Hillary Clinton Dismissed as a Defendant in California Fundraising Dispute

A California state appeals court has upheld a previous ruling made in Los Angeles Superior Court which dismisses Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a civil lawsuit over the financing of a 2000 Hollywood fundraiser for her first senate campaign that was to honor the tenure of former President Bill Clinton. But the appeal judges also ruled that the plaintiff in the case may still be allowed to depose the former First Lady once discovery in the matter commences.

The plaintiff in the case, North Carolina businessman Peter Franklin Paul, had filed a civil suit in 2004 against Bill and Hillary Clinton and her 2000 New York U.S. Senate election committee to recover over one million dollars in expenses he claimed he incurred when putting together the event in Los Angeles which was billed as a 'Farewell Salute to President Clinton.'

He alleged in the original complaint that the former president later reneged on an oral agreement to become a spokesperson for Paul's internet animation company called 'Stan Lee Media,' so he filed the suit to recover the money that paid for the event which were taken from the company's funds.

The three judges for the Seventh Division of the Second Appellate District for California issued their brief October 16. It stated 'the orders granting Senator Clinton and Clinton for Senate's motion to strike and denying Paul's motion for leave to depose Senator Clinton are affirmed. Senator Clinton and Clinton for Senate are to recover their costs on appeal.'

Those motions which the judges upheld dismisses Mrs. Clinton from the lawsuit.

The judges also noted in their brief their refusal to review the video contents and transcript of a purported July 17, 2000 telephone call made between Paul, Stan Lee, Mrs. Clinton and several of her staffers in which certain financial details of the fundraiser were apparently discussed and acknowledged by the then senatorial candidate since the material was provided to the judges by the plaintiffs' attorney months after Paul had originally filed his appeal and reasons why it should be reversed to the original 2006 Superior Court ruling by LASC Judge Aurelio Munoz.