Skip to comments.Felony on tape? Watch "Spiderman" Stan Lee's deposition and the "exchanging" $100,000 checks
Posted on 09/10/2007 4:44:01 PM PDT by doug from upland
SOURCE FOR DOCUMENTS AND THE ENTIRE SORDID SCANDAL
EQUAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION SITE WITH DOCUMENTARY TRAILER
STAN LEE'S SWORN DEPOSITION ON VIDEO - he admits "exchanging" $100,000 checks
Dateline: Los Angeles
Sept. 10, 2007
by Doug from Upland
While reporters have been aggressively pursuing the illegal activity of Norman Hsu and his large campaign donations to Democrats, including presidential candidate Senator Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, they have been less agressive in pursing a case that is right out there in front of their eyes in broad daylight. All they have to do is look at a video.
Senator Clinton is well aware of the reporting difficulties of her 2000 Senate campaign. The FEC determined in Dec. 2005 that she had three false FEC reports filed on her behalf and that the treasurer deliberately hid $721,000.
The fourth amended FEC report in January 2006 is unfortunately another fraud. The case is the subject of a civil lawsuit, Paul v Clinton, that will soon have under oath Senator Clinton, her husband, her daughter, former Vice President Al Gore, Governor Ed Rendell, former California Governor Gray Davis, Terry McAuliffe, several of the Hollywood cultural elite, including Barbra Streisand, and many in the inner circle of Senator Clinton, notably Kelly Craighead and Howard Wolfson.
Wolfson, Senator Clinton's official spokesman, is remembered for claiming to the Washington Post on August 15, 2000 that Stan Lee had donated $100,000 to "cover some expenses for the event," and deceiving the voters by claiming that the campaign would not take any money from Peter Paul, the man who actually had spent an astounding $1.6 million for Hillary's campaign. Paul's in-kind hard money contribution, paid from his personal funds, has never been attibuted to him in FEC reporting as he has demanded and is the largest campaign contribution in history.
In the fourth amended report (page 23 of the FEC document and page 34 of the PDF), Lee is listed as a donor of $225,000. He has testified that he gave no money. Senator Clinton knows that he gave no money.
Lee was notified that he was named in a fraudulent filing last April in a phone conversation that was reported exclusively on FreeRepublic. He has also been notified in writing by Peter F. Paul of his legal obligation to correct the record, citing several code section violations.
From Paul's letter:
"...you are in violation of Title 2 of the US Code, Sec 441f. Until you ensure a correction has been filed with the FEC, you are permitting your name to be used by Hillary Clinton to hide a $225,000 contribution, that was in fact made by me. You are also helping and assisting Hillary Clinton to knowingly accept my contribution made in your name in violation of 11 CFR Sec 110.4(b)(iii).
Your admission that you agreed to switch $100,000 checks with me, at my request, so that it would appear that you contributed to Hillary Clintons campaign in August, 2000, is also a violation of Sec 441(f) and Sec 437g(d)(1)(A)&(D) of Title 2 of the United States Code."
Lee has yet to take any action to correct the FEC report and has allowed Senator Clinton to so far escape the scrutiny of the press. Senator Clinton has done nothing to correct the report and has allowed the voters to continue to believe that "Spiderman" was a major donor to her campaign.
In October 2006, Paul made still another written demand to Senator Clinton to report correctly and return his illegal donation. That demand was made by messenger to her Senate office and captured on film.
On August 29, 2007 another demand from Paul was made to Senator Clinton, this time by facsimile to each one of her offices. Although that information has been sent to many media outlets, including the WASHINGTON POST and NY TIMES, no reporter has yet written the story. Having researched the story for over two years, they have been offered my help.
The Norman Hsu scandal has become a big story and worth pursuing. Isn't the story of "Spiderman" admitting on film, albeit not the silver screen, to exchanging $100,000 checks worth pursuing? Isn't four false FEC reports worth pursuing? Isn't the coverup of a $1.6 million hard money in-kind donation to Clinton worth pursuing? Isn't the historic civil case coming to Los Angeles Superior Court worth pursuing? Perhaps if the word "macaca" had been used, the story would be important enough to cover.
I appreciate your commitment to this issue, but don’t think that reporters have been vigorously pursuing the Hsu matter.
You might restate that....
What are you exactly saying?
"[Stan] Lee in 2005 filed a lawsuit against Marvel for his unpaid share of profits from Marvel movies, winning a settlement of more than $10 million."
Heads up Doug... this is a bad link:
SOURCE FOR DOCUMENTS AND THE ENTIRE SORDID SCANDAL
I long for the day you will be remembered as the guy who brought down the Clinton crime family.
(rewrite) 'Having researched the story for over two years, I have offered reporters my help.'
Everybody needs an editor here.
Or is it dito???
Stan Lee, an icon of media itself, was never a smart guy with his financial interests. He was leveraged into a buyout of Marvel for a relative pittance while being threatened with infringement lawsuits every time he forayed into new publishing ideas (costumes, secret identities...it got very foolish). Frankly I’m amazed they let Stan continue having cameo appearances in every Marvel film.
If the man is guilty of wrongdoing in his contributions by all means go after him. I just point out that he’s very disassociated with reality as most of us know it and probably took some bad advice for granted because - all his public life he’s championed truth, justice and the heroic way (nerdy as that may seem). His cable show, “Who Wants To Be a SuperHero” stresses these values over all else and the guy obviously agonizes over choosing one contestant over another on the basis of their positive values.
I can’t believe Stan Lee’s capable of disassociating those values in regard to his real-life actions. I truly suspect this is another case of villainous agents of the Democrat Party snookering another well-off person out of money while leaving them with the “smoking gun”. Shades of Whitewater.
Fair enough. I looked at it, but since my browser shut down on me once after an hour an a half of work, cause the loss of the info, I was too lazy to edit.
Wait until you see what Stan and his insider pals did during the Stan Lee Media bankruptcy. He may have very substantial legal problems.
Thanks. I asked the to fix the link.
THE DOCUMENTS ARE HERE — http://hillcap.org
I mean, since the media has been ignoring Bill & Hillary's court case, surely you can punch them on the nose by appearing on a conservative radio or TV show...
Sorry to be tuning in so late, but what happened in court on the 7th (vis a vis the Peter Paul case against the Clintons(?
I’ve let them all know. With the Hsu money of 850K being returned by Satan’s Daughter, I have a feeling the time is right for it to break. There are serious journalists with whom Peter and I have each been talking.
Here is the report - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893093/posts
Hrm - thought that was pretty clear.
Doug’s first line was, “While reporters have been aggressively pursuing the illegal activity of Norman Hsu and his large campaign donations to Democrats...”
Hence my comment. The media has been doing the *bare minimum* to cover the Hsu story. I think Rush or Sean pointed out that Larry Craig is LITERALLY getting 20 times the coverage.
20 times. For every ONE Hsu story, there have been 20 Craig stories.
I guess you can see where their priorities are.
And I agree...