Tuesday 18 March 2008 02:56

UPDATE, 25TH MARCH 2008: This report is remaining in situ given its central importance in the prevailing context. Secondly, contrary to the assertions of many who read this report when it was originally posted, this service has NOT opted out of the necessary task of exposing the financial corruption and other key dimensions of the World Revolution and its Luciferian perpetrators. But as indicated, this report must remain in place for now, focused upon the central issue, until such time as we have been able INDEPENDENTLY to ascertain that the necessary safeguard measures envisaged in the call for an Oversight Panel or Trusteeship have been duly acted upon.

No-one can criticise this proposal without self-exposure, as must be evident to all concerned.

HOWEVER, we understand that certain recalcitrant circles may be RESISTING THE EDITOR’S OWN UNCHALLENGABLE PROPOSAL FOR AN OVERSIGHT PANEL, which, self-evidently, stands in the way of any ongoing intention to steal and/or to take the money right back off-balance sheet in order to facilitate corrupt ‘business as usual’. In thereby indicating any opposition to this basic proposal, anyone who adopts such a stance will reveal what may be going on behind the scenes. We cannot imagine that anyone ‘in the know’ could be so foolish: but then again, simple common sense would appear to be at a premium, so intense may be the apparent continuing determination to sidestep the Rule of Law, in spite of what we have published since June 2006 in its defence.

It’s been too cushy for so long, some people can’t imagine life without corrupt ‘business as usual’.

So, will they ‘go straight’? Or are they manoeuvring to preserve the decadent status quo?

What would HM The Queen have to say about any de facto misapplication of her funds?

These considerations and questions are appended here in order to assist anyone who may be having difficulty understanding plain English.




By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York: Press NEWS and the ARCHIVE Button on the Home Page for ‘Wantagate’ reports since April 2006.

• Please Make a Donation to help fund Christopher Story’s ongoing financial corruption investigations. Your assistance will be very sincerely appreciated and will make a real difference, hastening the necessary resolution of the worst financial corruption and global financial crisis in history. This website has been calling the shots, because of the hijacking of Wanta’s Settlement.

This is the 100th, and also the LAST, Wantagate report, dealing with The Wanta Plan and the Wanta Settlement. The Editor feels that, since 2003, he has now done all he can to procure the finalisation of Ambassador Wanta’s long overdue payment, and has a few remarks to make on this subject at the end of the main section of this report. We have forced the issue as far as is practicable.

In the process, we have massively dislodged, and thrown into total disarray, the financial criminal rats, who are in such distress due to their own open-ended stupidity and greed that the corrupt President of the United States has had the gall to ask Courts and the Legislative Branch for the OKAY to steal what he terms ‘the tax money’ on the Settlements, so that he can bail out his cronies who have lost their shirts in the Carlyle debacle, for which the Bush Crime Family and their gaga criminalist associates are themselves responsible. Talk about shooting onself in the foot.

By way of clarification, the Ambassador has requested the Editor of this service to publish no NEW reports specifically on The Wanta Plan until further notice, given the greatly heightened sensitivity of the situation; and of course the Editor concurs with this reasonable request, not least because he has always stated that, as a ‘special friend’ of the Ambassador (to employ his own words), he will always cooperate, as requested, to assist Mr Wanta and his colleagues towards closure.

Future reports in this series will focus on the ongoing financial corruption crisis, the corruption in the European Union Collective’s structures, other chronic World Revolution issues, and relevant geopolitical matters, with our usual continuing acute concern about the deteriorating conditions in Britain and the United States: ‘The Main Enemy’. The antics of the world’s worst financial criminals, occupying the highest offices in the United States, will remain an inevitable preoccupation. But the focus will henceforth cease to be SPECIFICALLY the Wanta Settlement and the endless convoluted problems that the criminalist operatives have systematically placed in the way of its fulfilment, as they seek to steal the whole lot for themselves and their cronies, which is what is happening.

That issue will now become more clearly part of the broader scope of our reports. But of course, we will remain concerned about the Settlements as a whole, given their prospective impact, and their currently delayed impact, on the world economic and financial environment.

‘Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both’.

• BOOKS: ‘The Red Terror in Russia’, by Sergey Melgounov, is published by Edward Harle Limited and available via this combined website. It describes what the Dark Forces pulled off in Russia, and what they may have in mind for the United States and Britain (a.k.a. ‘the Main Enemy’) if we do not pull ourselves together. See also the Editor’s 740-page book ‘The New Underworld Order’, for the detailed background on the World Revolution crisis that we are all living through.

At 6:05pm UK time on 17th March 2008, Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta confirmed that the Wanta Plan – to use the phrase that both the Ambassador and Mr Cottrell agreed (on the same date) was coined by the Editor of this service, in June 2006 – will proceed in accordance with the information that is in the public domain, upon economic receipt of the funds.

He added that the Wanta Plan ‘is being accelerated’.

The Editor, who has served as rapporteur for Wantagate by invitation, read this statement by the Ambassador to a working associate of the Ambassador and Mr Cottrell, at about 6.40pm UK time, and it was agreed to the associate’s complete satisfaction.

It has just been confirmed to us by impeccable sources that The Wanta Plan was adopted by the Group of Seven (G-8) financial powers at their Meeting in Northern Germany last June. The Plan was adopted in accordance with the Prospectus reconfirmed by the Ambassador above.

The Editor of International Currency Review and this service accordingly understands from the above that there is to be no deviation whatsoever from the agreed arrangements that have been promulgated on an arms’-length basis through these Wantagate reports since the beginning of this crisis, which have thus reported the position accurately throughout.

He further understands from the above that the necessary checks and balances will be applied at all times, consistently with the 100% transparency standard referenced by the above statement.

This is consistent with our assertion, under the heading ‘WANTA PLAN CALLS FOR 100% TRANSPARENCY’ contained in our Wantagate report dated 17th August 2006 (1), which stated:

‘The Wanta Plan, which provides for total transparency and for all transactions to be properly taxed and conducted on the books, threatens to expose all these untaxed illegal past and ongoing US transaction scams – with devastating consequences for the perpetrators under the present and past three US Administrations’. Given the collapse of Carlyle during the week ending 14th March, and the parallel collapse of Bear Stearns’ share price to $2.0, this prediction is being fulfilled.

It is also consistent with the further statement in that same long-since published report dated the 17th August 2006 under the stark heading ‘AMBASSADOR WANTA’S TREASURER ORDERS THE $4.5 TRILLION TO BE CREDITED’, which elaborated (2):

‘On 14th August 2006, Mr Michael C. Cottrell M.S., the Executive Vice President and Treasurer of Ambassador Wanta’s corporation, instructed in writing that the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank M. Paulson, order the immediate transfer of the $4.5 trillion for the Securities Account of Ambassador Wanta’s corporation (AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc.) at a prominent Wall Street securities firm (3) where, in response to the Due Diligence documentation submitted by Mr Cottrell, it has qualified for, and is in possession of, the necessary US Securities Account Number with the major institution that is concerned. Copies of Mr Cottrell’s instructions were conveyed to Mr James R. Wilkinson at the Treasury and to President George W. Bush’.

Given the above, it follows, then, that the descriptions contained in these documented Wantagate reports of the outline financial arrangements for the implementation of The Wanta Plan, have at all times remained consistent with the restricted information provided by the Ambassador that is in the public domain, and in correspondence faxed to the Editor by the Ambassador himself. In the course of a pleasant Sunday afternoon briefing at a Staten Island hotel last November, the Editor was informed further on the detail of The Wanta Plan in the presence of Michael C. Cottrell, M.S.

Along with the Ambassador, Mr Cottrell has been honoured with special diplomatic status by Her Majesty The Queen and is consequently in possession of Diplomatic Passport Number 60160425.

Although no restrictions were placed upon the use of the information provided to the Editor by the Ambassador on Staten Island, the Editor has chosen not to publicise any of the facts in question, pending further guidance from the Ambassador at some appropriate stage in the future.

As an investigative financial journalist and publisher, the Editor of International Currency Review has a professional responsibility to our subscribers, to the readers of the Wantagate reports, to the international financial community, and to Her Majesty The Queen, to procure that all information provided for public consumption through our media conforms to the briefings provided to him, to any relevant back-up documentation, including Court documents, and to normal UK professional investigative standards requiring due diligence in the pursuit and checking of information. In the light of the Ambassador’s statement and confirmation above, he believes that he has complied fully with his responsibilities in this context, and that, accordingly, it cannot be represented at any time in the future that any misrepresentation of The Wanta Plan has marred these Wantagate reports.

In our Wantagate report dated 3rd March 2008, the Editor expressed his personal concerns at circumstances that might be facing the Ambassador. Those concerns, to which the Editor, as a friend of the Ambassador, was entitled, were publicised exclusively because the Editor had been unable to communicate with Mr Wanta for some months due to the fact that, as he was informed only on 17th March 2008, Ambassador Wanta had been subjected to a ‘gag order’, at least pending completion of the Settlement, in respect of communications with Mr Christopher Story – a new fact of which the Editor of this service was never informed until 17th March, contrary to the information published in our report dated 8th December 2007 [International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 3 & 4, pages 523-560] which gave the impression, based upon what we were told, that the White House had ordered communications with this Editor to cease for only 48 hours. [SEE NOTE BELOW].

For his part, Mr Cottrell advised the Editor on 16th and 17th March 2008, consistently with the Ambassador’s statement cited at the top of this report, as follows:

1. He, Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., Executive Vice President and Treasurer of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., who, as stated, enjoys special diplomatic status in this overall context, conferred upon him along with the Ambassador, by Her Majesty The Queen, is not a party to, does not agree with, and wishes it to be clearly understood that he will not collaborate with, any Wanta Plan arrangements which deviate in any way from the 100% transparency standard referenced in our Wantagate report dated 18th August 2006, and subsequently.

2. It is Mr Cottrell’s professional assessment that any variation of the advertised arrangements will contain the potential for entrapment in a situation whereby it may be represented that he and the Editor of this service may have been parties to misrepresentation and a deception. As Mr Wanta’s statement above confirms, this is not the case.

