ed that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants?And then - how those figures, 80% of Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" - and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice towards us. 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 - 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. How can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too. The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to find protection in Israel! The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members' help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show that Israel is a state of injustice. The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has nothing what to do with our claim. Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned. It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more. The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings. And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category. Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls! Lev Gunin NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]] Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE PREVIOUES DOCUMENT <> NEXT DOCUMENT From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998 Dear Friends! Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a desperate cry for help and justice. In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives. Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that sad date. The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial - university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology, music history, philosophy, etc. His articles were published in a number of newspapers all over the world. In 1979-1986, Lev became an object of wide humiliations. He was beaten by somebody, who has links with militia (police) and KGB. The authorities stood up in defense of the attackers. They persecuted L. GUNIN even more for bringing the attacker to trial. In another incident he and his brother - they were hunted by two well-coordinated groups: mobsters, and a gang of youngsters. "Hunters" were also leaded by militia (police). Later brothers GUNIN were interrogated by police /KGB men. Lev's brother Vitaly became a victim of secret medical manipulations. L. Gunin has multiple links with the cultural elite, famous personalities and dissidents in Moscow, St. - Peterburg (Leningrad), Vilnius, Warsaw, and Belarus. He also has connections with the Western journalists in Moscow, and with representatives of the governments of the Western countries. 1980-s. Because of persecutions L. GUNIN's decided to participate in the dissident movement. There are the main directions of his dissident activities: 1. Participation in Human Rights movement and links with the most famous human rights activists. 2. Membership in underground literacy circles. 3. Defense of the Old City of Bobruisk from revelation and demolition. 4. Journalism and editorial functions for underground magazines. 5. Cooperation with forbidden (or unwelcomed) in ex-USSR NTS (People's Labor Union) and the National Front of Belarus. 6. Participation in the Jewish national movement. 7. Creation of ideologically independent and stylistically controversial music, prose, poetry, philosophy, and historical, political, and other works. 1985-1989. A conflict erupted between leading by L. GUNIN group - and the powerful institution of Israeli emissaries to USSR, and controlled by them Jewish political Mafia. (Their goals - devastation of the local Jewish cultural life, confiscation of huge aid from the Western Jewish communities, and concentration of the propaganda of immigration to Israel - L. Gunin was fighting). He also confronted three important personalities - Kebich, Alimbachkov, and Lukashenko. All of them became top political figures later: first one short before, and the two others - after his departure from USSR (The 1-st one became the Prime Minister of Belarus, 2-nd - major of Bobruisk, and the 3-rd is the present dictator of Belarus). . His attempts to emigrate to USA or Germany - to save his brother's life - failed. All attempts to obtain an Israeli visa for permanent residency have been failed, too. (By then practically everybody could easily get such a visa). Israelis did not want to allow him and his brother to immigrate to Israel. 1991. After his brother's death, Lev started to cancel all steps of immigrating to Israel. He did not want to go there by then. Soon he received an order from KGB to leave his native country for Israel. Soviet authorities sent us (family Gunin) all previously suspended visas. We could not say "no" to KGB, but planned to escape from Warsaw to Germany. At the Central railway station in Warsaw, in presence of L.Gunin's Polish friends, Israelis captured us, and took us to Israel by force. In Israel, Mossad (Shabbak) officers verbally accused Lev in an attempt to sabotage the whole operation of bringing the Soviet Jews to Israel. Mossad approached him several times. In Israel we faced next persecutions: 1) Israeli citizenship was thrust on us 2) Alla, Lev's wife, was abused, attacked, beaten, assaulted, and systematically discriminated against 3) Elisabeth, his mother, was abused, attacked, and assaulted 4) Children became victims of systematic humiliations and mockery 5) Lev himself was deprived in his rights. Israeli authorities denied him: a) valid diploma equivalent b) professional courses c) rights to enter other courses or university d) full and valid employment authorization e) registration with the State labor exchange f) tax exemption as all fresh immigrants were receiving g) welfare when he was unemployed h) proper and equal medical service i) legal, and police defense j) reduction of municipal taxes k) authorization of departure, which is required in Israel to leave the country l) etc. He was beaten, abused, discriminated against. Israeli state radio called him an enemy. One of the leading Israeli newspapers suggested that his works (essays, articles, etc.) must be destroyed. Innumerous and systematic draft board's orders to appear affected his normal life and his (his family) financial situation. During his life in Israel L. Gunin published a number of articles & books in Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Moscow, and Germany, criticizing Israeli government for human rights violations and fascist tendencies in Israel. 1994-1996. With an indirect Amnesty International's involvement we could come to Canada, and claimed a refugee status. To support our claim we presented next types of documentary proof: A. Legal documents B. Documents, issued by Israeli government C. Documents, issued by all kinds of Israeli institutions D. Affidavits E. Letters F. Post receipts G. Medical documents H. Newspapers I. Researches made by International committees and human rights organizations J. Proof that in Israel we turned to innumerous organizations, institutions, police, court, and lawyers for protection K. Our lawyer's documents L. Etc. Practically each statement, described in our refugee claim, was supported by the documentary proof. Only the list of documents' description consisted of six pages. 