|
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CASE No. 02-1544
TOTTEN v. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - COURT MOTIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA, PLAINTIFF
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION No. 02 - 1363 - A
__________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
In re :
FALLS VENDING SERVICE, INC., Debtor
ORDER C.A No. . 84
- C - 359
FILED : SEP 7 1984
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333 -- United States
Intelligence Activities
Source : The provisions of Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4,
1981, appear at 46 FR
59941, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 200, unless otherwise noted.
Ronald Reagan Library Records F0-007, ( 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22,
Section 2204 ).
___________________________________________________________________________
WANTA - DANE COUNTY [WI] COURT
CRIMINAL TRIAL TESTIMONY, PART 2
STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF,
-vs-
CASE No. 92 - CF - 583
LEO E. WANTA, DEFENDANT
__________________________________________________________________________________
Look at line 25 on page 57
and then at line 1 on page 58. There is a break in the court records
here. Mr. Chavez is telling Mr. Haag that just because Haag thinks and
states that Wanta is “playing games” doesn’t give Mr. Haag “the right
to…” Page 57 ends with those words… “the right to.” Page 58 begins with
“approach.” Someone is asking for permission to approach the bench. An
argument between Mr. Haag and Mr. Chavez obviously occurred ("obviously"
because of the Court’s comments beginning on Line 2) and has been removed
from the court transcript.
Then read on page 66 how
Judge Torphy limits what Leo Wanta can say in his own defense. Notice how
silent Mr. Chavez is when they are discussing the letter written by Leo
Wanta to Kurt Becker and Lothar Elsasser and think back to all of Judge
Torphy’s prosecutorial objections to Wanta’s answers – even to the way
Chavez asked the questions. Do you see the imbalance? To me, as an
author, it is stunning. The definition of the word “hearsay” has suddenly
changed… as in Wanta’s explanations that his wife told him she filed the
tax returns. Under the definition of hearsay used when Wanta was
questioned by his counsel, Chavez, the demands Haag was making of Wanta
to agree that Joanne Wanta had filed the tax returns would have been
deemed “hearsay” and would have been disallowed (as these comments should
have been).
One of the problems in
Wanta’s testimony is that he is much more intelligent than Mr. Haag. He
hears the details of the questions asked… details of which Mr. Haag,
himself, is unaware are part of the words he uses to form his questions.
When Leo Wanta answers a question in response and exemplifies having
heard the detail that Mr. Haag is unaware exist in his words, Haag become
totally irate. One good example of this appears on page 71 – and even
Judge Torphy, obviously a member of the prosecution team, corrects Haag
and proclaims Mr. Wanta’s response to be accurate. Haag had used a
plural and Wanta insisted it was a singular.
One challenge to readers
is the need for you to be able to discern the difference between personal
and corporate cash flow and income. When he is asked questions about
checks made out to him from AmeriChina and New Republic, for example,
Wanta answers the questions as a person, not as a corporation. The funds
about which Assistant Attorney General Douglas Haag is asking questions
are corporate funds. Corporate funds do not represent personal income to
Wanta. They only represent cash flow to the corporation in which Wanta is
an executive relative to moving money from one corporate account to
another. These transfers of cash prove nothing relative to personal
income.
Ineffective counsel
Chavez never once brings this to the attention of the jury! So, because
there are no appropriate objections made by the ineffective defense
provided by attorney John Chavez, readers are left to sort this out for
themselves. Just bear in mind as you read about Haag's questions
regarding funds involving AmeriChina and New Republic being moved to
banks around the world, it has nothing to do with Leo Wanta's personal
income – and that is what the criminal charges are based on:
personal income. The court disallows Wanta from making this point and the
idiot lawyer representing Wanta in court is evidently part of the
prosecution team, or is perhaps displaying symptoms of the drug and/or
alcohol abuse for which he would lose his law license in the State of
Wisconsin in the not-too-distant future after this trial. He does nothing
in this entire trial to point out to the jury that when Wanta was signing
checks and otherwise making bank transfers as a corporate employee, it
had nothing to do with personal income. Rather, it had to do only with
corporate cash flow and income.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment