|Baptism Certificate, Leo Emil Wanta, 23 June 1940|
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA UP TO THIS POINT:
NOTE: It is logical to progress from the last blog about the unlawful tax cases involving Falls Vending which were filed against Ambassador Wanta by the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue [from 1982 - 1987] to the next major court event in his life: his arrest in Lausanne, Switzerland. At this moment, however, the Editor awaits a response from the Lausanne Courts regarding a recent letter to them (which is a response to a letter to me from them). Another letter from the International Court of Justice at The Hague is also expected. The Lausanne Court system has sent 20 pages of court text -- a Tribunal Decision from 2000. It is in French and is currently being translated. While waiting for the necessary tools to write the portion of Wanta World that deals with the Ambassador's imprisonment in Switzerland, it is time to begin coverage of the Dane County (Madison) Wisconsin trial... if one can call it a trial. Interpreting court transcripts is difficult and time consuming work and will be provided as analysis is completed. Editor) EVENTS LEADING TO THE DANE COUNTY TRIAL: 1. On July 7, 1993
EVENTS LEADING TO THE DANE COUNTY TRIAL:
1. On July 7, 1993, the Swiss Surete arrested Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne just as he was paying the breakfast bill at the Hotel Au Lac for a group of people who were traveling with him (“On July 7, 1993, I bought breakfast for Consul General Giovanni Ferro and Lorrayne Fine [an Israeli Mossad agent] of L.H. Financial Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. Others in the group – but not at breakfast – included Anthony Maniaci [Queen’s Counsel at Toronto, Ontario, Canada], and Sandro Sordi [former Dade County Deputy AG]," Wanta stated in a recent interview.)
2. Leo Emil Wanta was appointed Ambassador to Switzerland (and also Canada) by the nation of Somalia. His Ambassadorial Investiture was witnessed by the Foreign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe… a former Mayor of Paris. Thus, questions arise as to the legality of the imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne. The Swiss may question the validity of the Ambassadorial appointment, but they do not have the right to ignore it. Why would the Swiss Government imprison someone with Diplomatic Immunity in violation of the various international agreements known as the Vienna Conventions? Thus we see the first attacks on an innocent man caused by good old fashioned greed... the attraction of the moth to the flame of money.
3. The group was leaving for Geneva, a short distance from Lausanne (they were going by cab) to meet with White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Foster and his group (which included Leon Panetta) would join Wanta and his group at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva. Vince Foster's presence is affirmed by his American Express credit card statement Foster (who was murdered within two weeks of the planned meeting) was there to get $250 million from Ambassador Wanta. The funds had been requested by White House Economic Chairperson Laura d'Andrea Tyson, right-hand to First Lady (at the time) Hillary Clitone. The money was for the Children's Defense Fund (which is rumored to be Hillary's personal piggy bank).
4. The reason they were traveling by cab to Geneva (rather than by train) was because of a large, heavy blue nylon bag Leo Wanta was carrying. It contained all of his immediate investigative records and included highly classified information about an undercover operation on which he was working called "Operation Chaselet." Chaselet involved Credit Suisse and Letters of Credit issued by Chase Manhattan Bank. He had been told by his U.S, Treasury Department Representative, RAC William LeCates (Nashville), to take his records with him on this trip. The records included a federal arrest warrant for Marc Rich, issued by FBI Director William Sessions (who was terminated by Clinton two days after Wanta was arrested and the arrest warrant went unexecuted -- and yes, the same Marc Rich who was the last person pardoned by President William Jeffersonn Clinton as he departed the White House for the final time). Was Wanta being set up for the fall he took that day in Lausanne?
5. Wanta was traveling on his Somali Diplomatic Passport.
6. Wanta was held in what he terms "a dungeon" (Cell No. 130, within Prison du Bois - Mermet, CH du Bois - Gentil, 1018 Lausanne, Switzerland) from July 7, 1993 until November 17, 1993. On that date, the Swiss put him in body restraints (chains -- heavy duty stuff for someone against whom the Swiss filed no charges after unlawfully holding him in prison for over four months), and with two armed guards sent him on Swiss Air Flight #110 to New York where he was arraigned in Federal District Court in Brooklyn.
7. On November 17, 1993, Ambassador Wanta re-entered the United States using his Somali Diplomatic Passport. It was recorded by U.S. Customs upon his re-entry; to further prove the point, his U.S. Passport had expired in August 1993; it would have been impossible for him to use it to re-enter the U.S. This is irrefutable evidence that the Somali Ambassadorship and the Diplomatic Passport that came with it were valid... further evidence the Swiss government arrested and imprisoned a man entitled to Diplomatic Immunity.
8. Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against Leo Emil Wanta on November 19, 1993. I have a copy of the New York Court Docket.
9. Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta was re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court and was held in New York until mid-December when he was "extradited" to Wisconsin.
THE DANE COUNTY CRIMINAL TRIAL OF AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA
Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr., a former District Attorney thoroughly familiar with criminal law, states in Circuit Court Branch 2, Madison (Dane Coounty), Wisconsin, on May 8, 1995:
THE COURT: We are on the record in the matter entitled State of Wisconsin versus Leo E. Wanta. Mr. Wanta is charged in an information dated April 20, 1995.(See Page 5 of Court Transcript, above.)
Thus, it appears the criminal charges on which Lee Wanta is being tried were filed a mere three weeks before the trial. This raises a huge question: On what charges did Wisconsin have Wanta re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court after Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993, when Switzerland finally sent him back (in body chains) to the United States?
Based on Judge Torphy's "on the record" statement, it appears the only "charges" the State of Wisconsin had against Ambassador Wanta in 1993 until the criminal charges were filed in 1995 were civil charges for an estimated income tax deficiency. Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason for extradition from New York to Wisconsin -- in body chains? Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason to hold an American citizen in a filthy city jail from December 1993 until his trial in May 1995? It is obvious that something else was going on here. The State of New York and the Federal Government became complicit in this unlawful procedure when Wanta was held unlawfully in the Brooklyn Federal prison for a month -- from November 19th (after Judge Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993) until mid-December when he was flown (again in body chains) from New York to Madison, Wisconsin, where he was immediately incarcerated in the Dane County Jail.
Bear in mind, Wanta paid the estimated civil income tax of $14,129 under protest a full year before any of this unlawful behavior by New York, Wisconsin and the federal government occurred. The State of Wisconsin billed him for income taxes during years Wanta was not a resident of the State of Wisconsin. Leo/Lee Wanta became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria, in June of 1988.
PARAGRAPH 3, PAGE 5, FROM THE TRANSCRIPT::
MR. CHAVEZ: Judge, yes, I do. I’d like to make a record. I’d prefer it be in camera. And Mr. Haag and I discussed we’d also – it’s my understanding he would have no objection to an ex parte in camera discussion.
THE COURT: Ex parte with who?
MR. CHAVEZ: With you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You and Mr, Wanta?
MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Just the three of us?
MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: I always am very leery of ex parte discussions.
Why would a defense attorney discuss his desire to make a record before a trial begins? Why does he care if prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General J. Douglas Haag, objects and why is he coordinating defense strategies with the prosecution? Why does he all but apologize for wanting to make a record? It does NOT strike me as strange that a defense attorney would ask for an ex parte in camera discussion with the judge that's about to try his case – but the judge’s reaction indicates surprise – “just the three of us?” Does a request for an ex parte in camera meeting usually involve anyone but the defendant and his counsel? Yes, Judge Torphy, the defense attorney and his client – without the prosecutor. Then Haag injects himself into the conversation as if he’s giving the Court his blessing/permission to confer with the defendant and his lawyer – he even suggests the terms re when he’d be willing to leave. Who is running courtroom procedures?(See Page 5, above, and Page 6, below.)
This first 30 pages of the State of Wisconsin versus Leo Emil Wanta provide some of the strangest courtroom verbal exchanges in courtroom history. It took me until the third reading to realize the three lawyers (Chavez, Haag, and Torphy) are sharing a kind of "code speak." There is no other reasonable explanation for what is said and how it is verbally stated.
PAGE 6, 1995 DANE COUNTY COURT TRIAL TRANSCRIPT:
Page 5 ends with non-appointed State Public Defender (illegal under Wisconsin Statutes),counsel for the Defendant, Mr. John Chavez, a retired military lawyer, a former Judge Advocate General (JAG) and an Attorney at Law from Cambridge, Wisconsin, stating that he wants to make a record. The Courtroom conversation that occurs after this request is strange, indeed. In addition to Mr. Chavez, we have J. Douglas Haag, Assistant Attorney General, prosecuting the case for the State of Wisconsin, Department of Revenue. It is Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr.'s courtroom -- though in the following record from the Court transcript it certainly doesn't sound like Torphy's in charge. Torphy is a former district attorney who is more than a little familiar with criminal law.
