CA: State appeals court ruling favors Sen. Clinton in fundraiser case

ap on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 10/18/05 | Paul Chavez - ap

[NormsRevenge]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A state appeals court issued a favorable ruling Tuesday for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a lawsuit over a lavish 2000 Hollywood fundraising gala.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Appellate District ordered a Superior Court judge to reconsider the senator's motion to remove her from the lawsuit filed by businessman Peter F. Paul, who bankrolled the event.

Paul alleged in a February 2004 lawsuit that Clinton; her husband, former President Bill Clinton; her former national finance director, David Rosen, and others fraudulently induced him to underwrite and executive produce the star-studded gala that attracted celebrities such as Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.

Rosen, who was acquitted in May of federal criminal charges of lying to the Federal Election Commission about the event, previously was dismissed from Paul's lawsuit under the state's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute.

Clinton's lawyers filed motions to have her and her Senate campaign committee removed under the same statute, but were denied because they failed to set a hearing date within 30 days of its filing.

In its 17-page ruling released Tuesday, the appeals court denied Paul's appeal of Rosen's dismissal and ruled that Rosen can recover the legal costs of that appeal.

The court also reversed the order denying Clinton's motion to strike the case and ordered the lower court to rule on whether it will permit a late filing. It also granted Clinton and her committee the right to recover legal costs of their appeals.

Paul said he remains confident that his civil will proceed to trial in 2006, with Clinton as either a defendant or material witness.

"I'm pleased that considering the characterization of me and the history of this case that the court is following the law and doing what the law requires," Paul said. "As opposed to being swayed by the efforts to assassinate my character."

Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, did not immediately return a call for comment.

The August 2000 Hollywood gala, which served as a tribute to President Clinton and a fundraiser for his wife's successful Senate campaign, was bankrolled by Paul, a three-time convicted felon.

In his lawsuit, Paul alleged that he financed the Hollywood gala and other fundraisers for Hillary Clinton in hopes of having President Clinton join the board of his company, Stan Lee Media, after he left the White House. Paul pleaded guilty in March to manipulating the price of Stan Lee Media common stock. He co-founded the company with comic book legend Stan Lee, who also served as a host for the 2000 Hollywood gala.

Paul claims that he spent more than $1.9 million to underwrite the star-studded gala that was held at a Brentwood mansion. In the federal case against Rosen, prosecutors said that Sen. Clinton's joint fundraising committee reported to the Federal Election Commission that the gala cost just $401,419 in donated goods and services.

[isthisnickcool]

We need a simple federal campaign finance law:

Only individuals that are legally registered to vote for a candidate in a federal election may donate money or anything else of value to the candidate running for federal office.

[momto3girls]

"Only individuals that are legally registered to vote for a candidate in a federal election may donate money or anything else of value to the candidate running for federal office."

This is a great idea...I'm guessing it would never fly...

[DMinus]

so wait a minute.... another article said this was bad news for hitlery... which way is it?

[isthisnickcool]

This is a great idea...I'm guessing it would never fly

Of course it would never fly. A law such as this would stop lobbying, stop "outsiders" from meddling in elections like Hillary and HillPac does along with people like Soros, make the candidates pay rapt attention to their voters, give the voters such power everyone would register to vote and put the candidates on pretty even terms as far as viability. It would also stop numbnuts like McCain from getting any attention paid to them because they would not have so much power and it would be harder for them to want to pass laws for anyone other than their own voters. Since those voters would be the only people they could get cash from.

You betcha it's a great idea. It basically makes the politicos representatives which was the idea.

[seenenuf]

or, how about this? All money and it's source, whether given direct to candidate, any PAC, the Party, etc., MUST be posted on a known web site within 48 hours of date the paying bank has cleared the check. Cash treated to timed disclosure also. The banking system is the answer to cleaning up dirty campaign money. But perhaps, financial lobbies being the biggest givers, then getting the best use of the float - just couldn't abide such over-sight. Nah. Poor babies.

Banks and the US Post Office should also account for and
report dollars being sent out of the USA by WetBacks, collecting a sender's fee that would reimburse ER's, ESL classes, etc.

[pickrell]

"..so wait a minute.... another article said this was bad news for hitlery... which way is it?.."

Either this is:

A misprint in the title,

An extremely thin attempt at satire,

Or, the most poorly constructed attempt at spin that I have ever read. You are quite correct, DMinus. This is NOT good news for the Clintons.

[pickrell]

"..so wait a minute.... another article said this was bad news for hitlery... which way is it?.."

Either this is:

A misprint in the title,

An extremely thin attempt at satire,

Or, the most poorly constructed attempt at spin that I have ever read. You are quite correct, DMinus. This is NOT good news for the Clintons.

[Txsleuth]

My question is the same as yours...

doug---your thread said it was BAD for Hillary

but, this one says it is GOOD for Hillary....

Please, can you clear this up?

[doug from upland]

Each side can probably claim something. Clinton buys some more delays. The Appellate Court could have ordered that Hillary be removed as a defendant. They didn't. Now the Superior Court judge is going to have to address the anti-SLAPP motion again and this time use his discretion.

[Txsleuth]

Okay....YOU are the expert in this...

Besides, knowing the Clinton's they could be sentenced to the death chamber and find some way to declare victory..lol

[doug from upland]

I'm not the expert on this. But I do know that Kendall wanted Hillary removed by the Appellate Court. They didn't do it.

[Txsleuth]

AT least that is something...

I just cannot believe that after all of the crapola that Bush has been put through....

That Hillary will NOT ever get "caught"!

[tiredoflaundry]

I'm not the expert on this. But I do know that Kendall wanted Hillary removed by the Appellate Court. They didn't do it.

So does that means her cloven hooves are still close to the fire?

[NormsRevenge]

I love seeing Clinton lawyers in court, anytime of the year.

anti-SLAPP? I love it. I hope the Judge understands what is at stake and does the right thing.

The MSM can spin this all they want, it just makes her less marketable down the road imo...

[doug from upland]

Chavez failed to tell you that David Kendall accepted service for Hillary Clinton on July 11, 2001. He failed to tell you that Paul provided cancelled checks, invoices, and bank statments documenting $1.6 million in expenses. Chavez failed to tell you that, even after receiving the documentation and a hand delivered demand letter, Hillary still allowed her treasurer to file a third fraudulent FEC filing on July 30, 2001. Those would have been interesting details.

Chavez also failed to tell you that the Appellate Court refused to remove Hillary as a defendant. They are leaving that to the Superior Court to take on again.

[headstamp]

As a side note, notice the comparison of media coverage of Delay and Hillary. With Delay it was wall to wall 24/7, with Hillary it's a damned state secret in comparison with the attendant leftist spin.

[doug from upland]

The press silence is deafening. For two days, I notified media of the Appellate Court hearing. Only a reporter from the NY SUN showed up. He came because he was in town covering Hillary fundraisers.

[doug from upland]

Paul Chavez has never let his readers know that Japanese businessman Tendo Oto illegally gave 27K and illegally attended the concert fundraiser. Chavez has never let his readers know that Howard Wolfson acknowledged a million dollars spent, but that it was "in-kind," as if that mattered. Chavez has never let his readers know that after Peter Paul was publicly distanced by Hillary, ten days later David Rosen sent a fax asking for another hundred thousand dollars. Chavez has never let his readers know that six weeks after publicly distancing Paul, Bill Clinton met with Paul on Air Force One to assure him they still had a deal. Chavez has never let his readers know that Paul sent another 55K in stock for Hillary to the Working Families Party. Chavez has never let his readers know that Bill Clinton financial partner Jim Levin flew to Japan and made a business deal for Clinton with Tendo Oto, preventing Oto from infusing $7 million in cash to Stan Lee Media that would have saved the company.

It's funny what the AP leaves out of its stories.