Peter Paul Chronicles

On January 11, 2007, for the first time in Hillary Clinton’s checkered career as a Rose Law firm partner, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady and Co-President of the U.S. and U.S. Senator, evidence of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misconduct, involving election law felonies punishable by five years in prison, has been presented to an appellate court for “judicial review”.

In the past, Hillary has always escaped judicial review of her misconduct as a defendant in the various criminal actions investigated by a series of Grand Juries and Special prosecutors. Her “teflon” contempt for the law has been enabled by the impossible standard for “convictability” that is applied to her by those who would consider prosecuting her. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s successor Robert Ray reluctantly concluded at the end of the Whitewater and related investigations in 2000 that while there was convincing evidence of numerous counts of Hillary’s perjury and obstruction of justice, it would be futile to indict her because of her “unconvictability” as a First Lady. This sentiment was echoed by House Impeachment Manager Dave Schippers in explaining why Hillary wasn’t indicted in connection with perjury and obstruction in the Impeachment proceedings.

Hillary has used power, influence and, finally, celebrity personality to elevate herself above the Rule of Law, and thereby avoid any judicial review of her series of criminal actions. She even used her Co-Presidential power of appointment of federal judges to have a judge she and Bill appointed to the bench in Los Angeles preside over the criminal trial of her finance director, David Rosen, in 2005. Bill appointee, Judge Matz, publicly declared Hillary’s complete innocence and lack of any involvement in Rosen’s indicted charges before any evidence was ever presented in court!

Now, after three years of maneuvering in Paul v Clinton et al, Hillary managed to invoke a California statute that protects candidates from frivolous law suits, and she was dismissed from the case as a defendant in April, 2006, (but not as a material witness) based on her First Amendment protection of committing civil frauds in the course of campaign fund raising. While the California Anti-SLAPP law can protect frauds committed by candidates in the course of fund raising, it does not protect their criminality in connection with fund raising. The facts of the case demonstrate conclusively that Hillary committed at least one felony in her role in violating Federal campaign finance laws.

If the Appellate Court agrees that the facts presented in Peter Paul’s appeal show that Hillary did engage in felonious activity in connection with soliciting, coordinating and coercing more than $1 million from Paul for her Senate campaign in 2000, then the court will overturn the trial court ruling granting Hillary First Amendment Anti-SLAPP protection, and remand the case instructing the trial court that Hillary continue as a defendant in the case which has been green lighted against her husband and other accomplices to proceed to trial.

This question now presented to the court can have historic consequences if the court chooses that specific ground as its basis to remand Hillary for civil trial for fraud and conspiracy. However, the court can reach the same conclusion based on an array of other issues that would get the court off the hook from being the first judicial proceeding to ever find as a matter of fact and law that Hillary Rodham Clinton committed a felony.
Hillary’s responsive brief, to be filed through David Kendall, will be presented within the next 45 days, and will require more nimble legal slight of hands than were ever used in the Paula Jones and Impeachment matters. Unless it is more reasoned than Hillary’s sworn Declaration of incipient Alzheimer’s, Hillary could well have alot of explaining to do when her well oiled cover-up machine explodes in a thousand pieces.

Court brief alleges crime by Hillary
Cites federal code that carries possible 5-year prison sentence

By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.comA brief filed yesterday in a civil fraud case alleges Sen. Hillary Clinton engaged in criminal misconduct, citing a violation of federal code that carries a possible five-year prison sentence. Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who claims he was the largest contributor to Clinton’s 2000 campaign, alleges the New York Democrat solicited and accepted his illegal contribution of more than $1 million and falsified statements to the Federal Election Commission.

Paul’s attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton’s actions violated Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: “Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

The Clintons’ longtime attorney, David Kendall, told WND yesterday afternoon he had not seen Paul’s filing, but he offered a brief response to the charge Sen. Clinton violated the criminal statute.

“Any such allegation is totally false and totally unsupported,” he said.

Arguing for the strength of his case, Paul asserted “even David Kendall can’t argue with the application of the law.”

“He’s going to try to use some magic tricks to divert attention from it, but Hillary Clinton has never denied any of my allegations,” Paul told WND. “Even when she filed a sworn declaration, which is her only comment about my allegations, there was not one denial.”

Paul called the declaration “a new first in non-denial denials, in which Hillary Clinton has extended her trademark poor memory to stating that if she doesn’t remember something happening, it didn’t happen.”

Nowhere in the declaration, Paul argues, “does she say Peter Paul was a liar.”

Paul’s new brief is an appeal pertaining to his civil fraud suit claiming Bill Clinton destroyed his entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, to get out of a $17 million deal in which the former president promised to promote the firm in exchange for Paul’s massive contributions to Sen. Clinton’s 2000 campaign.

The businessman claims he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic operatives to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost about $2 million.

The brief filed yesterday is an appeal of an April 7, 2006, decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, granting Sen. Clinton her motion to be dismissed from the case based on the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns.

But in the brief, Paul’s attorneys argue Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.

In his April 2006 ruling, Munoz scheduled a trial to begin March 27 this year, but it was delayed when in September he ruled the discovery process – which likely would require the former president and his wife to testify under oath – could not proceed until the anti-SLAPP appeal is resolved.

Paul is asking that in the event the anti-SLAPP order is not reversed, the appeals panel allow him to proceed with limited discovery.

Paul’s current appeal likely will further delay the trial date. Wilson told WND she estimated oral arguments for the appeal might not take place before fall.

Paul said he finds it “perplexing” that the Federal Election Commission, in all its investigation and analysis of the funding of the Hollywood gala, never referred to the specific statute cited in his brief.

In January 2006, responding to a complaint by Paul, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to a joint fund-raising committee that included Clinton’s campaign, New York Senate 2000, for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from Paul.

In May 2005, Clinton’s former top fund-raising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul points out the trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Sen. Clinton’s campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.

He contends his new appellate brief is significant.

“This is the first time a court of competent jurisdiction – not a grand jury or prosecutor – will be reviewing a charge of criminal conduct against Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Paul acknowledged, however, that the appeals court could rule in his favor without a finding on the alleged criminal violation.

Wilson said that if the court does find Sen. Clinton engaged in criminal conduct, the finding would not compel the FEC to take action.

But it would be “very persuasive,” she said, and the FEC could refer the case to the attorney general for a criminal indictment.

Filed under: Uncategorized