3. In this context, Mr Cottrell points out that for at least the past 15 months, we have consistently cited, as a warning to all concerned, at the foot of these Wantagate reports, the relevant applicable US Statutes, the 1933/34 Securities Acts regulations and the legal position in connection with public misrepresentation of material facts, fraudulent concealment of material facts, the tort of Fraud in the Inducement, Theft by Deception, Fraudulent Conveyance and the implications of obfuscation when representing material facts concerning prospective financial transactions for general public consumption. All of this information is reproduced yet again, as usual, at the foot of this report. We have also frequently cited, as we do at the top of this report, the US Misprision of Felony Statute, which is applicable to all in the United States who wilfully ignore evidence of this endless official US corruption and fail to report it in accordance with that law.

4. Mr Cottrell adds that IF the agreed-upon existing Joint Venture/Wanta Plan arrangement with his own firm is to proceed, given the massive proportions of the Lee E. Wanta Settlement, ‘I, Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., President of Pennsylvania Investments, Inc., require an oversight panel or judge in order to ensure the proper and transparent expenditure and investment of the Lee Wanta funds in accordance with the reconfirmed arrangement whereby they are submitted to the Morgan Stanley Securities Account per the instructions given by both Ambassador Lee E. Wanta and myself’ as was detailed in our Wantagate report dated 18th August 2006, cited above.

Prior to the availability of Ambassador’s statement given at the top of this report, Michael Cottrell further informed the Editor on 17th March 2008 as follows: ‘I refuse to participate in The Wanta Plan if it does not conform precisely to what was agreed and has been advertised through your reports with the Ambassador’s collaboration. If the Wanta Plan does not now precisely conform to what was previously agreed and confirmed in writing, then it is a deception, and I will have no part in it’.

Diversion of any part of the $6.2 trillion Wanta Settlement funds, of which a substantial proportion was originally provided by Her Majesty The Queen, would represent one or more clearly fraudulent transactions, with which the Ambassador and Mr Cottrell could not be associated, and with which the Editor, as rapporteur by invitation, cannot associate himself or his media either.

None of the parties named here can agree, be associated with, or lend their support to any such variation or conversion of the funds, if that may ever be intended or were to take place.

In this respect, Mr Cottrell informs us that he is greatly encouraged by the Ambassador’s timely and welcome confirmation at the top of this report. This statement is made here for the public record.

The Editor would elaborate, for the consideration of ALL concerned:

• Since the Wanta payment indeed consists of such a large sum of money, it might be appropriate and in the obvious interests and for the protection of ALL the parties concerned, for the suggested oversight panel – consisting, for instance, of Department of Defense Internal Affairs and Treasury Compliance Officers, a Judge or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the World Court, to be appointed so as to ensure the proper and uniformly transparent expenditure and investment of the funds on the basis that there is to be no variation at all of The Wanta Plan structure, as referenced above. This suggestion is not to be construed as implying distrust on the part of this Editor of any of the parties concerned, or that there may be any cause for concern on that score. But given what we all know about our human nature, this is a simple, constructive suggestion, to which no-one can possibly object, and which would be of continuing benefit, comfort and assurance to everyone. He understands from the above that Mr Cottrell concurs with this elaboration of his own observations.

Pending his ‘compromise’ Settlement, the Ambassador’s de facto ‘lien’ upon the entire corpus of his original $27.5 trillion (and upon 100% of the ‘assets’ generated through subsequent unlawful trades and operations using his funds) remains unchanged.

Variation of the promulgated arrangements (which the Ambassador precludes in his statement at the top of this report) may not constitute an effective legal settlement and thus release of the claim to and ‘lien’ on the entire corpus.

The Editor of International Currency Review is entitled to make this observation since his job is to report the situation for the benefit of our subscribers and website readers.

In conclusion, the Editor states again that, as this is the 100th Wantagate report, he intends to take this opportunity to sign off with specific reference to the Wanta Settlement, since he believes that he has completed his mission to assist the Ambassador to the best of his ability, a task upon which he embarked when he made available $35,000 of his own scarce private funds to make it possible for the sum of $30,026.97 to be paid to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections by way of Court-ordered ‘Restitution’ which procured the shortening of the Ambassador’s unlawful probation by five years and two weeks – from the old probation termination date of 28th November 2010, to the 14th November 2005, the date when, following this payment, the Ambassador was granted an Absolute Discharge by Mr Matthew J. Frank, the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

(Information about the Editor’s own funds in this context had to be publicised, with the agreement of Ambassador Wanta, when it became apparent that the matter could not be explained clearly for international public consumption without releasing this information).

As explained in our Wantagate report dated 6th August 2007 (5), in particular, the Editor has established that these funds were misapplied by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, an unresolved and scandalous state of affairs, although the Editor’s payment did procure the shortening by 5+ years of the Ambassador’s unlawful probation status.

• The Editor was told on 17th March 2008 that the (retired) Judge who took Mr Wanta’s case has recognised that he himself was misled, and has informed appropriate authorities accordingly. It is believed that this development may be a consequence of the Editor’s Misprision of Felony letter to the retired Judge’s successor, Judge James Martin, sent from New York last October. It is further understood that severe consequences, at last, will ensue for those implicated in this abomination against the Ambassador in the State of Wisconsin and that, following these developments, the case will be sealed. The Editor regards this final point as an abomination within the abomination itself.

At the same time – under the loan Promissory Note signed by Lee E Wanta on 9th June 2005 and the Escrow Agreement signed by Lee Emil Wanta Attorney Steven D. Goodwin, as the Trustee for the Editor’s money – the Editor’s own loan funds plus 7% per annum, extended for two years, should have been repaid at the end of the two-year period (11th June 2007) but were not repaid.

The tiresome detail is added here for context, and for the record. This matter provides the Editor with added standing in addition to his now discharged responsibilities as arms’-length rapporteur by invitation, charged de facto with assisting with the resolution of the Wantagate crisis.

Since this is the 100th Wantagate report, and given the Ambassador’s wishes and that the Editor has yet again been advised that the matter may be on the verge of final resolution [sic], no further specifically Wantagate-oriented reports will be posted on this website.

The still forthcoming bumper special issue of International Currency Review (Volume 33, #s 3 & 4) will present all the information on Wantagate that is in the public domain, with the exception of certain materials that have been published in earlier issues of the journal (6). The presentation will further contain analytical material placing this matter, which is of such millennial importance, in the context of the global financial and economic crisis which erupted following the impasse over The Wanta Plan and Settlement that prevailed from June 2006 onwards.

The Editor (8) (9) will not respond to further enquiries on Wantagate matters or related subjects, but his office will process all requests for copies of Wantagate issues of International Currency Review, as advertised, and of course for all other books and publications published by our group.

NOTE: In a report subsequent to the 3rd March report, the Editor stated that Ambassador Wanta was in good shape, that communication with him was possible, which is true (for those with access: not for readers of this service: PLEASE). The reason for this assertion was that the Editor had been inundated with emailed messages from good people all over the United States and elsewhere who expressed concern about the Ambassador, as a direct consequence of the 3rd March 2008 report.

But upon reading this information, certain official circles in the United States experienced a conniption of uncontrolled proportions, interpreting this insertion by the Editor in the light of the ‘gag’ order referenced above, ABOUT WHICH THE EDITOR KNEW NOTHING UNTIL 17TH MARCH 2008, as indicated. This is a classic indication of official power going completely MAD.

The OBVIOUS way to handle the position would have been for the Editor of this service to have been INFORMED of the ‘gag’ order (is it a written document, or verbal?) which HE WOULD, FOR HIS PART, HAVE RESPECTED. What is the basis for the implied assumption that the Editor of this service will not cooperate if asked to do so by the Ambassador? He was never asked.

Who helped the Ambassador out of his unlawful probation, at great cost? Such ludicrous paranoia on the part of law enforcement indicates, truly, that these people are out of their minds.


(1). See also International Currency Review, Volume 31, #s 3 & 4, Fourth Quarter 2006, page 125.

(2). See also International Currency Review, Volume 31, #s 3 & 4, Fourth Quarter 2006, page 126.

(3). Morgan Stanley, New York.

(4). It will be recalled that the original $4.5 trillion provided by Chinese parties for the exclusive benefit of Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta [see the text of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria: relevant Case Number 1:2007cv00609-TSE-BRP, filed 20th June 2007: per Wantagate report dated 24th June 2007 for the background details, bearing in mind that untrue statements made to and in court represent perjury] were effectively ‘stolen’, and that replacement funds of over $6.2 billion were provided inter alia by the Bank of England/ HM The Queen and initially transferred into the hands of newly merged Bank of New York Mellon under contract from the CIA’s primary institution, Bank of America, from 19th July 2007, ostensibly for onward remittance to make the Wanta payment [see the Wantagate report dated 27th July 2007].

The subsequent FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE operation included the episode, exposed in the Wantagate report dated the 30th August 2007, when Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., was advised by the Bank of New York Mellon to contact the ‘Wire Room’, which ‘couldn’t find’ any trace of records concerning the $4.5 trillion payable to Wanta.

Through this fraudulent conveyance of the $6.2 trillion ‘replacement’ funds LOANED BY THE QUEEN that was now being held within the Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Capital Markets, the bank’s own subsidiary, was then immediately in a position to proceed with new Leveraged Debt Obligations (LBOs) and Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) OFF BALANCE SHEET, back out through the closed Federal Inter Bank Settlement Fund in order to generate OFF-BALANCE SHEET accruals for individual office-holders at the White House, inside the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the associated known giga-criminalist operatives and bandits.

In other words, the ‘replacement’ funds provided by the Bank of England and the Chinese were again diverted prospectively so as to generate new illegal off-balance sheet, untaxed windfall accruals, contrary to the instructions of the originators, of whom we understand that the primary source was Her Majesty The Queen herself. Integral to this fraud was the fact that the Bank of New York Mellon was supposed to have been nothing more than a conduit, which had GUARANTEED delivery of the $4.5 trillion to Leo Wanta’s AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., corporate securities account with Morgan Stanley within Citibank, where the Wanta funds were, however, finally identified as being unlawfully held up within Citibank [see Wantagate report dated 4th October 2007].

(5). See also International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 3 & 4, pages 147-202.

(6). The Wantagate issues of International Currency Review are as follows:

International Currency Review, Volume 30, #s 2 & 3 (‘The Green Book’), Winter 2004-2005.
International Currency Review, Volume 31, #s 3 & 4, Fourth Quarter 2006.
International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 1 & 2, Third Quarter 2007.
International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 3 & 4, Second Quarter 2008 (7).

(7). This huge ‘closing’ Wantagate issue is in preparation but has been somewhat delayed pending complications surrounding the Wanta Settlement matter which are nothing to do with the Editor of this service. Since no further Wantagate reports will now be posted following this 100th Wantagate report, further publication delays are not expected. The Editor’s decision on all the content of this mega-Wantagate issue is final and it is confirmed that it consists of material that has, for the most part, been in the public domain for some time. No new Wanta Plan information is being added, and the analytical material will be built upon further private research conducted recently by the Editor. International Currency Review is a private subscription service and is available on a subscription-only basis, with occasional provision made for special offers of particular issues, at the Editor’s discretion. Requests for copies of the forthcoming mega-issue should be addressed to us via the CONTACT US facility on the website, or by telephone or fax to the coordinates displayed thereon.

(8). The Editor stresses that he is not a party to advertising and interpreting for the benefit of the international financial community any Wanta Plan arrangement which varies one iota from the 100% transparency standard, based upon operating within the securities market environment, that has been consistently advertised in these reports, sourced inter alia upon key written documentation faxed to the Editor by the Ambassador. The Editor has no related financial claim whatsoever and has no financial interest in this matter other than the recovery of his private $35,000 loan plus the interest due. He is not, and cannot be construed as being, a party to any variation of The Wanta Plan (as promoted ‘for the sake of the whole of humanity’, to cite the remarks of Her Majesty the Queen to the G-8 Meeting in northern Germany in June 2007), in our Wantagate reports.

(9) Given the Ambassador’s confirmation at the top of this report that The Wanta Plan will proceed in accordance with the advertised specification, it cannot be maintained by enemies of The Wanta Plan and its implications (as some may wish) that the Editor may have been used to deceive the international financial community concerning The Wanta Plan, and neither can it be maintained that the Wanta Plan has been a deception.

Any variation of The Wanta Plan as promulgated and recconfirmed by the Ambassador’s statement at the top of this report would constitute a fraud perpetrated against this service, and through this service, against our subscribers, Wantagate report readers, the American people, the US Treasury itself, the United States, Her Majesty the Queen (if we may now say so), the international financial community generally, all the main European financial powers in particular, the key European central banks, China and Japan and their respective central banks and financial authorities (who are loyal subscribers to International Currency Review), and all other interested parties including of course the multiple Trustees and payees to which the other settlement arrangements apply, and which are nothing to do with the Lee E. Wanta Settlement except that none of them can take place until the Ambassador’s de facto ‘lien’ on his stolen funds is released through his taking economic receipt of his unlawfully hijacked and criminally delayed ‘compromise settlement’.

It is hardly necessary to explain that any such double-cross could not be implemented without the instigation and collaboration of the notoriously arch-criminalist Bush Family, the co-conspiring Clintons and other players who have been interfering in these matters, and thus bringing the whole world economy to the brink of calamity ever since Wantagate began.

In this connection, we have been advised by several knowledgeable sources that the intention has been to ‘crash the system’ before making the Wanta payment. Indeed, this ‘fact’ has been explicitly stated by the sources, to be the case.

Such a cynical abomination represents gross treason, unprecedented criminality and a display of impeachable offenses so grave as to be without any historical precedent. Likewise, the self-same perpetrators of any deception over the Wanta Settlement, if it is to proceed contrary to the precise specification of The Wanta Plan, will be seen to be traitors to the United States and to the American people, as well as being the specific Black authors of their financial and economic suffering – not to mention that of the Rest of the World.



Step 1: Fraud in the Inducement: “… is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment” Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

Step 2: Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:
• “ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scienter] when it causes injury to another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

• “THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… The elements of actionable deceit are: A false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.

Step 3: Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:

• ‘FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.

• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.

• “To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.

Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent Concealment’.

• ‘FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the object of which is to defraud a creditor, or hinder or delay him, or to put such property beyond his reach…”.

• “Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent on person (entity) making transfer…”. Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised 4th Edition.

• NASD Rule 3120, et al
• NASD Rule 2330, et al
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3040
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and SEC Rule 15c3-1
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3110
• SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and Procedural Rule 8210
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2330 and IM-2330
• NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-5
• NASD Systems and Programme Rules 6950 through 6957
• l 97-13 Bank Secrecy Act, Recordkeeping Rule for funds transfers
and transmittals of funds, et al.

• Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
• Anti-Drug Abuse Act
• Applicable international money laundering restrictions
• Bank Secrecy Act
• Conspiracy to commit and cover up murder.
• Crimes, General Provisions, Accessory After the Fact [Title 18, USC]
• Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act
• Economic Espionage Act
• Hobbs Act
• Imparting or Conveying False Information [Title 18, USC]
• Maloney Act
• Misprision of Felony [Title 18, USC] (1)
• Money-Laundering Control Act
• Money-Laundering Suppression Act
• Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
• Perpetration of repeated egregious felonies by State and Federal public employees and their Departments and agencies, which are co-responsible with the said employees for ONGOING illegal and criminal actions, to sustain fraudulent operations and crimes in order to cover up criminal activities and High Crimes and Misdemeanours by present and former holders of high office under the United States
• Provisions pertaining to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties [H.R. 3723]
• Provisions prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials [F.I.S.A.]
• Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [R.I.C.O.]
• Securities Act 1933
• Securities Act 1934
• Terrorism Prevention Act
• Treason legislation, especially in time of war


Excerpted from Wantagate report dated 22nd January 2007:
International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 1 & 2, pages 343-365.

