Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's

comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on

ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The

difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is

not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"

(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other

locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally

certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many

states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)

to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the

certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of

blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal

importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects

involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,

which is directed toward insuring rapid death!

Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.

Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the

case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has

nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do

with work in Massachussets.

Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,

"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his

business in violation of Massachusetts law should

serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."

A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way

discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of

justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred

screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a

law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of

this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that

report, data later supported by several other sources whose

qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is

pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who

threaten his livelihood.

David Thomas, 2/28/97

CODOH can be reached at:

Box 439016/P-111

San Diego, CA, USA 92143

Comments from Fred Leuchter

Dear David Thomas,

Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely

true.

The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,

although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The

Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial

would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an

agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the

things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or

change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's

dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual

promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the

Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he

would not break the law by saying things or doing things he

had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never

admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply

agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his

life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not

broken the law.

Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of

people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge

Court.

Fred Leuchter

4/5/99

To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.

Galina Buyanovsky

175 Sherbrook St.West,

Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,

CANADA H2X 1X5

FEDERAL COURT

Supreme Court Building Ottawa,

Ontario K1A 0H9

CANADA

Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.

Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a non-official letter

we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel exists, and that Canadian Ministry of

Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned

to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a

shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were

expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration [ look

over her anger declaration about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new

commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is

0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see

comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. And this person whose partiality towards the Russian-speaking people was already

recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the

political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada. For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was

dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but

an independent state? Why refugees from Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?

Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and his best friend

now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct! And the last question about Mr.

La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to

Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel.

The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs. Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all

her employer's clients, distorting the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's

face and to send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most favorite

sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports, and other documents. This

trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer. Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr.

Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such

"mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our

nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the

translation using another translator help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated

correctly, but that back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in

official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably Mr. Dorion. In

other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more detailed and precise proof of Mrs.

Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.

Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and distortion of our

words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we said that in our Teudat Zehuts

(internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious

that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our

problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and

morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main

moral norms of democracy. No wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in

passports in ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no

obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in passports? If so, and

also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal (at least, morally illegal as minimum). As

a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue because in Israeli

society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of

nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality.

Let me point out that there are almost no paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's

passport as the source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination in

our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim? Probably, because Mr.

La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other countries. Let me point out also that the

"Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other

ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the

authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the