She says frivolous, he says felonies...
A key case against Bill and Hillary Clinton has been winding its way through the California courts. A businessman, Peter Franklin Paul, has learned the hard way the price some pay to play in "Clinton's World."
California's Supreme Court has been asked to hear a claim Sen. Hillary Clinton wrongly invoked First Amendment protections to remove herself as a defendant from a multi-million-dollar lawsuit in which she and her husband are accused of defrauding the largest donor to her 2000 Senate campaign.The California Supremes upheld a lower-court decision to deny the Clinton's motion to dismiss the case. The well known pattern of the Clinton's strategy in dealing with these types of cases, dragging the lawsuits through the courts, the claimants through the mud, years of litigation, claims of "vast Republican conspiracies." Hillary claimed she should be dismissed as a defendant because she is a "public figure" who by law is immune from "frivolous" lawsuits.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul – who claims former President Bill Clinton destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million agreement – is petitioning the state high court to rehear a recent appeals court ruling upholding a decision to remove the New York Democrat from the case.
In this case the cry of Republican shenanigans does not apply. Paul was the largest donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.
The lawsuit claims that the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination had knowledge of her husband's intent to defraud Paul and that she committed felonies by soliciting illegal campaign funds from him.Bill and Hill allegedly intentionally defrauded Paul, not only a Democrat but Hillary's largest backer in her 2000 Senate race. Someone from the West Coast clique of Clinton sycophants. Talk about biting the hand that fed you.
Makes one wonder if Paul has given thought to switching his party affiliation. Large donations may be a thing of the past for Paul as his lawsuit claims the Clinton's actions destroyed Paul's entertainment company.
He Said, She Said
The California Court of Appeal upheld Sen. Clinton's removal as a defendant in the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which was designed to protect public figures, in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, from frivolous lawsuits. But Paul contends the Democratic senator is abusing the anti-SLAPP law as an alternate way to be removed from the case after the state Supreme Court determined it should proceed.A law, written by public figures designed to protect public figures using the 1st Amendment for protection from "frivolous" lawsuits.
What's even more interesting about this particular law?
As long as one is a politician and to some being a politician is a lifelong calling then one can try to play the "Get Out Of A Lawsuit" Chance Card just like Hillary did. They can claim that any lawsuit is frivolous and thus as a public figure, they are immune from prosecution.
To Hillary, this lawsuit is frivolous, to Paul this lawsuit is his shot at justice and matter of a few felonies alleging Bill and Hill defrauded Paul to the tune of 17 million dollars.
It's not as if Paul is suing the Clintons claiming Lincoln's mattress was too lumpy in the now defunct Clinton White House No-Tell Motel.
Source - hillaryproject.com
Image [Adena.com]
For more on this story check Right Voices: UPDATE:SCANDALS SCANDALS EVERYWHERE……. Will Peter Paul Be Hillary’s Paula Jones?
By LBG
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.