After an extensive PR campaign begun on June 12, 2001 by the previous two US Attorneys for the Eastern District of New York,  Vinegrad and Mauskopf,  accusing Peter Paul of a “classic pump and dump” of his stock causing his dot com company with Spider Man creator Stan Lee to fail and causing millions in shareholder losses, the government quietly admitted in federal court at Paul’s belated sentencing on his 10(b)5 violation that

“There is no loss to those individuals (Stan Lee Media shareholders). Yes.”

Winston Chan is the fifth Assistant US Attorney to be assigned to USA v Paul, Gordon, Kusche, Pittsburg,  since it was announced with great fanfare by US Attorney Alan Vinegrad at a press conference with FBI and US POstal Inspector officials in June, 2001.

Kenneth Breen was the Assistant US Attorney under Vinegrad who directed the indictment of Paul, and had him arrested by Interpol in Brazil on August 3, 2001 for extradition while Paul was cooperating with the Assistant Attorney General Chertoff in an investigation of Hillary Clinton campaign frauds, and while Paul was awaiting confirmation of Chertoff’s personal intervention into his prosecution in Hillary’s “home” state.

The New York indictment came a week before Paul filed a $10 million civil fraud suit against Bill and Hillary Clinton for business and FEC frauds he alleged they perpetrated on him when Bill Clinton induced him to become Hillary Clinton’s largest ($1.9 million) donor to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Paul’s two year extradition process was extended by Breen’s manipulation of Brazil’s extradition laws, and Breen’s subsequent refusal to allow Paul to cooperate with Noel Hillman, Director of the Dept of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity, in the prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen,  without Paul pleading guilty to the 10(b)5 indictment and posting a multi-million dollar bail Paul could not afford, compromised the Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s role in the offense her campaign finance director Rosen was indicted and tried for.

Paul’s ability to prove Hillary Clinton’s personal role in the frauds attributed solely to Rosen, for which her campaign Treasurer was later fined by the FEC, was further thwarted by Breen’s refusal to disclose or share a smoking gun video tape made by Paul in 2000 which Breen acquired from Paul’s offices in 2001, capturing Hillary Clinton admitting of her knowledge and participation in directing and accepting the $1.2 million donation Paul made to her campaign at Bill Clinton’s  request as her agent.

After leaving the US Attorney’s office in 2005, Breen was coincidentally hired by the New York law firm Paul Hastings in February, 2007 after it discovered Paul was assisting shareholders of Stan Lee Media in filing a $1 billion suit against Marvel Entertainment, one of Paul Hasting’s largest clients,  for defrauding Stan Lee Media of hundreds of millions in profits it derived from Stan Lee’s Marvel creations, which Lee assigned to Stan Lee Media.

During two hearings held in New York Federal Court in June and July, 2009, Mr Chan admitted to Federal Judge Leonard Wexler that the government could not prove Peter Paul caused ANY losses to shareholders.

When queried by the Court, Mr Chan said:

MR. CHAN: Mr. Conway [Peter Paul’s attorney] had suggested that the losses with respect to investors was not sufficiently quantifiable... And I took a look at the matter and I agreed with him.

THE COURT: Where does the government stand?

9 MR. CHAN: Whether or not the losses are due to the stock, the falling stock price, is ..the result of [Peter Paul’s] actions, is not something that we can prove.

17 THE COURT: Do you feel there is no loss?

18 MR. CHAN: There is no loss to those individuals. Yes.

Interestingly, the government withheld that admission and correction of its allegations from the probation office and the court for the four years since it announced that Paul’s guilty plea to violating one count of SEC Regulation 10(b)5 was an admission that Paul had caused more than $25 million in  losses. It failed to disclose that its previous statements were not legally supportable until the day of Mr Paul’s sentencing.

Bob inexplicably refused to follow up on his breaking  story even when the US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York was forced in 2007 to turn over a smoking gun video tape of a conversation between Peter Paul and Hillary Clinton that captured her illegally soliciting, coordinating and directing Paul’s $1.2 million plus donation to her campaign. This tape had been intentionally withheld by the US Attorney’s office from Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity investigations that were thwarted by the Eastern District of New York’s Assistant US Attorney  who refused to accept Peter paul’s bail package (acceptable to the DOJ) and who refused to allow Paul to cooperate without him  pleading guilty to multiple charges.

