Archive for August, 2009

US Attorney in NY Admits Peter Paul Did NOT Cause $25 Million Losses to Stan Lee Media Shareholders

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Eight years after the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York announced that Stan Lee Media Co-Founder Peter Paul had been indicted for causing the collapse of Stan Lee Media and more than $25 million in shareholders’ losses to his company through his violation of SEC Regulation 10(b)5,� the government admitted in federal court in New York on June 25, 2009 that it could not prove that Paul was responsible for any shareholders losses, let alone the collapse of Stan Lee Media.

After an extensive PR campaign begun on June 12, 2001 by the previous two US Attorneys for the Eastern District of New York,� Vinegrad and Mauskopf,� accusing Peter Paul of a “classic pump and dump” of his stock causing his dot com company with Spider Man creator Stan Lee to fail and causing millions in shareholder losses, the government quietly admitted in federal court at Paul’s belated sentencing on his 10(b)5 violation that

“There is no loss to those individuals (Stan Lee Media shareholders). Yes.”

Winston Chan is the fifth Assistant US Attorney to be assigned to USA v Paul, Gordon, Kusche, Pittsburg,� since it was announced with great fanfare by US Attorney Alan Vinegrad at a press conference with FBI and US POstal Inspector officials in June, 2001.

Kenneth Breen was the Assistant US Attorney under Vinegrad who directed the indictment of Paul, and had him arrested by Interpol in Brazil on August 3, 2001 for extradition while Paul was cooperating with the Assistant Attorney General Chertoff in an investigation of Hillary Clinton campaign frauds, and while Paul was awaiting confirmation of Chertoff’s personal intervention into his prosecution in Hillary’s “home” state.

The New York indictment came a week before Paul filed a $10 million civil fraud suit against Bill and Hillary Clinton for business and FEC frauds he alleged they perpetrated on him when Bill Clinton induced him to become Hillary Clinton’s largest ($1.9 million) donor to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Paul’s two year extradition process was extended by Breen’s manipulation of Brazil’s extradition laws, and Breen’s subsequent refusal to allow Paul to cooperate with Noel Hillman, Director of the Dept of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity, in the prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen,� without Paul pleading guilty to the 10(b)5 indictment and posting a multi-million dollar bail Paul could not afford, compromised the Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s role in the offense her campaign finance director Rosen was indicted and tried for.

Paul’s ability to prove Hillary Clinton’s personal role in the frauds attributed solely to Rosen, for which her campaign Treasurer was later fined by the FEC, was further thwarted by Breen’s refusal to disclose or share a smoking gun video tape made by Paul in 2000 which Breen acquired from Paul’s offices in 2001, capturing Hillary Clinton admitting of her knowledge and participation in directing and accepting the $1.2 million donation Paul made to her campaign at Bill Clinton’s� request as her agent.

After leaving the US Attorney’s office in 2005, Breen was coincidentally hired by the New York law firm Paul Hastings in February, 2007 after it discovered Paul was assisting shareholders of Stan Lee Media in filing a $1 billion suit against Marvel Entertainment, one of Paul Hasting’s largest clients,� for defrauding Stan Lee Media of hundreds of millions in profits it derived from Stan Lee’s Marvel creations, which Lee assigned to Stan Lee Media.

During two hearings held in New York Federal Court in June and July, 2009, Mr Chan admitted to Federal Judge Leonard Wexler that the government could not prove Peter Paul caused ANY losses to shareholders.

When queried by the Court, Mr Chan said:

MR. CHAN: Mr. Conway [Peter Paul’s attorney] had suggested that the losses with respect to investors was not sufficiently quantifiable... And I took a look at the matter and I agreed with him.

THE COURT: Where does the government stand?

9 MR. CHAN: Whether or not the losses are due to the stock, the falling stock price, is ..the result of [Peter Paul’s] actions, is not something that we can prove.

17 THE COURT: Do you feel there is no loss?

18 MR. CHAN: There is no loss to those individuals. Yes.

Interestingly, the government withheld that admission and correction of its allegations from the probation office and the court for the four years since it announced that Paul’s guilty plea to violating one count of SEC Regulation 10(b)5 was an admission that Paul had caused more than $25 million in� losses. It failed to disclose that its previous statements were not legally supportable until the day of Mr Paul’s sentencing.

Homage to Robert Novak- Courageous to a Point

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

Robert Novak

Robert Novak passed away August 18, 2009, a little more than eight years after he broke the story that probably cost Hillary Clinton the White House, and saved the American people from a Clinton putsch of unprecedented dimensions in eviscerating individual rights and what remains of equal justice in the United States.While Bob broke the story of Peter Paul’s whistleblowing to the DOJ of the felony election law violations committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton to assure Hillary’s first election to the US Senate in his syndicated column, he refused to follow up on the story with the astonishing events that transpired over the subsequent six years in court rooms in California and New York and chambers in Washington.The whistle blowing by Hillary’s largest donor, Peter Paul, reported by Novak in 2001, resulted in Hillary’s finance director’s federal indictment and trial in 2005 in Los Angeles for hiding Paul’s $1.2 million donations and the FEC finding Hillary’s campaign Treasurer hid more than $700,000 and was fined $35,000 by the FEC.

Bob inexplicably refused to follow up on his breaking story even when the US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York was forced in 2007 to turn over a smoking gun video tape of a conversation between Peter Paul and Hillary Clinton that captured her illegally soliciting, coordinating and directing Paul’s $1.2 million plus donation to her campaign. This tape had been intentionally withheld by the US Attorney’s office from Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity investigations that were thwarted by the Eastern District of New York’s Assistant US Attorney who refused to accept Peter paul’s bail package (acceptable to the DOJ) and who refused to allow Paul to cooperate without him pleading guilty to multiple charges.

But that story has yet to be completed for another reporter to break now that Bob has gone to the newsroom in the sky.

Hillary’s Fund-Raiser

Thursday June 28 01:00 AM EDT
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON — On March 30 in Newark, N.J., lawyers from the conservative Judicial Watch organization met representatives of four U.S. attorneys with an offer in behalf of an unusual client. Peter Paul, a colorful Hollywood entrepreneur under Justice Department investigation for stock manipulation, would give information to prosecutors if he could return briefly from Sao Paulo, Brazil, without fear of arrest. Included was his claimed contribution, unreported to federal authorities, of nearly $2 million to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign.

Two months of silence was broken June 12 when Alan Vinegrad, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), brought a securities fraud indictment against Paul. No interest was shown in the proffer.

The Clinton administration pattern appears to be continuing in the Bush administration. Donors, not recipients, of specious political contributions are prosecuted.

The Justice Department was never informed of the Paul proffer by the four U.S. attorneys, who are all holdover Clinton political appointees or interim civil servants. Judicial Watch’s Larry Klayman has brought the case to Bush appointees at Main Justice. But Attorney General John Ashcroft, after his brutal confirmation, shows great deference to non-Bush U.S. attorneys. The inclination is to “move on” rather than pursue the Clintons.

Nevertheless, a lawsuit filed by Paul in Los Angeles June 19 against Bill and Hillary Clinton paints a picture all too familiar in American political fund-raising generally and by the Clintons particularly.

Paul in 1998 co-founded Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLM) with Stan Lee, creator of “Spiderman,” “The Incredible Hulk” and other comic book characters. He claims he wanted President Clinton to honor Lee, but associates say Paul really sought the president as a business partner after he left office. What better way to woo him than by helping Mrs. Clinton get elected?

Court papers show Paul claiming he “spent approximately $1.9 million of his own personal funds” paying vendors for a lavish Hollywood “tribute” last Aug. 12 that raised a net $1.5 million for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. Campaign finance lawyers see law violations in neither reporting this money nor reimbursing Paul.

“Generally, we don’t comment on Judicial Watch activities,” Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy told me. The Clinton FEC filing shows a $500,000 “in-kind” contribution by SLM, but actually, the company gave nothing. Paul’s cancelled checks substantiate his $1.9 million unreported contribution.

Help for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was not all that Paul promised. The court filing asserts that in return for a one-year commitment to work for SLM once the president left office, Paul last July offered him $10 million in SLM stock, $5 million in cash and $1 million for the Clinton library. Paul alleges that Chicago businessman Jim Levin conveyed this offer to the White House and returned with a perquisite package including a Lincoln bedroom stay and a Camp David weekend. Levin did not respond to my phone calls.

On Aug. 14, Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove reported that Paul spent 30 months in federal prison after a 1979 conviction for trying to swindle Fidel Castro’s government and cocaine possession. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign immediately returned $2,000 directly contributed by Paul and his wife but ignored the $1.9 million.

The suit contends Paul was assured by Clinton’s emissaries that nothing had been changed. Indeed, flowery thank-you letters from the Clintons were written after the Aug. 16 return of $2,000 (”With gratitude for friendship,” Mrs. Clinton wrote on Aug. 18 in a note signed “Hillary”).

After this experience, Paul asserts, he sought a presidential pardon into September. Democratic Party General Chairman Ed Rendell said “he was working on it,” the suit alleges. Rendell told me his appointment book reflects no meeting with Paul that late in the year. “I can’t recall any talk about a pardon,” Rendell added.

Paul talked to me from Brazil this week, under the stipulation not to discuss his indictment. Did he really think spending all that money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign would entice her husband into his firm? “I wonder if I was taken, and that’s why this lawsuit was filed,” he replied. The question now is whether Paul will get what is known as a “queen for a day” arrest-free visit to tell his story to prosecutors — if they want to listen.