1994-1997. In her translations, our lawyer's secretary/translator distorted all documents in our refugee claim. One of our two lawyers submitted several messages to IRB in protest of some outraged events. He claimed that the IRB members took advantage of the distorted translations, using them as a tool against us. IRB members used offensive, illegal methods against Lev. They interrogated only him. No questions were given to other family members. IRB commissioners demonstrated their opinion that Lev GUNIN must be punished for his ideological (political) views. Two members of IRB, immigration judges, gave the whole initiative to the third member, an immigration officer, a Jew and - probably - Israeli, who only spoke. During our refugee hearings she manifested an outraged malicious hatred towards us, and maintained close contacts with the Israeli embassy in writing, in our case. IRB members maintained the atmosphere of hostility and arbitrary attitude towards us. Denying our refugee claim, the IRB members not just acted unfair. Their negative decision was not just a refusal to recognize us as refugees, but a declaration-manifest, which rejected the basic human rights in principle. In form of declaration, they denied in principle rights to have an independent opinion, practice or not to practice religion, be protected by the state. IRB members claimed that if government paid for immigrants' transportation, immigrants became the property of that government (a kind of commodity). IRB members also claimed that police' and other institutions' refusal to give protection was justified if people had an alternative political /ideological opinion (even if that opinion was not expressed to police). They claimed that we alienated Israelis by keeping controversial opinions, and refusing to change our views. And so on... The IRB's negative decision became not just a matter of our personal fate, but also a matter of human rights in general. 1998. In her speech in the Federal Court, Mrs. Murphy, the Minister's of Immigration representative, confirmed the IRB members' negative attitude towards human rights, and also widened personal accusations against Lev Gunin, turning the question of our refugee status into the question of his "inadmissible" (by whom?) ideological views. As IRB did before, Mrs. Murphy refused even to mention Alla Gunin, Elisabeth Epstein (Gunin), and the children. The Federal Judge, Mr. Dube, just copied Mrs. Murphy's and the IRB statements, refusing to evaluate arguments of the TWO sides. He claimed that - because in their refusal to recognize us as refugees IRB members used the formula "no minimal credibility", - such cases are automatically denied by the Federal Court. In reality, his decision was made in contradiction to another Federal Court judge's decision in our case, and also contradicted the IRB's final (conclusive) decision. In that decision IRB agreed that some persecutions against us (they called them "difficulties") could take place because we abused the Israelis by refusing to obey their demands to change our views. Mr. Dube also revealed his partiality by distorting some important events and attacking our lawyer in personal. A person, whose name was also Dube, was involved into negotiations between the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka, and the General Consul of Israel, in our case. We could not find that person among the IRB headquarters' staff, or among other immigration divisions. All faxes were submitted to Israeli consulate from Mrs. Malka, without mentioning any other name (s). However, the responses from the consulate were submitted to Mr. Dube. We feel that this mysterious Mr. Dube has something what to do with the Federal Judge Mr. Dube. IRB and Mrs. Murphy's accusations against us were such, which are the prerogative of the criminal court. They accused us so sharp as if we were killers or terrorists. In reality we are innocent people, never accused in defamation, or fraud. In the same time, the way they acted might be easily considered as a criminal offence. We are appealing not just because of incredible injustice, but because the removal back to Israel means DEATH for us. If nobody in the whole world could prevent it, it would mean that if people are deprived and innocent they might be kidnapped and taken to another country by force. It would mean that demonstrative humiliations over human rights, such as the IRB members and Mrs. Murphy expressed, are tolerated. There are rumors among UN staff that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be changed soon to fit to the brutal and ultra-religious regimes' requirements. Please, do something for us before it happened! The only way to save us is to help us in obtaining the permanent residents status in any civilized country. That could prevent our eventual removal to Israel. Please, help! Family GUNIN: Alla, Lev, Ina, and Marta GUNIN Elisabeth EPSTEIN-Gunin Tel. (514) 499-1294 E-mail: [leog@total.net] From Lev GUNIN, April, 1999 Dear Friends! In 1991 I was deported from my native Belarus to Warsaw because of my political opinion. Together with my family (wife and 2 children) and my mother I wanted to move from Warsaw to Germany. On the Central railway station in Warsaw we were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel against our will. We were widely persecuted in Israel and were refused an exit vise during 3 and a half years. In 1994 we managed to quit Israel and came to Canada seeking a refugee status. In an outraged manner, openly accenting their rights for injustice, the members of IRB committee refused us the status. Deportation to Israel means death for me and members of my family. The only solution is to start a legal immigration to Canada. But we need travel documents to afford it because: 1) our Israeli passports have expired and to extend them is not possible 2) I asked the Israeli embassy to cancel my Israeli citizenship We made an appeal to the Federal Court, but our appeal was automatically rejected without any analysis of our file, just because of the formula that the Immigration and Refugee Board used in their conclusive decision. In the Federal Court, the Immigration Canada representative, Mrs. Murphy, expressed outraged accusations against me, as if by claiming a refugee status and by criticizing the IRB decision I have committed the most violent crime or was a terrorist. Almost 5 years we (my family, and me) live under a threat of deportation, under the wild persecutions of the Immigration Canada, institution, which put the equal sign between my peaceful and legal human rights activism against the former Soviet and Israeli governments' violation of human rights - and terrorism!!! Please, help us! My best wishes, Lev GUNIN August, 1997 E-Mail: leog@total.net PREVIOUES DOCUMENT <> NEXT DOCUMENT PEVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP of DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]] DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 From Lev Gunin File number 3082-7125 CONCLUSIVE DECISION (Paragraph 69.1 (9) of Immigration Law) This is the translation in brief P.1. Paragraph 1. Lev Gunin, Marta and Ina Gunin, Alla Gunin, and Elisabeth Epstein are not recognized as refugees. Paragraphs 4-7. This is demanders' declaration in brief: They came to Israel in April 1991. When they arrived in Petach-Tikva theirs neighbors, orthodox Jews, were persistent [and aggressive] in their attempts to convert them [from atheism from one side, and passive Christianity from another side] to Judaism. Children, then 5 and 6 years old [*1] - (see commentaries), were abused during a religious celebration at a kinder-garden [*2]. The governor has found the situation ordinary. Dispute the transfer to another kinder-garden children faced abuses. They were bitten, bite by another children [*3]. The kinder-garden administration refused to protect them. Demander was mocked by the employers [*4] and bitten by his colleagues because he is not a true Jew. P.2. His wife has difficulties in finding a job [*5] , and when she was at least hired she was insulted, bitten and - under certain circumstances - became a victim of a sexual harassment[*6]. There were multiple insults and abuses from theirs neighbors, who were furious because demanders in their eyes are not true Jews. They turned to police in innumerous occasions with no results. One time