But that story has yet to be completed for another reporter to break now that Bob has gone to the newsroom in the sky.

Hillary’s Fund-Raiser

Thursday June 28 01:00 AM EDT
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON — On March 30 in Newark, N.J., lawyers from the conservative Judicial Watch organization met representatives of four U.S. attorneys with an offer in behalf of an unusual client. Peter Paul, a colorful Hollywood entrepreneur under Justice Department investigation for stock manipulation, would give information to prosecutors if he could return briefly from Sao Paulo, Brazil, without fear of arrest. Included was his claimed contribution, unreported to federal authorities, of nearly $2 million to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign.

Two months of silence was broken June 12 when Alan Vinegrad, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), brought a securities fraud indictment against Paul. No interest was shown in the proffer.

The Clinton administration pattern appears to be continuing in the Bush administration. Donors, not recipients, of specious political contributions are prosecuted.

The Justice Department was never informed of the Paul proffer by the four U.S. attorneys, who are all holdover Clinton political appointees or interim civil servants. Judicial Watch’s Larry Klayman has brought the case to Bush appointees at Main Justice. But Attorney General John Ashcroft, after his brutal confirmation, shows great deference to non-Bush U.S. attorneys. The inclination is to “move on” rather than pursue the Clintons.

Nevertheless, a lawsuit filed by Paul in Los Angeles June 19 against Bill and Hillary Clinton paints a picture all too familiar in American political fund-raising generally and by the Clintons particularly.

Paul in 1998 co-founded Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLM) with Stan Lee, creator of “Spiderman,” “The Incredible Hulk” and other comic book characters. He claims he wanted President Clinton to honor Lee, but associates say Paul really sought the president as a business partner after he left office. What better way to woo him than by helping Mrs. Clinton get elected?

Court papers show Paul claiming he “spent approximately $1.9 million of his own personal funds” paying vendors for a lavish Hollywood “tribute” last Aug. 12 that raised a net $1.5 million for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. Campaign finance lawyers see law violations in neither reporting this money nor reimbursing Paul.

“Generally, we don’t comment on Judicial Watch activities,” Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy told me. The Clinton FEC filing shows a $500,000 “in-kind” contribution by SLM, but actually, the company gave nothing. Paul’s cancelled checks substantiate his $1.9 million unreported contribution.

Help for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was not all that Paul promised. The court filing asserts that in return for a one-year commitment to work for SLM once the president left office, Paul last July offered him $10 million in SLM stock, $5 million in cash and $1 million for the Clinton library. Paul alleges that Chicago businessman Jim Levin conveyed this offer to the White House and returned with a perquisite package including a Lincoln bedroom stay and a Camp David weekend. Levin did not respond to my phone calls.

On Aug. 14, Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove reported that Paul spent 30 months in federal prison after a 1979 conviction for trying to swindle Fidel Castro’s government and cocaine possession. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign immediately returned $2,000 directly contributed by Paul and his wife but ignored the $1.9 million.

The suit contends Paul was assured by Clinton’s emissaries that nothing had been changed. Indeed, flowery thank-you letters from the Clintons were written after the Aug. 16 return of $2,000 (”With gratitude for friendship,” Mrs. Clinton wrote on Aug. 18 in a note signed “Hillary”).

After this experience, Paul asserts, he sought a presidential pardon into September. Democratic Party General Chairman Ed Rendell said “he was working on it,” the suit alleges. Rendell told me his appointment book reflects no meeting with Paul that late in the year. “I can’t recall any talk about a pardon,” Rendell added.

Paul talked to me from Brazil this week, under the stipulation not to discuss his indictment. Did he really think spending all that money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign would entice her husband into his firm? “I wonder if I was taken, and that’s why this lawsuit was filed,” he replied. The question now is whether Paul will get what is known as a “queen for a day” arrest-free visit to tell his story to prosecutors — if they want to listen.

© 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A videotape of Hillary capturing her engaging in violating the FEC regulations that Hsu was convicted of, was withheld by government attorneys from the investigations into her numerous, flagrant campaign law violations in 2000 until two years AFTER the FEC concluded it had no evidence that Hillary was personally involved in the FEC violations that caused her finance director to be indicted and her treasurer to be fined.The American people seem indifferent to the unequal application of the law and its selective application by their representatives and appointed officials based on political power.Our precious Nation of Laws, built on the Rule of Law, has unfortunately devolved into a Nation of Men free to abuse power and the judicial system with impunity due to lack of integrity of the media and shirked civic responsibility of the electorate.

An FEC filing this week introducing new evidence of Hillary Clinton campaign  illegalities, a video tape transcript of Hillary Clinton engaging in illegal solicitation, coordination and acceptance of more than $1.2 million from her largest 2000 donor, exposes a secret immunity deal given to the Clintons by the FEC in January 2006.

In January 2006, the Treasurer for Hillary Clinton’s Joint Fundraising Committee for her first Senate race, NY Senate 2000, agreed in a Conciliation Agreement of a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2001 by Peter Paul, to a $35,000 fine for failing to report more than that $700,000 donated by Peter Paul which was not included in three FEC reports that he filed during and after Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign.

Buried in the agreement was a clause that immunized everyone connected with Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign, including Hillary and her husband acting as her agent, from any further investigation for any illegalities in connection with her campaign:

MUR 5225 4
New York Senate 2000
Conciliation Agreement
VII. The Commission, on request of anyone filing a complaint under 2 U.S.C.
0 437g(a)( 1) concerning the matters at issue herein or on its own motion, may review compliance with this agreement. If the Commission believes that this agreement or any requirement thereof has been violated, it may institute a civil action for relief in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

VIII. This agreement, unless violated, shall serve as a complete bar to any further action against New York Senate 2000 and its current and former joint fundraising participants, agents, employees and officers for acts arising out of, or relating to New York Senate 2000, Event 39 and all fundraising events held by New York Senate 2000 between September 16,1999 through November 7,2000. See 2 U.S.C. 0 437g(a)(4), (5).

E. This agreement shall become effective as of the date that all parties hereto have executed same and the Commission has approved the entire agreement.

That part of the agreement was never reported by the media- nor was the application of the immunity to Hillary Clinton as a participant and agent for NY Senate 2000- nor was the January 30, 2006 final FEC report that was required to legally correct the earlier three false reports filed.

Now a new FEC complaint has been filed presenting new evidence that the Conciliation Agreement (and therefore the Immunity Agreement) was violated by failing to file an accurate final FEC report that acknowledged the money that was not reported was illegally excessive as a federal contribution solicited and accepted by Hillary Clinton personally. See the story presented with the smoking gun video.

The evidence was partially included in the documentary Hillary!Uncensored (Part1, Part 2)

All citizens are encouraged to respond to the invitation by the FEC to file a complaint concerning the matters in the immunity agreement- that says:

“The Commission…on request of anyone filing a complaint under 2 U.S.C.
437g(a)( 1) concerning the matters at issue herein…may review compliance with this agreement.”

FEC Complaint Filed To Cancel Hillary Clinton 2006 Immunity Deal

New Evidence Offered of Hillary Clinton’s Admissions To Raising Illegal Funds

May 6, 2009, Washington, DC.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes and the Hillary Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc. have become the subjects of a new Federal Election Commission Complaint filed today.

An original FEC complaint was filed against then-Senator Clinton and her agents including President Clinton, DNC Chair Ed Rendell, Finance Director David Rosen and Treasurer Andrew Grossman in July 2001. It detailed the facts surrounding the illegal solicitation and false reporting of more than $1.9 million expended by

The new FEC complaint presents evidence that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have filed yet another false FEC report that would violate the Conciliation agreement and compel the FEC to void its grant of immunity to Hillary Clinton and resume its unfinished investigation based on the new evidence. As the complaint concludes:

“The false reporting of [Paul’s 1.2 million] expenditures as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 was and is a violation of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. Section 434(b).  The activities of [Hillary Clinton and the other Respondents] in making false statements which resulted in such contributions’ being improperly reported as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements) and/or 18 U.S.C. Section 2 (aiding and abetting).”

