Cc: POTUS_Barack Obama, et al; WI Governor Scott Walker, et al Dear Mr.

Pryor: Your actions taken as attorney for plaintiff in Case No. 83-CV-1073, originally filed May 4, 1983 in the State of Wisconsin re F&M Bank vs. Leo E Wanta et al have come to my attention and I hope you will be able to answer some questions. I am writing the biography of Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta, the defendant in the above-mentioned case. There are numerous occurrences that appear out-of-order. Since my job is to explain to readers what happened to Ambassador Wanta, and since the confusion is largely caused by what appear to might be judged by some as unlawful actions exercised by you as F&M counsel, perhaps you can provide answers that lead to a more reasonable explanation of what occurred in 1073 (and the follow-up case to 1073, 1043 in Judge McGraws court where 1073 appears to morph into 1043 without ever being refiled). I. THE COURT DOCKET SAYS CASE 83-CV-1073 WAS DISMISSED ON JUNE 25, 1985. A COPY OF THAT DOCKET IS ENCLOSED. QUESTION: If the case was dismissed, how could there be an active Judgment on behalf of F&M Bank, your client, in 1988? Your sworn statement testifies to the fact that the supposed Judgment handed down in 83-CV-1073 does not inform the Court of: 1. After a Motion to Re-open was filed by Defendant Wanta on November 24, 1983, on December 5, 1983, a Supplement to Motion, Affidavit and three Affidavits of Service were filed. 2. On December 12, 1983, a PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT was filed. 3. On January 3, 1984, F&M Bank AGREED NOT TO EXECUTE ON THE JUDGMENT UNTIL THE WANTAS (LEO AND JOANNE) CLAIM AGAINST GUARANTORS WAS SETTLED. This information was never provided to Judge Robert T. McGraw when 83-CV-1073 became 88-CV-1043 though Waukesha County could find no record of a refilling of 1073 or 1043 in their files when I ordered all of the Wanta court transcripts from Waukesha, Outagamie, and three other counties. IN OTHER WORDS, THE JUDGMENT WAS PUT ON HOLD AND IT WAS ONLY A PARTIAL JUDGMENT. QUESTION: Can you please provide guidance for me as to where the legal documents divulging the history of 83-CV-1073 to Judge McGraw? It appears the real Case Number is 83-CV-1073 because no 88-CV-1043 can be found in the Waukesha County file.

QUESTION: Can you please provide or tell me where I can find a re-filing of 83CV-1073 in Judge McGraws Court? THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MAKE UP THE FILES SENT TO ME BY THE WAUKESHA CIRCUIT COURT: April 7, 1988, NO CASE NUMBER, NO ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE, signed by Valerie (last name illegible no typed name), Deputy Sheriff, COUNTY OF OUTAGAMIE. I served the within Garnishee Summons and Garnishee Complaint on the named defendant Leo E. Wanta and Joanne E. Wanta by then and there delivering to and leaving with Leo E. Wanta. There should be a signature by Leo E. Wanta acknowledging Service but there is not. April 7, 1988, NO CASE NUMER, NO ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE, Garnishee Summons and Garnishee Complaint; Garnishee is AmeriChina Global Management Group, Inc. There is no notation anywhere on the document establishing that AmeriChina is a Nevada Corporation and Service should have been made at the companys home address which is not shown anywhere on the Certificate of Service form signed by /Valerie Illegible, Deputy Sheriff. Instead, the Service was made to Leo E. Wanta, its President, assuming that a President located in Wisconsin has access to documents requested of a Nevada Corporation. April 9, 1988, Case No. 88 CV 1043, F&M BANK PLANTIFF, LEO E. WANTA and JOANNE E. WANTA, DEFENDANTS, and AMERICHINA GLOBAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Garnishee Defendant. In this Response to the Complaint of F&M Bank, Mr. Wanta makes clear that the Complaint fails to state that the judgment is docketed in Outagamie County and moves for a Dismissal and a request for a change of venue from Waukesha to Outagamie County. There is no response from the Court to this request in the file. It was ignored. April 29, 1988, Letter from C. Scott Pryor to Judge Robert T. McGraw, re F&M Bank vs. Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta and AmeriChina Global Management, Case No. 88-CV-1043. The letter indicates to Judge McGraw that the official address of AmeriChina Global Management Group, Inc., is the address given for Mr. Wanta as his residence (though he did not live at that address at the time his wife, from whom he was separated lived at the Edgewood Avenue address). The Notification to Judge McGraw in no way informs Judge McGraw that AmeriChina is a Nevada corporation entitled to the protections of the Uniform Commercial Code in that State regarding its private records. As a corporation, more than a paid employee like a President must agree to make such records available there is a Board of Directors that must be considered when a companys name and reputation are being deposed. April 24, 1988, Case No. 88-CV-1043, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Wanta is notified pursuant to 804.05(2) that F&M Bank will conduct a deposition of Leo Wanta, president of AmeriChina Global Management Group, Inc., at 1:00 P.M. on the 10th day of June, 1988.

