RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY A COURT STATEMENT

cropped-chrisstory

PERJURY IMPLICATIONS OF OPERATION TO RE-WRITE WANTA’S LEGEND

Thursday 25 February 2010 15:14

(1): THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONSIDERED AT THE ALEXANDRIA COURT
HEARING ON 19TH OCTOBER 2007: POSTED HERE ON 24TH JUNE 2007 WHEN FILED(2): MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND:

MISPRISION OF FELONY: U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4:
‘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’.

‘Seeing what’s at the end of one’s nose requires constant effort’. George Orwell.

• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier reports.

• BOOKS: Edward Harle Limited has so far published FIVE intelligence titles: The Perestroika Deception, by Anatoliy Golitsyn; Red Cocaine, by Dr Joseph D. Douglass, Jr.; The European Union Collective, by Christopher Story; The New Underworld Order, by Christopher Story; and The Red Terror in Russia, by Sergei Melgounov. All titles are permanently in stock. We sell books DIRECT.

• ADVERTISEMENT: Details of the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION software offered by this service in conjunction with a donation can be accessed immediately: See the Home Page World Reports Limited serials catalogue by clicking World Reports Limited and scrolling to foot of page. Scroll to the foot of THIS page to read our extended Ad. for the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION.

Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York. For earlier reports, press the ARCHIVE. Order your intelligence subscriptions and ‘politically incorrect’ [i.e., correct] intelligence books online from this website.

• CMKM/CMKX CASE DOCUMENTS:
Press Archive for this report [29th January 2010]
Case Number CV10-00031 JVS (MLGx):
SERVICE OF CMKM.CMKX $3.87 TRILLION SUIT VS. S.E.C.
You can also access the CMKM/CMKX text at: http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/paKdda
The biggest lawsuit in world legal history: The phantom share giga-scandal.

• See also: Legal moves to sue those blocking the Settlements: 7th February report [Archive].

NEW REPORT STARTS HERE:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
The Editor has received a large volume of emails from all over the world enquiring why there has been no report since 12th February, whether the Editor is well, whether he has been ‘got at’ or liquidated, whether he has been prevented from reporting, and many other solicitous and kind observations. Thank you all for your concern for the Editor’s welfare, which is VERY genuinely appreciated (and completely undeserved!)

There are three main reasons why we didn’t report for a while after 12th February:

• First, we have the practical matter and obligation to publish our journals, and we were heavily engaged in passing a very large issue of International Currency Review [Volume 35, Numbers 1 & 2], for press. When one is passing page proofs for press, nothing else can be allowed to get in the way, or mistakes are made which can be disastrous. Moreover the forthcoming huge issue is of exceptional importance as it will provide, as the preceding issues have done, a permanent record of the recent stages of the financial corruption crisis, and of the reprobate intransigence of the highest-level perpetrators, which therefore cannot ever be expunged.

That is the whole point. They cannot rewrite history because our printed reports on the financial corruption are and will continue to be lodged in libraries, institutions, agencies, corporations, and elsewhere all over the world. And there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT.

In addition, we have been completing a large issue of Economic Intelligence Review, which contains inter alia, an extensive analysis demonstrating conclusively that SECURITISATION IS ILLEGAL UNDER U.S. LAW. A summary of this analysis will be posted prior to publication.

• Secondly, following the report dated 12th February, the lid blew off the cauldron. Since the purpose of these reports is first and foremost to help to procure compliance and fulfilment with financial obligations (rather than specifically to provide an information service), there are times when it is more helpful to remain silent. This was the case after the lid blew off the cauldron.

We couldn’t cause another lid to blow off because the lid had already blown off, if you understand the point here. One doesn’t publish for the sake of it: one publishes so as to produce results, and to expose iniquity. There remains plenty of iniquity to expose, so our service on that score will be resumed at the appropriate time soon. It hasn’t been appropriate to elaborate any further YET on the content of the report dated 12th February, as we have been waiting for ‘consequences’.

• Thirdly, there is an operation to VARY COURT-DEPOSED FACT, and to substitute FABRICATION for the same. We wanted also to see quite how far this desperate rearguard CIA operation to snub the Court would be pushed. The answer appears to be: as far as possible.

Therefore, this report deals with this specific issue, on which we will NOT need to elaborate. We won’t be able to place this in context, if you don’t know the context.

Without going into further details, the attempt to vary the Court record is associated with:

• An arrogant assumption that the content of the Court-deposed Petition has been ‘forgotten’.

• An apparent attempt to provide a basis for the diversion of funds (which cannot succeed).

PURPORTED VARIATION OF COURT DEPOSITION
An Internet operation has been mounted by US operatives and disinformation hacks recently which appears to seek to VARY the substance of the Petition/deposition made by Mr Leo/Lee Wanta for consideration by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Alexandria.

This Petition was the subject of a hearing in the Alexandria Court dated 19th October 2007, attended inter alia by the Editor of this service.

Detail published in the Internet reports referenced above contains fabrications and diverges from the substance of the Petition presented for consideration by the Court. Any legend which deviates from the language and meaning of the Petition could be viewed as representing a felony against the Court as it would be implied that petitioner lied on the stand.

Petitioner informed the Court [see below] that he had been fully advised by counsel of the seriousness of the claim of making false statements to a Court and was fully apprised of the consequences for committing perjury (and the associated penalties).

It has of course not escaped our notice that Wanta is not engaged in this operation on his own. Others, with greater presentational ‘skills’, are perpetrating this sterile rearguard CIA fabrication operation. In addition to the evident intent to VARY the substance of information provided before the Court, there may also be an integrated intent to enmesh Mr Wanta himself in perjury: in which case, this operation may also represent a set-up against Wanta (par for the course).

Wanta has been distributing the link to a new ‘slick’ website containing the fabricated variations, under colour of his fraudulent Principality of Snake Hill non-status, using a 202 ‘Telefon’ number provided by the French Embassy in Washington.

We have long since proved, with the imprimatur of the Australian Embassy, Dublin, that there is no Principality of Snake Hill – as reiterated in our reports dated 20th September 2009, 22nd October 2009, 17th November 2009, and 12th February 2010, for example.

However the perpetrators appear not only to believe, consistently with their known contempt for the Rule of Law, that it is permissible to VARY what has been stated in Court, but further to ignore PROVEN FACT as though the email from Ms. Brenda Farrell, of the Australian Embassy, Dublin, had never happened. Wanta’s self-designated Ambassadorship (of the Principality of Snake Hill to the United States), the Snake Hill Central Bank and the Snake Hill Trade Commission, are all proven, defunct fabrications: like the content of the Internet reports seeking to VARY the substance of the following Petition to the Court:

(1): THE ALEXANDRIA COURT HEARING ON 19TH OCTOBER 2007
On the above-mentioned date, the Petition reproduced below was considered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under District Judge T. S. Ellis III.

Present throughout the day in the back of the Courtroom were the following:

Colonel Dana Wilcox
Mr Michael C. Cottrell B.A., M.S.
Mr Christopher E. H. Story FRSA

Mr Leo/Lee Wanta was called to the witness stand.

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

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Case Number: 1:2007cv00609 – TSE – BRP

Filed: 20th June 2007

Petitioner: Lee E. Wanta

Respondents: Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Robert M. Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Michael Chertoff, Alberto R. Gonzales and Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Court: Virginia Eastern District Court

Office: Alexandria Office

County: Richmond

Presiding Judge: District Judge T. S. Ellis III

Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Barry R. Poretz

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities/Exchanges

Cause: 28: 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Jury demanded by: None

Note: This case cannot be sealed until Ambassador Leo E. Wanta has been paid the $4.5 trillion of his Settlement diverted and exploited illegally since June 2006.

The Court has, most unusually, given the Respondents TWO MONTHS to respond.

SIR LEO WANTA’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (1)
The text of the Ambassador’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus follows:

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

MICHAEL CHERTOFF
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and

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

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 (NSA).
• 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 {Henry M.] 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

County of [omitted here]
State of [omitted here]

On this 11th day of June 2007 the above named individual, being personally known to me, appeared before me and after being first duly sworn signed the above Affidavit.

My commission expires January 5, 2009.

[Notary signature and seal].

(2): MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA,
Alexandria Division:

LEO E. WANTA, et al, Petitioner

V.

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., et al, Respondents

[Civil Action #1:07cv609 TSE/BRP]

MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., Respondent Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) moves to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Other Extraordinary Relief (the “Petition”). The grounds of this Motion, as amplified in the attached Brief, are as follow.

For the purposes of this Motion only, all well pleaded facts will be taken as true.

Mr Wanta alleges that $4.5 trillion belonging to him was transferred by the People’s Republic of China, designated “for the sole and exclusive use and benefit” of Mr Wanta, to a branch of Bank of America in Richmond. Then the United States Department of Treasury “unlawfully” caused the funds to be transferred “via” FRB Richmond to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at Citibank in New York, where they reside to this day. Finally, Mr Wanta says that it was the Department of the Treasury that placed a “lawless restriction” on the funds, and it is the Department of the Treasury that has the power to release the funds to him.

For the following reasons, the Petition does not state a claim on which relief can be granted:

1. On the face, the Petition shows that the funds are not in the custody or under the control of FRB Richmond.
2. On its face, the Petition shows that the only party with authority to release the funds is the Department of the Treasury.
3. Even assuming, for the purposes of this Motion, that a Federal Reserve Bank is an agency of the United States:
(a) There are no facts alleged that even suggest that FRB Richmond has a clear duty to Mr Wanta to do the act requested;
(b) There are no facts alleged that even suggest that Mr Wanta has a clear and undisputable right to the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against FRB Richmond; and:
(c) On its face, the Petition shows that Mr Wanta has other available adequate remedies.

WHEREFORE, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond prays that this action be dismissed with prejudice and that it recover its reasonable costs and Counsel fees expended.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
By its attorneys
Frank E, Brown, Jr.
Virginia Bar Number 1030
Attorney for Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Saunders and Brown, PLC
8280 Greensboro Drive, Suite 601
Mclean, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 506-1022
Fax: (703) 506-1095
gbrown@saundersbrown.com.

RICHMOND FED’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
In its accompanying Brief in Support of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss, which the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank’s attorneys submitted with its Motion to Dismiss, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond further stated as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Motion and Brief only, all well pleaded facts will be taken as true….

Mr Wanta alleges that he is still named as beneficiary of the funds transfer. Therefore, he has an adequate remedy stated under Article 4A (Funds Transfers) of the Uniform Commercial Code by demanding that Citibank release to him funds held by the bank for his benefit. If the Bank refuses, all of the issues – Mr Wanta’s right to the funds, Mr Paulson’s right to freeze them – can be heard in a Court of New York which, governed by the specific rules of the Uniform Commercial Code, would have before it all the parties with the power and authority to grant the relief requested.

Respectfully submitted:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
By its attorneys.

LIST OF U.S. STATUTES, SECURITIES REGULATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF WHICH THE CRIMINALISTS, ASSOCIATES AND ALL THE MAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REMAIN IN BREACH:

LEGAL TUTORIAL: The Steps of Common Fraud:

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, Hauppauge: 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 [scanter] 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:

THEFT BY DECEPTION:

• “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:

• “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 or person (entity) making transfer…”.

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

U.S. SECURITIES REGULATIONS OF WHICH INSTITUTIONS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN BREACH [SEE REPORTS]:

• 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
• 97-13 Bank Secrecy Act, Recordkeeping Rule for funds transfers and transmittals of funds, et al.

U.S. LAWS ROUTINELY BREACHED BY THE CRIMINAL OPERATIVES AND INSTITUTIONS:

• Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
• Anti-Drug Abuse Act
• Applicable international money laundering restrictions
• Bank Secrecy Act
• 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 criminalist 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.

• BEWARE OF MALICIOUS IMITATIONS: It has come to our notice that certain websites have been in the habit of copying reports from this site, attributing the reports to the Editor of this service, but at the same time AMENDING AND INSERTING TEXT NOT WRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

• This is a very old, malevolent US counterintelligence DIRTY TRICK.

Therefore, you should be advised that the GENUINE ORIGINAL REPORT is, by obvious definition, accessible ONLY FROM THIS WEBSITE. If you come across an article elsewhere that is attributed to the Editor of this service, you should refer to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE and you should bear in mind that the illegally duplicated article may contain text that was NOT written by the Editor of this service, but which was inserted for malicious purposes by counterintelligence.

Likewise, although we haven’t yet had time to elaborate this issue, we have taken drastic steps around the world to close off the malicious piracy of our books. One technique used by several disreputable sites (in the United States, the Netherlands and Switzerland) is to copy our title(s) and (a) to display an image of the front cover WITHOUT THE ISBN DATA at the top of the cover; and (b) to DELETE THE COPYRIGHT PAGE. In so doing, the criminal pirates proclaimed that they knew perfectly well that they were/are engaged in theft and can be prosecuted for stealing copyright.

• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review and associated intelligence services 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.

ADVERTISEMENT: INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION
YOU CAN ORDER THIS DIRECT FROM THIS WEBSITE. Summary:
Press Internet Security Solution or go to the World Reports Limited serials catalogue and scroll down until you come to this product. Then proceed through the simple and ultra-safe ordering procedure [Visa or MasterCard only]. Send a donation as you order this RECOMMENDED solution.

NON-U.S. INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION CD AVAILABLE: FAR BETTER THAN NORTON ETC
It has now been established that the National Security Agency (NSA) works with/controls Microsoft, Norton, McAfee, and others, in pursuit of the Pentagon’s vast BIG BROTHER objective, directed from the ‘highest’ levels (not the levels usually referred to) which seek to have every computer in the world talk direct to the Pentagon or to NSA’s master computers.

This should come as no real surprise since the cynical spooks even assert this ‘in-your-face’ by advertising ‘INTEL INSIDE’, which says exactly what it means. More specifically, NSA have made great strides in this direction by having a back door built into Microsoft VISTA. Certain computers, especially those labelled with the logo of the ‘fully collaborating’ firm Hewlett Packard, have hard-core setups which facilitate the remote monitoring and controlling of personal computers by NSA, Fort Meade. We now understand that if you are using VISTA* you MUST NOT enable ‘file and printer sharing’ under any circumstances. If you say ‘YES’, so to speak, to ‘file and printer sharing’, your computer becomes a slave at once to NSA’s master computers. DO NOT ENABLE SHARING.

Unfortunately, this abomination is so far advanced that this may not be the only precaution that needs to be taken. As long as Microsoft continues its extensive cooperation with NSA and the NSC (National Security Council), the spying system which assists the criminalised structures, and thus hitherto the Bush-Clinton ‘Box Gang’ and its connections, with their fraudulent finance operations, NSA may be able to steal data from your computer. The colossal scourge of data theft is associated with this state of affairs: data stolen usually include Credit Card data, which the kleptocracy regards as almost as good as real estate for hypothecation purposes. Even so, you can make life very much more problematical for these utterly odious people by NOT USING U.S.-sourced so-called Internet Security and anti-virus software. Having been attacked and abused so often, we offer a solution.

We use a proprietary FOREIGN Internet Security program which devours every PC Trojan, worm, scam, porn attack and virus that the National Security Agency (NSA) throws at us. We are offering this program (CD) to our clients and friends, at a premium. The program comes with our very strong recommendation, but at the same time, if you buy from us, you will be helping us finance ongoing exposures of the DVD’s World Revolution and the financial corruption that has been financing it.

The familiar US proprietary Internet Security programs are by-products of US counterintelligence, and are intended NOT to solve your Internet security problems, but to spy on you and to report what you write about, to centralised US electronic facilities set up for the purpose. You can now BREAK FREE from this syndrome while at the same time helping us to MAINTAIN THE VERY HEAVY PRESSURE UPON THE CRIMINALISTS WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSING, by ordering this highest quality FOREIGN (i.e., non-US) INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION that we have started advertising on this website. This offer has been developed in response to attacks we have suffered from the NSA nerds who appear to have a collective mental age of about five years, judging by their output.

• To access details about the INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION, just press THE LIVE LINK YOU HAVE JUST READ, or else press SERIALS in the red panel below. This opens up our mini-catalogue of printed intelligence publications. Scroll right down to the foot of that section, where you will see details of this service. When you buy this special product, you will also, as we clearly state above, be paying a special premium by way of a donation to help us finance these exposures.

The premium contains a donation for our exposure work and also covers our recommendation based on the Editor’s own experience that this INTERNET SECURITY SOLUTION will make your Internet life much easier. The program has an invaluable ‘Preview before downloading’ feature.

• It is suitable for PC’s but not Mac computers. As with all such programs, the License is renewable at a modest fee annually. This is done on-line in the usual way [with the supplier direct].

*VISTA: Virtual Instant Surveillance Tactical Application.

Save

Advertisements

One thought on “RETROSPECTIVE ATTEMPT TO VARY A COURT STATEMENT

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s