Why does no one speak?

Lee Wanta

If we take the five banks technically defaulting in late January and utter silence prevailing, then the fake bonds, along with the March 23rd date pencilled into many diaries, to which a regular at my place, Wolfie, a mysterious chappy from the City, wrote:

We had a good laugh about this in the office today.

… and throw in the Lord Blackheath raising of the whole issue of financial slushfunds big enough to pay off the national debt, to which Wolfie comments:

I would argue that the US financial system has reached a point where the fraud is so prevalent that it is beyond function. Honest participants can no-longer compete and this should worry us greatly as most of these institutions have considerable holdings here and in Europe.

Financial fraud is too complicated and dry for the average citizen and that’s why it will not garner outrage until it collapses entirely.

… then we get some idea, apart from the media being bought, why such things are beyond any sort of comprehension or ability to deal with. That the Fed and the entire U.S. government, of either persuasion, has been complicit and criminal, is also beyond any standard blogging rhetoric we could muster.

They’ve been caught out but as they made the rules, nothing happens.  No one moves, no one wags a finger, no one does anything. They just sit there.  It’s a most bizarre situation.

And us – the blogosphere – where are we all on this?  Sure, Zero Hedge goes on about it and Karl Dennnger but where is the concerted outcry?  We perhaps need to come back to that comment of Wolfie’s:

Financial fraud is too complicated and dry for the average citizen and that’s why it will not garner outrage until it collapses entirely.

Perhaps we’re all just bewildered and troubles closer to our own life press in more nearly.  An American site has tried to tackle it:

At surface, it appears we have stumbled upon the largest terrorist organization in the world and have found original documents tracing its funding to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, two of the top financial officers in the US.  A cursory review of terrorism statues in the US indicate that all transactions we will learn about are, in fact, to be assumed “terrorist money laundering” and that the only thing preventing the immediate arrest of hundreds of top financial officials is their political connections alone.

Way beyond Tricky Dicky’s Watergate, way beyond Teapot Dome.

On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presented evidence of an illegal scheme begun, he has thus discovered, in 2009.  His documents including originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner, show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland.

The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefited shareholders in those banks.

As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.

The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000.  It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords.

I go to The Times and The Telegraph to see the ongoing journo take on this, a la Watergate, with fresh revelations each day.

Silence.  Not even a denial.

I have spoken with two individuals, one President Reagan’s intelligence coordinator and the other Chief Legal Cousel for the Central Intelligence Agency regarding these funds.  Both have indicated that former President Bush had asked that these funds, totalling $27 trillion, be transferred to his control, that threats were made by Bush and that many involved in this operation suffered, issues including murder, illegal arrest, torture and detention among them.

The individuals I am speaking of repeatedly met with President  Bush over these funds, disputed his claim to them, and indicate that the majority of the funds are the property of the people of the United States.

These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey.

And who’s Lee Wanta?

The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government.  A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding.  I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation.  That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents.

The other monies, which “likely” make up from the unspent portion of the missing $27 trillion, may well constitute all that is recoverable.

Wanta, sole shareholder in Ameritrust, has offered his companies share, valued by the court now at $7.2 trillion, entirely to the American people as intended by President Reagan.

So I try to find out about a man who is dealing with this level of money:

Either Wanta has claim to the entire amount or it is the property of the US government.  That no effort has been made to secure the funds or enforce criminal and civil remedies to recover enough money to pay the entire US national debt and more, as with earnings, we are nearing well over $30 trillion by this time, is an indication that a criminal conspiracy with enough influence to overrule our own government is involved.

This popped up but from 2010:

When I talked with Lee Wanta two days ago, the news was devastating. He is to be “taken down.” The Department of Justice, according to the lawyers with whom he spoke, had just said so. Many people know him as Leo Wanta, or Ambassador Leo (or Lee) Emil Wanta. In the following three articles, I refer to him as Leo when the reference is used to identify an intelligence operative working for the United States Government, and as Lee when referring to him after his unlawful arrest. I use his appropriate title of Ambassador when that reference is proper.

Now it’s getting complicated:

Since the April 2003 Court Opinion in Virginia, Lee Wanta has been trying to liquidate the corporations and their financial assets to pay taxes. 35 percent of $23 trillion would put about $8 trillion into our financially-strapped (read bankrupt) Treasury. The U.S. Government will not give him access to the funds so they can be liquidated. Until liquidation occurs, Lee Wanta cannot pay the taxes owed. Don’t ask me why – ask “them.”          