MR. HAAG: The only – perhaps we ought to convene all of us – but what I’m concerned about is that I don’t want – to the extent that any matters that could be deemed privileged would be brought to the Court’s attention, I don’t want to be in a position where that privilege was inadvertently breached because I was present.
So I think we have to be particularly cautious about proceeding on these matters with that – just with the privilege issue in mind, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I guess if -- I’m willing to have Mr. Chavez and Mr. Wanta discuss with me whatever they – if you’re agreeable to it.
MR. HAAG: Well…
THE COURT: I don’t know what it is. I don’t know why it is, and I – but that’s – that’s sort of a carte blanche situation.
MR. HAAG: I would prefer to be present at first, but if it at all appears to Your Honor or Mr, Chavez that we may be entering into a very delicate area of privilege, then I would be happy to leave.
THE COURT: Yeah. But I don’t know what’s privileged. How would I know what’s privileged?
MR. HAAG: We have to leave that to Mr. Chavez’s determination.
THE COURT: I guess what I would like to do in that circumstances, very honestly, is rather than moving back and forth between chambers and the courtroom, unless there is some objection I’d like to, you know, just clear the courtroom. Is that sufficient for your purposes?
MR. CHAVEZ: (Moves his head in an affirmative manner.)
THE COURT: And get everybody back at such time as it’s appropriate. So to that extent I would like to have everybody but the counsel and Mr. Wanta, as I understand, excused from the room.
COURT REPORTER: Do you want this on the record?
THE COURT: It’s on the record – no question about it.
DANE COUNTY TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, BOTTOM OF PAGE 7:
(At this time the following record was made in a closed courtroom with the Court and counsel, at 9:25 a.m.)
THE COURT: I gather, just so the record is clear, Mr. Wanta, you have no objection to that, I assume?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t. But I would like to give the Court a statement, which I have the right to do, Your Honor. And if I may approach the bench, I have a statement I would like to present the Court..
BEGINNING OF PAGE 8:
THE DEFENDANT (continued): I think it’s very essential and important for justice.
MR. CHAVEZ: For the record, I have not seen it, nor has Mr. Haag.
THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.
It is very interesting how Mr. Chavez is so aware of what Mr. Haag, the prosecutor, knows and doesn’t know -- what he’s seen and what he hasn’t seen -- of the defendant's case.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to my sharing it with both your attorney and Mr. Haag?
THE DEFENDANT: I have no objection as long as it becomes the property of the Court.
THE COURT; Why don’t we – Can we deal with what Mr. Chavez wants to talk about first?
THE DEFENDANT: Certainly.
THE COURT: Mr. Chavez?
MR. CHAVEZ: Thank you, Judge. Again, Judge, I have tried to withdraw from this case twice.
THE COURT: That’s true.
MR. CHAVEZ: Both times you denied it. We -- Certainly it is in -- it is within your power. The statement I want to make now is this.
Mr. Wanta wants me to proceed with the defense that I do not agree with – I do not want to go forward with. I do not have a choice, however. I have to believe what he’s telling me. I’ve tried to find out whether or not these things are, in fact, true, but I cannot verify it absolutely one way or another.
Thus I feel I have to go forward with what he’s...
BEGINNING OF PAGE 9:
...telling me is the truth. Did I believe it, I don’t think that matters at this point. I have to go forward with what he wants me to do. I find it repugnant, I find it absolutely ludicrous to go forward with this, and I think we’re demeaning this Court by going forward with this type of defense; however, that’s what Mr. Wanta wants me to do. I will do it.
(Continued on Page 10 of Transcript)
Would such statements from your defense lawyer to the Court and in the presence of the prosecution make you feel warm and fuzzy at the quality of defense you are about to get in the impending trial? Would you feel certain that justice is about to be done and that you are assured of a fair trial?
EDITOR’S COMMENTS RE THE WORD “REPUGNANT”
The average person sees the word “repugnant” and thinks of it in its typical dictionary definition. We relate it to adjectives like: abhorrent, abominable, detestable, disagreeable, disgustful, disliked, displeasing, distasteful, diversus, forbidding, fulsome, hateful, inedible, insufferable, loathsome, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offending, offensive, out of favor, painful, repellent, repelling, repulsive, revolting, unacceptable, unappetizing, unpalatable, unpleasant, unpopular, and unsavory. Or, it can mean adverse, alien, antagonistic, at odds, at variance, clashing, conflicting, contrary, different, disagreeing, discordant, incongruous, inconsistent, inharmonious, inimical, irreconcilable, jarring, opposed, or opposing.
But there is an associated concept of “repugnant” that has application to this text. It is part of the “secret code” to which I referred earlier that these lawyers are using. It has to do with the Constitution of the United States. The words of Mr. Chavez sound like a lawyer making negative comments about his client’s case. Instead, it is establishing a base for his own safety net should the case he is about to throw to the wolves be appealed… as he is sure it will be.
In the case Marbury v. Madison (James Madison was, at the time, Secretary of State), Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court.
Learned and thoughtful, President John Adams had several commissions of appointment to office that had been signed but not delivered and were withheld on President Thomas Jefferson’s express instructions when he succeeded Adams. Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction against Secretary of State Madison. Jurisdiction was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marbury interpreted Section 13 to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction. The Court decided Sec. 13 authorization was an attempt by Congress to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the constitutional prescription and was therefore void.
Because the Constitution is “a superior paramount law,” it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and “a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.”
And here is the key phrase as it relates to Mr. Chavez’s use of “repugnant”
“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?” The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Chief Justice Marshall said: “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (Editor's Note: Though a different topic altogether, this statement by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explains why the Federal Reserve Act is unlawful: It is repugnant to the Constitution which gave responsibility for today's functions of the Federal Reserve to the United States Congress, not a private corporation like the Fed.)
The Wanta case had numerous conflicts of law involving his Ambassadorship (which dictated that the Supreme Court of the United States was the only Court qualified to try him) and conflicts of law existed regarding the sharing of intelligence information in a public forum ike this trial -- you remember the (relatively meaningless by comparison) Valerie Plame incident. Vice President Dick Cheney's Aide, Scooter Libby, went to prison for "outing" Plame in a far less public forum than this mock trial in Madison, Wisconsin which outed Leo Emil Wanta, the man who is documented to have brought down the Soviet ruble and, as a result of that operation, of bringing down the Iron Curtain. Plame's outing is nothing by comparison to having an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin "out" a Title 18 Section 6 company designed to gather intelligence information for the United States of America and operated by covert operative Leo Wanta.
Mr. Chavez planned no defense against these conflicts. Thus he was worried about being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That's why the two concepts are presented at the same time: "repugnant" and "ineffective." That's what all of this "secret code" legal talk is intended to cover -- and keep reading because it gets worse. The testimony by itself proves the reference being made has to do with a conflict of laws in this case and both Mr. Chavez and Judge Torphy express concern about it.
The law Judge Torphy chose to pursue in the trial of Leo Emil Wanta was “repugnant to the Constitution.” It is, therefore, void. At least, constitutionally. Read the ongoing testimony and judge for yourself.
The concept of repugnance has been used in recent law. For example, former Attorney General John Ashcroft might have faced personal liability for the decisions that led to the detention of an American citizen as a material witness after the 9/11 attacks. A federal appeals court panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said “We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” said the opinion. The Patriot Act was quickly passed to cover such incidents once the “war on terrorism” began.
RETURN TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPT DATED 8 MAY 1995, PAGE 9:
MR. CHAVEZ: I further have discussed the idea of his testifying. He told me Friday that he wants to testify, which is certainly his right. I – I can’t keep him from testifying. He’s going to take the stand because he told me he was going to take the stand. I’ve surrounded my whole case around him taking the stand.
Again, I don’t – I find that repugnant, but if that’s what he wants me to do, take the stand and testify, fine. I’m only making the record here now pertaining to his testimony because I’m afraid later on he’s going to say I’m not testifying and then he’s got me hooked. And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked. I think that’s what we’re doing here today is more or less setting up Mr. Wanta’s appeal, and that’s the record I want to make.
END OF PAGE 9 TESTIMONY
Why would defense counsel think having his client take the stand was “repugnant” – unless this was an expressed fear about a constitutional violation. Why would defense counsel want to prevent his client from testifying? The most logical reason is because he knows he cannot control potential testimony that proves the “repugnant” reference and its potential violation of the Constitution which would make the Court decision “void.” That is why the two topics appear together… “repugnant” and “I can’t prevent my client from testifying.” Add to that the final statement: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”
To what is Mr. Chavez referring – “ineffective?”
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial via its Due Process Clauses. It says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."So, a fair trial is one in which evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding. Thus, there must be adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case for a fair trial to occur. Mr. Chavez has already admitted that his total case is based on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony. He plans no adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case – no assertive cross-examination of witnesses… his entire case rests on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony and he is worried that the Ambassador will not testify because if he does not, as Mr. Chavez himself says: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”
Just because a person is a lawyer and represents a client at trial is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to assistance of counsel – but counsel that will play a critical role by using his ability within the adversarial system to produce justice. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.
