Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
(Title Removed)
(Address Removed)
(Phone Removed)
May 14, 2012
Msr. Felix Paschoud
Avocats au Barreau
(Address Removed)
CP 5559
1003, Lausanne, Switzerland
Dear Msr. Paschoud:
I am in possession of records of a Tribunal Hearing held by the Lausanne Courts on November 17, 2000, regarding Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta. You, specifically, and your firm (at the time), Carrard, Paschoud, Heim & Associes, were retained to represent the Ambassador when he was unlawfully arrested by the Suisse Sûretė on 7 July 1993.
I am Ambassador Wanta’s official biographer and am currently writing a book that details his life story. The unlawful arrest and detention in Switzerland will, of course, be part of that book.
I would very much appreciate answers to the following questions:
1. According to Ambassador Wanta, your firm was paid to provide legal services to him… about $50,000.00, as I recall. Yet, Ambassador Wanta never saw the inside of a courtroom while he was unlawfully imprisoned in Lausanne for over four months.
What actions were taken by your firm to prevent such obvious abuses of a civilian prisoner from a foreign country?
2. The drugs given by those who imprisoned Ambassador Wanta caused an ongoing heart malfunction: Right Bundle Branch Block. This condition requires that a Pacemaker be inserted in the Ambassador’s body.
What actions were taken by your firm to prevent such obvious abuse of a civilian prisoner from a foreign country?
3. When I contacted the Lausanne courts, I requested to see any court transcripts and a copy of the charges filed against Ambassador Wanta. No transcripts were provided (proving that Ambassador’s statement that he never saw the inside of a courtroom is accurate) and no copies of charges filed against Ambassador Wanta were provided.
Will you please place a copy of any court transcripts or charges filed against Ambassador Wanta in the mail to me? When I contacted Msr. Bruttin at the Lausanne Courts, he very kindly provided the court transcript from 17 November 2000 (7 years, to the day, from the date he was unlawfully extradited from Switzerland to the United States where, in New York City, a Federal District Court Magistrate dismissed all charges against Ambassador Wanta). However, though I requested any available information from 1993, none was provided.
4. Though I am just an author and journalist, I know how to read and found the information contained in the Vienna Agreements of interest. As I understand it, when a prisoner claims diplomatic immunity, the State/Nation arresting the party must by law validate or invalidate the claims made via an investigation. Assumptions of truth or lies are unacceptable under international law… which I assume the Swiss still observe? Or do they only observe such laws when it does not involve fraudulent behavior on the part of major Swiss banks? Ambassador Wanta was both an Ambassador (to Somalia, his investiture witnessed by the current French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe) and an intelligence operative working under contract as a covert operator on behalf of the United States government.
What did you or your firm do to ensure an investigation be undertaken that would either confirm or disprove Leo Wanta’s claims of diplomatic immunity? Precisely what investigations did you pursue to confirm or disprove this claim?
What did you or your firm do to ensure an investigation be undertaken that would either confirm or disprove Ambassador Wanta’s claims that he was an intelligence operative investigating a major Swiss bank… an operation called “Chaselet” in which this major bank was re-issuing letters of credit that had been issued by the Chase Manhattan Bank, headquartered in New York City, U.S.A.?
5. When the Lausanne Courts held the Tribunal Hearing on 17 November 2000, they state on page one of the transcript that Leo Wanta had been notified of the Hearing. At the time of the Hearing, Ambassador Wanta had been hidden in an Oklahoma (USA) prison and received no Notification of a Hearing being held. I have read the transcript and there is absolutely no person present to represent the interests of the Defendant Leo Emil Wanta.
Did the Lausanne Courts contact you and/or your law firm as the avocats of record for Ambassador Wanta? I have been reassured by Ambassador Wanta’s Case Manager at the Oklahoma prison that no notification of any hearing arrived for him… not in January or in November.
6. Following are two statements made in the Tribunal Hearing Transcripts (dated 17 November 2000):
“Accused of: fraud, forgery of titles and forgery of certificates. (If this were true, there would have been charges filed -- and it appears no charges were filed at the time of the arrest).
He is not present, although he was summoned to court in accordance with the law at 08.00 a.m.
“X-ARKHANGELSK TRAWLFLEET, (represented) by Maître Laurent MOREILLON, place St-François 5, CP 3860, 1002 Lausanne
Maître MOREILLON is present , his client having been excused.
The case proceeds ex officio.
(page 3-handwritten)
“There is no opening statement.
The main documents of the dossier are being read, in particular the order of adjournment by the examining judge of Lausanne issued on 14th January 2000.
“Maître Moreillon is being heard on the facts of the case. The plaintiff comes to the straightforward conclusion that the sequester (confiscation) should be lifted.
Maître Moreillon retires.
“The examination is ended.
“More than an hour after the mandatory show time, the accused have not shown up and the court proceeds to its judgement against them, in absentia.”
Suddenly a party totally unfamiliar to Ambassador Wanta and with whom he has had no business dealings – “X-Arkhangelsk Trawlfleet” represented by Maitre Moreillon, obviously his client, was at the Tribunal Hearing because Moreillon’s client was “excused” by the Tribunal. Moreillon is referred to by the Tribunal Court as “The plaintiff.” His interest in this case is that “the sequester should be lifted.” Since Ambassador Wanta had in various bank accounts throughout Switzerland U.S.$500,000,000.00 (that is five hundred million U.S. dollars) and there is talk here of confiscation being removed… this sounds like a profit-making venture for both the courts and Maitre Moreillon – and his client, of course. Though the Court clearly states that Moreillon “is being heard on the facts of the case,” Msr. Bruttin provided no transcript of that testimony.
Were you or any member of your law firm informed of this Tribunal Hearing? Was Notification of the Tribunal Hearing sent to your offices and were you relied upon by the Lausanne courts to notify Ambassador Wanta of this Hearing?
Does your office have any insight as to who “X-Arkhangelsk Trawlfleet” is – and what they might have to do with a Tribunal Hearing that involves Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta?
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
No comments:
Post a Comment