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 (2nd 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 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 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. 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. 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].
References and Notes:
(1) Leo Wanta received an honorary
knighthood from Her Majesty The Queen. As a British
subject, the Editor is entitled to designate the Ambassador as Sir Leo Wanta, reflecting his exalted status as a recognized
benefactor of the United Kingdom.
(2) The Exhibits are omitted from this presentation. They
consist inter alia of all the formal
letters sent both directly and by the Ambassador’s Attorney Thomas Henry to the
President of the United States and other senior office-holders and officials,
since June 2006. Also included is the despicable letter from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation referenced in our report dated 15th May 2007.
(3) The full text of the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Gerald
Bruce Lee, United States District Judge, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 15th April
2003, was published by the Editor inter alia in facsimile format in International
Currency Review [ISSN 0020-6490], Volume 31, #s 3 & 4, November 2006,
on pages 258-267.
(4) Taken together, this Petition and Affidavit plus the
Exhibits provide the Court with comprehensive information on the illegal
diversion, annexation, exploitation and leveraging of the $4.5 trillion
Settlement, with the gravest implications for those involved.
LAWS BREACHED BY CRIMINAL OPERATIVES WHO HAVE HIJACKED
AMBASSADOR SIR LEO WANTA’S TAGGED $4.5 TRILLION
SETTLEMENT AGREED AT HIGHEST U.S. LEVELS IN BAD FAITH IN MAY 2006, AND HAVE
CONTINUED THEIR SERIAL CRIMES EVER SINCE:
The Directors and others listed in Part 1 of the Wantagate Listing of Institution Directors and others
posted on 11th June may be Accessories to the Fact of, and/or co-conspirators
in, wittingly or unwittingly, the egregious trashing of these U.S. Statutes:
• 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, U.S.C.]
• Currency and Foreign Transactions
Reporting Act
• Economic Espionage Act
• Hobbs Act
• Imparting or Conveying False
Information [Title 18, U.S.C.]
• Maloney Act
• Misprision of Felony [Title 18, U.S.C.]
• 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 Misdemeanors 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
This list shows to what extent the Bush II Administration
condones one Rule of Law for the Rest of Us, and
absolute contempt for domestic and international law for the officials and
bankers who are illegally diverting and exploiting Sir Leo Wanta’s
funds.
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
• Please be advised that the Editor
of International
Currency Review [ISSN 0020-6490] cannot enter into email correspondence
related to this or the earlier Wantagate reports.
We are a private intelligence publishing house with no connections
to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’
on this website and in our marketing material is used for marketing purposes
only and has no other connotations whatsoever:
please see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been exclusively engaged as an investigative
journalist, Editor, Author and private 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.
Subscriptions to our services may be entered by pressing
SUBSCRIBE against the selected publication title, and following the ultra-safe
web payment procedure.
We have no subventions apart from our subscriptions and
books income, and cannot spend unproductive time on Internet discussions. If
you would like to enter into formal consultation arrangements with the Editor
on a fee-paying basis, you need to go, in the first instance, to the Global Analysis Limited
section of this website and send us details about your requirements. We have to
charge for our time and cannot be expected to provide free advice on any of
these issues.