Mr. Chavez planned no defense and did not “play the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.” His lack of representation was a planned event and he was thus worried about being accused of ineffective counsel if Ambassador Wanta, in the end, chose not to testify. He admits that on the record. If you have wondered why the other lawyers ran from this assignment, the lack of funds for defense costs and the “repugnant” constitutional questions involved have to play a huge role. Mr. Chavez, it appears, was willing to overlook them… until it got to the date of the trial. He was compelled to make a record in his own defense for the lack of representation he knew he was making.
Bear in mind, one of the primary complaints Ambassador Wanta had was the Court freezing his more than ample liquid assets which prevented him from retaining his own legal counsel, paying for witness depositions, paying for witness travel, etc.
That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel's playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.
Finally with regard to this portion of the court transcript of Leo Emil Wanta’s first day of trial, May 8, 1995, remember this from the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…”
This trial was held in Dane County (or the County of Dane). Ambassador Wanta never paid a tax of any kind in Dane County. None of the unlawful Falls Vending delinquent tax problems or other suits filed against him were in Dane County. That county, in other words, had no jurisdiction to try him… at least that’s what the Sixth Amendment says.
Finally, Leo Emil Wanta was first arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland, on July 7, 1993. He was held in prison for over four months before being returned to the United States where all charges against him were immediately dismissed in Federal District Court. He was rearrested on the steps of the courthouse and was held in the Brooklyn federal facility for over a month before Wisconsin picked him up in mid-December and flew him, in body chains, to the Dane County Jail... where he was held from December 1993 until charges were finally filed against him in April 1995 and his trial began on May 8, 1995.
What was that part of the Sixth Amendment about a fair and speedy trial in the district where the "crime" occurred?
References: Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e.g., Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render "adequate legal assistance," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S., at 344 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance ineffective). The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases--that is, those presenting claims of "actual ineffectiveness." In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose--to ensure a fair trial--as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e.g., Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render "adequate legal assistance," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S., at 344 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance ineffective).
The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases--that is, those presenting claims of "actual ineffectiveness." In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose--to ensure a fair trial--as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
In pages 5 through 9, we found Ambassador Wanta's attorney, John Chavez, was afraid Wanta would charge him with ineffective representation.
A good defense lawyer should be interested in the welfare of his client… in the outcome of the trial immediately ahead of him.
But not Mr. Chavez.
Instead, Chavez is worried his "planned defense" is repugnant to the Constitution. He is worried about that because he has built no case to defend his client. The courts -- either in Switzerland or in Wisconsin or both -- froze Ambassador Wanta’s international bank accounts containing vast amounts of wealth. This single act prevented Wanta from retaining legal counsel of his choice. It put the State of Wisconsin in control of the trial. The only thing that can absolutely prevent the potential filing of an ineffective counsel charge against Chavez is the Ambassador's testimony which makes it look like Mr. Chavez has presented a defense when, indeed he has not. Thus, it is key for the Court to determine whether or not the Ambassador will testify. Read on and see how the Court accomplishes this.
MR. CHAVEZ: Also, for the record, I had advised my client to accept the deal of the State, okay? I find that evidence absolutely overwhelming against Mr. Wanta. Mr. Wanta claims his innocence, fine. I can't tell the Judge or the Court either way if I think he’s guilty or innocent, that doesn’t matter, either. All that matters is Mr. Wanta wants his trial and he wants to testify.
Now that you know the game that's being played, the words "...All that matters is Mr. Wanta... wants to testify" take on a whole new meaning, don't they?
The following paragraphs contain negative comments about Mr. Chavez -- and he deserves them. However, he also deserves some sympathy for his plight. You see, Mr. Chavez wasn't court-appointed counsel. When on pages 5 and 6 Chavez begged Judge Torphy to allow him to withdraw from the case, he made it sound like the Court had appointed him as Counsel to Ambassador Wanta. That is untrue.
Did the Wisconsin Court system and Department of Revenue (in league with... who? The CIA? The Swiss?) decide the easiest way to handle the Wanta matter was to have him committed to a mental institution? Four times they sent him for mental evaluation... he was found competent, even though they tried four times. Why these desperate attempts? If "they" can get Wanta confined to a mental institution, Wisconsin (and anyone with the power to demand access) controls $27.5 trillion that belongs to Ambassador Wanta -- money he earned at the behest of President Ronald Reagan for the American people.
Interestingly, the Swiss provided a good excuse for Wisconsin to put this plan into effect by having Ambassador Wanta mentally evaluated while he was unlawfully imprisoned there. The Swiss said they didn't believe his story about being an American covert intelligence operative. They decided the Ambassador was living in a fantasy world and committed him for psychiatric evaluation where they proceeded to pump him full of drugs. That they "didn't believe his intelligence involvement" is impossible since the blue nylon bag Wanta carried was filled with communiques with the FBI. In their November 17, 2000 Tribunal Decision from the Lausanne Courts, the Swiss admit finding 73 messages between Wanta and the FBI. They knew. The Swiss denial is not credible.. but it provided a good excuse for them to keep Wanta behind bars while they examined and evaluated the intelligence data contained in that blue bag. Remember, Wanta was told to take those records to Switzerland with him by RAC William LeCates of Nashville, his supervisor when working within the U.S. Treasury Department.
Thus, the Swiss paved the way for the Wisconsin strategy to get Wanta committed to their mental institution.
Concurrently, Wisconsin gave the Swiss a payback when they put on this farce of a trial to find Wanta guilty of a non-existent crime. The Swiss Tribunal Decision, dated 17 November 2000 (strangely, seven years to the day the Swiss returned Ambassador Wanta to the United States to have all charges against hin dismissed in a New York Federal District Court), justified their imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in 1993 by saying he was, after all, convicted of criminal tax matters in Wisconsin in 1995. What does that have to do with holding him in a Swiss prison in 1993? The Tribunal Decision (about which you'll hear more later) had no charges to justify holding Ambassador Wanta in prison for over four months. At the end of the Tribunal Decision they made a weak effort to justify their actions by saying "Well, Wisconsin found him guilty of non-payment of income taxes in 1995." Each court washed the other's hands.
But back to the subject: Why Mr. Chavez deserves our sympathy.
Before this trial, two or three lawyers accepted retainers averaging about $15,000 each, to defend Leo Emil Wanta (Kenneth Starr was one of them -- yes, that Ken Starr... and then retained by the state of Wisconsin - Department of Education - without repaying the retainer and later became Special Counsel in the William Jefferson Clinton impeachment process; surely the Clinton appointment wasn't a payoff?). After accepting the retainer and beginning investigation of Leo Wanta's case, the lawyers disappeared, money still in hand, After all, who wants to crosss swords with the CIA, the FBI, and several other intelligence agencies for which Ambassador Wanta had done covert work?
The Office of the Wisconsin Public Defender had appointed two lawyers to the case. They, too, walked. Mr. Chavez was appointed by the Public Defender's Office to coordinate the mental competency tests Judge Torphy decided Ambassador Wanta should undergo. After all, Wanta had just been evaluated for mental illness in Switzerland, so Torphy could justify this decision on the basis of the Swiss precedent. Of course, the Swiss found no mental impairment... but the way the Wisconsin courts work, that didn't matter. Neither did it bother the Wisconsin Courts that spending Public Defender funds on a defendant who is probably the wealthiest man in the world and had more than sufficient funds to personally pay for private counsel... violated Wisconsin Statutes. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Wisconsin Public Defender's Office is always substantially over budget and is suspected of appointing lawyers to defend highly affluent people (many with mob connections) who can easily afford their own lawyers.
To make a long story a bit shorter, when Mr. Chavez completed the mental competency work for which the Public Defender retained him, Judge Torphy would not release him. It appears Mr. Chavez was forced into service -- forced to try the Wanta case. As he, himself, clearly states, he had tried to resign from the case twice, but Judge Torphy wouldn't allow him to withdraw. Those who were after the Wanta trillions saw an easy solution: Get him declared mentally incompetent, put him in a mental institution, fill him with whatever drugs necessary to get out of him all the information required, and perhaps a convenient overdose would end this situation with Wanta's untimely death. The plan was thwarted by the chief physician at the Mental Health Division of the Office of Human Services. She, in fact, is quoted as having said: "The only people who are crazy are the people in Madison who sent this man here for evaluation."
When the "Let's put him in a mental institution" strategy failed, Mr. Chavez was forced to try the Wanta case and is due some sympathy... and understanding how he got drug into the Wanta trial helps to better realize his fear of being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That, however, doesn't change the fact that it was ineffective counsel at an unlawful trial for a non-existent crime.
The Chavez quote, above, is a perfect example of being considered guilty until proven innocent – by your own lawyer. Wanta’s own counsel (before a jury is even selected) tells the Court he thinks his client is guilty – he tells the Judge and the Prosecutor that the evidence against his client is overwhelming and he has advised Ambassador Wanta to accept whatever deal the State of Wisconsin has offered. As you will see later in the transcript, the evidence was not only NOT overwhelming, there was absolutely no evidence produced proving INCOME (as opposed to corporate cash flow or personal expense reimbursement) was paid to Leo Emil Wanta.
The above paragraph from the transcript establishes that a plan exists to avoid difficult cross-examinations, and to avoid investigating or challenging the lack of funds so witnesses or their depositions can be presented on the Defendant’s behalf. Chavez is establishing the basis for his own defense should ineffective counsel charges be brought against him. He obviously plans to present a defense that is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
According to bank statements dated April 1993 just prior to his arrest in Switzerland, Ambassador Leo E. Wanta had billions of dollars in the bank -- more than enough to fly witnesses to Wisconsin from Singapore, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, and other foreign locales which is where his witnesses resided. The Court withheld access to those funds; the Court withheld access to legal counsel of his choice. The Court provided a lawyer who appears to have involved himself in a plot to withhold any vestige of justice from Leo E. Wanta and which makes a joke of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the Attorney General’s office. These men, responsible for making sure defendants get a fair trial, were engaged in a plot to do everything but that.
If any citizen with relatively average intelligence was suddenly appointed by a court to defend a fellow citizen from charges of not paying legitimate income taxes, what’s the first thing he or she would do? It doesn’t take a law degree to know. The first thing that needs to be proven is that income was paid to the client. Only if income was paid can taxes against it be assessed by the State.
Most of us also know that there are two basic forms on which income is declared. There is a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form for the self-employed, and there is a W-2 Federal income declaration form used by employers. There are various other forms as well, but let’s keep it simple. At no time during the trial did attorney John Chavez demand the prosecution produce any income reporting form to prove income had been paid to Leo E. Wanta.
We citizens appointed to defend a client would be screaming; “Where are the 1099 Forms or the W-2 Forms which prove the Defendant earned income and didn’t pay taxes on it?”
This basic question was never asked by Mr. Chavez during the trial.
"Well," the prosecution might insist, "no forms were issued. That doesn't prove the Defendant didn't receive income – after all, we’re talking about illicit, illegal income here… a company owned and managed by the Defendant. He chose not to send himself a W-2 Form from a company he owns and controls."
Another question must then be asked in response to the Prosecutor's statement: “Where is the evidence proving the company did not issue the required forms… has that company been prosecuted or charged with tax violations? Was it investigated?” The answer is "No."
If the company required by law to provide the tax forms to Mr. Wanta is not being investigated or prosecuted, why? If there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute the company for not producing required income tax forms to employees (owners or otherwise), there is insufficient evidence to prosecute an employee of the company!”
This proves Mr. Chavez is either more ignorant than the average person who might be placed in his position. Or, it proves that Mr. Chavez was intentionally ignoring the basic charges filed against Ambassador Wanta.
There is no doubt that a Nevada corporation – one of Leo E. Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 companies with a branch office in Wanta's former home in Appleton, WI – sent him checks which Mr. Wanta cashed. (For a definition of a Title 18 Section 6 company, go here and scroll to #4.)
Does cashing checks sent to him by his Nevada corporation make the funds “personal income” to Leo Wanta? It may or it may not. When a person works for a Nevada corporation but is performing duties for the company at a distant location, such an employee is usually reimbursed for travel and living expenses. And, as the trial progresses, it is Leo E. Wanta’s travel and living expenses the prosecutor presented to the Court, calling it personal income. But Mr. Chavez never makes these key points – because his only defense is Mr. Wanta’s testimony… which he finds "repugnant."
John Chavez is truly frightened that this trial may cost him his license to practice law in Wisconsin. He is frightened that the ineffective defense he plans – a defense designed to help find his client guilty of an imaginary charge – will fall apart and provide sufficient reason to get him disbarred should Wanta decide to not testify. Chavez ends his agonizingly embarassing "I want to make a record" statement by saying:
MR. CHAVEZ: There. I’ve made a record. I’m just – Again, the reason I’m making this record is, Mr. Wanta is only setting this up for ineffective assistance and for appeal.The closing comments on this topic by Mr. Chavez once again show his fear of ineffective assistance charges. There can only be one reason for this kind of fear before a jury is even chosen, before he performs poorly during the trial: The ineffective defense is planned and is known in advance.
Page 10, Paragraph 3, Line 13:
THE COURT: All right. Let me – Anything else, Mr. Chavez?
MR. CHAVEZ: No, Judge. Let me read what Mr. Wanta just gave to me, and then I’m going to have some questions of him.
THE COURT: Why don’t you make a couple copies of that for counsel.
The first question I’d like to ask and I – I would have asked it sooner or later, in any event, depending on whether or not Mr. Wanta indicates his desire to testify or his desire not to testify – or whether you would have called him or not called him, I guess…
…is a better way to phrase it. And I guess my question, Mr. Wanta, without getting into the details of the other things that Mr. Chavez has said, and that is that you understand that you have a right not to testify?
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m innocent of the charges and I want to prove it by testifying – by testifying with the exhibits.
THE COURT: Please answer my questions. We’ll get to what you want to do. My question is, do you understand that you have a right not to testify?
The Defendant did answer your question, Judge. He added a thought, though. He has suggested that his testimony will be accompanied by exhibits. You had to get past that quickly because you and Mr Haag, the Prosecutor, aren’t going to allow any exhibits, are you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And as I understand Mr. Chavez and from what you just said, it is at least presently your desire to testify as a witness on your own behalf in this case; is that true?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, because he has not called a single witness – a witness on my behalf. He has refused to. He claims that the State did not give him enough in his budget and all this other material.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CHAVEZ: That’s absolutely -- --
All right? The Defendant has told Judge Torphy his counsel has informed him there are no funds available for his defense and the Judge's response is "All right."? There are no questions asked of Mr. Chavez to verify this statement or deny it. Unbelievable! This is absolute proof that the Judge was aware that no funds had been made available to provide an acceptable defense for this defendant. This entire trial was a farce!
In a normal trial, at what point is the defendant advised of his right to testify or not to testify? Not before a jury is even selected, I'll wager. How often before a trial does a Judge ask a Defendant if he intends to testify and advise him of his right to either testify or not testify?
According to Leo E. Wanta, his funds were frozen and it prevented him from retaining his own counsel. His lawyer, provided by the court system (if not technically "court appointed")has informed him that there are no funds available to provide a coherent defense... no witnesses, no depositions. Wanta refused to accept court appointed counsel… in fact, at one point Mr. Chavez asked Wanta to terminate him as counsel. Ambassador Wanta informed Mr. Chavez that he couldn’t terminate his service because he hadn’t retained him.
Wanta’s funds were frozen by the Swiss. Did they defrost them before returning him to the U.S.? If not, why not? The massive deposits Wanta had in Swiss banks at the time of his arrest in Lausanne simply disappeared. The money was never returned to him or to the American people. Even so, why would an American courtroom allow frozen funds that would have paid for a private lawyer to remain frozen after his return to the United States and after all charges against Ambassador Wanta had been dropped? Why would the State of Wisconsin want to pay the costs for a court appointed lawyer when the Defendant was rumored to have access to $27.5 trillion? Answer: To gain and maintain control of the trial. In any fair trial, this would not have happened. In Wisconsin, it had to happen. The State had to maintain control of the unlawful performance it was about to give in the name of justice.
The point is, the frozen funds prevented Mr. Wanta from retaining his own counsel for this trial and stuck him with Mr. Chavez… who functioned under the control of the Court and the Public Defender's office.
Leo/Lee E Wanta was placed in an absolutely impossible position: Accept his lawyer’s advice (as Mr. Chavez admits giving it) and plead ”guilty” to a crime he hadn’t committed; or, go to trial to make sure certain important things got on the record. The things Leo Wanta needed to get on the record had to do with topics about which he, as an intelligence operative, could not speak. He needed to let the Court, the prosecution and his own defense counsel talk publicly about things it was unlawful for them to mention in a public forum, especially a Court of Law that had no jurisdiction to try his case. For them to mention such things merely violated the law; for an intelligence operative functioning under an Oath of Office to make the comments would have bordered on treason.
As the trial transcript reveals, they would try to lead him into betraying his Oath of Office, to speak of things intelligence operatives cannot reveal, but he wisely avoided that trap. He paid a heavy price for doing so, but not as severe as it would have been had he let them entice him onto that Yellow Brick Road. Perhaps that is what Mr. Chavez so feared about Ambassador Wanta’s testimony? Had Wanta gone into detailed explanations regarding his intelligence activities, he could have been skating around the edges of treason. Maybe that’s what the court hoped to provoke: a detailed explanation about an intelligence agency that had obviously thrown the Defendant under a bus. That would then provide a real reason to prosecute Wanta for treason and put him away for life. That, in turn, would give “them” legal access to the funds accrued by Ambassador Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 corporations – which is, after all, what everyone was after.
