ADN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw Be sure to watch both parts, these are the real deal.

Uh Oh...Go Barak, lol...

Boys and girls, put them pin's down.lol

WASHINGTON — One gift that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to enjoy on her 60th birthday Friday is the premiere of "Hillary Uncensored," a scathing documentary whose 13-minute trailer has been No. 1 on Google Video since Oct. 10, with more than 1.1 million views to date.

The film's first full-length showing is scheduled for Friday night at Harvard University, followed by viewings at universities through the weekend and a wrap Tuesday at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

Among the allegations summarized in the documentary:

— Bill and Hillary Clinton solicited cash from Peter F. Paul, an international lawyer and businessman, even after Hillary Clinton's campaign manager told The Washington Post she would not take money from him;

— FBI agents and U.S. attorneys colluded with the Clintons to keep Paul, who pleaded guilty in March 2005 to one count of securities fraud, tangled up in the criminal courts for years;

— The Clintons made sure Paul was kept in a Brazilian prison for 25 months from 2001 to 2003, including 58 days in a maximum security cellblock nicknamed the "Corridor of Death," while the Justice Department waited to extradite him;

— Hillary Clinton still hasn't filed reports to the FEC enumerating Paul's excessive contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign spares no kindness about its view of Paul, whose long arrest record, officials say, demonstrates his inherent deceit.

"Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee," Clinton's campaign said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

While it's a coincidence that the film about the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate is being released on her birthday, the movie's producers say it is no accident the film's trailer is getting such attention.

Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the film, said he's made it his mission to expose what he calls "the greatest campaign finance fraud that ever has been committed."

The Clintons think "they are truly above the law," Cogan said. "My country has never seen anyone like Hillary Rodham Clinton."

The allegations in the film are not new, although much of the video is. The film resurrects claims made by the thrice-convicted Paul that he unwittingly agreed to violate election-funding laws in exchange for a pledge from Bill Clinton to work with him in his new venture, Stan Lee Media, after Clinton left the presidency.

The documentary revisits Paul's claim that, in exchange for Bill Clinton's promise to promote Stan Lee Media overseas, for which Paul said he was willing to pay $17 million, he also agreed to produce an August 2000 fundraising gala in Hollywood for Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York Senate campaign.

"My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton," Paul told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview, noting that Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign "concocted" the whole idea of the fundraiser.

Paul said he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, "I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work with me when he left the White House."

The gala cost $1.2 million, which was under-reported to the Federal Election Commission and led to the arrest of Clinton's then-Senate campaign fundraising chief, David Rosen.

Rosen was found not guilty; a co-host of the gala, Aaron Tonken, was sentenced in a separate case to more than five years in prison for misappropriating funds for charity to pay for fundraisers featuring Hollywood celebrities.

Paul never got to work with Bill Clinton. Stan Lee Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2001, long after it became apparent to Paul that Clinton wasn't going to join the company and, Paul alleges, had stolen one of Stan Lee Media's chief investors.

Paul writes off prior convictions in the 1970s for cocaine possession and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million as part of an international anti-Castro effort gone wrong. He adds that the securities fraud plea that he agreed to cop in March 2005 was to get out of jail after 43 months in Brazilian and New York prisons. He still is awaiting sentencing on that plea despite being under house arrest since then.

As for the Rosen case, he calls that a farce aimed at getting a Clinton crony off the hook. The accompanying civil case, he said, also set a legal precedent Hillary Clinton later used to get out of being a defendant in his case against her and her husband.

"I am not the one-dimensional villain that I am portrayed to be, but I am the victim not only of the Clintons" but of their associates, who Paul says tried to steal his assets and wrap him up in a corrupt court system.

"Not only was the indictment and the trial (of Rosen) a scam, the judge ... turned it into a referendum on the credibility of Peter Paul," Paul said, also faulting the prosecutor for not objecting to Judge Howard Matz's characterization of Paul as a con man during his instructions to the jury.

"You conclude either that the prosecutor is incompetent or, worse, that the prosecutor is dogging the case."

Paul claims that while he has been prosecuted and marginalized by the Clintons, his video evidence proves his case against them — that the power couple defrauded him by falsely pledging the former president's post-White House services in exchange for footing the bill for all the gala's expenses.

That video documentation, however, may be worth only the revenue from copies sold. The California Court of Appeals last week upheld, 3-0, a lower court's ruling to excuse Hillary Clinton as a defendant in that suit. The court also noted that the new video isn't new evidence.