police itself abused and ill-treated the demander under certain circumstances. His lawyer told him that nothing could be done against police. They contacted innumerous organizations including Amnesty International. They wrote to members of parliament and contacted a number of lawyers with no result [*7]. The demander also said that he was persecuted because of denouncing fascism [7-a]. Demander's mother also became a victim of multiple aggressions. She was attacked by a group of youngsters when she went to pick up the children from school [*8]. Policemen at the police station refused to pay an attention to that incident. In Nov. 1993 she was attacked by her neighbor; she stroke her by a basket with oranges and cried to her "goy!". It tool place at a market. In January 1994 in company with her children she went to pick them up from school, when she was attacked by a group of youngsters, who thrown stones at her and injured her [*9]. One evening in 1994 [*10] youngsters, friends of their neighbor, have thrown a little box at her door [*11]. She composed a letter to police in that case but police never responded [*12]. P.3. Paragraphs 1-2. In context of that the demander together with his family including his mother came to ask a refugee status in Canada [*13]. Paragraph 3. After seeing that declaration, studying their lawyer's arguments and other material we came to a conclusion that demanders are not refugees. We came to that conclusion because of the next reasons: Paragraphs 4-6. Demanders claim that they flied Israel for seeking an asylum and because of a number of incidents, which victims they became. But the tribunal is disagree with that because [...] they all came to Israel according to Israeli authorities permission and acceptation, and also because they took an advantage from benefits of a free transportation to Israel, Israeli citizenship, a certain amount of money for settlement, a free language course, and other benefits. They also might use other help because we have the documentation indicated that the population in Israel gives material help to newcomers. P.4. Paragraphs 2-5. It is possible that during their life in Israel they faced some difficulties because some individual ultra-religious feel that their rights are violated because of the presence of 2 secular adults who refuse to practice their religion. But there are no evidences that Russians are persecuted because of their religion, nationality, or because they are mixed couples or because they express anti fascist views as pretend the demander. In result we were convinced that the demanders are [dangerous for their state] exaggerators who painted a picture of their state as a state of slavery, injustice, where Russians are bitten if they do not work quickly enough, where Russian children are victims of mockery committing by theirs classmates and teachers, and where Russian women are victims of sexual harassment. And that all is going on without any possibility to obtain a protection from the state. As a result of that the demanders turned to police in several occasions without success, to innumerous organizations, human rights groups and to Amnesty International, composed letters to members of parliament and contacted more then one lawyer without getting any protection from the state. It is incongruous to that documentation about Israel, which we have chosen. This documentation present Israel as a democratic society, maintaining a justified juridical system in favor of the citizen. Police never have any discriminatory behavior towards Russian or Arabs. P..5. Paragraphs 1-5. Multiple human right organizations are also presented in Israel, both local and international. Documentation, which we present, we consider as completely reliable, when the demanders' documentation we consider as unbelievable. The tribunal ignored demanders' medical and other certificates and documents because we have found that their documents show nothing in particular. COMMENTS 1. Children age is given incorrectly. Probably, because our children were younger, and that could give us more sympathy. 2. It is false. Our children were abused during the celebration as well as in cause of that celebration (they were not allowed to a "suka" and were kept in a dark room - because they are "Russians"). It is clear from our declaration. 3. It is false. They presented the event as if our children were abused not by the teacher but by the children during the celebration, when in reality it is the teacher who abused them. 4. They combine two different event into one what is juridicaly incorrect. 5. Without a notice that my wife could not find a job because she was considered as Russian that sentence is incorrect. 6. It is false. She was not sexually abused. But she was beaten because she refused to obey the sexual pretensions of an Israeli. It is also false because it happened not at her first working place but when she became a cleaner. 7. It is false. Complains to Amnesty International gave a result. In result of them Israeli government let us leave the country. 7-a. It is a direct distortion. First, the discussion about fascism arose during our immigration hearings but does not reflected in our declaration. On the other hand, I never claimed that I was persecuted in Israel solemnly because of denouncing fascism. The discussion about fascism was related to my article and to a commentary to it made by the editors of that newspaper. They wrote that I have to be punished for my views, that my works have to be destroyed and expressed their aggression towards my poor person. 8. It is false. Two different events, which happened in different years, are confused together here. They combined the event consciously in a kind of nonsense: to make all our declaration non-reliable. 9. It is false. It is the second from the above-mentioned events, it mixed with the previous in a strange way. It is absolutely contradictory with what may be found in the declaration. 10. We gave a precise month. 11. It is false. A huge box, which was released to hit our front door (to the entrance to our apartment, and not to my mother's door - as the tribunal wrote) from the above flour, has damaged our door. It was breached through. The tribunal presents the events as if there were no damages. They claim that in a non-justified wave of panic my mother turned to police, and - naturally - was refused. They try to present us as exaggerators. 12. My mother did not compose her letter to police herself. Other people assisted her. 13. It is false, because that paragraph may be interpreted as if we flied Israel because somebody threw a little box in our door direction. In reality from one hand the event with the box was falsified itself, from another hand, it is clear from the real text of declaration and from immigration hearings that we left Israel in result of systematic persecutions and because we were afraid under serious circumstances. Translation from French and comments were made by Lev Gunin NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 6]]] PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5]]] DOCUMENT NUMBER 6 FROM Lev GUNIN FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18 ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS or LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUPPLEMENTS This is the list of Documents, which I have submitted to Immigration Canada in support to my refugee claim. There were, I think, more then 50 of other Documents, which are not listed here. I believe that the total number of documents, which supported my claim, was about 180-200, and none of them was rejected by the Immigration Board as non-reliable... TO VIEW THE ORDER OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON INTERNET FROM THE LIST BELOW, CLICK HERE: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 7]]] 1. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 5-a. 5 pages. Letter to Jerusalem Post. 19 June 1991. Refers to Introduction, page 2, paragraph 4. 2. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 6-a. 3 pages. Fax from Israeli consulate to Mrs. Judith Malka. Refers to Document 1. Paragraph 1.2., point A). 3. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 7-a. 3 pages. Fax from Maitre Michel DorÉ to Maitre Yves Boirond. Refers to Document 1. Paragraph 1.2., point A). 4. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 8. 3 pages. List of Organizations, Institutions, Persons and Governmental Boards, Where We turned for Protection in Israel during 1991-1994. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C). 5. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 9. 2 pages. Mrs. Marina Heifetz's autograph. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C). 6. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 10. 2 pages. Postal receipts. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C). 7. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 11. 2 pages. Fax receipt. (Fax was submitted to Amnesty International in London). Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C). 8. A room was prepared for a document, which I did not attached. 9. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 13. 2 pages. Medical document from Asharon (or Ha-Sharon) hospital. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 10. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 14. 2 pages. From medical center "Golda". Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 11.SUPPLEMENTS, Document 15. Medical certificate. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 12. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 16. Evaluation psychologique. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 13. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 17. Medical certificate. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 14. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 18. Medical certificate from Reddy Memorial Hospital. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5. 15. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 19 (number of documents: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, J,K, L,M,N,O,P). All of them refer to Document 1, page 3, point D): 16. Document 19-A.1 page. U.S. Jews hold fire in rift with Netanyahu. 17. Document 19-B.1 page. Arabs seek resumption of U.N. session on Israel. 18. Document 19-C.1 page. Israeli immigrants finding work. 19. Document 19-D.1 page. Ethiopian Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood. 20. Document 19-E. 1 page. A group of children marched along St.-Alexander... 21. Document 19-F. 1 page. A mourner pauses... page 2 22. Document 19-G. 7 pages. We do not need your love, but just stop beating us! 23. Document 19-H. 7 pages. Interview with Jonathan Gefen. 24. Document 19-I. 1 page. The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel. 25. Document 19-J. 2 pages. Fleeing the Promised Land. 26. Document 19-K. 1 page. Name On the Tombstone. 27. Document 19-L. 3 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. An urgent call to stop the recent Israeli bill, which could forbade all religions beside Judaism. 28. Document 19-M. 3 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews' Almanac. ONE YEAR IN PRISON FOR POSSESSING A NEW TESTAMENT. 29. Document 19-N. 1 page. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. AN URGENT CALL FOR PRAYER AND SOLIDARITY: "This bill before the Knesset would render illegal the possession, production, reproduction, importation and distribution of literature or information, which may serve to persuade another to change his religious views or affiliations". 30. Document 19-O. 2 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. A CALL FOR PRAYER AND PROTEST. 31. Document 19-P. 1 page. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. YOU CAN BE ACTIVE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM IN ISRAEL. 32. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 20: from A to K: Israeli visas. (Total number - 11 documents). Refer to Document number 2 (in Documents, not in Supplements), paragraph 1.16. 33. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 21. 34. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 22. 35. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 23. < Group of documents, which could be attached later 36. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 24. 37. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 25. 38. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 26. 39. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 27-a. 3 pages. (From "Courier" newspaper). Lev GUNIN. A Jewish Apartheid? Refers to Document number 1, page 5, beginning of the part "ME". 40. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 27-b. 1 page. Letter for radio "RECA". Refers to Document number 1, page 5, beginning of the part "ME". 41. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 28. 4 pages. From newspaper "Vremia". Lev GUNIN. Why Israel Is Against The Victory Day? Refers to Document number 1, page 5, see part "ME". 42. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 29-a. 1 page (in Russian; translation was done, but disappeared from my file...). From newspaper "Vremia". Interview with Lev GUNIN. (Life of Lev Gunin, Permanent Dissident). Refers to Document number 1, page 5, (part "ME"), see the last line of the page 5. Also refers to Document number 1, page 7, lines 3-4. 43. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 29-b. 2 pages. Complains to "Vremia" newspaper, regarding the interview. Refers to Document number 1, page 5, (part "ME"), see the last line of the page 5. 44. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 30. Examples of threats submitted by Israelis. Refers to Document number 1, page 6 (upper part of the page). page 3 45. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 31. 2 pages. Explication. In French. I wrote it and submitted to my lawyer Maitre Le Brune (asking him to add it to my file) in a protest against another provocation by Mrs. Malka. Refers to Documents, Group of Documents Number 4. 46. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 32. 4 pages. 45 Years With Pain In The Heart. Refer to Document number 1 from Documents (not Supplements), page 4, paragraph 1.3., CILDREN. 47. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 33. 6 pages. The Silence of the Lambs. Refer to Document number 1 from Documents, page 4, paragraph 1.3., CILDREN. 48. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 34. 2 pages. Your Blood has to be Avenged. Refer to Document number 1 from Documents, page 4, paragraph 1.3., CILDREN. 49. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 35. (Refers to Document number 1, page 7 (on the top). 50. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 36. 2 pages. Affidavit form Asharon (Ha-Sharon) Urgency. Refers to Document number 1, page 7 (on the top). 51. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 37. 2 pages. Medical document from doctor Pinkas. Refers to Document number 1, page 7 (on the top). 52. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 38. Was reserved. 53. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 39. 2 pages. Medical document from an urgency. Refers to Document number 1, page 7 (on the top). 54. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 40. 2 pages. An appointment issue with a neurologist. Refers to Document number 1, page 7 (on the top). 55. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 41. 1 page. Declaration to the police in Petach-Tikva. Refers to page number 8, upper paragraph. 56. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 42. 57. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 43 (a and b): a : Barak, Avraham, tel. (03) 528-0878. b : 5 pages. Letter from Israel. Description of threats in my address. Refers to Document number 1, page 8. 58. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 44. 3 pages. Human Rights Watch Documents: Law Effectively Legalizing Torture in Israel, Police and Army Police Brutality in Israel. Refers to Document number 1, page 8. 59. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 45. 7 pages. A Raven Will Never Peck Up Raven's Eye. An article about police brutality and unpunishement of policemen. Refers to Document number 1, page 8, 60. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 46. 61. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 47. 62. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-a. 2 pages. Results of Special Musical Attestation Committee in Tel-Aviv, which defined the level of professional skills and abilities. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. 63. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 48-b. 3 pages: 64. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-b: 1-st page. Diploma in superior studies in Music. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. 65. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-b: 2-nd page. Attestation D'Etudes Superior. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. 66. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-b: 3-rd page. Attestation D'Etudes Postsecondair Professionnel. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. page4 67. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-c. 3 pages. Refusal from "Talpiot" course. ( A course, which could give me professional employment authorization, was refused to me). Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. 68. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 48-d. 2 pages. Letter from the Minister of Culture and Education of Israel Mr. A. Rubinstein in response to my lawyer Maitre S. Levin declaration. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 4. 69. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 49. 1 page. Letter from Maitre S. Levin to director of Petach-Tikva's governmental labor exchange. Refers to Document 1, page 10, point 5. 70. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 50-a. 2 pages. Civil court's in Petach-Tikva decision. Refers to Document 1, pages 10-11, point 8. 71. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 50-b. 1 page. Dr. S. Levin's letter to the National Insurance. (Regarding refusal to register me at the labor exchange). Refers to Document 1, pages 10-11, point 8. 72. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 50-c. 1 page. Dr. Levin's letter to National Insurance. Refers to Document 1, pages 10-11, point 8. 73. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 51. 3 pages. National Insurance Institute's refusal to send the allowances, determined by the law. Refers to Document 1, pages 9, 10, 11. 74. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 52. 75. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 53-a. 3 pages. Illegal order issued by the Income Tax Board from Jerusalem. (No fresh immigrant receives such orders). Refers to Document number 1, page 11. 76. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 53-b. 2 pages. Another order from General Reports Centre, Jerusalem. Refers to Document number 1, page 11. 77. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 54. If there are not enough documents like 53 (a} and b}), then other documents of this kind could been added. 78. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 55. 3 pages, 6 documents. Orders to appear at the draft board at Tel-ha-Shomer. 79. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 56. 80. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 57-a. 1 page. Letter from Mrs. Judith Malka to Mr. Michael Dore. Refers to Document number 1, page 13. 81. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 57-b. 3 pages. Letter from Mr. Dore to Commissioner Mr. Yves Boisrond. Refers to Document number 1, page 13. 82. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 58. 1 page. True translation of my wife's (Alla Fishman) Birth certificate, made in Israel in 1994. Refers to Document number 1, page 13. 83. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 59. Translation of the same birth certificate, distorted by Mrs. Eleonora Broder. Refers to Document number 1, page 13. 84. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 60. 85. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 61.. 86. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 62. 87. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 63. Group of Documents Number 4 of Supplements. All documents in the group refer to Document number 1, Page 15, 1.6. - RESUME. 88. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 64. 1 page. An affidavit from Mr. Iwan Edvards, Conductor and Director of Montreal Symphony orchestra chorus and St. Lawrence chorus. Page 5 89. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 65. 1 page. A Letter From Mrs. Margaret Rumscheidt, President of St. Lawrence Choir. 90. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 66. 1 page. Festival Mozart Plus. 91. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 67. 1 page. List of Singers, participated in Festival "Mozart Plus". 92. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 68. 1 page. List of Singers, participated in Festival of contemporary music. 93. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 69. 1 page. A contract concerning the audio cassette release. 94. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 70. 1 page. List of Participants in Festival in Hilton Dorval, in April, 1996. 95. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 71. 1 page. List of Participants in Festival in Hilton, Dorval, in April, 1996. 96. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 72. 1 page. An Affidavit in my participation in Cultural (Musical) Festival in Terrebonne. 97. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 73. Newspaper Polonia-Montreal. One of newspapers, which I am editing in Montreal. 98. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 74. Newspaper "Russian Voice". One of newspapers, which I am editing in Montreal. 99. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 75. Newspaper "Romanian Voice". One of newspapers, which I am editing in Montreal. 100. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 76. An Affidavit from Mrs. Zelia Nisman, Toronto. 1997. Next numbers were reserved for other documents of this kind, which could be added if needed. 101. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 77. 102. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 78. 103. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 79. 104. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 80. END OF GROUP 4 OF SUPPLEMENTS 105. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 81-a. 8 pages. From "Yitogi" newspaper. By Rivka Rabinovitch.HAIM NUMBER ONE AND HAIM NUMBER TWO. (About slavery tendencies in Israel). Refers to: a) Document number 1 of Documents, page 1-2, Introduction, paragraph 3 of Introduction; also - Document number 1, page 3, paragraph C); b) Document number 1, top of the page 4, comments *) and **); c) 106. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 81-b. 3 pages. By Irma Zokol. From "Yitogi" newspaper. IF I WAS A TRADE UNIONS MEMBER. (About the slavery tendencies in Israel). 106-a. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 82. 2 pages. An affidavit from Lev Ginsburg, composed in Israel, in 1994. Next numbers were reserved for the same kind of documents, which could be added later if needed. 107. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 83. 108. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 84. 109. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 85. 110. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 86. 111. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 87. 112. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 88. 113. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 89. 114. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 90. 115. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 91. EXAMPLES OF MRS. BRODER DISTORTIONS OF NEWSPAPERS' ARTICLES (AND OTHER DOCUMENTS) ALL DOCUMENTS OF THIS GROUP REFER TO DOCUMENT NUMBER 3 (TRANSLATOR'S SABOTAGE). 116. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 92. 1 page. A copy of the original of my wife's birth certificate. 117. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 93. 4 pages. From "New Russian Word" newspaper. Russians, Get Out Back! Article by Savely Kashnitzki. 118. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 94. 2 pages. From "New Russian Word" February 1995 issue. About Hitler's "My Kampf"'s edition in Hebrew in Israel. 119. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 95. 2 pages. From newspaper "Nasha Strana". Wake Up, Israel. About the resemblance of the fascist's slogan in right-wing propaganda in Israel. End of This Group of Documents. 120. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 96. 2 pages. Natan Charanskzs statement, which illustrate his double position: rejection of "speculations" that Israeli society is sick in his statements for Immigration Canada, and declarations about that when it helps to obtain money (in his fundrisen compaigns). Refers to Group of Documents number 4. 121. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 97. From newspaper "Novaya Gazeta". To Celebrate! A letter to the editor by a World War II veteran Vladimir Kogan in protest of admiration of fascism by among young Israelis and refusal of the state of Israel officially recognize the Victory Day (in relation to the Victory over fascism). Refers to Group of Documents number 4. 122. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 98. End of List: See the referring documents! Please, Save Our Souls! NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENTS NUMBER 7 - BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLES]]] To The Federal Court of Canada from Alla Gunin. FEDERAL COURT Supreme Court Building Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0H9 Alla Gunin 3455 Aylmer St., Apt. 201 Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H2X 2B5 Tel.(514)944-1294 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 believe that we are victims of partiality, a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel and political repression. That became possible only because some refugee boards of Canadian Ministry of Immigration are manipulated by the foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. Our case is extraordinary. My husband was a relatively well - known dissident in the former USSR and was severely persecuted by communist authorities. He was a dissident also in Israel. He was persecuted for his views in Israel as well. The state radio and newspapers called to take the law in own hands and to "punish" him. We were beaten, assaulted, and disgraced. All members of our family faced constant mockery. Our case is extraordinary also because we presented so many documentary proofs of persecutions as probably nobody else. The documents we presented are absolutely reliable and legal. Even in the tribunal negative decision we can read that the tribunal agree that under certain circumstances persecutions, which we described "could take place". We also presented unbeatable evidences that a threat to our lives and to our mental and physical health exist in Israel. Our claim is special also because we did absolutely everything for our defense in Israel. We turned to police, to the Ministry of Police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the Minister of Culture, to all human rights organizations, including Amnesty International's headquarters in Tel-Aviv, to famous parliament members, to newspapers and to any other possible sources. We have Amnesty International confirmation in our case, which arrived here in response to tribunal's inquiry. The reason of tribunal's negative decision and our eventual deportation from Canada was expressed by the immigration officer, Mrs. Judith Malka. During our 3-rd immigration hearing (it can be listed as 2-nd by Immigration) she hinted at her desire to send my husband to Israel because he must be punished there for his views. We believe that not the commissioners but she was the only person who made a decision in our case and that she also composed the text of the decision. She and the chairman of the tribunal said us that we may be persecuted in Canada as well, our children may be beaten and we may be also discriminated against. We understood their words as a bad hidden threat. Tribunal's negative decision and Mrs. Malka and Mr. Boisrond's insinuations during the hearings send us the message: We must be punished! But what for? We are innocent people, and we did no crimes, ever! The answer why we have to be punished may be found probably in paragraphs #4 and 5 of the decision's text, which suggests that immigrants from ex-USSR in Israel have no rights to claim a status of refugee in Canada because they are property of Israeli government. Israel bought them paying for their transportation to Israel, and for other things for them. So, they belong to Israel forever. And the paragraph 6 suggests that the ordinary Israelis also paid their part to be our masters! This very fact that this suggestion is made indirectly and that the information about the mentioned payments made by Israel and Israelis is incorrect is not really matter. I am absolutely sure that our lives will be in danger in Israel and that my husband will be killed or imprisoned immediately or soon after our arrival to Israel. What will be with us without him, what will be with his mother? Please, take pity on us! Save our souls! Save my children! Sincerely yours, - Alla Gunin Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be - even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was deported to Israel from my native Belarus because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably any other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a foreign state. We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society were replaced by the norms, which traditionally acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting. Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that - an Israeli. Then - why she was allowed to be a member of the committee assigned to such a hearing? We have 7 main points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions. She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze.When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases at all. When in 1994-95 about 52% of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards our case but in a general sense. But most of the documents used to support the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the members of the board have committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in Canadian Immigration history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on distortions, which Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents. 9. The decision's text style is ironically humiliating, what reflects the committee' partiality towards us. I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision - paragraph after paragraph. Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. That document describes the information from our PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because of what is less destructive and traumatic for older children may be totally different for younger children. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us - and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned this dispute like as we did or said something wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone composed this document. When the committee describes two acts of aggression against my mother it confuses the dates and the events. We declared in our claim and during the hearings that my mother was attacked two times: in August 1992, and in January 1994. We're giving clear description for each event, so there is no way to confuse one event with another one unconsciously. But the committee did it! Read the paragraph # 5, on page # 2. It says: "In August 1992 when she was on her way to pick up the children from school she was surrounded by a group of teenagers". In reality that happened when my mother took the children to a park. In paragraph #7 on the same page you can read: "In January 1994 she was accompanied by her little children and went to find a school..." The real event, which happened to my mother in January 1994 , took place when she was alone and was on her way to the school to pick up the children. But the author of that text not only confuses the two different events but creates an atmosphere of a non-sense ("to find a school", "her little children" instead of "her grandchildren"). These distortions can hardly been considered as "innocent mistakes" because it is absolutely clear that they were made by intention. Their goals were to form a bad impression of my story and show that everything is permitted for the commissioners. I am sure that by doing these distortions Mrs. Malka desired to give me a signal that she's the appropriator of the laws and can go unpunished whatever she's doing. And - if so - any complains will not help me... How can this document be considered as a legal order when even in a pure description it refuses to tell the truth? We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that it happened because of this, and it happened because of that... The person who composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the Victory Day?" which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor calls to take the law into people's own hands and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference! Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance, and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation. Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation of Constitution. But as in former USSR - there were thousands of executive laws between constitution and real life, which could just abolish what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away is the Law of Return, which was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence", from the real life. Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free! (I can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time). So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish organizations to show where their money are going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power! The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and Buyanovsky's claims. (P.6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants? And then - how those figures, 80% of Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" - and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice towards us. 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 - 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. How can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In next 5 (!?) lines it claims the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too. The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. What happened to me then may be called a slavery. But I never did any pure declaration. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to find protection in Israel! The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police and multiple organizations' protection, and Knesset members' help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show that Israel is a state of injustice. The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has nothing what to do with our claim. Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned. It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more. The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings. And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category. Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls! Lev Gunin TO UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE TRIBUNAL From Family GUNIN Central European (Windows 1250) Encoding 1. To UN High Commissioner 2. Adjustments TO UNITED NATION'S HIGH COMMISSIONER OF REFUGEES IN MONTREAL, MRS. KIM MANCINI From family GUNIN (Lev, Alla, Ina, Marta, and Lisa Gunin), refugee claimants, who were denied the status of refugees (1997), ADDITIONAL MATERIALS and whose casewas approved for the judicial control in the Federal Court (1998) Postal address: 3455 Aylmer St., App. 201, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2B5 Tel. (514) 499-1294 e-mail: leog@total.net September, 1998, Montreal NEW CHANGES IN OUR SITUATION. NEW FACTS, DOCUMENTS, AND EVENTS SINCE THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF OUR FILE TO UNITED NATION'S HIGH COMMITTEE OF REFUGEES IN MONTREAL ABOUT 1.5 YEARS AGO (By then our file was handed over to Mrs. Luis O'Ben, former head of United Nations High Committee of Refugees) CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT I. New Brief Description of Our Immigration Case II. About Latest Changes in Our Situation III. What We Expect From You I To remind you about details of our case we give its brief description, made by one of our immigration counselors, Mrs. Anna-Maria Augenstad: Shortly before 1991 the authorities ordered Lev Gunin, human rights activist, to leave his native Belarus, and issued an Israeli visa. In April, 1991, in Warsaw, family Gunin attempted to escape to Germany, but were captured by Israelis and taken to Israel by force. They came to Tel-Aviv, including Ina, 4, and Marta, 3-years-old by then. In Israel the children faced systematic humiliations, mockery, and became witnesses of severe persecutions against their parents and grandmother. Without the government permission Gunins could not leave the country. In 1992 they appealed to the consulate of Belarus in Tel-Aviv, but were denied the citizenship and access to their native country. They could live Israel only in 1994 with indirect Amnesty International involvement. They arrived to Canada, claiming a refugee status. The Refugee Board (IRB) did not rejected Gunins' claim completely, but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to change their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB denied Gunins one of the basic human rights: not to be persecuted for their believes and opinions. IBR members also contacted Israeli embassy, revealing Gunins' refugee claim. IRB members recognized that Gunins started to complain to dozens of organisations and institutions when they were in Israel, and were denied protection. But the IRB concluded that the police and other Israeli institutions' refusal to give family Gunin protection was justified because of the views, expressed by family members. The IRB also invented a speculative suggestion that Gunins turned to all these organizations not for protection but for propaganda against Israel. They