-Caveat Lector- http://www.judicialwatch.org/pressrelease/FECcomplaint.htm March 23, 2001 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Office of the General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 Re: Complaint Against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Dear Sir/Madam: Judicial Watch, Inc., (hereinafter �Judicial Watch�) is a non-profit, public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. Judicial Watch, in the public interest, hereby submits this complaint to the Federal Election Commission against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York State. Specifically, Judicial Watch alleges Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in violation of the provisions of 2 U.S.C. � 431(2) and 2 U.S.C. � 441a of the Federal Election Campaign Act (�FECA�), which limit the amount of contributions any federal candidate can receive. The FEC publication Supporting Federal Candidates: A Guide for Citizens, define the term �contribution� as: �donations of checks or currency, donated items or services, purchases of fund-raising tickets and items, loans, endorsements and guarantees of bank loans and advances of personal funds.� [1] (emphasis added). 2 U.S.C. � 431(8) defines the term �contribution� to include: � any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.� (Emphasis added). Senator Clinton was a candidate for federal elective office within the meaning of the FECA as of May 16, 1999, and her conduct must be taken into account from that date forward. Hillary Rodham Clinton as both Candidate and United States Senator has accepted gifts from constituents and others totaling over $190,000.00.[2] These gifts are reported to include items of furniture, artwork, china, flatware, apparel, electronics, and lighting. Ms. Denise Rich[3], the estranged wife of Mr. Marc Rich, gave $70,000 to help fund Hillary Clinton�s Senate Campaign and gifts such as two coffee tables and two chairs valued at over $7,375. Mr. Marc Rich received a pardon from Senator Clinton�s husband, President Clinton[4], in what appears to be an illegal, unethical quid pro quo. The House Committee on Government Reform is conducting an investigation into the pardon of Marc Rich. The Committee recently questioned Ms. Denise Rich on the pardon of her ex-husband and gifts that she gave to former President Clinton or to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the matter of both questions Ms. Denise Rich asserted her privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and refused to answer questions submitted by the Committee on Government Reform. See Exhibit 2, attached. Ms. Denise Rich�s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, coupled with her lack of cooperation and other evasive behavior lead to an inference that, in fact, Ms. Rich�s contributions to the Clintons were in exchange for the pardon of Marc Rich. See S.E.C. v. Netelkos, 592 F.Supp.906 (D.C.N.Y. 1984); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-319 (1975) (In civil cases, courts may draw adverse inferences from witnesses� invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.). In addition, courts may also draw adverse inferences against a party based upon the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege by an agent or employee. The factors courts consider in determining whether to draw an adverse inference against a party based upon a Fifth Amendment invocation by another are: (1) the nature of the witness� relationship with the loyalty to the party; (2) the degree of control the party has vested in the witness with regard to the facts and subject matter of litigation; (3) whether the witness� assertion of the privilege advances the interests of the party; and (4) whether the witness was a key figure in the litigation and played a controlling role in the underlying facts. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123-24 (2nd Cir. 1997). In LiButti, the Court emphasized that the above circumstances may be unique to a particular case, and that �the overarching concern is fundamentally whether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all the circumstances and will advance the search for truth.� Id. at 124; see also RAD Services, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 808 F.2d 271 (3rd Cir. 1986). �An adverse inference may be given significant weight because silence when one would be expected to speak is a powerful persuader.