As I read 804.05, Mr. Pryor, 804.05 Depositions upon oral examination. (1) When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, except as provided in s. 804.015, any party may take the testimony of any person including a party by deposition upon oral examination. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena as provided in s. 805.07. The attendance of a party deponent or of an officer, director or managing agent of a party may be compelled by notice to the named person or attorney meeting the requirements of sub. (2) (a). Such notice shall have the force of a subpoena addressed to the deponent. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes, except when the party seeking to take the deposition is the state agency or officer to whose custody the prisoner has been committed. (2)Notice of examination: general requirements; special notice; non-stenographic recording; production of documents and things; deposition of organization. (a) A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs. If a subpoena requiring the production of materials is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice. Your Notice of Deposition DID NOT GIVE the corporate address of AmeriChina Global Management Inc., in Carson City, Nevada. It gave the home address of the companys President, Leo E. Wanta. No Notice of Deposition was lawfully served on the owners of the property Demanded by your Notice, AmeriChina Global Management, Inc. under 804.05(2)(a). the name and ADDRESS of each person to be examined. AmeriChina is a foreign corporation and is not a person to be examined and no Notice was served to AmeriChina Global Management, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada. You have been very careful to make sure Judge McGraw does not know that AmeriChina is a Nevada corporation, Mr. Pryor. As a foreign corporation, its corporate rights fall under the laws defined by the Wisconsin Uniform Commercial Code. Had you followed the law, would Judge McGraw have issued the Order to Appear Before Court Commissioner on 5 May 1988? I dont believe so I dont think any reasonable person believes so. THERE WAS NO LAWFUL NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED TO AMERICHINA GLOBAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., IN NEVADA, AS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AND NO LAWFUL NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO AMERICHINA UNDER SECTION 804.05(2)(a). If I have misinterpreted this important point, please tell me in what way and where. April 29, 1988 (I assume it was 1988 Shirley M. Hornbach did not state the year, only the month and day) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING. No documents were attached as

Hornbach stated they would be; whatever she sent was sent to Leo E. Wanta, President (corporation name omitted), 2101 North Edgewood Avenue, Appleton WI 54911. There is insufficient information contained in this AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING for it to be a lawful Affidavit no case number, no description of what was mailed, no corporation name, etc. Ms. Hornbach was mailing unknown documents to someone who was President of something. May 4, 1988: 83-CV-1073, Affidavit and Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear Before Court Commissioner filed by you. Your sworn statement in this document states a judgment was duly rendered and entered in this action in favor of said plaintiff and against said defendant on the 27th day of October 1983 for $428,244.95 damages and costs, in the Circuit Court for the County of Waukesha, State of Wisconsin, and that said Judgment was on the 26th day of August, 1985, duly docketed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for said County; and this deponent further says there is due and unpaid upon said judgment $478,244.95, Plus costs and interest. QUESTION: The Court Docket (copy enclosed) states that on June 25, 1985, this case 83-CV-1073 was dismissed. It was originally filed on May 4, 1983 and a Stipulation and Order were filed and an Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment was filed on October 7, 1983. On November 24, 1983, a Motion to Re-open was filed by Defendant Wanta. On December 5th, a Supplement to Motion, Affidavit and three Affidavits of Service were filed. On December 12, 1983, a PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT was filed PARTIAL. On January 3, 1984, F&M Bank agreed not to execute on the Judgment until the Wantas (both Leo and Joanne) claim against guarantors is settled. In other words, the Judgment was put on hold. HOW DID THIS PARTIAL SETTLEMENT BECOME FULL SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $478,244.95 in the same Notice it was $428,244.95 WHICH IS IT? THE TYPING ERRORS ALONE NEGATE THE LEGALITY OF THESE FILINGS. QUESTION: Which is correct? Your Sworn Statement to Judge Robert T. McGraw that F&M Bank had a Judgment filed in the Waukesha Circuit Court in the amount of $428,244.95 or $478,244.95 (depending on which number one chooses to believe); or, are the Circuit Court Records the Docket for 83-CV1073 showing the case was Dismissed? If the Case was Dismissed, how can you claim to have a Judgment of any amount filed in the Waukesha Circuit Court? May 4, 1988: 83-CV-1073, Judge Robert T. McGraw, Waukesha Circuit Court Judge, signs an ORDER to APPEAR BEFORE COURT COMMISSIONER . THERE IS NO VERIFICATION OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER IN THE WAUKESHA CIRCUIT COURT FILE OF 83-CV-1073. An address for the Defendant is handwritten it is his wifes address from whom he has been separated for two years. There is no typed text identifying an address for Wanta; the informal handwritten note gives no zip code and is obviously not a serious attempt at Service of this Order.

QUESTION: How can a Judge Order a Defendant to appear on June 10, 1988 in a case that had (according to Waukesha Circuit Court Records) been Dismissed on June 25, 1985? QUESTION: How can Court Commissioner Joseph D. Melendes Order a Defendant to appear on June 10, 1988 in a case that had (according to Waukesha Circuit Court Records) been Dismissed on June 25, 1985? QUESTION: How can a lawyer who is a Member of the Bar of the State of Wisconsin tell a Judge in 1988 that a full Judgment was made in a Waukesha Circuit Court Decision when Court Records clearly state two opposing things: 1. 83-CV-1073 A Partial Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on January 3, 1984 and F&M Bank agreed not to execute the Judgment until the Wantas claim against Guarantors was settled and there is no mention in any Court Records of such a Settlement; and, 2. 83-CV-1073 Waukesha Circuit Court Records say 83-CV-1073 was Dismissed on June 25, 1984. QUESTION: Are Court Records in existence which Waukesha Circuit Court did not provide me that would change the obvious conclusions to which one must come when reading the above list of unusual occurrences? QUESTION: How do you define Fraudulent Concealment? May 30, 1988, Case No. 88-CV-1043, Letter of Notification of ANSWER sent by Defendant Leo E. Wanta suddenly Mrs. Wantas name has been dropped to Judge McGraw complete with names and addresses for Dreyfuss at F&M Bank, Pryor at his law firm, and Attorney Joseph Melendes, Waukesha County Court Commissioner. May 30, 1988, Case No. 88-CV-1043, ANSWER sent by Defendant Leo E. Wanta. Wanta denies that F&M Bank has a legal judgment against either him or AmeriChina. THIS DOCUMENT WAS ALSO IGNORED BY JUDGE MC GRAW. May 30, 1988, Case Number 88-CV-1043, ENCLOSED FOR FILING OF ANSWER regarding the Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents. NO FILING STAMP BY THE WAUKESHA COURT APPEARS ON THIS DOCUMENT THOUGH, IT IS CLEARLY MAILED TO THE COURT OF JUDGE ROBERT T. MC GRAW. NOTE: IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE COURT IGNORES WANTAS RESPONSES BECAUSE HE IS USING CASE NO. 88-CV-1043 RATHER THAN 83CV-1073. MR. WANTA IS RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE SENT BY MR. PRYOR, TO WIT: April 24, 1988, Case No. 88-CV-1043, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. THUS, ANY ERRORS THAT

RESULT FROM THE FIRST USE (OR MISUSE) OF THIS CASE NUMBER MUST BE PLACED AT MR. PRYORS DOOR, NOT THAT OF DEFENDANT WANTA. 16 June 1988, 83-CV-1073: AFFIDAVIT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE COURT COMMISSIONER, Sworn Statement filed by C. Scott Pryor, swearing a Judgment was entered in the Record of the Waukesha Circuit Court on behalf of his client, F&M Bank in the sum of $428,244.95. Based on Waukesha Circuit Court Records, this sworn statement is questionable as to accuracy (at best questionable). Pryor swears he waited for twenty (20) minutes for Defendant Wanta to appear. Court Commissioner Melendes verifies this default by Wanta. NEITHER MELENDES OR MC GRAW HAVE READ THE WANTA ANSWER FILED WITH THE COURT ON MAY 30, 1988 DUE TO THE ERROR MADE BY MR. PRYOR IN STATING THE APPROPRIATE CASE NUMBER TO WHICH MR. WANTA RESPONDED. MR. PRYOR PLACES NO NOTIFICATION IN THE COURT RECORDS OF THE CASE NUMBER ERROR BUT REVERSES HIMSELF AND ONCE AGAIN USES CASE NUMBER 83-CV-1073. HOW IS A DEFENDANT SUPPOSED TO KEEP UP WITH THE ERRORS INVOLVED HEREIN? June 16. 1988, Case No. 83-CV-1073. THOUGH NO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN SENT TO MR. WANTA OR HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN COURT RECORDS FOR CASE NO. 83-CV-1073 (MR. PRYORS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WAS SENT TO MR. WANTA AS CASE NO. 88CV-1043). I REPEAT: THE NOTICE MR. PRYOR SENT GIVING NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WAS FOR CASE NO. 88-CV-1043, NOT 83-CV-1073 AS STATED IN THIS DOCUMENT -MELENDES ACCEPTS THE INACCURATE STATEMENTS MADE IN PRYORS SWORN STATEMENT AND ORDERS WANTA TO APPEAR BEFORE JUDGE ROBERT T. MC GRAW. MELENDES OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL SERVICE (EITHER THAT OR THE WAUKESHA CIRCUIT COURT HAS LOST EVIDENCE OF SERVICE AND IT IS NOT IN THEIR FILES). ANY COURT ACTION THAT TAKES PLACE BEYOND THIS POINT VIOLATES MR. WANTAS RIGHTS BEYOND BELIEF! June 17, 1988, NO CASE NUMBER AVAILABLE, Certificate of Service from OUTAGAMIE COUNTY signed by Deputy Sheriff certifying Service of AFFIDAVIT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE COURT COMMISSIONER. This Certification of Service is totally invalid because no Case Number appears on the document and neither does an address at which Service was made. The invalid document is accepted by and filed in the Waukesha Circuit Court on June 27, 1988. Filed July 5, 1988, STATEMENT BY MR. PRYOR otherwise than as a witness upon the trial (WHAT TRIAL?) pursuant to Section 804.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

QUESTION: There is no record of service upon Defendant Wanta regarding your original Order that he appear for a Deposition. No Case No. 88-CV-1043 has been filed in the Court and the Waukesha Circuit Records indicate 83-CV-1073 was Dismissed so for what case is Mr. Wanta supposed to appear and what records is he supposed to bring with him? This is a man who has been a resident of Vienna, Austria (documented by residency court records in Austria) since June 1988... the same period of time all of these nebulous legal demands are being delivered to where Mr. Wantas wife lives the wife who in October 1995 testified in her divorce testimony that she and Mr. Wanta had not lived under the same roof for over seven (7) years and Mr. Wanta had provided information to the Court that he lived outside of the United States all of the various Judges being assigned to Case Number 83-CV-1073 (none obviously read any of the Records).. IN VIEW OF ALL OF THAT, WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY DID YOU HAVE TO DEMAND OF MR. WANTA THAT HE APPEAR BEFORE MR. MELENDES, MR. PRYOR? CASE 88-CV-1043 WAS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN FILED, SO THAT CASE WAS NOT IN PLAY ALL REFERENCES ARE TO THE DISMISSED CASE 83-CV-1073. IN SHORT YOU ARE DEMANDING THAT WANTA PRODUCE RECORDS RELATED TO A CASE WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE WAUKESHA COUNTY COURTS, HAS BEEN DISMISSED. The happenings in Judge McGraws courtroom are of particular interest because on April 4, 1985 three years before your July 16, 1988 unlawful filing in Judge McGraws Court Judge Robert T. McGraw wrote an Order for Dismissal in Case No. 83-CV-452 stating Plaintiffs attorney (State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, et al) is satisfied that Leo Wanta is not individually liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff. COPY ENCLOSED. The reason Mr. Wanta was not responsible to pay the wages claimed by a James Doro who worked for Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc., is because Mr. Wanta did not own a single share of Falls Vending. He had NO form of investment in Falls Vending. Yet, you make the claim in a 29 March 1988 statement that Leo E. Wanta and Joanne E. Wanta are adult individuals, located at 2101 N. Edgewood Avenue in Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (inaccurate statement Mrs. Wanta, not Mr. Wanta, lived at the Edgewood Avenue address) AND ARE ENGAGED IN A VENDING BUSINESS. JUDGE MC GRAWS DECISION, WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT, APRIL 4, 1985, ORDER for Dismissal, Case # 83-CV-452: Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, et al, and James Doro, vs. Fall Food & Vending Service Inc., and Leo Wanta], which concerned a claim for wages. Judge McGraw stated that Leo Wanta is not personally liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff." JUDGE ROBERTS DECISION, Federal District Court Judge, C.A. No. 84-C-359, Bankruptcy of Falls Vending Service, Inc., 7 September 1984. Wanta is only an employee of the company [Falls Vending Service]. The owner of the company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.

THE $428,244.85 YOU WERE DEMANDING MR. AND MRS. WANTA PAY WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE WANTAS HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN FALLS VENDING SERVICE, INC., -- AND THEY DID NOT! ALL IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A PHONE CALL TO THE WISCONSIN SECRETARY OF STATES OFFICE! THUS, YOUR ENTIRE AGGRESSIVE PURSUIT OF THE WANTAS FOR THIS DEBT WAS BOGUS! F&M BANK SOUGHT PAYMENT OF A LARGE DEBT HAVING TO DO WITH FALLS VENDING AND NEITHER MR. OR MRS. WANTA WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUM OWED F&M BANK. IF YOU WERE DOING YOUR JOB AT ALL, YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT. Surely they taught you in law school to always update the information you use when filing lawsuits that can destroy an individual (or a familys) life. JUDGE REHBEINS DECISION, WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, February 22, 1989, REVERSAL OF TRIBUNAL DECISION ON APPEAL: Leo Wanta is not personally liable for the tax delinquencies of Falls Vending Service, Inc. Thus, we have THREE Judicial Decisions in 1984 and 1985 stating that Leo Wanta is not responsible for the debts of Falls Vending Service, Inc. Yet, here you are in June of 1988 filing cases unlawful cases it appears on behalf of F&M Bank involving funds owed the bank by Falls Vending Service, Inc., owned by Jerome Engle / Jerry Engel. This appears to be fraudulent concealment. The name Falls Vending has disappeared from 83-CV-1073. Judge McGraw was not informed about your 88-CV-1043 error and Mr. Wantas ANSWER to your 1043 Demand of him it was never stamped by the Court Clerk she didnt have a Case 1043; she just had a case 1073. Is that why you changed the number? And, why the four year delay? If F&M Bank had a valid judgment in hand what happened? Did you fall asleep at the wheel? I rather doubt F&M Bank let so much time elapse when, if as you say, a lawful judgment of $428,244.85 hung in the balance. And you are teaching law to young, Christian students? Does Regent University know of the way you pursued and manipulated the law to get a favorable court decision for F&M Bank to win over $500,000.00 from a totally innocent man? If I have misstated the facts of 83-CV-1073, please inform me because if you do not, I intend to publish the facts about your behavior as a lawyer in this case on the basis of what the documentation says happened. Sincerely,