UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
In Re: )
)
Ambassador Leo Wanta, Somalia )
Ambassador to Canada )
and Switzerland, DPP#-04362 ) Court
of Appeal
& 12535, aka Lee E. Wanta, ) Case
No: 02 1878
aka Leo E. Wanta; and )
)
)
Petitioner )
)
vs )
)
State of Wisconsin, Dane County Circuit )
Court presently presiding judge over )
Case No. 92-CF-683; and )
State of Wisconsin; )
)
James E. Doyle, Attorney General of the )
State of Wisconsin; and )
)
Such other parties with the State of )
Wisconsin subject to the Orders of this )
Court to satisfy the requested relief. )
)
Respondents. )
_______________________________________________________________________
DOCKETING STATEMENT
Counsel for Petitioner submit
this Docketing Statement pursuant to the Circuit
Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure:
1. Court-Location, Docket
Number and Judge: Petitioner’s requested
Writ of Mandamus and other requested relief would
concern jurisdiction over the Petitioner in the
State of Wisconsin and most particularly Case
No. 92-CF-683 filed in State of Wisconsin, Dane
County, Circuit Court. The majority of the proceedings
in the subject case were before Dane County Circuit
Court Judge Michael B. Torphy.
2. Parties to this Appeal:
The parties to this cause of action are
Ambassador Leo Wanta, aka Lee E. Wanta, aka Leo
E. Wanta (collectively referred to herein as "Wanta")
the Ambassador from Somalia to Canada and Switzerland
as Petitioner and the named Respondents and such
other Respondents known and/or unknown within
the State of Wisconsin that would be needed or
required to perform acts or duties within the
State of Wisconsin to implement the Orders and/or
Mandates from this Court.
3. Corporate Registration
Disclosure: Petitioner is not aware of
any corporate disclosure information that is required
to be filed in conjunction with the cause of action
brought before this Court by the Petitioner.
4. Brief Description of
the underlying factual basis giving rise to Petitioner
filing the present cause of action before this
Court: Petitioner is entitled to inviolability
from jurisdiction in the State of Wisconsin and
other jurisdictions of the United States based
on the following summary of the pertinent facts
and issues more completely delineated in the Petition
under consideration before this Court:
Wanta received official investiture
from the President of Somalia as Ambassador from
Somali to Canada and Switzerland in June of 1993.
Wanta entered the United States in November of
1993 and was arrested by special agents of the
FBI on a Federal Warrant based on a claim by the
State of Wisconsin pertaining to flight to avoid
prosecution. Wanta presented Diplomatic Passports
as the Somalia Ambassador to Canada and Switzerland
as his entry documents to immigration officials
when clearing United States customs. His Diplomatic
Passports contained Identification Cards for travel
to the United States issued by the United States
Consulate located in Switzerland. Wanta did not
possess nor present to Immigration/Customs officials
a United States passport for purpose of obtaining
permission to enter the United States.
In personal luggage and briefcases,
clearly marked as "Diplomatic Pouches",
observed by Wanta to have been taken into possession
by the arresting FBI agents upon his arrival in
the United States, were original documents evidencing
the official investiture of Wanta as an Ambassador
from Somalia with Somalia Government seals and
other appropriate certifications.
In an initial appearance before
the United States District Court in New York on
the Federal Warrant the sitting judge acknowledges
the Diplomatic passports and other documents and
on motion of the United States Attorney dismissed
the case. Before leaving the United States Courthouse
Wanta is arrested by local New York police based
on a telephone request from the State of Wisconsin
(USA). Wanta at no time regains possession of
any of his personal items including his Diplomatic
Passports. Without issuance of a Governor’s
warrant or an extradition hearing, State of Wisconsin
county law enforcement officers transport Wanta
from the State of New York to the State of Wisconsin
(USA).
Starting on or before the arrival
of Wanta in the United States and continuing at
virtually every stage of every county court proceeding
in the State of Wisconsin Wanta asserts that the
State of Wisconsin has no jurisdiction over him
and reiterates repeatedly that he is the Ambassador
from Somalia to Canada and Switzerland. Wanta
not only repeatedly objected to jurisdiction at
county court proceedings but also continually
advised all jail personnel, law enforcement officers
and others of authority in the State of Wisconsin
(USA) of his entitlement to Diplomatic Immunity.
