Below is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch (copied from their website) regarding the mortgage application of the Clinton's. Some very interesting names pop up here.

Deutsche Bank..sound familiar? isn't this E. Yardeni's bank?

Loral Corp..... Didn't they provide weapons guidance systems that disappeared from Chinese missile that crashed?

Terrence McAullife...well, you can read his connections below.

Could this be behind Yardeni's pollying on his Y2K severity theory?

_____________________________________

---

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725 Washington DC, 20024,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK, A.G. 31 West 52nd Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10019,

and

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, INC. 31 West 52nd Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10019,

and

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington DC 20500,

and

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington DC 20500,

and

TERENCE R. MCAULIFFE 7527 Old Dominion Road, McLean, Virginia 22102,

and

JOHN AND JANE DOE NOS. 1-10, Certain Presently Unknown Officers and Directors of Defendants Deutsche Bank and/or Bankers Trust,

Defendants. _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

This is a shareholder derivative action brought pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief by and on behalf of Deutsche Bank, A.G. ("Deutsche Bank") and Bankers Trust Company, Inc. ("Bankers Trust"). Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust are named defendants herein because they are procedurally indispensable parties; the recovery sought in this action is for their benefit.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. ("Judicial Watch") is a non-profit corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.

2. Defendant Deutsche Bank, A.G. ("Deutsche Bank") is a bank organized and incorporated under the laws of Germany. Deutsche Bank is headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany, and has its principal place of business in the United States in New York, New York. Deutsche Bank is the parent company of Bankers Trust Company, Inc. which is its wholly-owned subsidiary.

3. Defendant Bankers Trust Company, Inc. ("Bankers Trust") is a bank organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York, New York. Bankers Trust is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank.

4. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is the President of the United States. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is a citizen of the State of Arkansas and currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20500.

5. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is the wife of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton and First Lady of the United States. Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton is a citizen of the State of Arkansas and currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20500.

6. Defendant Terence R. McAuliffe ("McAuliffe") is a citizen of the State of Virginia and resides at 7527 Old Dominion Drive, McLean, VA 22102.

7. Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 are certain presently unknown officers and directors of Deutsche Bank and/or Bankers Trust who negotiated, received, authorized, accepted and/or approved an unlawful $1.35 million home mortgage loan application by Defendant William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, guaranteed by Defendant Terrence McAuliffe. On information and belief, Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 are not citizens of the District of Columbia, but are citizens and/or residents of the State of New York and/or the Federal Republic of Germany.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1332, as the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

10. Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. ' 1391.

DERIVATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff is the owner of fifty (50) shares of stock of in Deutsche Bank. Plaintiff has held these shares of stock at times relevant to this action, including the time of the transactions of which it complains.

12. This action is not a collusive one to confer on the court of the United States jurisdiction that it would not otherwise have.

13. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated shareholders of Deutsche Bank.

14. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all other Deutsche Bank shareholders similarly situated in enforcing the rights of Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust Company.

15. On September 16, 1999, Plaintiff served a written demand upon the Board of Directors of both Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust by facsimile and federal express.

16. Plaintiff demanded that Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust deny or rescind the home mortgage loan application by William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

17. On September 17, 1999, the Board of Directors for Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust summarily denied Plaintiffs demand.

18. Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse to comply with Plaintiffs demand, or to provide Plaintiff with any information about loan.

FACTS

19. Deutsche Bank is a German-based bank with numerous holdings and operations in the United States. Deutsche Banks United States holdings and operations are headquartered in New York, New York.

20. Upon its acquisition of Bankers Trust on or about June 4, 1999, Deutsche Bank became the largest bank in the world, operating 2,375 offices in 68 countries.

21. In the summer of 1999, Hillary Rodham Clinton established an exploratory committee to become a candidate for the U. S. Senate from the State of New York . The exploratory committee is located at 450 7th Ave., Suite 804, New York, New York.

22. In furtherance of her campaign for the U.S. Senate, Hillary Rodham Clinton has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000, and, on information and belief, has made expenditures in excess of $5,000. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C.' 431(2) and 11 CFR ' 100.3, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a candidate for federal office within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA" and/or "the Act") and is subject to the provisions of the Act. Because of her legal status as a candidate for federal office, she is prevented, under pursuant to 2 U.S.C.' 441a(a)(1)(a), from accepting or receiving any single contribution exceeding the amount of $1,000.00. Violations of this and other provisions of the Act can result in the imposition of criminal penalties.

23. In addition, to be eligible as a candidate for U.S. Senate from the State of New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton must be a resident of the State of New York as that status is defined by New York law.

24. In order to establish residency in New York, in the summer of 1999 Hillary Rodham Clinton began looking for a home to purchase in New York, and, on September 2, 1999, entered into a real estate contract to purchase a 1.1 acre parcel of real property with a large house and appurtenant improvements situated in Chappaqua, New York for approximately $1,700,000.

25. The terms of sale require that Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, William Jefferson Clinton, pay the sum of $350,000 in cash at "closing," with the balance of the purchase price, $1.35 million, to be financed by a home mortgage loan.

26. Accordingly, in September 1999, Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton applied for a $1.35 million loan from Bankers Trust, a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, to purchase the Chappaqua, New York home.

27. On information and belief, Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton, acting through personal representatives and agents, including but not limited to Bruce Lindsey and Cheryl Mills, negotiated the terms of the loan application in the District of Columbia with Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10, certain presently unknown officers and directors of Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust. The Clintons application was subsequently received, accepted, authorized and/or approved by Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10.

28. The loan application negotiated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton and John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 provides for a $1.35 million "guarantee" by Defendant McAuliffe.

29. Defendant McAulliffe has a significant personal and professional history with the Clintons. Defendant McAuliffe raised roughly half of the $10 million needed by President Clintons legal defense fund to pay off his legal bills, and, on September 2, 1999, raised an additional $150,000 for Hillary Rodham Clintons campaign for the U.S. Senate. Defendant McAuliffe has also been a major fund raiser for the Democratic National Committee.

30. McAuliffe also is named in a May 5, 1999, U.S. Department of Labor complaint focusing on an alleged pension fund scam. He will also be called as a witness in October, 1999, in a Democratic National Committee/Teamsters corruption trial concerning an alleged illegal swap of cash between the organizations. McAuliffe also is named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the shareholders of Loral Space and Communications, Ltd., for his alleged involvement in campaign finance violations during the 1996 presidential campaign, namely, participating in the unlawful sale of seats on tax-payer funded, U.S. Department of Commerce foreign trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions.

31. The loan and supporting "guarantee" by Defendant McAuliffe constitutes an unlawful campaign contribution in violation of 2 U.S.C.' 431(8)(A) and 2 U.S.C.' 431(8)(B)(vii)(I), as well as 11 CFR ' 100.7(b)(11)(I)(A)(2) and 11CFR ' 110.1(a),with respect to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Consequently, the loan and supporting "guarantee" will likely subject Deutsche Bank and/or Bankers Trust to potential criminal penalties, including but not limited to conspiring with Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, Defendant McAuliffe and Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 371.

32. In addition, the loan and supporting "guarantee" by Defendant McAuliffe also is an illegal gratuity to the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 201 et seq., as well as an acceptance of value by the President of the United States in violation of 5 U.S.C. ' 7353 et seq.

33. Moreover, on information and belief, Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton are currently over $5 million in debt. Hillary Rodham Clinton is currently unemployed, and her husbands only identifiable source of income is his $200,000 salary as President of the United States.

34. On or about July 29, 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright found that, during the course of a civil lawsuit brought by Ms. Paula Jones, William Jefferson Clinton gave intentionally false, misleading and evasive testimony designed to obstruct justice. In addition, the Office of Independent Counsel found substantial and credible evidence that William Jefferson Clinton, inter alia, lied under oath to a federal grand jury and lied to potential grand jury witnesses. Because of these and other dishonest acts, and similar dishonest conduct in statements to the public via national television, William Jefferson Clinton has a nationwide reputation for prevarication, dishonesty and untrustworthiness.

35. These factors, which are widely-known and publicly available facts, render Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton unqualified for a conventional home mortgage loan in the amount of $1,350,000, and, consequently, are likely to subject Deutsche Bank and/or Bankers Trust to potential criminal penalties.

36. Since the Clintons application for a home mortgage loan was received, accepted, authorized and/or approved, numerous articles have appeared in the national media challenging the legal and ethical bases of the loan to the Clintons.

37. On September 10, 1999, a formal complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission concerning the loan.

38. The negative publicity received by the loan, as well as the potential criminal penalties to which Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust likely will be subjected, has and will cause irreparable harm to Deutsche Banks and Bankers Trusts good will and reputation.

COUNT I

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty -- Deutsche Bank, Bankers Trust

and John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10)

39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38 inclusive.

40. As officers and directors of Deutsche Bank and/or Bankers Trust, Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 were responsible for and participated in the management, supervision, operation and control of Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust. As such, they owed fiduciary duties to Deutsche Bank, Bankers Trust and their shareholders to exercise their best care, skill and judgment in the management of the affairs of Deutsche Bank and Bankers Trust and not to waste corporate assets.

41. By receiving, accepting, authorizing and/or approving the Clintons home mortgage loan application, and by failing to rescind that application, Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 breached their fiduciary duties to Deutsche Bank, Bankers Trust and their shareholders.

42. Because receiving, accepting, authorizing and/or approving the Clintons home mortgage loan application was wrongful, illegal and a waste of corporate assets, the decision to accept and process the Clintons loan application, and the refusal to rescind that application, was not a reasonable decision of business judgment.

43. Defendants John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10 knew or should have known that receiving, accepting, authorizing and/or approving the Clintons home mortgage application, and failing to rescind that application, was in violation of law, ethics and public policy, and, consequently, could not have been in good faith.

44. As a proximate result of these breaches of fiduciary duties, Deutsche Bank, Bankers Trust and their shareholders have suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to irreparable harm to their good will and reputation, waste of corporate assets and potential civil and criminal liability.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Deutsche Bank, Bankers Trust and John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10, jointly and severally, for actual, compensatory and punitive damages, an award of attorneys fees and costs, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

-- Rainman (rainman@uh-oh.com), November 01, 1999

Answers

This lawsuit is going nowhere... reason why? Because Clintons are getting their mortgage from PNC Bank....and without any collateral from Terry McAuliffe.

Under pressure Clintons decided not go thru with Deutsche Bank mortgage...go figure...

As a loan officer I think the Clintons would have a hard time getting approved anywhere... especially since they owe so much money in legal fees etc. PNC probably shelved the loan (placed it in their own portfolio with other "bad" loans) just so they could get the "PRESIDENTIAL" deal... Jumbo loan requirements are very strict...with all that debt and uncertain future income who would take the risk? would you lend them YOUR money? hell no!

I know none of my underwriters would do this loan!!! and my mortgage company is bigger than PNC!

here is the full story:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991029/pl/clinton_home_1.html

-- Jake Melon (feds@re.watching.NOT), November 01, 1999.

Excuse me: We have a couple of basket-cases looking for a place to live out the rest of their lives, and it just happens they are President and First Lady so by default they should have nice 'digs' to do their "aging and expiring" in. How vindictive does "judicial watch" have to be to turn this into another "gate" type of drama ?.

Did you stop and look at the complexity of the crap "judicial watch" is going through to stop this mortgage?. Let them have the damn mortgage and get the hell out of our lives. So what if some funny business goes down, is everyone so naieve that they think this only happens with the Clintons. Politicians live by this stuff, from both sides of the aisle.

Having a home in upstate New York isnt going to make Hillary a shoe in to any political seat, people aren't so stupid.

Such intense hatred of the current President is stopping him from just fading into the sunset as he should. Very sad indeed.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), November 01, 1999.

Let's talk about the financing of Ronald and Nancy Reagan's home, shall we? They most certainly didn't finance it themselves. It was a gift. Wouldn't they be required to pay taxes on that gift? Of course, this was completely ignored in the rush to deify Ronald Reagan.

Perhaps Judicial Watch needs to take up a hobby. By giving up their pointless vendettas against the Clintons, they may want to examine the sorry state of public school education in this country, or the very real problem of "aging out" of foster children who end up homeless due to their lack of resources. Then again, I'm looking for "compassionate conservatives," and that term is an oxymoron to most women of voting age in the United States.

Miss Steak

-- Miss Steak (MissSteak@hotmail.com), November 01, 1999.

My bet is that they will never move into the home. Instead they will flip it (sell it promptly) for a sizeable profit, in an attempt to evade laws against bribery and large contributions.

-- GA Russell (ga.russell@usa.net), November 01, 1999.