� Libutti v. United States, 178 F.3d 114, 120 (2nd Cir. 1999) (citing United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). The law could not be more clear and strong--adverse factual inferences must be drawn against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton based upon Ms. Denise Rich�s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, regarding her gifts to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. In addition to a Congressional investigation, a criminal investigation by prosecutors in New York has been opened regarding the pardon of Marc Rich and whether he bought a pardon by donating gifts to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton through his ex-wife, Ms. Denise Rich. The United States attorney responsible for the investigation is Mary Jo White, a Clinton appointee, which raises the level of doubt regarding the merit of such investigation or whether this investigation is simply a political spin to protect Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. An e-mail dated December 19, 2000 from Robert Fink (Marc Rich�s Attorney) to Avner Azulay, the Director of Marc Rich�s foundation in Tel Aviv (also a former Mossad operative) mentions �Hillary� and that she is on very friendly terms with Avraham Burg, the Speaker of the Knesset. The subject matter discusses the possibility of having Avrahm Burg call �Potus� (President of the United States) or �Hillary� on behalf of the Marc Rich petition. See Exhibit 5, attached. Another e-mail dated December 26, 2000 from Robert Fink to Jack Quinn (Marc Rich�s Attorney) discusses that Ms. Denise Rich �is the best person to call Hillary.� In an additional e-mail that same day from Robert Fink to Jack Quinn, the �HRC option� is discussed as the only option to have �real potential� and that there would be �peril� if not handled properly. See Exhibit 6, attached. Judicial Watch understands that the FEC has strict rules and regulations regarding disclosure. FEC publication �Supporting Federal Candidates: A Guide for Citizens� states that Federal election laws requires candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees who receive contributions in excess of $200 from any individual to disclose the name of the contributor. Since the FEC�s definition of a �contribution� is clear and such gifts such as furniture were not disclosed, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in violation of FEC rules and regulations regarding disclosure. It would be naive to justify the actions of Ms. Denise Rich as her simply making a normal contribution since she and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently violated the intent of the limit of campaign contributions and such donations were given in exchange for a Presidential Pardon of Marc Rich. Any actions by Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the petition for a Presidential Pardon for Marc Rich can clearly been seen as an �offset to the contributions� by Denise Rich. Also, as reported by the Washington Times and Washington Post, Hugh Rodham, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton�s brother, received almost $400,000 for services regarding the pardon of Glenn Braswell and the commutation of Carlos Vignali. Glen Braswell was pardoned by former President Clinton and the sentence of Carlos Vignali was commuted. Mr. Vignali was serving a 15-year term for distribution of illegal narcotics. Mr. Vignali�s father, Horacio Vignali, contributed nearly $200,000 to the Democratic Party. Federal prosecutors were in opposition to the Vignali Commutation, but despite their pleas of opposition his sentence was still commuted. [5] Senator Clinton maintains a close relationship with her brother Hugh Rodham, which has been noted by the media, including speaking for his senate campaign in 1994. It would be naive to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton was unaware of Hugh Rodham�s pardon activities. Senator Clinton also indicated in her February 22, 2001 press conference that the $400,000 Hugh Rodham received was being returned. On March 4, 2001, Attorney Nancy Luque, who is representing Hugh Rodham, announced that Hugh Rodham has returned only $300,000 of the money he received for his services. One can only be left with the question as to what happened to the missing $100,000. The concept can be built that because of Hillary Rodham Clinton�s close relationship with Hugh Rodham and her lack of credibility regarding the return of such money, it�s likely Hillary Rodham Clinton herself benefitted financially from the money Hugh Rodham received. This matter should also be investigated, especially in light the other brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Tony Rodham is involved in the scandal. [6] See Exhibit 7, attached. In a press conference with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton held on February 22, 2001 in the Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton made the statement, �Oh, you know, as I have said in the past, when it became apparent around Christmas that people knew the president was considering pardons, there were many, many people who spoke to me or, you know, asked me to pass on information to the White House Counsel�s Office. I�ve already said that I did that , and I did. There were many, many people who had an interest, a friend, a relative, but it was all passed on to the White House Counsel�s Office, and they along with the president, made the decisions.