Sunday, September 16, 2012

It's not a clear photo, but it is readable and it does document the story Wanta told Barnewall about how his  blue suede shoes bled onto his white socks, his mother complained about it, so he devised a way to see puddles when getting in or out of the car.  No more blue socks.
Baptism Certificate, Leo Emil Wanta, 23 June 1940

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Friday, December 2, 2011

1. WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 5 - 6 - 7

First four pages of actual testimony are Title Page and Table of Contents list.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA UP TO THIS POINT:

(NOTE: It is logical to progress from the last blog about the unlawful tax cases involving Falls Vending which were filed against Ambassador Wanta by the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue [from 1982 - 1987] to the next major court event in his life: his arrest in Lausanne, Switzerland. At this moment, however, the Editor awaits a response from the Lausanne Courts regarding a recent letter to them (which is a response to a letter to me from them). Another letter from the International Court of Justice at The Hague is also expected. The Lausanne Court system has sent 20 pages of court text -- a Tribunal Decision from 2000. It is in French and is currently being translated. While waiting for the necessary tools to write the portion of Wanta World that deals with the Ambassador's imprisonment in Switzerland, it is time to begin coverage of the Dane County (Madison) Wisconsin trial... if one can call it a trial. Interpreting court transcripts is difficult and time consuming work and will be provided as analysis is completed. Editor)

EVENTS LEADING TO THE DANE COUNTY TRIAL:

1. On July 7, 1993, the Swiss Surete arrested Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne just as he was paying the breakfast bill at the Hotel Au Lac for a group of people who were traveling with him (“On July 7, 1993, I bought breakfast for Consul General Giovanni Ferro and Lorrayne Fine [an Israeli Mossad agent] of L.H. Financial Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. Others in the group – but not at breakfast – included Anthony Maniaci [Queen’s Counsel at Toronto, Ontario, Canada], and Sandro Sordi [former Dade County Deputy AG]," Wanta stated in a recent interview.)

2. Leo Emil Wanta was appointed Ambassador to Switzerland (and also Canada) by the nation of Somalia. His Ambassadorial Investiture was witnessed by the Foreign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe… a former Mayor of Paris. Thus, questions arise as to the legality of the imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne. The Swiss may question the validity of the Ambassadorial appointment, but they do not have the right to ignore it. Why would the Swiss Government imprison someone with Diplomatic Immunity in violation of the various international agreements known as the Vienna Conventions? Thus we see the first attacks on an innocent man caused by good old fashioned greed... the attraction of the moth to the flame of money.

3. The group was leaving for Geneva, a short distance from Lausanne (they were going by cab) to meet with White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Foster and his group (which included Leon Panetta) would join Wanta and his group at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva. Vince Foster's presence is affirmed by his American Express credit card statement Foster (who was murdered within two weeks of the planned meeting) was there to get $250 million from Ambassador Wanta. The funds had been requested by White House Economic Chairperson Laura d'Andrea Tyson, right-hand to First Lady (at the time) Hillary Clitone. The money was for the Children's Defense Fund (which is rumored to be Hillary's personal piggy bank).

4. The reason they were traveling by cab to Geneva (rather than by train) was because of a large, heavy blue nylon bag Leo Wanta was carrying. It contained all of his immediate investigative records and included highly classified information about an undercover operation on which he was working called "Operation Chaselet." Chaselet involved Credit Suisse and Letters of Credit issued by Chase Manhattan Bank. He had been told by his U.S, Treasury Department Representative, RAC William LeCates (Nashville), to take his records with him on this trip. The records included a federal arrest warrant for Marc Rich, issued by FBI Director William Sessions (who was terminated by Clinton two days after Wanta was arrested and the arrest warrant went unexecuted -- and yes, the same Marc Rich who was the last person pardoned by President William Jeffersonn Clinton as he departed the White House for the final time). Was Wanta being set up for the fall he took that day in Lausanne?

5. Wanta was traveling on his Somali Diplomatic Passport.

6. Wanta was held in what he terms "a dungeon" (Cell No. 130, within Prison du Bois - Mermet, CH du Bois - Gentil, 1018 Lausanne, Switzerland) from July 7, 1993 until November 17, 1993. On that date, the Swiss put him in body restraints (chains -- heavy duty stuff for someone against whom the Swiss filed no charges after unlawfully holding him in prison for over four months), and with two armed guards sent him on Swiss Air Flight #110 to New York where he was arraigned in Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

7. On November 17, 1993, Ambassador Wanta re-entered the United States using his Somali Diplomatic Passport. It was recorded by U.S. Customs upon his re-entry; to further prove the point, his U.S. Passport had expired in August 1993; it would have been impossible for him to use it to re-enter the U.S. This is irrefutable evidence that the Somali Ambassadorship and the Diplomatic Passport that came with it were valid... further evidence the Swiss government arrested and imprisoned a man entitled to Diplomatic Immunity.

8. Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against Leo Emil Wanta on November 19, 1993. I have a copy of the New York Court Docket.

9. Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta was re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court and was held in New York until mid-December when he was "extradited" to Wisconsin.

THE DANE COUNTY CRIMINAL TRIAL OF AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA

Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr., a former District Attorney thoroughly familiar with criminal law, states in Circuit Court Branch 2, Madison (Dane Coounty), Wisconsin, on May 8, 1995:

THE COURT: We are on the record in the matter entitled State of Wisconsin versus Leo E. Wanta. Mr. Wanta is charged in an information dated April 20, 1995.
(See Page 5 of Court Transcript, above.)

Thus, it appears the criminal charges on which Lee Wanta is being tried were filed a mere three weeks before the trial. This raises a huge question: On what charges did Wisconsin have Wanta re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court after Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993, when Switzerland finally sent him back (in body chains) to the United States?

Based on Judge Torphy's "on the record" statement, it appears the only "charges" the State of Wisconsin had against Ambassador Wanta in 1993 until the criminal charges were filed in 1995 were civil charges for an estimated income tax deficiency. Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason for extradition from New York to Wisconsin -- in body chains? Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason to hold an American citizen in a filthy city jail from December 1993 until his trial in May 1995? It is obvious that something else was going on here. The State of New York and the Federal Government became complicit in this unlawful procedure when Wanta was held unlawfully in the Brooklyn Federal prison for a month -- from November 19th (after Judge Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993) until mid-December when he was flown (again in body chains) from New York to Madison, Wisconsin, where he was immediately incarcerated in the Dane County Jail.

Bear in mind, Wanta paid the estimated civil income tax of $14,129 under protest a full year before any of this unlawful behavior by New York, Wisconsin and the federal government occurred. The State of Wisconsin billed him for income taxes during years Wanta was not a resident of the State of Wisconsin. Leo/Lee Wanta became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria, in June of 1988.

PARAGRAPH 3, PAGE 5, FROM THE TRANSCRIPT::

MR. CHAVEZ: Judge, yes, I do. I’d like to make a record. I’d prefer it be in camera. And Mr. Haag and I discussed we’d also – it’s my understanding he would have no objection to an ex parte in camera discussion.

THE COURT: Ex parte with who?

MR. CHAVEZ: With you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You and Mr, Wanta?

MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Just the three of us?

MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.

THE COURT: I always am very leery of ex parte discussions.

Why would a defense attorney discuss his desire to make a record before a trial begins? Why does he care if prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General J. Douglas Haag, objects and why is he coordinating defense strategies with the prosecution? Why does he all but apologize for wanting to make a record? It does NOT strike me as strange that a defense attorney would ask for an ex parte in camera discussion with the judge that's about to try his case – but the judge’s reaction indicates surprise – “just the three of us?” Does a request for an ex parte in camera meeting usually involve anyone but the defendant and his counsel? Yes, Judge Torphy, the defense attorney and his client – without the prosecutor. Then Haag injects himself into the conversation as if he’s giving the Court his blessing/permission to confer with the defendant and his lawyer – he even suggests the terms re when he’d be willing to leave. Who is running courtroom procedures?(See Page 5, above, and Page 6, below.)

This first 30 pages of the State of Wisconsin versus Leo Emil Wanta provide some of the strangest courtroom verbal exchanges in courtroom history. It took me until the third reading to realize the three lawyers (Chavez, Haag, and Torphy) are sharing a kind of "code speak." There is no other reasonable explanation for what is said and how it is verbally stated.

PAGE 6, 1995 DANE COUNTY COURT TRIAL TRANSCRIPT:

Page 5 ends with non-appointed State Public Defender (illegal under Wisconsin Statutes),counsel for the Defendant, Mr. John Chavez, a retired military lawyer, a former Judge Advocate General (JAG) and an Attorney at Law from Cambridge, Wisconsin, stating that he wants to make a record. The Courtroom conversation that occurs after this request is strange, indeed. In addition to Mr. Chavez, we have J. Douglas Haag, Assistant Attorney General, prosecuting the case for the State of Wisconsin, Department of Revenue. It is Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr.'s courtroom -- though in the following record from the Court transcript it certainly doesn't sound like Torphy's in charge. Torphy is a former district attorney who is more than a little familiar with criminal law.





MR. HAAG: The only – perhaps we ought to convene all of us – but what I’m concerned about is that I don’t want – to the extent that any matters that could be deemed privileged would be brought to the Court’s attention, I don’t want to be in a position where that privilege was inadvertently breached because I was present.

So I think we have to be particularly cautious about proceeding on these matters with that – just with the privilege issue in mind, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I guess if -- I’m willing to have Mr. Chavez and Mr. Wanta discuss with me whatever they – if you’re agreeable to it.

MR. HAAG: Well…

THE COURT: I don’t know what it is. I don’t know why it is, and I – but that’s – that’s sort of a carte blanche situation.

MR. HAAG: I would prefer to be present at first, but if it at all appears to Your Honor or Mr, Chavez that we may be entering into a very delicate area of privilege, then I would be happy to leave.

THE COURT: Yeah. But I don’t know what’s privileged. How would I know what’s privileged?

MR. HAAG: We have to leave that to Mr. Chavez’s determination.

THE COURT: I guess what I would like to do in that circumstances, very honestly, is rather than moving back and forth between chambers and the courtroom, unless there is some objection I’d like to, you know, just clear the courtroom. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

MR. CHAVEZ: (Moves his head in an affirmative manner.)

THE COURT: And get everybody back at such time as it’s appropriate. So to that extent I would like to have everybody but the counsel and Mr. Wanta, as I understand, excused from the room.

COURT REPORTER: Do you want this on the record?

THE COURT: It’s on the record – no question about it.

DANE COUNTY TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, BOTTOM OF PAGE 7:

(At this time the following record was made in a closed courtroom with the Court and counsel, at 9:25 a.m.)

THE COURT: I gather, just so the record is clear, Mr. Wanta, you have no objection to that, I assume?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t. But I would like to give the Court a statement, which I have the right to do, Your Honor. And if I may approach the bench, I have a statement I would like to present the Court.
.

To continue to pages 8 and 9 of transcript testimony, click here.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

2. WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 8 AND 9

BEGINNING OF PAGE 8:

THE DEFENDANT (continued): I think it’s very essential and important for justice.

MR. CHAVEZ: For the record, I have not seen it, nor has Mr. Haag.

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct
.

It is very interesting how Mr. Chavez is so aware of what Mr. Haag, the prosecutor, knows and doesn’t know -- what he’s seen and what he hasn’t seen -- of the defendant's case.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to my sharing it with both your attorney and Mr. Haag?

THE DEFENDANT: I have no objection as long as it becomes the property of the Court.

THE COURT; Why don’t we – Can we deal with what Mr. Chavez wants to talk about first?

THE DEFENDANT: Certainly.

THE COURT: Mr. Chavez?

MR. CHAVEZ: Thank you, Judge. Again, Judge, I have tried to withdraw from this case twice.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. CHAVEZ: Both times you denied it. We -- Certainly it is in -- it is within your power. The statement I want to make now is this.

Mr. Wanta wants me to proceed with the defense that I do not agree with – I do not want to go forward with. I do not have a choice, however. I have to believe what he’s telling me. I’ve tried to find out whether or not these things are, in fact, true, but I cannot verify it absolutely one way or another.

Thus I feel I have to go forward with what he’s...

BEGINNING OF PAGE 9:

...telling me is the truth. Did I believe it, I don’t think that matters at this point. I have to go forward with what he wants me to do. I find it repugnant, I find it absolutely ludicrous to go forward with this, and I think we’re demeaning this Court by going forward with this type of defense; however, that’s what Mr. Wanta wants me to do. I will do it.

(Continued on Page 10 of Transcript)

Would such statements from your defense lawyer to the Court and in the presence of the prosecution make you feel warm and fuzzy at the quality of defense you are about to get in the impending trial? Would you feel certain that justice is about to be done and that you are assured of a fair trial?

EDITOR’S COMMENTS RE THE WORD “REPUGNANT”

The average person sees the word “repugnant” and thinks of it in its typical dictionary definition. We relate it to adjectives like: abhorrent, abominable, detestable, disagreeable, disgustful, disliked, displeasing, distasteful, diversus, forbidding, fulsome, hateful, inedible, insufferable, loathsome, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offending, offensive, out of favor, painful, repellent, repelling, repulsive, revolting, unacceptable, unappetizing, unpalatable, unpleasant, unpopular, and unsavory. Or, it can mean adverse, alien, antagonistic, at odds, at variance, clashing, conflicting, contrary, different, disagreeing, discordant, incongruous, inconsistent, inharmonious, inimical, irreconcilable, jarring, opposed, or opposing.

But there is an associated concept of “repugnant” that has application to this text. It is part of the “secret code” to which I referred earlier that these lawyers are using. It has to do with the Constitution of the United States. The words of Mr. Chavez sound like a lawyer making negative comments about his client’s case. Instead, it is establishing a base for his own safety net should the case he is about to throw to the wolves be appealed… as he is sure it will be.

In the case Marbury v. Madison (James Madison was, at the time, Secretary of State), Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court.

Learned and thoughtful, President John Adams had several commissions of appointment to office that had been signed but not delivered and were withheld on President Thomas Jefferson’s express instructions when he succeeded Adams. Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction against Secretary of State Madison. Jurisdiction was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marbury interpreted Section 13 to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction. The Court decided Sec. 13 authorization was an attempt by Congress to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the constitutional prescription and was therefore void.

Because the Constitution is “a superior paramount law,” it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and “a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.”

And here is the key phrase as it relates to Mr. Chavez’s use of “repugnant”

“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?” The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Chief Justice Marshall said: “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (Editor's Note: Though a different topic altogether, this statement by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explains why the Federal Reserve Act is unlawful: It is repugnant to the Constitution which gave responsibility for today's functions of the Federal Reserve to the United States Congress, not a private corporation like the Fed.)

The Wanta case had numerous conflicts of law involving his Ambassadorship (which dictated that the Supreme Court of the United States was the only Court qualified to try him) and conflicts of law existed regarding the sharing of intelligence information in a public forum ike this trial -- you remember the (relatively meaningless by comparison) Valerie Plame incident. Vice President Dick Cheney's Aide, Scooter Libby, went to prison for "outing" Plame in a far less public forum than this mock trial in Madison, Wisconsin which outed Leo Emil Wanta, the man who is documented to have brought down the Soviet ruble and, as a result of that operation, of bringing down the Iron Curtain. Plame's outing is nothing by comparison to having an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin "out" a Title 18 Section 6 company designed to gather intelligence information for the United States of America and operated by covert operative Leo Wanta.

Mr. Chavez planned no defense against these conflicts. Thus he was worried about being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That's why the two concepts are presented at the same time: "repugnant" and "ineffective." That's what all of this "secret code" legal talk is intended to cover -- and keep reading because it gets worse. The testimony by itself proves the reference being made has to do with a conflict of laws in this case and both Mr. Chavez and Judge Torphy express concern about it.

The law Judge Torphy chose to pursue in the trial of Leo Emil Wanta was “repugnant to the Constitution.” It is, therefore, void. At least, constitutionally. Read the ongoing testimony and judge for yourself.

The concept of repugnance has been used in recent law. For example, former Attorney General John Ashcroft might have faced personal liability for the decisions that led to the detention of an American citizen as a material witness after the 9/11 attacks. A federal appeals court panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said “We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” said the opinion. The Patriot Act was quickly passed to cover such incidents once the “war on terrorism” began.

RETURN TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPT DATED 8 MAY 1995, PAGE 9:

MR. CHAVEZ: I further have discussed the idea of his testifying. He told me Friday that he wants to testify, which is certainly his right. I – I can’t keep him from testifying. He’s going to take the stand because he told me he was going to take the stand. I’ve surrounded my whole case around him taking the stand.

Again, I don’t – I find that repugnant, but if that’s what he wants me to do, take the stand and testify, fine. I’m only making the record here now pertaining to his testimony because I’m afraid later on he’s going to say I’m not testifying and then he’s got me hooked. And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked. I think that’s what we’re doing here today is more or less setting up Mr. Wanta’s appeal, and that’s the record I want to make.

END OF PAGE 9 TESTIMONY

Why would defense counsel think having his client take the stand was “repugnant” – unless this was an expressed fear about a constitutional violation. Why would defense counsel want to prevent his client from testifying? The most logical reason is because he knows he cannot control potential testimony that proves the “repugnant” reference and its potential violation of the Constitution which would make the Court decision “void.” That is why the two topics appear together… “repugnant” and “I can’t prevent my client from testifying.” Add to that the final statement: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”

To what is Mr. Chavez referring – “ineffective?”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial via its Due Process Clauses. It says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
So, a fair trial is one in which evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding. Thus, there must be adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case for a fair trial to occur. Mr. Chavez has already admitted that his total case is based on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony. He plans no adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case – no assertive cross-examination of witnesses… his entire case rests on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony and he is worried that the Ambassador will not testify because if he does not, as Mr. Chavez himself says: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”

Just because a person is a lawyer and represents a client at trial is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to assistance of counsel – but counsel that will play a critical role by using his ability within the adversarial system to produce justice. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Mr. Chavez planned no defense and did not “play the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.” His lack of representation was a planned event and he was thus worried about being accused of ineffective counsel if Ambassador Wanta, in the end, chose not to testify. He admits that on the record. If you have wondered why the other lawyers ran from this assignment, the lack of funds for defense costs and the “repugnant” constitutional questions involved have to play a huge role. Mr. Chavez, it appears, was willing to overlook them… until it got to the date of the trial. He was compelled to make a record in his own defense for the lack of representation he knew he was making.

Bear in mind, one of the primary complaints Ambassador Wanta had was the Court freezing his more than ample liquid assets which prevented him from retaining his own legal counsel, paying for witness depositions, paying for witness travel, etc.

That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel's playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.

Finally with regard to this portion of the court transcript of Leo Emil Wanta’s first day of trial, May 8, 1995, remember this from the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…”

This trial was held in Dane County (or the County of Dane). Ambassador Wanta never paid a tax of any kind in Dane County. None of the unlawful Falls Vending delinquent tax problems or other suits filed against him were in Dane County. That county, in other words, had no jurisdiction to try him… at least that’s what the Sixth Amendment says.

Finally, Leo Emil Wanta was first arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland, on July 7, 1993. He was held in prison for over four months before being returned to the United States where all charges against him were immediately dismissed in Federal District Court. He was rearrested on the steps of the courthouse and was held in the Brooklyn federal facility for over a month before Wisconsin picked him up in mid-December and flew him, in body chains, to the Dane County Jail... where he was held from December 1993 until charges were finally filed against him in April 1995 and his trial began on May 8, 1995.

What was that part of the Sixth Amendment about a fair and speedy trial in the district where the "crime" occurred?

References:

Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e.g., Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render "adequate legal assistance," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S., at 344 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance ineffective).

The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases--that is, those presenting claims of "actual ineffectiveness." In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose--to ensure a fair trial--as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.

3. WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA, COURT TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, PAGES 10 - 11



In pages 5 through 9, we found Ambassador Wanta's attorney, John Chavez, was afraid Wanta would charge him with ineffective representation.

A good defense lawyer should be interested in the welfare of his client… in the outcome of the trial immediately ahead of him.

But not Mr. Chavez.

Instead, Chavez is worried his "planned defense" is repugnant to the Constitution. He is worried about that because he has built no case to defend his client. The courts -- either in Switzerland or in Wisconsin or both -- froze Ambassador Wanta’s international bank accounts containing vast amounts of wealth. This single act prevented Wanta from retaining legal counsel of his choice. It put the State of Wisconsin in control of the trial. The only thing that can absolutely prevent the potential filing of an ineffective counsel charge against Chavez is the Ambassador's testimony which makes it look like Mr. Chavez has presented a defense when, indeed he has not. Thus, it is key for the Court to determine whether or not the Ambassador will testify. Read on and see how the Court accomplishes this.

MR. CHAVEZ: Also, for the record, I had advised my client to accept the deal of the State, okay? I find that evidence absolutely overwhelming against Mr. Wanta. Mr. Wanta claims his innocence, fine. I can't tell the Judge or the Court either way if I think he’s guilty or innocent, that doesn’t matter, either. All that matters is Mr. Wanta wants his trial and he wants to testify.

Now that you know the game that's being played, the words "...All that matters is Mr. Wanta... wants to testify" take on a whole new meaning, don't they?

The following paragraphs contain negative comments about Mr. Chavez -- and he deserves them. However, he also deserves some sympathy for his plight. You see, Mr. Chavez wasn't court-appointed counsel. When on pages 5 and 6 Chavez begged Judge Torphy to allow him to withdraw from the case, he made it sound like the Court had appointed him as Counsel to Ambassador Wanta. That is untrue.

Did the Wisconsin Court system and Department of Revenue (in league with... who? The CIA? The Swiss?) decide the easiest way to handle the Wanta matter was to have him committed to a mental institution? Four times they sent him for mental evaluation... he was found competent, even though they tried four times. Why these desperate attempts? If "they" can get Wanta confined to a mental institution, Wisconsin (and anyone with the power to demand access) controls $27.5 trillion that belongs to Ambassador Wanta -- money he earned at the behest of President Ronald Reagan for the American people.

Interestingly, the Swiss provided a good excuse for Wisconsin to put this plan into effect by having Ambassador Wanta mentally evaluated while he was unlawfully imprisoned there. The Swiss said they didn't believe his story about being an American covert intelligence operative. They decided the Ambassador was living in a fantasy world and committed him for psychiatric evaluation where they proceeded to pump him full of drugs. That they "didn't believe his intelligence involvement" is impossible since the blue nylon bag Wanta carried was filled with communiques with the FBI. In their November 17, 2000 Tribunal Decision from the Lausanne Courts, the Swiss admit finding 73 messages between Wanta and the FBI. They knew. The Swiss denial is not credible.. but it provided a good excuse for them to keep Wanta behind bars while they examined and evaluated the intelligence data contained in that blue bag. Remember, Wanta was told to take those records to Switzerland with him by RAC William LeCates of Nashville, his supervisor when working within the U.S. Treasury Department.

Thus, the Swiss paved the way for the Wisconsin strategy to get Wanta committed to their mental institution.

Concurrently, Wisconsin gave the Swiss a payback when they put on this farce of a trial to find Wanta guilty of a non-existent crime. The Swiss Tribunal Decision, dated 17 November 2000 (strangely, seven years to the day the Swiss returned Ambassador Wanta to the United States to have all charges against hin dismissed in a New York Federal District Court), justified their imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in 1993 by saying he was, after all, convicted of criminal tax matters in Wisconsin in 1995. What does that have to do with holding him in a Swiss prison in 1993? The Tribunal Decision (about which you'll hear more later) had no charges to justify holding Ambassador Wanta in prison for over four months. At the end of the Tribunal Decision they made a weak effort to justify their actions by saying "Well, Wisconsin found him guilty of non-payment of income taxes in 1995." Each court washed the other's hands.

But back to the subject: Why Mr. Chavez deserves our sympathy.

Before this trial, two or three lawyers accepted retainers averaging about $15,000 each, to defend Leo Emil Wanta (Kenneth Starr was one of them -- yes, that Ken Starr... and then retained by the state of Wisconsin - Department of Education - without repaying the retainer and later became Special Counsel in the William Jefferson Clinton impeachment process; surely the Clinton appointment wasn't a payoff?). After accepting the retainer and beginning investigation of Leo Wanta's case, the lawyers disappeared, money still in hand, After all, who wants to crosss swords with the CIA, the FBI, and several other intelligence agencies for which Ambassador Wanta had done covert work?

The Office of the Wisconsin Public Defender had appointed two lawyers to the case. They, too, walked. Mr. Chavez was appointed by the Public Defender's Office to coordinate the mental competency tests Judge Torphy decided Ambassador Wanta should undergo. After all, Wanta had just been evaluated for mental illness in Switzerland, so Torphy could justify this decision on the basis of the Swiss precedent. Of course, the Swiss found no mental impairment... but the way the Wisconsin courts work, that didn't matter. Neither did it bother the Wisconsin Courts that spending Public Defender funds on a defendant who is probably the wealthiest man in the world and had more than sufficient funds to personally pay for private counsel... violated Wisconsin Statutes. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Wisconsin Public Defender's Office is always substantially over budget and is suspected of appointing lawyers to defend highly affluent people (many with mob connections) who can easily afford their own lawyers.

To make a long story a bit shorter, when Mr. Chavez completed the mental competency work for which the Public Defender retained him, Judge Torphy would not release him. It appears Mr. Chavez was forced into service -- forced to try the Wanta case. As he, himself, clearly states, he had tried to resign from the case twice, but Judge Torphy wouldn't allow him to withdraw. Those who were after the Wanta trillions saw an easy solution: Get him declared mentally incompetent, put him in a mental institution, fill him with whatever drugs necessary to get out of him all the information required, and perhaps a convenient overdose would end this situation with Wanta's untimely death. The plan was thwarted by the chief physician at the Mental Health Division of the Office of Human Services. She, in fact, is quoted as having said: "The only people who are crazy are the people in Madison who sent this man here for evaluation."

When the "Let's put him in a mental institution" strategy failed, Mr. Chavez was forced to try the Wanta case and is due some sympathy... and understanding how he got drug into the Wanta trial helps to better realize his fear of being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That, however, doesn't change the fact that it was ineffective counsel at an unlawful trial for a non-existent crime.

The Chavez quote, above, is a perfect example of being considered guilty until proven innocent – by your own lawyer. Wanta’s own counsel (before a jury is even selected) tells the Court he thinks his client is guilty – he tells the Judge and the Prosecutor that the evidence against his client is overwhelming and he has advised Ambassador Wanta to accept whatever deal the State of Wisconsin has offered. As you will see later in the transcript, the evidence was not only NOT overwhelming, there was absolutely no evidence produced proving INCOME (as opposed to corporate cash flow or personal expense reimbursement) was paid to Leo Emil Wanta.

