Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall

Banker, Bank Consultant, Author, Journalist 679 Brentwood Drive, #7 Palisade, CO 81526 (970) 464-5556 November 20, 2011 Monsieur Philippe Couvreur Registrar The International Court of Justice Peace Palace Carnegieplein 2 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands IN RE: LEO EMIL WANTA, PRINCIPALITY OF SNAKE HILL, CASE ALREADY ON FILE WITH ICJ/THE HAGUE Dear Registrar Couvreur: Enclosed please find a copy of my letter, this same date, to Monsieur Pierre Bruttin, La Premier President, Tribunal dArrondissement de Lausanne, Palais de Justice de Montbenon, 1014 Lausanne. Premier President Bruttin was most kind in providing information 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 (copy enclosed). Further, the transcript of the Lausanne Tribunal Courts Decision in the referenced matter is so filled with errors and oversights of truth, it represents a document any 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 Hill filed by Princess Paula) that could solve many of the economic woes of the European Union. Of the $4.5 trillion that was SWIFT-wired from the Peoples Bank of China to Ambassador Wantas company (as explained in the Snake Hill complaint already filed), AmeriTrust, at the Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia, USA (May 2006), President Ronald Reagan and Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta had established the Reagan/Mitterrand/Wanta Protocols. Under those Protocols, seven nations were to receive billions of dollars Russia, for example, was to receive $30 billion; Israel and Palestine were each to receive $5 billion. France, Germany, Great Britain and at least one other nation were also to receive billions of dollars. The truth is, if the American government had not stolen Ambassador Wantas access to these funds, the financial crisis caused by Wall Street greed in the form of mortgage-

backed derivatives would have never happened. Why? Because Ambassador Wanta offered to buy Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the two primary culprits of the faulty derivatives sold to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan, et al, came from Freddie and Fannie). Had Ambassador Wantas offer to purchase Freddie and Fannie (and all of the foreclosure-destined American properties that are part of those two Government Sponsored Entities) been accepted, the financial crisis would have never happened. Did Ambassador Wanta actually make such an offer? Yes he did. I have a copy of that offer made first to President George W. Bush and then, later, to President Barack Obama. Thus, this little case (as the ICJ appears to view it based on the lack of action the case has inspired) that is being ignored could be the key to unlocking the funds that would be made immediately available to at least seven European nations Im aware of (and there may 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 first career 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. Please keep this internationally-recognized banking expertise in mind as you read my response to 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 an innocent man of a non-existent crime as the Lausanne Tribunal Decision does. Since this matter involves a legal filing already under consideration by the International Court of Justice, I contacted Princess Paula of the Principality of Snake Hill on the Continent 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 to call it. I asked if I should make my correspondence with Premier President Bruttin a part of the Principality of Snake Hill versus the United States Government case already on file with the International Court of Justice. We agreed that the enclosed information might be of assistance to you in making decisions regarding the charges brought by the Principality of 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 America than in Europe I respect those differences. That said, however, I am appalled that any Court anywhere in the civilized world would hand down a Court Tribunal Decision without any representation for the Defendant... especially when the Defendant at the time of his arrest paid an exorbitant sum of money to Suisse avocats to represent him. No reference is made in the Tribunal Decision about these legal representatives who were missing in action at the 17 November 2000 Tribunal proceedings. They were evidently not contacted. As I said, we have different systems of justice.

I am appalled at the basic errors contained in the Tribunal Decision that was handed down. In my letter to Premier President Bruttin, I mention only a few that are quite apparent on the first two pages of the Tribunal document. I could give you a list of what I find offensive, but I am a banker, not a legal expert. Though I have worked with Courts in America and have served as an Expert Witness in two major banking crime cases, I will leave it to your legal expertise to determine the lack of positive evidence and the errors (as proved by my enclosures) along with the lack of Defendant representation in the document titled Tribunal Decision. Perhaps my question to you should be: Since the Tribunal Decision was handed down on 17 November 2000 (exactly 7 years to the day the Suisse authorities renditioned Ambassador Wanta to the United States where all charges against him were immediately Dismissed 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 Appeal with the International Court of Justice? On 7 July 1993, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta was arrested by the Suisse Surete. On 20 September 2011, I wrote to the Lausanne Courts asking for information about where I could obtain Court transcripts of all legal/courtroom actions taken against Ambassador Wanta in 1993. Rather than sending me any documents from the date of the Ambassadors arrest, I received a Court Tribunal Decision handed down seven (7) years later. Monsieur Wantas Ambassadorial Investiture was attended and witnessed by the Foreign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe a former Mayor of Paris. The Lausanne Surete preferred to disbelieve Ambassador Wantas claims of Diplomatic Immunity 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 Reagans Library and other sources clearly indicate, Ambassador Wanta was precisely who he said he was: an intelligence operative functioning on behalf of the President of the United States and the Ambassador to Switzerland (and Canada) for the Somali Government. The Suisse conveniently overlooked the fact that the Ambassador was entitled to Diplomatic Immunity in their nation. They chose to reject Leo Emil Wantas claim that he was the Somali Ambassador 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 was the Suisse Surete and the Tribunal Court in Lausanne who have difficulty dealing with reality 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 by Ambassador Wanta. How do I know? Because when he re-entered the United States, he used 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.

At the time the Lausanne Tribunal Decision was handed down, the Suisse had access to documents that support the innocence of Ambassador Wanta. Please find enclosed a copy of a document from AmeriTrust Corporation, marked Exhibit A. This document was sent to Monsieur Felix Paschoud, Avocat, Garrard, Paschoud, Heim & Associates in Lausanne more than two years before the Tribunal Hearing. A later copy of the document was sent directly to Juge DInstruction, The Honorable J. Antenen under the Dossier Number JAN/48/95. So, there were defense documents available to the Lausanne Tribunal Court. The Suisse were obviously not interested in finding the truth. They needed to justify their unjustifiable, unlawful behavior that occurred 7 July 1993 when Ambassador Wanta was unlawfully arrested, imprisoned, given drugs for a non-existent mental condition, and then renditioned back to the United States where all charges against him were dropped. This was kidnapping, pure and simple. I will be glad to provide whatever further evidence you need to prove the arrest of Ambassador Wanta was unwarranted and unlawful. When I first wrote to the Suisse authorities requesting information about the Wanta case as of 7 July 1993, I was open to accepting any reasonable facts that could stand up against the rather massive amount of information that shouts the innocence of this man. I have spent the past three years researching his experiences. I have traveled to prisons where he was held, talked with case managers at the prison, received court transcripts from five Wisconsin counties, and received the Lausanne Tribunal Decision. At the current time, discussions about filming the book I am writing, Swan Song for a Crooked Shadow a book about the life of Ambassador Wanta are in process. A private investigator is working on filing a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charge against the Wisconsin Department of Revenue as I write this letter. If, indeed, the skullduggery it appears happened in Switzerland on 7 July 1993 did occur, it seems to me it would be far better for the International Court of Justice to bring it forward than an American law suit filed against racketeers. At the time of his arrest, Ambassador Wanta controlled (U.S.) $27.5 trillion. The case filed by Princess Paul deals with the (U.S.) $4.5 trillion that was actually sent in 2006 by SWIFT transfer by the Peoples Bank of China to the Bank of America in Richmond, VA. Such vast amounts of money can tempt even the most honest public servant. Did that occur in Switzerland? I dont know I only know it appears it occurred. And, because Ambassador Wanta was known in American political circles to have been the intelligence coordinator for President Ronald Reagan and because intelligence agencies in this country knew about the huge sums of money Ambassador Wanta controlled money that could have prevented the current financial crisis, money that could help Europe now it is also possible that the Suisse Surete was set up by American intelligence operatives.

What I do know is that justice was dealt a tragic blow that day of 7 July 1993. The ramifications of that blow still have the monetary systems of two continents dizzy and destabilized. The International Court of Justice has the opportunity to change that and I hope you will. Sincerely,

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall Enclosures: 1. One-page bio, Barnewall 2. AmeriTrust Document, Exhibit A 3. Documents sent to Monsieur Pierre Bruttin, La Premier President, Tribunal dArrondissement de Lausanne, Palais de Justice de Montbenon, 1014 Lausanne.

cc :

Ambassador Leo E Wanta