"In his motion to admit new evidence, Paul also seeks to admit the videotaped recording of the July 17, 2000, telephone call to demonstrate Senator Clinton had sufficient knowledge of Paul's business enterprises and the president's involvement with Paul such that it would not have been a 'fishing expedition' to depose her. While the recording itself may have only been recently obtained by Paul, the substance of the conference call is not new evidence," reads the ruling written by Judge P.J. Perluss.

Nonetheless, the conference call with then-first lady Clinton is among the most compelling moments in the new documentary. The video, taken in Paul's Beverly Hills office a month before the gala, shows on one end of a teleconference, Paul, Tonken and their business partner Alana Stewart, Rod Stewart's ex-wife. On the other end is Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can be heard saying: "Whatever it is you're doing, is it OK if I thank you? ... I am very appreciative and it sounds fabulous. I got a full report from Kelly (White House adviser Kelly Craighead) today when she got back and told me everything that you're doing and it just sounds like it's going to be a great event. But I just wanted to call and personally thank all of you. I'm glad you're all together so I could tell you how much this means to me, and it's going to mean a lot to the president, too."

Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson, argues that Clinton's conversation proves she was in violation of campaign finance rules preventing candidates from personally having a hand in coordinating fundraising events in excess of $25,000.

The appeals court's ruling to dismiss Hillary Clinton as a defendant is flawed because "my evidence showed that this gala was coordinated between the candidate and Peter Paul," Wilson said. "The whole basis of (Clinton's motion to dismiss) was her right to solicit campaign contributions, so she admitted" she knew about the gala planning.

Wilson said that the appeals court also erred when it cited the lower court's claim that they were on a "fishing expedition" by demanding to depose Clinton about her knowledge of the gala.

"I would attack that by saying that the case is defined as too broad [when it] is asking to take a lot of people's depositions. A fishing expedition means you don't have a clue whether the person has any evidence or not," she said.

But Wilson acknowledged that it's the court's discretion to admit new evidence or not.

"They don't have to allow it in. The cutoff is what was available during the lower court submission," she said.

Wilson contends that several of the videotapes, including the would-be smoking gun, weren't available to Paul because they were confiscated by the FBI when the securities fraud investigation began in 2001 and were withheld from Paul until April of this year, long after the lower court heard the case.

"They still have the originals," she noted, adding that the FBI sent the videos to a vendor to be copied and sent to Paul.

Wilson said she's not certain she wants to appeal for an en banc hearing of the entire appeals court or to ask the California Supreme Court to take the case because it could mean a delay of two years before they can return to the underlying case — the alleged fraud committed by the Clintons in pledging that Bill Clinton would work for Stan Lee Media.

Of that, Wilson and Paul claim to have plenty of evidence and still are able to depose Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

Paul said he also is prepared to keep open the case against the Clintons through other means. He is filing a new complaint with the FEC and is requesting that when Michael Mukasey is confirmed as U.S. attorney general, he investigate how the government could have prosecuted Rosen when authorities knew he did not commit a crime.

Cogan said he hopes the film also shines light on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

"Hillary can no longer feign ignorance in what went on here," he said. "I think she is absolutely an unthinkable commander in chief."

October 18, 2006

Senator Hillary Clinton
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC

Via Hand Delivery

Re: Second Request to Correct False FEC Report and Refund Illegal and Excessive Contributions Made in Cooperation and Consultation And At The Request Of A Candidate

Dear Hillary:

It has been five years since my original demand letter (attached) was delivered to your Senate chambers on July 16, 2001. In that letter I reminded you of the facts surrounding my personal expenditures of more than $1.2 million to benefit your 2000 Senate campaign, at the direction of yourself and your agents Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell, David Rosen, Kelly Craighead and James Levin.

I respectfully requested that you obey the laws you swore to uphold when you took the oath of the office I significantly aided you in obtaining. I asked that you file corrected reports with the FEC and IRS regarding my contributions and that you obey the laws requiring that you refund my illegally excessive cash in kind contributions of more than $1.2 million as now corroborated by the FBI, Justice Department Office of Public Integrity and the FEC.

You refused to take any action to correct the three false FEC reports filed by your Joint Fundraising Committee, New York Senate 2000, and you stood by while a fourth false report was filed with the FEC by your campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman, on July 30, 2001.

You have refused to comment publicly on your role in directing and coercing my expenditures on behalf of your campaign between June and October, 2000, relying on spokes-lawyers who have consistently misled the media by stating that New York Senate 2000 filed correct reports. You have maintained that position until the December, 2005 admission by your campaign, in a forced settlement with the FEC based on overwhelming evidence of an intentional violation of Federal Election Law, that it did in fact file three false reports that hid more than $720,000 I expended on your campaign’s behalf.

No comment has been made by you or any of your spokes-people regarding the statements made on your behalf to the voters and your opponent, through the Washington Post in articles on August 15 and 17, 2000, that you vowed not to accept any money from me, that you refunded any money I contributed and that I contributed no money whatsoever to Event 39, the Hollywood Gala Farewell Salute to President Clinton on August 12, 2000 that I produced and paid all expenses for.

Your campaign filed a fifth FEC report on January 30, 2006, which purportedly corrected all previous false reports, and your campaign now attributes $225,000 as being contributed personally by my former partner Stan Lee, and $839,000 as being contributed by my two personal holding companies, Excelsior and Paraversal which somehow were lumped together as co-contributors of $839,000.
As you know, this FEC report, and the uncorrected IRS report made to mirror the original FEC 2000 reports, are false. Since you requested and suggested I make the personal contribution that I made that exceeded $1.2 million, and your agents Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell, David Rosen, Kelly Craighead, James Levin cooperated, consulted and even coerced me in connection with my contribution, you have been well aware that all of these reports are false, and all statements made on your behalf to the investigatory agencies that looked into this matter have been false.

In addition, Stan Lee has testified publicly, under oath and to all investigatory agencies that he gave no money to your campaign or to pay for Event 39. Yet he is now attributed by your campaign to have given $225,000. I have attached to this letter my demand letter to him (below) to notify you immediately to correct this January 30, 2006 report and attribute the $225,000 to me as the correct donor. I have also notified you that I made a $100,000 contribution through him which I reimbursed him for and which he has also confirmed in sworn testimony.

I have conducted all of my personal and business transactions through personal holding companies I wholly owned and controlled, including Paraversal and Excelsior, and all of the assets of those companies are my personal property and funds, and no one else’s. You are again on notice that all monies attributed as contributions to your campaign from my alter egos are in fact my funds over which I exercised complete dominion and control. Your efforts to confuse that issue by maintaining I never wrote one personal check to your campaign belie the fact that I never wrote personal checks for any business related expenditures I have made since 1979 when Fidel Castro’s government obtained a judgment against me.

Considering that Title 2 USC 441 f and 2 USC 441 a(a)(7)(B)(i) have been violated by your actions, and that all of my contributions on your behalf are attributable solely and exclusively to your candidacy, making them illegally excessive, I hereby demand you correct the latest FEC report that misreports my personal contribution of $1,060,000 and immediately cause that illegal contribution to be refunded at long last.

Please arrange with my counsel at U.S.Justice Foundation, Gary Kreep, to accept that refund as a contribution to that 501 c(3) educational foundation that fights public corruption and supports Constitutional rights.

Very Truly,
Peter F. Paul
c/o US Justice Foundation
Ramona, California
(760) 788 6624

Peter Paul demand letter to Hillary Clinton

July 16, 2001

Senator Hillary Clinton
U.S.Senate
Washington, DC

Via Hand Delivery


Dear Hillary:


It is with profound regret and extreme disappointment that I am forced to write this letter to you reminding you of your responsibility as a Federal elected official to comply with the laws and regulations of the United States that you have sworn to defend and protect, and as a citizen, the same laws and regulations that govern your individual conduct.


As you are personally aware, in May, 2000, I was induced by your National Campaign Finance Director, David Rosen, your friend Jim Levin and your volunteer Hollywood talent coordinator and fundraiser, Aaron Tonken, to become the largest individual contributor to your Senatorial campaign in an effort to begin building a closer relationship with your husband in anticipation of his departure from public service to the private sector.


As you recall, I hosted a private fundraising luncheon for you at Spago, and a fund raising tea at Mrs. Gershman’s Beverly Hills Estate on June 9, 2000, and paid certain expenses in connection with that event in addition to making a commitment to contribute $150,000 in stock to your campaign. I subsequently committed to produce and underwrite the largest fundraiser of your campaign, which was also a Hollywood farewell tribute to the President, on August 12, 2000, at the Brentwood estate of our mutual friend Ken Roberts. Rather than make an additional contribution to your campaign, I was induced to underwrite all the expenses of the reception, concert and private dinner so that David Rosen could galvanize your faltering fundraising momentum and generate much needed “hard money” contributions net of any and all expenses. In good faith I fulfilled that commitment, even as the expenses skyrocketed from a projected $500,000 to well over $2 million!


