Why Isn't the Media Asking Hillary about the Clintons' Fraud Trial Next Week?

[Emit]

I wasn't even fully aware of this, and yet, it seems pretty substantial as far as the 'vetting' process is concerned, no?

Judge delays setting trial in Clinton fraud case
But accuser begins seeking sworn testimony from high-profile

~snip~

The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

~snip~

Sen. Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant, but Munoz already has made it clear he won't accept any attempts to block Sen. Clinton from serving as a material witness.

In court April 7, 2006, a Paul attorney told Munoz he "anticipated opposition to taking the deposition of Senator Clinton. I assume we'll be back to court on motions of that."

The judge replied: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall."

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in a deal with the president.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/breaking-news-bill-clintons-pe.php

[MarjorieG]

1. And library donations. IOU's to the Middle East?

[Emit]

2. IOU's to the ME?

I'm not up on that one, either. Shit. I must really be out of the loop.

Where's the media on this?

Why didn't George and Charlie ask these questions?

[Stephanie]

34. Well that is the REAL issue

And you phrase it perfectly, thanks.

[merh]

3. shit, where has this story been

Has MSM covered this or has it been well concealed while hillary whined that she was being piled on?

Time for some research on this -

[Emit]

4. My theory

(because I actually do recall skimming over something about this a while back, so I was sort of aware of it) is that it can't be boiled down into a simple, catchy sound bite.


What the heck, though? This is about her Senate race in 2000 -- and here's something: "Sen. Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant..."

Why? Why did she get dimissed?

[MonkeyFunk]

10. It's been all over FreeRepublic

the accuser is a known and proven liar. This case will go nowhere.

[grantcart]

13. your probably right but it is strange that it doesn't get as much play as Ayers which is

equally banal.

[Emit]

15. Bingo. And that's why I ask.

[merh]

17. I don't read free republic

[Emit]

39. Well, since I'm not all over FreeRepublic trying to dig up shit to sling at our Dems

then I had no clue the specifics. Whether the case will go nowhere, why hasn't Hillary been vetted for being involved with this slime bucket? Just sayin'.

[cali]

45. a known and proven liar who the Clintons were involved with.

[KittyWampus]

54. So you're saying Hillary & Bill were good buddies with a known a proven liar.

LOL

[Emit]

58. LOL, I'm sorry, but, this is all just so laughable

The response to this thread from supporters of Hillary is that, as your pithy post points out, the guy who brought this suit, whom Bill and Hillary were heavily involved with, is a known and proven liar, but, as noted by some poster below, it's not worth discussing because only the NewsMax and right wing nuts are discussing it -- the same ones, btw, that brought us Wright/Ayers/Muslim Garb/Rezko/...


Unf_ck&8gbelievable!

[MattBaggins]

64. Isn't it a hoot?

It reminds me of the Clinton's having Dick Morris in their inner circle. When he first went to Fox-jazeera; his whole shtick was "Bill's a slimeball, and I should know cause look he hired me". Morris makes my skin crawl and I can never understand why Bill would have worked with the creep.

Just the newest in a long line of slimeballs they will hire to get their dirty work done then pretend they don't know.

[Emit]

70. It really is

I'm pretty unfamiliar with all the stuff on the Clintons, having only been more politically 'aware' since the 2000 selection, but, my eyes are beginning to open. Interesting that so much of the criticism about the Clintons has been attributed to right wing nuts. It makes it convenient to shield any real criticism of them -- they can just call the accusers part of the vast right wing conspiracy and move on.

Is that what Hillary means when she claims she's been vetted and Obama hasn't?

[dchill]

35. They need to save it for after they...

swing the nomination for her. THEN they'll use it.

[Andy823]

5. Simple really

The MSM is owned by rich republicans who want her to be the nominee. They will keep this kind of thing out of the news all they can, but will bring it back if she were to become the nominee during the GE. Right now they want to tear Obama apart so Hillary can win so they keep anything like this as quite as possible, hoping it will blow over.

[cbayer]

6. OMG Emit. Please don't embarass yourself with this.

Please do a little research on this before you take this on.

I feel pretty confident that you will look like a fool if you do not.

[Emit]

7. Why, what is it about?

They have a trial next week. This is posted on TPM. Tell me what you know about this.

[rug]

9. This is who's bringing the suit.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/mission.shtml

[Emit]

18. And who exactly do you think is instigating all the Ayers/Rezko/Wright shit?

I thought Hillary had been vetted and now we have this shit?

What makes this any less valid of a discussion than any of the stuff flung at Obama?

[rug]

23. Have fun with your Paul research.

[Emit]

26. And you with your Ayers, Rezko, Wright crap.

[merh]

11. See, this is why they aren't trusted

if this is no big deal, why is there no "legit" coverage of it as "no big deal?" - most articles are found on the conservative sites

here is a DU thread on it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5226087&mesg_id=5226087

[Stephanie]

33. there was legit coverage - search the NY papers

Not saying he is legit, but it WAS covered.

[Emit]

36. If the tables were reversed

Obama would be toast with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s

[merh]

38. From what I have read, he is pretty creepy

but that leads one to ask about the judgment of the Clintons. It appears he did through that William Jefferson Clinton Gala, why on earth would they have become involved with him in the first place.

[Emit]

41. Yes, he's sitting right next to Chelsea, Bill and Hillary at that event he produced

and the 20/20 piece shows him and Hillary at one of the fundraisers he had for her. She said she didn't recall meeting him and that it was a frivolous law suit.

Why hasn't this been scrutinized more -- like you mentioned, why were they involved with him in the first place. I agree, merh. Doesn't that speak to judgment and character on the Clintons' part?

[merh]

48. He had that dubuios record long before he offered to support

the Clintons' efforts and/or bring bill on as the "rainmaker" (looks like he did bring rain, but not the type this fella wanted).

And with all of his faults, I do believe our justice dept is capable of prosecuting and tormenting someone on command just as I believe they can overlook the crimes of those they don't want to pursue or are told to not go after. The DOJ has been politicized.

[cbayer]

12. I am not going to do your research for you.

Just google the plaintiff in this case. My only advice is to inform yourself about this case before you try to use it as a weapon. Peace.

[Emit]

14. Is it really less valid than Ayers or Rezko? And, if so, why?

That's really more my point. I'm not sleuthing here and did not ask you to "do my research." But, if you can kindly explain why this is such a non-issue and we shouldn't be discussing it, I'd honestly like to know why.

[cbayer]

20. The guy is a scumbag. He has nothing.

He has been discredited over and over and over. Please just take the time to read the wiki article on him. I really don't think you want to go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul

[Emit]

21. Scumbag as Hannity is?

Are only scumbags are allowed to set the agenda when vetting Obama, but not when it comes to Hillary? Do we not have a right to discuss what they might have up their sleave if by some slim chance Hillary pulls this win out of her bag of tricks?

[cbayer]

22. Of course you have the right to discuss it.

I am just telling you that you need to look into this before you try to make it an issue.

This guy is scum. Period. If you try to legitimatize him, you will look very, very foolish.

[Emit]

25. Who is legitimizing him?

I have no idea who the heck he is and really don't give a damn. My point is, why is this not an issue but Rezko, et al is?

[creeksneakers2]

49. For one thing, its very old news

Paul started making his accusations back in 2000. He was discredited then. His civil suit has been thrown out numerous times. Paul keeps appealing. I don't see any report about a trial date scheduled at the right wing propaganda sites, even Paul's and Judicial Watches'. They only say that a trial date WILL be scheduled.

A couple of years ago, the Justice Department took the unusual step of filing a criminal case against Hillary's fundraiser who was involved with Paul. Justice almost never files campaign finance complaints because they are handled by the FEC, so there was an appearance of selective political prosecution. The right wing issued numerous lies about the case along with the often repeated promise - "This will be the one that gets Hillary." The trial resulted in an acquittal. The media covered the trial.

The FEC investigated the case and and issued a $35,000 fine against Hillary's campaign chairman for underreporting Paul's donations. No other wrongdoing was found.

Paul's current civil case is a breach of contract type complaint. According to Paul, he was promised that Bill Clinton would partner with him on a specific business venture after Clinton left office. By the time Bill Clinton left office, Peter Paul was a fugitive from justice in Brazil and the company Bill was supposed to partner for was folded. There was no way Bill Clinton could have fulfilled any obligation under the contract. Paul claims Clinton could have partnered for another new business but that was not what was expressed in the contract, if there even was a contract, since that allegation rests on Paul's word, and Paul is a convicted career con man whose word can't be trusted. There is no way Paul could prevail with his civil suit.

The scandal lives on because right wingers want to harass the Clintons every way possible and forever. The case gets attention on right wing kook fringe sites like Newsmax or World Net Daily, but those sites are not a credible source of information. Most of the time when a right wing media outlet claims "The mainstream media won't cover this" the reason why the mainstream media isn't covering it is because the story isn't true. "Mainstream media won't cover this" should be read as a signal that whatever the right wing is saying has no validity. If the mainstream media gets its hands on anything against the Clintons, even if its just nuts accusing the Clintons of something, the media goes into a feeding frenzy.

[Emit]

51. Future Hearings 04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Case Summary




Please make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Hearings
04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

Parties

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent

MACHTINGER LEONARD A. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

NORMAN JAN B. - Associated Counsel

NORRIS STERLING E. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

PAUL PETER F. - Plaintiff/Petitioner

ROSEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent

SMITH GARY - Defendant/Respondent

TONKEN AARON - Defendant/Respondent

WILLAMS & CONNOLLY - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order) ...

~snip~

[creeksneakers2]

63. A hearing is not a trial. Is a conference a hearing?

Paul has been appealing the case for years. A status conference could be about whether or not to continue the case, since Hillary Clinton and her campaign committee are no longer defendants.

I was wrong that the case was filed as a breach of contract but the facts the original allegations rest on are as given by me. According to FactCheck.org, all that remains of the case is a complaint that persons involved with the Clintons lured away one of Paul's investors.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html

Its up in the air if there even will be a status conference. Paul was originally represented by Judicial Watch, a group who uses the civil courts to endlessly persecute the Clintons with frivolous suits. Paul and Judicial Watch had a falling out though, and Paul sued Judicial Watch. Paul alleges among other transgressions that Judicial Watch left him sitting in a Brazilian prison.
Paul was subsequently represented by a group called The United States Justice Foundation.

From factcheck.org:

Paul is now represented by another conservative legal group, the United States Justice Foundation, after having a falling-out with, and suing, Judicial Watch. Paul contended that Judicial Watch used his case as a fund raising tool for itself while doing little to help him legally, which the group denies. USJF is behind the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (HillCAP), a Web site that features court documents, news articles and other material related to Paul's complaints against the Clintons. According to the Associated Press, the HillCAP Web site is operated by two conservatives who were instrumental in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site in 2004, Robert Hahn and Scott Swett.

So the case was taken up by a wingnut law firm but now posted at the wingnut law firm site:

http://forum.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=380&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Paul v. Clinton: Update on Paul v. Clinton
Posted by: Admin on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 06:17 AM PST

NOTICE: Effective Feb. 11, 2008, the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) no longer represents Mr. Peter Paul in the Paul v. Clinton litigation or in any other legal proceeding

So I don't know if Paul can find another wingnut firm to represent him or if he can afford a lawyer with the money he's made from his slanderous video about the Clintons. Even if Paul has money from the film, I don't believe he'd spend it on the frivolous suit if he has an option to put it in his pocket.

[Emit]

66. You are correct in that I should have used the word Hearing instead of Trial in my OP

and I'd change it if I could.

I'm not sure I even want to wade through that link to factcheck.org that you posted. It is such a convoluted mess. But the sheer volume of it all and the fact that hearings are still being scheduled confirms my original point in the OP. She's not fully vetted, as she claims, because the right wing are obviously going to use this, and there a lot of holes here (e.g., why did they get involved with this man to begin with?, Why did their campaign fail to vet Paul?). Just because this guy's a sleaze bag shouldn't preclude questions about this from being asked, especially if they are going to ask Obama about the shit they do. Other questions should have been asked, too, like about Penn meeting with the ambassador to Colombia and working both sides of the AFTA issue, and $ 800,000 payment to Bill for Columbia free trade speech.

By the way, for what it's worth, the person who wrote that lengthy piece at factcheck is Vinca Novak, the same one who tipped off Rove's lawyer in the Plame case:

On December 2, 2005, The New York Times reported that Novak tipped off Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, about the testimony that one of her colleagues at Time Magazine, Matthew Cooper, was giving to the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. The tip off may have caused Rove to change his testimony <1>, and saved him from being indicted on charges of perjury. Rove attributed the changed testimony to the grand jury to faulty memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveca_Novak

I have to hand it to the Clintons. Most of the messes that have surrounded them end up being so long and drawn out, so convoluted and clouded, that it is difficult to find any truth in the matter.