When the FEC previously decided to close its file as to Hillary Clinton, it stated that, “Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions.”  Such evidence was lacking then, but not now.   Ironically enough, in the context of defending against Peter Paul’s fraud complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hillary Clinton and her agents, David Rosen and James Levin have filed written statements under oath that prove Mrs. Clinton knowingly accepted prohibited, excessive contributions in connection with Event 39, by soliciting, directing and coordinating Mr. Paul’s underwriting of this event.

The significance of the new evidence was explained by California Attorney D. Colette Wilson on behalf of

Landmark Hollywood Copyright/Trademark Law Suit Amended To Include Co-Ownership Of Trademark Marvel Along With Spider Man, X-Men et al

The shareholders of Stan Lee Media Inc, led by investment banker and SLM investor Jose Abadin as Plaintiff in Abadin v Marvel et al, have associated the venerable Park Avenue law firm of Eaton and Van Winkel to work with Super Lawyer Martin Garbus to expand the scope of their shareholders’ action against Marvel Entertainment and Stan Lee as amended in Manhattan Federal Court on Thursday, April 30, 2009.

The suit clarifies SLM’s claims for all of Stan Lee’s creator’s rights (assigned to Stan Lee Media by Lee in October, 1998) which are being infringed on by Marvel and Stan Lee. The expanded suit details the history of Stan Lee’s co-creator’s rights to the”creative universe” originated by him during his career with Marvel.

The suit is now poised to proceed on a fast track before Federal District Court Judge Crotty who has stated in hearings last year to Marvel’s counsel that its obsession with pillorying Peter Paul is irrelevant to the legal questions presented by SLM in its complaint regarding its ownership interest in Stan Lee’s Marvel creations.  Marvel and Lee have used mischaracterizations of Paul’s history from the 1980’s and his stock transactions in supporting  Stan Lee Media’s stock price during the dot com melt down as a shield from legal and media scrutiny of and accountability for the misdeeds they engaged in,  looting rights, assets and claims owned by Stan Lee Media for their own benefit.

The recent ruling by Judge Wilson in Los Angeles Federal District Court that Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman and Lee’s new public company, POW Entertainment (POWN:BB) illegally transferred intellectual properties  from the Bankruptcy Estate of Stan Lee Media to POW,  judicially confirmed the frauds against Stan Lee Media shareholders that Paul began publicly accusing Stan Lee and his POW! partners of committing in publications in 2005.

Judge Wilson formally notified the US Copyright Office on February 21, 2009 of his ruling that Stan Lee and POW Entertainment had illegally transferred copyrights to Stan Lee Media’s assets The Drifter, The Accuser and Stan’s Evil Clone from Stan Lee Media to POW Entertainment while SLM was in Bankruptcy protection, without the approval of the Bankruptcy court.

The American Lawyer reported the best analysis of the next phase of the landmark Stan Lee Media shareholders vs. Marvel, Ike Perlmutter, Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman litigation.

Interestingly, as a testament to Stan Lee’s good will with the journalists who were weaned on Spider Man and Silver Surfer, the media has ignored reporting on the significance of the efforts by Stan Lee’s dot com shareholders to recover claims, rights and monies they own. By virtue of Stan Lee’s assignment of his entire “creative universe- and rights to his name and likeness”  in exchange for 3.6 million shares in Stan Lee Media (worth $100 million in February 2000)  Stan Lee Media owns all Lee’s creator’s rights and claims to all his Marvel creations, notwithstanding the various illegal actions taken by Marvel and Lee to hide those rights.

What was of dubious value in 1998 has become the holy grail of the world’s movie entertainment franchises. The legal actions by those who were assigned an interest in Stan Lee’s rights (since Stan kept 26% of the rights through his stock ownership) against Stan and Marvel to assert those rights, will become a new landmark in Hollywood legal history.

January 29, 2009 5:45 PM

Bam! Whap! Marty Garbus Joins the Tortured Legal History of Stan Lee; Marvel

Posted by Brian Baxter

Famed trial lawyer Martin Garbus–whose notable clients have included such high-profile humorists as Lenny Bruce and Don Imus–is back in court for a dispute with comics at its heart, only this time they’re of the superhero, not the standup, variety.