� Senator Clinton�s statements in her press conference clearly point out that she was aware of pardon requests. As reported by the media, William Cunningham III, Mrs. Clinton�s treasurer during her Senate Campaign, has been implicated regarding the Presidential Pardon of Robert Clinton Fain and James Lowell Manning, who were convicted on tax charges. Mr. Cunningham was paid $4,000 for his services regarding the pardon application of Fain and Manning. [7] The FEC also has a serious obligation to investigate another apparent illegal, unethical quid pro quo surrounding Senator Clinton�s involvement in the clemency grants of four men from the Hasidic community of New Square, Rockland County, New York. Apparently, after receiving promises from Candidate Clinton that she would support clemency for the Hasidim, Candidate Clinton received 99% of the community�s votes (1,400 to 12 votes for Mr. Lazio). Remarkably, the rest of New York�s Hasidic community voted overwhelmingly in favor of Candidate Clinton�s opponent.[8] The clemency grants were for men convicted of cheating the federal government of approximately 40 million dollars in student aid grants for the needy. In addition to promising support for Hillary Clinton�s Senate candidacy, the leaders of New Square met with Mrs. Clinton, one of the meetings being in the White House, where it was likely they discussed the quid pro quo arrangement. The evidence shows that Senator Clinton was the only U.S. Senator involved in the pardon process, receiving financial and other remuneration from the petitioners and/or their agents. The commutations by former President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton�s role are also reportedly under criminal investigation. Senator Clinton took her oath of office and assumed her official duties on January 3, 2001. She reportedly claimed and took direct personal possession of approximately $190,000 worth of gift items, for her personal use and enjoyment, on or about January 20, 2001 � seventeen days into office and nearly two years since becoming a candidate for elective federal office. Senator Clinton�s behavior in this matter is so outrageous as to compel even the Washington Post to opine in their lead editorial of January 24, 2001 that �they have no capacity for embarrassment. Words like shabby and tawdry come to mind. They don�t begin to do it justice.� Judicial Watch is a 501 (c)(3) not-for-profit public interest organization. One of its purposes is to provide the public with information which exposes government activities that are contrary to the law. Judicial Watch is, an educational foundation, as well as a law firm, which uses several mechanisms for the dissemination of the information it acquires, and operates to ensure that this information will be made available to the public on a daily basis: Judicial Watch, as a press entity itself, produces several press releases each week. The Judicial Watch Newsletter has a monthly circulation of over 300,000 copies nationwide. * Judicial Watch maintains a website on which people can view copies of, among other things, FOIA documents, press releases, responsive documents, deposition transcripts and court opinions. This website is viewed by over 20,000 people per day on average, and on a few occasions, had logged up to 1,000,000 visitors in a single day. * Over 60,000 people subscribe to our �Infonet� listserve for daily updates on our lawsuits, FOIA requests, investigations and public education programs. * Judicial Watch is involved in the production and broadcast of a twice weekly one hour news and information television program. Judicial Watch Report, is seen across the country. * Judicial Watch produces its own weekly radio program, The Judicial Watch Report, which airs nationwide on 36 stations and on the Internet. Judicial Watch disseminates information it obtains through this medium as well. *Judicial Watch�s Chairman has been invited to testify before Congressional committees as an expert witness on legal matters, including, but not limited to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. * Judicial Watch�s Chairman and other employees frequently appear on nationally broadcast radio and television programs to provide information, analysis and commentary concerning government corruption and other legal issues. * Judicial Watch has been credited by Courts, the Congress and various media outlets on several occasions for uncovering information and documents concerning government corruption, illegal and/or inappropriate activities, and documented instances of government attempts to �stonewall� requests for information and accountability in the public interest.[9] * Judicial Watch hosts and sponsors conferences and rallies as public education forums for the dissemination of the information it acquires. For example, Judicial Watch hosted an Ethics in Government 2000 Conference at the Washington Hilton on October 20-21, 2000. In short, Judicial Watch�s efforts to expose government corruption make news on almost a daily basis, and it functions, in part, as a member of the media. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton�s failure to properly disclose contributions through the FEC by Ms. Denise Rich and the services provided for such contributions presents an attempt to keep public information private. Judicial Watch and the American public are entitled to such information and Judicial Watch is an instrument for providing information to the American public. The cover-up of information by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton provides information injury to Judicial Watch as such information would have been provided to the public by Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch has proven before that we have �informational standing.