Peter F. Paul Is Running For President - Video

Remember Peter F. Paul, the businessman who's the plaintiff in the "Paul v. Clinton" lawsuit? Well, he's still involved in the fraud case, but he's apparently decided to run for President of The United States. I just got the information in an email; I'll keep you posted.

Peter Paul Trial - Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton Called As Witnesses; Hillary After Election

I just got a call from a friend who's been close to the Peter F. Paul v. Bill and Hillary Clinton Fraud case, and who reported that in the trial, which was to take place today, Judge Aurelio Munoz called for former President Bill Clinton and his daughter Chelsea Clinton to appear as witnesses, but that Senator Hillary Clinton did not have to appear until after the close of the presidential election.

The judge also called for former presidential candidate and now Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore to appear as a witness. This marks the first bad news for the fomer elected official who's become the father of the battle against Global Warming.

This development, which has not yet appeared in the major news headlines, is a major one in the now nine-year old case and scandal, which has went through various episodes and twists on its way toward today's developments.

It means that the history of Clinton scandals has finally impacted the campaign, because there's no logical way that this bit of important news can not be covered by major news outlets eventually.

But it also causes younger voters who may have broke for Clinton to be forced to look back at the Clinton past, because it impacts events of today.

Peter Paul v. Clinton - Hillary To Be Called As Witness If Process Servers Can Catch Her

Peter Paul v. Clinton - Hillary To Be Called As Witness If Process Servers Can Catch Her

I got a call from a person heavily involved in the case of Peter Paul v. Hillary Clinton . The latest twist in this case came Thursday, as Judge Aurelio Munoz allowed Peter Paul's attorneys to commence discovery (sworn depositions of witnesses) after a three year hiatus, while agreeing to set a trial date at a hearing to be held in April, 2008, according to Paul's website

According to the site:

The business fraud suit being prosecuted by Hillary’s largest donor Peter Paul is finally proceeding to trial after years of delays in the appellate court fight to keep Hillary in the case as a defendant rather than a material witness. Judge Munoz allowed Paul to commence discovery (sworn depositions of witnesses) after a three year hiatus, while agreeing to set a trial date at a hearing to be held in April, 2008.

In response, Hillary Clinton’s attorney David Kendall declared that none of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers would accept a deposition subpoena on Hillary’s behalf.

Hillary is declaring that she would rather dodge process servers while she is campaigning for President of the United States around the nation than honorably accept a notice of her mandatory deposition through her lawyers!!

Hillary Clinton was dismissed as a co-defendant in the case at a hearing in April, 2007 because of democrat Appellate Court Judges’ support of her belated effort to obtain the protection of California’s Anti-SLAPP law from tort fraud conspiracy charges in raising money for her Senate campaign.

At that hearing, after dismissing Hillary as a defendant, trial court Judge Aurelio Munoz admonished David Kendall by telling him unequivocally that any effort to deny Senator Clinton’s testimony as a witness in the case would be “Dead on Arrival”. To emphasize his point, the Judge followed his statement by saying “Did you hear that Mr Kendall?”

In typical Clintonian hubris and contempt for the judicial process, Hillary had her diminutive counsel with the over inflated ego state to Paul’s lawyer, Colette Wilson, that none of the three lawyers of record representing Hillary in the case would accept a witness subpoena for her deposition on her behalf, and that there would be no cooperation in the process the judge stated should include Hillary’s testimony.

In other words, Clinton's lawyer have no interest in following the judge's orders.

I directly called Peter Paul, the plaintiff (person who filed the fraud lawsuit against Bill Clinton, and to which Senator Hillary Clinton is considered a part of) to get more background on this story. In response to the remarks of Clinton's attorney, Paul said "It denegrates her office as a server of the public. After abusing the First Amendment to be dismissed (from testifying as a witness in the fraud trial), now she's challenging a judge's order. Telling the plaintiff's lawyer that she will not cooperate without being served (a subpoena ) by a process server."

Paul reports that his team will have a process server in Texas and Ohio, where Clinton is campaiging. According to Paul, It's now a race against a 70-day clock: "They're (Clinton's legal team) hoping to 'run the clock," Paul said, "and hope that they get a summary judgement." (That means a decision where the judge is convinced there's not enough evidence to warrant a trial-by-jury). If Senator Clinton's served by a process server, she has to testify, which would then give enough evidence to have a jury trial.

All of this means that Hillary Clinton will be chased by process-servers as she's campaigning in Texas and Ohio. This is a race to watch. Stay tuned.

Cogan's View of The Court

Doug Cogan, who made the movie "Hillary Uncensored", was outside the court on Thursday and gave me his take on the matter. "It really is remarkable that the candidate (Clinton) who wants to be the chief law enforcement officer for the nation continues to scoff at the law" Cogan says the Clintons never expected Peter Paul to come back from Brazil (where he was imprisoned several years ago) alive.

"I would love for some reporter to ask Hillary if she's going to obey the court's order," Cogan remarked.

Cogan explains that there is compelling evidence that Dave Kendall submitted false declarations to the court, from assertions that Hillary Clinton met Paul in 2000, when this video shows Clinton and Peter Paul talking about when they met in 1993.

As a note, this is my video on the FEC side of Peter Paul's battle against the Clinton's:

Clinton Gives Donor List To CNN Polling Company - Poll Rigged?

National Public Radio has provided what seems to be the "smoking gun" evidence of possible early campaign "poll-rigging" on the part of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. Last year, 2007, in this blog post, here:

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/07/cnn-polling-linked-to-clinton-donor.html

I argued that CNN -- the Cable News Network -- should not be using polls that came from a company linked to Vinod Gupta, a major Clinton Donor. Gupta owns Info USA and the Opinion Research Corporation (OPC). It's the OPC that makes the polls that are reported by CNN, and those same polls early in the 2008 Democratic Presidential race gave consistently enormously high leads for Senator Clinton. Polls by the OPC were consistently high for months, even as other organizations like Gallup USA began to show Obama closing on Clinton.

Now, it's revealed in this NPR article that the Clinton campaign sold -- or rented -- their donor list (which contains 38,000 names) to Info USA and the OPC, but NPR's article does not make the extra step of explaining why InfoUSA / OPC would even need such a list. That's what this video is about. The list was rented for just $8,225, and not the six-figures it's valued to be, and the Clinton campaign did not collect the money until 11-months after the list was delivered.

Why? My assertion is that the campaign knew the payments would show up in their finance reports and thus wanted to delay this possible discovery for as long as possible. Clinton's campaign received the money on December 3rd of 2007. Does this violate any law? At first blush it does not but it's unethical nonetheless and should not be allowed. If Opinion Research Corporation calls just 1,500 of the 38,000 Clinton donor names, ORC can claim that they used a "representative sample of most likely voters" and have an outcome favorable to Clinton. However, I don't deal with the legal aspects of this problem here, that's for the next blog and video.

Meanwhile Gupta himself is in some trouble , as his activities of lending the Clintons the use of his private jet, and hiring President Bill Clinton for $3 million a year have ignited a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta. as Gupta's corporate operatives want to know what value, if any, Gupta's free-spending ways on Clinton have gained InfoUSA.

In may ways, this story is much like that of Peter Paul and Clinton , where Mr. Paul tried to hire Bill Clinton as a "rainmaker" for Stan Lee Media, and in the process never secured the employment of Clinton, while spending $2 milllion to hold a lavish gala for Hillary Clinton's Senate run.

What does this say about the Clintons and donors? Be careful not to get used; while Gupta's in trouble, Hillary campaign for President. Can Gupta count on the Clinton's to get him out of this jam? It depends.

If Gupta had a good contract with Clinton such that Bill had to submit performance reports with each invoice, then Gupta would be able to show shareholders what they got for their money; but if Gupta just gave Bill Clinton money for being Bill Clinton then Gupta's not going to make his shareholders happy at all.

Stay tuned.

Mancow Mueller, Clinton / Peter Paul Story Death Threat - Recorded Discussion - EJFA.Org

This is an update of our earlier story on the death threat Radio Talk Show Host Mancow Mueller says he received after he had former Hollywood business man Peter Paul on his show Friday.

I've just received from a source a copy of the radio show audio file where Mancow discusses the death threat he received with James Nesfield of the Equal Justice Foundation (ejfa.org) on Mancow's radio show, Monday, October 29th.

Here's what was said in text form:



Mancow: Listen, I had a guy on named Peter Paul on Friday.
James Nesfield: Yes. I know.
Mancow: Last week. And want to tell you, I had, a, uh, a very high level call over the weekend, and it was very frightening to me.
And..
James Nesfield: It should be.
Mancow: And I'm being sincere.
James Nesfield: No. I believe it. I...Listen. We were at our ISP, where we host the site. We had a attack from Russian and Chinese hackers.
Mancow: My. Uh. My family was threatened. And it was uh. I know the source, and it's a very dangerous source, and I'm really, uh, nervous about talking about your video, cause I think some very powerful people are going to be very upset about me talking to ya.
James Nesfield: You're right. I've been threatened too.

The "movie" they're talking about is called "Hillary Uncensored" and it's a detailed and hard-hitting documentary that has been playing to audiences at colleges around the country. It's drawn a large web-based following , and is continuing to be offered for view by any group that will ask.

What is the movie about? Well, I like WorldNetDaily's description:

"Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor."

The "major donor" is Peter Paul, and you can learn more about the story here.

The rest of the conversation is in the audio file below.

The audio file is here:

Mancow On Death Threat

Please listen to it. But you may be asking what the "so what" is here? Well, some have claimed that the Clintons have a way of associating themselves with people who in some way eliminate those who can block their path to power. Or as one blogger put it, "This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons."

The point is, if this can even be connected to the Clinton's it spells m-a-j-o-r t-r-o-u-b-l-e if the news is spread to a wide audience. It speaks to a lust for power that may even be greater than Hillary Clinton's desire to serve the American People.

Mancow Mueller Gets Death Threat On Clinton / Peter Paul Story

I just got a call that Mancow Muller, the radio talk show host, got a death threat over the weekend for hosting Peter Paul on his show. I was told that Mancow was asked not to report the Peter Paul / Hillary Clinton Story, or else.

Peter Paul is the business entrepreneur who sued the Clintons for civil fraud and who hosted and paid for a $1.6 million party for Hillary Clinton and for her Senate campaign. That event was also the focus of an FEC investigation where it was found that the Clinton campaign under-reported the contributions. Paul says that the Clinton campaign continued to do that, but the FEC didn't catch the lastest error. The rest of that story is here.

Hillary Clinton the focus of a recent court case with Peter Paul as the plaintiff and that was held at the California Court of Appeals.

As for the death threat, I'll give more information as it comes in. Apparently someone connected with Hillary Clinton didn't think the story would get as far as it has, or that Peter would finally get the platform he deserves to tell the story.

Peter Paul V. Hillary Clinton - Case Argued In CA Appellate Court, LA, Today

Remember when I told you the story of Peter Paul v. Hillary Clinton? Well, the case of campaign finance fraud has hit the appellate court today. NoBoddie's fool's got the story right:

Hillary Clinton and funny money go together like Bill Clinton and anything with big boobs.

The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, will hear arguments about whether Hillary Clinton should be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul.

Attorneys for each side will also debate the inclusion as evidence of a videotape in which Clinton can be heard agreeing to plan a fundraiser, which was later determined to be illegal by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Paul's legal counsel, the United States Justice Foundation (USJF), filed a brief in July. It said the videotape "captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000."

Paul is appealing a California Superior Court ruling that dismissed Hillary Clinton from an earlier lawsuit under a statute that protects politicians from harassing or frivolous lawsuits. Paul's legal team argues the statute does not apply to a political figure who violates the law.

This harks back to Galagate, an August 2000 Hollywood event that was titled the "Bill Clinton Farewell Tribute" but was in fact a fund raiser for Hillary and featured performances by Cher, Diana Ross and Melissa Etheridge. It took in $1.5 million for Hillary's Senate campaign.

After failing to properly report the money raised, Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen, was accused of lying to the FEC and the Clinton Senate campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the FEC.

Paul said:

"Everything I complained about in 2001, and she denied, was supported in the Rosen trial and the FEC. Only her direct knowledge continues to be denied, and the tape contradicts that. Hillary's obstruction is worse than Nixon's obstruction in Watergate."
For the last six years,Clinton's staff has denied that she played a role in planning the fundraiser. Yet the videotape shows Paul and two others speaking with Hillary Clinton on speaker phone as she expresses enthusiasm about the event and telling Paul to contact her aide any time to further plan details.

In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.
"I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton. I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."
(Hillary, the 'smartest woman on earth' apparently has convenient memory lapses)

If Clinton helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to her Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee, "New York Senate 2000."

If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be more than a thousand times the legal limit for an individual donation. Knowingly soliciting an individual contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Be still my heart.

"The Clintons represent the worst in modern American politics: ruthless ambition over a desire to serve; preoccupation with political funding over a fair system; opportunism over principle; betrayal of any cause or policy over taking a stand; and a desperation to gain and keep office over any obligation to honor its responsibilities." -- Christopher Reed, in the Los Angles Times.

But there's more...

Stay tuned.