High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
Banker, Bank Consultant, Author, Journalist679 Brentwood Drive, #7Palisade, CO 81526(970) 464-5556
November 20, 2011Monsieur Philippe Couvreur Registrar The International Court of JusticePeace PalaceCarnegieplein 22517 KJThe HagueThe NetherlandsIN RE: LEO EMIL WANTA, PRINCIPALITY OF SNAKEHILL, CASE ALREADY ON FILE WITH ICJ/THEHAGUEDear Registrar Couvreur:Enclosed please find a copy of my letter, this same date, to Monsieur Pierre Bruttin, LaPremier President, Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Lausanne, Palais de Justice deMontbenon, 1014 Lausanne. Premier President Bruttin was most kind in providinginformation from a request made by me regarding the referenced matter. Unfortunately,the response sent to me did not answer the questions asked in my original letter (copyenclosed). Further, the transcript of the Lausanne Tribunal Court’s Decision in thereferenced matter is so filled with errors and oversights of truth, it represents a documentany government should be shamed to make public.As I wrote the response to Monsieur Bruttin, I wondered if the International Court of Justice was aware that it was perhaps sitting on a filed case (Principality of Snake Hillfiled by Princess Paula) that could solve many of the economic woes of the EuropeanUnion. Of the $4.5 trillion that was SWIFT-wired from the People’s Bank of China toAmbassador Wanta’s company (as explained in the Snake Hill complaint already filed),AmeriTrust, at the Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia, USA (May 2006), PresidentRonald Reagan and Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta had established theReagan/Mitterrand/Wanta Protocols. Under those Protocols, seven nations were toreceive billions of dollars – Russia, for example, was to receive $30 billion; Israel andPalestine were each to receive $5 billion. France, Germany, Great Britain and at leastone other nation were also to receive billions of dollars.The truth is, if the American government had not “stolen” Ambassador Wanta’s access tothese funds, the financial crisis caused by Wall Street greed in the form of mortgage-
backed derivatives would have never happened. Why? Because Ambassador Wantaoffered to buy Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the two primary culprits of the faultyderivatives sold to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan, et al, came fromFreddie and Fannie). Had Ambassador Wanta’s offer to purchase Freddie and Fannie(and all of the foreclosure-destined American properties that are part of those twoGovernment Sponsored Entities) been accepted, the financial crisis would have never happened. Did Ambassador Wanta actually make such an offer? Yes he did. I have acopy of that offer made first to President George W. Bush and then, later, to PresidentBarack Obama.Thus, this little case (as the ICJ appears to view it based on the lack of action the case hasinspired) that is being ignored could be the key to unlocking the funds that would bemade immediately available to at least seven European nations I’m aware of (and theremay be some that I am unaware of). Are you aware of the importance of this case? If so,why is it taking so long to gain any momentum within the International Court of Justice?It is true that I am now a journalist and an author. When I retired, I went back to the firstcareer I had – before I became an internationally-known commercial banker and bank consultant/economist. Interestingly, my last speech given in Europe about private banking was given in Switzerland (Zurich) at the Dolder Grand Hotel in 1991. I went back to being a journalist and to writing books when I became disabled in 1993. Pleasekeep this internationally-recognized banking expertise in mind as you read my responseto Monsieur Bruttin in Lausanne because that legal matter involves the business of banking. I am better informed on that subject than the legal minds that have convicted aninnocent man of a non-existent crime… as the Lausanne Tribunal Decision does.Since this matter involves a legal filing already under consideration by the InternationalCourt of Justice, I contacted Princess Paula of the Principality of Snake Hill on theContinent of Australia – since the Commonwealth of Australia is now being sold on the New York Stock Exchange like Apple Computer, I apologize for not knowing what tocall it. I asked if I should make my correspondence with Premier President Bruttin a partof the Principality of Snake Hill versus the United States Government case already on filewith the International Court of Justice. We agreed that the enclosed information might beof assistance to you in making decisions regarding the charges brought by the Principalityof Snake Hill as they relate to Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta. Princess Paula kindly provided me with your name and address.If I am incorrect, please correct me. We have a different system of justice in Americathan in Europe… I respect those differences. That said, however, I am appalled that anyCourt anywhere in the civilized world would hand down a Court Tribunal Decisionwithout any representation for the Defendant... especially when the Defendant at the timeof his arrest paid an exorbitant sum of money to Suisse avocats to represent him. Noreference is made in the Tribunal Decision about these legal representatives who weremissing in action at the 17 November 2000 Tribunal proceedings. They were evidentlynot contacted. As I said, we have different systems of justice.
I am appalled at the basic errors contained in the Tribunal Decision that was handeddown. In my letter to Premier President Bruttin, I mention only a few that are quiteapparent on the first two pages of the Tribunal document. I could give you a list of whatI find offensive, but I am a banker, not a legal expert. Though I have worked with Courtsin America and have served as an Expert Witness in two major banking crime cases, Iwill leave it to your legal expertise to determine the lack of positive evidence – and theerrors (as proved by my enclosures) – along with the lack of Defendant representation inthe document titled Tribunal Decision.Perhaps my question to you should be: Since the Tribunal Decision was handed down on17 November 2000 (exactly 7 years to the day the Suisse authorities renditionedAmbassador Wanta to the United States where all charges against him were immediatelyDismissed by Federal District Court Magistrate Allyne Ross in New York on 19 November 1993), is this Tribunal Decision still within a Statute of Limitations for Appealwith the International Court of Justice?On 7 July 1993, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta was arrested by the Suisse Surete. On 20September 2011, I wrote to the Lausanne Courts asking for information about where Icould obtain Court transcripts of all legal/courtroom actions taken against Ambassador Wanta in 1993. Rather than sending me any documents from the date of theAmbassador’s arrest, I received a Court Tribunal Decision handed down seven (7) yearslater. Monsieur Wanta’s Ambassadorial Investiture was attended and witnessed by theForeign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe… a former Mayor of Paris. TheLausanne Surete preferred to disbelieve Ambassador Wanta’s claims of DiplomaticImmunity – a man appointed as the Somali Ambassador to Switzerland.Ambassador Wanta was held in Prison du Bois, Cell Number 130, Mermet, CH du Bois – Gentil, 1018 Lausanne, Switzerland from 7 July 1993 until 17 November 1993.As the enclosed documents from President Ronald Reagan’s Library and other sourcesclearly indicate, Ambassador Wanta was precisely who he said he was: an intelligenceoperative functioning on behalf of the President of the United States and the Ambassador to Switzerland (and Canada) for the Somali Government. The Suisse convenientlyoverlooked the fact that the Ambassador was entitled to Diplomatic Immunity in their nation. They chose to reject Leo Emil Wanta’s claim that he was the SomaliAmbassador… it was much more convenient for them to declare that he had mental problems, that he suffered delusions of grandeur. The enclosed documents suggest it wasthe Suisse Surete and the Tribunal Court in Lausanne who have difficulty dealing withreality and truth. All of the evidence I have found was available to them.The Suisse had to know of the legitimate Diplomatic Passports being carried byAmbassador Wanta. How do I know? Because when he re-entered the United States, heused DPP 04362. How do I know? A) I have his re-entry records; and, B) His U.S.Passport expired in August 1993. It was the only way he could have re-entered the U.S.
Add a Comment