UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
In re: )
)
Ambassador Leo Wanta, Somalia ) Court
of Appeals Case No:
Ambassador to Canada )
and Switzerland, DPP#-04362 ) _________________
& 12535, aka Lee E. Wanta, )
aka Leo E. Wanta; )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
State of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit )
Court presently presiding judge over )
Case No. 92-CF-683; and )
)
James E. Doyle, Attorney General of the )
State of Wisconsin; and )
)
Such other parties within the State of )
Wisconsin subject to the Orders of this )
Court to satisfy the requested relief, )
)
Respondents, )
_______________________________________________________________________
"PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS and/or
INJUNCTIVE OR DECLARATORY RELIEF"
Petitioner through undersigned
counsel submits the following in support of
this Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunctive
or Declaratory Relief:
I. RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. Writ of Mandamus and/or
appropriate Orders from this Court to the State
of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit Court directing
dismissal and vacating of Case No. 92-CF-683,
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Leo E. Wanta
based on lack of jurisdiction over the Petitioner
(Defendant) Ambassador Leo E. Wanta. Specifically
the Writ of Mandamus would be directed to the
State of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit Court,
reversing the Order of the presiding Judge dated
January 15, 1998 denying the International Diplomatic
Immunity of Petitioner. (Exhibit H attached
hereto).
2. Writ of Mandamus and/or
appropriate Orders from this Court to the State
of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit Court and/or
other arms of the State of Wisconsin Court system,
including the State of Wisconsin Attorney General’s
Office, investigators of the Department of Revenue
and other agents or representatives of the State
of Wisconsin (USA) directing the return of Petitioner’s
Diplomatic Passports, Diplomatic Papers, Diplomatic
(briefcase) "Pouch" (including all
papers, documents, records, files, reports,
financial instruments, cash, blue nylon duffle
bag weighing approximately 100lb’s and
other personal and similar items) taken from
the Petitioner at the time of Petitioner’s
arrival /arrest in the United States on November
17, 1993.
3. Such other and further
orders of this Court as deemed appropriate and
necessary to protect the rights and privileges
afforded to International Diplomats under both
International law and the laws of the United
States of America.
- ISSUES PRESENTED:
4. Is Petitioner entitled
to Diplomatic Immunity under 22 USC 254 et
seq. and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227? The legal statutory
references provide in part as follows:
- 22 USC 254(d) provides:
Any action or proceeding
brought against an individual who is
entitled to immunity with
respect to such action or proceeding
under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations, under
section 254(b) or 254(c)
of this Title, or under any other laws
extending diplomatic privileges
and immunities, shall be dismissed.
Such immunity may be established
upon motion or
suggestion by or on behalf
of the individual, or as otherwise
permitted by applicable rules
of procedure.
b. Article 40 of
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
provides in part:
If a diplomatic
agent passes through or is in the territory
of a
third State, which
has granted him a passport visa if such
visa is necessary,
while proceeding to take up or return to his
post, or when returning
to his own country, the third state shall
accord him inviolability
and such other immunities as may be
required to ensure
his transit or return.
5. Does the United States
Code Section and the provision of the Vienna
Convention set forth in paragraph 4., above,
based on all known facts, result in inviolability
of jurisdiction over the Petitioner by the
State of Wisconsin?
6. Are there sufficient
documented facts that have been readily available
and known by the State of Wisconsin (USA),
since July of 1993 and on or before November
of 1993, to lead a reasonable person to believe
that Petitioner satisfied the requirements
of 22 USC 254(d) and applicable provisions
of Article 40 of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations entitling Petitioner
to be accorded inviolability from State of
Wisconsin (USA) jurisdiction and such other
immunities as necessary to protect Petitioner’s
International Diplomatic position?
7. Has the State of Wisconsin
(USA) wrongfully maintained possession of
Diplomatic Passports, Diplomatic papers and/or
Diplomatic/federally protected items beyond
time periods deemed reasonable by International
law and/or United States laws and regulations?
8. Has the State of Wisconsin
(USA) had information, facts and/or substantiating
documentation in the possession of the State
of Wisconsin (USA) for more than a necessary
period of time to enable a reasonable and
prudent judicial court and/or judicial officer
of the court to determine that Petitioner
met the requirements of the applicable United
States Code sections and provisions of International
treaties to entitle Petitioner to Diplomatic
Immunity?
9. Has Petitioner, contrary
to both International law and the Laws of
the United States of America been held as
a political prisoner by the State of Wisconsin
(USA) and subjected to violations of internationally
protected Human Rights?
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUBSTANTIATING THIS COURTS GRANTING OF THE
REQUESTED RELIEF:
10. From on or about the end of June
or first part of July 1992 thru the first
part of July 1993 Petitioner was residing
in and a declared legal resident of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
11. On or about April 11, 1993 Petitioner,
while a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
received official Somalia Government communications
from Haji Mohamed Hashi Haile, the President
of Somalia, appointing Petitioner as the Ambassador
from Somalia to Canada. Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
is a copy of the letter dated April 11, 1993.
Exhibit A was presented to the State of Wisconsin
Dane County Circuit Court and filed under
Case No. 92-CF-683.
12. On or about April 29, 1993, the Somalia
Ambassador to Great Britain, A.M. Musse sent
a letter to the Foreign Ministry of Canada
to inform the Government of Canada that Petitioner
would become the official representative of
Somalia Affairs in Canada starting from April
1993. Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference is a copy of the
letter dated April 29, 1993. Exhibit B was
presented to the State of Wisconsin Dane County
Circuit Court and filed under Case No. 92-CF-683.
13. On or about
the first part of June 1993 Petitioner departed
from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Europe for
the purpose of meeting with the President
of Somalia in Paris, France. The purpose of
the Paris, France meeting was to formalize
the investiture of Petitioner as Ambassador
to Canada from Somalia; obtain official Somalia
Government stamped and sealed documentation
for the investiture of Petitioner as Ambassador
from Somalia to Canada and finalize documentation
with the President of Somalia that Petitioner
is the authorized signature on a transactional/custodial
account for one hundred and sixty seven (167)
metric tons of gold bullion on deposit, for
and on behalf of the Somalia Democratic Republic,
at the UBS Bank in Switzerland.
The official Somalia Government
stamped and sealed documents concerning the
investiture and appointment of Petitioner
as Ambassador to Canada from Somalia were
contained within the Diplomatic (briefcase)
"Pouch" transported with Petitioner
from his Diplomatic post in Switzerland to
the United States. Petitioner last saw the
originals of the stated official documents
when Petitioner was arrested and placed in
restrained custody upon his arrival in the
United States on November 17, 1993. Petitioner’s
Diplomatic Pouch also contained documentation
concerning Petitioner’s transactional/custodial
account representation for and on behalf of
the Somali Government with the UBS Bank in
Switzerland.
14. Following the formal
investiture of Petitioner in Paris, France,
Petitioner had official business to conclude
in Europe and upon completion of business
was to return immediately to Canada and present
officially stamped, sealed and approved Somalia
Government documents to appropriate Canadian
Government officials to enable Petitioner
to initiate the process of "taking up
his Diplomatic post" as Ambassador from
Somalia to Canada.
15. Upon leaving the
Country of France Petitioner entered the Country
of Switzerland. When entering the Country
of Switzerland Petitioner presented Petitioner’s
Somalia Diplomatic Passports No: 04362 and
12535 for the purpose of identification to
Switzerland immigration/customs officials.
16. On or about July
7, 1993 Petitioner was taken into custody
by Switzerland law enforcement officials and
verbally advised that he was being held by
Switzerland authorities on the verbal request
of the State of Wisconsin, United States of
America. At the time of being detained by
Switzerland authorities, Petitioner was not
presented with any warrants for his arrest
or any other documentation evidencing any
charges of wrong doing issued by Switzerland
and/or any United States of America judicial
authorities.
17. From July of 1993
to the middle part of November of 1993 Petitioner
was held in a Switzerland prison and at no
time presented with any official charges,
allowed representation by a personal attorney,
notified of any extradition request and/or
afforded any due process legal proceedings.
Petitioner continually and throughout the
time of Swiss confinement requested Swiss
authorities to confirm under what authority
Petitioner was being held. Swiss authorities
continually advised Petitioner that the State
of Wisconsin (USA) had advised them verbally
that official paperwork for arrest and extradition
was forthcoming.
18. On or about October
8, 1993 Petitioner was advised by Swiss authorities
that Petitioner was being held on United States
Government charges arising out of a case filed
in the United States District Court in the
Western District of Wisconsin under Case No:
93-0033M-X-01. Irrespective of the advice
of these charges Petitioner was never brought
before Swiss judicial authorities and presented
with requests for extradition or afforded
any rights of a foreign guest held in a third
State as required by International law.
19. On or about November
17, 1993 Petitioner was removed from the Swiss
prison and advised that he was being extradited
to the United States. The action to extradite
Petitioner was conducted by Swiss authorities
without legal due process. The only response
given to Petitioner, when he inquired as to
where he was being sent and under what authority,
was a Swiss authority response "that
Petitioner was being sent back to America
to face failure to pay tax assessment charges
filed by the State of Wisconsin, United States
of America".
20. Petitioner was
transported on a Swiss Air carrier from Switzerland
to the United States on November 17, 1993.
When completing United States of America Immigration
and Customs formalities, Petitioner presented
the Customs Declaration form attached hereto
as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this
reference. On the Customs Declaration form
Petitioner represented himself as a United
States of America citizen with residence in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada and specifically
noted the word "Diplomat". It is
noted that on the reverse side of Exhibit
C Petitioner did not declare financial instruments
and other items of value transported in Petitioners
Diplomatic Pouch. Petitioner presented his
Somalia Diplomatic Passports DPP#-04362 &
12535 as his official identification document
for Diplomatic admittance into the United
States. After clearing United States immigration/customs
formalities Petitioner was arrested by special
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
("FBI"). Petitioner advised the
arresting FBI agents when entering the United
States of America that he was the Somalia
Ambassador to Canada and that he was carrying
"official" documents in an investiture/diplomatic
capacity and in a Diplomatic Pouch. The FBI
agents seized the Diplomatic Passports, (used
for official identification purposes for entry
into the United States), from the possession
of Petitioner (the subject Diplomatic Passports
having been given back to Petitioner by United
States immigration officials when authority
to enter was granted) at the time of Petitioner’s
arrest.
21. In the presence of Petitioner,
in a room within the New York arriving airport,
Petitioner observed FBI agents and others
whose identity is unknown to Petitioner, reviewing
official Diplomatic documents and the contents
of Petitioner’s Diplomatic (briefcase)
Pouch. The Diplomatic Pouch was clearly marked
Diplomatic Pouch. Petitioner observed parties
reviewing contents of Petitioner’s Diplomatic
Pouch and Diplomatic Passports and examining
the Somali Government documents under seal
certifying Petitioner’s official investiture
by Somalia President Haji Mohammed Haile Hashi.
22. The most obvious substantive
verification of Petitioner’s diplomatic
status was contained within the pages of the
Diplomatic Passports. Petitioner’s Somali
Diplomatic Passports contained a United States
Government Consulate issued "Identification
Card" issued pursuant to 22 CFR 53.2(G)
identifying Petitioner as a United States
Citizen traveling under foreign issued Diplomatic
Passports. This Identification Card was placed
in the Diplomatic Passports and signed in
the name of "Ambassador Leo E. Wanta".
The combination of the Diplomatic Passports
and the Identification Card legally facilitated
the entrance of Petitioner into the United
States. This entrance "Identification
Card" was issued by the United States
Consulate in Switzerland. Petitioner is a
United States citizen that requested admittance
into the United States not based on a United
States passport but based on Diplomatic passports
of a foreign nation and a duly registered
"Foreign Agent".
23. Partially out of context
of the sequential order of events Petitioner
brings the Court’s attention to Exhibits
D and E attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference. Exhibit D and E are offered
by Petitioner as confirmation of the existence
of the original Somalia Diplomatic Passports
and that the same, along with the Diplomatic
Pouch were seized by investigative authorities.
It is proper for the Petitioner to presume
that the subject and mentioned official documents
were first in the custody of the United States
Court system and both secondly and presently
in the custody of a representative or agency
under the control of the State of Wisconsin
(USA).
Exhibit D is a copy of a
transcript of a hearing held on February 3,
1995 in the State of Wisconsin Dane County
Circuit Court in the matter of State of Wisconsin
v. Leo E. Wanta under Case No. 92-CF-683.
The Court’s attention is specifically
directed to page 26 of Exhibit D beginning
on line 14 and continuing thru page 28 line
4. This referenced portion of Exhibit D contains
an admission by Mr. Haag (State of Wisconsin
prosecutor) and Mr. Chavez (an attorney purportedly
having authority to represent the Petitioner)
of the existence of the Diplomatic (briefcase)
Pouch and the originals of the Somalia Diplomatic
Passports and other relevant official documents
and that the same were at least reviewed and
seen by Mr. Chavez as part of evidence documents
being held by the State of Wisconsin (USA).
Exhibit E is a copy of a
transcript of the proceedings before the United
States District Court in the Eastern District
of New York held on November 17, 1993 in the
case of United States of America, v. Leo Emil
Wanta under case number 93 M 2072. This Court’s
attention is directed to page 5 of Exhibit
E line 12 thru line 17. Clearly the Somalia
Diplomatic Passports and Diplomatic Pouch
items were in the possession of some agency,
branch, court and/or other entity under United
States jurisdiction.
24. There are no additional
transcripts of proceedings for the case referenced
in Exhibit E. The United States District Court
case docket entries reflect that the pending
case, without further hearing or appearance
of the Petitioner, is dismissed on the motion
of the United States Government.
25. Following dismissal of
the case set forth in Exhibit E, Petitioner
is advised that he will not be released and
is being held on the verbal request of law
enforcement officials from the State of Wisconsin
(USA). Between November 17 and the middle
of December 1993 Petitioner is held by local
police authorities in the State of New York
(USA) without receiving any documents and/or
served with any arrest warrants concerning
any pending charges by the State of Wisconsin
(USA). Petitioner continually claimed Diplomatic
Immunity to New York detention facility personnel
and asserted there was no jurisdiction to
hold him. Petitioner had no paperwork, documents
or personal identification (since all was
seized at the time of his arrest). The seizure
of documents and other items at the time of
Petitioners arrest left Petitioner without
even minimal evidence of documentation to
prove even his name. New York detention facility
personnel advised Petitioner that he would
have to wait until transfer to the State of
Wisconsin (USA) to raise his objections to
jurisdiction based on Diplomatic Immunity.
On or about December 13,
1993 Petitioner is taken from the jail holding
facility in the State of New York (USA) and
turned over to county law enforcement officers
from the State of Wisconsin (USA) and immediately
air transported from the State of New York
(USA) to the State of Wisconsin (USA). Between
November 17, 1993 and December 13, 1993 Petitioner
is not brought before any Court, presented
with any warrants for extradition to the State
of Wisconsin or allowed consultation with
a private attorney.
26. Attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference is Exhibit F that
is a copy of the transcript of the initial
appearance of Petitioner before the State
of Wisconsin Dane County Circuit Court in
the case of State of Wisconsin, -vs- Leo E.
Wanta under Case No. 92-CF-683. Pertinent
to the Petition before this Court is page
7 line 3 thru line 8 of Exhibit F. Clearly
the attorney representing the State of Wisconsin
(USA) is aware that Petitioner claimed legal
residence in Toronto, Canada and is clearly
aware of the "suggestion" of Diplomatic
Immunity. The prosecutor questions verification
of diplomatic status in the referenced lines
of the transcript. Petitioner on best information
and belief assumes from the various statements
contained Exhibits D and F that the Diplomatic
Passports, Diplomatic Pouch and other Diplomatic
papers obviously in the possession of the
New York Federal District Court (See references
to Exhibit E) were transported to the State
of Wisconsin by State of Wisconsin law enforcement
officers when Petitioner was transported from
New York to Wisconsin. It would not be mere
speculation that all of the official Diplomatic
items were in the possession of the State
of Wisconsin at the time of Petitioner’s
first appearance before a judicial officer
in the State of Wisconsin (USA).
27. The Courts further attention
is directed to page 10 of Exhibit F specifically
line 7 thru line 9 where the Petitioner questions
competent jurisdiction and further on page
10 of Exhibit F line 16 thru line 18 where
Petitioner makes reference to the Diplomatic
Passports and other official records taken
into possession by the FBI as part of the
seizure of Petitioner’s Diplomatic (briefcase)
Pouch at the time of Petitioner’s arrest
in New York on November 17, 1993.
28. Apparently representations
by Petitioner to the State of Wisconsin county
court as to the court’s lack of jurisdiction,
Petitioner’s Diplomatic Immunity and
other representations by the Petitioner set
the framework for the State of Wisconsin questioning
the "competency" of Petitioner to
assist in his legal defense. This reference
to "competency" is at the initial
appearance of the Petitioner on December 14,
1993 on page 19 of Exhibit F line 12 thru
line 25. For the entirety of the year 1994
and part of the year 1995 there are several
court hearings on the issue of competency.
Petitioner continually asserts he is competent
and the evaluating physicians from the institutions
where he was confined concluded that Petitioner
was totally competent. The examining physicians
not only determined that Petitioner was competent
they further determined that Petitioner was
not suffering from a mental condition of "delusion".
Petitioner submits that of substantive importance
to the present Petition before this Court
is the claim by the Dane County Circuit Court
and the State of Wisconsin that Petitioner’s
continual, repetitious, assertive and ongoing
claim regarding Petitioner’s Ambassadorship
Diplomatic status and his assertion of the
lack of State of Wisconsin jurisdiction over
the Petitioner was evidence to the court and
the State of Wisconsin that Petitioner suffered
from "Delusion".
29. At virtually every court
hearing, at the trial of Petitioner and at
all post-trial proceedings Petitioner continually
raised the issue of his continuing Diplomatic
Immunity and as a result the Petitioner continually
asserted the lack of any competent jurisdiction
by the State of Wisconsin (USA) over the Petitioner.
During one appearance before the presiding
county court judge the judge commented in
summary "that the Petitioner could not
be an Ambassador from Somalia because Petitioner
was not black".
30. Exhibit G attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference
is a court filing presented to the trial court
of Petitioner setting forth the issue of the
Diplomatic Immunity and the Diplomatic status
of Petitioner with the Country of Somalia.
The trial court denied the prayer for relief
requested in the Exhibit G motion. The county
court did not find that Petitioner was not
an Ambassador to Canada from Somalia.
Attached hereto marked as
Exhibit H is a "Partial Decision On Motions
By Defendant" issued by the Dane County
Circuit Court in Case No. 92CF0683 that is
the case number in the criminal action against
Petitioner by the State of Wisconsin (USA).
For the purpose of the matter before this
Court the relevant portions concerning "Diplomatic
Immunity" are contained on pages 1, 2
and 3. It is obvious that the ruling of the
county court is based on county court judge
observations on the credibility of the "evidence".
The county court judge makes certain references,
as example, that the Diplomatic passports
are only copies and appear to be generic since
no name can be read on the copies. The county
court further references certain other official
documents such as official papers of the Somalia
Government. The county court judge questions
the authenticity and validity of the official
Somalia Government documents since these documents
are also copies. It is noted that Exhibit
H is dated January 15, 1998. Petitioner makes
this noted comment (and will restate in a
subsequent section set forth herein) because
Petitioner is of the opinion that the county
court should have been knowledgeable of the
location of the originals because they had
been acknowledged as being viewed by the Prosecutor
and the purported attorney for the Petitioner
during the February 3, 1995 hearing before
the same judge (See Exhibit D).
Petitioner would respectfully
redirect this Court’s attention to Exhibit
D attached to this filing. Exhibit D is a
transcript of a hearing held in February of
1995 before the same county judge issuing
the January 15, 1998 opinion (Exhibit H).
Clearly by reading the sections of Exhibit
D referenced hereinabove it is clear that
the county court presiding judge, the prosecutor
and the State of Wisconsin jointly and severally
were or should have been fully aware that
the originals of the official documents, that
the county court stated were illegible or
unauthenticated photo copies, (including the
original Diplomatic Passports) were in the
possession of an arm of the State of Wisconsin
(USA). The pertinent hereinabove referenced
sections of Exhibit D clearly exemplify this
conclusion by Petitioner.
Petitioner would further
respectfully redirect this Court’s attention
to paragraph 22., set forth herein. The Diplomatic
Passports of Petitioner contained the "Identification
Card" signed in the name of Ambassador
Leo E. Wanta for travel to the United States
by Petitioner, and were issued by the United
States Consulate in Switzerland. The originals
contained this "Identification Card"
and the stamp of the date of official entry
into the United States by Petitioner. The
permission to enter without confiscating the
Diplomatic Passports is an acknowledgement
by Immigration and Customs clearing authorities
as to the validity of the "documents"
presented in granting permission to a United
States citizen offering foreign Diplomatic
Passports as entry documents. The evidence
of the authenticity and validity of the Diplomatic
Passports was contained within the original
documents that the county court and representatives
of the State of Wisconsin knew to be in their
possession and not in the possession of Petitioner.
31. Neither the Somalia Democratic
Republic nor Petitioner has ever waived the
right to assert and expect "Diplomatic
Immunity" for Petitioner (either in this
jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction).
32. The United States
Government, the State of Wisconsin (USA) the
courts and judicial branches of either the
United States of America or any State of the
Union have no power or legal authority to
approve, question or disapprove the official
appointment of a representative of any foreign
Nation to any other foreign nation. International
law does not require a foreign Nation to register,
notify or acknowledge to the United States
of America the appointment of a Diplomatic
representative to another foreign Nation unless
of course the appointment is to the United
States of America and even concerning the
appointment of a Diplomat to the United States
the same can not be objected to by the United
States although the Diplomat may be received
with restrictions.
33. Petitioner for the
past years has continually asserted his status
as a Diplomat entitled to Diplomatic Immunity
and has continually asserted that the State
of Wisconsin jurisdiction over Petitioner
was void and/or voidable. Petitioner has waited
for the appropriate time within the scope
of the international environment to bring
an action such as this present action. This
decision by Petitioner is based on several
international and Somali domestic political
issues. The explanation set forth in this
paragraph 33., is not intended by Petitioner
as an all inclusive history and explanation
of the complexity of the Somalia Government.
Petitioner does respectfully submit to this
Court that the summary of international matters
concerning Somalia offered herein does substantiate
Petitioner’s present course of action.
At or about the time of Petitioner’s
investiture as a Diplomatic representative
of the Country of Somalia in June of 1993,
the political stability of the Country of
Somalia went into turmoil. The last internationally
recognized Government of Somalia has remained
in exile as a result of the failure of "Operation
Restore Hope" endorsed by the United
States of America and sanctioned at the time
by United Nations resolutions. International
community acknowledged terrorists have continually
caused civil disorder, violations of "Human
Rights" and continual attempt to seize
control of Somalia through barbaric acts of
torture and internationally recognized violations
of international adopted criminal laws. This
Court is presumably aware of the most recent
Hollywood production entitled "Blackhawk
Down" that exemplifies the deterioration
of the Somali situation and to some extent
continues through the current time. Attempts
by militant clan groups to obtain control
of the Somalia Government during the last
many years have not resulted in internationally
recognized leadership. Current United Nations
resolutions are focused on orchestrating a
democratically elected leadership of Somalia
between the year 2000 and the year 2003. During
the past many years the Somalia Government
in exile has maintained control of official
Somalia Government seals (registered with
the United Nations) and maintained control
of the primary asset of the Government of
Somalia being the 167 metric tons of gold
bullion belonging to the Somalia Government
Central Bank on deposit at the UBS Bank in
Switzerland referenced in paragraph 13 herein.
Most recently
the "International Community" coalition
directed toward terrorists has obviously been
focused in the Middle East with reference
to terrorists group support and concern for
terrorists group affiliations in Somalia.
Petitioner is of the opinion that the present
international "climate" is conducive
to Petitioner aggressively coming forward
and attempting to publicly participate in
the stabilization of the Government of Somalia
through refocused efforts of exiled leaders.
Part of this objective would be initiated
by gaining support of the International Community
based on the obvious economic contribution
that can be afforded to the Country of Somalia
through the benefits derived from the 167
metric tons of gold bullion on deposit as
referenced herein. During the past years this
Somali gold bullion asset has not been available
to the terrorists to use. Terrorist group
use would have been to the detriment of the
people of Somalia. It is anticipated that
the International Community will endorse the
use of said asset for the purpose of stabilizing
the strife of the people of Somalia rather
than for benefit of internationally condemned
crimes of terrorism. Petitioner is further
of the opinion that prior to this time if
Petitioner had taken such an aggressive act,
that in the absence of the present international
political climate, Petitioner would have been
subjected to risk of life and personal safety.
Obviously Petitioner’s death would have
given the non-sanctioned terrorist supported
groups, attempting to illegally control the
Government of Somalia, an avenue to take control
of the country’s primary financial asset.
Petitioner does not proffer
to this Court that he has the entirety of
the answers for the Somalia political and
economic climate. On the other hand it does
not seem presumptuous of Petitioner to represent
to this Court the reasonable and plausible
proposition that the "freezing"
of assets by the International Community to
assure that improperly directed assets are
not improperly used by terrorists organizations
set the appropriate international community
conditions where the international community
will support the positive and progressive
use of the 167 metric tons of gold bullion
for the benefit of the development of the
Country of Somalia and not for a continuation
of the strife and torture inflicted upon the
agricultural farmers and common people of
Somalia.
Petitioner would reiterate
the statements set forth in paragraph 32.,
above and further ask this Court to recognize
that the reasons for the actions and beliefs
in regard to the political situation and operation
of the business affairs herein represented
by Petitioner are not questions or positions
subject to review by the United States of
America and/or the State of Wisconsin (USA).
The opinions, decisions and representations
made herein are subject to the sole and exclusive
discretion of the Government in exile representatives
of the Country of Somalia.
34. The issue of Petitioner’s
mental competence mentioned herein not only
occurred prior to the county court trial of
Petitioner but also continued as an ongoing
attack on the claimed lack of competency of
the Petitioner by the State of Wisconsin after
the trial. Petitioner continually denied that
Petitioner was incompetent and medical examiners
concurred with the personal opinion of Petitioner.
Post trial accusations concerning questions
of Petitioner’s competency repeatedly
focused on Petitioner’s claim of Diplomatic
Immunity and multiple and repetitive assertions
that the Petitioner adamantly objected to
the county court improperly and illegally
claiming personal jurisdiction over the Petitioner.
One jurist in the United States District Court
made mention that the Diplomatic relationship
with the Country of Somalia was "Bizarre".
Petitioner suggests
to this Court that the United Nations would
be the most viable source for possessing the
most credible information concerning Diplomatic
representation for foreign nations particularly
United Nations member country’s. Somalia
has been a member "State" of the
United Nations since September 20, 1960. Exhibit
I attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference should negate any assertion
by the State of Wisconsin or other third parties
that Petitioner’s claims are "Bizarre"
and proffered by a person that is incompetent
and suffering from "Delusions of Grandeur".
- REASONS WHY THE WRIT OR OTHER INJUNCTIVE
RELIEVE SOUGHT BY PETITIONER
SHOULD BE ISSUED
35. Excess of jurisdiction
is a conventional formula for the availability
of Mandamus. Any order is subject to challenge
by Writ of Mandamus if the order imposes irreparable
harm and can be shown to be so clearly wrong
as to constitute a usurpative act by the judge.
36. Diplomatic Immunity negates
"in persona" jurisdiction over the
Petitioner in the "first instance".
The "first instance" satisfaction
of the provisions of 22 USC 254(d) and Article
40 of the Vienna Convention occurred at or prior
to the time of Petitioner’s clearance through
immigration/customs authorities at the Port
of Entry in the State of New York (USA). The
Petitioner departed for Paris, France from Toronto,
Ontario, Canada with a return ticket clearly
demonstrating intent to return to Toronto following
formal Diplomatic Investiture ceremonies. It
is undisputed that Petitioner had been residing
in Toronto, Ontario, Canada for a lengthy period
of time and in advance of departing for Paris,
France had begun establishing procedures for
Petitioner’s Diplomatic Post. It is further
undisputed that Petitioner had been working
with local counsel in Canada to continue facilitating
the purchase of Diplomatic housing arrangements
for Petitioner’s return and said legal
counsel fully expected Petitioner to return
to Canada forthwith upon completion of official
investiture and other official business in Europe.
37. Petitioner was involuntarily
brought back to the United States at the request
of the State of Wisconsin (USA). Petitioner
was not in possession of a United States passport.
Petitioner was in possession of Diplomatic Passports
issued by the Country of Somalia. Petitioner
required United States Consulate documented
approval signed by the Petitioner for entrance
into and passage through the United States en
route to Canada. The United States Consulate
in Switzerland issued the necessary documented
approval in the Diplomatic Passports of Petitioner
providing substantiation of the requirements
of Article 40 of the Vienna Convention; setting
forth a "suggestion" of Diplomatic
Immunity status as required by 22 USC 254(d)
and a prima fascia verification of the validity
of the Diplomatic Passports. It seems only reasonable
to presume that the United States Consulate
in Switzerland would have conducted more than
a surface examination of the authenticity of
foreign held Diplomatic Passports by a white
United States of America citizen by "American
Birthright" (06/11/40) being issued by
a predominantly black foreign nation. It would
also only seem reasonable that the United States
Consulate, that issued documented approval in
the Diplomatic Passports, in the possession
and in the name of, a United States citizen,
would be fully aware of 8 USC 1185(b) and the
provisions of 22 CFR 53 particularly 53.3 and
either (doubtfully) ignored such statutory provisions
or was aware of exceptions having been granted
to Petitioner by appropriate United States Government
officials to enable Petitioner to have been
able to accept the position of Ambassador from
a foreign nation to a third nation. Therefore,
the provisions of 22 CFR 53.2(g), 22 CFR 53.2(h)
and 22 CFR 50.1(d) are clearly satisfied through
the issuance of entry approval documents and
the declaration of citizenship on the customs
declaration form presented by Petitioner to
immigration/customs authorities when entering
the United States of America on November 17,
1993.
Petitioner told agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation at the time
of his arrest upon entering the United States
on November 17, 1993 that Petitioner was the
Ambassador from Somalia to Canada. The arresting
FBI agents seized the Diplomatic Passports of
Petitioner and searched Petitioner’s Diplomatic
pouch. At the first appearance of Petitioner
in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York the Diplomatic
Passports and presumably the Diplomatic papers
were available for the Court to review. When
Petitioner had his first appearance in the county
court located in the State of Wisconsin on December
14, 1993, Petitioner clearly challenges jurisdiction
and identifies Diplomatic documents that were
taken from Petitioner by the FBI at the time
he entered the United States of America. On
multiple instances and at virtually every county
court appearance before any judicial officer
in the State of Wisconsin Petitioner challenged
the jurisdiction over Petitioner by the county
court. On February 3, 1995 at a hearing held
before the State of Wisconsin, Dane County Court,
there is a clear recognition before the presiding
judge that the originals of Petitioner’s
Diplomatic Passports and other official Diplomatic
papers are in the possession of an agency or
representative of the State of Wisconsin. In
the ruling issued on February 15, 1998 by the
same judge that presided over the February 3,
1995 hearing (where the originals were acknowledged
to be in the possession of the State of Wisconsin)
the judge based in part his denial of Diplomatic
Immunity on the lack of credible evidence including
illegible copies of generic no name passports.
In addition the same judge, in contravention
of the presumption of authenticity and validity
of Petitioner’s Diplomatic Passports, (created
by the United States Consulate for Switzerland
and also the immigration/customs authorities
at the Port of Entry in New York City (USA))
came to the conclusion that the Diplomatic Immunity
status of Petitioner was unfounded and not credibly
documented. The county courts response to the
Motion of the Petitioner before the county court
that resulted in the February 15, 1998 ruling
should have been an order to the prosecutors
from the State of Wisconsin to "show cause"
why the case should not be dismissed based on
lack of jurisdiction as a result of Diplomatic
Immunity.
38. The burden of proving jurisdiction
over the Petitioner shifted to the Government
at the time the Petitioner was arrested by FBI
agents in New York State (USA) on November 17,
1993. The burden increased when Petitioner’s
Diplomatic Passports were reviewed by a United
States District Court Judge and presumably became
an influence on the case against the Petitioner
being dismissed on the motion of the Assistant
United States Attorney. Petitioner did not stop
questioning jurisdiction. At the initial appearance
and virtually every step of the county court
proceedings the Petitioner made an attempt to
challenge any jurisdiction over Petitioner by
the county court in the State of Wisconsin (USA).
Clearly the presiding judge that set bond for
the Petitioner and was aware of the international
travels of the Petitioner, would have had some
recollection of the fact that the originals
of papers and documents he questioned, were
in the possession of an agent or representative
of the State of Wisconsin. If the judge had
a failure of memory it would seem probable that
the State of Wisconsin prosecutors had a burden
of advising the court that the originals were
known to be held by authorities in the State
of Wisconsin (USA).
39. At many and various stages
through the course of Petitioner’s exposure
to the judicial environment there were sufficient
"suggestions", factual basis and evidence
readily available to law enforcement officers,
officers of the court, prosecutors and judicial
officers to conclude that Petitioner had met
the burden under 22 USC 254(d) and that the
conditions of his diplomatic travel to the United
States of America allowed Petitioner protection
under Article 40 of the Vienna Convention.
40. The State of Wisconsin,
Dane County Court, was without jurisdiction
and there is reasonable probability to believe
that had the State of Wisconsin ever assumed
the burden of proving jurisdiction over the
Petitioner by a preponderance of the evidence
that the State of Wisconsin would have failed
to meet such burden. On or before November 17,
1993 Petitioner himself and through the "suggestion"
of acts conducted and fulfilled by agents and/or
representatives of the United States Government
have caused or created on going substantial
compliance with the statutory provisions of
22 USC 254(d) and Article 40 of the Vienna Convention.
Substantial compliance with 22 USC 254(d) and
Article 40 of the Vienna Convention negate any
jurisdiction over the Defendant either by the
United States of America and/or the State of
Wisconsin (USA).
The matter of jurisdiction
over the Petitioner was raised and substantiated
in the "first instance" upon Petitioner’s
entry into the United States of America. Thereafter,
all efforts and representations by the Petitioner
to agents or representatives of any "jurisdictional"
authority in the United States of America are
evidence of an ongoing and continual substantiation
that Petitioner is in compliance with 22 USC
254(d) and Article 40 of the Vienna and as a
result place the issue of failure to substantiate
jurisdiction over a Diplomat entitled to Diplomatic
Immunity properly before this Court.
The documented lack of personal
jurisdiction over the Petitioner from at or
about the time of Petitioner’s entrance
into the United States voids and/or makes voidable
all subsequent assertion of valid jurisdiction
over the Petitioner by the State of Wisconsin.
Petitioner is entitled to immediate relief through
the issuance by this Court of the requested
Writ of Mandamus and the other relief necessary
to protect the rights to be afforded to the
Petitioner both under International law and
the laws of the United States of America. The
immediate relief not only pertains to jurisdiction
over the person but further pertains to the
immediate return of all Diplomatic Passports
and other Diplomatic papers and items referenced
in paragraph 2., of this document. Neither the
United States Government nor the State of Wisconsin
(USA) had the right to seize and take permanent
possession of the Diplomatically protected items
since the same are protected under the rights
and privileges of Diplomats under both International
law and the laws of the United States of America.
Respectfully submitted this
_____ day of April 2002.
Jan Morton Heger
CA State Bar No. 87441
29402 Castle
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Phone: 949-249-9170
Fax: 949-249-9171
Email: Heger@compuserve.com
Certificate of Service of
Process
I hereby certify that on this ____ day
of April I caused the above set forth Petition
for Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunctive or Declaratory
Relief consisting of 19 pages inclusive of this
Certificate of Service of Process to be sent
by express mail to a process server in the State
of Wisconsin with prepaid express mail for delivery
of evidence of service of process to the clerk
of the Court of Appeals. I further certify that
the instructions to the process server were
to serve a copy of this document and all exhibits
upon the following listed parties:
James Doyle
State of Wisconsin Attorney
General
Wisconsin Department of Justice
123 West Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7858
Madison, WI 53703
State of Wisconsin
Dane County Clerk of the Circuit
Court
Room GR-10, City-County Building
210 Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard
Madison, Wisconsin 53709
__________________________________