THE EDITOR’S RESPONSE TO ANOTHER WEBSITE’S MISUNDERSTANDING
Sunday 15 June 2008 23:05
(This posting is inserted pending completion of the Editor’s current report, dealing with events in the past few days. When this is complete, the new posting will replace this report, which will remain available as usual via the Archive).
The Editor’s response was provided in the form of an email, and the result was duly posted on the US website in the morning. We reproduce their presentation and the Editor’s email text here:
CHRISTOPHER STORY EXPLAINS WANTA “BETRAYAL”
Posted By: billym <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sunday, 15 June 2008, 8:50 a.m.
Christopher Story Explains Further on Wanta’s Betrayal
Wanta Would Not Agree to Abide by All Laws, Be Transparent
Christopher Story sent in the following response to the post in the ongoing Story/Casper thread being maintained by Hobie: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126174
The top of that thread is here:
In my post (about Casper’s latest post ) I had expressed my concern about how Story could have been “fooled” by Wanta for so long and he sent along the following explanation and clarification for the benefit of our readers. Much thanks to Mr. Story for this since his reply casts more light on the kinds of things going on behind the scenes. Apologies to him as well for my perhaps too-casual question, but since it has brought the following clarification for our readers I’m happy to take the blame. For anyone following these stories his reply is essential reading.
There is no question that Story trumps “Casper,” “poof,” “S.” and others writing at fourwinds10, especially by his being publicly available under his known name and identified by what he calls “coordinates” (email address, mail address, phone number, etc.), and also by his long history of publication on economic issues and the knowledge and understanding that comes with that.
Here is his reply in full:
You may publish what follows provided you publish every word in one block. Otherwise, you may not publish any of this at all:
‘How could Story have been so fooled?’
I am surprised it took you so long to ask this question, even though it is based upon incorrect assumptions (see below).
I will try to condense the answer here. First, the course of events that led to me closing down the Wantagate reports has not yet been presented for general public consumption.
Reasons for this include the fact that in March, when we closed down Wantagate, there were a number of extremely sensitive matters that had yet to fall into place. I can’t go into these here because of space constraints and for other reasons, but we proceeded generally as follows.
On 3rd March, we issued a very specific and direct warning to Leo Wanta (see posting) that if he switched back to his previous modus operandi, he would lose his two genuine helpers, viz. Yours Truly and Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., his VERY qualified US expert financial adviser. That was what the report dated 3rd March was all about.
As a direct consequence of that report, a Queen’s Messenger was sent from London to Wanta with a copy of the report, and a request that he explain what it was all about (who told me this? Wanta).
In March, I was asked by Michael Cottrell to write to The Queen (twice) enclosing certain materials connected with this matter, which I did. I received a reply only in June (I have no complaint about this whatsoever as I was not expecting any response from our Head of State at all).
On 18th March 2008, after I had requested Wanta to place in writing a statement that his financial transactions would conform 100% with the Rule of Law at all times, and had been told flat out that no such written statement would be forthcoming, and after I had nevertheless managed to get one verbal statement (which I myself composed) out of him, I posted a final Wantagate statement in which we couched the matter as carefully and sensitively as possible, my objective being TO TRY TO AVOID ‘DROPPING HIM IN IT’ IF I COULD POSSIBLY DO SO.
I can now state that what I wrote needed to be read upside down: we could not condemn him for doing what we had reason to believe he was intending, so we held him to his verbal undertaking (to no avail, as it later transpired). Anyone can review how we approached this matter by reading the report. We were STILL trying to ensure that Wanta did not revert to his previous mode, which he had all along earlier indicated (see our repeated Rule of Law statements) he would not do. But what had happened was that he was in fact in contact with Cheney et al, which of course I did not know and which could not be divulged to me. Notwithstanding that I purchased his freedom, he finally double-crossed me: a point I have already publicised.
But he in turn was also double-crossed, in multiple ways. I do not know whether he understands this or not. I am not interested in finding out.
To grandstand at this late stage and ask how I could have been ‘fooled’, is unreasonable without knowing the full facts, for several reasons. We knew very well that this man had a reputation for being one of the world’s most proficient deception operatives: after all, I had researched his background for several years before paying for his exit from probation in July 2005.
He was extracted from the GULAG by me pro bono publico FOR SEVERAL REASONS. One was that my researches had led me to conclude that once his restrictions (imposed unlawfully: see report dated 6th August 2007) had been lifted (which occurred with effect from 14th November 2005) the consequence would be that the entire financial corruption logjam would undergo a ‘paradigm shift’.
This is precisely what happened. In April 2006, after I visited UK banks on Wanta’s behalf, equipped with a strictly limited Power of Attorney to ascertain information only, preparatory to the repatriation of the funds, alarm bells went off all over the place; and Wanta suddenly travelled (as he could now do thanks to me) to California.
The intel people there sold him the ruse about the $4.5T being his compromise payment.
The moment he accepted this deal, though, he was caught in their trap and became their victim. However I and others realised that what we now needed to do was to HOLD THE INTELLIGENCE THIEVES AND CRIMINALS TO THEIR UNDERTAKING TO WANTA, TO PAY HIM THE COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT OF $4.5 TRILLION THAT HAD BEEN AGREED.
This is why we embarked upon the Wantagate reports, and why those letters were written to the President, Cheney etc. RE-READ THESE PUBLISHED LETTERS AND YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT YOUR SIMPLISTIC CRITICISM OF ME BEING ‘FOOLED’ IS CARELESS: WHAT ABOUT MR THOMAS HENRY, A CIA LAWYER HIMSELF, WHO WROTE THOSE LETTERS? AND ALL MR WANTA’S OTHER ADVISERS? THEY WERE ‘FOOLED’ TOO. The fact that Leo Emil Wanta was a deception expert did not mean that he himself could not be deceived. Professional deceivers are often easily deceived.
The Wantagate reports had the anticipated effect of placing the US criminalist cadres on notice that every step that could be monitored was going to be publicised almost in real time. In the course of harrassing the ‘Black’ operatives as they unsuspectingly went about their deception operations as though nothing had changed (we did not know until a few months ago that Bush Sr. roped in Hillary to run Wanta’s money, from June 2006 onwards) we successfully chipped away at their pyramid of lies, culminating in December 2006 with the report on the arrest of Paulson.
On 4th April 2008 a US intelligence operative arrived at my London office without an appointment and told me that ‘they’ started to take us seriously when we reported the Paulson arrest, because this was ‘special’ information that had been supposed to be closely held.
I seem to recall being wantonly excoriated by ignorant bloggers, who obviously knew better than I did, including people on your website, for reporting Paulson’s arrest. The same US visitor informed me on 4th April 2008, without any prompting, that my assessment of the DVD, Dachau, dimension is quote ‘one hundred percent accurate’ unquote. We knew that anyway, but it was nice to have the point reconfirmed. I believe the operative is in fact an NSC agent.
To ask how I could have been ‘fooled’, completely misses the point. Of course we knew who we were dealing with. But although I invented the phrase Wantagate and then plugged the matter very intensively, I did this as a marketing matter and publicity device because the Wanta cause served several purposes. The overt object of the exercise, as noted, was to hold the criminalists to their formal undertaking to Wanta, which was successfully making them squirm: had Wanta stayed the course and clung on to us, as he should have done, he would have forced the issue. But he lost patience and was suborned by Cheney et al.
That he reverted to type after the Mandamus hearing on 19th October 2007 in the Alexandria Court, which I attended, reflected the fact that as soon as the matter took on the format of a Court petition placing precise details of the source of funds etc FORMALLY into the public domain, followed by the hearing (which was well attended by spooks of course), ‘they’ had a huge problem.
