Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul v Clinton: DFU's report from the California Appellate Court (read the full brief)
Appellate Court, Ronald Reagan Building in Los Angeles ^ | 9-7-07 | dfu

Posted on 09/08/2007 8:10:17 AM PDT by doug from upland

THIS TIMELINE IS A MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND THIS CASE. Please send this to lazy reporters who can't seem to do their homework.

APPELLANT BRIEF. Read it before listening to so-called journalists' spin for the Clintons.

HILLCAP HAS THE DOCUMENTS

EQUAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION SITE

After staying up working until about 1:30 AM, I really didn't like hearing that cell phone alarm go off at 5:45 Friday morning. I got a little more work done for the presentation Friday night and then caught the 7:40 AM Metrolink to lovely Union Station in Los Angeles.

I had to use the restroom after the train trip. The Union Station restroom is a place that I have discovered is a favorite place from some people to take what shower they are able to take - in the sink. While in the men's room, I don't know if it was my imagination, but I thought I heard some foot tapping from one of the stalls. I was out of there quickly.

Ah, yes, the Third World city of Los Angeles. Union Station is right across from Olvera Street. Olvera Street has loads of worthless little trinkets and junk, along with an assortment of various dining establishments. No, I don't have the stats, but it seems to me that eating there would present an excellent opportunity for e-coli, food poisoning, or hepatitus. Just an observation.

Since I arrived in Norte Mexico early, rather than taking a cab, I took the 15-20 minute walk to the courthouse. The Global Warming people would have been proud of me for that choice. No Chevy Suburban for me, huh, Arianna?

Within the first 30 seconds, I saw a group of anti-war protestors with the typical foolish signs. Although I engaged them for a moment, it really wasn't worth any more time beyond letting them know that my son in law is even proudly defending naive dangerous fools like them, and they don't want to come home until they finish the mission. Yeah, I just had to add - don't you think personal hygiene is important?

The entrance to the Reagan building has a metal detector, and the courtroom on the third floor had another. Just outside the courtroom and after the metal detector is a small waiting room. I went inside and watched another oral argument for about 10 minutes. After retrieving my cell phone from the officer, I walked back outside the waiting room to make a cell call. After partically disrobing to get through the metal detector again, I made it back in.

Who walks up to greet me? David Kendall. It was our fourth meeting. He had a big smile, called me Gary (one of Peter's counsel), and offered to shake hands. I obliged and broke it to him that I wasn't Gary. I said, "David, don't you remember me in the parking lot last time when you wouldn't answer any of my questions?" He didn't seem to remember and commented with a smile that it must have been his evil twin. In fairness to him, I had just gotten a haircut, trimmed my beard, and was wearing a nice pinstripe suit with Jerry Garcia tie. I asked him about his flight and let him know that it was good timing for him - it was 30 degrees hotter last week. He acknowledged that and comment that he heard people had died of the heat. "Yes, I said. We are going to have to blame that on Bush, right?" He said, "Well, if you say so."

I might have taken a little time to try to have a little fun with him, but the little waiting room outside the courtroom probably was not the right venue. The guys with badges and guns would have removed me, and Mrs. DFU has warned me several times that she will not post bail if I am arrested for my political "shenanigans." We do agree politically, she is just, shall we say, a little less vociferous and committed.

As a sidebar, Mrs. DFU knew I was in the courtoom on Friday. She forgot the film presentation that night. When I called at 9:15 to tell her I was on the way home, she had been worried about what happened to me. She told me that she was worried I might have been arrested. Not yet. We'll save that for Hillary's deposition.

When I walked back into the courtroom, there were fewer seats than 10 minutes previous, so I had to grab a seat that was available. I sat next to....................Harold Ickes. After about five minutes, a friend walked in and found a pair of seats, so I moved. It's funny. The feeling of nausea that was almost overcoming me subsided when I moved away from Ickes. After the hearing, my friend caught up with Kendall down in the lobby and handed him a very large due bill for work she had done for the Gala for which six years of accruing interests was never paid. I think my friend is one of those people whom the carpet bagging, always a Yankee fan, I can't recall, junior Senator from New York describes as being "forgotten."