When Ambassador Wanta charged Mr. Chavez with not calling witnesses on his behalf because court-provided funds were insufficient, the Judge has no reaction, whatsoever. He simply says “All right.” He doesn’t ask Mr. Chavez “Is this true?” The Judge knew there was no money made available to to try this case honestly on the basis of facts… probably the reason state public defenders and court appointed lawyers walked away from defending Wanta. Ambassador Wanta made very clear from the beginning that he had more than enough money, requested the funds be made available to him so he could retain his own legal counsel, and he strongly objected to having court-controlled lawyers forced upon him.
Interestingly, the prosecution (Mr. Haag) makes sure to point out to the jury (on Day 3 of the trial) that no witnesses were willing to appear on Mr. Wanta’s behalf – but that comes later. Telling a jury no one was willing to appear on behalf of a defendant is highy prejudicial.
What is a normal judicial reaction when a defendant in his/her courtroom says a court controlled lawyer told the defendant there was no money available to call witnesses (or take depositions)? My hope would be that the norm would be a Judge that called for an investigation. If the Court had made funds available, the Judge should be asking defense counsel where the money went. Obviously then, the Court did not make funds available and so the absence of them was not a surprise to Judge Torphy.
Based on the Sixth Amendment and its reliance on an adversarial system to achieve justice, funds to provide the basic needs of a defendant for a criminal offense certainly should be available. Of course, if a judge knew the charge was accurate and he was responsible for freezing the funds, no investigation would be ordered. Such a judge would say something like: “All right.”
When faced with this charge, Mr. Chavez is apparently going to say “That’s absolutely untrue” or “that’s absolutely a lie” or “That’s absolutely insane!” He suddenly stops after saying “That’s absolutely…” perhaps remembering they were on the record and he was about to tell a lie.
EDITOR'S COMMENT: Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta never did file ineffective counsel charges against John Chavez, Esq. -- though it certainly appears to this observer that he deserved them.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
On May 8, 1995, the State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, began the prosecution – or, depending on your perspective, persecution – of Leo E. Wanta, Defendant, in Case Number 92-CF-683.
The trial (or Kangaroo Court if you know what really transpired in Judge Torphy's courtroom) ended on May 11, 1995. Leo E. Wanta was found guilty of several tax violations in the State of Wisconsin. He was sentenced to serve 22 years for a non-existent crime he didn't commit. Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War because of things like the British concept of Debtor's Prison?
Was Leo Wanta guilty? The court records tell a good story – but that's what it is: a story. The difficult part about reading the Wanta court transcripts from his criminal trial is that the prosecution does prove its case. The problem is, the story the prosecution proves is filled with lies cleverly presented as facts. If you look at the skewed evidence, lies told and misrepresentations given by an agent of the Department of Revenue, Judge Torphy accepting jury instructions from the prosecuting Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General, and failing to give proper ones of his own – it’s hard to fault the jury. It is not hard to fault the Department of Revenue, the Governor at the time, Tommy Thompson, and the Attorney General, Jim Doyle (who later became Governor of Wisconsin). This one case establishes that Wisconsin has a totally incompetent legal staff and taxing authority; or, it establishes fraud perpetrated on an innocent man.
All of the unlawful activity surrounding this trial has been provided to Wisconsin's current Governor, Scott Walker. So far, the information sent via Registered Mail is being ignored. Why should he concern himself with an 18-year old miscarriage of justice? Because, Governor, this case so obviously wipes away all pretense of a legitimate legal system in Wisconsin, it stinks. If you ignore it, you are or will become part of it. Or, you will be ineffective. The Rule of Law is a necessary ingredient to good governance. You need it on your side.
It all began when multiple court cases were filed against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta in the 1980s. All cases filed had to do with a company called “Falls Vending Services, Inc., d/b/a; Falls Food & Vending Service, Regency Catering, Vendor Leasing Service, QuarterHouse, Ltd.” located in Wisconsin. Unless a specific case is being quoted, it will hereinafter be referred to as "Falls Vending."
Here is a list of some of the cases filed against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta. As was explained in a blog entry dated August 10, 2011, titled The Shadow Knows… A Wisconsin Mystery (article link here), numerous judges found Leo E. Wanta had no responsibility for debts or taxes due from a bankrupt company called Falls Vending (or any of its other “doing-business-as” names). He had no position of ownership. He and his wife, Joanne E. Wanta, had at one time offered to buy the company, but no money or shares of the company had exchanged hands and the decision to purchase never got off the ground.
One of the judges who found Leo E. Wanta not responsible in any way for the debts or taxes due from the bankrupt Falls Vending was Chief U.S. District Court Judge John W. Reynolds (Order, Case 84-C-359, 7 September 1984 – link here. Another was Judge Robert T. McGraw, Circuit Judge, Waukesha County, WI (Order for Dismissal in Case 83-CV-452. 4 April 1985 – link here). Several other judges made similar decisions: Leo E. Wanta was not responsible for the debts or taxes due from the bankrupt Falls Vending. Regardless of the Court Orders for Dismissal involving Leo E. Wanta, all charges against him and his wife, Joanne E. Wanta, were not dropped.
Falls Vending filed for bankruptcy (Case No. 83-02386, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin). As a part of that bankruptcy, a document signed by an Assistant United States Attorney said “Leo E. Wanta should be named to serve as the party responsible to perform the duties of the debtor(s)as set forth below, unless the Court, with a copy to the Internal Revenue Service…” (Milwaukee address given) changed that arrangement. Wanta, in other words, was to act on behalf of the bankruptcy court as an accountant for Falls Vending... pay their bills and taxes in compliance with bankruptcy laws.
“The debtors should be required to segregate in a separate bank account and maintain adequate and accurate accounting records with respect to…” F.I.C.A. and F.U.T.A. taxes, sales and withholding taxes, etc. That is what Leo/Lee Wanta was assigned by the U.S. Federal District Bankruptcy Court to do: Use Falls Vending funds to pay the company’s taxes (first) and bills (second). A sane person with no ownership interest in a company would never personally assume financial responsibility to pay the company's bankruptcy bills and taxes. However, a large number of lawsuits that tried to use the Wisconsin court system to force Wanta to do just that were filed. Why? Probably because he was paying their bills and taxes as requested by the bankruptcy court... he was signing the Falls Vending checks.
Neither the courts nor the Department of Revenue did anything to stop the onslaught – or even to oversee that it stayed within the bounds of the law. Yet, with all of that information filed as a matter of record at both the Federal District Court and the Waukesha County Circuit Court levels, in 1987 numerous delinquent sales, withholding and income tax warrants left unpaid by Falls Vending et al were filed against Leo E. Wanta. View examples of cases filed here.
In the many cases filed from 1982 through 1984, both Mr. and Mrs. Wanta were named. Suddenly in 1987, Joanne E. Wanta’s name was dropped like a hot potato from the tax charges filed against Leo E. Wanta. Like magic… even though all state taxes had, for the time in question, been filed jointly. If any taxes were owed, both husband and wife filing jointly owed them. Could it have anything to do with the fact that the couple separated in 1984 and separated legally in 1985? Did what appears to be a series of tax errors by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and a lot of case hungry Wisconsin lawyers in the early 1980s morph into an overt attack in 1987 by a rejected wife feeling sorry for herself and determined to take it out on a husband who now lived abroad? Did she ever ask herself what he was supposed to do after finding she was sleeping with his personal lawyer who handled (some would say mishandled) the Falls Vending tax cases filed against both Mr. and Mrs. Wanta between 1982-1984?
This same “personal lawyer” (it gives an entirely different meaning to the word “personal,” doesn’t it?) also wrote Wanta’s Last Will and Testament. He knew about the hundreds of billions of dollars Wanta controlled in overseas accounts… evidently he did not know about the $27.5 trillion. Or, maybe he did. Maybe she did, too. Maybe they wanted to live the rest of their lives in comfort and ease and the expense of the American people. There are too many “maybes” to count in the life of Leo/Lee Emil Wanta.
Leo Emil Wanta became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria in June of 1988, remember. No. He did not relinquish his American citizenship. He just became a legal resident in a foreign city and did so as Director General of New Republic/USA Financial Group GES.m.b.H. in Vienna, Austria. It's kind of like a landed alien in the United States being gien a Green Card to run a company business here.
Here is a list of things to remember if you want to understand the complexities of what happened to Leo (baptism certificate) Lee (birth certificate) Emil Wanta.
1. Prior to President Elect Ronald Reagan’s Inauguration, Leo Wanta was meeting with a group of high-powered intelligence operatives to create a plan of action on how best to weaken the Soviet Union. This was done at Reagan’s request and included former CIA Director Bill Colby, William Casey (CIA Director 1981-87), Leo Wanta, and various military intelligence services. This further proves Wanta’s assertion that he was working as an undercover agent at Falls Vending. Specifically, he was investigating Frank (Bals) Balistrieri, a thug thought to be affiliated with the Chicago - Las Vegas mobs. When the investigation succeeded, Wanta was standing at the FBI counter wearing his service weapon when Balistrieri was arrested. If Balistrieri knew about Leo Wanta's status as an undercover agent, the mob knew about it, too.
2. Though George Soros loves to take credit for bringing down the Soviet ruble, it was Leo Wanta who went into Moscow and did it. Soros, it is rumored, was KGB (Soviet Intelligence) and Stasi – Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS), commonly known as the East German Secret Police. Wanta being the key to devaluing the ruble has been clearly documented in Claire Sterling’s book, Thieves’ World (Simon & Schuster, 1994). When the ruble failed, the Iron Curtain came down. For that, this nation owes Leo/Lee Wanta a debt of gratitude. Though in Thieves’ World Sterling mischaracterized Wanta as a common crook or mafia-related agent, it is understandable. That is what his researchable background at the time was made to look like – had to look like to gain and maintain the credibility required for the job. Anyone who has watched a James Bond movie knows how easily intelligence agencies create appropriate backgrounds for agents.
3. Most people who are familiar with Wanta are also familiar with the words “$27.5 trillion man.” People uninvolved in the huge frauds perpetrated on the citizens of the world react to idea of “$27.5 trillion” with the thought: “There isn’t that much money in the world!” Until recently, that is. The greater the debt of the American government – currently hovering between $14 trillion and $16 trillion – the greater the understanding that such huge sums of money do exist. Those left with any doubts should read the early October 2011 news stories about the (approximate) $240 trillion in derivatives held by five Wall Street investment banking firms. By comparison, $27.5 trillion sounds like a dime to a dollar… it practically is.
4. In most of the non-court transcript data published by or about Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta, the term “Title 18 Section 6” is frequently used in reference to the many corporations which Wanta owned. What is a Title 18 Section 6 corporation?
On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, titled ‘United States Intelligence Activities’. This EO authorizes U.S. intelligence operatives to establish cadres of corporations owned by the US Government for intelligence purposes and allowed intelligence operatives to deny their intelligence community connections.
The relevant text reads as follows: “23. Contracting: Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes.”
Corporations established under EO 12333 are called "Title 18 Section 6 corporations." Several thousand of them exist and many have bank accounts with large sums of money accrued – money that belongs to the U.S. Government. Leo/Lee Wanta’s New Republic/USA in Vienna was a Title 18 Section 6 corporation. Wanta had numerous such corporations and it is into those corporations the $27.5 trillion flowed. Of the total, $4.5 trillion of the funds belonged to Wanta, $23 trillion belonged to the American people. To date, the U.S. Government has “taken” both sums. Lee Wanta has been unable to gain lawful access to his funds – and the American people have done nothing to gain access to theirs. How can they when they don't know about the money? Instead, while Wanta was hidden in various prisons from 1993 until 2001, the money intended for the American people was kidnapped by what Wanta calls “agent provocateurs.”
Title 18 Section 6 covers the establishment of onshore or offshore corporations by American intelligence operatives from any of the 18+ agencies ‘controlled’ by the Central Intelligence Agency and also such U.S. intelligence participations as are not supervised by the CIA, which is subordinate to the National Security Agency (NSA) in practice. Within the enormous US intelligence community, the colossal offshore fund accruals belonging to the US Government were waiting in mid-2006 for the legal environment to be adjusted to facilitate their repatriation to the US Treasury, and for funds stolen by various parties to be traced. It is said that some of the warring US Intelligence factions are committing treason by working for foreign powers.
To date then, the history provided by court documents regarding Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta tells us that in the early 1980s, somewhere between 35 and 50 tax cases were filed against him in the State of Wisconsin by those to whom Falls Vending owed money, Outagamie County filed phony Delinquent Tax Warrants, and a couple of cases were filed by Wisconsin regarding unemployment insurance -- which they lost. Most of those cases were filed before the Dismissal Order handed down by Chief U.S. District Court Judge John W. Reynolds (Order in Case 84-C-359, 7 September 1984), and by Judge Robert T. McGraw, Circuit Judge, Waukesha County, WI (Order for Dismissal in Case 83-CV-452, 4 April 1985) wherein both Judges determined Wanta had no personal liability for the debts or taxes of Falls Vending. All of the cases filed against Wanta had to do with Falls Vending (et al). Copies of other court dismissals will be made available as time for scanning legal documents permits. Many cases, however, were filed after these court decisions were made… it is almost as if the State of Wisconsin doesn’t understand that when a U.S. District Court Judge says a man isn’t responsible for the debts or taxes of a company, that’s the ruling that must be followed by the court system unless an appeal is filed and a reversal is obtained. There was no reversal of Judge Reynolds’ or Judge McGraw’s Decisions.
Leo/Lee Wanta was not responsible for the debts or taxes of that company but was treated by the State of Wisconsin as if he were. Why lawyers would continue to file cases when clients sought their services for litigation is understandable: They, at least, are earning money… well, perhaps "earning" is a bad choice of words. But the biggest filing offender against Wanta was the State of Wisconsin. It issued Delinquent Tax Warrant after Delinquent Tax Warrant, insisting that Wanta pay the Withholding and Sales taxes for Falls Vending. These filings occurred in 1987, two-to-three years after the Court Decisions were made… and each of them was costing the State of Wisconsin money to litigate. So why would they want to bear the expense of litigation... this illogical behavior? Hmmmm…
The court documents on these cases filed provide some interesting data: An attorney by the name of E.N. Rotter filed a Garnishment Complaint on behalf of Friedman Tobacco Corporation in the Waukesha Circuit Court (11/18/1992). The Garnishment was against the Outagamie Bank (which is in Outagamie County, so why was it filed in Waukesha County?). It is filed as "Friedman Tobacco Corp. vs Leo Wanta & Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc., d/b/a Regency Catering vs Outagamie Bank."
Mr. Rotter tells the Court “That the Defendant(s) is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of $36,685.99” and that the Circuit Court of Waukesha County, State of Wisconsin, had entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Defendants and references Case 82-CV-1781 on 10/25/82. In other words, Friedman Tobacco’s lawyer insists the Outagamie Bank garnish any funds in bank accounts Leo Wanta or Falls Vending has with the bank. He claims he has a Waukesha County Circuit Court Decision giving him the right to garnish funds from either Wanta or Falls Vending.
There was a problem because the Wantas did not have an account with Outagamie Bank – but Falls Vending did (in overdraft).
On October 17, 1984 – two years later – Judge Wollenzien, Circuit Court Judge, Branch 5 – issued an Order of Dismissal. Attorney Rotter had not pursued prosecution. If, indeed, Rotter had a judgment – as he stated – in Outagamie County, he would have filed in that county. Instead, he filed in Waukesha County. Did he tell a lie? Was it a mistake? We’ll never know.
Another lawyer, Frank F. Pikofsky, on April 30, 1982, filed on behalf of his client, Pioneer Sales & Service, Inc., against Leo Wanta, d/b/a Falls Vending Services (Case 82-CV-1121). Judge Wollenzien dismissed the case on June 29, 1982. Interestingly, it was dismissed again October 18, 1982 by the same judge.
On May 22, 1982, the Milwaukee law firm of Kohner, Mann & Kailas filed for its client, Sweetheart Cup Corporation (a foreign corporation), against Leo Wanta and Falls Food & Vending. In this case, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
On February 18, 1983, Terence P. Cahill, Assistant Corporation Counsel for Waukesha County filed charges against Falls Vending on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations for James Doro who said the company owed him back wages. Attorney Cahill states that “…Leo Wanta, as president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. is personally liable for all debts owing to employees of said corporation for services performed for said corporation…” This case was re-filed by attorney Terry Wex on March 18, 1985 (Case No. 83-CV-452) – the case for which Judge Robert T. McGraw wrote the Dismissal.
Some of these cases still appear as active cases on the books of Wisconsin's various County Circuit Court Records. No wonder the state verges on the brink of bankruptcy. With erroneous records like that, how would state treasurers ever be able to determine expected future tax revenues? Can you imagine the legal costs involved in these nonsensical cases filed – and, it appears, encouraged by the Wisconsin courts and lawyers? No one did their homework (or maybe they did and justice wasn’t on their minds). How hard is it to pick up the telephone and call the Secretary of State’s office to find out the owners and stockholders of Falls Food and Vending Services? Duh…
No. This was intentional harassment – for whatever reasons.
The serious fraud against Leo Wanta began in 1987 when Jerome S. Engle, the actual owner of Falls Vending (et al), filed against Leo and Joanne Wanta, Defendants, along with Robert Pyzyk and Northwestern National Insurance Company, Garnishee Defendants.
Since Engle was the official owner of record of Falls Vending et al, it is safe to assume he knew Leo and Joanne Wanta were not the owners and had no liability for the debts of his company. Engle, himself, had liability. This was a fishing expedition to see what information he might get from Pyzyk and Northwestern National Insurance Company.
It’s interesting that Robert G. Pyzyk, Esq., of Niebler and Niebler, handled the defense of this case for both Falls Vending and Leo E. Wanta… interesting because on August 12, 1981, Mr. Pyzyk wrote a letter to Mr. Robert Klink of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department introducing himself as Leo Wanta’s lawyer and informing Klink that “Mr. Wanta acted as part-time Deputy Sheriff for the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department” between 1973 and 1979.” Mr. Wanta took a leave of absence, Pyzyk told Klink, and now, in 1981, wished to return to his part-time duties. One reason this is interesting is because in Wanta's 1995 criminal trial, the prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Haag, makes statements that Leo Wanta never had any affiliation whatsoever with the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department.
The letter to Klink was written just prior to the time the tax filings against Wanta began. Mr. Pyzyk states in his letter… “Mr. Wanta, in the last six months, has been cleared by the United States Justice Department prior to receiving his appointment as Inspector General of the Defense Department. He has received his security clearance…” and his credentials go unquestioned. Obviously, Pyzyk knew who Leo Wanta was. So did Klink. Hmmm….
Hardball replaced softball when Outagamie County began filing Delinquent Tax Warrants. A link to some of these tax forms appears at the beginning of this article. The amounts Outagamie County says Wanta owed were for withholding and sales taxes for Falls Vending.
It was September 30, 1987 when Case 87-CV-2941 was filed by Attorney Paul R. Schwartz. What’s really interesting about this name is the involvement of a Susan Schwartz. She is the Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General who on May 8, 1992” witnessed the statement of Department of Revenue agent Dennis Ullman – a man of many distortions of truth if not outright lies (called perjury outside of Wisconsin) – lies in the Wanta trial in 1995. In the sworn statement Susan Schwartz witnessed, Ullman said “that defendant’s (Wanta’s) taxable income for the years 1988 and 1989 was unreported, that defendant’s tax returns for those years were false and fraudulent, and that defendant intentionally evaded assessment.” You’ll hear more about Ullman's intentional misstatements in the next article discussing testimony given at Wanta’s May 8 - 11, 1995 criminal tax trial.
The truth was, Leo/Lee Wanta moved to Austria in 1988 and had no Wisconsin income to file. He and his wife were legally separated – a fact Ullman never seemed to “get.” If you moved from wherever you live today to another state and began paying the new state’s taxes, would you think it reasonable or fair for the state you used to live in to file criminal charges against you because you stopped declaring taxes in that state? That’s what this amounted to!
Even more interesting regarding the Schwartz name is the fact that Assistant Attorney General Susan Schwartz was also the person who removed Joanne E. Wanta’s name from the cases filed against the husband and wife who had filed joint returns. It would be interesting to know if Susan and Paul R. Schwartz are related and what Joanne Wanta traded for being let off of the Wisconsin tax hook. All charges agsint her were dropped and she was never prosecuted... only her husband faced prison for the tax charges filed... even though the tax returns were filed jointly. You don't suppose they held possible prosecution over the head of Mrs. Wanta when she testified at his trial, do you? Surely they wouldn't threaten to prosecute her if she didn't say exactly what they wanted!
Then, on April 4, 1988, F&M (Farmers & Merchants) Bank filed in Waukesha County a garnishment action against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta and AmeriChina Global Management Group, Inc. (88CV1043). Did F&M Bank have a court decision giving them the right to file for garnishment? None that this investigator can find – though they say they had one in Outagamie County (does that sound like a familiar strategy?). I requested and paid for all court records in Outagamie County that pertain to Leo Wanta and the decision F&M Bank claims it had. It cannot be found. And, if they had a judgment in Outagamie County, why would they file this case in Waukesha County? It makes no sense. One thing that becomes totally clear as an independent observer looks at these court cases is how the lawyers and Department of Revenue played the county game. Suits were filed in five different counties... and it appears the court trying a case often had no real jurisdiction.
Since AmeriChina is a name that came up as critical evidence eight years later, in the 1995 Wanta criminal tax trial, this case can be seen as a stepping stone to give the State of Wisconsin access to information that should have never been brought out in a civil or criminal Court of Law. Why should the AmeriChina name never have been brought up? Because Leo Wanta was President of AmeriChina, a Nevada corporation – more significantly, it was a Title 18 Section 6 company. AmeriChina had nothing to do with Wisconsin or F&M Bank or Falls Vending – and by 1988, Wanta had nothing to do with any of them. He became a legal resident of Vienna in June of 1988… one must live there for several months or a year to gain that status. AmeriChina was a Title 18 Section 6 company owned by an intelligence operative named Leo Emil Wanta – a company that was audited quarterly by the General Accounting Office of the U.S. Government.
Do you remember the stink made about the name “Valerie Plame” that caused liberals who wanted Dick Cheney’s head (but got Scooter Libby’s instead) for making her name as a former CIA agent public when it was mentioned one time? If so, you will understand that by mentioning AmeriChina, a company owned by an intelligence operative on behalf of the United States Government as stipulated under Executive Order 12333, a violation of federal law occurred (a much bigger no-no than mentioning a once was but no longer is CIA agent’s name in public). By putting this name into a 1988 court document that had no relationship whatsoever to F&M Bank and is recognized by F&M Bank in its filing as “a foreign corporation,” F&M Bank made public intelligence information that should have landed it in Federal Court.
Interestingly, F&M Bank was a “secured” (meaning it held collateral) lender to Falls Vending owned by Jerome S. Engle – who either was on the Bank’s Board of Directors or was personally very close to those who were (I'm waiting for information from the Wisconsin Secretary of State's Office). When Engle's company, Falls Vending, went bankrupt, F&M lost access to a very valuable piece of property owned by Falls Vending. Who was it the U.S. Bankruptcy Court appointed to pay the debts of Falls Vending? Leo Wanta. Who, in all likelihood, cost F&M Bank its collateral position on that property? Leo Wanta. F&M knew who owned Falls Vending: Jerome S. Engle. It knew Leo E. Wanta had absolutely no liability for Falls Vending’s debts. F&M also knew, however, that Wanta couldn’t talk about AmeriChina in public without violating his Oath of Office… they had found a weakness.
In their Exhibit A, F&M Bank requested that Leo Wanta bring for Deposition all corporate records including Articles of Incorporation, By-laws, Minutes of Meetings of Incorporators; Stock Ledger; and other items that could not, under Title 18 Section 6, be made public. Leo Wanta had Contempt charges filed against him for failure to appear before the Court Commissioner and for failure to produce documents. The fact that the federal government did not come to his aid in this matter is evidence that Wanta was being set up in 1987 for his arrest in Switzerland in 1993.
An Order was issued in favor of F&M Bank on June 30, 1988, signed by – guess who? Judge Robert T. McGraw, the same Judge who signed the Dismissal against one of the Falls Vending claims (link to McGraw Order). In that Decision, McGraw himself had declared that Leo Wanta had no ownership interest in Falls Vending. In this Order, however, Judge McGraw (without ever having reversed his former Order absolving Wanta from payment for Falls Vending as a non-owner) found in favor of F&M Bank and granted the bank $428,244.95. If you don’t find that very strange, something is wrong with you.
With all of the above on the record, when the primary intelligence agency for the United States Government was directed by those in the highest levels of government to get Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta out of the way so they could get their hands on the $27.5 trillion dollars sitting in banks around the world, it was a piece of cake. It was a cake walk, in fact. Of course, they needed the help of a Governor (who, if he agreed to help, would be well-rewarded with an important appointment... say, Secretary of Health and Human Services).
Next blog: The Wanta criminal trial – and criminal, it was.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
How does this citizen of Middle America tell his children that the charges levied against their father were not only lies, they represented evidence of a Department of Revenue within the State of Wisconsin that was operating in violation of the truth and of his constitutional rights? Children don’t understand words like “non-jurisdictional federal/state/county/private custodial facilities” or “renditioned” – and to tell them he was kidnapped by his own government went beyond anything they had watched on "Mission Impossible" as young children.
I wonder how President Obama would explain such a phenomenon to his two young daughters.
How is a citizen -- admittedly a man surrounded by intrigue, but a citizen nonetheless -- supposed to explain to his children that when he was arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland on 7 July 1993 for “Failure to pay a Wisconsin Civil Income Tax Assessment of $14,129.00,” he had already paid the tax even though the State's demands for payment were invalid? When the Demand for Payment was made, he had already paid it – twice – a year earlier in May and June of 1992. The primary reason he paid it was to prevent family upset… he hadn’t earned an income in the state making the spurious charges. He was out of the country – serving his country with honor. Yet, on 7 July 1993 while he was en route to meet Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel, Vince Foster, at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva, he was arrested for non-payment on an alleged income assessment he did not owe and for a tax he had already paid twice.
Look at Check Number 6992.
It’s made out to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in the amount of $14,129. (Click on the check to enlarge it.) Look at the endorsement on the back – on June 3, 1992 – a year before he was arrested for non-payment of this $14,129 civil income tax assessment. Why did the State of Wisconsin ignore the evidence? Why did they falsely convict this man in Dane County (or the County of Dane) for an unpaid estimated civil income tax payment supposedly filed in Outagamie County? How did Dane County gain jurisdiction? Answer: It never had jurisdiction… Leo Wanta never filed an income tax form in Dane County in his life. Perhaps Dane County (or the County of Dane) had the right Court available to achieve... the State’s objective? Who knows?
Some historical truths might help us understand, but unfortunately former Governor Tommy Thompson sent all of his gubernatorial archives to a paper mill – by mistake, of course. They were supposed to go to the appropriate state historical repository. The paper mill destroyed the history of Thompson’s term in office. A Wisconsin newspaper article verifies that statement. Who could make something like this up? Well, maybe a politician.
That should tell you something about the Republican who headed the State of Wisconsin in 1993 when Wanta was falsely arrested. It should explain why the Republicans lost the next gubernatorial race to Democrat Jim Doyle, a Harvard graduate who became State Attorney General in 1990 -- Leo Wanta was brought to trial in May 1995 while Doyle’s served as Wisconsin's Attorney General – and then Doyle became governor. Doyle’s first term as governor occurred when then-Governor Tommy Thompson’s brother, Ed, entered the race as a Libertarian and drew 10 percent of the vote from Republican candidate, Scott McCallum. It sounds pretty well planned.
To Wanta’s children, who were taught to respect law enforcement, such a story had to be difficult to believe. It had to be very difficult for Leo Emil Wanta, an adult, to believe. His children knew their Dad as Waukesha County Deputy Sheriff Badge #714 – they didn’t know he was an undercover – deep cover – agent for the federal government. They knew him as Executive Vice President of the Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff's Association, They didn’t know he was a covert agent for the United States government. It’s not something one talks about with the kids while on camping trips. Wanta was working with Sgt. Quinn O’Brien at Falls Vending Services, Inc. in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, while covertly investigating the Wisconsin-based Balistrieri mob ‘family.’
Waukesha County Court documents make the following things very clear:
1. In 1983, Leo E. Wanta was working for Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. He was involved in discussions about buying the company but no finalization of the purchase (or investment in the company) occurred because, while working for the company, Wanta found things were not as they had been purported to be. Leo Wanta had no real interest in buying Falls Food and Vending Services. At the time, his real job was working with William Casey and William Colby, former CIA Directors, to gather intelligence information, and he reported directly to President Ronald Reagan.
2. Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. declared bankruptcy. Someone dubbed Mr. Wanta as “president” of the company – maybe someone who wanted him to take this fall – but he owned no stock and had no ownership position. He was just an employee… a covert operative investigative employee. But those people who wanted him to take the fall for the bankruptcy of Falls Vending probably didn’t know that.
3. On February 18, 1983, an Assistant Corporation Counsel alleged:
“Mr. Wanta,” his filed complaint said, “…is and was the president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Serivce, Inc.” That as “president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. he is personally liable for all debts owing to employees of said corporation for services performed for said corporation pursuant to s. 180.40 (6), Wis. Stats.”
Most responsible attorneys, before a bankruptcy action is filed against an individual to pay salaries and costs associated with the bankrupt company usually find legal evidence before disrupting the life of an innocent person. They make a telephone call (or, if the lawyer is really responsible, they pay a visit) to the Secretary of State’s office to verify who is and is not an owner, who owns stock in a company and who does not. They check tax records of the company. This lawyer didn’t bother to check. It’s interesting that no Judge checked with the Secretary of State regarding the business dealings and stock ownership of Falls Vending, either. In the thousand pages of Court documents reviewed thus far, the Secretary of State’s office is never mentioned. Not once.
Mr. Wanta was not an owner or a stockholder in Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. and had no personal liability. Yet in the early and mid-1980s, his life was torn apart by the bankruptcy of a company for which he was merely an employee – because a not-very-good State lawyer didn’t do his job (and a lot of lawyers involved in bankruptcy claims didn’t do their jobs, either). The State of Wisconsin filed numerous lawsuits against Leo E. Wanta stating that he was responsible for paying the salaries of numerous employees when Falls Sales and Vending went bankrupt and didn't pay them. Wanta had no ownership position in the company. He owned no stock in it, either.
It’s almost as if a group of lawyers (and perhaps bankers) got together with the full intent of taking this man Wanta down and totally ignored the law to do it.
There are several Court Decisions available on this site from Waukesha County, Wisconsin. These Decisions say that Leo E. Wanta had no relationship to Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc., et al, other than that of “employee.”
One Decision was written by John W. Reynolds, Chief U.S. District Judge, who clearly says in his Order C.A. No. 84-C-359, dated 7 September 1984, that “Even if Falls Vending Service is not a corporation, Wanta lacks standing because his affidavit testimony indicates he is only an employee of the company. The owner of a company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.”
That Decision by Judge Reynolds should have brought a halt to this nonsense – but it didn’t.
On 4 April 1985 – a year after the Reynolds Decision – Judge Robert T. McGraw issued an Order for Dismissal saying “Falls Food & Vending Service Inc. has filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Case No. 82-02385,” and “…Leo Wanta is not individually liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff.” There are numerous other Court decisions that say the same thing. They are available, too, and as time permits will be posted at this site, too.
One good question to ask at this point is: Why, after a decision by a Chief U.S. District Judge, did a minor little government bureaucracy like the Wisconsin Department of Industry and Labor & Human Relations decide to have a Tribunal Hearing and, for all practical purposes, overturn (or at the very least ignore) the Decision of Judge Reynolds? Why did they continue to assume (or promote within the Courts) that Leo Wanta had an ownership interest in this company? There is no lawfully logical answer to that question.
Why did they continue to persecute this man? And persecution it was! Who in the late 1980s at this little government bureaucracy decided to have a Tribunal Hearing and re-activate the bankruptcy claims that had been settled in Leo Wanta’s favor years earlier? There had to be a reason. Many potential reasons will be disclosed as the Court Decisions and various filings are made public.
For years, Leo Wanta was harassed because some minor little lawyer appointed by the bankruptcy court didn’t do his job – or was pursuing something totally outside of his job which was very personally lucrative. That lawyer didn’t make a simple call to the Secretary of State’s Office to check his facts.
The State of Wisconsin paid tremendous expenses for the very large number of cases filed… cases that came before a Judge. And that’s what it was all about: Money. “They” weren’t just after a pittance called legal fees… they were after big money. That explanation will come later, too – and it is documented by Wisconsin’s own court system.
How long will Governor Scott Walker let this travesty of justice in the State of Wisconsin go without investigation? Correspondence has been sent to him – Certified Mail via the U.S. Post Office. There has been no answer. Why?
Wait until next week. It gets worse as the Road Kill Gang known as the Wisconsin Department of Revenue begins to pick apart the bones of what was left of the Wanta family… the number of liens placed on his family home for – you guessed it – more tax liens from Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. You remember… the place where so many Court decisions said he was only an employee and had no responsibility for wages and other company costs resulting from bankruptcy? We’ll even look at an obituary for a guy named Jerry Engle:
“Engle, Jerome S: Passed away Friday, April 6, 2007, in Palm Springs, CA, aged 85 years, of Fox Point, beloved husband of Joyce Engle (nee Skowron). Dear father of Margie (Thomas) Krauskopf and Craig (Linda Engle Roeming) Engle. Fond brother of Howard (Esther Marsa) Engle and brother-in-law of Eddie (Betty) Levi. Loving grandfather of Sara Krauskopf, Joshua Krauskopf, Rachel (Joe) Walts, Miriam Engle and Eliza Engle. Preceded in death by his siblings, Jeanne Werner and Maxine Levi. Jerry was a long time volunteer, helping patients at Desert Hospital in Palm Springs, CA. He was owner of Falls Vending Service in Menomonee Falls and then Butler, WI for many years and previously worked at Sampson’s appliance store.”Is it true that Jerome S. Engle, a.k.a. Jerry S. Engel, was the actual owner of Falls Vending, and was also a member of the Board of Directors at Farmers and Merchants (F&M) Bank? Is it true that numerous individuals in the Wisconsin Department of Revenue participated in Criminal Tax Fraud? Did they divert previously paid state and federal corporate tax payments made by Leo Emil Wanta (appointed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph P. Stadtmueller to perform the duties of the debtors – Falls Vending) when they re-called tax payments made by Wanta who was doing what was directed of him by the U.S. District Court?
Were those re-called funds used to make payments due from Engle to Farmers and Merchants Bank?
As the documents are investigated and scanned, they will be made public.