approach President Clinton through Rosen’s friend, Jim Levin, the former owner of a well-known “upscale” strip club in Chicago, Illinois and a personal friend and supporter of the President and Mrs. Clinton. Levin had been an overnight guest at The White House on several occasions. Rosen counseled Plaintiff that this approach would be preferable to Plaintiff’s ongoing efforts to enlist Harold Ickes and Terence McAuliffe to serve as intermediaries, with whom Plaintiff held preliminary discussions about his plans.

34. In furtherance of Rosen’s suggestions, Rosen arranged for Plaintiff to meet with Levin on July 5, 2000, at the Mondrian Hotel in Hollywood, California. During this introductory meeting, Levin detailed his close relationship with the President and his knowledge of Plaintiff’s objectives to establish a personal relationship while President Clinton while he remained in office, leading to a business relationship with President Clinton after he left office. Plaintiff explained to Levin how his strategy for building SLM into a global enterprise, along with affiliated companies such as Mondo, was ideally suited for the involvement of an ex-President, and outlined possible roles President Clinton could play as a board member, official advisor, or goodwill ambassador for SLM and/or Mondo.

35. At the July 5, 200 meeting, Levin advised Plaintiff that Plaintiff could not approach President Clinton directly about his offer while the President was still in office, but that Levin could act as an intermediary.

36. Also at the July 5, 2000 meeting, Levin and Rosen both advised Plaintiff that the best way to induce President Clinton to join SLM and/or Mondo after leaving office was to contribute to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign.

37. Accordingly, on July 11, 2000 Plaintiff participated in a conference call with Rosen and other fundraisers from Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign to discuss sponsorship of a fundraising event for Mrs. Clinton just prior to the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. Plaintiff suggested a Hollywood Tribute to the President featuring an all star concert and an exclusive $25,000 per couple dinner, the net proceeds of which would be used to support Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Plaintiff offered to underwrite the event, thereby enabling Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign to generate much needed hard dollar contributions, net of any fundraising expenses.

38. On or around this same date, July 11, 2000, Levin attended a private dinner at Plaintiff’s home during which he asked Plaintiff to prepare a formal written offer for Levin to present to the President, in person, detailing the business relationship he envisioned with the President after leaving office and what the President would receive in return.

39. Plaintiff prepared the written offer requested by Levin and sent it to Levin by facsimile. Under the terms of Plaintiff’s written offer, President Clinton would make a one year commitment to work with SLM and/or Mondo in exchange for $10 million worth of SLM stock and $5 million in cash, as well as a $1 million contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.

40. Levin flew to Washington, D.C. a few days later for the express purpose of conveying Plaintiff’s offer to President Clinton in a meeting at The White House. President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Rosen, Levin, and Tonken all understood that Plaintiff had agreed to finance the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton in order to induce President Clinton to accept his offer.

41. President Clinton told Levin that the Plaintiff’s offer was acceptable in principle, and the President agreed to participate as the honoree of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. President Clinton also agreed that the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser would be the last Hollywood event he would attend prior to leaving office.

42. Levin flew back to Los Angeles and conveyed President Clinton’s response to Plaintiff. As a show of good faith, Levin promised Plaintiff and Stan Lee the following perquisites, on behalf of President Clinton, so that Plaintiff, Stan Lee and the President could begin establishing a close personal relationship before the President left office:

* The President’s support for a Kennedy Center Honor for Stan Lee

* The President’s support for a Presidential Medal of Freedom to be awarded to Stan Lee at The White House

* A reception for Stan Lee at The White House

* An official visit to the offices of SLM by the President

* A stay in the Lincoln Bedroom for Plaintiff and his wife

* A weekend at Camp David for Plaintiff and his wife

* An invitation to the President’s last official State Dinner at The White House for Plaintiff and his wife

* The President’s Participation in the global broadcast of the Hollywood Christmas Parade being produced by SLM

43. Rosen also confirmed to Plaintiff, on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, that Plaintiff and Stan Lee would receive these promised “perks” in exchange for Plaintiff’s funding of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser.

44. In agreeing to finance the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Plaintiff intended his efforts to influence the outcome of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign only. At no point did Plaintiff ever intend to influence the outcome of any other election or to benefit any candidate other than Mrs. Clinton. The President, Mrs. Clinton, Rosen, Tonken, and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign all knew this to be the case.

45. Because Plaintiff was unfamiliar with federal election campaign fundraising requirements, Plaintiff reasonably relied on Rosen, a professional political fundraiser and the National Director of Finance for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, as well as Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign itself, to comply with all applicable campaign fundraising requirements.

46. Importantly, Rosen and other officials of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign knew and understood that Plaintiff was relying on them to comply with all applicable campaign fundraising requirements. In addition, in meetings and telephone conversations throughout June and July, 2000 Rosen had repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that he and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign would make appropriate arrangements to ensure that any contributions made by Plaintiff would be allocated and reported in a manner that complied with all applicable federal campaign fundraising requirements.

47. Having reached what he believed was an agreement with President Clinton, Plaintiff stepped up his efforts to plan and underwrite the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser.

48. At a July 14, 2000 meeting at The Dome restaurant, Plaintiff discussed the upcoming Hollywood Tribute fundraiser with Rosen and Gary Smith, a Hollywood producer friend of the Clintons who had produced the President’s first Inaugural Ball and who was producing the Democratic National Convention in August 2000 as well as a gala fundraiser for Vice President Gore at the Shrine following his presidential nomination. Plaintiff had been negotiating with his long-term associates at Dick Clark Productions to produce the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, but the President, Mrs. Clinton, and Rosen wanted Plaintiff to hire Smith for the task. Plaintiff acquiesced to the wishes of the President, Mrs. Clinton, and Rosen by hiring Smith.

49. The Hollywood Tribute fundraiser was scheduled to take place on August 12, 2000 in Los Angeles, just prior to the Democratic National Convention, which was also being held in Los Angeles. It was to include a reception followed by a gala dinner and a concert with performances by Cher, Diana Ross, Michael Bolton, Patti Labelle, Toni Braxton, Roger Clinton, Paul Anka, Melissa Ethridge and Mark McGrath, among others. Muhammad Ali, Whoopi Goldberg, Red Buttons, Ted Danson, Jimmy Smits, Mary Steenbergen, Dylan McDermot and Gregory Peck also agreed to participate in the event.

50. However, after agreeing to hire Smith, Plaintiff was advised that he would be required to prepay Smith’s entire fee for producing the concert part of the gala, an amount that Smith quoted as $850,000. This amount did not include the reception and dinner components of the event. Plaintiff believed the budget and payment terms were exorbitant, but Rosen assured him that Smith was a friend of Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton would get Smith to lower the proposed budget.

51. Mrs. Clinton subsequently called Smith, and Plaintiff was advised the very next day that, as a direct result of Mrs. Clinton’s personal intervention, Smith had agreed to lower his fee for producing the concert portion of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser from $850,000 to $800,000.

52. Plaintiff also met with DNC Convention Chairman and top DNC fundraiser Terence McAuliffe to discuss the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton, to coordinate the event with the Democratic National Convention, and to allay concerns raised by the media that the event might detract from Vice President Gore’s own fundraising and campaign efforts.

53. Towards the end of July, Rosen began overseeing and coordinating all aspects of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser with The White House from Plaintiff’s office in Los Angeles. Rosen used Plaintiff’s office as his base of operations, and used Plaintiff’s paid staff to approach donors for the event. Plaintiff paid Rosen’s hotel bill while Rosen was in Los Angeles.

54. Rosen was working closely with Tonken on the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser. Tonken even donated the use of his new Porsche to Rosen while Rosen was working on the event in Los Angeles. Plaintiff advanced Tonken approximately $500,000 to pay for costs associated with the event on Plaintiff’s behalf. Rosen was aware at all times that Plaintiff had advanced Tonken these monies to pay for costs associated with the event.

55. As the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser drew near, Plaintiff became concerned about the increasing cost of the event, which was then exceeding $1.25 million. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Rosen, Tonken, and Levin and others about the increasing cost. Rosen told Plaintiff not to discuss the mounting costs of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser publicly, because Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign did not want the true cost of the fundraiser to become known.

56. Rosen also told Plaintiff that certain fundraising ratios required by federal campaign finance laws would be skewed if the true cost of the fundraiser became known. Rosen also began stating repeatedly at event coordination meetings in Plaintiff’s office and residence, with numerous support personnel present, that he was not “officially” hearing about the mounting expenses associated with the event, that he was not witnessing the checks Plaintiff was personally writing for the event, and that, as far as he was concerned, he was not “officially” in attendance at these meetings. Obviously, Rosen had heard about the mounting expenses of the event, did witness Plaintiff writing checks for the event, and did attend numerous meetings about the event.

57. Plaintiff became increasingly concerned about his financing of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, and advised Rosen, Tonken, and Levin that he could not pay any more money towards the cost of the event.

58. Rosen, Tonken, and Levin told Plaintiff that if he backed out the high profile fundraiser, which was then only days away, he would irreparably damage himself and his company, would be precluded from any further involvement with the President, and most assuredly would never work with President Clinton after he left office.

59. After being threatened against backing out of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Plaintiff asked that Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign put up $200,000 to help defray the mounting cost of the event. Rosen, who was in daily contact with Mrs. Clinton, refused.

60. At all times, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Rosen, Tonken, Levin, and many others knew that Plaintiff, not SLM, Stan Lee, or anyone else, was paying for the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser. In the weeks running up to the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Mrs. Clinton made at least three calls to Plaintiff to encourage him and to thank him for his generous financial support.

61. In addition, Plaintiff repeatedly told Rosen that he was financing the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser personally, and that neither SLM nor Stan Lee personally would have any role in financing the event. SLM Chief Executive Officer and President Ken Williams also told Rosen that this was the case. SLM General Counsel Ric Madden even told Rosen that SLM could not, and would not, incur any costs for the fundraiser. Rosen also witnessed Plaintiff writing checks for costs associated with the fundraiser.

62. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign committee also understood that Plaintiff, not SLM, was paying for the fundraiser personally. On several occasions while planning for the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser was underway, Tonken told Mrs. Clinton’s campaign staff and advance personnel, as well as Secret Service, that Plaintiff was paying for the event and therefore “calling all the shots.”

63. Mrs. Clinton’s Assistant Chief of Staff, Kelly Craighorne, also had several discussions and meetings with Plaintiff about the event. Ms. Craighorne knew that not only was Plaintiff paying for the event personally, but that he was paying for the event in order further the business relationship he expected to have with President Clinton after he left office.

64. President Clinton also understood that Plaintiff was underwriting the fundraiser himself. In July 2000, Tonken had assisted DNC Chairman Edward Rendell in producing a fundraiser in Georgetown that was attended by President Clinton. Tonken arranged for entertainer Chaka Khan to sing for the President at this event. After the event, Tonken and Ms. Kahn rode back to The White House with the President in the President’s limousine. During the ride back to The White House, Tonkin and the President discussed Plaintiff’s business and his underwriting of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser in the presence of Ms. Kahn.

65. Other witnesses with whom Plaintiff had discussed his plans to work with President Clinton after leaving office and Plaintiff’s underwriting of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton include such well known Hollywood personalities as Shirley MacLaine, John Travolta and Kelly Preston, Cher, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston, Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, Michael Jackson, Larry King, and George Hamilton, among others persons. Many of these same persons attended the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser as Plaintiff’s guests.

66. While Stan Lee had agreed to lend $325,000 towards the cost of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Rosen, Tonken, and Levin knew that Plaintiff had agreed to reimburse Stan Lee for this amount. Rosen, Tonken, and Levin also knew that Plaintiff had, in fact, reimbursed Stan Lee for at least $100,000 of that amount, which was paid by check to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign and was used to make the first $100,000 deposit on Gary Smith’s production services.

67. Rosen, Tonken, and Levin also knew that Tenzo Oto, a business partner of Plaintiff and a Japanese national, had contributed $27,000 towards the cost of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser. Rosen, Tonken, and Levin also knew that Oto had promised to pay half of Plaintiff’s $17 million offer to President Clinton to join SLM and/or Mondo after leaving office. As a result, and because Plaintiff had requested that Oto be allowed to attend at least a part of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Rosen, Tonken, and Levin made arrangements for Oto to be smuggled into the concert portion of the event, but would not allow Oto to attend the dinner or have his picture taken with the President during the fundraiser. However, Rosen, Tonken, and Levin arranged for Oto to have his picture taken with the President the following day at brunch at Barbra Streisand’s home to raise funds for the President’s library.

68. The Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign proceeded as planned on August 12, 2000.

69. During the event, President Clinton introduced Plaintiff to his daughter, Chelsea Clinton. In the President’s presence and while sitting next to the President and Chelsea Clinton during the concert, Plaintiff and Chelsea Clinton discussed how Plaintiff had planned and paid for the fundraiser. Plaintiff also described his plans to work with the President after leaving office, and even suggested that Chelsea Clinton work for SLM too.

70. Plaintiff and the President also discussed the offer in general terms during the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser. The President gave every indication he was aware of the offer as conveyed to him by Plaintiff through Levin, that he was receptive to the offer, and that he was looking forward to spending additional time with Plaintiff before leaving The White House to further discuss his imminent business association with Plaintiff’s companies.

71. Rosen, Tonken, and Levin had smuggled Oto into the concert portion of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser and sat him directly behind the President and Mrs. Clinton. Although Rosen, Tonken, and Levin had sought to avoid Oto being photographed with the President or Mrs. Clinton at the event, in its August 28, 2000 issue US Magazine published a photograph of Oto smiling within inches of the President and Mrs. Clinton at the event.

72. The following day, August 13, 2000, Plaintiff and his wife attended a brunch at the home of Barbra Streisand and James Brolin to raise funds for President Clinton’s library. The President, Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea Clinton also were in attendance. During the brunch, Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea Clinton introduced Plaintiff’s wife to Streisand as the person, along with her husband, who paid for the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser the night before. President Clinton separately introduced Plaintiff’s wife to Brolin in an identical manner.

73. Also during the course of the brunch, Chelsea Clinton related to Plaintiff and his guests how she had been up late playing “Scrabble” with her father after the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser and they had discussed Plaintiff’s generous gift of the event the night before. Chelsea Clinton described how her father had considered the event one of the highlights of his experiences as President, and his enthusiasm about the prospect of working with Plaintiff when he left The White House.

74. Oto, who had made a $ 1 million pledge to President Clinton’s library, also attended the brunch, where Levin arranged for a White House photographer to take pictures of Oto with the President and Mrs. Clinton. Levin personally retrieved these photos from The White House photographers and delivered them to Oto during a subsequent trip to Japan.

75. The following day, August 14, 2000, Mrs. Clinton telephoned Plaintiff at home to thank him for underwriting the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, and expressed how important the event was to her campaign. In fact, the President and Mrs. Clinton made several telephone calls to Plaintiff to encourage his support and to thank him for the event.

76. On August 18, 2000, both President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton wrote personal “thank you” notes to Plaintiff for the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser. President Clinton’s handwritten note expressly thanked Plaintiff “for the wonderful event” and continued, “I am very grateful for the boost it gave Hillary’s campaign.”

77. In total, Plaintiff spent approximately $1.9 million of his own personal funds for the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser.

78. As a result of Plaintiff’s underwriting of the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, Mrs. Clinton was able to raise almost $1.5 million in net, hard money contributions at the gala for her U.S. Senate campaign.

79. On August 15, 2000 and August 17, 2000, The Washington Post published articles about Plaintiff’s past felony convictions and his role in the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton.

80. In response, a spokesperson for Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign publicly denied that Plaintiff had financed any aspect of the fundraiser, falsely claiming that Plaintiff only made a $2,000 contribution before the event (part of his $150,000 commitment to co-host the June 9, 2000 luncheon at Spago) and also falsely claiming that Plaintiff had received a nominal fee for his “producing services.” The campaign spokesperson also falsely claimed that Mrs. Clinton would not accept any contribution from Plaintiff whatsoever, and that all contributions from Plaintiff had been returned.

81. Both Rosen, Tonken, and Levin told Plaintiff to ignore The Washington Post reports, and promised Plaintiff that, after the November 2000 elections, he and the President would be able to continue with their plans to work together once the President left office.

82. Throughout the remainder of August and into September, Plaintiff spoke with both Tonken and Rendell about President Clinton granting Plaintiff a presidential pardon. Plaintiff first spoke with Tonken, who promised that he would discuss the subject with Rendell. Shortly thereafter, Rendell called Plaintiff and asked him for a $200,000 contribution for the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asked Rendell about the status of his request for a presidential pardon. Rendell advised Plaintiff that he was working on it. Plaintiff declined to make any further commitment to Rendell at that time, and never received a pardon.

83. On September 17, 2000, the President and Mrs. Clinton hosted their last State Dinner, in honor of India, at The White House. Plaintiff was disinvited to the event, purportedly because of the negative publicity about his background.

84. Oto, who was a Japanese national, was smuggled into The White House to attend the State Dinner for India. With the express approval of President Clinton, Levin arranged for Oto to take a private tour of the Oval Office, where Oto had his picture taken sitting at President Clinton’s desk. Levin later personally delivered these photographs to Oto in Japan.

85. Notwithstanding the public statements of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, and despite Plaintiff’s having paid for most of the expenses for the June 9, 2000 luncheon fundraiser at Spago and all the expenses for the August 12, 2000 Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, during the months of September and October, 2000, Rosen continued to press Plaintiff aggressively about his prior commitment to transfer $150,000 worth of SLM stock for co-hosting the Spago luncheon and tea at Cynthia Gershman’s home. During a telephone call in approximately September 2000, Rosen told Plaintiff that Mrs. Clinton had made commitments to several organizations, including a pro-abortion group in Illinois, in reliance upon his stock commitment, and that she was demanding that Plaintiff make good on the commitment. Rosen also told Plaintiff in reference to Plaintiff’s plans to work with President Clinton after he left office, that “it won’t work out” with the President unless the stock was transferred. To settle the issue, Plaintiff and Rosen, acting on behalf of the President and Mrs. Clinton, agreed that Plaintiff would transfer approximately $55,000 worth of SLM stock to the pro-abortion group in Illinois on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. Plaintiff had the stock transferred in October 2000, as instructed by Rosen.

86. In October/November 2000, Levin sent a threatening e-mail to Plaintiff demanding payment of a $250,000 installment on the $1 million commitment Plaintiff had made to the Presidential Library. Plaintiff did not make the demanded payment.

87. Federal campaign fundraising laws require campaign officials to report any payments made to third parties for the benefit of a federal candidate as direct “in kind” contributions, especially all costs paid for hosting fundraising events, to the Federal Election Commission.

88. In addition, federal campaign fundraising laws also require campaign officials to allocate contributions, including “in kind” contributions, in a manner that does not exceed federal campaign fundraising limits. However, the intent of the contributor controls how contributions can be allocated, and a contribution that exceeds federal campaign fundraising limits cannot be reallocated without the written consent of the contributor.

89. Federal campaign fundraising laws also clearly require campaign officials to confirm the legality of a contribution or refund the contribution within thirty days.

90. Plaintiff clearly intended that the expenses he paid for the June 9, 2000 luncheon fundraiser at Spago, his underwriting of the August 12, 2000 Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, and the October 2000 stock transfer on behalf of Mrs. Clinton to the pro-abortion group in Illinois influence the outcome of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign only, not the campaign of any other candidate or political committee, and Defendants knew this to be the case at all times.

91. At no time did Plaintiff understand that any of his contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign might run afoul of federal campaign finance laws. In fact, Plaintiff accurately believed it was the obligation of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign to determine the legality of his contributions, and to report and allocate them in an appropriate, lawful manner.

92. However, with the single exception of the $2,000 contribution refunded in August 2001, Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign failed to report or allocate any of Plaintiff’s contributions, including the $1.9 million paid by Plaintiff for the August 9, 2000 Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, the $150,000 commitment made by Plaintiff to co-host the June 9, 2000 luncheon fundraiser at Spago, any of the expenses paid by Plaintiff for that same event, or the $55,000 worth of stock transferred to the pro-abortion group in Illinois on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf, as required by federal campaign finance laws. Nor has Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign refunded any of these contributions to Plaintiff. 93. The only report to the Federal Election Commission of any involvement by Plaintiff in the August 12, 2000 Hollywood Tribute fundraiser is a January 31, 2001 report of a $366,564.69 contribution allegedly received by New York Senate 2000 from SLM. This report is completely false, as SLM never made any contribution to the August 12, 2000 Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, and SLM never made any contribution to New York Senate 2000. Moreover, Defendants at all relevant times knew this report to be false.

94. On November 7, 2000, Mrs. Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of New York.

95. On January 20, 2001, President Clinton left office. Neither Plaintiff nor Stan Lee ever received any of the other perquisites promised by President Clinton through Levin. Nor has President Clinton made good on his agreement to enter into any business relationship with Plaintiff, Stan Lee, SLM and/or Mondo, since leaving office.

96. As a result of the failure to properly report Plaintiff’s contributions, Plaintiff has been placed at substantial risk of prosecution for violation of campaign fundraising laws. Plaintiff has been advised by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for District of New Jersey that he is at risk for being investigated for alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws.

COUNT I

(Unjust Enrichment -- Defendant William Jefferson Clinton)

97. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully set forth herein.

98. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton personally and directly benefitted from the contributions Plaintiff made to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign.

99. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense. Specifically, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton was unjustly enriched by contributions made by Plaintiff in good faith to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, upon the direction of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton’s agent, Defendant Levin, in order to induce Defendant William Jefferson Clinton to enter into a business relationship with Plaintiff after he left The White House.

100. The circumstances of Defendant’s unjust enrichment are such that Defendant William Jefferson Clinton should, in good conscience, make restitution to Plaintiff.

101. As a proximate result of Defendant’s failure to make restitution, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered against Defendant William Jefferson Clinton including an award of compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

(Unjust Enrichment -- Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary

Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., and

New York Senate 2000)

102. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 101 as if fully set forth herein.

103. Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., and New York Senate 2000 benefitted directly from Plaintiff’s contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign.

104. Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., and New York Senate 2000 were unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense. Specifically, Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., and New York Senate 2000 were unjustly enriched by contributions made by Plaintiff in good faith to influence the outcome of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate Campaign, but which Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. and/or New York Senate 2000 failed to report to the Federal Election Commission or return to Plaintiff, as required by federal campaign finance laws.

105. The circumstances of Defendants’ unjust enrichment are such that Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., and New York Senate 2000 should, in good conscience, make restitution to Plaintiff.

106. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to make restitution, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered against Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., and New York Senate 2000, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III

(Fraud -- Defendants David Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for

U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000

and Hillary Rodham Clinton)

107. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 106 as if fully set forth herein.

108. Defendant Rosen, acting in his personal capacity and as the agent of Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton, repeatedly represented to Plaintiff in meetings and telephone conversations throughout June and July, 2000 that he and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign would make appropriate arrangements to ensure that Plaintiff’s contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign were allocated and reported in such a manner as to comply with all applicable federal campaign fundraising requirements.

109. Defendant Rosen, acting in his personal capacity and as the agent of Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton, made these representations to Plaintiff in order to induce him to make substantial contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, even though neither he, Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate Campaign, New York Senate 2000, nor Mrs. Clinton had any intention of making sure that Plaintiff’s contributions were allocated and reported in a matter that complied with all applicable federal campaign fundraising requirements.

110. Defendant Rosen, acting in his personal capacity and as the agent of Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton, intentionally made these false representations to Plaintiff and/or made them with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

111. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Rosen’s false representations by making substantial campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign.

112. As a proximate result, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to the substantial campaign contributions made by Plaintiff and the substantial risk that he will be prosecuted for violating campaign finance laws.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered against Defendants Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV

(Breach of Special Duty -- Defendants David Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton

for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000

and Hillary Rodham Clinton)

113. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 111 as if fully set forth herein.

114. Because Defendant Rosen, acting in his personal capacity and as the agent of Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton, repeatedly represented to Plaintiff in meetings and telephone conversations throughout June and July, 2000 that he and Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign would make appropriate arrangements to ensure that any contributions Plaintiff made to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign were allocated and reported in such a manner as to comply with all applicable federal campaign fundraising requirements, Defendants Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Hillary Rodham Clinton owed Plaintiff a special duty to make sure that Plaintiff’s contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign were allocated and reported in an appropriate, lawful manner.

115. At a minimum, Defendants Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. and/or New York Senate 2000 owed Plaintiff this same duty because federal campaign fundraising laws require campaign officials to report and allocate all contributions in a manner that does not exceed federal campaign fundraising limits, and/or otherwise confirm the legality of a contribution or refund the contribution within thirty days.

116. Defendant Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Hillary Rodham Clinton breached this duty to Plaintiff by failing to report Plaintiff’s contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, by failing to allocate Plaintiff’s contributions in a manner that did not exceed federal campaign limits, and by failing to otherwise confirm the legality of Plaintiff’s contributions or refund the contributions to Plaintiff within thirty days.

117. Defendant Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton breached this special duty intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

118. As a proximate result, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to the substantial risk that he will be prosecuted for violating campaign finance laws.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered against Defendants Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V

(Conspiracy -- Defendants Aaron Tonken, Hillary Rodham Clinton

for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000

and Hillary Rodham Clinton)

119. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein.

120. On information and belief, Defendant Tonken tacitly and/or expressly agreed with Defendant Rosen, acting in his personal capacity and as the agent of Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton, not to allocate, report, or otherwise make appropriate arrangements to ensure that Plaintiff’s contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, including the approximately $500,000 Plaintiff had provided to Tonken to pay for expenses associated with the Hollywood Tribute fundraiser, were allocated and reported in such a manner as to comply with all applicable federal campaign fundraising requirements.

121. Defendants Tonken, Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Mrs. Clinton acted intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

122. As a proximate result, Plaintiff suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to the substantial campaign contributions made by Plaintiff and the substantial risk that he will be prosecuted for violating campaign finance laws.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment be entered against Defendants Tonken, Rosen, Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc., New York Senate 2000, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, jointly and severally, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 19, 2001 By: ____________________________

Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

Calif. Bar No.040993)

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201

San Marino, CA 91108

(626) 287-4540 Telephone

(626) 237-2003 Facsimile

By: ____________________________

Larry Klayman, Esq.

(Not a Member of the Calif. Bar)

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 646-5172 Telephone

(202) 646-5199 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff