Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« $1,000,000 for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign | Main | Ron Paul Friends Officially Launches »

Wantagate: US Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Lied about Wanta Funds. Leo Wanta's Mandamus Petition Sabotaged



Sunday 30 September 2007 22:46



By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York: Press NEWS and the ARCHIVE Button on the Home Page for 'Wantagate' reports since April 2006. [Note: A new panel giving details of our latest publications as they are made available, has been added].

Please Make a Donation to help fund Christopher Story's ongoing financial corruption investigations. Your assistance will be very sincerely appreciated and will make a real difference, hastening the necessary resolution of the worst financial corruption and global financial crisis in history. This website has been calling the shots, because of the hijacking of Wanta's Settlement.

Emails addressed to us which lack coordinates indentifying the sender will be trashed unread. The Editor publishes all his coordinates, as has always been the case, as he has nothing to hide.

On 27th September 2007, the US Congress approved, let us assume for the moment in good faith, legislation to raise the Statutory Debt Limit (referenced in our report dated 20th September 2007) – thereby, as perceived, extending the US Treasury’s ability to finance the US Federal Budget deficit. In so doing, US legislators were relying upon President George Bush Jr. to validate their otherwise irresponsible action by finally releasing Ambassador Leo Wanta’s hijacked on-the-books $4.5 trillion Settlement funds, so that the cascading damage inflicted upon the United States’ finances and the US dollar by the fraudulent financial operations presided over by President G. W. Bush himself, Vice President Cheney, Henry M. Paulson et al., exploiting the Ambassador’s funds since June 2006, can begin at last to be reversed.

Viewed in this (generous and accommodating, on our part) light, the Congress can be seen to have had no alternative but to raise the Statutory Debt Limit, since these ongoing scandalous financial irregularities presided over by the White House and the US Treasury, facilitated by the US Federal Reserve and in collaboration with the largest US financial institutions, have hollowed out on-the-books liquidity both domestically and globally to such an extent that the international financial system is now on the verge of the catastrophic disintegration that we predicted.

Absent the Wanta Settlement, banks collapsing in domino fashion are a certainty at some stage of the rolling crisis which has been triggered by the criminality of the White House and the American Treasury – almost certainly sooner than the professional pessimists imagine.

In this report we will prove, from Court documents submitted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the deception and criminality of the US Treasury under Paulson, in particular.

Irregular off-balance sheet trading using underlying stolen Wanta-derived collateral and based upon previous multiple hypothecation operations, yielding vast untaxed proceeds for hoarding offshore, have all but ceased worldwide – as the world’s banks, backed by the central banks themselves, have made it clear to all but the mental delinquents in the White House and their craven associates, that enough is enough.

The banks cannot handle any more of this financial ordure.

The fraudulent global finance carousel has greatly exceeded its sell-by date, and continued attempts to perpetrate such exotic trades represent, for the most part, passports to arrest, indictment and long-term incarceration. The banks cannot absorb any more of this fraudulent finance, for fear of being suddenly unable to meet their obligations.

They have generally gone on strike and are, generally speaking, accepting no more collateral for underpinning exotic fiat money transactions. Their collective behaviour reflects, of course, the de facto arrival of the ‘new’ global on-the-books financial environment, which they themselves need in order to stand any chance of survival.

Exceptions to this new recognition, which has been 100% triggered by Wantagate, involve desperate, terrified financial cowards at the White House and a few renegade associates and financial intermediaries who have remained ‘behind the curve’ – and who, along with a few of the largest US banks fronted by Citibank in particular, have been trying to cobble together a ‘black hole’ in the new de facto global financial system, which might enable them to perpetuate their hypothecated fiat money creation operations within a closed conduit environment featuring the Federal Interbank Settlement Fund, and including the unreformed financial authorities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia, with the crucial assistance of the grandfather of all financial ‘black holes’ – the Central Bank of Iraq.

It was in order to gain control of the Central Bank of Iraq, to seize its gold and currency and also to obtain administrative possession of the fiat money assets held within Saddam Hussein’s ‘personal’ bank, Rafidain Bank, that the invasion of Iraq was perpetrated.

In the vernacular, the Bush II White House, aided and abetted by Tony Whatsisname, the airbrushed former tenant of Number 10 Downing Street, have traded one and a half million human lives for fiat money – also known as ‘blood money’ – representing a disgusting and thoroughly corrupt outbreak of Luciferian barbarity by two Great Powers previously held in the highest esteem internationally, but which now deservedly rank among the most loathed nations on earth.

Despite its appearance of independence, the Central Bank of Iraq is actually under the control of the White House – which desperately needs its continued financial ‘black hole’ services, so that the fiat money carousel can still continue, with proceeds booked to offshore accounts in the names of corrupt high US office-holders and those of their colleagues who have been bribed to continue the carousel for self-enrichment and global hegemony purposes, as in the past.

At least, that has been the revised objective – given that not even the White House has been able to prevent the Wantagate-driven de facto installation of the new ‘level playing field’ global banking system, under which ‘every dime will be taxed’ – and the only transactions that will be tolerated must be conducted on the books.

This transparent environment, central to and indivisible from, The Wanta Plan, is already operative, with a just few ragged edges, and is intended to be formally up and running with effect from the commencement of the United States’ new Fiscal Year, beginning on Monday 1st October.

Under the existing timeframe, it will presumably be ‘launched’, doubtless masked by Aesopian language, at the forthcoming Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which are being held in Washington, DC, unusually late this year (from 20th to 22nd October, preceded by a week of preliminary meetings). The Editor of International Currency Review will be there, ready to ask Mr Paulson, if he’s still around, pertinent questions concerning his reprobate stewardship of Ambassador Wanta’s funds.

Departing from the published projections contained in the current Office of Management and Budget documentation, Congress has raised the Statutory Debt Limit by precisely $850 billion – which ‘just happens’ to be the figure contained in documents submitted by Ambassador Wanta’s AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc, to the US Treasury in July and August 2006, following the Wanta Settlement accord (dated May 2007). These documents formally provided for proposed initial purchases of US Treasury securities valued at precisely $850 billion in the aggregate during the first year of Wanta Plan operations, over and above the $1.575 trillion initial windfall tax payment to the US Treasury.

On 19th September, Henry M. Paulson Jr., the US Treasury Secretary, had written to US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking Congress to raise the Statutory Debt Limit from $8.965 trillion, the level reached at the end of Fiscal year 2007 (30th September). Congress has sanctioned an increase in the Limit to $9.815 trillion (+$850 billion) by the end of September 2008, which exceeds the $9.545 trillion Statutory Debt Limit projected by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its current Federal Budget documentation, by $270 billion.

If it were not for the fact that it would appear that Congress is relying on the President and the US Treasury Secretary to release the Wanta funds in order to prevent a global financial and economic meltdown and to enable the United States to remain a ‘Great Power’ for a little longer, we would be saying here that the Congressional action in raising the Statutory Debt Limit when The Wanta Plan in principle specifically obviates any need for it to do so, makes it clear that the US Congress is perversely, corruptly and malevolently engaged in a grotesque deception of the American people.

By extension, on that basis, in signing this legislation, President George Bush Jr. would yet again automatically become a co-conspirator and an Accessory to the Fact of this reckless financial deception against all Americans.

As we noted on 20th September, in his letter to Senator Reid, Mr Paulson invoked ‘the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, to which we remain committed’; and following the Congressional decision to raise the Statutory Debt Limit in accordance with his wishes, Henry Paulson praised Congress for sustaining ‘the Full Faith and Credit of the United States’. Thank you very much.

This two-faced, double-minded, bamboozling US operative failed, of course, to state that he is himself specifically responsible for the reality that the ‘Full Faith and Credit of the United States’ has been abolished – given that he has presided over the worst-ever recorded official financial abuses in world financial history. The perpetuation of these old fraudulent financial operations exploiting Ambassador Wanta’s stolen funds has reduced the financial reputation of the United States to beneath that of a smelly banana republic.

General Noriega and the late President Marcos of The Philippines have better financial compliance records than the bunch of financial operatives temporarily (maybe very temporarily) in charge of the United States today. In the unstable United States presided over by the Clinton and the Bush crime families, you conduct sizeable financial transactions at your peril. If you place funds in the hands of any of the large institutions, you are liable to find that they have been stolen. And woe betide you if you are so foolish as to become financially embroiled with the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

For its part (and to repeat), the Bush II Administration has criminally conspired, in collaboration with a number of criminal banks, as we have reported for the past 15+ months, to deprive the American people of the massive long-term financial benefits which should have been accruing to them since June 2006, when Henry M. Paulson first hijacked the $4.5 trillion on-the-books Wanta Settlement and began to preside over illegal trading operations based upon these funds, thereby feloniously preventing Ambassador Wanta from remitting the immediate $1.575 trillion (35% of $4.5 trillion) of tax to the US Treasury, in conformity with the classified accord with Wanta signed by the President of the United States, the Vice President, the previous US Treasury Secretary, US Supreme Court Justices, and senior US legislators, in May 2006.

Paid on time (in June or July 2006), the windfall $1.575 trillion tax payment direct to the US Treasury would by itself have obviated the need for the Federal Statutory Debt Limit ever to be raised again. Hundreds of billions of debt have been unnecessarily incurred by the US Treasury in reckless and avoidable deficit spending since the end of the second quarter of 2006, as a consequence of Mr Paulson’s illegal behaviour in hijacking Ambassador Wanta’s agreed-upon Settlement.

By authorising the latest Statutory Debt Limit increase, the Congress – the Members of which know all about this crisis, and what lies behind it – are perpetrating a fraud against the American people, if they have sanctioned the increase on ANY basis OTHER than that it must be accompanied by the Wanta Settlement. Only on THAT basis can this latest increase be justified – as a means of tiding the Government over until the fruits of the Wanta Plan at last begin lubricating the coffers of the US Treasury, and the refinancing of the United States has been kick-started into action.

Even so, by signing the new Statutory Debt Limit legislation, President Bush II will certainly have piled further fuel upon the combustible predicament in which he finds himself, arising out of his continuing frustration of the Wanta Settlement in collaboration with Paulson et al, and the illegal financial trading over which he and his corrupt colleagues have been presiding.

It will be recalled that Ambassador Wanta was ‘taken down’ on 7th July 1993 on the basis of a trumped-up, fabricated charge that he had not paid $14,129 of Wisconsin State tax that he never owed in the first place, that he had already paid twice in 1992 under protest, and that had been officially ‘fully satisfied’ in any case (see below).

How ironic – and thoroughly consistent with the reprobate Luciferian chaos which infests the US criminal intelligence mentality – that the US Treasury has ITSELF, UNDER MR PAULSON’S OWN CORRUPT DIRECTION, for the past 16 months prevented the Ambassador from remitting $1.575 trillion in tax that he owes to the US Treasury on the funds paid to him by the Chinese authorities, so that corrupt US financial institutions could refinance themselves and line the pockets of their criminal US finance associates. Meanwhile the Ambassador is deprived of the funds that have been paid to him, and the American people have accordingly been deprived of the huge benefits to be derived from the multiple domestic projects he has organised and that have been held up for 16 months by the Paulson Treasury’s mad intransigeance.

It is a cruel disgrace, a scandal and of course a cluster of felonies, that Ambassador Wanta, who has personally suffered far, far more than most of us suffer in a lifetime for the past 16 years, has been prevented by these organised American official financial gangsters hiding their criminality behind spurious claims of ‘sovereignty’, from paying his taxes – so that the American people (and thus the whole world) can begin at last to benefit from his sacrifice and from his unequalled and transparent financial competence, inventiveness and expertise.

The money was PAID TO HIM: he is OBLIGED TO PAY TAX UPON IT. He has been prevented from doing so because his funds have been illegally seized by the criminal fraudsters holding high office who believe that they are above the law (a).

They have been severely buffeted in recent weeks, in order to persuade them belatedly to begin thinking otherwise, and to compel them to understand that this is NOT the case.

The US official perpetrators of these crimes, who now blame the banks for not paying Wanta – in a cynical attempt (which is in the process of collapsing) to shift the blame for their criminal theft onto the shoulders of expendable bankers – have all benefited from the fact that the mild Ambassador Wanta has at no stage asked awkward questions about what has happened to the $23.0 trillion on-the-books base funds remaining after he accepted the $4.5 trillion Settlement under the May 2006 accord. In our report dated 17th September 2007, revealing forgery and fabrication of stolen Wanta bank documents, we indicated, with just one example, where such enquiries will be liable to lead.

It need hardly be added that official investigations into the disposition of Wanta’s stolen assets, which have been under way for instance in Austria for some time, would be likely to result in many high-level arrests, over and above the mass arrests of bankers and high officials in the United States and worldwide that have been continuing for some two weeks now – and which (sources advise us) are proceeding at an accelerated and more intense pace than ever this past weekend and into the week beginning 1st October 2007.

It is understood that Trustees waited at the key New York paying bank until midnight on the 28th September, only to leave in anger when it transpired that Henry Paulson had attempted to pay everyone EXCEPT Ambassador Wanta. The system was shut down to prevent that happening (not for the first time recently), given that the entire international financial community will not permit any such scandalous development – the purpose of which would have been to ‘cut Wanta out’ and thus to perpetuate the off-balance sheet fiat money financial carousel that the G-7 Governments, the world’s central banks, and all the world’s banks with the exception of a few corrupt US institutions, are desperate to decapitate. Otherwise, a large number of banks around the world will collapse. Some will implode suddenly, without any warning.

It is understood that this latest episode has triggered further arrests (see above), has heightened Interpol activity and has generated an added law enforcement determination, both in the United States and internationally, that this financial gangsterism will indeed be terminated once and for all. We are not going to back off: the showdown and prospective resolution is NOW.

Back at the White House and Treasury bunkers, officials have been scrambling, with little success, to escape the consequences of their personal financial criminality – seeing their lawyers, signing affidavits, leaving their posts and hiding in desperation again behind Court-asserted claims (in responses to the Ambassador’s Mandamus Writ Petition) that they are ‘sovereign’ – which is tantamount to claiming ‘Executive Privilege’ as cover for their serial criminal conduct.

Claims of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘Executive Privilege’ as the thin basis for circumventing the legal consequences of financial fraud, grand larceny and theft, are spurious and frivolous, and thus stand no chance of prevailing.

However, such manoeuvres have gained the criminal official Respondents to the Ambassador’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, just a little more time in which to figure out how to avoid being delivered into the jaws of the hideous American GULAG for the rest of their lives, where their only companions will be unreformed drug addicts and cockroaches. In the meantime, as we reveal in what follows, the Ambassador has been subjected to the scandalous sabotage of the Mandamus process in the United States Eastern District Court of Virginia, Alexandria.

But do not despair: what follows contains a helpful ‘silver lining’, as will now be seen.

On 27th September 2007, Ambassador Wanta became aware, FOR THE FIRST TIME, of the progress of his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, against Respondents Henry M. Paulson; Robert M. Kimmitt, Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury; James R. Wilkinson, Treasury Chief of Staff; Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Alberto R. Gonzales, former US Attorney General; and the US Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. The summonses and Return of Service documents were filed under the supervision of Colonel Dana Wilcox (ONI), on 27th July, and the Private Process Server was Clark J. Reynolds, of Fairfax, Virginia. The address to which all documents from the Court and Respondents needed to be delivered, was 5516 Falmouth Street, Suite 108, Richmond, Virginia 23230, the Registered Office pro tempore of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., which is the law office of Ambassador Wanta’s lawyer, Steven Goodwin. Mr Goodwin is also a Director of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc.

Despite approximately 18 telephone calls by another lawyer and the Principals to Steven Goodwin’s office seeking information about the progress of the Ambassador’s Petition, Mr Goodwin allegedly failed to return telephone calls and provided the Principals with no information about the progress of the case. Steven Goodwin is also, you may recall, Trustee of the $35,000 provided by the Editor of this service out of scarce private funds (derived from a succesful house sale), which was made available in order to pay for Ambassador Wanta’s exit from his illegal probation in Wisconsin.

Of that amount, $24,000.91 was paid by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections by cheque to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on 4th August 2005, by way of ‘Restitution’, but was misallocated by the Wisconsin tax authorities to an account of Falls Vending Service, Inc., which is nothing to do with Leo Wanta – as detailed in our ‘fourth Wisconsingate reading’, posted on 6th August 2007.

A separate cheque for $4,167.64 was paid to the Wisconsin Public Defender’s Office to defray expenses of the so-called Public Defender, John Chavez, who was illegally imposed upon the Ambassador in the mid-nineties despite the fact that Mr Wanta asked for his own Counsel – a deprivation of human rights that is contrary to the US Constitution, which provides that every citizen of the United States has a right to obtain and pay for his own legal defence. Thus the Editor’s funds, entrusted to Steven Goodwin, were improperly and illegally deployed.

The Editor has repeatedly asked Mr Goodwin to obtain a document confirming satisfaction of the Ambassador’s so-called ‘Restitution’ from the Court, which has not been forthcoming. The Editor is entitled to a proper accounting of the use to which his loan funds have been put. At the moment the reality is that they have been misallocated, a.k.a. stolen.

Ambassador Wanta did not receive any of the following documents arising from his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed in the United States Eastern District Court of Virginia, Alexandria:

13 August 2007: Motion to dismiss the Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond [see below], including the following attachments: (1) Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss [see below]; (2) Proposed Order dismissing Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; (3) Financial Interest Disclosure.

15 August: Notice of Correction re Motion to Dismiss Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. [The filing user was notified that multiple documents were filed as attachments to one pleading, and was instructed to re-file the Financial Interest Disclosure Statement as a separate pleading. Also notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Waiver of Oral Argument].

16 August: Notice of Hearing date re Motion to Dismiss Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

16 August: Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

16 August: Document setting deadlines as to Motion to Dismiss Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Motion hearing set for 7th 09 2007 at 10.00 am before District Judge T. S. Ellis III.

07 September: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge T S Ellis III: Motion Hearing held on 7th September 2007 re: Motion to Dismiss Petition as to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Appearances: Frank Brown for the Federal Reserve Bank; nobody present for the Petitioner. The Court therefore granted the Motion without hearing any argument. [See the text of The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss, below]. Court reporter Kitty Elias, of Rudiger & Green.

07 September: Order granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSING the Petitioner’s Petition with regard (specifically) to Respondent Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, signed by Judge T. S. Ellis III on 7th September 2007.

18 September: Certificate of Reporting Service by US Attorney served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007; Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007; Henry M. Paulson, Jr., served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007; Robert M. Kimmitt served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007; James R. Wilkinson served on 27th July 2007, answer due back on 25th September 2007; Michael Chertoff served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007; Alberto R. Gonzales served on 27th July 2007, answer due on 25th September 2007.

25 September: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim by Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Robert M. Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto R. Gonzales.

25 September: Memorandum in Support re Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim filed by Mr Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Robert M. Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto R. Gonzales. [Attachment #1: Exhibit: Wanta v. Chandler (W.D. Wis); #2: Exhibit: Wanta v. United States (E.D. VA); #3: Exhibit BEA-US Department of Commerce Update.

25 September: Notice of Hearing Date set for October 19, 2007 re: motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim by Mr Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Robert M. Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Michael Chertoff, and Alberto R. Gonzales.

27 September: Document setting deadlines as to motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. Motion hearing set for 19th October 2007 at 10.00 am before District Judge T. S. Ellis III.

As stated above, Ambassador Wanta was unaware of the existence of ALL of these documents, let alone of the fact that the presiding Judge had dismissed the Ambassador’s Petition with regard (specifically) to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond as Respondent, on 7th September 2007. Before reviewing the momentous new ‘twist’ to this matter arising from the Federal Reserve Bank dimension of this case, we must first review the issues surrounding the fact that the Ambassador knew NOTHING of any of this, and had seen NONE of these documents, despite numerous telephone calls – until their existence was drawn to his attention on 27th September.

It is understood that Thomas Henry, Mr Wanta’s other lawyer, had received no satisfaction when enquiring of Mr Goodwin as to the status of the matter by telephone, thus giving rise to questions surrounding professional ethics and inter-lawyer etiquette concerning which lawyers are typically known to be especially sensitive.

The following theoretical possibilities can be conjectured. We do not yet know which, if any, of these possibilities, apply:

1. Steven Goodwin, Ambassador Wanta’s lawyer, may not have received any of these documents at his Richmond Office, either because the Court or relevant Counsel did not forward them, because they were wrongly delivered, or for some other currently unknown reason.

2. Steven Goodwin may have made enquiries of the Court and may have been given to understand that none of these documents existed, and thus may have obtained no information about the DISMISSAL dated 7th September 2007.

3. Steven Goodwin may have received the Court documents at his Richmond office and held them without forwarding them to Ambassador Wanta and without informing the Ambassador that he held them in his office. Steven Goodwin may have failed, as a point of fact, to inform the Ambassador as to the existence of the Court documents, concerning the progress of the matter generally, and specifically in respect of the DISMISSAL decision dated 7th December 2007.

4. Staff employed at Steven Goodwin’s Office in Richmond may have received the documents and filed them away without informing Mr Goodwin of their presence in his office.

5. Mr Goodwin may have ordered staff at his office to file the documents away and may have taken no further action.

6. Various parties may have illegally conspired, in a fraud against the Court and the Ambassador, to ensure that Ambassador Wanta, Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., and Thomas Henry were kept in the dark about the matter.

7. Counsel for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond may not have mailed the relevant Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Court documents to Attorney Steven Goodwin’s office in Richmond.

8. Attorney Steven Goodwin may have represented that he is ‘not instructed’, even though he may never have informed the Ambassador of this.

It is again stressed that the Editor does not know whether any of these hypothetical possibilities apply, so that it follows that he is not stating as fact that any of them do apply. They are listed here in order to illustrate the deplorable state of affairs that has arisen. As a lawyer for the Ambassador, Steven Goodwin has a duty of care towards his client and, like any lawyer, should at all times place the interests of his client first, before all other considerations. As a Director of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., it is Attorney Steven Goodwin’s responsibility to ensure that all business matters relating to the corporation with which he may be concerned are made known in timely fashion to the other Directors and to the sole shareholder of the corporation.

Professional standards are wholly independent from client instructions. The legal profession imposes standards of conduct that apply regardless of client instructions. Moreover a lawyer is required to manage and supervise any office staff in accordance with the same professional standards that are applicable to the lawyer. In some US States (Michigan, for instance), failing to communicate and respond to a client in an effective, proper and timely manner is a disciplinary offence; and missing a scheduled Court date can be a disbarable offence.

If the Court documents were not sent to Mr Goodwin’s office by Counsel for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, that would constitute a truly scandalous state of affairs, worthy of national and global attention, to which this column would need to revert upon clarification.

Investigations into ALL aspects of this matter are ongoing….

The Editor is aware of another instance in which US legal proceedings took place behind the Ambassador’s back. We refer to the ‘decision’ by the Wisconsin Supreme Court allegedly handed down in December 2005 concerning the Wisconsin State Department of Revenue’s spurious and illegal civil tax assessment (already paid twice under protest in 1992, and a third time using the Editor’s funds on 21st July 2005), of which the Ambassador was never even made aware until he received that notorious letter from Mr Frazier, Chief, Central Audit Section, Wisconsin Department of Revenue, dated 30th October 2006, to which reference was again made in our ‘Wisconsingate’ report dated 6th August.

It would appear, then, that failing to advise targets and victims of Court decisions may be common practice in America. If so, it is a dirty legal trick that simply augments perceptions that deception has become a way of life in the United States. Such dirty tricks are not to be confused with the Talmudic ‘loopholism’ that infects the entire US legal system, with consequently degrading and detrimental consequences for the Rule of Law.

Turning to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss [Civil Action # 1:07cv609 TSE/BRP], this document, far from being unhelpful, confirms that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond affirms that ‘all well pleaded facts’ in Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus ‘will be taken as true’.

Nor does the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond deny the existence of the $4.5 trillion (that was paid to Ambassador Wanta by the Chinese authorities in May 2006).

It will have been observed that, having obtained Judge Ellis’s consent to the Fed’s Motion of Dismissal, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond has become detached from the case. From perusal of the text that follows, it will further become evident that the Bank is in fact obliquely assisting Ambassador Wanta by stating before the Court that the facts that he asserts are true (which is of course the case, as we have reiterated in the 55 reports on this subject published to date, and have explained in all the detailed Wantagate issues of International Currency Review, including the latest mammoth issue that was distributed worldwide from London on 14th September 2007. If the facts were not true, we would hardly be reporting them to this day. The latest issue of Economic Intelligence Review, mailed from London worldwide on 28th September, provides yet further detailed corroborating Wantagate information for financial sector subscribers).

The full text of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s short Court document, in which it confirms the accuracy of the Ambassador’s facts, reads as follows:

Alexandria Division:

LEO E. WANTA, et al, Petitioner


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its accompanying Brief in Support of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss, which the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank's attorneys submitted with its Motion to Dismiss, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond further stated as follows:

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

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

Respectfully submitted:
By its attorneys’.

Article 4A – Funds Transfer – of the Uniform Commercial Code consists of 20 pages, of which the following text (Section 4A-305: Liability for Late or Improper Execution or Failure to Execute a Payment Order; part) is especially noteworthy:

‘If a funds transfer is completed but execution of a payment order by the receiving bank in breach of Section 4A-302 [Obligations of Receiving Bank in Execution of Payment Order] results in delay in payment to the beneficiary, the bank is obliged to pay interest to either the originator or the beneficiary of the funds transfer for the period of delay caused by the improper execution’.

On being transferred in good faith by the People’s Bank of China in May 2006, Ambassador Leo Wanta’s $4.5 trillion was received by JPMorganChase in a custodial account. That institution provides ‘universal’ custodial account services inter alia for Bank of America, Citibank, Bank of New York (Bank of New York Mellon, following the merger), Bank of Nova Scotia, and Wachovia. Once resident in the custodial account, funds are ready for interbank transfer.

On being informed by compliance at the US Treasury under Henry M. Paulson Jr. that Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta’s $4.5 trillion would be transferred to Bank of America, Richmond, VA, Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., the Executive Vice President and Treasurer of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., arranged, in the summer of 2006, for the Ambassador and himself to be made signatories to a bank account that had previously been opened by Attorney Steven Goodwin for AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc, with the Richmond office of that (CIA-controlled) institution. The Principals were allowed by the US Treasury to continue to believe that Ambassador Wanta’s funds had indeed been transferred as advised by Treasury compliance. In other words, they RELIED UPON the US Treasury compliance’s duplicitous assurance to that effect. Repeated enquiries by the Principals at Bank of America, Richmond, for confirmation of the existence of the Ambassador’s $4.5 trillion and as to why it had not yet been deposited with the AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. bank account, were unsuccessful.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond would, under such a scenario, have received the funds for onward transfer to the account with Bank of America. It was for this reason that Ambassador Wanta included the US Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond on the list of Respondents to his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (Separately, Mr Cottrell further arranged, in August 2006, for the opening of a corporate securities account with Morgan Stanley, New York, in favour of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. This is a securities, not a bank, account).

The Brief submitted to the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond reveals that the Richmond Fed has never been depository of the funds, has never had control of the $4.5 trillion, and further has never acted as intermediary in relation to these funds at any time. These assertions expose, therefore, that the US Treasury under Henry M. Paulson LIED TO AND DECEIVED THE PRINCIPALS with respect to the disposition of Ambassador Wanta’s $4.5 trillion. As will be seen, this was because the funds were being held captive at Citibank/Goldman Sachs, under the sole signatory control of Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Secretary of the Treasury, as we have pointed out all along.

The relevant prose confirming the Paulson’ Treasury’s deceit is contained in the following part of the Brief in Support of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss, which is appended here by way of confirmation:

Alexandria Division:

LEO E. WANTA, et al, Petitioner


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

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

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) presents this Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Other Extraordinary Relief (the “Petition”). For the purpose of this Motion and Brief only, all well pleaded facts will be taken as true.

[An appended Note here adds: ‘It will also be assumed, without admitting, that a Federal Reserve Bank is an agency of the United States’].

Citations to paragraph numbers will be to the corresponding paragraphs in the Petition. [The referenced paragraphs below, relating to the text of the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (see posting dated 9th August 2007) are shown here as numbers in brackets].


Mr Wanta… says that in May 2006, the People’s Republic of China made a “free and unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion” to an account at a branch of the Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia. According to Mr Wanta, he was the designated beneficiary of the funds transfer (13). For reasons undisclosed in the Petition, sometime between July 31 2006 and August 2, 2006, the United States Department of the Treasury removed the funds from the Bank of America branch and transferred them “via the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond” to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at Citibank in New York (14). At the conclusion of this process, Mr Wanta alleges, the Department of the Treasury placed a “lawless restriction” on the funds mandating that they be not released to Mr Wanta “without the authorization of United States Treasury”.

But, Mr Wanta goes on to say, it is not just any Treasury official who can order a release of the money – the funds in the Citibank account in New York cannot be released to Mr Wanta without written authorization from Secretary Paulson himself (15). However, Mr Wanta’s name was not removed as the “intended recipient” of the transferred funds (14), so according to him, he is still the beneficiary of the funds transfer. But apparently there exists an unspecified “order” that prevents Mr Paulson from releasing the funds, even though they are “individually controlled by Secretary Paulson” (16)…. That, in his own words, is Mr Wanta’s case against FRB Richmond.

In the entire Petition, there is one, and only one time that FRB Richmond is even mentioned, and its purported misdeed is that it acted as the intermediary in a funds transfer transaction between Bank of America in Richmond and Citibank in New York. FRB Richmond has never been depository of the funds, FRB Richmond did not remove Mr Wanta’s name as beneficiary of the funds. And the FRB Richmond does not now, nor has it ever, had custody or control of the funds or the authority to release them to Mr Wanta’.

This clarifies, therefore that the US Treasury under Henry M. Paulson Jr., indeed LIED TO AND MISINFORMED Ambassador Wanta and Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., and constructively misled them into believing that the funds had been delivered from JPMorganChase’s custodial account to Bank of America, Richmond. Sucha transfer would have entailed passage via the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, for onward placement with the Bank of America.

The reason that the Richmond Fed was added to the list of Respondents to the Petition was that the Petitioner naturally assumed that what he and Mr Cottrell had been told by the US Treasury, was true. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Brief shows that it was not. The Principals RELIED UPON what they had been told by Treasury compliance (doctrine of Reliance).

Hence it follows that the action by Judge Ellis III in dismissing the Petition as applicable to the Richmond Fed, is paradoxically beneficial to the Ambassador because the process has finally revealed, in the most authoritative manner conceivable, that Mr Paulson’s Treasury lied to the Principals. As the official in charge of the Treasury, possessing self-awarded sole signatory power over the Wanta funds, the US Treasury Secretary is personally responsible, therefore, for having hijacked the $4.5 trillion belonging to the Ambassador.

For, instead of being lodged, as Paulson’s Treasury had lied, with Bank of America, Richmond, the $4.5 trillion had migrated, assuming the format of a CHIP, from JPMorganChase to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs, the institution from which Mr Paulson was hired, with Citibank, New York City, where it has remained all along. The postion of JPMorganChase in this deception is beyond the technico-legal capacity of this Editor to disentangle, but it can hardly, on the face of it, be a satisfactory one for that institution, either.

Given that interest is payable under Article 4A-305 – Funds Transfer – of the Uniform Commercial Code as noted above, and on the crude assumption that interest is due on the illegally withheld funds for the past 16 months at 5.5% per annum, Citibank would therefore, as a key co-conspirator, appear to be prospectively liable to pay accrued interest of around $40 billion by way of interest compensation alone, to the Ambassador.

As for Goldman Sachs, a securities house, its alleged breach of the 1933 and 1934 Securities Acts in this context, in retaining the Ambassador’s monies to which it is not entitled, might prospectively render the institution liable to legal suit in accordance with the R.I.C.O. [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] legislation, applicable to securities firms, which provides for three times damages to be awarded. That might mean that, upon conviction, Goldman Sachs would be required to pay the Ambassador 3 x $4.5 trillion, namely $13.5 trillion, in addition to having to disgorge the $4.5 trillion if it had not already been finally transferred to the AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc.’s securities account with Morgan Stanley, New York. These prospects are realistic, but also hypothetical.

Since the Ambassador had no knowledge of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion, let alone of any of the submissions of the other Respondents, as reviewed above, he was of course in no position to file a response to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion to Dismiss, within the 20 days allowed by the Court from the date on which the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Motion was filed, namely 13th August 2007.

However, in the light of the revelation arising from the Richmond Fed’s Brief, confirming that the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr Henry M. Paulson, Jr., presided over this unprecedented financial deception, the filing of the Ambassador’s Petition has yielded the dividend that the Editor believes the Ambassador had quietly anticipated.

For it has exposed, with maximum authority, the Paulson Treasury’s lies, duplicity, criminal financial transactions and fraud against the Ambassador, the Virginia Court and the American people – the consequences of which, for Henry M. Paulson. Jr. and his institutional co-conspirators, can hardly be underestimated.

The Wanta Financial Settlement is all that stands today between US and worldwide macrofinancial recovery and prosperity for a generation, and the most catastrophic financial and hence economic calamity that the world has ever experienced.

Such a calamity will be driven by sudden, ‘unexpected’, cascading, interlinked bank failures – as the superstructure of fraudulent finance built upon collateral originally stolen and usurped in part from the Title 18, Section 6 underlying bank accounts owned by Leo Emil Wanta, an extensive list of which we have published both here and in International Currency Review, collapses beneath the overdue and essential implementation of the new ‘all-on-the-books’ international financial system, underpinned by reform of the US dollar.

The very worst case scenario of all – de facto implementation of the new global banking regime (which is already with us), and any continued blocking of the Wanta Settlement – is a formula GUARANTEED to induce worldwide financial and economic havoc with no historical precedent.

The Ambassador’s Title 18, Section 6 corporate bank accounts all over the world were rifled and ransacked, with Wanta bank documents being forged by corrupt US intelligence operatives and lackeys left, right and centre – while he was banished on the basis of false witness and officially orchestrated trumped-up charges for an originally intended 22 years in the horrendous American GULAG, and later under house arrest and on illegal probation for having evaded the payment of a contrived and false Wisconsin State tax demand that he had never owed, that he had paid twice in 1992 under protest, and which had been Court-certified and also notarised as having been ‘fully satisfied’ a good six weeks before he was illegally arrested in Switzerland on the false State tax evasion charge on 7th July 1993 [see the ‘Wisconsingate’ report dated 6th August 2007].

When Leo Wanta ‘ceased to be dead’ with the payment in July 2005 of the ‘Restitution’ (de facto extortion money) using the Editor’s private loan funds that had been entrusted to Attorney Steven Goodwin, the CIA’s old lie that Leo Wanta was dead, was exposed before the whole world – and the fraudulent finance specialists and collaborating banks that had seized the Ambassador’s assets for use as collateral, faced the prospect of being exposed, as well.

Given their arrogance, and the fact that their financial scamming operations had generated untold riches for themselves and their associates, as well as providing open-ended finance for covert CIA-DVD fiunding of the World Revolution (b), the organised criminal barons operating at the highest levels of the US fraudulent finance hierarchy, were slow to understand that the bell was tolling for them, too. One’s heart bleeds for them now that they face their unavoidable days of reckoning.

A taste of what may lie in store if any further impediments are placed by the organised criminal operatives in the way of the on-the-books Wanta Settlement – which will kick-start the refinancing of the US Treasury, the United States and the whole world, but on a sound, on-the-books basis – may be gauged from a brief closing review of what was going on at Northern Rock, which sustained the first bank run experienced in the United Kingdom for a century, thus severely undermining the international financial reputation of the United Kingdom in the process.

It is a fact  –  to which this Editor, who has monitored and reported on almost every banking event since becoming editor of International Currency Review in the early 1970s, will sincerely attest – that every bank crisis since then around the world, has arisen SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY as a consequence of fraudulent financial operations perpetrated by criminal intelligence community operatives: and for no other reason. The academic community has been extraordinarily laid-back, lax and incompetent about this – ignoring the possibility that the vulnerable fiat money system would be targeted by intelligence-driven organised criminals, which is what has happened.

This reminds us that the criminalised and wholly unreliable and reprobate intelligence services are in control, out of control, and must be brought under control, before any lasting improvement in the prospects for humanity can be assured. The Editor's personal preference would be to round most of them up and to give them a taste of their own filthy medicine in the GULAG.

Look, then, briefly and finally, at what was going on at Northern Rock.

This secondary bank, formerly a UK building society, securitised its mortgages via an elaborate offshore corporate structure involving corporations like Granite Finance and Granite Master (rock – granite: geddit?). Shares in the parent company, Granite Finance Holdings Limited, could not be held by Northern Rock itself, given the off-balance sheet operations intended: so they were placed in a Jersey trust, serving the familiar ‘on-the-books’ ‘real economy’ diversionary function – in this case, the payment of Granite-derived profits “for the benefit of the Down’s Syndrome North East Association (UK) and for other charitable purposes”.

However, while billions of pounds lubricated the related bank accounts, the profits reportedly did not accrue to the Down’s Syndrome charity, apart from a cosmetic £40,000 donation made by the bank in 2001. As one current press report on this emerging scandal observes: ‘Northern Rock’s use of an unsuspecting local charity, without its consent, in a multi-billion pound international financing scheme, shows just how contrived financial engineering has become’.

Any investigator scratching a little further would quickly discover that such operations mask links to dubious fiat money transactions and networks designed to provide resting places for fraudulent off-balance sheet finance transactions traceable back to notorious offshore entities controlled by crime families, to money-laundering in a criminal mini-state called Ireland, institutions involved in fraudulent finance based in Britain, Canada and the United States, and to other exotic outlets for financial accruals resulting from multiple high-yield investment programmes hypothecated upon the originally stolen Wanta funds – or the intentionally duplicated (but evidently now frozen) $27.5 trillion borrowed from 200+ international banks under George Bush Sr. in 1989-92, for the specific purpose of obfuscating the ownership of Ambassador Wanta’s accumulated $27.5 trillion generated in the course of his Presidentially-mandated Financial Warfare operations against the Soviets.

Next time we see long queues of anxious retail depositors lining up outside bank branches to pull their savings, we must try not to forget that they are standing there in the wind and rain because they have been taken for a ride by officially-directed organised criminal fraudsters embedded like parasites deep inside the banking system – presided over by ruthless criminal financial kingpins such as US Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, serving the interests of operations run by (e.g.) the Bush and Clinton crime families, and criminal co-conspiring financial institutions.

Mercifully, their reign of terror is almost over. God Save The Queen!

(a) Mr Paulson even dishonestly claims, by appending irrelevant US official economic data (not confusingly covered in this report) to his response to the Ambassador’s Petition, that the US economy could not generate windfall tax accruals of $1.575 billion, thereby deceptively seeking to mislead the Court indirectly into believing that Ambassador Leo Wanta's claim is itself spurious, the implication being that it is represented as having been derived from transactions within the US financial economy – whereas of course the funds were paid to Leo Wanta by the People’s Bank of China, which honoured its obligation towards the Ambassador, who is rightly trusted at the highest official levels worldwide. The funds had been held securely by the Chinese authorities in Title 18, Section 6 accounts controlled by the Ambassador and by his deceased partner, Howe Kwong Kok – who died suddenly in Singapore from ingesting rat poison, shortly after a visit there by George Bush Sr., as previously reported.

(b) Following the end of the esoteric, numerologically-Kabbalistic 72 years during which the Soviet Communists were in charge of the Illuminati’s Luciferian World Revolution, the baton was handed back to the classic World Revolutionary power – the United States. It is interesting that, under its new President, the radical French-Hungarian, Nicolas Sarkozy, old revolutionary France has aligned itself again with the revolutionary United States, especially over the Iranian diversion. However the American people are having none of this revolutionary role for the United States, as, being far from stupid, they perceive, correctly, that it has been imposed upon them by the corrupt, unreformed, revolutionary Luciferian intelligence community, which is in control, out of control, and needs, as a matter of priority, to be brought UNDER control, starting in Britain and the United States.

Reiteration of the fraudulent transactions involving Bank of New York Mellon – a bank so arrogant and conspicuously indifferent both to its tarnished reputation and to its grotesque breaches of US law and of N.A.S.D./S.E.C. Regulations, that it now takes first prize in the crowded competition for the title of ‘Most arrogant and corrupt financial institution in America’:

Step 1: Fraud in the Inducement: “… is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment” Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

Step 2: Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:

“ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scienter] when it causes injury to another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

“THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… The elements of actionable deceit are: A false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his injury…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.

Step 3: Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:


“FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.

“The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.

To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.

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


‘FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the object of which is to defraud a creditor, or hinder or delay him, or to put such property beyond his reach…”.

“Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent on person (entity) making transfer…”.

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


NASD Rule 3120, et al.
NASD Rule 2330, et al
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3040
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-1
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and SEC Rule 15c3-1
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 3110
SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and Procedural Rule 8210
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and 2330 and IM-2330
NASD Conduct Rules 2110 and IM-2110-5
NASD Systems and Programme Rules 6950 through 6957

In addition to which Bank of New York Mellon has been in violation of:
97-13 Bank Secrecy Act, Recordkeeping Rule for funds transfers and transmittals of funds, et al.


Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
Anti-Drug Abuse Act
Applicable international money laundering restrictions
Bank Secrecy Act
Conspiracy to commit and cover up murder.
Crimes, General Provisions, Accessory After the Fact [Title 18, USC]
Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act
Economic Espionage Act
Hobbs Act
Imparting or Conveying False Information [Title 18, USC]
Maloney Act
Misprision of Felony [Title 18, USC] (1)
Money-Laundering Control Act
Money-Laundering Suppression Act
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Perpetration of repeated egregious felonies by State and Federal public employees and their Departments and agencies, which are co-responsible with the said employees for ONGOING illegal and criminal actions, to sustain fraudulent operations and crimes in order to cover up criminal activities and High Crimes and Misdemeanours by present and former holders of high office under the United States
Provisions pertaining to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties [H.R. 3723]
Provisions prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials [F.I.S.A.]
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [R.I.C.O.]
Securities Act 1933
Securities Act 1934
Terrorism Prevention Act
Treason legislation, especially in time of war

This list shows to what extent the Bush II Administration condones one Rule of Law for the Rest of Us, and absolute contempt for domestic and international law for the officials and bankers who are illegally diverting and exploiting Wanta’s funds.

The Directors and others listed in Part 1 of the Wantagate Listing of Institution Directors and others posted on 11th June may likewise be Accessories to the Fact of, and/or co-conspirators in, wittingly or unwittingly, the egregious violation of the laws itemised above. This list is reproduced in International Currency Review, Volume 33, #s 1 & 2, September 2007, on pages 163-168.


‘Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both’.

Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta: Diplomatic Passport Numbers 04362 & 12535 a.k.a. Frank B. Ingram [FBI] (Sector V) SA32NV; and a.k.a. Rick Reynolds, SA233MS. AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc: Federal EIN Number 20-3866855; Virginia State Corporation Identification Number: 0617454-4; Virginia State Department of Taxation Identification Number: 30203866855F001

Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or to any of the earlier Wantagate reports.

We are a private intelligence publishing house and have no connections to any outside parties including intelligence agencies. The word ‘intelligence’ on this website and in all our marketing material is used for marketing/sales purposes only and has no other connotations whatsoever: see ‘About Us’ on the red panels under the Notes on the Editor, Christopher Story FRSA, who has been solely and exclusively engaged as an investigative journalist, Editor, Author and private financial and current affairs Publisher since 1963 and is not and never has been an agent for a foreign power, suggestions to the contrary being actionable for libel in the English Court.

Dr D will no doubt be interested.



Teknosis Join us at EENG - Free Blogs,.

October 1, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wantagate: US Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Lied about Wanta Funds. Leo Wanta's Mandamus Petition Sabotaged:


The comments to this entry are closed.