In the United States there are very strict regulations governing the marketing of securities.

Registration is a sine qua non and, without exception, the Ponzi-style securities scams that have devastated the lives of so many, are not registered.

The fact that they are often operated via pools of funds handled by banks is intended to provide a veneer of false legitimacy that masks the underlying reality that these schemes are ALL illegal: see our Wantagate report dated 26th December 2007 on the gross financial frauds underlying the so-called ‘Sub-prime’ crisis [also: International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 3 & 4, pages 589-606].

The use of a corporate securities account in the United States with a broker/dealer acting in a fiduciary capacity presupposes and provides for the following safeguards:

• The funds in such an account are not counted within the assets of the broker/dealer institution, whereas the funds in a bank account are counted within the assets of the bank

• This means that whereas a bank can attach the funds of a depositor, funds held in a corporate securities fiduciary account as described CANNOT BE ATTACHED.

• This provides much better security for the funds than is available in a bank. Given the extreme notoriety of US banks as exposed through these Wantagate reports, this key consideration is of paramount importance, all the more so in the case of a very large settlement.

• Accordingly any deviation from the corporate securities arrangements must be unacceptable, quite apart from the fact that such deviation from the securities account arrangements referenced in our Wantagate report dated 18th August 2006, would be fraudulent.

• In the securities sector, ‘source of funds’ must always be divulged. No payments lacking such information can be deposited at any time. This guarantees 100% transparency.

Prior to ‘Black Tuesday’ (29th October 1929), the US Federal Government was not involved in licensing the issuance or sale of stocks, bonds, or any other form of security, since this was considered to be the domain of State regulators under the “Blue Sky” laws.

This term refers to the plight facing any gullible investor who discovers that the securities he has purchased represent nothing of value other than the blue sky above. These laws require that any security that is offered to investors must be certified by a State agency, which must be supplied with the necessary comprehensive financial information.

In 1933, Congress passed the Securities Act of that year, incorporating the ‘Truth in Securities’ law which superseded the State “Blue Sky” laws with respect to the registration, issuance and the prospectus identifying the security being offered to the public for purchase.

The primary focus of this legislation was its registration procedures, and the prohibition of false representation and fraudulent sales practices. In 1934, the Securities Exchange Act established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to oversee both the registration process and the antifraud provisions of the 1933 Securities Act.

The Maloney Act of 1938, amending the Securities Act of 1933, created the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). This legislation promoted the organization of member securities dealers under the umbrella of a self-regulating organization (SRO), supervised by the SEC to ensure the application of a code of ethics and its enforcement throughout the United States.

Members of the NASD are known as Broker/Dealers since they represent both clients who buy and/or sell securities, as well as representing themselves, as principals, when underwriting and/or selling a stock or bond issue directly to the public. The NASD is the only firm operating under the Maloney Act, and its responsibilities include the following:

• Nation-wide field inspections of member firms.

• Centralised computerised surveillance of the trading of NASD Automated Quotations posted by its sister corporation NASDAQ.

• Enforcement of Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations, as well as the NASD’s own rules applicable to its members.

• Review of underwriting arrangements for securities offered to the public.

• Coordination of, and cooperation with, the Securities and Exchange Commission, other Federal agencies, and the States.

• Performance and monitoring of qualification examinations required to be passed by personnel employed by members. The Registered Principal of a member firm must pass the Series 24 (General Securities Principal) and the Series 7 (General Securities Representative) Examinations conducted by the NASD, and must pass the written procedures and oral interview, before assuming this position within the member firm.

The member firm’s Registered Financial Operations Officer (see below) is equally responsible with the Registered Principal for the firm’s financial reporting to the SEC and the NASD, for the accurate record-keeping of the firm’s Net Capital Account, for all securities trades and customer accounts and correspondence, and for advertising and sales literature issued by the firm. The Registered Financial Operations Officer must pass the Series 27 (Financial and Operations Principal) and the Series 7 (General Securities Representative) Examinations conducted by the NASD, and must also pass written procedures and oral interview prior to assuming this position within the firm.

A third official, the Registered Representative, who is licensed and authorised to purchase and to sell stocks, bonds, options, limited partnerships, tax sheltered mutual funds, and variable annuities on behalf of customers or the firm itself, must have passed the Series 7 (or the General Securities Representative) Examination, and must furthermore be registered with the firm as an Authorised Representative. All licensed Representatives must have passed the Series 63 (Uniform State Law) Anti-Fraud Examination, and be registered with each State where the firm will be operating (1).

(Since 1966, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan have adopted the same regulations with respect to licensing, and the licenses issued in these countries correspond with those of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASD).

Securities and ‘lending programs’ operating along Ponzi Scheme lines promoted clandestinely inter alia by corrupt elements of the criminalist US intelligence community (including the OMEGA OPS scams) comply with none of these stringent regulations and requirements and are therefore, by definition, ALL ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES.

The question therefore arises: why are these illegal schemes so widespread, having given rise to a colossal constituency of the American ‘broken hearted’, who have been scammed in one way or another but who cling to the hope, like Rip van Winkel, that they, their family trusts or their restless associations of ‘the scammed’, will finally be paid out one sunny day far out into the future?