At one or more county court proceedings
in the State of Wisconsin reference is made to
the personal "Diplomatic" items of Wanta
including, but not limited to, his Diplomatic
Passports that are either being held by the State
of Wisconsin county court, the Attorney General’s
office or some other arm of the judicial system
or agency of the State of Wisconsin (USA) Government.
After almost daily claims and arguments by Wanta
concerning his Diplomatic Immunity status, a hearing
is held by the County Court and in summary the
County Court rules that the evidence is not credible
since all the court has is copies of what appears
to be generic passports with no legible names
and no documents that are believable. The County
Court judge did not find that Wanta was not an
Ambassador. The County Court judge found that
the evidence documenting the Diplomatic status
of Wanta was not credible for the reasons herein
stated. The presiding county court judge denies
Wanta’s claim of Diplomatic Immunity for
the stated reasons irrespective that the county
court judge had or should have had knowledge from
previous court proceedings (in front of the same
judge and clearly identified within county court
transcripts) that the originals of the county
court judge "questioned" documents were
in the possession of an office or agency under
the control of the State of Wisconsin (USA).
5. Result of Prior Court
Proceedings: Petitioner on or before
November of 1993 and at multiple and repetitive
times thereafter, substantially complied with
22 USC 254 and Article 40 of the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations. International law and
laws of the United States require that upon compliance
with the statutory reference and treaty, by a
person claiming Diplomatic Immunity that the burden
shifts to the "State" of establishing
"jurisdiction" over the Diplomat by
a preponderance of the evidence. Irrespective
of the statutory and treaty compliance by Petitioner
the State of Wisconsin has never met or assumed
their required burden. The ruling by any court
on this issue has resulted in an ongoing and continual
miscarriage of justice based on clearly erroneous
and misguided court opinions. Both the State of
Wisconsin Dane County Circuit Court and the United
States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin have improperly addressed and unjustly
ruled on the issue of Diplomatic Immunity for
the Petitioner. The applicable orders from either
court set the basis and foundation for this Court
to consider and appropriately rule on the pertinent
and relevant issues in the Petition before this
Court.
6. Issues to be presented
on Appeal:
a. 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 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.
2. 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.
b. Does the United States
Code Section and the provision of the Vienna Convention
set forth in paragraph a., above, based on all
known facts, result in a lack of jurisdiction
over the Petitioner by the State of Wisconsin
(USA)?
c. 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?
d. 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?
e. 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 his Diplomatic Immunity?
f. 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?
7. Timeliness of the filing
Petition before this Court: This action
is timely brought before this Court as the United
States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin, Dane
County, Circuit Court improperly ruled on the
issue of "jurisdiction". Jurisdiction
by the State of Wisconsin over the Petitioner
is the substantive issue in the Petition before
this Court. Petitioner has never waived his right
to object to jurisdiction, Somalia has never waived
the Diplomatic Immunity rights that should be
afforded to Petitioner and invalid jurisdiction
over the "person" never waived is always
an "issue" for appellate review. It
does not seem logical that Diplomatic Immunity
entitlement can be ignored by a "State".
The clear intent of an international treaty to
which the United States is a party cannot be ignored
through an erroneous and obviously misguided ruling
by any court. Reasonable satisfaction of the 22
USC 254 and the Vienna Convention by Petitioner
negates jurisdiction and absent the "State"
satisfying jurisdiction by a preponderance of
the evidence all court proceedings are null and
void and/or voidable.
7. Jurisdiction for the
action brought before this Circuit Court of Appeals:
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the
Petitioner pursuant to one of more of the following
references:
- Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, United States
Constitution
- 28 USC 1651
- 28 USC 1251 (b)(1). The Supreme Court has
original but not exclusive jurisdiction.
d. 28 USC 1291.
8. Oral Argument:
The Petitioner requests the opportunity to make
oral argument on the Petition before the Circuit
Court.
Respectfully submitted this ___
day of April 2002 by counsel for Petitioner.
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 Mailing
I hereby certify that on this ____ day of
April I caused the above set forth Docketing Statement
consisting of 7 pages inclusive of this Certificate
of Mailing to be mailed postage and/or express
mail charges prepaid to the following:
James E. Doyle Dane
County Circuit Court
Attorney General Clerk
of the Court
Wisconsin Department of Justice
210 Martin King Jr. Blvd
123 West Washington Avenue
GR-10
P.O. Box 7858
Madison, Wisconsin 53709-0001
Madison, WI 53703
Unite States Court of Appeals
Seventh Circuit
Clerk of the Court
219 Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
________________________________