Questions That Need To Be Answered
Ambassador Leo Wanta Update
Part 1 of 2
Breaking News Friday March
19, 2010
http://blogs.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel
Awakening Americans:
Behind the scenes intelligence briefings ALL Patriot Americans MUST know...the
REAL facts and truth the corporate-controlled mainstream media covers up
Hot EXPLOSIVE Back
Breaking News
by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert
Friday March 19, 2010
From: Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta ..
Subject: Some Questions, Some Answers
To: "The Honorable Barack H Obama" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "The Honorable Barack H. Obama" <president@messages.whitehouse.gov>, "President Barack Obama" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>, "President Barack Obama" <comments@whitehouse.gov>
Cc: "Mr David Axelrod" .., "The White House_David Axelrod"
.., "FDIC_Chair Sheila Bair" <sbair@fdic.gov>,
"David Barr" <dbarr@fdic.gov>, "The Honorable Joseph Biden" <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>, "Vice President Joe Biden" <vicepresident@whitehouse.gov>, "DNI_Admiral Dennis Blair" <devoux.jeremy@gmail.com>, "Deputy Director_Jeremy Bird" <info@barackobama.com>, "Deputy Director_Joe Weisenthal" <jweisenthal@alleyinsider.com>, "FedResSystem Inspector General" <oighotline@frb.gov>, "US Special Counsel Patrick J. USAILN Fitzgerald
[USAILN]" <patrick.j.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov>, "GAO_FRAUDNET" <fraudnet@gao.gov>, "The Honorable Timothy Geithner" <treasurer@do.treas.gov>, "Attorney General Eric Holder" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "SEC_Inspector General H David Kotz" <enforcement@sec.gov>, "Secretary Ray LaHood" <dot.comments@dot.gov>, "Office of the Inspector General" <oig@dc.gov>, "OSC_Audre Fields-Williams" <awilliams@osc.gov>, "SEC_Chair Mary Schapiro" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>, "US Department of Transportation Reference
Service" <ntl1@mailwc.custhelp.com>, "US Repr Bart Gordon" <donna.pignatelli@mail.house.gov>, "US Repr Steve King" <imaia05h@mail.house.gov>, "US Senator Jim Webb" <senator_jim_webb@webb.enews.senate.gov>, "US Senator Patty Murray" <webmaster@murray.senate.gov>, "Chairman Paul A. Volcker" <pavtemp@aol.com>, "Harvard_Professor Elizabeth Warren" <ewarren@law.harvard.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 12:51 PM
I ask the
following questions as an interested observer and a journalist of many
years. During my 25 years as a banker, my writing career continued with
reputable publications like The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust
Marketing Magazine, the American Bankers Association, Private Banker
International. As an aside, the term “private bank” is not synonymous
with “central bank” -- except to journalists who want them to sound the same –
but that’s a different issue for a different day.
Here is a statement (to which Christopher Story, International Currency Review,
refers in his 15 March 2010 article) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
regarding the Writ of Mandamus filed by Ambassador Wanta against Henry M.
Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury and his Deputy Secretary Robert M.
Kimmitt, James R. Wilkinson, Chief of Staff at Treasury, Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney
General of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
"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."
(END OF QUOTE)
If the Federal Reserve accepts the statements made by "Ambassador Leo E.
Wanta" in the Writ of Mandamus "as true," on what grounds does
Christopher Story suggest the Richmond Fed is lying?
To know what the Fed means when it says “all well pleaded facts will be taken
as true” can be found by reading the Writ of Mandamus. You will find a
copy of the Writ below my observations and questions. If you want to read
the former but not the latter, there is a scroll bar on the right side of your
screen.
The Federal Reserve said it takes the facts as stated in the Writ “as
true.” Read the Writ. Look at the facts the Fed is willing to
accept "as true.”
Who is lying? A private corporation called the “Federal Reserve” which
signs a document under penalty of perjury? Or an editor or publisher of a
report trying to make a buck via histrionics?
From International Currency Review (ICR), World Reports, 15 March 2010
"• THE CROOKS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL HAD BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED TRYING, ONCE
AGAIN, TO DIVERT/STEAL THE SOVEREIGN LOAN FUNDS INTENDED FOR DOLLAR
REFUNDING."
(Just another aside, but in the last issue of ICR, didn't the Editor decide the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" were lost by the Queen to Wall Street
derivatives? Wasn't the Governor of the Bank of England in jail because
the "Sovereign Loan Funds" were used to purchase worthless
derivatives? Or, is "the Queen's Gold" that which was reported
by the Editor to have been lost in bad derivative investments by the Bank of
England's Governor who was, according to the Editor, imprisoned? Do the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" involve the $6.2 trillion Her Majesty was
supposed to have loaned President G. W. Bush? Or is the $6.2 trillion the
"Sovereign Loan Funds" lost to derivatives? Are they the same
funds? Or, are they different? The terms seem to be used
interchangeably and it's difficult to discern what's being said. One
thing is certain. For a nation with so many trillions of dollars
available -- Sovereign Loan Funds" and "Queen's Gold" (and who
knows what other funds exist that Mr. Story has not yet divulged?) the UK sure
has a lot of unemployment and British Pound Sterling is taking a bath vs. other
world currencies. You'd think with all this money, the Queen would be
able to help Her people.
(Back to International Currency Review, 15 March 2010.)
"THE IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR DECEPTION THAT WE ALSO ABORTED
“As you will recall, an earlier, more feeble operation had erupted, centred on
a crude attempt to rewrite Mr Wanta’s legend, inter alia to purport to
represent that he ‘worked for’ the Federal Reserve – which would have had
tangible consequences facilitating’ diversion of the funds – contrary to the
language of the Writ for a Petition of Mandamus and the Motion to Dismiss filed
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, both of which were the subject of a
hearing at the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria,
attended by Michael C. Cottrell, Dana V. Wilcox, the Editor of this service,
and Mr Wanta.
"Any variation of Wanta’s legend would have undermined the language of the
Petition, leaving him vulnerable to a charge of perjury: hence, when we
republished the text of the Petition which it had been anticipated that
everyone would have forgotten all about, that operation had to be aborted.
Moreover parties involved in promulgating the lies in question had to cease and
desist, as well."
Who, other than Christopher Story, purported Ambassador Wanta “worked for"
the Federal Reserve? I’ve never seen a document from or about the Federal
Reserve and/or an “employee” named “Leo Wanta” or “Leo Emil Wanta” or “Lee
Wanta” – or “Junkyard Dog,” for that matter. Had he done so, the Federal
Reserve of Richmond would have certainly had grounds to Dismiss the Writ of
Mandamus based on conflict of interest. Instead, they accepted the Writ,
as submitted by Ambassador Wanta, “as true.” Did the Fed lie? If so,
since it would hurt Ambassador Wanta’s case, why?
As a journalist, this fascinates me. A person who earns his income from
writing a newsletter makes an unverified statement about a “feeble operation”
in an article, then much later refers to it as if, because he is quoting
himself, it is a verified statement. It appears what can be a rumor
one day becomes a fact when later quoted. What a way to run a railroad –
I mean, newsletter.
1) Christopher Story publishes an article that declares
Ambassador Wanta had some kind of nebulous and never described working
relationship with the Federal Reserve. No evidence is published that
verifies this statement.
In a very early edition of the same publication (I have no date, but the pages
are marked at the bottom #30, 2 & 3). This article says:
"Much of the totals accumulated in Title 18 Section 6 USG corporations are
or were tied up in the kind of instrument that the Bank of England and the
Federal Reserve state for public consumption, does not exist, namely 'Prime
Bank Guarantees,' a type of Certified Deposit Mr. Wanta would buy from lending
banks and trade at a profit, on behalf of the US Treasury, working under cover
of Title 18 corporations such as Aneko Credit Pte based in Singapore."
Story states Ambassador Wanta would buy "Prime Bank Guarantees" but
the Fed doesn't admit they exist. Other sources say "Prime Bank
Guarantees" were, at the time Ambassador Wanta was investing in them,
legal in Europe but not in the U.S. Christopher Story doesn't even allow
that other opinions outside of his own exist.
Story went to the Writ of Mandamus hearing in Virginia. He says the
Motion to Dismiss filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond was discussed
at the same hearing he, Christopher Story, attended. If that's true, then
Mr. Story is aware that the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's statement
included the following statement (Mr. Story is aware because he published it;
here it is, again):
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
"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."
In other words, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond accepted as truth the
statements made by Ambassador Wanta in his Writ of Mandamus. I
repeat: For those who have not read the total Writ of Mandamus, it is
provided at the end of my comments.
2) In March 2010, Christopher Story writes about an
earlier, more feeble operation he says erupted -- again, no evidence to support
his written words -- and that it is a "crude attempt to rewrite Mr Wanta's
legend..." Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Story just admitted that his own
published words were a "crude attempt" to rewrite another person's
legend -- a legend that belongs to one man but one he, credits himself with
creating. And he has dramatically changed the tale as he wrote
about it. What a great way to make a living! Create it, get
monetary credit for it, back away, attack it, make a "crude attempt"
to destroy it, but keep it alive as long as it's making money.
3) Christopher Story tells us that if Ambassador Wanta
was working for the Fed it would 'have had tangible consequences facilitating'
diversion of the funds -- contrary to the language of the Writ for a Petition
of Mandamus and the “as true” statement about the Writ in the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. That Hearing in the United
States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, was, according to
Christopher Story, attended by Michael C. Cottrell, Col. Dana V. Wilcox,
"the Editor of this service," and Mr. Wanta. He offers no proof
that makes a reasonable person doubt the documents as presented to the Court
that day, but expects his readers to accept what he says as fact -- though the
"facts" often change from paragraph to paragraph -- as do the terms
used to describe things like "Sovereign Fund" and "Queen's
Gold."
Everyone needs to remember that Christopher Story also said in a recent edition
of International Currency Review: "But although I invented the
phrase Wantagate and then plugged the matter very intensively, I did this as a
marketing matter and publicity device because the Wanta cause served several
purposes."
In other words, facts don't matter. Serving Story's purpose and marketing
it "intensively" matter.
THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Civil Action no.: 1-07 CV 609
LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA (Individually and as sole and
exclusive shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., a Commonwealth of Virginia
registered corporation)
Petitioner
v.
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
ROBERT M. KIMMITT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
JAMES R. WILKINSON
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and
MICHAEL CHERTOFF
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
DIRECTOR AND/OR MANAGER OF OPERATIONS,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Respondents
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
A. PARTIES:
1. LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
2. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
3. Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent
4. James R. Wilkinson
Chief of Staff
United States Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220: Respondent
5. Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.: respondent
6. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001: Respondent
7. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
701 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219: Respondent
B. JURISDICTION:
1. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause of action pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1361 (mandamus),
Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1331, and Title 28 United
States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1332.
C. VENUE:
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Title 28 United States Code,
Chapter 87, Section 1391, and Title 28 United States Code Chapter 87, Section
1396.
D. STATEMENT OF CL..
3. Mandamus is regarded as an extraordinary writ reserved for special
situations. Among its ordinary preconditions are that the agency or official
have acted (or failed to act) in disregard of a clear legal duty and that there
be no adequate conventional means for review. In re Bluewater Network &
Ocean Advocates, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Telecomm. Research &
Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Mandamus will be granted if the Petitioner shows “(1) the presence of novel and
significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies;
and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the
administration of justice”, see In re United States, 10 F.3d 229 at 931, 933
(2d Cir. 1993).
4. Petitioner has attempted to access monies that were transferred through
international bank monetary clearing systems to financial institutions located
in the United States of America. The remitting party was the People’s Republic
of China, People’s Bank. The remitting party designated that the transferred
funds were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitioner. The
foreign entity that originated the inward remittance designated Petitioner as
sole and exclusive recipient for the transferred money/financial instruments.
Irrespective of efforts proffered by Petitioner and/or agents and representatives
of Petitioner, private and public individuals and entities, prevent Petitioner
from exercising Petitioner’s legal right to the use, transfer and unrestricted
ability to freely disburse said financial assets. The acts and/or omissions to
act by named and unnamed Respondents prevent Petitioner (and others who are
ancillary to this cause of action) from paying their respective tax liabilities
to both State and Federal taxing authorities.
5. Upon best information and belief the organizations, entities, departments
and individuals that prevent and/or restrict Petitioner’s lawful access to said
money and securities include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
• Secretary of the Treasury;
• Attorney General of the United States of America;
• Bank of America;
• J.P. Morgan Chase;
• CITIBANK/CITIGROUP/NYC including but not limited to Mr Charles O. Prince,
CITIGROUP Chief Executive Officer;
• Goldman Sachs et al including but not limited to past and present management
and executive officers and members of the Board of Directors;
• United States Department of the Treasury including but not limited to
Secretary
Paulson, Deputy Secretary Kimmitt and other known and/or unknown parties
working directly or under contract with the United States Department of the
Treasury;
• Secretary Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security and other known and/or
unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States
Department of Homeland Security;
• One or more known and/or unknown “compliance officers” that act directly
and/or under contract with private bank and/or security brokerage firms to
observe rules and regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury
and/or other USG investigative and reporting entities;
• Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia.
Part 2 of 2 to follow
TOM HENEGHAN'S EXPLOSIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS
http://blogs.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel