What court transcripts/records are available from Ambassador Wanta’s original arrest date of 7 July 1993 and from his incarceration in a Suisse prison from 7 July 1993 until 17 November 1993? Surely court documents prior to 2000 – seven years beyond the date of Ambassador Wanta’s arrest – are available that show the reason the Suisse government confined an American citizen to a jail cell for over four months. Surely charges were filed and court action was taken at the time to justify such a serious action. Where can I find the court records from 1993, please?

Since Judge Allyne Ross immediately dismissed all charges against Ambassador Wanta when he appeared in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, New York, on 19 November 1993 (Switzerland returned Ambassador Wanta on Swiss Air Flight #51, he appeared in Judge Ross’s Court on November 17, 1993 and all charges against him were dropped on November 19, 1993 – I have copies of the New York Court Dockets regarding this matter). And, since Ambassador Wanta’s entry back into the United States shows his Diplomatic Passport was used by Customs for re-entry into the country, he obviously was who he said he was: the Ambassador to Switzerland and to Canada for Somalia. The authorities in Lausanne had to have access to his Diplomatic Passport or he would not have had it available to re-enter the United States. Leo Emil Wanta’s Ambassadorial Investiture was attended (and witnessed) by the Foreign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe… a former Mayor of Bordeaux. Thus, questions arise as to the legitimacy of the imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne… of why the Suisse Government would imprison someone with Diplomatic Immunity in violation of the various international agreements known as the Vienna Convention.

            Please understand my problem, Monsieur. I have in my possession documents that make it clear the Leo Emil Wanta was appointed to be Ambassador to Switzerland from Somalia. I have a copy of his Diplomatic Passport. There are pictures of his Investiture attended by the honorable Alain Juppe… and the Surete in Lausanne simply decides it disagrees with those facts, it believes or thinks or “in its opinion” this man has a mental problem and, even though he has a mental problem they still think he is a highly skilled money launderer? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

          It also appears the Suisse government has a conflict of interest in the Wanta case. Bank records exist showing the Ambassador had on deposit with Credit Suisse a large sum of money – well into the billions of U.S. dollars. Those funds were never returned to him or to the United States Government or to the State of Wisconsin, USA. The money just… disappeared. As I said in my first letter to Judge Antenen (which was forwarded to Judge Jean Trecanni, then to you, Premier President Bruttin), I want to be fair to the Suisse government as I write Ambassador Wanta’s biography. To do that, I need factual information, not assumptions and opinions of guilt as expressed in the Tribunal Decision you provided.

          The Tribunal Decision is an interesting document filled with highly questionable comments for a legal document; the following come from just the first two pages of the 20 page document:

                    Tribunal: (The Accused) does not appear, although duly summoned by edictale (FAO) to 8:00;
                    Response: How can this be since Ambassador Wanta was in prison in the State of Oklahoma (I have confirmed this with two trips to North Fork Prison in Sayre, Oklahoma). To where was the “Summons” sent? Why were the avocats who were paid a very high fee in July 1993 to serve in Ambassador Wanta’s defense not “duly summoned” to offer evidence in defense of this man?

                    Tribunal:      Leo Emil Wanta has no criminal record in Switzerland. However, the accused was convicted in the United States by Judgment of 20 November 1995, sentenced to eight years in prison for tax evasion. Records in Austria were also investigated for credit card fraud.
                     Response:     Leo Emil Wanta WAS NOT convicted on 20 November 1995; he was convicted on 11 May 1995. He was SENTENCED on 20 November 1995. These kinds of errors are… unique in legal court documents. And why in a Tribunal Decision was an investigation involving credit card fraud in Austria mentioned when, obviously, nothing was found. Had it been, charges would have been filed against him. A cancelled check proving that Ambassador Wanta paid the Wisconsin taxes in 1992, three years before his Wisconsin trial, is enclosed. It’s interesting that the Suisse Courts uses information from what we, in America, call a “Kangaroo Court” – a dishonest court – to justify its arrest of him, and the Wisconsin Court uses information from the Suisse Court to justify suggesting Ambassador Wanta was not of sound mind – an allegation proven to be totally false via numerous mental examinations before trial. This is of particular interest since the primary witness against Ambassador Wanta at his Wisconsin trial, a Department of Revenue Agent named Dennis Ullman who presented himself as a lawyer (see letter addressing him as “Dennis Ullman, Esq.”) trial visited Switzerland and Austria to see if there was any evidence available to use in the Wisconsin trial. As the court transcripts of that trial prove, no evidence from Switzerland or Austria was presented against Ambassador Wanta.

                    Tribunal: Leo Emil Wanta and BLANK NAME arrived in Switzerland at the beginning of June 1993.
                    Response: If that is true, please explain the copy of an enclosed document showing Wanta’s Suisse bank accounts as early as April of 1993. Please explain the numerous references made to Suisse bank accounts established prior to 1993 as recorded in the book, Thieves’ World. This is an obvious error or lie.

                                     It appears very coincidental that the Suisse Government in Lausanne decided to send Ambassador Wanta back to New York City on November 17, 1993, and the date of the Tribunal Decision is November 17, 2000 – exactly seven (7) years after his return to the United States by the Suisse government. What is the Statute of Limitations for whatever charges were brought against Ambassador Wanta on 7 July 1993 – and what charges were brought that warranted a 4 month and 10 days incarceration?

                    Tribunal: In view of Leo Emil Wanta’s declarations and numerous letters on file, including 75 pieces addressed to the FBI, the Court ASKS WHETHER THE IMAGINATION of the accused is of a con man or that of a pathological liar. The reporting process for tax evasion due to “delirium” statements reported made about the accused, he was subjected to psychiatric evaluations that concluded his mental health is at question.
                    Response: Ambassador Wanta is one of the most brilliant intelligence operatives that ever served the United States of America… and the authorities in Lausanne independently decided he is mentally ill. Documents from the Ronald Reagan Library which verify Wanta’s government service as he explained it to the Suisse Surete on 7 July 1993 when they arrested him are enclosed. As documented in the book Thieves’ World (Claire Sterling, Simon & Schuster, 1994 – six years before this Tribunal Decision was handed down), Leo Emil Wanta was “… the one who mattered” (in bringing down the Soviet ruble). Page 194 on which Sterling made that statement is enclosed.
Ambassador Wanta carried a blue nylon bag with him at the time he was arrested in Lausanne. It contained numerous Secret and Top Secret documents… the Surete had the time, motive and opportunity to search the contents of that bag – and, in fact, did. Their own words convict them as they make reference to the numerous pieces of correspondence (73, I believe the Tribunal said) he carried that were addressed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And, if they looked at that information, they had to know of an intelligence operation called “Chaselet” that involved Credit Suisse… being investigated by none other than covert intelligence operative Leo Emil Wanta.

                                   The question then becomes: How can a woman who is a journalist from a small, agricultural town in Western Colorado USA, find evidence that makes it clear Ambassador Wanta’s guilt or mental stability was not a legitimate question to be asked, let alone answered in the Tribunal Decision handed down on 17 November 2000. The evidence suggests the Tribunal Judges may have be unstable – or, had some other motivation to find someone guilty of an offense with absolutely no evidence of guilt and with no defense documents admitted into evidence. If this woman journalist can find these things when a man’s guilt or innocence does not hang in the balance -- why couldn’t the Suisse Surete or the Lausanne Courts find it when it does?

These are the questions with which I am wrestling, trying to find intelligent answers to questions that only blur factual evidence to the contrary as I read the Swiss Government’s Tribunal Decision dated 17 November 2000. It interests me (as an international traveler) that the Court Tribunal says the Hotel Au Lac was given a “bad check” by Ambassador Wanta. As an international traveler, I have never had a hotel agree to accept a personal check for payment. I’m quite sure the Hotel Au Lac did not accept one from Ambassador Wanta, either. And, Credit Suisse filed no charges – so why are they listed as a party to the Tribunal Decision? So many inaccuracies and conflicts…

I repeat the request made in my first letter to the Court in Lausanne: Which Department do I contact to get copies of public documents regarding the arrest and detention in a Suisse prison for four months and ten days of Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta?

My new book about Ambassador Wanta’s life will provide factual answers to the above questions (and many others) but, even more important, negotiations with a film producer for this story have begun. As I have repeatedly said, Monsieur Premier President, I want to be fair to all parties involved… but I need facts, not guilt determined by opinion and void of any input from the defense of this man’s good name from the Tribunal Decision with which you provided me. Switzerland is better than that – at least, I certainly hope it is.

Sincerely,

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall

cc: Ambassador Leo E Wanta
cc: Monsieur Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
The International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ
The Hague
The Netherlands

Enclosures:

FGI Letter, Llausanne, 29 April 1993 Inward Remittance Notification from Banc Dumeneil, Geneve, Switzerland, 27 May 1992
Letter, State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 18 February 1999 (one year prior to the Tribunal Decision in Lausanne), “no record of delinquent Wanta taxes…”,br> Page 194, Thieves’ World (Simon & Schuster, 1994), line 2: “Wanta was the one who mattered.”
Letter, 12 August 1981, from Attorney Robert G. Pyzyk: “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.”
Copy of cancelled check dated 3 June 1992 in payment of $14,129.00 Wisconsin State taxes. The Lausanne Tribunal Decision notes that Leo Emil Wanta was found guilty of tax evasion charges in Wisconsin in 1995 for an amount of $14,129.00 non-paid taxes. The taxes were paid; the Tribunal’s Decision, faulty.
Letter dated 23 April 1993 from Chief, Collection Branch, Internal Revenue Service, USA to Leo Wanta: “You are not liable for filing a tax return for this period.”
23 Pages from the Library of Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States re Leo Emil Wanta; these pages prove Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta is and was precisely who he said he was (before the Lausanne Tribunal Court made decisions regarding a man’s guilt or innocence on opinion rather than fact and suggested that anyone who made such claims was mentally disturbed). This information was available to me – and was available to the Lausanne Tribunal Court of 2000, had it chosen to investigate rather than pontificate.
NOTE: There is much more evidence that the Lausanne Tribunal Decision was made for reasons of convenience – or, perhaps because an unjustifiable arrest was made in Lausanne in 1993 and a Statute of Limitations required some action be taken to protect those responsible for the unwarranted arrest. I will be glad to provide further documentation from the 6,000 pages of non-court transcript documents I have gathered – or from the 2,000 pages of court transcript documents I have also amassed. If I can be of assistance to you, please contact me. MB

Patriot Records

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

CHAPTER 6, LINK 11, MMB TO SWISS COURTS

No comments:

Post a Comment