Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Here is a question that should be considered by the whole (honest) political spectrum swinging from Left to Right in America: Does America want a President whose family (husband & wife, err Bonnie and Clyde) has a long history of evading felonious charges and civil suits? It is true there has never been a conviction, however Jesse James was never convicted either. Was the old Southern sympathizer of a lost civil war who robbed banks for a living an innocent man?
Okay I know I am stretching the comparison, Jesse never was caught to stand trial; nonetheless America’s political spectrum needs to consider the huge amount of times the Clintons have been looked at for criminal crimes and civil lawsuits. The Clinton past makes Tricky Dick Nixon look like an amateur. One can also observe a dubious reputation to a string of Conspiracy Theory accusations based on attempting to connect the dots yet a glaring absence of physical evidence.
JRH 8/16/07
************************************
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Chastises media for ignoring fraud suit, felony allegations
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Posted: August 16, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Evoking the Vietnam Navy veterans who helped sink Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004, a newly formed foundation has launched a campaign to "Truth Boat" Sen. Hillary Clinton, claiming the mainstream media have protected her from incontrovertible evidence of illegal conduct.
Wall Street whistleblower Jim Nesfield's Equal Justice Foundation features Peter Franklin Paul's fraud suit against the Clintons and the accompanying allegations against the New York senator.
"It's the No. 1 civil case in the country exposing an unprecedented array of frauds and obstruction of justice by the Clintons that the media refuses to report," Nesfield told WND.
In a year-long effort coinciding with the presidential campaign, Nesfield will try to mobilize a consortium of bloggers to "crash through" what he calls "the information blockade" created by U.S. media. His aim, he says, is to "help educate the public about the facts of Hillary Clinton's misconduct as presented in Paul v. Clinton."
As WND reported, a California appeals court has set oral arguments for an appeal of Sen. Clinton's dismissal from a $17 million fraud case in which her husband already is a defendant.
Along with ruling whether the New York Democrat should also be a defendant in the case, the court will be asked to decide whether she committed a felony by soliciting campaign contributions of more than $1.2 million.
As WND has reported, Paul claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.
Nesfield, a former Wall Street trader, drew wide attention when he assisted then-New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in an investigation of a mutual fund scandal in 2004 that cost investors more than $1 trillion.
Nesfield developed an interest in Paul's case after becoming an investor in Stan Lee Media in 2000. He recently brought together a group of former investors in the company to reconstitute it for the purpose of exposing actions that led to the company's downfall. The company, under Nesfield's leadership, has filed a $5 billion suit on behalf of the investors against Marvel Entertainment, claiming Stan Lee Media co-owns Marvel's superhero characters, including Spider-Man, X-Men and the Incredible Hulk. He also alleges fraud by company officials who, he believes, made Paul a scapegoat.
Paul is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks. He also was cited for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value. Nesfield asserts after his examination of the case that federal prosecutors never should have proffered charges against Paul. He contends Paul's actions were done only to save the company from collapse.
Self-financed
Nesfield says his new foundation is self-financed, with no support from outside sources, including the Republican Party.
The father of seven children, he describes himself as a traditional Catholic from a family of left-leaning union organizers. He says he has voted only once, choosing President Bush in the 2004 campaign.
His foundation also is sponsoring the first-ever documentary on Sen. Clinton, "Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v Clinton," which uses more than five hours of exclusive home videos of the Clintons made by Paul.
The foundation website features a trailer for the upcoming film.
Nesfield says the filing of a third fraudulent Federal Election Commission report related to the Hollywood gala is the most damning evidence against Clinton, followed by her use of California's anti-SLAPP law to remove herself from Paul's case.
As WND reported, the FEC fined a committee that helped fund Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for filing reports that failed to account for Paul's massive donations.
Clinton was dismissed from Paul's fraud suit April 7, 2006, by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz on the basis of the state's anti-SLAPP law, which, under the First Amendment, protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns. Paul's legal team argues Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Nesfield contends that as a presidential candidate, Clinton should subject herself to the rule of law and publicly declare she doesn't fear the case, rather than invoking the anti-SLAPP statute and leaving an air of doubt.
"Why avail yourself of that if you were not guilty," Nesfield asked. "If you're not guilty, let him bring all the charges; if there's no merit, you don't need any escape provisions."
_______________________
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.
Copyright 1997-2007 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
Comments
Hmmm...
You are right it does suck to put seedy people in office. However, there is a man in office right now that attempted the murder of every person driving the night he was out driving drunk. There is a man that can be connect to the S&L scandals of the 80's in office right now. There are numerous men who should be in prison from the Iran Contra Debacle in office with the Shrub right now. The man in office right now helped paid for the murder of innocent men women and children every time he shoved a line of coke up his nose.
Why should Hillary be punished when the current twit in office never was.
Tell you what - eliminate every crooked or questionable Republican from office, then talk about Hillary.
Hey KatieKat, good hearing from my favorite liberal who makes her point civilly even though we often disagree.
I have always wondered: is the "Hmmm..." true wonder or the opening salvo of sarcasm? Oh well anyway ...
I don't keep with the dubious records of Conservatives like you do, so I am unaware of the specific references of whom you speak.
Let's go with drunk driving. Before I upgraded to Christian Conservative from Liberal agnostic I did my share of sowing wild oats including driving under the influence. Thank God nothing stupid ever came of it, yet knowing my past and living in my present I do not consider myself as a past potential mass murderer; indeed I killed no one. Did this nameless Conservative kill someone and get away with it like the Left Wing Democrat King of Chappaquidick?
You are going to have to show me the proof (or even the conspiracy theory) that "the man in office right now" did lines of coke. I would suspect that more of the Liberal Sex offender President previous to this one.
The about past and present is the President is breaking no laws now (he has never been impeached), while Hillary with a litany past accusations is still scamming for money to become the President of the USA. Way too crooked for me.
Its been nice disagreeing with you again, you keep me honest. Have a great day until the next time.
:-)
LOL...I try to keep it civil. I don't see the point of personal attacks (ok, politicians are open game).
I love it when people talk about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquidick. I wouldn't vote for the man (even though he is the man who has reintroduced the ERA). I personally don't think his name should have given him a free pass. He should have gone to jail. Alas, he is one rich bastard and we all know that money can buy your feeedom.
I do agree, it would be nice to see moral, honest, and upstanding citizens as politicians. I would like to see it on all sides.
PS...I do not support impeachment. Its a waste of time and energy. LOL, I think you would enjoy the post I wrote about the dems running another election aimed at being defeated....