Question: The plaintiff of Paul v. Clinton was convicted for business dealing with whom?

Context paragraphs:
Ghulam Muhammad A. Fecto: Ghulam Muhammad Adamjee Fecto, the Founder and Chairman of FECTO Group of Industries was born in 1926 at Jetpur, in the Indian state of Gujarat, into a Memon family.  In Mumbai he started business from a small shoe shop.  The shop is still there with the same name of Coronation Footwear at Grand Road.  He migrated from Mumbai to Dhaka in former East Pakistan and started a trading business dealing in electrical goods and home appliances, Radios and TVs, Wire & Cable and Automobiles.  Shortly afterwards, the business entered a joint venture with Japan to manufacture Toshiba radio sets.  The company was a pioneer in setting up technical collaboration with Japan.

Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527: Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527 (1885) , was an action for the possession of a mining claim in Pioneer mining district, in the County of Dolores, and State of Colorado.  The claim was designated by the plaintiff as "The Hawk Lode" mining claim, and by the defendants as "The Johnny Bull Lode" mining claim.  It contains two counts.  The first alleges that the right of possession of the claim by the plaintiff on June 17, 1880, is by virtue of its location pursuant to the laws of the United States and of the state, and the local rules and customs of miners in the district, and by virtue of priority of possession, the wrongful entry upon the premises by the defendants on the thirtieth of that month, their outing the plaintiff therefrom, and unlawfully withholding the possession from him, to his damage of $50,000.  The second count, in addition to the citizenship of the parties, the possession of the claim by the plaintiff, and the subsequent wrongful entry of the defendants, and their ousting him, alleges that the defendants worked and mined in the claim, and dug out and removed from it large quantities of gold and silver bearing ore of the value of $50,000, to the damage of the plaintiff in that amount.  The plaintiff therefore prays judgment for the possession of the mining premises and for damages of $100,000.

Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen: Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2 (""Kamloops"") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision setting forth the criteria which must be met in order for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss.  In this regard, the "Kamloops" case is significant because the SCC adopted the “proximity” test set out in the House of Lords decision of "Anns v. Merton London Borough Council", [1978] A.C. 728.  "Kamloops" is also significant as it articulates the “discoverability principle” in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence.  This is later adopted and refined in "Central Trust Company v. Rafuse", [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147.  Finally, "Kamloops" develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.

Paul v. Clinton: Paul v. Clinton was a civil suit filed in 2004 held in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The plaintiff, Peter F. Paul, alleged that President Bill Clinton and his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, deceived him into paying for the Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute to President Clinton, during Hillary Clinton's first Senate race in 2000, by making a promise that the President would work for Paul's company, Stan Lee Media, after his presidential term was over.  Paul alleged that the President broke his promise and stole his business partner, causing his business to crumble and, further, that his contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaign were falsely reported to the Federal Election Commission.  Besides the Clintons, three other individuals who were involved in fundraising for the gala, were named as defendants in the suit.

Baylis v. Travelers' Insurance Co.: Baylis v. Travelers' Insurance Company, 113 U.S. 316 (1885) , was a case where after close of testimony in a trial, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict.  This motion was denied and the plaintiff asked that the case be submitted to the jury to determine the facts on the evidence.  The court refused this, and plaintiff excepted.  The court then ordered a verdict for plaintiff, subject to its opinion, whether the facts proved were sufficient to render defendant liable to plaintiff on the cause of action stated.  Plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict, and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and minutes of trial.  Judgment was rendered for defendant upon an opinion of the court as to the effect of the evidence and as to the law on the facts as deduced from it by the court.  Held that the plaintiff was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury, which he had not waived, and to which he was entitled.

Bust of Pope Paul V: The Italian artist Gian Lorenzo Bernini made two Busts of Pope Paul V.  The first is currently in the Galleria Borghese in Rome.  1618 is the commonly accepted date for the portrait of the pope.  In 2015, a second bust was acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles.  It was created by Bernini 1621, shortly after the death of Paul V, and commissioned by his nephew, Cardinal Scipione Borghese.  A bronze version of this sculpture exists in the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Paul v. Davis: Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation.  In the case, the court broke from precedence and restricted the definition of the constitutional right to privacy "to matters relating to 'marriage procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education".

Paul Oliver v. Samuel K. Boateng: The plaintiff, Paul Oliver, worked for Ananse systems where he created the first two versions of a Banking software alongside an ex- Banker, Samuel K. Boateng who was also engaged with Ananse systems.  The plaintiff went to the U.K and released the third version of the Banking software called The Rural Banker which was a comprehensive banking system and fully integrated into an accounting software he had also developed which was later succeeding by a 4th version called E- finance.  The plaintiff met the 1st defendant again, who at that time had left Ananse systems to try market the new version of the banking software that he had created.  The 1st defendant registered a business under the name BSL systems for that exact purpose.  The parties subsequently fell out with each other and a dispute arose.  The major part of departure and which was the fulcrum of the case was the authorship and ownership of the copyrights in the last two versions (4th and 3rd versions) of the banking software.  The plaintiff contended that the agreement that existed between them entailed the 1st defendant would market the software and the 1st defendant will in turn, license the software to the banks.  This was the same arrangement he had with Ananse systems.The plaintiff also claimed that he issued invoices to the defendants which the defendants sent him money as license fee in return and the defendants transferred the money because they acknowledged that he was the sole author.  The Defendants countered by claiming that the plaintiff had never been the sole author of the rural banking software in its various versions and that the 1st defendant pleaded that even when he was engaged in Ananse systems, he was there, “ with a view of developing the rural Banking software” because he was a professional Banker with vast working experience . Therefore, it was his ideas which constituted he sub structure for the Banking Software created by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff contributed only to the software by designing the software at the direction of the 1st defendant and just provided the source and object codes for this software.  The defendants therefore think that both the Rural Banker and E- finance were jointly authored by the plaintiff and the defendants after the formation of BSL systems, only sent the plaintiff money dubbed “licensing fee” because of Bank of Ghana regulations.  They subsequently transferred the money because the plaintiff retained the activation codes of the software and used it as a bargaining chip to compel the first defendant to pay him balances after the deduction of overhead cost.  The defendants continued to distribute the software without his permission after their relationship got terminated and the plaintiff’s first head of claim was a demand for outstanding license fee for distribution of the software without consent and for infringement of copyright.

Business record: A business record is a document (hard copy or digital) that records a business dealing.  Business records include meeting minutes, memoranda, employment contracts, and .

Peter F. Paul: Peter Franklin Paul (born September 2, 1948) is a former lawyer and entrepreneur who was convicted for conspiracy and drug dealing, and later for securities fraud in connection with his business dealings with "Spider-Man" co-creator Stan Lee.  He has repeatedly brought suit against Hillary Clinton, accusing her of lying about donations he solicited on behalf of her 2000 senatorial campaign.

Supporting paragraphs: Paul v. Clinton Peter F. Paul
Answer: Stan Lee