� Judicial Watch demonstrated that the DNC and the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaign were required under FECA to report � offsets to contributions,� �contribution refunds� and other �disbursements� to the FEC, which the FEC in turn was obligated to make public. The sale of seats on Department of Commerce trade missions, effectively coopted by the DNC and the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaign and sold to donors in exchange for campaign contributions, were �offsets to contributions,� �contribution refunds� or other disbursements� that had to be reported under FECA. Considering all the above circumstances, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Senator Clinton�s acceptance of gifts and campaign contributions were in exchange for the pardons her husband, Bill Clinton, bestowed upon Marc Rich and the Hasidic Jews, among others. This bribery scheme is part of a pattern of similar conduct. Indeed, in the �Chinagate� scandal, Nolanda Hill testified that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind behind selling seats on Department of Commerce trade missions for campaign contributions.[10] Judicial Watch, in the public interest, respectfully requests your prompt investigation of these clear violations of law by Senator Clinton. Thank you for you attention to this important matter. Sincerely, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Thomas J. Fitton President WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of March, 2001 by Thomas J. Fitton, who is personally known to me. ________________________________________ Christopher J. Farrell Notary Public, District of Columbia My Commission expires November 14, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Found at www.fec.gov/pages/citnlist.htm [2]Clinton Discloses Gifts He�ll Keep, Associated Press, January 19, 2001; Thomas B. Edsall, Clintons Take Away $190,000 In Gifts; Holywood Helped With Furnishings, Washington Post, January 21, 2001, at A18; Kenneth Bazinet, Clintons Cart Off Truckload of Gifts; Amount is Called �Absolutely Unprecedented,� Detroit Free Press (January 21, 2001) <http://www.freep.com/news/politics/clint21_20010121.html>; Gifts Galore, The Orlando Sentinel, January 21, 2001, at A23.; Maxim Kniazkov, Clinton Rakes In More Than 190,000 Dollars in Gifts in 2000, Agence France Press, January 21, 2001.; Bill Nichols, After Chaos of Last Days; He�s Citizen Bill Clinton, USA Today, January 22, 2001, at 8A.; Dan K. Thomasson, Clinton Around Forever, Scripps Howard News Service, January 22, 2001.; Clinton Keeping Gifts Valued at $190,000, The New York Times, January 22, 2001, at A11; Maureen Dowd, Liberties; Cats, Dogs and Grifters, The New York Times, January 24, 2001, at A19; Count the Spoons, Washington Post, January 24, 2001, at A14; Who Says You Can�t Take It With You, Washington Post (January 26, 2001) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48477-2001Jan25.html>. See Exhibit 1, attached. [3]Who Says You Can�t Take It With You, Washington Post (January 26, 2001) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48477-2001Jan25.html>. See Exhibit 3, attached. [4]Pardon Grants January 2001, U.S. Department of Justice, <http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchart1st.html>. See Exhibit 4, attached. [5] Jerry Seper, Hillary�s brother returns cash for pardon work, Washington Times, February 22, 2001, at front page. See Exhibit 8, attached. [6] CNN.com, �Tony Rodham says he talked to Clinton about pardon, March 3, 2000, found at www.cnn..com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/03/clinton.pardons.rodh/index.html [7] John Solomon, Sen. Clinton Aide Helped in Pardons, Associated Press Writer (February 22, 2001) <http://www.dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/200101222/ts/clinton_pardons_34.html>. See Exhibit 9, attached. [8]Larry Cohler-Esses, U.S. Att�y Ripped Hasidic Pardons, Daily News, January 25, 2001, at 4; Larry Cohler-Esses, Mayor Askes Probe of Clemency, Daily News, January 25, 2001, at 4; Larry Cohler-Esses, Hasidim Pushed for Hil,� Daily News, January 26, 2001, at 2; Jonathon Peterson and Lisa Getter, Clinton Pardon Raises Questions of Timing, Motive, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2001, at A1; John Riley, Questioning Clinton; Pardon, Other Distractions Shroud New Senator�s Work, Newsday, January 29, 2001, at A7. See Exhibit 10, attached. [9]See attached press releases (exhibit 11). [10]Transcript of Testimony of Nolanda Hill, p. 55:19 � 59:9, Monday March 23, 1998 in Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce, Civil Action No. 95-133 (RCL). See Exhibit 12, attached. ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: *Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