The generic answer to this question is that the criminalised fraudster elite, led by the crooks controlling and inside the intelligence community, have installed their own corrupt operatives within and in control of the enforcement institutions, including the SEC.

As a consequence, blind official eyes have been turned to what has been going on, the securities regulations have not been enforced with respect to such illegal Ponzi frauds, and the old system whereby anyone involved with trading securities was blackballed for life if caught engaged in irregular activities, has been moribund since the 1970s. When an uncorrupt SEC Commissioner tried, quite recently, to enforce the regulations, he was removed from his post on some typically trumped-up pretext or other. In other words, the wolves are in charge of the chicken coops.

So the enforcers are, as matters stand, co-conspirators in the despicable, proliferating intelligence community-driven Ponzi Game operations that have devastated an unknown number of American families – with the proceeds channeled through corrupt participating banks into offshore accounts.

Apparently the volume of illegally stashed ‘funny money’ held in offshore accounts since all forms of exploitation of the ‘fiat money’ system were taken over by the State-Controlled Mafia – or, even more accurately, the Intel-Mob-Controlled State – runs into the hundreds of trillions of dollars: and long after the Wanta Settlement, the consequences of this criminality will continue to mess up the international financial system, as we ought by now to be glaringly evident (March 2008).

For the moment, grieved by the plight of the victims, the Editor has researched our files for an article we published some years ago entitled ‘How Charles Ponzi pulled it off: Making a fine art out of a pyramid fraud’. It appeared in International Currency Review, Volume 27, Number 3, December 2001, and represents a condensed summary of the original, classic Ponzi Pyramid Scheme, plus a potted history of its cynical immigrant Italian originator, Charles Ponzi:

Charles Ponzi, an immigrant from Italy to Boston, MA, made millions of dollars for a brief period, by exploiting his shrewd observation that while national currencies were fluctuating wildly in 1920, just after the end of the First World War, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) issued coupons which were always worth a given amount of postage stamps.

In those days, European refugees were flocking to the United States, Canada and Brazil; and often, their only contact with their families and friends back home was an occasional letter, enclosing a few dollars. The Universal Postal Union arranged to move the millions of refugee letters, business documents and messages across national borders by issuing Postal Reply Coupons.

You bought a Postal Reply Coupon in your country of residence, and enclosed it with your letter. Your mother, once she had received the letter, exchanged the Postal Reply Coupon for stamps at her local post office.

Charles Ponzi told friends in Boston: ‘Everybody’s heard of the Postal Union. They print coupons like these I’m holding here: Postal Reply Coupons. You can send a letter home, or anywhere in the world, with these coupons. And you can trade this coupon for a stamp in any country. I send my mother coupons with every letter that I write home’.

‘Now, in cooperation with certain large businesses in our city, I am making a fortune on the Postal Reply Coupon. Stocks are too risky. Forget it. And bonds, what are they paying? Maybe around six percent? Savings accounts at Tremont Trust, they’ll give you four and a half cents on the dollar. Give them $100 and they’ll give you back $104.50. I can beat that into the ground’, Ponzi insisted, beating his cane against the floor. ‘My investors get 50 cents on the dollar. Place a hundred dollars with my Securities Exchange Company, and you take out $150. Put that $150 in, you’ll get back $225. That’s right, in six months, you can more than double your money’.

How could he pay 50%, when banks couldn’t even manage 5%? ‘Exchange rates’, Charles Ponzi explained. ‘Every morning I go down and check to see how the lira is doing against the dollar. Usually you get five lire for a dollar. This morning I checked, and with the war just ended, it takes 20 lire to the dollar’.

While currency rates were bouncing around like popcorn, Mr Ponzi explained, the Postal Reply Coupon always bought one stamp. Here’s what I do’.

‘I senda my cousin in Parma, Italy, $1.0. He exchanges the dollar for lire. With the 20 lire (2,000 centesimi), he can buy 66 Postal Reply Coupons (worth 30 centesimi each, the cost of a letter-sized stamp in Italy). Back in the United States, each of the coupons buys one stamp, face value five cents. I redeem all 66 coupons for $3.30 worth of stamps. The magic happens in the exchange rate. In America, my dollar buys 20 Postal Coupons. But if I exchange the dollar for lire, and buy the coupons in Italy, then return and buy the stamps in America, I get $3.30 worth of stamps for that same $1.0. My profit margin is 230%’.

‘Yeah, but $3.30 worth of stamps is still stamps’, complained an attentive but sceptical listener.

‘I know’, said Ponzi. ‘So I sell the stamps at a 10% discount through my contacts with the larger firms downtown. Deducting the discount, I’ve gota $3.0 cash now, from the $1.0 that I started outa with. Now, let’s say, I got that dollar from you. I will pay you back your dollar, plus 50 cents interest. Since I just sold $3.0 worth of stamps, I have a dollar and 50 cents for myself. I’m going to spend a third of that on my offices and processing overheads, and a third on commissions and bonuses to my sales people; then, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to pocket the other third and take my wife for a stroll’.

This was the essence of the original Ponzi scheme. Note that in this description, Ponzi starts out by exploiting the fluctuations of exchange rates, and the lack of arbitrage; and note that, by the end of the explanation, he is simply offering 50% interest, which he pays out to his claimants out of the additional funds he has received from other investors who are likewise anticipating a 50% return on their investments, within a short space of time.

The germ of the idea was derived from the foreign exchange market; but once Ponzi has realised that people will pour money his way if they are promised a 50% return, he can simply abandon his elaborate explanation (‘his ‘prospectus’) of the exploitation of exchange rate fluctuations and the tedious task of shipping, receiving, handling and exchanging Postal Reply Coupons, which gave him the ‘easy money’ idea in the first place.

In other words, his sales pitch is no more than a now redundant, expendable illustration – a false prospectus which disguises the fact that he is really promoting a pyramid selling operation. For he has realised that all his investors care about is receiving 50% on their money.

How this is to be achieved does not appear to concern them. Anything sound familiar here?

By December 1920, Charles Ponzi was matching old money with ever larger amounts of new money. In May 1921 alone, almost $500,000 of new money poured into the Securities Exchange Company – as 1,500 or more new customers, lured by the 50% yield offered through advertisements, sought their share of the huge profits they thought would be forthcoming at minimal risk.

The Ponzi office premises now bulged with fat stacks of dollar bills.

But problems started to arise when Joseph Daniels filed a lawsuit alleging that he had helped to found the Securities Exchange Company (SEC) with a loan of $230 worth of furniture plus $200 in cash. Daniels had indeed provided the beaten-up desks that had been offloaded into the dusty office, and had let Mr Ponzi have $200 to spark interest in the Postal Coupons. It wasn’t just a loan, Daniels maintained, now that Ponzi was drowning in cash. ‘We were partners. I put up capital and property’. On 2nd July, Mr Ponzi was handed a demand for $1.0 million.

The Boston Post telephoned, and Mr Ponzi told the reporter that he had indeed bought furniture from Mr Daniels, but that he had never received any money for investment from him.

But when the newly installed banking commissioner for Massachusetts, Mr Joseph Allen, read the newspaper, he wondered: ‘Where did Charles Ponzi come from? Who are his associates? How is he managing to double people’s money?’

Allen asked Ponzi to popa rounda to his office, for an interview.

The Securities Exchange Company did not describe itself as a bank, nor did it offer any banking services. Therefore, in the absence of a complaint – and none had yet arrived – the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to examine Ponzi’s business. At the interview, Ponzi explained the curiosities surrounding Postal Coupons, pointed out that money chased money, collected his black hat and coat, doffed his hat, and bid Mr Allen goodbye.

But Richard Grozier, city editor at The Boston Post, had always thought that Charles Ponzi’s scheme was fraudulent; and to initiate what he suspected would be the inevitable débacle, he now elicited a comment from one of Boston’s leading citizens, Clarence Barron, the owner of Dow Jones & Co. and The Wall Street Journal.

At the end of July 1920, The Boston Post carried a front page story entitled: ‘Clarence Barron questions the motive behind Ponzi’s scheme’.

Theoretically, Barron admitted, you could indeed turn a profit on the UPU coupons. But that was the only truth buried within the operation. You could never earn more than a few thousand dollars, not just because of the trouble involved in offloading the stamps and tracking the various conversions driving the process, but because there simply were not enough coupons available.

France, Romania and Spain had just abandoned the scheme, a few months earlier. A cursory check with the UPU showed that they had a few hundred thousand dollars’ worth of their old coupons in circulation – nowhere near the $10 million or $15 million Mr Ponzi claimed to be trading. So where was Ponzi getting his coupons from? Furthermore, the US Postal Service had announced, on 2nd July 1920, that Postal Reply Coupons would no longer be redeemable in lots larger than ten.

So how was Ponzi converting his coupons into stamps?

Finally, Barron asked, if Ponzi is doubling everyone else’s money, why does he keep his own funds in regional banks? The Boston Post knew that Ponzi kept millions of dollars on deposit at seven or eight New England banks, and that the accounts were ballooning. How could a man who was paying 100% interest every 90 days, put up with drawing just 4% on his holdings? Barron concluded:

‘Right under the eyes of our Government, Mr Ponzi has been paying out US money to one line, with deposits taken from a succeeding line’ (another bank).

All of a sudden, all the doors which had flown back on their hinges at the sight of Mr Ponzi, were slamming tight shut. The Massachusetts District Attorney ordered Ponzi to cease and desist. His customers demanded their money back, and Ponzi was eventually jailed for Federal mail fraud, then deported. He wound up destitute in South America (2).

Addendum references:

(1). Condensed with kind permission from ‘Elite Power and Capital Markets’, by Michael C. Cottrell, M.S.: Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science, Administration of Justice Department, Mercyhurst College, 13 February 2002, pages 42-44.

(2). ‘How Charles Ponzi pulled it off: Making a fine art out of a pyramid fraud’, International Currency Review, Volume 27, Number 3, December 2001, pages 51-52.

Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta: Diplomatic Passport Numbers 04362 & 12535 a.k.a. Frank B. Ingram [FBI] (Sector V) SA32NV; and a.k.a. Rick Reynolds, SA233MS. AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc: Federal EIN Number 20-3866855; Virginia State Corporation Identification Number: 0617454-4; Virginia State Department of Taxation Identification Number: 30203866855F001


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s