Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

about really discreet information, which should be known only to my lawyer. I asked my lawyer and demanded from Mrs. Broder not to make

publicly known information, which should be discreet, but Lucy demonstrated her access to everything, what took place in my lawyer's office

-from the dates of our appointments with him to the dates of our immigration hearings, and so on. She used to come to the immigration

tribunal each time when our hearings took place - and even appeared in the room where the hearing took place: each time without our

permission.

3.9. One time she told me with the same bravado (it was in February 1995) that a very partial committee is going to be assigned to my file.

She told me that an especially aggressive immigration officer would be called from Toronto "to calm" me down. She was right.

3.10. Later it came out that Mrs. Broder sabotaged not only our immigration claim, but also translations of the articles, of documents, in

other words - everything, what she has to translate. Her distortion of the my wife's birth certificate data enabled immigration officer to

excuse her report made to the Israeli embassy about us.

3.11. Not only Lucy was related to Israel, but also Mrs. E. Broder. Soon after we met she married a businessman from Israel, who

maintained all business contacts in Israel - according to his words. She was born in Odessa, but lived several years in Cuba: it is also an

information to reflect.

3.12. It is too painful for me to believe that my lawyer did not remove two above-mentioned paragraphs that Mrs. Broder inserted without

our permission because he acted on purpose. I still want to trust him, and I prefer to think that he was tired, and this was what caused his

mistake. When he was finishing to fix "mistakes", distortions and non-authorized "adjustments", which Mrs. Broder have did in her

"translation", it was late at night, and both him, and me, especially, my mother, were tired, and I did not check the translation properly. I also

trusted him, and this is why I signed the new version without a proper check. I also prefer to think that he did not let me verify translations of

all the documents in my file before the hearings (I asked him many times to give me documents of my file for a control) because he was

constantly busy, and could not prepare them to me. If he would give me that chance, I could discover before the hearings that Mrs. Broder

falsified the translation not only of our claim, but of all other documents as well (like my wife's certificate). I know that the immigration

committee, which gave no positive decision to "Russians" from Israel at all, would answer "no" even if there were no distortions in

translations at all.

3.13. Some sort of misunderstanding - I believe - happened between my lawyer and me, in result of which the most important remarks

about IRB's negative decision in our case were not submitted with the appeal. This is why I am asking you to take this submission in

consideration when decision in my appeal will be considered.

I submitt examples of Mrs. Broder's sabotage in Supplements, Documents # 92,93, 94, 95, 96, 97.

NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]

PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT 3 of DOCUMENTS]]]

GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 APRIL-MAY 1997

DOCUMENT 1 (2-nd version)

(Was submitted to Amnesty International via E-MAIL)

MY COPY OF APPEAL TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Why I appeal? 1) Because my complains, which I once submitted to Amnesty International from Israel, played if not the main, a very

important role during all the 3 immigration hearings in our case. 2) Because if not directly, then indirectly (from a particular point of view) IRB

members insinuated that I must be punished for my contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during my

immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere

on a wider scale. 4) Because in the former USSR as well as in Israel I was a human rights activist and was considered a human rights

activist by the people and press. 5) Because during the hearing the immigration officer falsified Amnesty International's (and other human

rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6) Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees in general) but

faces abuses, ungrounded accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the

human rights, placing the very basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because I'm absolutely certain (and I have presented undeniable

evidences to the immigration board) that I'm going to be killed and the members of my family are going to be killed if we will be turned back

to Israel since I could suggest that something like a death penalty was considered there against me for my views.

Why I Appeal Before I Have The Immigration Board's Final Decision In My Case? 1) Because I have to dispute the very procedure of the

hearing in our case, which abused us and placed our lives under the definite danger. 2) Because I know of some examples when a final

negative decision was sent to refugee claimants together with a deportation order without the rights to appeal. 3) Because after what

happened during our immigration hearing I feel insecure even here. 4) Because it looks like they violated some legal and moral norms while

hearing our case not for giving us later a positive decision. 5) Because now, when the information about us was submitted by the

immigration officer to Israel there can be a wave of wider pressure from Israel to turn us back. I was actually expelled from the former

USSR, where I was persecuted for my artistic, philosophical, ideological and political views, where I was beaten, prevented from social and

professional success, watched and threatened. I was deported to Israel. When we moved away from the USSR we tried to escape to a

third country but were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel by force.

We were systematically assaulted, beaten, disgraced, threatened, discriminated against (persecuted) in Israel. We were denied a

permission to leave the country, and could not go away for 3 1/2 years. We collected thousands of evidences in discrimination and

persecutions. Israeli state radio made a provocation, aiming to eliminate me, Israeli newspapers called to destroy all my works - but for this

immigration board it's still not "enough"...

*Why I Think My Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?

Inside The Courtroom: 1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, etc.) have been

disappeared or were ignored as if they were (disappeared).See pages A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5. 1-a)Only my college diploma was mentioned

during immigration hearings, and the commissioners acted as if my university diploma does not exist. In reality I mentioned it during the

hearings and the copy of this diploma also was in my file. 2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not

they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated me). Pages B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4.B-5. 3) Other documents were mentioned as

incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to

these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same way my words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating

question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was

repeated - but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the

same answer again and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's

clear that such a method violates moral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological

pressure can not be taken into consideration. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4. 5) Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They

shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their own - and later based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own

statement posing it as my - not their - words. E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to

appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were

mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their

disapproval by the norms of democracy or by my approval of the democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was

treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not to

Canadian but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5, G-6. This position neither being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself

made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. G-7, G-8. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but

a pure pro-Israel's propaganda. Its goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of

Israel as a "good" country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our

personal history. So the only criteria chosen to support the board's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only

admissible attitude to refugees has to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2,

H-3. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a

number of recognized human rights.I-1, I-2, etc. 10)They also (indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel for my

views - it's justified because I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about

us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a

country refugee claimants escaped from .K-1, K-2, etc. 12)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer

distorted and sometimes falsified their meaning.L-1, L-2,ect. 13) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by

it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time

documents that were represented by my lawyer (or my documents) newspapers, statements, declarations, and so on - weren't treated as

equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In the same

time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a

number of my documents may be considered as more objective and independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) The immigration officer used 1) an

open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position

during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a