• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

a FniCS OFFICE fcOUHl Or /-.cr'l-Al RPCONO UlST, RECEIVED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA jy^ g ^ IQ&J c,erk SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 7JOS,=PH^LAN£. PETER F. PAUL, Appeal No. B191066 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Superior Court vs. No. BC 304174) WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, (Honorable Aurelio N. Munoz, Judge) Defendant, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., Defendants and Respondents. DECLARATION OF D. COLETTE WILSON, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ADMIT NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Gary G. Kreep (SBN 066482) D. Colette Wilson (SBN 123112) UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION 932 D St., Suite 3 Ramona, CA 92065 Tel. (760)788-6624 Fax (760) 788-6414 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant I, D. COLETTE WILSON, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California, and I am co-counsel for the Plaintiff and Appellant in the within action. I am over the age of 21 years, and I make this declaration in support of Appellant's Motion to Admit New Documentary Evidence. The following facts are true of my own knowledge and, if called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On November 9, 2006, based on information provided to me by my client, Peter Paul, I telephoned Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan "Jed" Davis, in the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, located in Brooklyn, New York. Assistant U.S. Attorney Davis is the prosecutor of Mr. Paul in United States v. Paul, et al, Case No. CR 01-636, on one count of violation of 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)(5). I informed Mr. Davis that I wished to obtain copies of any videotapes in the government's possession that were delivered by Stan Lee Media, Inc. to the government or that were otherwise obtained by the government in connection with Peter Paul's criminal prosecution. I explained that these videotapes were relevant to Mr. Paul's civil fraud case against Hillary Clinton and others. 3. I further explained to Mr. Davis that Mr. Paul had advised me that his criminal lawyer, Joseph Conway, had made repeated requests to him for 2 copies of the videotapes that the government had made available to the other defendants, but that Mr. Conway had advised Mr. Paul he had been unsuccessful in obtaining them. Since the tapes at issue were Mr. Paul's property, I asked whether and how it would be possible for Mr. Paul to regain possession of them. 4. In response, Mr. Davis confirmed that the U.S. Attorney's office had in its possession, pursuant to a search warrant, numerous videotapes originally belonging to Peter Paul. He told me that, due to the fact that Mr. Paul had not yet been sentenced, these videotapes were part of an "ongoing" criminal matter, and the originals could not be returned to Mr. Paul at this time. Mr. Davis assured me that, as long as I could represent to him in a letter that these videotapes had not previously been provided to either Judicial Watch (Mr. Paul's prior criminal counsel) or Mr. Conway (Mr. Paul's present criminal counsel), that there would be no problem in his arranging to have the tapes copied at our expense. 5. I faxed and mailed such a letter to Mr. Davis on November 16, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In accordance with our November 9 conversation, I requested that Mr. Davis arrange to have the tapes copied at our expense so that we would obtain them the earliest 3 possible. However, four months went by, and I received no response from Mr. Davis. 6. I telephoned Mr. Davis' phone number numerous times over the succeeding four months in order to follow up on my request to obtain copies of Mr. Paul's videotapes in the possession of the U.S. Attorney's office. However, I was never able to reach Mr. Davis directly - only his voicemail. Despite the fact that I left a voicemail message each time I attempted to reach him, Mr. Davis never returned my calls. 7. Eventually, on March 29, 2007,1 received a call from Meredith Weill, a woman identifying herself as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney's Office, who said she was calling at Mr. Davis' direction. She told me she had just received several boxes from storage containing the Peter Paul materials, including a substantial number of videotapes. 8. A few days later, on April 2, Ms. Weill emailed me a detailed inventory list of 82 tapes, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. I reviewed the list and told her I was interested in obtaining copies of all of the tapes on the list. Ms. Weill explained that she would arrange to have the videotapes sent to a vendor, "Dupe Coop," and that I would be able to make my own arrangements with John Palermo at Dupe Coop to pay for and obtain copies of the videotapes. 4 9. I immediately began making those arrangements with Dupe Coop, but several days went by, and John Palermo advised that no authorization letter had yet been provided from the U.S. Attorney's office permitting Dupe Coop to release copies of the tapes to us. 10. I therefore called Ms. Weill on April 9 to find out what the delay was. Ms. Weill informed me that there was a "problem" releasing the tapes to us, that someone "higher up" in her office had stopped her from authorizing it. Based on my conversation with Ms. Weill on April 10,1 faxed and mailed Mr. Davis a letter reciting the history of my efforts to obtain copies of Mr. Paul's tapes and asking for an explanation of what could possibly be the reason for not authorizing us to obtain a copy of Mr. Paul's own tapes. A copy of my April 10, 2007, letter to Mr. Davis is attached as Exhibit 3. 11. The following morning, Mr. Davis called me at my office. Without ever explaining what the problem had been, Mr. Davis informed me that the tapes were already at Dupe Coop and that an authorization letter had now been emailed to them, allowing us to obtain whatever copies we desired. 12. I was able to arrange with Dupe Coop that same day, April 11, to make DVD copies of all 82 of the tapes listed on the inventory and to then ship the DVD copies directly to Peter Paul so that he could review them. 5 13. In reviewing the copy of the videotape listed as No. 78 in Exhibit 2, Mr. Paul came across footage of a conference call between himself, Stan Lee, and Aaron Tonken on the one hand (all on speakerphone), and Hillary Clinton, on the other. As set forth in the concurrently filed declaration of Peter Paul, the conference call on the videotape was a conversation he himself filmed on or about July 17, 2000. 14. Mr. Paul sent me an email containing a link to this footage, which I reviewed. The taped footage is approximately five minutes long and begins after the conference call with Mrs. Clinton is already under way. I arranged to have a written transcript prepared of the call, which I edited for accuracy. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct written transcript of the entire call with Mrs. Clinton as captured on the videotape. 15. Mr. Paul sent the DVD copy of videotape No. 78, as prepared by Dupe Coop, to a film-editing technician, Stephen Petty. I arranged with Mr. Petty for him to copy onto another DVD just the excerpt of the five-minute footage of the conference call with Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Petty did so, and he then sent me the DVD I had asked him to prepare. 16. I reviewed the DVD that Mr. Petty sent me, and I confirmed that it contained all of the footage of the conference call as reflected in the transcript attached as Exhibit 4. 6 17. I then arranged with a film copying and editing vendor in Escondido, "Sentimental Memories," to make duplicate DVD copies of the DVD I had received from Mr. Petty. 18. I have personally checked each of the DVD copies prepared by Sentimental Memories to verify that it contains the entire five-minute footage of the conference call as reflected in the transcript attached as Exhibit 4 and to ensure that the DVD plays correctly. All of the copies have been labeled "July 2000 Conference Call - Hillary Clinton & Peter Paul, Stan Lee & Aaron Tonken." 19. Each and every one of the copies, labeled "July 2000 Conference Call - Hillary Clinton & Peter Paul, Stan Lee & Aaron Tonken," that is being submitted to the Court and served on the interested parties to this appeal is a true and correct copy of the entire video footage of the conference call between Hillary Clinton and Peter Paul, Stan Lee and Aaron Tonken contained on Video No. 78 obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, as set forth above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this of June, 2007, at Ramona, California. D. Colette Wilson 7 Exhibit"!" November 16, 2006 BY FAX TO (718) 254-7499 AND THEN BY MAIL TO: QOPY Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District New York 147PierpontSt.

Load more

  30

Copy Link