P. 1
22 Memorandum

22 Memorandum

|Views: 77|Likes:
Published by Juan Viche
22_U.S. DISTRICT COURT_EASTERN DISTRICT_VIRGINIA_ALEXANDRIA_Civil Ac
Posted by: "Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta" somam@prodigy.net somam@prodigy.net
Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:16 am (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta included below]



" In God We Trust "

This statement will be on every email that I send out from now on,
because I do not want Our Individual Right to say it to go away ....
forever and a day.

Ambassador Lee Wanta
(202) 379 2904 ext 001


Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta

1 of 1 File(s)
22_MEMORANDUM
22_U.S. DISTRICT COURT_EASTERN DISTRICT_VIRGINIA_ALEXANDRIA_Civil Ac
Posted by: "Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta" somam@prodigy.net somam@prodigy.net
Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:16 am (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta included below]



" In God We Trust "

This statement will be on every email that I send out from now on,
because I do not want Our Individual Right to say it to go away ....
forever and a day.

Ambassador Lee Wanta
(202) 379 2904 ext 001


Attachment(s) from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta

1 of 1 File(s)
22_MEMORANDUM

More info:

Published by: Juan Viche on Mar 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/26/2012

pdf

text

original

FEBRUARY·MARCH 2006

DOCUMENT

37

IN THE UNITED

STATES OISTRICT
ALEXANDRIA

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF VIRGINIA DIV;tSION

~R~T~_;:_~

r- .' l; ;J I
lLr.

"-:·1

I ..

Il

... __ ~

l~ .

AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA,

I:

l__.-.... ~....
c..enl'., L' e

APR I 52003

"'-,:' ..
I•

j,
;"

.

Plaint1f'f, V.

}
)

.L Civil Action

M.t..\.~~i! ,,, ', ':.' • ,_j .;.,

.. '" ~

)
)

No. 02-1363-A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

)
)

}
)

THIS MATTER is

befor~ the

CI)Urt

on

Defendants the Un! ted Plaintiff

States

of AInerica. et al.'s, mot.ion to. dismiss Leo Wanta's
watter

Ambaseador
of subject

claim of breaoh of contr~¢t based on lack
and on Plaintiff's motion

jurisdiction

to amend

his complaint. should

The iesue before tha Court i$ whether

the Court

dismiss

an alleged secret government
the Director

agent's

claim against

the Attorney Agency,

General,

of the Cantral

Intelligence

the Secre.tary of the Treasury matter jurisdict.ion.

and the Gove:cnment· based on
The Court grants

lack of subject Defendanta' Procedure
!lovereign

motion to di5miss pursuant to Federal Rule of Ci-vil 12(b) (1) because the Go~ernment has not waived
the

immunity and publ-ic p()l.icy forbids

adjudication

of

a suit relating
contract.

to mlltters of an. alleged national
denie5 Plaintiff's motion

security

The Court

to .,mend his

complaint

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
would be futile.

15(a} because

such an action

PAGE 1 of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which. having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off·balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18. Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Intemal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding'. This Court·affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after seizure offinancial assets that belong tothe US Government - and which would preferthatthe source of these and otherhklden giga·funds were never revealed in order for past and planned illegal thefts of such assets to be covered up in perpetuity. So far, this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it affirms Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellous allegations that Mr Wanta is dishonest, like the criminal operatives concemed. Their problem is that he is not - a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective. it cannot be imagined that MJl US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew,

38

DOCUMENT

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

Plaintiff

al1eges

that he aerved

as a sacret

agent~ employee

and lor independent

contractor

of the United

States

gov&~nment
of

and that the scope at: his duties
the National complaint Security

f@l11 within

t~Q provision.s

Act of 1947A

(compl. at 1 1.,
1992,

His
and a no~

furthe~ alleges

that in April

Plaintiff

deceased
Agreement
(Id.

third party t'oreign nat:i.o1').al
C'the Agrl!.ement") W"ith the The purpose

executed a Tax Treaty
United
l

State~

90"lerrunent.

at

'I[

5. t

of thE~ Agreement
tS

co.mm.encinq on June and

11, 1995. was to provida for Pla:lntiff retirement from his service

termination

with the United

Statal!!government. the

lId.)

Despite Plaintiff's repeated. demands for performance,

United States government has raf"lls~d the Agreement.
(rd.

to

comply

with tbe ter.ID$of
seeks an

at

i 6_)

.p!.~

a :result# Plaintiff

order

from theCollrt

requiring

the United

States,

inter ali.!, to

comply with their responsibilities
Agreement for breach
01=(

under the t~r.ros the of

alternatively,

to pay him $1.0

billion in damages

of contract.

(td. at ii 21, 23.)

~

~aDga,d

of Review to

The Court may considar a Motion to Pisnu.ss pursuant

Federa~ Rule of Civil Procedure 12(0) (1) by eKamining "'{t) the complainL. alone. (2) the complaint
2
PAGE 2. of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret ServiceJTreasury intelligence offICer,in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of litle 18. Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding', This Court-affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of 1he US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lu$ling after seizure offinancial assets that belong to the US Govemment- andwhich wouldpreferthatthe source of~ and other hidden giga-funds were never revealed in orderforpast and planned H/egaltheftsof such assets to be covered up in peJpetuity. So far,this crucial document has been largely suppressed. as it affinns Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and de$1Toys groundlE15S libellous allegations that MrWanta is dishonest. like the criminaJ oper.rtives concerned. Theirproblem Il11d is that he is not - a conteptthey cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that .im¥US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

supplemented

l::ly und.isputed

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

DOCUMENT

39

facte evidenced in the record; or {3) the complaint supp1ementeq

by undi~puted
facts •• "

facts plus the eourt's resolution
v, Un~ted' State:s~

of disput$d
2-d 691r 694

See Hostetler

97 F. Supp.

(E_D. Va. 2000)

(quotinq Nll1iamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413

(5tll Cir_ 1991)}.
j urisdict.ion

The burden of E~stablishing subject matter
wi.th the plaint;itf. Ove_r. gntJ:actual C

lies

Id. at 695. Claims Aga~nst the Qnited

£..

Jukisdj,cta.,gn

Stite.S
The Unit~d States Court of J~ed$%'alClaims has exclusive

jurisdiction

over any contractual

claims aqainst

the United 28 U.S.C. S

States for monetary datt',ages e:![cess $10,000. in of
1491 (a) (1) • In this case,

Plain'tiff

seeks

specifiC pel:'formanca

of the Agreement of the Agreement. ~

or $1.0 billion in monetary

damages for breach

Inability

of this Coprt-to Prcyidt ~guitab~e Relief venue

Plaintiff argues that this Court is the appropriate

for: this suit because the purported Agreement between the parties provides federal for arranqements
income taxes

concerning the payment of Plaintiffl;s and

resulting i:rom the liquidation
from var:~ous foreign

distribution corporations. action against

of aS5ets

and. domest;1c

This Court has subject the United State,s

matter jurisdic,:ion

over an

for any incorrect collection.

or wrongful a.ction under

assessment

of federal

taKes

or .an illege.l

3
PAGE:3 of u.s. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Servlce/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding'. This Court-sffirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after seizure of financial assets that belong to the US Government - and which would prefer that the source of these and other hidden giya-funds were never revealed in order for past and planned illegal thefts ofsuch assets to be covered up in perpetuity, So far, this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it affirms Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellous allegations that Mr Wanta is dishonest, like the criminal operatives concerned, Their problem is that he is not- a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective. it cannot be imaginedthat1!llj{US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

40

DOCUMENT

FEBRUARY.MARCH 2006

the Internal

Revenue

Code.

See 28 v.S.C.

~ 1346{a) (l). of the

However,

despite Plainti£fls Agreement~

clar~f~cation the purpose of

he aoes not claim that he i$ attempt~ng

to recover any

payment~

or a8ae~sments of taxes by the United States.
that theterme of theA9.r:eem~nt

Instead#
a

Plainti.ff asserts

establish

fonnulll that determines liquidation corporations, of aS8ets

the amount: of income taxes owed for the i~ various foreign and domestic to the

as well as the timi.ng for those tax payments

Un1ted States government. The Court; however, is pzec Luded fronl.intervening

in .a

dispute

involving

the calcula.tion of income taxes owed before. an

assessment is made aqainst the taxpay~r or tha t~xpayer t&naars
payment_ The Anti-Injunction Act provides

that " •.•

no suit

for the purpose
any tax shall

of restrai.ning the aSS$IiliSlllent or collection
be mainta.:i.ned in a;n.y cour-t; by any person, is the person
§

of

whether

or not such person

again~t

whom ~uch tax was

a$~essed."

26 U.S.C.

7421(a).

A court does not have the right

to int~r:fare with. the collection or assessment of fed.eral taxes.
Intll Lotto Fund v. 591 (4th Cir. 1994).

virginia State Lottery Dep't~ 20 F.Jd 589,
A oo~rt ro.ayissue an injunction prohibiting

the a$~eSSl'l\ent or collection of taxes the Gov@rnment could in no eircumstances
the merits and that equity
j uriEldiction

"only if it is clear that
ultimately ·exist~ . n

prevail on Prof' 1 Eng' r s ,

Inc. v.United SttJtes, 527 F.2d 597, 600 n.l (4th C1r. 1975}.

PAGE 4 of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence offICer,n respect of the disposition of off·balance sheet US Government i intelligence funds held in accounts of Title18, Section 6 corporations offshore. the Judge pronounced that 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Intemal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding'. This Court-affirmedstatement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting aitef seizure of financial asselsthat belong to the US Govemment- and which wouldpreferthat the source of theseandother hidden giga.funds were never revealed in order for past and planned inegal thefts of such assets to be oovered up in petpetuity. So far, this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it affinns Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellous allegationsthat Mr Wanta is dishonest like the criminal operatives concerned. Theirproblem is that he is not - a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that !!!1't US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

DOCUMENT

41

Furthermore.
result

application

of the ~~ti-Injunction provided

Act does

not can

in a denial

of due process action.

that the ta~payer The Plaintiff
that

seek redress

in a refund

rd. at 600.

has

not demonstrated

that his position

is so compelling

only he,

and not the government, cobld prevail. Cl,1rrently seek

Nor does the E'laintiff
of

to recover any payments or assessments

federal income taxes or assert th.at he was denied judicial in a refund action.
injunctive relief Accordingly, in this matter.

review any

this Court cannot provide
Since the Plaintiff's

claim

against the United States 90ver~lent would appear to be
contractually based,

the appropl:iat.e venue for this action is

the United States Court of Federal Claims.

A Federal
b~

Rule of Civil
i~

Procedure

12(b)

(Q)

motion

should

not

granted unless

appears beY'::Ind doubt that a
in sup:~ort
Fed. R.

the plaintiff
that would

can prove no tJlet of facts entitle

of h.i.s claim

nim to relief.

Civ. P. 12 (bl (6};
!n considering

Conley v.

Gibson, 355

u.s.

41, 45-46

(1957).

a ~ul. in the
as a

12{b) (6) motion, light most

the Court must construe the complaint

favorable to the plaint~fr,

read the complaint
43

whole, and take the facts asserted

therein
(4th

true.
1993).

Mylan Labs,
Conclusory

Inc.

v,

Matkari,

7 F.3d

1130,

1134

Cir.

5
PAGE 5 of U,S, District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding', This Court-affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after seizure offinancial assets that belong to the US Government - and which would prefer that the source of these and other hidden giga-funds were never revealed in order for past and planned illegal thefts of such assets to be covered up in perpetuity. So far. this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it affirms Mr Wantil's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellous allegations that Mr Wanta is dishonest, like the criminal operatives concerned, Their problem is that he is not - a concept they cannot understand. as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that.my US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew,

42

DOCUMENT

FEBRUAR~MARCH 2006

allegation:!' regarding not be accepted. 1995) _ provide

the legal e.f(ect of the facta alleged 921

need

See Labram v. Havel .. 43 F.3d.918.

(4th Ci.l:.

Because. the central th~ defepdant' .... fair

purpose of the complaint

is.t(')

noti<;e o;f what the pli!i.ntiff~ s claim

is and the ground.5 upon 'Which it rests,," the plaiptiff'.s l¢gal .!Ill~gb.tion$ must be supported. by !i\omefactual basj,s ~uffici.ent to

allow the defendants
tJ. S. at 41 ~
construe:>,

to prepare

H

fair z:e$ponse.

Conl~Yr 355

This

initial

~tanda:cd aetrs out how the Court

the Complaint. Contrary
to.

2.....

{lublic

PgJ.:~
.t

The Pla1nti.:ff be granted

fails

to stat!3

claim uponwhj,ch

.re11~f may

by thl" Court or the !Jn1 ted States

Court of Federal claim .!gainst the to the United
However,

Claimel.

Because

the Aqreement

is a contractual

United States tor more than
3ta.'=es Court

~no~ooo, transftu:

of Federal Claims would be appropriate.

the tran$feree
jurisdiction

court must also possess subject matter
the case ..

for this Court to be able<to transfer o£ FeQe~al

The United Sta~e~Court

Claims cannot order sp@cif1c in thi.s suit

performance as
c:t

o:r award d.arna.g'88 of public po~ic;y.
of any $uit

fox breach of contract "'Public policy

matter

foxl::!ictsthe
of which law lOS.

maintenanc.e

in a cOt:.rt of justice,t;.hetrial

would inevitably regardsa$ 107 (1875).

lead to the d1~~clOlJureof matters Tott:~m v. United States,

which the 92 U.S.

confidentiaL'" The Pliiintiff

cont~!nd.s that

the Aqre~ment does not

6
PAGE6 of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies Clvaililbleto leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury inteUigence officer. in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore. the Judge pronounced that 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations

enue Code and then challenge the assessment

and report these transactions

certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after seizure offinancial assetsthatbelong to the US Govemment- and which would prefer that tf1e soun:e of these and other hicJdeII giga-funds were never revealed ill order for past "nd planned meg,,1 thefts ofStJCh assets to be covered up in pe!petuity. So far, this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it affirms Mr Wama's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and flbellous allegationsthatMr WiIIlta is dishonest, like the criminal operatives concerned. Theirproblem is that he is not- a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that <mJ(USintelligance officeris not also as bent as a corkscrew.

of any taxes in a refund proceeding'. This Court-affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over

to the Internal Revenue ServiGe in accordance

with the Internal Rev·

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

DOCUMENT

43

involve a contract fo~ services.

Instead. he states that the

Agreament provides a mechanism for thQ timing and payment of income taxes resulting from the dist~ibution and liquidation
various domestic

of

and foreign corporations that the plail'ltiff

~eeablish~d whil~ employQd by thE' United State~ 90vernmen~. Plaintiff also unequivocally states that certain terrt\!;l the of

A9reement may be subject to the National Security Act of 1947. (Compl. at 'i l.) Despite Plaint:.ff' s attempt to lnollify his

original ·statement by saying that the prov';"sioneof the Agreament relating to the tax paymente are not cov.r~d
by the National

Security l\ct, the Court must conclude,
initial

based on Plaintiff's

statern&nt and his failurl;! to 4ttach a copy of the

Agreement

to· his complaint, that the Agreement

involves secret or

covert activit1e~ ~

subject to the National Security Act of 1947.
Immunity

Failure to Establisn_a9ye~ign

Even assuming,

arguencio~ th,at the Aqraem6nt is not subject

to the National

Seeurity Aot of 1947( the Plaintiff cannot

demonstrate that the United States Court of Federal Claim$ ha$
subject matter jurisdiction. Sea McNutt v. GMAC, 29S U.S. 178, to The 182, las (1936) (stating that the burden is on the plaintiff demonstrate Plaintitf that a court has sutject matter juri~diction).

has sued the federal g'overronent as well aq three named

federal officials in their officia.l capacities to obtain specific perform~nce of the Agreement or, alternatiYely, monetary damages

7
PAGE 7 of u.s. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Intemal Revenue Service in accordanc::e with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding'. This Court·affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta'spowers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for eriminallsed elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerfuJ barons believed to be lusting after seizure of financial assets that belong to the US Government - and which would prefer that the source of these end ather hidden gi!Jil-funds were never revealed in orderiorpast and planned iUega/ thells of such assets to be covered up in peIpeIuity. So far,1his crucial document has been largelv suppressed, as it affinns Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellous allegations that Mr Wanta is dishonest, like the criminal opel'atives concerned. Their problem is that he is not - a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that ~ US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

44

DOCUMENT

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

for:b~each officerie

of the A9T@ement. A s'uit

aqo!iins.t such a federa;;'

deemed to be a suit against the federa.l gO'll'erJUllfint. 159f 165-66 (1965).. 'l'hus,this su.it

Kentuckyv. Grabam,473 U.S. rests exclusively
The United so't"ereign powers" prospective

aga!.ns.t th.e federal
is

sovere;lgn.

States, unle$$

immum~from suit based. on its is granted to to be i'ued
445

consetlt to suit The Unit~d

litiqanto.

Sta.tes' cortsent
United States

must be expX:~Bs andul'leqlJiYocaJ..

v. M.i.tch~ll,

n, S. 535,

538

(19~ 0) •

The

P'lain'ti.ff has fai.!.ed to demonstrate

that the United states haa expre9s1y consented tooe
matter. provid.e
Wh~le the

sued in thi&

all"i!9'E'idAqree:raent between

the

pal:'ties may

such

con~entr the P'laintifi

has elected

nQt to attach

a

copy or the Agreement to the Complaint to support that such consent exists. Without
sovereign

express

con:~ent, only Congre:Js can 'IotClive the
Block v.NorthDakot.!L,

immunity of the United States.

461 u. S. 273, 2B7 {1983).

congl:'ess has adopted

l~HJislation

that

provides

for a waiver of sovereig;J.immunity

iO$uits

for
(APA)~ 5

equitab~e relief.

See Admini,str~tive Procedure$" Act

U.S.C.§.
theAPA

701, et seq.

HoweV'er, relief may not be available
this remedy. 5 O.S.C.
§

und&r

if other statutes prohibit

'701(a} (1).
precludes

The Anti~InjUnct1on

Act, !!s pre-viously discussed,
26 U.S.C. :§ 742l

such re~ie:f in this cnse<.

{disallowing lawsuit$

that inte.::,fera w1"th the asaeasment or

8
PAGE8 of u.s. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta. the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the eorporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Rev·
certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after seizureoffinancial assets that belong to1he US Govemment-andwhkh would prefer that the source of these and other hidden giga-funds were never revealed in order for past and planned iJlegalthefts of such asseIsto be covered upin perpetuity. So far, this crucial document has been largelv suppressed, as itaffinns Mr Wanta's legitimate poweISand destroys groundless and libellous allegirtionsthat Mr Wanta is dishonest, like the criminal operatives concerned. Their problem is that he is not-a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that ~US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

enue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taKes in a refund proceeding'. This Court-affirmed statement confirmed Mr Wanta's powers over

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2006

DOCUMENT

45

~ollection of federal income taxes).

LiJl!:eWiss, he Declaratory t

Judgment Act expressly exc1udes actions relatin9 to fe~eral
taxes. 28 U.S.C.
§

2201; Pr~f'l Engtrs, 527 F.2d at 600.

The

Plaintiff cannot establish that ~he Un~ted states sued.

consents to be Claims
of the

As a ~Qsult~ the United States Court of Federal

would be precluded from o~dering specific performance hqreement since federal l,:gwprohi.bits

a waiver of sovereign

immuni ty in matters taxes.

invol ving a:5~ieesment and collection of income becauee the Urlited States Court of Federal

Therefore,

Claims is prohibited
would

from granting relief in this matter,

it

be futile for this Court to transfer this ease.

Although

<!

court

may allow ci party

to amend its

complaint

when it i~ in the interests of justice under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a). such act.Lon in thiliO ca.se would
Khand.;::lW'4.l

not further

the intSl.x.-ests Supp. 1077
1

of justice.

v. Compuadd

COrp. r 7130 t. were allowed

1092 {E.D.Va. 1992}.

Even if Plaintiff

to amend his complaint to dismiss his claim for breach of contract, this Court would continue to lack subject Matter
in thi8 ca~e

jurisdiction

because the remaining cla~

seeks

specific

gerformance

of a contract

lnvolvinq the United State$
of

government

and jurisdiction lies in the United States Court

Federal Claims.

How~ver, as discussed previously,

the Court may

not transfe~ this matter to the United States Cour~ of Federal

9 PAGE9 of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer,in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of litle 18, Section 6 corporations offshcre, the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Intemal Revenue Servioe in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceedin9'. This Court-affirmedstatement confirmed MrWanta's powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lustingafterseizure offinancialassets that belongto the US Government- and which would prefel' thatthe source of these and other hidden giga·funds were never revealed in order for past and planned illegal thefts ofsuch assets to be covered up in perpetuity. So far,this crucial document has been largelysuppressed, as it affirms Mr Wanta's legitimate powers and destroys groundless and libellousanegations that Mr Wanta is dishonest like the criminal operatives concerned. Theirproblem isthat he is not - a concept they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that !lID' US intelligenceofficeris not also as bent as a corkscrew.

46

DOCUMENT

FEBRUAR~MARCH2006

Claims.

Nor would an amended complaint

cl!ange thil5 Court's,

ability to provide equitable relief in this matter sinci} Plaintiff doe~ not: seek recovery of payment or assessment

of

Complaint would net remove Plaintiff's bar trom.suing the United State$ government because he lacks express censent or a waiver ot'
that would

sove~eign immunity by the United States government

allow the United States Court of ~ederal Claims to have subject m ..ter jl.tr,;i.sdictionthi.acase. t in Therefore, the Court denias

Plaiati.ff's motion

to amend his complaint

beoause such an action
matter is to

would. be l:l,ltile. l?laintif"t's proceed

soJ,e ramedy Ln this

with the liquidation of the corporations and report the.se
to the Internal Re~~nue Service in accordance with

transactions

the Internal Revenue Code and th·en ehal~enge the asseSS%l\lii!ntof any taxes in a refund proceeding.

See Int'] Lotto F~nd, 20 F.3d ~

at 591.

.uL.
o~ subject matter

~EWSIOlf

The Court grants Oefendant~' motion to dismi.$1a Oased on lack jurisdiction anQ failure to state a cla2m on

which relief may be granted.

The Court denies Pla~ntiff'a motion

to amend his complaint.

enue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding' [SEE ABOVE]. This Court--affirmed statementoonfinnedMr Wanta's
powers over certain USG corporations and presented serious problems for criminalised elements of the US intelligence community and overpowerful barons believed to be lusting after segure of financial assets that belong to the US Government - and which would prefer that the source of these and other hidden giga-funds were never revealed in order for past andpfannec/ iflegal thefts ofsuch assets to be covered up in perpetuity. Sofar. this crucial document has been largely suppressed, as it aflinns Mr Wama'sJegitimate powers and destroys groundless andlibeJlous aHegationsthat Mr Wanta is dishonest. like 1he criminal operativesconcemed. Their problem is that he is not -a concept that they cannot understand, as in their perspective, it cannot be imagined that lill¥ US intelligence officer is not also as bent as a corkscrew.

PAGE 10 of U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's crucial Memorandum Opinion dated 15th April 2003, in which, having exhausted the remedies available to Leo E. Wanta, the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury intelligence officer, in respect of the disposition of off-balance sheet US Government intelligence funds held in accounts of Title 18, Section 6 corporations offshore. the Judge pronounced that: 'Plaintiff's sole remedy in this matter is to proceed wi1h the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Rev·

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->