Stan Lee Media Central to Case Against Clinton

Van Jensen

Van Jensen is a former crime reporter turned comic book writer. In addition to ComicMix, he contributes to Publishers Weekly and Comic Book Resources. He lives in Atlanta, and his blog can be found at

You may also like...

19 Responses

  1. Alan Coil says:

    Clintons had nothing to do with Stan Lee media. This is just some fool saying crap for attention. He's a multi-convicted felon scam artist.

    • Anonymous says:

      to Alan Coil: Anyone can make comments on a message board, even if they know absolutely nothing about which they speak. Freedom of speech is a great thing. Google HILLARY! UNCENSORED and watch a 13-minute clip of the 1-hour film, a clip seen by more than 8 million people. You might learn something about the Clinton role in the demise of the company. I've always found it useful to do research and read evidence before making comments. It would be helpful to read the 1000+ page transcript from the David Rosen criminal trial and the pleadings in the case. You might be surprised that there is actually some compelling evidence about the civil case and substantial evidence about a massive campaign finance fraud. Several hours of home video of Hillary are going to be enlightening in court. Peter Paul is not the issue. You don't have to believe anything he says. Read the evidence and follow the money. Read the false FEC reports. Read the preposterous and felonious sworn declaration by Hillary that David Kendall presented to the court on April 7, Van: Paul does not run SLM. Wall Street whistleblower Jim Nesfield does. Paul is simply the key witness and was made the fall guy. You are going to discover the bankruptcy fraud committed by Lee and other officers of POW! Entertainment, who looted assets from the SLM bankruptcy. There actually is recorded documentation. As a holder of substantial shares of SLM, I am grateful to Paul and Nesfield for finally exposing the truth.

      • Alan Coil says:

        Anonymous,Your words carry little weight when you choose to be anonymous. You can sign up using your real name, a screen name, or become non-anonymous by signing your name at the end of your post. Like this:Alan Coil

      • Alan Coil says:

        And aren't those shares worthless now? I don't see how shares of a dead company are worth anything more than dinner table chatter.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          That's the whole point. The company of Stan Lee Media is worth nothing without the intellectual property of Stan Lee. Now the question is, when Stan Lee agreed to make his intellectual property part of the Capital of Stan Lee Media, did that include what Stan Lee had thunked up nearly 40 years before with Marvel Comics? Lee's claim is that was work for hire, not his property. But he made contradictory claims in a suit with Marvel Comics in 2002! Marvel and Lee settled for at least 10 million, should SLM get a slice of that pie?If Marvel was able to break the contract with Lee (that gave him a lifetime salary of One Million dollars a year) through it's bankruptcy proceedings, is Stan Lee allowed to ask for that and MORE now that Marvel isn't strapped for cash? Are the NEW deals Stan Lee makes with Marvel, the deals he made AFTER he agreed to hand over his intellectual property to Stan Lee Media part of the contract his contract with Stan Lee Media?Paul doesn't take enough credit for the collapse SLM. It's hard to maintain a house of cards after the winds start carrying word that one of the major corporate officers has been convicted of fraud, stock manipulation and cocaine trafficking. Stan Lee may have felt like he had signed on to put his name on an up and coming dot-com start-up. After things started going south at SLM (due at least in part to Paul's shady dealings), Lee may have felt like he had strapped his future to a sinking ship. He probably jumped ship. Did he also break his contract?Now, the Clintons had SOMETHING to do with SLM. Paul claims to have invested 1.2 million in a Clinton campaign fund raiser. There is another figure of 17 million floating about too. But I couldn't tell if that was paid to Bill or if that was the value of his contract with SLM, like 1.7 million per year over ten years. It seems to me like both Bill and Hilary were marginal players in this convoluted drama.According to contract law, a signed contract cannot be in force for longer than 10 years. Therefore, the waiting game is technically on Marvel's side, since if SLM cannot prove their case before October of 2008, the contract is no longer valid.Suite101.comThe person in control of SLM now is Jim Nesfield. “I’ve been following the company since its initial flotation and its demise, and I specialize in bankrupts in distress,” he said. “I’m what they call a vulture.” I find that ironic, because "The Vulture" is one of Marvel's Super Villains (created by Stan Lee) and part of the intellectual property they are now fighting over!

        • dan mason says:

          Alan: The shares never were nor should have been "worthless" because the Primary Asset of the company, as described in SLM's 1999 10K filed with the SEC, on page 3, states that the Unique and Primary asset of the company is all the rights owned by the founder of the company, assigned to the company for more than 3.5 million shares of stock.Stan Lee continues to assert that he is a stockholder in the company(when he recently spent more than $800,000 in legal fees of the $10 million Marvel paid him to hide the value of SLM, to block a shareholder's meeting that voted to sue him and Marvel. The company owned all of Stan's rights as of October 15, 1998- when Stan tried to sell his rights again to Marvel in November, 1998- he sold them nothing he owned- and they paid him $1mm a year, $1.5 million in stock options and 10% of their profits for 10% of his time, allowing him to compete with them through SLM and finally, paying him to hide the rights in a 6 year sham Chapter 11 protection that prevented sharehodlers from asserting any rights.

    • Mike Gold says:

      The lunatic right has been running with this since the whole thing collapsed. Bunch of idiots who can't tell the difference between bullshit and prime rib. No wonder the world hates Bush.

    • Lord Snooty says:

      "anyone can make comments on a message board" Very true 'Anonymous' very true

      • Anonymous says:

        to Lord Snooty. Yes, anyone can make comments on a message board. They can use "anonymous" to be anonymous or "Lord Snooty" to be anonymous. Or has your name been legally changed to Lord Snooty?

        • Russ Rogers says:

          "Or has your name been legally changed to Lord Snooty?"–AnonymousWe aren't signing legal contracts here. We are giving opinions. So it doesn't matter if you use your "legal" name. The fact is, there is only one "Lord Snooty" that posts comments here on ComicMix, which is another reason people use names, to distinguish ourselves from the crowd. "Lord Snooty" is the renowned "Bonzo Dog Band" and "Marmaduke Bunkerton" fan. I'm not sure if he is also the famed British Football commentator or not. But he is "Lord Snooty" to his pals here. "Alan Coil" and "Lord Snooty" mean something, at least to me. The names have the weight and credibility from all the other comments they've made here.And that the danger of staying "Anonymous" on a message board (or here, in commentary notes) is that you lump yourself in with ALL the other "Anonymous" commentators, who tend to be …well, dweebs and trolls. People too lazy to sign ANY name. People with a limited interest in creating real dialog. Anonymous Comments tend to have a high percentage of personal attacks. They tend to be rude, silly or just plain stupid.Here's a recent example of Anonymous Commentary on ComicMix:grimjack loves ugg boots!!! Anonymous (1:59 PM on Wed Jul 2, 2008)I've actually wasted time trying to understand that BS. Nobody in the comic wears ugg boots! What does this mean?Look at the crazy Anonymous rant that began this dialog. That person encouraged us to read a 1000+ page document from the David Rosen criminal trial. Why? What does David Rosen have to do with this? I'm supposed to read FEC reports and preposterous and felonious sworn statements, and watch 13 minute video trailers and (the torture of) several HOURS of HOME VIDEO without ANY LINKS being given as to where to find this stuff! Lord, I don't even want to watch several hours of my OWN home videos. Don't make me!In other words, I'm supposed to do HOURS and HOURS of research (take on a Sisyphean task) before I can make a simple comment like, "Peter Paul has been convicted of fraud and cocaine trafficking. This smells like a bunch of fool crap cooked up and served hot as a media distraction during Clinton's campaign for the White House." I don't have to become an expert to voice an opinion. That's complete Anonymous Nonsense. That's like screaming "grimjack loves ugg boots!!" It amounts to nothing. Just another steaming pile of Anonymous BS.

          • Anonymous says:

            FROM ANONYMOUS D – Fair enough, Russ. I take your point about being anonymous. I'll sign up as ANONYMOUS D.

  2. Lord Snooty says:

    to Anonymous, your saying legally changing my name to like it was a bad thing ! Mr Rogers I'm sorry to say that I'm not a renowned Bonzo dog band and Maraduke Bunkerton fan just a person who lives in the UK who's first comic at the age of four was "the Beano"

    • Russ Rogers says:

      "Renowned" might have been a bit of hyperbole. I just meant that "Lord Snooty" is a name that I was familiar with here on ComicMix.

  3. DFU says:

    What Bill Clinton did to Stan Lee Media is make a "gentleman's agreement" to work for Stan Lee Media when he left the WH if Peter Paul supported Hillary's campaign. He was to receive 17 mil in stock, cash, and a library donation. Pursuant to sworn testimony in the Rosen trial, Jim Levin was designated by Clinton as his business agent to vet SLM and the business proposition. After gathering proprietary business information, and having signed a non-circ agreement, he flew to Japan to make his own deal with SLM's major business partner, Tendo Oto. Oto has infused 5 mil into the company in August and promised another 5 mil in Nov. Instead, 6 days after her Nov. election, Levin recorded a business agreement in Illinois with Oto. It is of public record. When Oto failed to give the 5 mil as promised, because of the failure of Clinton's agent, Levin, the company ran out of cash and collapsed. Levin was Clinton's designated agent. He is responsible for what Levin did, hence the liability. That is the basis of Paul v Clinton.A few days after the Hollywood Gala, Hillary had spokesweasel Howard Wolfson, lie to the public and swear that the campaign would take no money from Peter Paul. Paul has receipts for about 1.6 mil. Regarding Marvel, Stan signed two agreements that were almost identical — one with SLM in October, and the other with Marvel in November. He warranted to Marvel that he had signed no other agreement. Atty Arthur Lieberman advised Lee on both agreements. It should be interesting to hear his testimony when he is subpoeaned.When Marvel voided Lee's lifetime agreement in its bankruptcy, it gave Lee a window of opportunity to do something else with his characters. He made the deal with SLM and became it's chief creative officer and largest shareholder. Perlmutter quickly discovered that he had screwed up by having the bk court void his agreement, which had superceded other agreements. Unfortunately for Marvel, SLM inked the deal with Stan conveying his rights to SLM before they could act. An interesting question is why Marvel, who got out of the lifetime contract in BK court, would then turn around and give Stan a better deal. In the 2002 lawsuit against Marvel, and despite what Stan is now publicly saying, he asserted that he had rights to the characters. Of course Stan is going to support Marvel's position. He got over 10 mil plus 10% of profits. What did he care about the investors of SLM? He got his.

    • Glenn Hauman says:

      If there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Clinton and Paul, how do you know about it?This isn't meant to insult your pedigree, but if all you have is a verbal contract– how do you know Peter Paul isn't misremembering, misconstruing, or making the thing up?

    • Russ Rogers says:

      This is interesting. But I don't see how Clinton gets his name attached to this. Levin failed to get 5 million is cash. Levin failed. Why is Clinton liable for Levin's failure to get cash from Oto? Why isnt' Peter Paul suing Levin or Oto? If SLM paid Clinton 17 million to raise 5 million, where is the business sense in that? That sounds like the recipe for a rapidly failing company.This sounds similar to the case Pacific Arts took up against Public Television. Pacific Arts was a video distribution company, one of the first. It was owned by Mike Nesmith (yes, of the Monkees). Pacific Arts had exclusive deals with Public Television, the BBC and others to distribute some of their TV shows during the nascent years of video distribution. When Pacific Arts fell onto hard times, Mike Nesmith informed his business partners that he was looking for a buyer for his company. Public TV took this privileged information, shared it and encouraged the BBC and Children's Television Workshop and others to immediately break ties with Pacific Arts. Pacific Arts went from being a sound company with a strong business model that was strapped for cash to IMPLODING overnight. Mike Nesmith sued PBS and won over a hundred million dollars!Now, what if during the vetting of SLM, Clinton or Levin found out that Peter Paul was a scam artist and a weasel, that SLM was a "house of cards"? If Clinton or Levin warned Oto or Stan Lee to jump ship, to bail on a scam artist and drug trafficker, would he have been breaking the law? Would Clinton have been breaking his confidentiality agreements? What if Oto found out about Peter Paul all on their own? Are Clinton or Levin still responsible for Oto getting cold feet on the second 5 million that they promised? What happened to the first 5 million?This all seems very strange. Since when this occurred, Clinton was still President. Yes? Peter Paul was asking Clinton to take time out from governing the country to see to his tiny Media Empire.It makes more sense that Stan Lee thought he had signed over his "current" intellectual property. He didn't think that the Marvel Stuff was on the table or part of the deal. Then Marvel voided their contracts through bankruptcy. Lee, who had no intention of ever making his former work with Marvel part of the SLM deal, tried to quickly resign a deal with Marvel to keep that work out of SLM hands. I think Lee was looking for an Agent who would help promote his CURRENT work. I don't think Lee intended to sign away the bulk of his LIFE'S WORK for a handful of shallow promises from a shyster and a pile of debt.Am I right, there is evidence that Peter Paul misappropriated SLM funds and tried to jimmy the stock value? For this he was paid how much? What did Stan Lee get from SLM, how much money? What did Lee receive for supposedly signing away his life?If this was a "gentleman's agreement," who were the gentlemen? A former President and a drug trafficking, embezzling agent of stock fraud? Hmm. Who has more credibility?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Russ- rantings of a lazy blogger irritate those who take pride in developing opinions based on the facts to the extent they can be determined from the public record. Your blatherings about an important case involving an ex President, a current Senator, the Chairman of Marvel and Stan Lee- where election law fraud, tort fraud, SEC fraud, shareholder fraud are evidenced in public filings- having nothing to do with mere allegations by someone who was convicted of directing a $9mm sting on a Communist tyrannical dictator in 1978, and possessing cocaine (something Obama personally admits to and Bush refuses to discuss).Read the court and FEC record at then make an educated opinion instead of the comments you find easy to make through the other end of your digestive system

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Why thank you for those Anonymous personal attacks. If that is how you motivate "lazy bloggers" like me to investigate further, good luck with that. My uneducated opinion of you, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, is you are rude and offensive. If my blather comes through the other end of my digestive system, then "I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"