Wanta Revelations

By David Dastych
January 17, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The case of Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta:

Motto: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson

[Note from the author: My distinguished colleague, Marilyn M. Barnewall, published an article about Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta on NewsWithViews.com, January 10, 2010. As we exchanged opinions, I decided to write my own piece, which could add more facts about this outstanding former U.S. intelligence operative and financial expert – “The 27.5 Trillion Dollar Man” -- still living in oblivion, while crooks and banksters continue their scams that had led to the American and global financial crisis.]

Leo (Lee) Emil Wanta – now 69 years old – could have been one of the richest men in the world. All he had to do was rip off a small part of the profits from huge secret financial operations of U.S. intelligence with which he had been entrusted in the 1980s by President Ronald Reagan.

Operating under several code names (i.e. Stillpoint, Frank B. Ingram – SA32NV; Rick Reynolds – SA233MS; Lee E Wanta – S-31-IANO Sector V), Wanta used his exceptional skills to destabilize the Russian Ruble and to prompt the fall of the Soviet Empire.

As a result of Wanta’s operations, conducted from Vienna and extending as far as Hong Kong, huge sums of money had been amassed in various banks and tax-free havens all over the world. Working with several trusted intelligence operatives and financial experts, Wanta engaged in many secret deals on behalf of the U.S. Government. The profits from them grew to approximately $27.5 trillion. Wanta still holds the “golden keys” to the money that the late President Reagan wanted to be used for the benefit of ordinary Americans. The money was never intended to enrich the Establishment – the super-rich and the most powerful.

True to Reagan’s directions, Leo Emil Wanta refused to release the funds, which had been diverted to numerous privateoverseas accounts. But despite his efforts, a large part of U.S. intelligence-stashed monies were essentially looted by corrupt U.S. political “crime families.” You would recognize their well-known names if you heard them.

The patriotic stance of Wanta got him deep in trouble. It almost cost him his life. Other associates, however, such as Kok Howe Kwong (his Chinese business partner), Freddie Woodruff, Francois de Grosseurve, were all found dead. You can add the name of Vince Foster, former White House Counsel, to the list. The killings are an integral part of the long process of stealing U.S. intelligence money. It continues to this day.

134 days in a Swiss dungeon

From Wanta’s interview with Tom Valentine on Radio Free America, it is clear that in October 1992, Wanta was asked by the Bush Administration to procure and deliver prime bank guarantees – which are bank debentures. At first, the Bush Administration wanted to run the prime bank guarantees through MiApollo Investments, Ltd. in Hong Kong. They changed their minds, preferring to use an American company. To accommodate, Wanta used his AmeriTrust Corporation. The contract was from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by U.S. Attorney Sandro Sordi, Deputy Attorney General, Dade County, FL, an associate of Janet Reno, then with Richard C. Breeden (SEC Chairman), via Chemical Bank, Chase Manhattan and Citicorp. The contract was signed by Leo E. Wanta, Principal, on January 15, 1993. The pay orders came from Credit Suisse.

After George H.W. Bush lost his bid for re-election, the Clinton Administration wanted access to the money. Their attempts began when White House counsel Vincent Foster asked Wanta to pay Laura D’Andrea Tyson and Leon Panetta who was at that time Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – now CIA Director – $250 million for The Children’s Defense Fund.

“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,” Wanta said. “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, mentioned above). We have verified that Deputy White House Counsel Foster made hotel reservations for everyone in Geneva. The hotel rooms, his itinerary and air travel plans are on his American Express card…” Wanta continued.

“The group having breakfast at the Hotel Au Lac in Lausanne, that day, July 7, 1993, planned to take the train to Geneva to meet with Vince Foster later that day. I had no idea Panetta was coming. I never saw him. Fine had too much luggage and I was carrying a blue nylon bag containing all of my files… heavy, weighed close to 100 pounds. So we opted to go to Geneva by taxi… a 20-minute ride. Foster and his group were to join us at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva to discuss the deal.

“I was arrested by the Suisse Sûreté (the detective force of French-speaking Swiss) before rising from the breakfast table. ” Thus, Wanta never got to Geneva or met with Vince Foster – nor was he given the opportunity to arrest Marc Rich (Reich) as directed by the then-FBI Director William Sessions. (Telephone interview with M. Barnewall, January 16, 2010.)

When Greg Szymanski interviewed him, Wanta said: “I was named Ambassador from Somalia to Switzerland and Canada as a cover to arrest Marc Rich (Reich]. When I got there, I found myself in a Swiss dungeon and Rich was set free. Foster was also there on behalf of the Clintons, asking me for $250 million for The Children’s Defense Fund of which Hillary was chairman. Later, Vince attempted to help me out of my situation, but later I was notified he was found dead and I never found out what happened to the $250 million.”

Tom Valentine interview of Wanta: “On July 20, 1993 the Swiss Prison Superintendent told me that Vincent Foster was dead – on my daughter’s birthday.” Was it a Mafia-style warning? Wanta was kept in what he calls “a Swiss dungeon” at Du Bois, near Lausanne, under the false pretext of tax evasion in the State of Wisconsin. His diplomatic status was breached for 134 days, from July 7 to November 17, 1993 before he was flown to New York in chains.

A federal judge in New York City, Allyce Ross in the Eastern District Court, called it “subterfuge” by the State Department and the State of Wisconsin. She said: “This is absurd and bizarre that Ambassador Wanta is held.” The New York case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. Attorney on November 19, 1993. Yet, he was re-arrested and sent to a prison in Wisconsin and later to other U.S. prison compounds where he was badly treated.

Although Wanta had no idea what The Children’s Defense Fund was all about, a financial investigator, Marco Saba of the Organized Crime Observatory in Switzerland, later wrote about it. It was a secret fund: “One component of this information concerns the activities of the CIA operative known as Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. For some years prior to the elevation of her husband, Bill, a CIA operative like his ‘CIA wife,’ Hillary had been in control of an organization calling itself ‘The Children’s Defense Fund.’” It is alleged, on the basis of intelligence community leaks, that Hillary became accustomed to treating The Children’s Defense Fund as “her own private slush fund.” (Greg Szymanski, Rense.com, March 26, 2006).

In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, known as “Title 18, Section 6.” It authorized U.S. intelligence services to operate corporations for intelligence purposes and deny any intelligence community connection. In other words, they could lie about their real corporate purpose.

Following is an overview from writings of British financial intelligence expert and editor Christopher Story, International Currency Review - World Reports. His comments are factual.

In the fall of 1993, upon leaving the Brooklyn Courthouse, Leo Wanta was unlawfully detained without a warrant by New York Police Department detectives. They apologetically explained that they were ‘doing Wisconsin a favor.’ They were acting on a telephone call from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue requesting his arrest for alleged failure to pay State taxes. Leo was not shown any warrant or provided a copy of any charges filed by the State of Wisconsin.

The pretext for Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta’s unlawful detention: He allegedly owed a civil Wisconsin State tax of $14,129, dating from 1982 and 1988. But it wasn’t true. Wanta lived abroad, not in Wisconsin, since the 1985 legal separation from his wife. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue claimed he was a U.S. resident because his wife lived in Appleton. Somehow they didn’t understand the words “legally separated.” Since his wife filed for divorce in 1995 charging abandonment as of 1985, it’s clear Leo Wanta had no legal ties to Wisconsin in years for which civil taxes were being charged.

Wanta had been notified of the illegal civil state tax assessment while working in Singapore on U.S. government business. Wanta remitted the $14,129. On May 15, 1992, Wanta sent the money from Singapore via Telegraphic Transfer by Malaysian Banking Berhad. It was sent in favor of Wanta’s Wisconsin Attorney, Thomas Wilson, and was deposited in his Attorney Trust Account with Bank One, Appleton, Wisconsin 54911, account commission of S$29.17 plus the cable cost of a further S$20.40 [Singapore Dollars]. The falsely demanded $14,129 was duly paid by Attorney Wilson under protest to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. The check cleared the First Wisconsin National Bank (later Firstar Corporation, now U.S. Bancorp) in Milwaukee.

The State tax levied against him was and remains fraudulent. The original Wisconsin tax charges against Leo Wanta were civil, not criminal charges. Criminal charges of tax evasion were filed only when he insisted he had paid the civil tax assessment – twice (once in May; again in June, 1992). He refused to pay it a third time.

He remained illegally incarcerated without a warrant in the State of New York until December 13, 1993. At that time, law enforcement officers finally extradited him unlawfully to Wisconsin. Wanta had not resided in Wisconsin since 1985 and became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria, after June 1988. There, among other things, he was Director-General of New Republic/USA Financial Group, GES.m.b.H., one of his USG Title 18, Section 6 intelligence corporations, located at Karntnerstrasse 28/15, A-1010 Wien (Vienna)

PART 2

Part I of this article catalogued events leading up to the illegal arrest of Ambassador Leo E. Wanta on July 7, 1993, in Lausanne, Switzerland. It was the beginning of a nightmare destined to haunt the Ambassador for many years… until the present time, in fact.

To add to Leo’s injuries, as soon as he was “imprisoned” on falsified charges, the ruthless Wisconsin authorities sold his former Wisconsin family home, behind his back and without his permission, for a knock-down price of around $60,000, and kept the proceeds. All attempts to procure a proper accounting of this theft have failed. So far. (Interview, M. Barnewall, June 11, 2009: Wanta said, “After they illegally took my family home, the property was occupied by a State of Wisconsin Attorney.”)

By March 1994, Leo Wanta had already languished for nine months in what he terms “a Swiss dungeon.” The U.S. government distinguished itself at the outset by forcing him to be strip-searched in the snow. It is behavior indistinguishable from what happens in the Soviet GULAG (about which the U.S. State Department affected such outrage for decades).

At least four attempts were made to murder him inside the U.S. Of these, the most outrageous was the criminal behavior of a Deputy Sheriff who drove up to the Kettle Moraine Corrections Facility in Wisconsin, changed into prisoner’s clothing, established proximity to Leo and attempted to murder him in the washroom. On that occasion, his life was saved by Duty Sergeant Randy Miller who dragged the deputized murderer out of the washroom and the prisoners’ quarters. The intruder fled back to the administration area, took off his false prisoner’s clothing, dressed back in his Deputy Sheriff’s uniform, and made off in his County car.

When these successive Soviet-style liquidation attempts failed, the Soviet technique of trying to have Leo certified insane, was attempted. After the seventh attempt, his fate was sealed when Dr. Connie Lee, Chief Psychiatrist for the State of Wisconsin, mindful of such abuses and fully satisfied that Leo was mentally stable and proficient, refused to go along with the State’s conspiracy and certified Leo to be of sound mind. After that episode, attempts to delete him from history ceased.

Leo Wanta was moved around the U.S. prison system. For example, he spent from 1998 until September 2001 at amaximum-security facility in the State of Oklahoma. During that period, he was regularly removed from his cell. His cell was searched, items were taken from it and they were not returned. The papers taken from his cell included legal documents, files, and papers from attorneys. A routine was now established whereby Leo was deliberately moved around the Wisconsin/US prison compounds, so his mail always lagged behind his latest movements, and/or failed to catch up with him.

Institution authorities from the State of Oklahoma informed him that they lacked certain background information on him and requested his cooperation in obtaining it. Leo cooperated and learned from institution personnel that they had queried the Wisconsin State Department of Corrections, which had confirmed that no criminal background report was available on him.

Meanwhile the Central Intelligence Agency put word out that Leo Emil Wanta was dead.

This false information was disseminated among strictly compartmentalized agents and cadres, with poor knowledge of the broader picture, and throughout the relevant sectors of the international financial community. Given this ‘tabula rasa’ situation, the coast was clear (or so the criminalists assumed) to ransack, steal, misappropriate, misuse, divert, claim, usurp, collateralize, hypothecate and otherwise unlawfully exploit the $27.5 trillion of which Leo Emil Wanta was and remains the sole Principal and Trustor. All concerned were happy with this illegal state of affairs – which has continued without ceasing. They have also used the Ambassador’s $4.5 trillion compromise funds Settlement agreed in May 2006. On June 28, 2001, eight years after his illegal arrest, Leo Wanta was released from prison and on November 28, 2004, Leo Wanta’s parole case was discharged absolutely. He began his consecutive probation case. (End of comments based on facts as presented by World Reports.)

Leo Wanta has had no probation violations. On July 21, 2005, Wanta’s court-ordered financial obligations were paid in full.

Perhaps the best way to end this era of Wanta’s life and look hopefully to the future is with a letter from Wisconsin Revenue Agent Angela Dunlap. In her February 18, 1999 letter to Wanta’s California CIA attorney, she said: “The Department of Revenue has no record of a delinquent tax account issued to Lee E. Wanta…” The letter is on State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue letterhead.

Recent “Wantagate” Developments

Ambassador Wanta’s restrictions have been lifted, with effect from November 14, 2005, thanks to a loan of $ 35,000 from the Publisher of International Currency Review – World Reports, Christopher Story. The loan enabled Leo Wanta to pay the unlawful tax (which Wanta had already paid) plus interest. Payment was duly confirmed. Earlier, in 2003, “in an unexpected move” Wanta filed a court case. Although the case was dismissed under sovereign immunity, he received verification from the court that his status as legal Trustor is valid. This decision of the District Court of Virginia (April 15, 2003), announced by a truly independent Judge, Gerald Bruce Lee, charged Wanta with repatriating the $ 23 trillion from foreign sources and instructed him to pay taxes on it. He told Wanta to use federal collection courts as a recovery process.

In 2006, due to an Agreement Wanta made with the Bush Administration, $ 4.5 trillion was wired to Wanta care of Bank of America in Richmond VA. He has never been able to collect the money and pay $ 1.575 trillion tax to the IRS. Interesting, isn’t it? In 1993, Wanta was arrested on a bogus charge of non-payment of Wisconsin taxes. In 2010, the government prevents him from paying $1.575 trillion in taxes he openly admits he owes the IRS on the $4.5 trillion wired to him in 2006. Why won’t the government allow Leo Wanta to collect his money and pay his taxes? It appears an “invisible hand” in the federal system stopped the money flow. Was the agreed upon $ 4.5 trillion stolen? If so, who did it? That’s really the most important question.

In the last few years Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta and/or his lawyers wrote several letters to U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Each letter proposed positive ways in which Leo Wanta could use his funds to help his country. With his repatriation funds he proposed purchasing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so a stable base could be put under America’s faltering real estate market. No response. The repatriation of the secret U.S. intelligence funds ($ 23 trillion) could go far to ease the pangs people feel from U.S. economic problems. It could have prevented the U.S. financial crisis. (Some of Wanta’s letters are archived in my files).

Let me quote the last public letter by Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta, dated January 13, 2010, addressed to President Barack Obama and other members of his Administration:

Mr. President: -

I am ready to work with you and your good presidential offices, to rebuild Haiti WITHOUT USG Tax US Dollars, upon the immediate release of my personal monetary funds of US Dollars 4.5 trillion _ plus interest accruals; less my personal/civil repatriation/federal tax payment upon my economic receipt, in conjunction with my preferred US Treasury Bond Investment programs, inter alia.

Please advise so we can develop immediate food/rebuild/safety/medical etc. programs forthwith.
Thank you for your rapid response to these emergency conditions to assist the Haiti Populace, inter alia. No need for a second Katrina incident…

Thank you… Lee

Will President Barack Obama answer Leo’s letter and proposal? I doubt it. The officialdom in Washington D.C. usually ignores Leo Emil Wanta. Maybe they will appoint a Czar to dispose of his money. Who knows? Maybe that has already been done – at least for the $ 4.5 trillion that has disappeared, the $4.5 trillion wired in 2006 to the Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia that has disappeared. For part one click below.

David Dastych is a veteran international journalist and a former intelligence operative. In 1961, he joined the Polish Foreign Intelligence Service. Between 1961 and 1968 and in 1973 he worked in Western Europe, the US, and Asia (Vietnam and China). In 1973, in South Vietnam he joined the C.I.A. He later worked as a journalist and political analyst, specializing in the Soviet and East European regimes with foreign institutes for strategic studies, and with American and other Western diplomatic missions and international organizations.

Between 1976 and 1981 Dastych worked as a Public Relations Officer, then as an analyst and Deputy Manager of the Japanese Foreign Trade Organization (JETRO) in Warsaw (1982-1983). In 1987, Dastych was arrested. The Polish Communist Military Tribunal sentenced him to 8 years for spying for the CIA and allegedly for the Japanese Prime Minister’s Intelligence Service. Having served 3 of an eight year sentence in special wards for political prisoners in Warsaw and Barczewo Prisons, he was released in 1990 after the collapse of communism in Poland.

From 1990 to 1994 Dastych worked with several intelligence services monitoring illegal nuclear trade. In 1994, he broke his vertebral column in a mountain accident in France. After several years of cure and rehabilitation, he resumed his career as a journalist, free-lance editor and columnist and writes for, among others, Polish, American and Canadian media. He runs his own media agency serving foreign authors and businesses.

E-mail: davids@aster.pl

Click -> Cancelled Check to see a PDF of the actual canceled check.

This is the cancelled check from Mr. Wanta to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue dated June 3, 1992.

PDF Available Click Here - IN Writ of Mandamus

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Civil Action no.: 1-07 CV 609

LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
(Individually and as sole and exclusive shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe,
Inc., a Commonwealth of Virginia registered corporation)

Petitioner

v.

HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

ROBERT M. KIMMITT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

JAMES R. WILKINSON
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
DIRECTOR AND/OR MANAGER OF OPERATIONS,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

Respondents

___________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND
OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

___________________________________________________________

A. PARTIES

1. LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230 Petitioner

2. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220 Respondent

3. Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Secretary of the     Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220 Respondent

4. James R. Wilkinson
Chief of Staff
United States Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220 Respondent

5. Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. Respondent

6. Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Respondent

7. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
701 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219 Respondent

B. JURISDICTION

1.      The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause of action pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1361 (mandamus), Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1331, and Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1332.

C. VENUE

2.      Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 87, Section 1391, and Title 28 United States Code Chapter 87, Section 1396.

D. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

3.     Mandamus is regarded as an extraordinary writ reserved for special situations. Among its ordinary preconditions are that the agency or official have acted (or failed to act) in disregard of a clear legal duty and that there be no adequate conventional means for review. In re Bluewater Network & Ocean Advocates, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Mandamus will be granted if the Petitioner shows “(1) the presence of novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice”, see In re United States, 10 F.3d 229 at 931, 933 (2d Cir. 1993).

4.      Petitioner has attempted to access monies that were transferred through international bank monetary clearing systems to financial institutions located in the United States of America. The remitting party was the People’s Republic of China, People’s Bank. The remitting party designated that the transferred funds were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitioner. The foreign entity that originated the inward remittance designated Petitioner as sole and exclusive recipient for the transferred money/financial instruments.

Irrespective of efforts proffered by Petitioner and/or agents and representatives of Petitioner, private and public individuals and entities, prevent Petitioner from exercising Petitioner’s legal right to the use, transfer and unrestricted ability to freely disburse said financial assets. The acts and/or omissions to act by named and unnamed Respondents prevent Petitioner (and others who are ancillary to this cause of action) from paying their respective tax liabilities to both State and Federal taxing authorities.

5.      Upon best information and belief the organizations, entities, departments and individuals that prevent and/or restrict Petitioner’s lawful access to said money and securities include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

• Secretary of the Treasury;
• Attorney General of the United States of America;
• Bank of America;
• J.P. Morgan Chase;
• CITIBANK/CITIGROUP/ NYC including but not limited to Mr. Charles O. Prince, CITIGROUP Chief Executive Officer;
• Goldman Sachs et al including but not limited to past and present management and executive officers and members of the   Board of Directors;
• United States Department of the Treasury including but not limited to Secretary Paulson, Deputy Secretary Kimmitt and other known and/or unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States Department of the Treasury;
• Secretary Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security and other known and/or unknown parties working directly or under   contract with the United States Department of Homeland Security;
• One or more known and/or unknown “compliance officers” that act directly and/or under contract with private bank and/or   security brokerage firms to observe rules and regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury and/or other USG investigative and reporting entities;
• Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia.

6.      Upon best information and belief Respondent acts and/or failures to act constitute a violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank Privacy Act and other non-specified banking regulations.

7.       Reasonable action has been taken by Petitioner to obtain an explanation and/or under what authority Respondents are not permitting Petitioner to have access to the foreign transferred private business financial assets referenced herein. Despite written notice and request for a response the named parties avoid their legal obligations. In furtherance of this Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioner directs this Court’s attention to the letters and other communications that have been collectively marked as Exhibits A attached hereto (2) and all of which documents, letters and Memorandum are incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their entirety in the body of this Petition.

8.      The material, substantive and immediate financial loss to the Petitioner resulting from loss of financial benefit can not adequately be addressed in conventional judicial proceedings. In one or more instances parties in position of knowledge, that can confirm the representations regarding interference in private business dealings, between Petitioner and third parties, have been placed at risk of physical harm by individuals representing to be fiduciaries of one or more of the Respondents. Additionally, the acts and actions of the Respondents prevent immediate payment of Federal taxes in the amount of $1.575 Trillion dollars into the United States Treasury.

E. BACKGROUND

9.       On or about April 15, 2003 the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, in Case Number 02-1363-A filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, issued an Order and Memorandum of Opinion for the referenced numbered case. As part of the Order and Memorandum of the Court (in the referenced case) the Court stated that the Plaintiff (in the referenced case) should pursue liquidation of corporations, recovery of financial assets and pay all required taxes in accordance with the law (3).

10.       Petitioner initiated contact with numerous third parties, including United States elected, nominated, appointed and career employees plus foreign countries, for the purpose of recovering financial assets.

11.       Upon best information and belief in December 2005 and January 2006, Secretary Snow (Secretary of the Treasury at the time) and Chairman Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time) traveled to the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese required confirmation of Petitioner’s signature to facilitate cooperation of the Chinese in completing the transfer of financial assets referenced herein.

Upon best information and belief Snow/Greenspan determined that Chinese officials had the ability and willingness to cooperate with petitioner in the recovery and transfer of substantial financial assets that had been in the care, custody and control of the Chinese for an extended period of time.

12.       Premised on the representations of Secretary Snow and Chairman Greenspan, the legal services of Troutman Sanders, LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin, LLP (attorneys) were used to complete the preparation and administer the execution of agreements and documents referred to collectively as “settlement documents”. The following is a compilation of the significant parties that are represented as either obligors and/or beneficiaries of the settlement documents:

• Petitioner Wanta identified in this petition.
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (including but not limited to Land Baron/Xeno).
• National Security Agency (NSAA).
• Department of Homeland Security.
• Director of National Intelligence.
• United States State Department.
• United States Department of the Treasury.
• United States Department of Defense.
• The White House, including but not limited to the Offices of the President and Vice President.
• C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.).
• China (PRC), France, Great Britain, Germany and other foreign nations participating under one or more international “Protocol” including but not limited to the Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol agreements.
• Others of interest not intentionally omitted as part of this petition.

The entirety of the financial assets mentioned in the settlement documents prepared by the above mentioned attorneys concerns approximately $27 Trillion United States Dollars in value. The portion attributable and payable to the petitioner is $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars.

13.      In May of 2006 the People’s Republic of China caused a free and unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars through international bank fund transfer facilities to an account at Bank of America located at Richmond, Virginia. The designated beneficiary of the transferred funds from the People’s Republic of China was Petitioner herein. This transfer was made by the People’s Republic of China solely and exclusively as a requirement under the mentioned settlement agreement.

14.      Upon best information and belief between the dates of July 31st to August 2nd of 2006 the United States Department of the Treasury, without authorization of either the remitting party or the receiving party removed the People’s Republic of China transferred financial assets from Bank of America Richmond, Virginia to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at CITIBank New York, New York as the beneficiary holder of the monies transferred by the People’s Republic of China referenced above. This “Chip” (Clearing House Interbank Payment) transfer was facilitated from Virginia domiciled banks to New York domiciled banks via the Federal Reserve Bank Richmond. The Chip transfer did not remove the name of Petitioner as the intended recipient of the transferred money from the People’s Republic of China. The transfer to the Goldman Sachs et al account at CITIBank put a lawless restriction that the funds were not to be released to Petitioner without the authorization of United States Treasury. At or about the time of the unauthorized transfer mentioned in this paragraph 14 Petitioner protested the alleged right of “entitlement” by Secretary Paulson and to facilitate protest of right of ownership under the “Securities Acts” accounts were opened in the name of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. at Morgan Stanley, fiduciary client account at CITIBank/NYC to receive direct deposit transfer of Petitioner funds from Goldman Sachs.

15.      The Petitioner has been contacted by “Compliance Officers” that are contract employees of the United States Department of the Treasury that the transfer records of the United States Department of the Treasury and the recipient (past and present holder of the funds transferred to Petitioner by the People’s Republic of China) reflect that the accounts opened to receive the financial assets are tagged and coded for the benefit of the Petitioner. Access to the tagged and coded accounts requires lawless authorization to be provided in writing by Secretary Paulson. To date Secretary Paulson refuses to provide the required written authorization to the compliance officers. In addition one or more compliance officer (referenced herein) has been contacted by Secret Service Agents who have advised the compliance officers that the “White House” ordered that the compliance officers cease and desist from communicating in any manner with Petitioner.

16.      Upon best information and belief the compliance officers mentioned in paragraph 15 have been in contact with law enforcement officers representing the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Department of Defense. These mentioned law enforcement officers confirm that the information provided by the compliance officers is true and correct and that upon best information and belief the “order” preventing Secretary Paulson from releasing the “tagged and coded” funds that are the sole and exclusive property of the Petitioner have been either lawlessly and individually controlled by Secretary Paulson and/or restricted through direct participation by other United States of America elected and/or nominated officials.

17.      Upon best information and belief Troutman Sanders LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, seeking legal recourse on behalf of C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.) and the People’s Republic of China obtained an Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Mandamus Should Not Be Issued from the United States Supreme Court signed by Justice Ginsberg. The People’s Republic of China, as a foreign government, invoked the original jurisdiction authority of the United States Supreme Court to obtain the document signed by Justice Ginsberg. Upon further best information and belief the responding parties to the action filed in the United States Supreme Court are exercising any and all assumed defenses to ward off the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus.

18. The United States Department of Justice and/or any agency or investigative authority contacted has refused to assist Petitioner in the collection of lawful funds. The said parties refuse such assistance irrespective that there is clear and undisputed evidence that the subject funds are identified in official United States government agency documents as being the sole and exclusive property of Petitioner. As of the date of the filing of this Petition, all requests for payment of lawful funds have been ignored by any and all elected and nominated public officials that have the implied and apparent authority to complete all requirements of the settled documents.

19.      Petitioner individually and as sole and exclusive controlling shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. certifies as follows:

• The Petitioner has personally had conversations with one or more officials at the United States Department of the Treasury and said officials confirm the sequence of events concerning inward remittance of subject funds from the People’s Republic of China and inter-bank transfers within the United States.

• Petitioner confirms that he has personal knowledge about the “Claims and Background” set out in this Petition and verifies upon penalty of perjury that the same are true and correct.

• Petitioner has fully and completely reviewed the content of this petition and certifies by sworn affidavit attached hereto that the “Statement of Claim and Background” are true and correct.

• Upon best information and belief “Respondent” individuals, agencies, public, private, nominated and/or elected have knowingly, overtly, covertly and with specific intent conspired together to defraud Petitioner. The individual and/or conspiratorial acts amount to a violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank Privacy Act, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, specifically R.I.C.O. legislation and applicable international and national money laundering restrictions. In addition it is further the mentioned Respondents’ acting individually and/or ‘acting in concert’ violate Petitioner’s rights under the provisions of H.R. 3723 as the same pertains to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties.