Forgive the ignorance but do you recall this doing the rounds of either the MSM or the sphere?

If not, why not?  Is $23 trillion not quite enough moolah to excite anyone?

12 comments for “Why does no one speak?

  1. Dave_G
    February 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    When ‘a’ person dies it’s a tragedy. When 6 million die it’s a statistic. $23 trillion is ‘meaningless’ despite its significance.

  2. Edgar
    February 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    …”do you recall this doing the rounds of either the MSM or the sphere?

    If not, why not?”

    Because it is all tinfoil hatted, batty, conspiratorial horseshit?

    • February 29, 2012 at 9:46 pm

      1. Right, you have inside info that the fund never existed, Edgar? Could you quote the clinching proof it’s all horseshit please.

      2. Do you have inside info on whether this is also horseshit?

      In May 2006, Lee Wanta transferred $4.5 trillion to the Bank of America in Richmond, VA from the Bank of China after he liquidated several of his Article 18 Section 6 companies.

      3. As you obviously know already, Edgar, he was first arrested in Switzerland:

      The Swiss said they didn’t believe his story about being an American covert intelligence operative. They decided the Ambassador was living in a fantasy world and committed him for psychiatric evaluation where they proceeded to pump him with drugs. In their November 17, 2000 Tribunal Decision from the Lausanne Courts, the Swiss admit finding 73 messages between Wanta and the FBI.

      Or do you know for certain that that’s horseshit?

      4. He was then tried in Wisconsin on tax charges [for which he obviously needed the Swiss psychological assessment]. Here is part of the transcript:

      COURT TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, PAGE 11

      …is a better way to phrase it. And I guess my question, Mr. Wanta, without getting into the details of the other things that Mr. Chavez has said, and that is that you understand that you have a right not to testify?

      THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m innocent of the charges and I want to prove it by testifying – by testifying with the exhibits.

      THE COURT: Please answer my questions. We’ll get to what you want to do. My question is, do you understand that you have a right not to testify?

      THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

      THE COURT: And as I understand Mr. Chavez and from what you just said, it is at least presently your desire to testify as a witness on your own behalf in this case; is that true?

      THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, because he has not called a single witness – a witness on my behalf. He has refused to. He claims that the State did not give him enough in his budget and all this other material.

      THE COURT: All right.

      That’s standard procedure in American courts is it?

  3. February 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    I read about that a while ago, but the sums are so large as to suggest implausibility, $23 trillion is equivalent to all the bank deposits in the entire Western world, give or take a bit. I doubt whether anybody has that much money, surely this chap would have shown up on the radar before?

    • February 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm

      You’re an accountant and you know these things are book entries. The suggestion is that what caught the govt out was the charge of non-payment of taxes. He said release the 4.5 trillion to me and I’ll pay your taxes. As you say, there was no 30 trillion in hard terms, e.g. gold – only figures in the air.

      The 30 trillion is a furphy. The real issue is the creative accounting and that’s what would bring these officials down, not so much the money itself.

  4. February 29, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    I see that the comment someone left, which I replied to below, was removed between the time it was posted and the time I published my comment. It referred to me being a Tory duffer and sucked in. It made reference to another blogger and Sky News, plus a spoof website, none of which have anything to do with the central issue, which was the speech in the Lords. My reply is below.

    ………..

    What we have from you is ad hominem, not argument. So you’re suggesting that Lord Blackheath is scamming people? Because in the Lords he said:

    “It gets more complicated than that because each of the 5 trillion payments which came in has been acknowledge and receipted by the senior executives of the HSBC and again receipted by the senior executives of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I have a set of receipts for the whole of this money. Why would any bank wish to sign 5 trillion … dollars worth, 15 trillion in total, if the money didn’t exist?”

    Now my question is whether he had those receipts or whether he didn’t. If he did, the question still exists, despite anything Anna Raccoon says or any spoof website which may well have sucked you in, WoaR. If he did have those receipts or he was scammed, then who scammed him and why?

    If he didn’t have those receipts, then he’s lying. Who is Lord Blackheath then and why did he lie? Why would he bring it up in the first place?

    You see, calling people duffers is not exactly facts or evidence but a statement in parliament that a man has receipts is unequivocal and raises questions.

    Be a little more careful with your spraying.

    Coming back to the issue – did HSBC and RBC sign for that amount of money? Accepting, as we all do here, that such a sum does not exist and the Indonesians made reference to this, accepting that Lord Blackheath might be a duffer and so might I, I still want an answer – did he see/have those receipts or letters of acknowledgment or not?

    Very simple question.

    Now, if he is not a charlatan and he has seen those, then WTF was going on at those banks? How did JPM and S.W.I.F.T. become involved?

    ………..

    Right, I’ve just read Anna Raccoon’s account:

    http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/lord-james-of-blackheath-wagging-a-wondrous-tale/

    … and it’s basically a piece of character assassination. Let’s take the few facts out of it we can, that Lord Blackheath is the patron of lost causes and that that there are scammers out in the wide world.

    Yep and what? It still doesn’t elicit the answer as to why they signed for that amount.

  5. Dave_G
    March 1, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Cause and effect. What do you suppose would be the outcome of a full investigation and disclosure of the ‘truth’? Something more pallatable than what we have right now?
    Personally I couldn’t give a rat’s @rse if the world came crashing down tommorrow but there are many, many more that COULD and do, respect that rodents nether regions.
    Putting it off for another week, month, year or whatever allows many thousands (perhaps millions) of people to carry on with their lives. Take Greece/the EU as a ‘minor’ model….
    Satisfying a need for ‘revenge’ may cost an awful lot more than mere money.
    In the fullness of time we can but hope that the guilty get their just desserts but meantime the innocent masses deserve to live their lives (even if in ignorance) for just that little bit longer.

    • March 1, 2012 at 8:06 am

      That’s persuasive, Dave and the bit “meantime the innocent masses deserve to live their lives (even if in ignorance) for just that little bit longer” is appealing. We’d like to live our lives forever in peace, un-interfered with by either State or cabal.

      This is not the plan these bstds have for us though and we’re to be harassed, goaded, cajoled and poked into cowering further, accepting greater privation, adjusting our lives to an opposite state than the ostentatious who are displaying their six figure salaries enjoy.

      So while we put off the evil day, all this becomes worse and worse personally for each of us – earning power, mortgages etc. Doing the ostrich is like alcohol – it blots it out for a time but the late morning when we wake up is always the same.

      What should we do? Demand, that’s all. Takes little effort and doesn’t cost any more than the postage stamp. One letter from each person, couched in whatever terms he likes, multiplied by a few thousand, causes them the trouble of replying or at least reading the thing.

      Or do we prefer head-down anonymity?

      • Dave_G
        March 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm

        “So while we put off the evil day…”

        …if only. We have no control of the ‘when’; we could possibly alter the ‘how’; we can certainly interfere in the ‘after’.

        “One letter from each person, couched in whatever terms he likes, multiplied by a few thousand, causes them the trouble of replying or at least reading the thing.”….

        … then tossing it in the bin and carrying on regardless. As you’ve already shown, if they ignore it then nothing happens.

        We are in this for the journey. We are passengers. No seat belt, no air bag.

        Car crash? You bet…..

  6. March 1, 2012 at 9:16 am

    The comment was withdrawn because I accidentally pressed publish before I meant to, and realized it within about ten seconds when I was no longer looking at a draft. Still, since you replied:

    The comment I quoted was from another commenter watching the Sky interview and referred to Lord James of Blackheath, not you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSJV64dOuLc

    Foindation X (lol) are OITC , a scam Investment entity. Their website is hilarious. Lord James, you ld duffer, tou have been stitched up a kipper!!! You stupid old Tory fart. Fuck off and sit in your garden or something!

    You coincidently (or is it…?) use the same name and, since I had precipitately pressed ‘post’ before editing it properly, misread both the direction and the source of the insult.

    You appear to be linking two stories. So let’s split them up as the link is not clear.

    Lord James is claiming that a shadowy outfit want to give us umpteen squillion pounds and they’ve approached a minor retired Lord to facilitiate it.

    Nobody can quite work out how this one works. Personally, I’m hoping it is a hobby of Sacha Baron-Cohen’s and he’s seeing how far he can push it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_International_Treasury_Control

    If Wiki is correct, it isn’t the first time this tale has been told.

    There is indeed a BIS and they issue scam warnings which apply in exactly these situations because they are fed up with people presenting documents apparently issued by them to substantiate these stories of free-floating wealth.

    http://www.bis.org/about/warning0405.htm

    Lord James of Blackheath is not a liar. He is, however, very in love with his own story – as are most victims of confidence tricks as that’s precisely what is needed for the illusion to work. Why don’t you ask him to show you the receipts from the bank and then see if you can verify them as real records of fakes?

    The second story is the Lee Wanta one, which seems essentially to be a man claiming to have made billions at end of the Cold War at the behest of Ronald Regan, backed by Chinese money. He seems to think that £4.5trn of it is his fee. Or something. Quite apart from the unliklihood of a lone currency trader making £23trn on Roubles I suppose the Chinese might say nothing about this but you have to get in to second derivative arguments as to why they’d not ask for their money back.

    The point about the Judge Retort – which is indeed a spoof site which fooled me – is that it ran the story some time ago as it hasn’t updated recently. I was trying to verify the date – they gave 2006 but I wasn’t sure if that was part of the joke – when I pressed post by mistake. Ooops. Your assertion was the story hadn’t been covered, mine is that it has, even to the extent of providing material for a parody.

    As for your question about American courts; yes, its up to a judge to satisfy himself that a competent adult is ignoring his counsel and intends to testify, which opens him very easily to self-incrimination. He’s trying to warn Wanta about the dangers but that’s not really his job. His job is to make sure the record shows he carried out the check that the witness is fit to testify and understands what this entails.

    I’m prepared to believe that there was money floating around loose at the end of the Cold War. There usually is in most wars. How much and who it belongs to is another question. It is not unknown for people to try to help themselves only to find their employers take a dim view of this.

    Apologies for the confusion. It’s a pity there isn’t a preview.

    • March 1, 2012 at 10:19 am

      Thanks, WoaR. I was wondering WTF was going on. Leaving that aside and looking at LJofB, he might well be easily conned and as I said about Anna Raccoon’s piece, what can we get from it?

      “Why don’t you ask him to show you the receipts from the bank and then see if you can verify them as real records of fakes?”

      This claim of his is a sensational claim. In this whole thing, I’m bewildered that no one is acting the way normal humans do. Why isn’t a statement made that if it weren’t for parliamentary privilege, he’d be sued? Why is it left entirely to pundits to trade counterblows over it?

      Why should Anna Raccoon need to dredge up a character assassination? What the hell business is it of hers anyway? Or of mine? Why should I be asking LJofB about his receipts? Where are the two banks making statements? Why should Lords reform be back on the agenda in the media at the same time?

      No one’s acting normally for innocent parties. If I’m innocent of an accusation, I quote chapter and verse and show that the accusation is false. If I’m guilty, I go to ground and say nothing, hoping it will blow over. I might create countercharges.

      Something’s gone on with these banks and a scam appears to have gone wrong. Someone called someone’s bluff. What we need to know is who did what? LJofB, for all his faults, stood up and asked about it. He received, variously, silence and character assassination – with the matter still unaddressed.

      Talk of spoof sites just doesn’t cut it. There were transcripts posted and if they were false, then the judiciary would have come after the scammer/spoofer. They don’t take such things lightly in the U.S.

      But no one’s done this. It’s not as if no one saw the transcripts – many have and what’s the reaction of the judiciary? Silence, just as with the two banks who allegedly acknowledged the amounts of money.

      You can’t go calling something a spoof when 1. the transcripts are there to see and have gone unchalllenged and 2. merely on your own assertion. There is a burden of proof here. Your assertion is what many would like to believe because assertions are easier to digest than trawling through evidence but the evidence is still there when all is said and done, undebunked.

      And that’s where we are. Any one of the major parties involved could come out and knock this thing on the head. They haven’t done so. Why not?

      • Peedoffwithbanks
        March 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm

        I wholly agree with James’s sentiment on this. James said if Lord James is lying then why?
        On the other hand, there is a lot to gain by discrediting Lord James. A tactic as old as the hills.
        I too cannot understand why there isn’t a big noise about this. Why isn’t somebody investigating to either confirm or deny the implications?
        Maybe they are busy ckvering their tracks and hope nobody has really paid attention to it.
        Should I ask my local MP

Comments are closed.