ISA_AMERICANS_WANTA BE FREE_CHAPTER ELEVEN

WANTA - DANE COUNTY [WI] COURT CRIMINAL TRIAL TESTIMONY, PART 4 – Chapter 11

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF,
-vs-                               CASE No. 92 - CF - 583
LEO E. WANTA, DEFENDANT

On page 102, Line 11, Mr. Haag references a document that was supposed to be served on Leo E. Wanta by a Mr. David E. Meisner, U.S. Assistant Customs Attache in Singapore… this was supposed to inform Wanta that he was the object of a criminal tax evasion case in the State of Wisconsin. Haag specifically states that the document (which Wanta denies ever receiving) was in Wanta's briefcase. I refer readers to Chapter 12 wherein a list of all documents found in Leo E. Wanta’s briefcase as the result of a long-delayed search warrant was provided to the Department of Revenue. There is NO DOCUMENT AS DESCRIBED BY MR. HAAG (IN FRONT OF THE JURY) IN THE BRIEFCASE. Mr. Haag is manufacturing evidence that does not exist according to the Department of Revenue’s own records gained from the issuance of a search warrant after Wanta was taken into custody by the State of Wisconsin. This particular statement by Haag is a provable lie. See the question on line 5 on page 102.
On page 107, Mr. Haag presents a line of questioning that Mr. Chavez should obviously have objected to – but like most of the ineffective counsel he provided Wanta, he did not. Why should he have objected? This is sheer hearsay. The conclusions Haag is proffering in front of the jury are sheer speculation and there is no evidence anywhere in this trial that justifies the speculation. Chavez admits that – after the Judge excuses the jury so the lawyers and the judge can have this discussion. The judge obviously did not want this discussion to occur and because Chavez did nothing to stop the line of questioning, Judge Torphy stopped it. He knew there was no evidence of what Haag was charging and if he allowed the testimony he was heading into territory that would give Wanta grounds for reversal on appeal and/or a new trial.
Mr. Chavez says he’s not objecting because he doesn’t want to look like he’s hiding something from the jury – no, John, it’s much better that you let your client look guilty in front of the jury, then explain to the judge why you didn’t object when the jury is out of the room. What a piece of trash this man is! Stupid trash, at that! “Quite frankly, you’re testifying, Doug,” Chavez says to Assistant Attorney General Douglas Haag – without the jury present, of course. Haag is obviously concerned that the State of Wisconsin will be held liable for the arrest of Ambassador Leo E. Wanta (as it was) and is doing whatever he can to defer any charges against the state’s involvement in Wanta’s arrest… and the State of Wisconsin was obviously involved. Go back to Chapter Eight and re-read the linked November 17, 2000 Swiss Tribunal Hearing court records. There were no charges filed against Leo Wanta in Switzerland during the entire 134 days he spent in the Swiss dungeon… not any kind of charges.
Page 111, line 19 – Mr. Chavez points out that the document Mr. Haag is making so much to-do about regarding it having been presented to Mr. Wanta by Mr. Meisner ISN’T EVEN SIGNED AND SO IS NOT EVEN ACCEPTABLE IN COURT AS EVIDENCE. Good old ineffective counsel John Chavez of course does not mention this basic fact in front of the jury under re-direct nor does he object. This is the manufacture of evidence and represents fraud against the court.