On Monday, Garbus filed a derivative suit in U.S. district court in Manhattan on behalf of four shareholders of Stan Lee Media, Inc., (SLMI) against legendary comic book creator Stan Lee, Marvel Entertainment, and several other individuals.

In the suit, Garbus claims the defendants violated his clients’ copyrights, ignored their rights as SLMI shareholders, and improperly pocketed $750 million in proceeds from Marvel-owned franchises like Spider-Man, Iron Man, and the X-Men. (The $750 million figure represents a 50 percent ownership stake in Marvel and Lee-held properties.)

In his complaint, Garbus accuses Marvel, Lee, Lee business partner Arthur Lieberman, current Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter, and Avi Arad, a major Marvel shareholder, of colluding “to hide and misappropriate financial interests in Lee’s creations assigned to Stan Lee Media in 1998 and reaffirmed in 1999.”

“Marvel says they have those rights subsequent to an agreement between Stan Lee and [SLMI] signed on October 15, 1998,” says Garbus. The problem, says Garubs, is that the same people who signed that agreement (including Lee and Lieberman) later put SLMI into bankruptcy. “At the same time [Lee and Lieberman] were preparing bankruptcy papers, they were taking assets out of the bankrupt estate.”

Garbus gained some ammunition for his suit on Tuesday when, in a related case, U.S. district court judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles ruled that Stan Lee himself may have violated U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Put it all together and you’ve got the latest installment in a tortured legal history–a tangled web of litigation over issues of ownership, royalties, management, licensing and rights that has featured villainous figures such as Ronald Perelman and Carl Icahn.

To recap quickly: Once owned by Perelman, Marvel was hit hard when the comic book bubble–yes, there was one–burst in the early nineties. The company was forced into bankruptcy in 1996 as part of a dispute between Perelman and Icahn. Both were ousted when Perlmutter and Arad acquired Marvel in 1998 as part of a reorganization plan.

According to a 2008 Barron’s story, Perlmutter used bankruptcy proceedings to reject Marvel’s $1 million-per-year lifetime contract with Lee, which voided the exclusive rights Lee had assigned to the company for his iconic characters. (Marvel emerged from Chapter 11 in October 1998.)

Lee responded by forming SLMI in 1998–along with Hollywood entrepreneur Peter Paul–as a Web-based production and marketing company to control his intellectual property. The new company itself filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

In 2002, Lee sued Marvel claiming that it had reneged on a November 1998 contract under which he was to get–in addition to the lifetime salary mentioned previously–a 10 percent cut of movie and television deals for characters that Lee created. A subsequent settlement was sealed, but Barron’s reports that Marvel took a $10 million charge in connection with it.

When SLMI emerged from bankruptcy in 2006 under the leadership of Wall Street trader James Nesfield–a one-time whistleblower for former New York State AG Eliot Spitzer–it was eager to settle old scores with Lee and Marvel over ownership of Lee’s characters.

No longer associated with SLMI, Lee struck first. Along with his new production company, POW! Entertainment, Lee slapped SLMI and Nesfield with a $50 million trademark infringement suit in federal court in Los Angeles in January 2007. Lee accused SLMI of hijacking his name and image and preventing him from developing new characters via deals with Disney and Virgin Comics.

In March 2007, SLMI hit back, suing Lee and Marvel in New York in a case echoing many of the same claims filed by Garbus in federal court on Monday. (The March 2007 case was eventually dismissed without prejudice in September 2008; Garbus says he took over the matter for SLMI at that point from King & Spalding partner Ethan Horowitz.)

In July 2007, SLMI filed yet another suit in federal court in Los Angeles against Stan Lee and POW!, which SLMI claims took assets from its estate while it languished in bankruptcy.

Got all that? Now we’re up to date.

The ruling by Wilson on Tuesday stayed the 2007 trademark infringement suit filed by Lee and POW!. Wilson also held that Lee and his POW! partner Lieberman–a former Dickstein Shapiro IP partner–had no legal basis for transferring copyrights and trademarks on superhero-related assets from then-bankrupt SLMI to Lee-controlled entities including POW!.

Garbus calls Wilson’s ruling significant because it finds the same individuals guilty of wrongdoing that he’s trying to prove improperly transferred assets out of SLMI years ago. Garbus describes what Lee and Marvel have done to SMLI as a “practice of looting.”

“I think it’s fairly well agreed that if [the 1998] agreement is still valid,” he says, “it transfers all the rights to all Marvel characters by Stan Lee into SLMI.”

That has SLMI claiming that it’s entitled to recover as much as $1 billion from Marvel and Lee as well as obtain a 50 percent interest in future profits.

Lawyers for Lee–Sherman & Howard partner Mark Williams–and POW!–McGuireWoods partner David Van Etten–were not immediately available for comment on Wilson’s ruling. But POW! issued a press release decrying the “unfounded statements” being made by Garbus and SLMI.

POW! states that it’s “impossible to conclude” that SLMI shareholders could reap $1 billion in damages, as it disputes that three of the four plaintiffs filing claims are even legitimate shareholders to begin with.

Wilson also noted in his ruling that further proceedings would be necessary in the case, POW! states, adding that when the matter is concluded “Stan Lee believes that justice and truth will prevail, and the illegal acts of those associated with the ‘plaintiffs’ in the New York suit will be exposed.”

In the New York action filed by Garbus, Marvel has retained Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker partners David Fleischer and Jodi Kleinick. The firm declined to comment on the latest litigation, but when The Associated Press contacted Lee’s lawyer, Sherman’s Williams, he said the most recent SLMI filing was filled with “ridiculous claims.”

For lawyers looking to sort out the whole mess, it will likely take a superhuman effort.

Make a commentComments (3)
Save & Share: Facebook | Del.ic.ious | Digg It | Email |

Comments

Report offensive comments to The Am Law Daily.

It might be interesting for people to read all of the SEC filings by Marvel and POW! Hmmm, what did they tell their shareholders?

And I hope this won’t be removed. This is from the transcript of Jan. 9 in Judge Wilson’s courtroom. He didn’t seem very pleased.

THE COURT: Wasn’t my original question, and correct me if I’m wrong, regarding what payments were made to the creditors?

MR. WILLIAMS: It was.

THE COURT: And so you didn’t answer in a straight forward way.

MR. WILLIAMS: I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You know something, I must say this without sounding personal, but when this happens I think it’s appropriate for the court to not let it slip by. I get the impression that you are somewhat deceptive with the court. That’s my impression and I hope it’s an erroneous impression, but on more than one occasion when we’ve had hearings you’ve done or said things which leave me with that impression. That doesn’t help your client.

MR. WILLIAMS: I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Don’t let those slip-ups happen again.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Your Honor.

Comment By shareholder - January 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM

A 13D Report by Nesfield as a shareholder of Marvel Entertainment (MVL)in November, 2007, details the collusion between Perlmutter as Chairman and largest shareholder of Marvel, Lee and his “handler” partner/lawyer Arthur Lieberman. The unprecedented filing,detailing serial SEC and Federal criminal acts was immediately challenged by SEC officials because of the damning details of SEC frauds included, yet the SEC has allowed it to remain on the SEC site continuously since then. If the 13D is accurate, the Stan Lee Media claims will prevail and Perlmutter will be forced to reliquish his fiduciary duties for the company.

Comment By Richard Morgenthau - January 29, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Marvel’s spokesman has responded to the claims of SLM shareholders described in a Barron’s article in June 2008 by repeating Marvel’s Mantra that Stan Lee never claimed ownership in his characters. Yet Marvel’s lawyers, Chairman and others know Lee claimed in his 2002 law suit against Marvel in Manhattan Federa Court that he gave Marvel “a conditional assignment” of his “world famous creations” as part of his Nov 1998 Employment Agreement. When the Judge ruled that Lee was entitled to 10% of the profits earned by Marvel on his creations in January 2005, (and settled for $14million in April 05) Lee’lawyers issued a press release describing Lee’s November 1998 Employment Agreement as a “profit sharing venture” between Lee and Marvel. Would Marvel’s ongoing publication of false and misleading statements to the investing public about Lee’s claims to his characters, and the est.$14million secret settlement Marvel gave Lee, constitute serial 10(b)5 violations by the company warranting classification of Marvel as a continuing criminal enterprise under RICO?

Comment By brandon van eyck - January 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Stan Lee and his IP lawyer-partner, Arthur Lieberman of Dickstein Shapiro, were dealt a stunning defeat in their $50 million federal suit in Los Angeles against certain shareholders of Lee’s original company, Stan Lee Media. The Judge ruled Lee and his associates did not legally owned the properties they were suing for damages on.

Lee accused these shareholders of illegally using images of characters, The Accuser and The Drifter, that Lee originally created for Stan Lee Media. Lee sued because images of the characters were used on a corporate web site created to expose the the frauds Lee committed on the company while it was in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection from 2001-2006, under Lee’s control as Debtor in Possession.

Federal Judge Stephen Wilson issued a scathing order denying Lee and POW’s Motion for Summary Judgment for copyright infringements on properties the Court ruled Lee illegally transferred. The ruling confirms that Stan Lee and former Stan Lee Media officers Gill Champion, COO and Junko Kobyashi Controller, along with former SLM IP lawyer Arthur Lieberman colluded to make Kobyashi Debtor in Possession Representative of Stan Lee Media in Bankruptcy so she could transfer assets to Gill Champion as President of a new public company they created and were officers in, POW Entertainment. The illegal copyright transfers from Styan Lee Media to POW’s subsidiary QED were recorded in the copyright office by Lieberman, signed by Kobyashi and Champion and done without the knowledge or approval of the Stan Lee Media Estate Bankruptcy court!

To add insult to injury, the Lee “Gang of Four” issued numerous press releases announcing the acquisition of the properties, i.e. The Driufter and The Accuser, by POW Entertainment to sell some of the 100 million shares they issued for the new bulletin board company they controlled!

What seems particularly ironic is that a London Financial Times feature story, “POW Factor of a Comic Book Hero”,  was just published on January 11, 2009, detailing what an astute businessman Stan Lee is in addition to being a creative genius.

The Order raises a host of legal issues for Lee and his gang- various Bankruptcy fruads, SEC frauds relating to Stan Lee Media and the new public company, POW Entertainment, Copyright fraud, investor fraud and business fraud on all the major entertainment companies that were induced to do business with Lee and the Gang using looted intellectual properties . Let the suits begin!

Updated, Tuesday, 3:40 p.m. | Tom Daschle withdrew on Tuesday as President Obama’s nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department.

Once again the mainstream media and the checks and balances of the Government have failed to do their job for the American people in exposing and holding Hillary Clinton for illegal or unethical conduct.

As the Nation witnesses a series of Obama cabinet nominees withdraw their names from confirmation to cabinet posts, the latest being Tom Daschle, because of investigations and improprieties relating to the IRS, it should be widely reported that Hillary Clinton was never challenged by anyone in government or in the media to explain her failure to correct IRS filings on behalf of her US Senate campaign committee before and after she was forced to confirm that her Joint Senate campaign committee, NY Senate 2000, hid more than $700,000 in cash in kind contributions from her largest donor, Peter Paul.

Political Moneyline reported in February, 2006, after the FEC imposed a fine on Hillary’s campaign committee in November, 2005, as part of a settlement with the FEC for failing to report $700,000 of more than $1,2 million donated by Paul:

An election watchdog says Sen. Clinton has false campaign-finance statements on file with the Internal Revenue Service.

.. the online election-finance watchdog PolitcalMoneyline says Sen. Clinton filed reports with the Internal Revenue Service identical to reports admitted as false by in her campaign’s settlement with the FEC.

PoliticalMoneyline says, “Although the federal account of New York Senate 2000 has amended their reports with the Federal Election Commission, the non-federal account (a Section 527 organization) of the committee has not filed corresponding amendments with the IRS.”

Paul – who says Sen. Clinton made false statements in two Washington Post articles to hide his million-dollar-plus contributions in 2000 – sued Bill Clinton for fraud for destroying his public company … in a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote Paul’s public company in exchange for massive contributions to his wife’s Senate campaign.

Paul, claiming Sen. Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, separately is preparing to file his second complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides his personal multi-million dollar contributions to three Hollywood fund-raisers he hosted on her behalf, including the largest of her campaign, a Hollywood gala.

Paul’s first FEC complaint resulted in an admission by Clinton Treasurer Grossman last December that Sen. Clinton’s campaign filed false reports with the FEC, hiding more than $720,000 of Paul’s contributions.

Paul is preparing a new complaint with the FEC that seeks to revoke a conciliation agreement in which Clinton’s joint fund-raising committee, New York Senate 2000 and its treasurer Andrew Grossman agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty for not filing complete reports.

Spider Man creator Stan Lee’s partner, and co-founder in the Hollywood internet animation studio Stan Lee Media, Peter Paul, has been embroiled in an eight year legal effort to expose and hold the Clintons accountable for sabotaging his business and defrauding him of the more than $1.9 million in cash he spent on Hillary Clinton’s Senate election campaign, at the illegal request and direction of Hillary Clinton.

While Paul’s whistle blowing to the US Department of Justice through Attorney general Ashcroft, Asst Atty General Chertoff and multiple DOJ officials resulted in the criminal indictment and trial of Hillary’s finance director in 2005 and the only fine imposed on her Senate campaign by the FEC, for hiding more than $700,000 it received from him, Paul was unable to induce the various agencies responsible for enforcing the laws that the Clintons broke to prosecute them.

One issue that has some real relevance now that Hillary has been nominated to become the Secretary of State relates to her role in the Pay for Play deal that is documented in trial proceedings, home videos, letters, photos and sworn declarations, all posted on the www.paulvclinton.com web site that chronicles Paul’s landmark civil fraud suit against the Clintons.

In connection with defending herself in that suit, Hillary Clinton filed a sworn declaration in which she swore Peter Paul never discussed with her being her largest contributor in a “pay for play” deal that would have Bill Clinton agree to work with Paul for a year when he left the White House to advance Paul’s international business interests.

The problem with the deal the Clintons made with Paul, aside from its felony violations of the campaign finance laws, is that it also involved illegal actions Bill Clinton took while President to use the White House Oval Office and a State Dinner there to assist a Japanese business partner of Paul’s as part of the deal! The charge of “deprivation of honest services” used effectively in the Abramoff prosecutions of corrupt officials, has supplanted bribery as the charge favored by prosecutors to nail crooked politicians. That was exactly what Bill Clinton did to help Hillary induce Paul to give more than $1.9 million fopr Hillary’s campaign before and after the Washington Post published that Paul had a felony record for Anti-Castro activities from the 1970’s

In a sworn declaration taken on April 7, 2006, Hillary Clinton testified that she had “no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with [Peter Paul] whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate… I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred.”

However, not only did Paul present evidence of the deal, he also allowed his polygraph test refuting Hillary’s sworn declaration to be videotaped, as seen below. The web site for the civil fraud case,  www.paulvclinton.com, presents  evidence provided in court by the FBI and Department of Justice that Hillary Clinton illegally coordinated, solicited and directed more than $1.2 million from Paul for her Senate campaign and then lied to the FEC and FBI to cover it up.

The subsequent obstruction of justice directed by Hillary Clinton since 2001 has encompassed corrupting a Federal Judge and DOJ official who colluded to create a show trial of a flunky working for Hillary’s campaign to exonerate Hillary without a formal investigation of her actions, that would make Stalin green with envy.

Yet the media and the government have refused to take any action against Hillary, enabling her to be poised to become the second most powerful person in the US internationally as Secretary of State.

See the legal pleadings, transcripts and media coverage on the public record that proves that Hillary Clinton committed what DOJ prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg (of Scooter Libby prosecution fame) told a jury, in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in 2005, was a crime - “denying the public’s right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s Senate campaign”. Hillary continues to commit that crime by refusing to admit and report that she induced Peter Paul to give her campaign the largest donation on record! She has brazenly shown that she is above the Rule of Law.