Reasonable action has been taken by the Petitioner in an attempt to obtain explanation and/or under what authority Respondents are not allowing the “Rule of Law” and permitting access by Petitioner to the financial accounts referenced herein. Despite continued written notice and request for a response the named parties continue to avoid their legal obligations and continue to commit covert and/or overt acts in furtherance of their knowing and purposeful violation of the statutory references mentioned hereinabove. In furtherance of this petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioners direct this Court’s attention to the letters and other communications that have been marked as Exhibits A, B and C (4) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their entirety in the body of this petition.

F. CONCLUSION

21.       The “Statement of Claim and Background” demonstrate “(1) the presence of novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice”.

G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

1.      Emergency consideration of this Petition with an expedited response time for Respondents to respond to this Petition and an expedited time for the Court to hear the merits of this matter.

2.      Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper to protect the Constitutionally protected rights of the Petitioner.

Executed on this 18th day of June 2007.

[Signed]

LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA _Pro_Se
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
Telephone: 814 455 9218
Telefax: 202 330 5116

AFFIDAVIT

The undersigned, being fully advised by counsel of the seriousness of the claim of making false statements to a Court and being fully apprised of the consequences for
committing perjury (and the associated penalties), hereby make the following statements concerning the petition for Writ of Mandamus being filed on my behalf, by my counsel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia:

1.      I am more than twenty-one years of age and I am a citizen of the United States of
America.

2.      For an extended period of time I am functioning as a representative, investigator, contract employee and/or facilitator of one or more assignments that were either executed and/or performed at the direction and/or under the supervision of one or more persons and/or agencies that were accountable to the Executive Offices of the United States Government.

3.      During most recent three to five years I have been attempting to coordinate the repatriating of substantive financial resources from foreign locations to the United States and cause the tax payments owed on the patriated funds to be paid to the United States Treasury. I have substantially completed the stated objective task with the assistance of one or more foreign sources.

4.      I have read the entirety of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus prepared by my attorneys. I confirm that I have personally directed communications with the banks, security firms, the United States Department of the Treasury (including one or more individual parties associated with the Treasury that are named as Respondents) and other entities mentioned in the Petition.

5.      I have personally confirmed that the financial assets sent by the People’s Republic of China were received by Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia and that upon best information and belief the subject financial assets were “tagged” in my name and transmittal instructions by the People’s Republic of China directed that the same be paid to me without offset or delay.

6.      I have been personally advised by agents and/or contract regulation compliance workers, that are accountable to the United States Department of the Treasury, that release of funds sent by the People’s Republic of China for payment to me is being restricted and/or blocked by one or more parties.

7.      The exact party and/or parties that are restricting and/or blocking payment of financial assets to my designated accounts is not known absolutely.

8.      Upon best information and belief the United States Department of the Treasury has the power and authority to direct release of the funds for my unrestricted use.

9.      Despite continued demand for release of financial assets (that were transmitted by the People’s Republic of China) for payment to me personally the demands are ignored and are not rebuked by any responsive communication.

10.      I have been personally informed by parties, that have the authority to release the block on funds leveraged against recipient banking accounts established in my name, that directives have been received from known and unknown parties that have the effect of negating my ability to have free and unrestricted access to financial assets that are “tagged” solely and exclusively in my name.

IN WITNESS HEREOF I am causing the above set forth affidavit to be notarized and sworn with full recognition of the penalty of perjury this 11th day of June 2007.

[Signed]

Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta and
Ambassador Leo E. Wanta

(This document is the final page of a decision made by Federal District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria, VA on April 15, 2003.  Judge Lee instructs Plaintiff Wanta to “proceed with the liquidation of the corporations,” thus giving legal clarity that the  the owner of the corporations to be liquidated is Lee/Leo Emil Wanta.)

Claims. Nor would an amended complaint change this Court’s ability to provide equitable relief in this matter since Plaintiff does not seek recovery of payment or assessment of federal taxes. Moreover, allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would not remove Plaintiff’s bar from suing the United States government because he lacks express consent or a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States government that would allow the United States Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint because such an action would be futile. Plaintiff’s sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding. See Int’l Lotto Fund, 20 F.3d at 591.

III. CONCLUSION
The Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.