There were no big surprises in the hearing. The Gray Davis appointed Justice Dennis Perluss thoroughly grilled Peter's counsel, Collette Wilson. I don't remember if Kendall was asked a question. That is typical. The burden was on Wilson to show how Judge Munoz was figuratively wearing his Clinton kneepads.

In one of the hearings, Munoz actually told Wilson, "Your client is the one who fled to Brazil. Actually, Peter went to Brazil to run his last remaining asset, a translation company. He took his family. He was making proffers and spent $5,000 on a plane ticket to come back to Miami and testify. They didn't call him to come back, and he lost that $5,000.

Peter was indicted by the US ATTY in the Eastern District of New York and arrested in Brazil for stock manipulation charges. Eventually, he plead guilty to a 10b-5 technical violation. The judge had commented that his actions did not harm the company. In fact, he was trying to save the company that had been fatally wounded by the actions of the Clintons.

It would not surpise me at all, judging (no pun intended) by how they were talking about the California anti-SLAPP law, that the 3-judge panel will determine what Hillary did was protected speech. But you never know.

If Hillary remains protected, she is still going to be grilled as the key witness. No reporter in the United States of America has ever asked Hillary why she had her campaign spokesman lie to public and say that they would take no money from Peter Paul.

The first time I met David Kendall, I showed him a copy of his process service on July 11, 2001, in which Peter documented $1.6 million he spent. When I asked David why he allowed his client to file her third fraudulent FEC report on July 30, 2001, the conversation ended.

After the hearing, I introduced myself to Greg Risling of the AP, who appeared to be the only reporter there. I got his email, he excused himself to make a cell call, and he was out of there. No questions of counsel or enlightenment from me. The story he wrote for the AP was, of course, less than complete and accurrate. I wouldn expect nothing less. Peter actually got a guy in the AP above Risling to change a description of Jim Levin from "handler" for Bill Clinton to "agent" of Bill Clinton. In law, there is a very big difference.

It was not an earthshakingly eventful hearing. We have heard the arguments before. Despite new evidence that clearly shows her direct involvement in the money, Hillary may well be protected in her free speech right to defraud a man of over $30 million, ruin his life, and take down a company.

In one of the hearings before this case, an attorney was commenting on something said by opposing counsel. There was a reference to some "it" from the other side. This guy commented that, "Gee, in this meaning of the word 'it' it reminds of Bill Clinton and the definition of 'is'.

Let's see what Kendall's next move will be. He will want to try to pull something to delay discovery. Hillary cannot afford to be under oath. Unlike the FEC, which exonerated Hillary, there will be some new evidence to present. And finally, the parade of witnesses will begin - Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Gore, Rendell, McAuliffe, Wolfson, Rosen, Craighead, Streisand, and many more.

I will take some time when I can to take apart two reports I've seen. One is by the AP and one is by the LA TIMES. The LA TIMES piece is perhaps the most genuinely slanted and innacurate piece of journalism I've seen. It is obvious to everyone, who knows anything about the case, that it was planted there on behalf of Hillary.

I have a research assignment for you if you can help. Can a sitting Senator be compelled to testify while the Senate is in session? If we have to wait for a break, an invite to a deposition would be the nicest Christmas present I could possibly imagine for one Hillary Named-After-the-Mt. Everest-Guy Diane Rodham Clinton.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hillary; peterpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2007 8:10:20 AM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Great work Doug.


2 posted on 09/08/2007 8:18:34 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Any idea when the court will rule?


3 posted on 09/08/2007 8:21:47 AM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi

I was told to expect a decision in about 10 days. That is the length of time they took last time.