For the matter was now completely out of hand. Every accessible step was being monitored by a British investigative journalist who would publish his findings and they could do nothing about it.
This was a situation they had never encountered before: OPPOSITION as well as EXPOSURE. They never expected either. So they ‘got at’ Wanta even while we were still in Alexandria and New York last October and November.
The way matters then devolved is too complex to explain here [in the email to the website] but I can state that it is being extensively exposed, with many documents, in International Currency Review, Volume 33, Numbers 3 and 4.
I am glad to say that all 972 pages of this huge issue were finally delivered to our bindery on Friday 13th June (a very momentous day for other reasons, as will shortly be rehearsed, separately: see the forthcoming report: Editor). Our paid-up ICR subscribers around the world will therefore soon be receiving a clear, extensive and fully documented exposition of what happened in the Wanta context after the Alexandria Court hearings.
Further, when we reported the Paulson episode over the New Year (2007-2008), the whole thing blew up, and ‘they’ tried to cut me off from both Wanta and Mike Cottrell. Mike handled this with extreme delicacy not least as he was separately insisting upon the absolute necessity of adhering to the Rule of Law, whereas Wanta had been saying in the Alexandria and New York hotels that this would not be necessary when the money was forthcoming.
Cottrell would not agree to that, and insisted upon meticulous adherence to legality throughout and to the use of the corporate securities account, pointing out that the dorporate securities account and Mr Cottrell’s own independent status as an expert securities and financial adviser, coupled with my publicity expertise, were the only protections Wanta had from having his funds stolen again, not least given that all Wanta’s bank account money had been diverted previously.
I have on several occasions explained the qualitative differences between straight bank accounts and a US corporate securities account. Michael C. Cottrell, M.S. obtained the corporate securities account on behalf of Mr Wanta on the basis of his own securities market credentials, and was the signatory on the account, which was set up for Wanta’s own protection and for no other reason.
However by this time, Wanta had been subverted by Cheney, Hannah et al, and was not listening.
Between January and March, Michael Cottrell determined that his own future and that of his family would be jeopardised by continued association with Wanta, who had appointed him as his financial adviser but was now wilfully refusing to take any of his advice. After all, if Wanta were to undertake certain actions without consulting Mike Cottrell, as the Treasurer, Michael’s own position would be precarious: he would go down on the same felonies as Wanta.
On 23rd March, Wanta unceremoniously ‘fired’ Cottrell. This is explained, with documentation, in the latest issue of the journal. However he did so in a spectacularly crude, illegal, careless and unprofessional manner, promulgating an irregular resolution of the Sole Shareholder, whereas of course a corporation with Directors can only ‘resolve’ anything via a formal Resolution approved by the Board of Directors. Mike Cottrell, greatly relieved, then filed the correct papers confirming his removal from office, with the Commonwealth of Virginia authorities, directing them to forward all future communications concerning the corporation to Wanta in Wisconsin (where he had said that he didn’t operate any business ventures at all).
Wanta had also told Mike Cottrell that ‘because the corporation isn’t funded, it doesn’t exist’, which is a novel doctrine as you can imagine.
Further circumstances surrounding this matter are of such gravity, affecting or referencing others, that I will conclude this part of the narrative here, for the time being.
The whole matter is of course FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THIS.
We have documentation SO DEVASTATING THAT IF REVEALED, IT WOULD CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
Therefore, since I am a long-term friend of the United States, I have acted to date with extreme circumspection, avoiding the temptation to publish information when provoked; and it is unfair of people who cannot possibly have the necessary detailed background knowledge, to suggest that I was ‘fooled’, when the entire matter is infinitely more complex and multi-layered than can be easily explained for a general audience.
This is not special pleading; WHAT I STATE HERE IS ALL TRUE. The way things are going, I fully expect that the entire matter may become public knowledge in due course.
The criticism also misses the key point that the Wantagate exposures PUBLICISED THE ONGOING FINANCIAL CORRUPTION GENERALLY. Indeed, that became their rationale.
Thus, in using Leo/Lee Wanta for their own nefarious purposes, as a front behind which to continue perpetrating fraudulent finance operations, these idiots dug their own grave because this enabled us to publicise, to some extent, what they were up to, almost in real time.
They didn’t seem to GRASP what was happening for ages.
Furthermore, as the critic himself states, I have an identity and a telephone number. Anyone can ring me up to check my facts: WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE SO? If you need information, instead of leaving questions dangling, unanswered, for necessarily uninformed people to belabour, you can call me and ask your questions. BUT YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS. Is that because you can’t, being anonymous yourself? If so, then how can you presume to publish any credible copy at all?
How can you comment accurately on such a complex matter without consulting the source?
To deliver unwarranted value judgments when you have the opportunity to telephone me at any time for clarification, is not appropriate.
This source is not anonymous like other sources you cite, who cannot ever be queried because they hide behind a cloak of anonymity, but is a live human being who can be approached at any time for information. In an earlier email I explained precisely how to find me. Our London office is located opposite the Coroner’s Court, next to Benson’s Estate Agents and to the Cardinal Hume Centre Charity Shop in Horseferry Road adjacent to the Barley Mow pub!
I provided that ‘useful’ data in an earlier email in order to make the crude point that I am not hiding behind anonymity; from which you are invited to deduce that what we have had to publish on these matters has been genuine and accurate (as perceived at the time of posting).
Furthermore anyone can order copies of International Currency Review and can read all about it: there is no mystery about anything we write and do, whatsoever.
EXPOSURE IS THE ONLY WEAPON AGAINST THESE PEOPLE; and I know for a certainty that these exposures have not only shocked them rigid, and taken them collectively by surprise, but they are specifically responsible for the forward movement and for the escalation of matters to the extreme level of crisis resolution that has now been reached.
That these world class criminals have proved so incredibly obdurate is not my problem: our mutual challenge is to hound them relentlessly until the job is complete.
And believe you me, it will be done.
But it can’t be done so readily if you keep systematically trying to find fault with the person wielding the exposure weapon. I do not say that other exposures aren’t helping: of course they are. But if you are going to criticise me, for goodness sake get in touch before you slag me off, because I DO EXIST and i am not ANONYMOUS IN ORDER NOT TO HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
The reasons for what happened are logical and can be explained: we didn’t do this in March for very sensitive reasons which could not be divulged back then. We have however extensively explained matters in the new issue of International Currency Review.
We cannot be held responsible for Wanta’s behaviour. He now has to ‘live with’ the knowledge that he took my money, which is now considered stolen, got his freedom, and then behaved as he did. That was extraordinarily foolish of him, as our publicity platform was 95% of the way to achieving the outcome that he wanted (after he had made the mistake of falling for the $4.5 trillion compromise settlement): it was also incredibly foolish of him to behave as he did because our platform can still expose 100% of what we know and may well do this if matters are not concluded and The Queen’s assets are not handled as they should be.
No, I am not MI6 or MI anything. But I AM a loyal subject of Her Majesty, and proud of it. Her Majesty, who has served our country and the world impeccably throughout her very long reign, is the one remaining upholder of the Rule of Law left.
(This statement may trigger the usual knee-jerk, ignorant American Black propaganda against our Monarch. Those lies come from the same sewer that we are jointly exposing. The criminalists want the British Monarchy out of their way, as it is the one power still standing for the Rule of Law, as may soon become clear).
• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.
We are a private intelligence publishing house and have no connections to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’ on this website and in all our marketing material is used for marketing/sales purposes only and has no other connotations whatsoever: see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been solely and exclusively engaged as an investigative journalist, Editor, Author and private financial and current affairs Publisher since 1963 and is not and never has been an agent for a foreign power, suggestions to the contrary being actionable for libel in the English Court.