No expense was spared to produce a poignant and historic evening when the luminaries of the entertainment industry shared their love and appreciation for the contributions made by the President and yourself during the previous eight years of the Clinton Administration. As you requested, I hired your friend Gary Smith to produce the concert part of the event, which he did superbly through his lend out company Black Ink Productions. Although Gary’s unconscionable fee of $850,000 for the concert was reduced at my request by $50,000 due to your personal intervention, you should know that Gary subsequently tacked on another $75,000 for his personal production fee which I was not made aware of until the day before the event. Further, Gary demonstrated the most egregious unprofessionalism in the way he sabotaged my script for Stan Lee’s introduction and the activities of his film crews that were charged with documenting the event. To add insult to injury, he fabricated additional expenses that Ken Roberts chastised him for, for which he held hostage the tapes of the event for three months. In addition, $20,000 is unaccounted for as a final withdrawal that is not documented from the segregated event bank account I am attaching a statement for.


I enjoyed your warmth and friendship during this period from June through August, 2000, when you and the President made my wife and I feel like family. Your warm letters and phone calls, your embraces and kisses when we met, the meals and events we shared together, and especially your and Chelsea’s heartfelt introduction of my wife to Barbara Streisand, led me to believe that we had succeeded in forging a real family friendship. Unfortunately these feelings were, at best, short lived.


Starting with your campaign spokesmen’s “Judas Strategy,” employed when they twice disavowed me, and my contributions to your campaign, to the Washington Post, thereby lying to the people and the media, I witnessed that side of your personality that I had always believed was an invention of your political enemies. I continued with the erroneous assumption that it was only political expediency for your Senate campaign and the national Presidential campaign, that required less than honest candor in acknowledging our relationship because of the sensitivities generated by my anti-Communist misjudgments a quarter century ago. I even believed David Rosen’s and Jim Levin’s reassurances that after the election we could resume our budding friendship.


Just a few days after the events in Los Angeles I was forced to ignore your campaign’s gutless and insulting decision to return the $2,000 check I gave you as part of the June 8, luncheon commitment, and the insensitivity of your statements that you would not accept ANY contribution whatsoever from me. This statement was made only days after you received the largest individual campaign contribution to a single candidate ever recorded in American history! So, a month later when David Rosen begged me to further contribute $55,000 to an abortion rights group that you had committed to based on my commitment relating to the Spago lunch, I ignored my better judgment and the more than $1.5 million I had already contributed on your behalf, so that your word would not be compromised.


Thereafter, from November, 2000, I was preoccupied with the business and market issues that all internet related companies were dealing with, as well as more insidious and nefarious issues relating to actions taken by company management and others intent on ruining me and the company I founded. When your promised support for the first global broadcast of the Hollywood Christmas Parade we produced did not materialize, and the invitations offered to dinners and gatherings were withdrawn, and after making the final contribution on your behalf at David Rosen’s direction in October, the only communication I received from you, the President, or your intermediaries, was an irate e-mail from Jim Levin in November protesting my failure to make a $250,000 payment to the Clinton Library as I had committed to do in August.


Thereafter, the “dot com” meltdown of the last quarter of 2000, resulted in my company, Stan Lee Media, along with more than 230 others, going into bankruptcy and the usual fingerpointing between management and others regarding whose fault it was. In my case, because of the Washington Post articles about my Cuban and cocaine convictions from the late 1970’s, I became a vulnerable scapegoat by all those wishing to avoid responsibility for their willful misconduct.


Thus, in late February, after I had made numerous calls for several months to David Rosen about how you were going to report my contributions to the FEC to ensure their legality, I was shocked to discover through internet access to your campaign filings, that all my contributions to you and your campaign were not reported, that the only report, relating to the Hollywood Gala, was false as to the identity of the donor and the amount donated, and that you had thereby made me a co-conspirator with you and others in violating various Federal statutes and regulations.


This was the fatal blow to any vestiges of friendship and respect that I may have retained towards you and the President, and it is this final betrayal that has precipitated my new adversarial posture towards you both, and your co-conspirators. I am now required by my conscience and sense of fair play to demand that you abide by the laws you swore to defend and uphold, which includes the requirement set out in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations that you return all “illegal contributions within 30 days of determining the illegality.”

The accounting provided in the attached copy of my Federal Election Commission complaint shall also serve as my notice to you and your Senate Campaign Committee, of the amount of the direct, in-kind contribution I made to you and your Senate campaign, and no other, and of the statutory requirement you have to return such monies, which statute you have been in violation of since March 1, 2001, thirty days after the amended filing of your FEC report which through their false reports made my contributions illegal de jure.

Rather than perpetuating the signature Clinton ethic of denial, semantical and rhetorical responses to valid requests and questions, and stonewalling, it is time to accept your responsibility as a Federal elected official and do the right thing according to the letter of the law, the position your campaign spokespeople have taken, and natural laws of right and ethical conduct, and return the contributions I made, which you have by your collective actions, made illegal. Please direct your refund to my counsel at Judicial Watch.



Govern Yourself Accordingly,





Peter F. Paul