4 posted on 09/08/2007 8:23:33 AM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
HERE IS PERHAPS THE MOST BIASED AGENDA JOURNALISM YOU WILL EVER SEE. This had to be planted for Hillary. Later tonight, it will disassembled and corrected for your reading pleasure.
5 posted on 09/08/2007 8:32:47 AM PDT by doug from upland (Howard Wolfson is a lying weasel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Thanks for the update, Doug. How did the video showing go?


6 posted on 09/08/2007 8:36:38 AM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

I’ll do a report on the video presentation. It was very well received and, of course, people were outraged that they never heard of any of this before in the media.


7 posted on 09/08/2007 8:38:41 AM PDT by doug from upland (Our two great challenges: stoppping Islamofascists and stopping Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Thanks for bringing us up-to-date


8 posted on 09/08/2007 8:39:03 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

I want to pass this around by email, doug, but really wish the You Tube video worked.


9 posted on 09/08/2007 8:40:54 AM PDT by right wing (The Drive-By Media Are Terrorists Too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Doug, I am not an attorney or Constitutional expert, but it seems to me that if the President of the United States could be compelled to testify in the Paula Jones case, a sitting Senator would enjoy no immunity from subpoena in a civil case that directly involves a tort committed by her or her agents — especially since, as was the case with Bill Clinton’s assault of Paula Jones, the tort occurred before Hillary became a Senator. Senators cannot be arrested while carrying out their duites (something that unfortunately Larry Craig did not remember or that whole thing would never have happened; his arrest was illegal.) I suppose Hillary could finesse testifiying by ignoring the subpoena. She could be found in contempt of court for refusing to testify, but since that is a criminal charge she could not be arrested for it as long as the Senate is in session.


10 posted on 09/08/2007 8:46:01 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Thanks anyway, Nancy, but we already have a Commander-in-Chief!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

BUMP


11 posted on 09/08/2007 8:46:36 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
HERE IS PERHAPS THE MOST BIASED AGENDA JOURNALISM YOU WILL EVER SEE.

The reporters made a mistake and gave their email addresses... ;)

12 posted on 09/08/2007 8:50:49 AM PDT by johnny7 ("But that one on the far left... he had crazy eyes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: right wing

What YouTube video doesn’t work???


13 posted on 09/08/2007 8:53:14 AM PDT by doug from upland (Our two great challenges: stoppping Islamofascists and stopping Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

BTTT


14 posted on 09/08/2007 8:57:43 AM PDT by The Mayor ( A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.—Proverbs 16:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Great work Doug.

Your usual excellence....

Your eastern/southern allies and staunch supporters thank you for the report.....

...And for the representation in the federal courtroom for all of us who believe America will be great again...

15 posted on 09/08/2007 9:00:18 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

I can see that the youtube video works just fine for me.


16 posted on 09/08/2007 9:17:59 AM PDT by barnicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Can a sitting Senator be compelled to testify while the Senate is in session?
I'm working on it. I'll have to see if Congress was in session on the day of the trial...
Full Cooperation
Then Browder produced his clincher. For his only defense witness, he called up none other than Wisconsin's Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, self-appointed _ commander in the war on Communism in the U.S.
17 posted on 09/08/2007 9:38:45 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; doug from upland
What’s interesting about what you are looking into is that, if Hilldog claims this exception, then it will possibly create a precedent that may impede the never ending investigations by Congress....

BTW, I’ve always wondered, what law gives Congress subpoena power?

18 posted on 09/08/2007 9:41:11 AM PDT by mnehring (FreeRepublic- The Fredquarters of Fred08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

did they pull the story ? I don’t “see” it...

course, right now i’m in “High School Musical” hell ( my 7 year old grand daughter is over)so, I’m probably not thinking/seeing too clearly


19 posted on 09/08/2007 9:54:14 AM PDT by stylin19a (Go Bears !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

I suggest you contact John Armour aka Congressman Billybob. He is a lawyer. His e-mail address if congressmanbillybob@earthlink.net, I’m sure he will answer any legal questions you may have. He posts here at FR all the time.


20 posted on 09/08/2007 9:57:43 AM PDT by Newfy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson