United States Supreme Court Case Could Impact WI Department of Revenue Case No. 92-CF-683

Oct 18, 2013 by

United States Supreme Court Case Could Impact  WI Department of Revenue Case No. 92-CF-683

From:  Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta

Date:   10 18 2013, 1:05 PM

To:      HPSCI_Intelligence Committee<Intelligence.HPSCI@mail.house.gov>;

Subject:  United States Supreme Court Case Could Impact _ WI Department of Revenue_Case No. 92-CF-683


To: POTUS_U.S. President Barack H. Obama

Cc: “First Lady, Nancy Reagan”; Attorney General Eric Holder; Counselor Gene Sperling ; SEC_Chair Mary Jo White; DNI_Lt General James R Clapper; NSA_General James Jones; SEC_Chair Mary Jo White; POTUS_Office of the President; OVP_Vice President Joe Biden; WH_Chief of Staff_Denis McDonough; NEC_Director Gene Sperling; US Supreme Court_Chief Justice John G Roberts; Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter ; Stephanie Cutter; U.S. Speaker John Boehner; U.S. Speaker John Boehner; U. S. President Barack Obama; WI_Justice Pat Roggensack; Austria_Fin Min Maria Fekter; POTUS_U.S. President Barack H. Obama; IMF_Christine Lagarde_M.D.; General Charles Jones III; HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius; First Lady_Nancy Reagan; United States of America; Chairman Nout Wellink; US President Al Gore; US President Al Gore; Lt Gov Rebecca Kleefisch; OVP_Chief of Staff Bruce Reed; US Speaker of the House_John Boehner; WI_Governor Scott Walker
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: United States Supreme Court Case Could Impact _ WI Department of Revenue_Case No. 92-CF-683




                       STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF, – vs – LEO E WANTA, DEFENDANT. CASE No. 92 – CF – 683;


US$ 14,129.00


TITLE  18  USC Section 4  –  Misprision of Felony


Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

DUTY, HONOR and COUNTRY –  w / Calm and American Courage


Ambassador Leo E Wanta

The Principality of Snake Hill

Country Codes :    QS    QSH     923 

USA (202) 379 2904 ext. 001

Email: snakeprincipality@yahoo.com

Telefon :  614  6985  7197



U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case Against UnConstitutional Asset Forfeitures Against Citizens Awaiting Trial

October 17, 2013 by Ben Bullard




If citizens awaiting trial are truly innocent until they have been proven guilty in court, why does the state have the power to commence their punishment (and cripple their chances of a solid legal defense) from the moment of their indictment?


The Supreme Court will hear a case this week that could shape the future of Federal forfeiture laws, laws that allow the state to seize and freeze the assets of the accused. Aside from violating the 5th Amendment (which guarantees the government cannot seize personal property without due process), as well as the 6th Amendment (which ensures the accused a right to legal counsel of their choosing), forfeiture laws also effectively return the burden of proof to the accused by robbing them of the wealth they could otherwise use to pay for a robust legal defense.


Before the high court is the case of Kerri and Brian Kaley, a New York couple who in 2007 were charged in a seven-count indictment with illegally receiving obsolete or overstocked medical equipment tossed aside by Ethicon, the device company that employed Kerri Kaley, and conspiring to resell the equipment to a Miami-based distributor.


At no time has Ethicon ever alleged that the Kaleys stole any of the equipment the company had voluntarily disposed of. Rather, the couple learned in 2005 that they were the target of a Federal investigation into the growing “gray market” for unneeded medical devices caught in the bureaucratic limbo between vendors, which didn’t want them anymore, and hospitals, which routinely render unused devices obsolete by adopting newer, pricier equipment as it becomes available.


The Kaleys had retained Miami criminal defense attorney Howard Srebnick, who has remained on the case throughout its long history. The couple had planned to finance their long and expensive legal battle chiefly via a $500,000 home equity loan against their property, which they converted to certificates of deposit. After their indictment, the government seized all of that with the expectation that the Kaleys would never get the money back once they had been found guilty (or had pleaded to some of the charges).


As Reason succinctly stated in a Wednesday piece, the pre-trial forfeiture assures prosecutors that the Kaleys “can no longer afford to pay the lawyers they chose and trust, the people who have been representing them for eight years and are familiar with the details of their case.”

According to The Miami Herald, Srebnick, the Kaley’s longtime attorney, will argue before the Supreme Court that his clients:

…should be allowed to keep their bank accounts and other worldly possessions unless prosecutors can show before trial that the evidence supporting an indictment justifies the seizure of those assets.

For decades, prosecutors have only needed to point to a federal grand jury indictment to argue that defendants’ assets are traceable to the criminal allegations and therefore can be seized. And judges have almost always ruled in the prosecution’s favor because of the presumption that the grand jury found “probable cause” that a crime was committed.

The Kaleys’ chances, though, appeared to be better than those of many defendants. In a related but separate case arising out of the Federal investigation, fellow Ethicon employee Jennifer Gruenstrass went to trial and was found not guilty.


Related Posts


Share This

Leave a Reply