The above paragraph from the transcript establishes that a plan exists to avoid difficult cross-examinations, and to avoid investigating or challenging the lack of funds so witnesses or their depositions can be presented on the Defendant’s behalf. Chavez is establishing the basis for his own defense should ineffective counsel charges be brought against him. He obviously plans to present a defense that is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

According to bank statements dated April 1993 just prior to his arrest in Switzerland, Ambassador Leo E. Wanta had billions of dollars in the bank -- more than enough to fly witnesses to Wisconsin from Singapore, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, and other foreign locales which is where his witnesses resided. The Court withheld access to those funds; the Court withheld access to legal counsel of his choice. The Court provided a lawyer who appears to have involved himself in a plot to withhold any vestige of justice from Leo E. Wanta and which makes a joke of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the Attorney General’s office. These men, responsible for making sure defendants get a fair trial, were engaged in a plot to do everything but that.

If any citizen with relatively average intelligence was suddenly appointed by a court to defend a fellow citizen from charges of not paying legitimate income taxes, what’s the first thing he or she would do? It doesn’t take a law degree to know. The first thing that needs to be proven is that income was paid to the client. Only if income was paid can taxes against it be assessed by the State.

Most of us also know that there are two basic forms on which income is declared. There is a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form for the self-employed, and there is a W-2 Federal income declaration form used by employers. There are various other forms as well, but let’s keep it simple. At no time during the trial did attorney John Chavez demand the prosecution produce any income reporting form to prove income had been paid to Leo E. Wanta.

We citizens appointed to defend a client would be screaming; “Where are the 1099 Forms or the W-2 Forms which prove the Defendant earned income and didn’t pay taxes on it?”

This basic question was never asked by Mr. Chavez during the trial.

"Well," the prosecution might insist, "no forms were issued. That doesn't prove the Defendant didn't receive income – after all, we’re talking about illicit, illegal income here… a company owned and managed by the Defendant. He chose not to send himself a W-2 Form from a company he owns and controls."

Another question must then be asked in response to the Prosecutor's statement: “Where is the evidence proving the company did not issue the required forms… has that company been prosecuted or charged with tax violations? Was it investigated?” The answer is "No."

If the company required by law to provide the tax forms to Mr. Wanta is not being investigated or prosecuted, why? If there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute the company for not producing required income tax forms to employees (owners or otherwise), there is insufficient evidence to prosecute an employee of the company!”

This proves Mr. Chavez is either more ignorant than the average person who might be placed in his position. Or, it proves that Mr. Chavez was intentionally ignoring the basic charges filed against Ambassador Wanta.

There is no doubt that a Nevada corporation – one of Leo E. Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 companies with a branch office in Wanta's former home in Appleton, WI – sent him checks which Mr. Wanta cashed. (For a definition of a Title 18 Section 6 company, go here and scroll to #4.)

Does cashing checks sent to him by his Nevada corporation make the funds “personal income” to Leo Wanta? It may or it may not. When a person works for a Nevada corporation but is performing duties for the company at a distant location, such an employee is usually reimbursed for travel and living expenses. And, as the trial progresses, it is Leo E. Wanta’s travel and living expenses the prosecutor presented to the Court, calling it personal income. But Mr. Chavez never makes these key points – because his only defense is Mr. Wanta’s testimony… which he finds "repugnant."

John Chavez is truly frightened that this trial may cost him his license to practice law in Wisconsin. He is frightened that the ineffective defense he plans – a defense designed to help find his client guilty of an imaginary charge – will fall apart and provide sufficient reason to get him disbarred should Wanta decide to not testify. Chavez ends his agonizingly embarassing "I want to make a record" statement by saying:

MR. CHAVEZ: There. I’ve made a record. I’m just – Again, the reason I’m making this record is, Mr. Wanta is only setting this up for ineffective assistance and for appeal
.The closing comments on this topic by Mr. Chavez once again show his fear of ineffective assistance charges. There can only be one reason for this kind of fear before a jury is even chosen, before he performs poorly during the trial: The ineffective defense is planned and is known in advance.

Page 10, Paragraph 3, Line 13:

THE COURT: All right. Let me – Anything else, Mr. Chavez?

MR. CHAVEZ: No, Judge. Let me read what Mr. Wanta just gave to me, and then I’m going to have some questions of him.

THE COURT: Why don’t you make a couple copies of that for counsel.

The first question I’d like to ask and I – I would have asked it sooner or later, in any event, depending on whether or not Mr. Wanta indicates his desire to testify or his desire not to testify – or whether you would have called him or not called him, I guess…

COURT TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, PAGE 11

…is a better way to phrase it. And I guess my question, Mr. Wanta, without getting into the details of the other things that Mr. Chavez has said, and that is that you understand that you have a right not to testify?

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m innocent of the charges and I want to prove it by testifying – by testifying with the exhibits.

THE COURT: Please answer my questions. We’ll get to what you want to do. My question is, do you understand that you have a right not to testify?

The Defendant did answer your question, Judge. He added a thought, though. He has suggested that his testimony will be accompanied by exhibits. You had to get past that quickly because you and Mr Haag, the Prosecutor, aren’t going to allow any exhibits, are you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And as I understand Mr. Chavez and from what you just said, it is at least presently your desire to testify as a witness on your own behalf in this case; is that true?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, because he has not called a single witness – a witness on my behalf. He has refused to. He claims that the State did not give him enough in his budget and all this other material.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CHAVEZ: That’s absolutely -- --

All right? The Defendant has told Judge Torphy his counsel has informed him there are no funds available for his defense and the Judge's response is "All right."? There are no questions asked of Mr. Chavez to verify this statement or deny it. Unbelievable! This is absolute proof that the Judge was aware that no funds had been made available to provide an acceptable defense for this defendant. This entire trial was a farce!

In a normal trial, at what point is the defendant advised of his right to testify or not to testify? Not before a jury is even selected, I'll wager. How often before a trial does a Judge ask a Defendant if he intends to testify and advise him of his right to either testify or not testify?

According to Leo E. Wanta, his funds were frozen and it prevented him from retaining his own counsel. His lawyer, provided by the court system (if not technically "court appointed")has informed him that there are no funds available to provide a coherent defense... no witnesses, no depositions. Wanta refused to accept court appointed counsel… in fact, at one point Mr. Chavez asked Wanta to terminate him as counsel. Ambassador Wanta informed Mr. Chavez that he couldn’t terminate his service because he hadn’t retained him.

Wanta’s funds were frozen by the Swiss. Did they defrost them before returning him to the U.S.? If not, why not? The massive deposits Wanta had in Swiss banks at the time of his arrest in Lausanne simply disappeared. The money was never returned to him or to the American people. Even so, why would an American courtroom allow frozen funds that would have paid for a private lawyer to remain frozen after his return to the United States and after all charges against Ambassador Wanta had been dropped? Why would the State of Wisconsin want to pay the costs for a court appointed lawyer when the Defendant was rumored to have access to $27.5 trillion? Answer: To gain and maintain control of the trial. In any fair trial, this would not have happened. In Wisconsin, it had to happen. The State had to maintain control of the unlawful performance it was about to give in the name of justice.

The point is, the frozen funds prevented Mr. Wanta from retaining his own counsel for this trial and stuck him with Mr. Chavez… who functioned under the control of the Court and the Public Defender's office.

Leo/Lee E Wanta was placed in an absolutely impossible position: Accept his lawyer’s advice (as Mr. Chavez admits giving it) and plead ”guilty” to a crime he hadn’t committed; or, go to trial to make sure certain important things got on the record. The things Leo Wanta needed to get on the record had to do with topics about which he, as an intelligence operative, could not speak. He needed to let the Court, the prosecution and his own defense counsel talk publicly about things it was unlawful for them to mention in a public forum, especially a Court of Law that had no jurisdiction to try his case. For them to mention such things merely violated the law; for an intelligence operative functioning under an Oath of Office to make the comments would have bordered on treason.

As the trial transcript reveals, they would try to lead him into betraying his Oath of Office, to speak of things intelligence operatives cannot reveal, but he wisely avoided that trap. He paid a heavy price for doing so, but not as severe as it would have been had he let them entice him onto that Yellow Brick Road. Perhaps that is what Mr. Chavez so feared about Ambassador Wanta’s testimony? Had Wanta gone into detailed explanations regarding his intelligence activities, he could have been skating around the edges of treason. Maybe that’s what the court hoped to provoke: a detailed explanation about an intelligence agency that had obviously thrown the Defendant under a bus. That would then provide a real reason to prosecute Wanta for treason and put him away for life. That, in turn, would give “them” legal access to the funds accrued by Ambassador Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 corporations – which is, after all, what everyone was after.

When Ambassador Wanta charged Mr. Chavez with not calling witnesses on his behalf because court-provided funds were insufficient, the Judge has no reaction, whatsoever. He simply says “All right.” He doesn’t ask Mr. Chavez “Is this true?” The Judge knew there was no money made available to to try this case honestly on the basis of facts… probably the reason state public defenders and court appointed lawyers walked away from defending Wanta. Ambassador Wanta made very clear from the beginning that he had more than enough money, requested the funds be made available to him so he could retain his own legal counsel, and he strongly objected to having court-controlled lawyers forced upon him.

Interestingly, the prosecution (Mr. Haag) makes sure to point out to the jury (on Day 3 of the trial) that no witnesses were willing to appear on Mr. Wanta’s behalf – but that comes later. Telling a jury no one was willing to appear on behalf of a defendant is highy prejudicial.

What is a normal judicial reaction when a defendant in his/her courtroom says a court controlled lawyer told the defendant there was no money available to call witnesses (or take depositions)? My hope would be that the norm would be a Judge that called for an investigation. If the Court had made funds available, the Judge should be asking defense counsel where the money went. Obviously then, the Court did not make funds available and so the absence of them was not a surprise to Judge Torphy.

Based on the Sixth Amendment and its reliance on an adversarial system to achieve justice, funds to provide the basic needs of a defendant for a criminal offense certainly should be available. Of course, if a judge knew the charge was accurate and he was responsible for freezing the funds, no investigation would be ordered. Such a judge would say something like: “All right.”

When faced with this charge, Mr. Chavez is apparently going to say “That’s absolutely untrue” or “that’s absolutely a lie” or “That’s absolutely insane!” He suddenly stops after saying “That’s absolutely…” perhaps remembering they were on the record and he was about to tell a lie.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

The Wanta Chronicles, the Covert Economic War





Saturday, September 24th, 2011 Posted by Veterans Today
Classified: The Wanta Chronicles, the Covert Economic War
40


AUTHORIZED COVERT ECONOMIC WAR ON THE SOVIET UNION AND THE 9/11 ATTACK








BUSH ON 9/11, BARKSDALE AFB, VERY MUCH IN CONTROL....BEFORE THE ATTACK




Editor’s notes: Among the documents and extensive narrative here is the story of the most classified operations since World War II. Herein is also included a broad history of a vast international criminal conspiracy at the heart of the American government. The stories begin with the criminal prosecution of former Reagan intelligence coordinator, Lee Wanta.

Charges allege that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed in order to cover fiancial crimes. These crimes and their background is covered in this document.

Understandings of the mechanics of the 9/11 attack itself are largely taken from the Commission Report.

These now prove to differ as much from the truth as the other aspects of the 9/11 Commission report that this document challenges.

[Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. 421 - 426] …. [1] to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency, unless the United States has publicly acknowledged or revealed the relationship.

REVEALED IN DANE COUNTY COURT TRANSCRIPTS : - STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
BRANCH 2
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF,
CASE No. 92 – CF – 683

vs.

LEO E. WANTA,
DEFENDANT.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


DATES : MAY 8, 9, 10, 11, 1995
………………………………………………………………………………………………


ALLEGED TAX CHARGES : FAILURE TO PAY CIVIL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT, OF $14,129.00 RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CONTINUING AND LAWLESS INSISTANCE THAT DEFENDANT OWED CIVIL STATE TAX ASSESSMENTS_FYI 1982, 1988, AS A RESULT OF HIS DEEPCOVER COVERT ACTIONS DURING AUTHORIZED STING OPERATION – INVOLVING CERTAIN TARGETED INDIVIDUALS, ALLOWING THE STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE’S FALSE AND SPURIOUS ACCUSATIONS TO BE FRAUDULENTLY LEVIED AGAINST SAID DEFENDANT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF SAID TARGETED CORPORATIONS, REFERENCING COURT RULINGS :


1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, ORDER, C. A. 84-C-359, JOHN W. REYNOLDS, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, 7th day of Sept, 1984;

2. STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT COURT, WAUKESHA COUNTY, CASE No. 83-CV-452, ROBERT T McGRAW, 4th day of April, 1985;

3. STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPEAL TRIBUNAL DECISION, HEARING NO. 84-40912FG, DECISION 5-11-84;


4. STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPEAL TRIBUNAL DECISION, HEARING NO. 84-40913FG, DECISION 5-11-84.

A. THE STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAD FULL WORKING KNOWLEDGE, THAT DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS FAMILY ATTORNEY, THOMAS A. WILSON, ON JUNE 3, 1992, ISSUED ATTORNEY CHECK NO. 6992, IN THE STATE DEMANDED AMOUNT OF $14,129.00 IN FULL COMPROMISE OF THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS, STATE ACCEPTED IN FULL COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT – REFERENCING BANK NOTATIONS : -

4311 02983

STATE TREAS OF WIS.
DEPT OF REVENUE
1ST WI NATL BANK
MILWAUKEE, WI

4311 02983
STATE TREAS OF WIS.
DEPT OF REVENUE

1ST WI NATL BANK
MILWAUKEE, WI
075000022
JUN 24 92
PAID0000012703
06-24-92

097 DOR1033 624924493D $14129.

B. STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FEBRUARY 18, 1999 “THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAS NO RECORD OF A DELINQUENT TAX`ACCOUNT ISSUED TO LEE E. WANTA, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 3XX-XX-XXX6, FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DPP#04362 [DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT]. C. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE KANSAS CITY, MO 64999 APRIL 23, 1991 LTR 2358C TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER : 3XX-XX-XXX6 TAX FORM : 1040 TAX PERIOD : DEC 31, 1988 “BASED ON OUR INFORMATION, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR FILING A TAX RETURN FOR THIS PERIOD. IF OTHER ISSUES ARISE, WE MAY NEED TO CONTACT YOU IN THE FUTURE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPLY TO THIS LETTER. DOROTHY O. SMITH, CHIEF, COLLECTION BRANCH”

ON LETTER HEAD :

D. PUNDER, VOLHARD, WEBER & AXTER

DENNIS ULLMAN, ESQ.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
265 W. NORTHLAND AVE.
APPLETON, WI 54911


FRANKFURT am MAIN

24 MAY 1994

486.0094.92.05.B-tep

HANS LANG, YOUR INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF LEO E. WANTA

DEAR MR. ULLMAN,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TELECOPY OF APRIL 13, 1994. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONEY TRANSFERS TO AUSTRIA WHICH YOU MENTIONED.

UPDATING YOUR INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE CIVIL LAW SUIT AGAINST MR. KURT – PAUL BECKER AND HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, I ENCLOSE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FRANKFURT COURT OF APPEAL OF MAY 5, 1994 WHICH CONFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF THE FIRST INSTANCE GRANTING MR. LANG’S CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF US$500.000. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

FOR REASONS OF PROFESSIONAL CURIOSITY RATHER THAN FOR THE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS OF MR. LANG, I SHOULD BE PLEASED IF YOU CAN KEEP ME INFORMED ON THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AGAINST MR. WANTA, PERHAPS BY SENDING ME A PAPER CLIPPING ON OCCASION.
ARNDT STENGEL.

JR COLLECTION AGENT DENNIS ULLMAN, TESTIFIED THAT NAMED DEFENDANT WAS AN ASSOCIATE OF THESE GERMAN INDIVIDUALS, WHEN HE ABSOLUTELY KNEW THAT THIS STATE DEFENDANT WAS WITH THE US DEPT OF TREASURY – UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE – DEEPCOVER AS THESE KNOWN INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE ELECTRONIC MEMORY CHIPS FROM USA TO EUROPA, AND PLANNED FOR ACTUAL DELIVERY TO YONGBYON, NORTH KOREA. DEFENDANT WAS DOMICILED IN WIEN, AUSTRIA AND SINGAPORE, AND FULL FIELD REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED TO RAC W…… L…..S , SA233MS, SA32NV, S-31-IANO [ INTERNAL AFFAIRS NEW ORLEANS ], ET AL.

COLLECTION AGENT D ULLMAN KNEW AT ALL TIMES THAT CIA COUNSEL [CAL] J E…S [DIS-BARRED] WAS HOLDING THE TARGET’S US$500.000 IN HIS MITSUI BANK [CAL] ACCOUNT,

{PLEASE NOTE : STATE AGENT ULLMAN KNOWINGLY IGNORED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTIFIED HIS USG SUPERIORS, AND DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS PER USG OFFICIAL FILINGS TO CAL SUPREME COURT, AND WERE CLEARLY DOCUMENTED THAT THE SMUGGLER’S FUNDS WERE NEVER IN CUSTODIAL/PERSONAL CONTROL OF NAMED DEFENDANT }, [ FUNDS WERE EVENTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THEIR PRC - PEKING CUSTODIAL BANK ACCOUNT, AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS RETURNED TO THE GERMAN TARGETS [ MEMORY CHIP SMUGGLERS ] , KURT-PAUL BECKER AND LOTHAR ELSASSER, ET AL. – AND- NEVER REMITTED TO SAID STATE NAMED DEFENDANT, AS FALSELY ALLEGED ….

E. INVESTIGATIVE OPERATIONS CONTINUED IN S.E. ASIA – AS TO SISTER PLANT ” WETROOM ” [ NAMED STATE DEFENDANT FORWARDED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS/SPECIFICATIONS DIRECTLY TO US CUSTOMS SERVICE - RAC - TN OPERATIONS, ET AL ] AS WELL AS, MANUFACTURING PLANNING – FINANCING WITHIN THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE NAMED CORPORATIONS TO DEVELOP/TRANSFER SAID SISTER PLANT WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS WITHIN YONGBYON, NK – UNDER STATE OF WISCONSIN DEFENDANT’S DIRECTION AND AUTHORITY, AS THIS CIVIL TAX CASE WAS CLEARLY SPURIOUS, AND LAWLESS, INTER ALIA.

ON LETTERHEAD OF F. V RAMAKRISHNAN & CO, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS, NOTARY PUBLIC, VR/YLC/0824/92M, 16th MAY 1992,

M/S BACHMAN, CUMMINGS McKENZIE ,HEBBE, McINTYRE & WILSON, S. C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
211`EAST FRANKLIN STREET
P.O. BOX 1155
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
54912-1155

ATTN: MR THOMAS A WILSON

DEAR MR THOMAS A WILSON

RE : LEO EMIL WANTA

PARA 1
PARA 2
PARA 3

PARA 4 – UNFORTUNATELY, THE CHAIRMAN OF ANEKO CREDIT PTE LTD, MR KOK HOWE KWONG, HAS SUDDENLY PASSED AWAY LAST NIGHT AFTER OUR TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION. OUR CLIENT IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF ANEKO CREDIT PTE LTD. HE HAS TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE TO ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPANY.

PARA 5 – PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE FILES IN YOUR POSSESSION RELATING TO LEO AND ONE OF THEM IS CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO REAGAN/GEORGE BUSH CONSPIRACY REGARDING THE CONTRA WAR WHERE OUR CLIENT ALSO KNOWN AS FRANK INGRAM (FBI) PARTICIPATING AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT INTO THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICES TO PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE UNAUTHORIZED US$ FUNDING OF THE CONTRA WAR AS DIRECTED BY THE THEN VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH.

PARA 6 - PLEASE TAKE NOTICE -

DUE TO LAWLESS ACTIONS OF CERTAIN STATE OF WISCONSIN INDIVIDUALS THE FOLLOWING WRONGFUL DEATHS OCCURRED SERVING THEIR COUNTRY:

1. HIS EXCELLENCY, KOK HOWE KWONG – SINGAPORE

2. LINO BURYS – HONG KONG

3. FREDDIE WOODRUFF, TBILISI

4.

5.

6.

JUST A QUALIFIED REMINDER

a. Rogers – Houston Memorandum

b. H. R. 3723 c. Title 18 U. S.C. Section 792

d. ” ” ” ” 35

e. ” ” ” ”

241, 242

f. ” ” ” ” 372

[ , or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. ]



DIFFERENT TOPIC:

(The following is an attempt to present in a compact form the alleged claims made by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, Vina K. Durham, Karl Schwarz and put together in an the article by E.P. Heidner dated 28th June 2008 to the effect that the September 11th attacks were intended to cover-up the clearing of the 1991 issuance of $240 billion in covert securities to fund an economic war against the Soviet Union during which “unknown” western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry. A crime presented by official sources as a “terrorist attack” and used as an excuse to attack Iraq.)


________________________________________


September 11


Initially the official designation of “terrorist attacks” made it difficult to discern a pattern. However if the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives is not considered as a “terrorist attack” but rather as a crime with specific objectives, there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction, not only of the buildings but of specific offices within each building.

If the attack on the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon was not random it is reasonable to assume that the planes that hit the World Trade Centre, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6, 7, the basement of the Towers, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Centre were also deliberately targeted.

Why? What was it that linked these targets? The destruction of the contents of the basement of the World Trade Centre – less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities?

In addition why were specific brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers eliminated? To create chaos in the government securities market?

To create a situation wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions? Which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its “emergency powers” that afternoon.

There were three major securities brokers in the World Trade Center: Cantor Fitzgerald, Eurobrokers and Garbon Inter Capital. On the morning of September 11, Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46 right below the floors on which Cantor Fitzgerald was situated.

Cantor Fitzgerald as the largest securities dealer in the US was probably the primary target. Shortly thereafter a massive explosion went off under the FBI offices in the North Tower on the 23rd floor, Garbon Inter Capital on the 25th floor, and in the basement of Tower 1.

The explosion caused the 22nd through 25th floors above to collapse into an inferno. Fires were reported on the 22nd floor at 8:47. Shortly, thereafter, at 9:03, Flight 175 hit the South Tower right below the floors on which Euro Brokers was situated.

In all three cases, the explosive, fiery destruction consumed the offices in the several floors above. At 9:37 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, targeting one of the few offices that had been moved in the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon: the Office of Naval Intelligence, which had been investigating the financial transactions linked to the securities being managed by those security dealers in the World Trade Center that were targeted.

41% of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed U.S. government securities:

Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers. 31% of the 125 fatalities in the Pentagon were from the Naval Command Center that housed the Office of Naval Intelligence.

39 of 40 Office of Naval Intelligence employees died. In the vaults beneath the World Trade Center Towers, any certificates for bonds were destroyed.

Building 7 was evacuated somewhere between 9:00 and 9:30. Fires and explosions spontaneously began at multiple locations inside the building prior to the collapse of either Tower.

This observation contradicts the official explanation that the fire started when objects from the collapsing towers caused the fires to ignite. The Building ultimately was destroyed in what many unofficial observers now believe was a controlled demolition. Building Seven housed several agencies critical to investigation of financial crimes.

In the midst of all this, Building 6 was destroyed by explosions from within. Building 6 was home to the U.S. Customs agency and the El Dorado Task force, which was responsible for coordinating all major money-laundering investigations in the U.S.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, these groups would be redirected to investigate terrorist financing.

The Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon, which sustained a direct hit from an airliner that day, was without a doubt, a target pinpointed for destruction.

The attacking aircraft went through intricate maneuvers in order to hit the west side of the Pentagon, The flight path approach shows that the attacking aircraft passed almost directly over the White House, bypassing what should be considered a primary target for a “terrorist attack” instead of a supposedly empty section of the Pentagon.

The planes that hit the South Tower also maneuvered in the last moments to hit their exact target.

On the same day, (September 11) the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity (September 12th) without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

While most media reports defer to the U.S. government contention that Osama Bin Laden was behind these attacks, foreign media provided reports suggesting that the “real power” behind Al Qaeda was unknown.

As shall be seen, the financial power behind the attack is the same power that created these securities, and the same power as that which founded Al Qaeda.

The Background

In order to understand why the ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1, it is necessary to understand how the $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding, could have been created in September 1991 and also to know the background of 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, where U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts.

The covert securities used to accomplish the original national security objective had ended up in the vaults of the brokers in the World Trade Centre, were destroyed on September 11, 2001, the day before they came due for settlement and clearing.

Either a key group of senior National Security officials, who had participated in the victory of the economic cold war in 1991, considered the deaths and destruction as ‘collateral” damage to hide the existence of the covert activities or the destruction constituted a cover-up of continued lawlessness by a fraternity or brotherhood of businessmen and criminals that has remained in the shadows ever since.

The Origins of the World Trade Centre Attack

Most historians track the history of September 11th to 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwa or jihad against the U.S., and the terrorist “Hamburg Group” led by Mohammed Atta reportedly “offered” it’s services to Al Qaeda.

However, the history which defines the motives for the September 11 attacks goes much further back. The answers to the questions surrounding the cause of the WTC attack will be found in events during the presidency of George H.W. Bush and earlier.

Insight into the activities of that period are cloaked by the Executive Order of George H.W. Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, who on November 1, 2001 issued Executive Order 13233. As a result public records which might have shed light on the activities of 1990 and 1991 remain shielded from public access. Consequently the reconstruction of events from the late 1980s and early 1990s is based on news reports, books and articles.

What the public record suggests is that with the beginning of the first Bush Presidency in 1989, George H.W. Bush initiated a programme of covert economic warfare to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The name of this programme appears to be Project Hammer – a multi-billion dollar covert operation, whose investments remain shielded.

There is reason to believe that the plan was initially formulated by Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey. Many of the programme operatives were probably engaged through official CIA and National Security channels.

However, as a result of the experience gained by the Bush cabinet and its private sector counterparts during the secretive Iran-Contra and Ferdinand Marcos gold operations, the execution of that programme would be accompanied by a new assumption that the use of covert and illegal funding for a policy not approved by Congress would remain acceptable.

The Source of the Funds

Numerous sources have documented that at the end of World War II, the treasury of the Japanese Empire was discovered in the Philippines by Edward Lansdale a member of the staff of General Charles Willoughby, who was General MacArthur’s chief of Intelligence.

Lansdale and Severino Garcia Diaz Santa Romana tortured Major Kojima Kashii, General Yamashita Tomoyuki’s driver, until he revealed the sites of the gold.

Then known as the “Golden Lily Treasure”, this mass of wealth had been accumulated by the Japanese over fifty years from the pillaging of Southeast Asia and China by its army and had been deposited in the Philippines due to the U.S. submarine blockade of Japan. Reports vary, but documents in the public domain suggest the recovered treasure was in excess of 280,000 metric tonnes of gold.

Lansdale briefed Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy about the findings, and a U.S. Cabinet-level decision was made to confiscate the gold and cover-up its discovery.

The gold would be added to the Black Eagle Trust fund which took its name from the Nazi Black Eagle stamped on the gold bars confiscated from the Reich and was the original source of funding for the trust.

Over the years, the significance of the Nazi gold would pale in comparison to the confiscated Japanese treasure. As the fund grew, it was distributed in private accounts across the globe in over 100 banks, and administered by General Earle Cocke.

Lansdale and Santa Romana were made responsible for recovery of the treasure. They fabricated a “Communist Revolution” by the Hukbalahak rebels in order to confiscate the land where much of the gold was buried, and proceeded to mine it.

The Yamashita gold would become the cornerstone of the Black Eagle Fund, from which many covert operations of the U.S. intelligence would be funded. Under international law the gold should have been either returned to the countries from which it was stolen (as was done with the Nazi gold), or should have been incorporated into the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. Government’s continued efforts to stifle news on this matter provides prima facie evidence that the confiscation of this gold was illegal.

The men responsible for initiating and executing the confiscation of Nazi and Japanese treasury gold represent the most senior Intelligence officers in the U.S. and Britain at the end of World War II, and the Cabinet of the President of the United States.

The financial institutions represented by these individuals would become the major financial banks in the world, along with the Swiss-German banks where they hid their gold.

Lansdale’s operation in the Philippines gave birth to most of the common features of modern covert operations for the U.S.Intelligence and initiated a bond between the US intelligence organizations and the Israeli intelligence.

He also set precedents for the Intelligence community to retain the services of organized crime on U.S. soil and to use drug running as a way of financing activities.

The covert operations funded by the Black Eagle Trust in the 1960s and 1970s became visible stains on the global image of the U.S. despite all efforts to keep them under cover.

In an effort to clean house, President Jimmy Carter would order the retirement of over 800 covert operatives. Many of these operatives would move into private consulting and security firms and be employed as subcontractors for covert operations. Thus began a loose association of private operatives that would be referred to as “the Enterprise” in the years to come. George H.W. Bush, having been CIA Director, had many acquaintances in this group, and would work with them to restore their influence and control over U.S. foreign policy and the foreign investment opportunities it created for their benefit.

Meantime Ferdinand Marcos, the pro-U.S. dictator of the Philippines, continued to discover even more of the buried treasure. and had started to sell it on the market during the 1970s with the assistance of Adnan Khashoggi.

US Intelligence operations had been siphoning off the gold for three decades. However in 1986 Vice President George Bush took over the gold from Marcos and the gold was removed to a series of banks, notably Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, UBS and Banker’s Trust, and held in a depository in Kloten Switzerland.

What happened to the Marcos gold after it was confiscated by U.S. agents in 1986 has never been reported, but throughout the early 1990s, the world gold market would be befuddled by the mysterious appearance of thousands of tonnes of gold which appeared to suppress the price of gold.

In South east Asia operations were financed through Nugan Hand Bank in Australia which would be one of the many banks used for transferring the Marcos gold from the Philippines into covert operations. Frank Nugan’s family ran the primary supply shipping operation between the U.S. Navy base in the Philippines and Australia.

Frank Nugan’s business partner, Peter Abeles, and Henry Keswick, together with Canadian businessman Peter Munk, would link with Adnan Kashoggi, Sheikh Kamal and Edgar Bronfmann in a series of operations which ultimately would evolve into Barrick Gold.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush served on the Advisory Board of Barrick Gold. The Barrick operation would create billions of dollars of paper gold by creating ‘gold derivatives’.

A major distribution channel for the sale of Barrick’s gold futures would be Enron. Enron would also become the vehicle by which oil and gas contracts from the former Soviet Union (vehicles for Soviet money-laundering) were processed.

Barrick, which has no mining operations in Europe, used two refineries in Switzerland: MKS Finance S.A. and Argor-Heraeus S.A. – both on the Italian border near Milan, a few hours away from the gold depository in Zurich.

The question that Barrick and other banks needed to avoid answering is: what gold was Barrick refining in Switzerland, as they have no mines in that region?

Barrick would become a quiet gold producing partner for a number of major banks, and its activities became subject to an FBI investigation into gold-price-fixing. The records on this investigation were kept in the FBI office on the 23rd floor of the North Tower which was destroyed by bomb blasts shortly before the Tower collapsed.
The ultimate destination of the “Golden Lily Treasure”, and the source of the ‘loaned’ gold that flooded the market for 10 years has never been officially explained.

The records of many of those transactions disappeared when Enron collapsed and the trading operation and all its records were taken over by UBS, another major recipient of Marcos gold. The FBI was reportedly conducting an investigation into those transactions, and the investigation files were kept on the 23rd floor of the North Tower of the WTC.

A review of the personal accounts of September 11 now suggests that office was deliberately targeted with explosives prior to the collapse of the WTC.

Another key player in the Marcos gold was Banker’s Trust, which was taken over by Alex Brown & Sons, after Banker’s Trust floundered financially on its Russian loans in the mid 1990s. These Russian loans were facilitated by Enron, starting in August of 1993, and very possibly were part of the Project Hammer takeover of Soviet industry.

Amongst those brought into the picture by the involvement of Alex Brown was J. Carter Beese who was Executive Director of the CIA at the time of September 11. He was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the board of directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in 1992. Since 1992, OPIC has provided more than $4.5 billion in finance and insurance to more than 140 projects in Russia. He was also Chairman of Riggs Bank and also President of Riggs Capital Partners.

Riggs controlled the famous Riggs-Valmet consultants who set up the international financial apparatus for the Russian oligarchs and rogue KGB allowing them to steal the Soviet treasury and destroy the Russian economy. Carter Beese’s death was reported as a suicide in 2006.

It appears that in September 1991, George H.W. Bush and Alan Greenspan did indeed finance $240 billion in bonds in a buy-out of the Soviet Union as part of a broader programme to attack the economy of the Soviet Union.

In addition President George H.W. Bush had initiated a number of related covert operations to take over certain sectors of the Soviet economy.

The covert business dealings with the Iranians and Israelis which originated with Kashoggi and Kimche in July 1980 in Hamburg under the October Surprise arrangement, would provide an opening to the Soviet KGB that would allow the U.S. to fund a coup against Gorbachev in 1991.

It would grow into a larger covert operation over the years, and be overshadowed by the larger Iran-Contra operation. Members of Bush’s covert intelligence cadre sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy of the U.S., and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.

The entire Iran-Contra operation almost fell apart in 1986 and became public when the Nicaraguan government shot down a U.S. plane carrying weapons to the Contra rebels However the Iran-Contra team continued to violate the law even while being investigated by Congress.

Emboldened by the lack of consequences for subverting the U.S. constitution and breaking international law during the Iran-Contra scandal, the Bush administration group known as “the Vulcans” planned a bigger drive to crush Soviet Russia.

The programme also seems to have lined the pockets of the individuals that executed this policy, at US taxpayer expense. This was done to the tune of the $240 billion dollars in covert and allegedly illegal bonds, which appear to have been replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers in the aftermath of September 11.

The Vulcan’s Covert Economic War on the Soviet Union

In 1988, Riggs Bank, under the direction of Jonathan Bush and J Carter Beese, would purchase controlling interest in a Swiss company named Valmet.

In early 1989, the new subsidiary of Riggs called Riggs-Valmet would initiate contact with a group of KGB officers and their front-men to start setting up an international network for moving money out of the former Soviet block countries.

In the first phase of the economic attack on the Soviet Union, George Bush authorized Leo Wanta and others to destabilize the ruble and facilitate the theft of the Soviet/Russian treasury. This would result in draining the Russian treasury of between 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes of gold bullion, ($35 billion at the time).

This step would prevent a monetary defense of the ruble and thus destabilize the currency. The gold was ‘released to Singapore’ in March of 1991, as facilitated and purchased by Leo Wanta, and signed off by Boris Yeltsin’s right hand man.

The majority of the leaked reports from the CIA and FBI suggest the theft of the Russian treasury was a KGB and Communist party operation, but what those reports omitted was the extensive involvement of Boris Yeltsin, the U.S. CIA and the U.S. banking industry.

In November 1989 George H.W. Bush appears to have arranged for Alton G. Keel Jr, a minor player in the Iran-Contra scandal to go to work at Riggs Bank, which would become the controlling owner of a small Swiss bank operation known as Valmet.

The Riggs-Valmet operation, would become the ‘consultants’ to the World Bank and to several KGB front operations run by future Russian oligarchs Khordokovsky, Konanykhine, Berezovsky and Abromovich.

These soon-to-be Russian oligarchs had been set-up as front men by KGB Generals Aleksey (Alexei) Kondaurov; and Fillipp Bobkov, who previously reported to Victor Cherbrikov, who worked with Robert Maxwell, a British financial mogul, an Israeli secret service agent, and a representative of U.S. intelligence interests, who had been introduced to George Bush in 1976 by Senator Tower for the sole purpose of using Maxwell as an intermediary between Bush and the Soviet Intelligence.

Maxwell assisted Cherbrikov in selling military weaponry to Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras during the course of the Iran Contra deals, and made hundreds of millions of dollars available to Cherbrikov’s Russian banks.

These two would bring a previously unknown politician and construction foreman named Boris Yeltsin from the hinterlands of Russia to the forefront of Russian politics through providing 50% of Yeltsin’s campaign funding.

In the second phase, there were two major operations: the largest was coordinated by Alan Greenspan, Oliver North, and implemented by Leo Wanta, George Soros and a group of Bush appointees who began to destabilize the ruble.

They are accused of fronting $240 billion in covert securities to support the various aspects of this plan.These bonds were created (in part or in whole) from a secretive Durham Trust, managed by ex-OSS/CIA officer, Colonel Russell Hermann.

This war chest had been created with the Marcos gold.

Shortly before the attempted coup of 1991, Maxwell met Kruchkov on Maxwell’s private yacht. Shortly afterwards, Maxwell died mysteriously on his yacht while Senator Tower died in a plane crash under suspicious circumstances in April of 1991.

In the meantime, Riggs Bank was quickly solidifying banking relations with two of the old Iran-Contra scandal participants: Swiss bankers Bruce Rappaport, and Alfred Hartmann. Through this group George Soros opened a second front assault on the ruble.

It is at this stage of the operation that three more groups would be brought into the plan by Rappaport and Hartmann: The Russian Mafiya, the Israeli Mossad, and the Rothschild family interests represented by Jacob Rothschild.

Soros and Rappaport would ensure that the Rothschild financial interests would be the silent backers for a number of the undisclosed deals. The Rothschild interests would also be seen on the board of directors of Barrick Gold.

In the fourth phase of the secret war, the Enterprise worked on several fronts to take over key energy industries. On the Caspian front of this economic war, James Giffen was sent to Kazakhstan to work with President Nazarbayev in various legal and illegal efforts to gain control of what was estimated to be the world’s largest untapped oil reserves – Kazak oil in the Caspian.

The illegal flow of money from the various oil companies would reach a number of banks. These same oil interests would engage Marc Rich and the Israeli Eisenberg Group, owned by one of the Mossad’s key operatives, Shaul Eisenberg, to move the oil. (The Eisenberg Group would at some point own almost 50% of Zim Shipping, which mysteriously and inexplicably moved out of the World Trade Center a few weeks before the September 11 attacks.)

Like the other events linked with Project Hammer, the coup was all about the money. The coup began the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the beginning of the reign of Boris Yeltsin and his ‘family’ of Russian Mafia Oligarchs, and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan.

In the final phase, a series of operatives assigned by President George H.W. Bush would begin the takeover of prized Russian and CIS industrial assets in oil, metals and defence. This was done by financing and managing the money-laundering for the Russian oligarchs through the Bank of New York, AEB and Riggs Bank.

A closer look at other activities leading up to these phases makes it clear that is was a U.S. orchestrated intelligence effort from the beginning. The economic war involved Gerald Corrigan of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, George Soros, an international currency speculator who was responsible for crashing the British pound a few years earlier, former Ambassador to Germany R. Mark Palmer, and Ronald Lauder-financier and heir to the Estee Lauder estate.

Palmer and Lauder would lead a group of American investors in an Operation called the Central European Development Corporation, and combine forces with George Soros and the NM Rothschild Continuation Trust.

This group ending up controlling Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, while the Riggs group ended up controlling Yukos, the oil giant. Ownership for both remains largely ‘hidden’ today, while its front men endure the hardships of the Russian wrath by spending time in prison.

Meanwhile, across the Caspian Sea, Bush had assigned a wide array of former Iran-Contra operatives to take a role in Azerbaijan.

Initially, he sent in the covert operatives Richard Armitage and Richard Secord who worked with their old colleague from the Mossad, David Kimche, and their old arms running colleagues Adnan Kashoggi and Farhad Azima to hire, transport, and train several thousand Al Qaeda mercenaries to fight on behalf of the Azeri freedom fighters!

Osama Bin Laden was reported to have been part of this mercenary force.

The September 11th Cover-up of the Black Eagle Trust and Project Hammer

Ten years later in 2001, these programmes had finally come back to haunt the U.S. policy makers. Most, if not all of these programmes appear to have stepped outside of the boundaries of the law.

As a result, investigative agencies from Britain, Switzerland, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Philippines were putting pressure on Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice to open up the accounts in the banks used to finance these covert activities.

Pressure was being put on the Swiss banking cartel to open its bullion records to public scrutiny. Full disclosure by these banks during an investigation would have resulted in a major exposure of U.S. Government complicity in some of the greatest financial frauds of the 1980s and early 1990s as well as 50 years of gold bullion theft by numerous U.S. and British government agencies.

Moreover, investigation into these accounts would disclose a National Security secret known as the Black Eagle fund, and virtually every covert operation since World War II. Bringing an end to these investigations and preventing this disclosure was the sole objective for the destruction of the WTC and Pentagon.

These investigative and legal pressures began to accumulate in 1997, and in February 1998, Osama Bin Laden declared his fatwa, and Atta started planning the September 11 attacks.

With the bonds out in the market, they had sat for ten years, like a ticking time bomb. At some point, they had to be settled – or cashed in, on September 12, 2001. The two firms in the U.S. most likely to be handling them would be Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers – the two largest government securities firms in the U.S.

The federal agency mostly involved in investigating those transactions was the Office of Naval Intelligence. On September 11 those same three organizations: the two largest government securities brokers and the Office of Naval Intelligence in the US took near direct hits.

What happened inside the buildings of the World Trade on September 11 is difficult, but not impossible to discern. The government has put a seal on the testimony gathered by the investigating 911 Commission, and instructed government employees to not speak on the matter or suffer severe penalties, but there are a number of personal testimonies posted on the internet as to what happened in those buildings that day.

Careful reconstruction from those testimonies indicates the deliberate destruction of evidence not only by a targeted assault on the buildings, but also by targeted fires and explosions. In the event that either the hijacking failed, or the buildings were not brought down, the evidence would be destroyed by fires.

Even more revealing would be the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission on that day, and in the immediate aftermath. As one of many coincidences on September 11, the Federal Reserve Bank was operating its information system from its remote back-up site rather than it’s downtown headquarters.

The SEC and Federal Reserve system remained unfazed by the attack on September 11. All of their systems continued to operate. The two major security trading firms had their trade data backed up on remote systems.

Nevertheless, the Commission for the first time invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and issued several orders to ease certain regulatory restrictions temporarily.

On the first day of the crisis, the SEC lifted “Rule 15c3-3 -Customer Protection–Reserves and Custody of Securities,” which set trading rules for the certain processes. Simply GSCC was allowed to substitute securities for the physical securities destroyed during the attack.

Subsequent to that ruling, the GSCC issued another memo expanding blind broker settlements. A “blind broker” is a mechanism for inter-dealer transactions that maintains the anonymity of both parties to the trade. The broker serves as the agent to the principals’ transactions.

Thus the Federal Reserve and its GSCC had created a settlement environment totally void of controls and reporting – where it could substitute valid, new government securities for the mature, illegal securities, and not have to record where the bad securities came from, or where the new securities went – all because the paper for the primary brokers for US securities had been eliminated.

This act alone, however was inadequate to resolve the problem, because the Federal Reserve did not have enough “takers” of the new 10 year notes.

Rather than simply having to match buy and sell orders, which was the essence of resolving the “fail” problem, it appears the Fed was doing more than just matching and balancing – it was pushing new notes on the market with a special auction.

If the Federal Reserve had to cover-up the clearance of $240 Billion in covert securities, they could not let the volume of capital shrink by that much in the time of a monetary crisis.

They would have had to push excess liquidity into the market, and then phase it out for a soft landing, which is exactly what appears to have happened. In about two months, the money supply was back to where it was prior to 9/11.

It was the rapid rotation of the securities settlement fails in the aftermath of September 11th that appears to have allowed the Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve to engage in a securities refinancing that resulted in the American taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion originally used for the Great Ruble Scam.

The reports published by the Federal Reserve argue that the Federal Reserve’s actions increasing the monetary supply by over $300 billion were justified to overcome operational difficulties in the financial sector.

What appears to be the case is that the Federal Reserve imbalances reported on three consecutive days in the aftermath were largely concentrated at the Bank of New York, which is reported to represent over 90% of the imbalance, suggesting the Bank had been the recipient of massive fund transfers, and unable to send out transfers.

This supposedly was due to major communication and system failures.In fact, none of the Bank of New York’s systems failed or went non-operational.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion….. At one point during the week after September 11, the Bank of New York publicly reported to be overdue on $100 billion in payments.”

It suggests that certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have been in collusion with key unknown figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence.

These securities, originally managed by Cantor Fitzgerald, were cleared and settled in the aftermath of September 11th through the Bank of New York. The $100 billion account balance bubble reported by the Wall Street Journal as being experienced by the Bank of New York was the tip of a three-day operation, when these securities were moved from off-balance-sheet to the balance sheet.

The above gives an idea of the intricate activities both to perpetrate and then to cover the crime, which was then used under its “terrorist attack” label as an excuse for the attack on Iraq.