Hillary Clinton greets Peter Paul with a kiss upon arrival at 2000 Hollywood gala
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.
“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.
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.”