[Emit]

68. wrong place

[Emit]

52. That anyone can just dismiss this solely because the only ones covering it were right wing sites is

laughable. First, because it is untrue that only right wing sites 'reported' on this, and second, because all the garbage being hurled at Obama and being perpetuated by Hillary herself and her supporters have all originated at Fox News and WorldNet Daily. How many times have we seen links to those places here? But we're supposed to ignore this case, which is an actual case and was never 'thrown out' but instead was continued, because only the right wing sites are discussing it? Incredible.

edit spelling

[creeksneakers2]

65. I dismiss it because I've been following the case for years

and I know what a crock it all is. I never said only right wing outlets ever reported on the case. The case has been covered by media outlets that aren't right wing but only right wing kook sites say a date for trial will be set. A document above says only a conference on status of the case is scheduled. I don't know what that's about and wouldn't take the word of World Net Daily or Peter Paul about anything , so I see no proof that the case will go to trial as alleged here.

I don't see many links here to World Net Daily or Fox News. I'm not certain posting one is even within the rules. I know linking to those sites is a violation of social norms here.

I haven't said to ignore the case because its popular on wingnut sites. I say to ignore it because its a bogus case and has been exposed as such many times before.

The case was thrown out and appeals of the dismissal were rejected. The case was originally tossed because the plaintiff was a fugitive from justice at the time and could not be granted standing in court to sue. The case has been refiled and rejected and appealed since 2001. If you'd like links I can supply them.

I don't say its wrong to ever discuss something that been on a right wing site but its a terrible waste of time to follow up on information gained from them. Only one story in 20 has any truth to it at all. The other 19 times the stories are fraudulent. Its time consuming to debunk them, and there are better uses of time, so its best just to ignore everything from right wing kook sites.

[Emit]

67. "...so its best just to ignore everything from right wing kook sites..."

And yet, that's is exactly who is perpetuating all the crap about Obama. Do you not see the irony here?

Just today a poster posted Larry Kudlow from National Review Online in an effort to attack Obama. I have seen links to Krauthhammer, Fox, WorldNet Daily, Lyndon LaRouchers -- and many more. We now have it confirmed that Hannity was the source of ABC's debate questions concerning Ayers, and Hannity/Fox had been the originator of the Wright thing, as well.

"The case was thrown out and appeals of the dismissal were rejected."

Do you have a link to this? -- if it was, I would like to cut to the chase and read about that specifically instead of visiting all the nut wing sites. Thanks in advance if you can provide that specific info.

[Emit]

24. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea all attended this event that Paul produced

The "Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton" and fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

Why were they there if he was a drug dealing criminal?

That's all according to your link, btw.

[cbayer]

27. He produced it.

You can't vet everyone that does everything for you.

This guy is scum. Once they found out, they backed off very, very quickly.

BTW, I don't buy the Ayers garbage either. I don't buy the Wright, Ferrora, bitter, anti-moveon, etc, etc., either. It's all garbage.

This is all garbage. Peter Paul is just the worst of it.

[Emit]

28. cbayer, I know you to be a fair poster and I understand your point

Coming from you, I know you have good intentions.

However, the point in my post is not to throw this out as an attack on Hillary, but as I noted in my OP, why isn't this being asked about in national debates, on the M$M, why is Hillary saying she has been vetted when she obviously has stuff out there like this? I saw this in a link on TPM (not a right wing site)

I know you have written here about being prepared for the kinds of smears and accusations that will be used against our democratic nominee in the upcoming GE. Does this not count as one regardless of whether this guy is slime? Won't those pictures and videos of the Clintons sitting in the audience of that Gala be pretty damning for Hillary?

[cbayer]

29. Your point is valid.

However, not even the RW is going to try and make this an issue because this guy is so transparently bad. No one will use him as a legitimate source of anything. They can try, but it is so easily dismissed that I would predict they will not.

[Emit]

37. cbayer, I just watched the 20/20 piece on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s

And I have to say that regardless of what sleaze this guy may be, this is a big deal. Here folks have been 'vetting' Obama with all kinds of crap associations with borderline and overt racism, ties to "terrorists," etc. and we see here that the Clintons may very well have been involved in some underhanded dealing with this guy. Bizarre as it is, that doesn't mean it is not necessarily true.

[City Lights]

55. Thanks for pointing out that 20/20 covered this, Emit.

I've heard about this, but didn't really take it seriously since it's been a web-only story for the most part. I had no idea it was covered on _abc. May be something to this after all.

[guruoo]

8. Hit job? Naaa, couldn't be!

:rofl:

[quantass]

16. Backlogged with other Hillary-get-tos like Colombia, Penn, and the stuff listed above int the replys

[FrenchieCat]

19. There is so much garbage before that .......

till it's almost overwhelming.

The pukes won't mind have a go of it though.

[Emit]

42. Well, they are obviously still collecting more garbage on her

Anyone who thinks she's fully vetted is, IMHO, naive or in denial. They will always find shit, or manufacture it if it's not readily available.


I have to say, however, that regardless of what a slime bucket this Paul guy is, the story has more 'substance' than pretty much all the manufactured shit they've been tossing at Obama. I mean, :wtf: were Hill and Bill thinking getting involved with this guy?

[FrenchieCat]

30. That might affect the Vote result in PA. Wouldn't want that, now....

would we? (wink-wink)

[bhikkhu]

31. Here is a youtube link - ABC roasting the Clintons

Ironical, one might say now.

20/20 did a ratings-fest type piece on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s

on edit: the whole things stinks, and I have no opinion as to where the truth lies. There are other and more incisive youtube productions on this, but again the irony of an ABC production is apt. They suck, and those in the Hillary camp who think they have a new best friend need to wake up.

[Emit]

32. A story about a hustler who says he was out-hustled by the hustler in chief

omg :crazy:

[Major Hogwash]

40. Because they want to hide the fact that Bubba is a liar.

When this story first broke, they tried to keep it to the back pages of the newspapers.
Clearly, there is something there, this time at least, because they have tried to keep this case from coming to trial for over 6 years - delaying the trial 5 times.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. I am guessin because no one in Hollywood likes the guy.

[Emit]

44. I'm not sure I follow

No one's asking questions about this because no one in Hollywood likes this guy? What does that have to do with vetting Hillary?

[Perry Logan]

46. Normal people are bored with bullshit accusations against the Clintons.

[Emit]

53. So this trial, which is scheduled for next week, is bullshit?

But the Wright/Rezko/Farrakhan/Obama is a Muslim/Obama dressed in African Garb/Hamas/Ayers/Bittergate/Obama marched with Farrakhan at the Million Man March/Fingergate thing is all okay with you?

[bigtree]

59. if you support this crap against the Clintons, you have no credibility at all in complaining

. . . about the other hyped crap you listed.

[Emit]

61. lol, the irony!

[Vinca]

47. Why that could have been a topic of the faux debate. How curious. nt

[Emit]

50. It very well could have been since ABC's 20/20 had already done a story on it

and the court date is next week.

I'm not advocating that the debate should have been any worse than it was with any more petty distractions. But, why ask Obama about every tenuous 'association' he has, but not ask Hillary about a court case she and Bill have next week? I just don't get it.

[KittyWampus]

56. the court date's next week? Oh MY!

[City Lights]

57. Great point. A story covered on their own network ignored by their

eggspurt hosts in favor of questions supplied to them by some a-hole over at Fox Noise.

[Emit]

62. I guess that's why I remain dumbfounded as to why this hasn't been discussed more.

:shrug:

Edited to add, or brought up in the 'debate'

[City Lights]

71. Perhaps they'd prefer that Hillary be the nominee.

Just a guess, of course.

[DemsUnited]

60. Look, what's important about this isn't whether or not it's a bogus

charge. Given what a sleazebag Paul is, and the fact that he's tried to push this case for years and gotten no where, I'm pretty sure the whole thing is trumped up and ridiculous.

But if at the April 25th hearing the Judge actually sets a trial date, with Bill Clinton as defendant and Hillary Clinton potentially being called as witness, then no one can deny for one second that this isn't going to turn into a three ring circus.

[Emit]

72. Yes, we could have a three ring circus if a trial date is set

Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention from the M$M, but alas, they are likely bored with the Clintons now that they have fresh meat.

I think that is worthy of some vetting.

Another question that this brings up is, why were the Clintons so heavily involved with this man who was a known sleaze bag? If Hillary wants to play the guilt by association game, she should look no further than her own campaign before she starts casting aspersions.

[Emit]

69. ** Correction to the OP: It's a Hearing not a Trial

Future Hearings 04/25/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Case Summary




Please make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

[quantass]

73. yup