also called Gunins aggressive "exaggerators", dangerous to their country (they did not use the word "dangerous", but this is what they mean). The Immigration Board (IRB) also indirectly called Gunins "property of Israel" just because the state of Israel paid for Gunins' transportation from Warsaw to Tel-Aviv. IRB denied the right for all Russian speaking refugees from Israel to claim a status of refugees in principle: just because they came to Tel-Aviv for Israel's cost and because they were allowed to come to Israel according to "the law of return". So, IRB in Montreal rejected the refugee claim of family Gunin in the manner of demonstrative denial of all basic human rights. By rejecting openly the main principles of the Charter of Rights IRB members probably tested special humiliation over family Gunin. Because IRB targeted what is the prerogative of United Nations and rejected one of the most important United Nations' documents, it was natural to turn to United Nation asking to protect not only Gunins' personal rights, but also UN own principles from IRB's attack. This is why and how Lev Gunin made the previous submission to UN High Commission of Refugees in Montreal. II 1. Since then our accommodation in Canada has been improved; we are not on welfare any more. We started to work more then one year ago. 2. Our children continued their brilliant accommodation in Canada, participating in further cultural events since then, including concerts, performances, and TV shows. 3. The Federal Court approved our case for the judicial control (the Federal Court's decision is enclosed). 4. The hearing in the Federal Court is scheduled for the 30-th of September. 5. Israeli consulate in Montreal answered the request to terminate Lev Gunin?s citiwenship first positively; but lqter expressed inqppropriqte preconditions (see the folder REASONS For Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - further: REASONS). 6. By now (September, 1998) it is clear that the members of IRB, assigned to our refugee file, finally refused to return us originals of two among several crucial for our case documents, which they confiscated: a) card for visitors of a Mossad officer, who contacted and interrogated Lev Gunin in Israel; b) and the certified translation of Alla Gunin's birth certificate, made in 1994, in Tel-Aviv. 7. Uncertain situation and fear of removal from Canada became equal for us to a moral torture and seriously damaged health of all members of our family. For further details, please, look over the folder REASONS. You can also contact our family doctor Wanda Brzezinska (tel. ). 8. We won sympathy and compassion of a number of lawyers and immigration counselors, including Maitre Le Brune, Maitre Bouchemin, Maitre Dore, Maitre Tobolewsky, Maitre Drozdowski, and others, who did or doing just great work for us or give us advises. If such a marvelous and numerous team of lawyers could do nothing against unfair immigration decisions, it will mean the end of the legal defense for the refugee claimants. 9. We have collected a big number of signatures under a petition to the Minister of Immigration. 10. Our case caused some international repercussions, including several forums on Internet, specially dedicated to us by web sites owners and designers in several countries. They attracted hundreds of entries. 11. We won sympathy and support of some institutions including school F.A.C.E., which our children attend. 12. Some famous personalities gave referrals to Lev Gunin or composed separate petitions to the Ministry of Immigration. 13. Our legal staff prepared an application for Humanitarian and Compassionate cases program. 14. But in spite of all these achievements we still can be removed to Israel in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court or later, in result of eventual further refugee hearings. Such a removal would end our lives tragically. 15. We would like to abandon our refugee program and start an independent immigration, but this is impossible because of the next obstacles: 1) We consider ourselves as stateless persons (see REASONS) 2) Besides, our Israeli passports have been expired or expiring. It is impossible to extend them (see in REASONS, why) 4) One of us has steady exchange of correspondence with the Israeli consulate in terms of termination of his Israeli citizenship 3) Our appeal for Humanitarian & Compassionate cases could be also rejected: because immigration officials often support previously made by their colleagues decisions in solidarity with them, no matter how unfair they were. 16. All lawyers, which served us or consulted us did not "recommend" us to reveal the fact that we were taken to Israel by force. Being afraid that we can loose their sympathy and emotional support we had to agree not to include this statement in our refugee claim. We need help in finding a lawyer who will admit our claim as a whole, without cutting the fact that we were taken to Israel by force if even he thinks that it will diminish our chances. The only thing we want now is truth. 17. This document is followed by the letter of Elisabeth Epstein, and then - by the copy of an adjustment to an application for Humanitarian and Compassionate cases, which was prepared by one of our counselors in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court (it entitled REASONS). All new events, facts, documents, changes, and arguments were presented in this document, as well is everything we would like to tell you about our situation. REASONS is the new basic document, which we submit to you in our case. More materials can be found on Internet: [http://www.total.net/~leog/appealX.htm] III What We Expect From You? A) We hope that you might prevent or even exclude our removal in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court. And B) Help us with an extortion of termination of our Israeli citizenship from Israeli consulate. This citizenship was given to us against our will and must be terminated. And /Or C) Help us with obtaining any valid travel documents and the Mexican visa for an interview in Canadian consulate for an independent immigration. Or D) Make your own decision recognizing us as refugees Or E) Find a way to obtain for us a granted permanent residency in any country, where we could avoid persecutions, and subsist, eventually working and supporting ourselves without public aide, from the next: Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Canada. Best regards, Family GUNIN ADJUSTMENTS FOR APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL From Lev Gunin, former citizen of USSR (now - Belarus), formal citizen of Israel (asked for termination of his citizenship). Montreal, Oct. 1998 Tel. (514) 499-1294 E-mail: [leog@total.net] 3455 Aylmer St., App. 210, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2B5 Around October, 18, a negative decision, signed by the Federal Court's judge Mr. DubÊ, came to my lawyer's office. The date on the decision was October, 8, 1998. They might submit it so late on purpose, to prevent me from starting another immigration program before an eventual deportation order. In His conclusions Mister Judge claimed again that the IRB used "no minimal credibility" formula (paragraph [7] ) towards our refugee claim, what is not completely true. He called the documentary prove, that we and our three lawyers presented, an accumulation of innumerous documentary prove from the " sources fiables " (week sources), including medical documents, requests and protests of my Israeli lawyer about the State Labor Exchange refusal to register me (what is something like an employment authorization in Israel), about the refusal of the Ministry of Culture and Education to allow me a professional course (what was a routine procedure in Israel), about the refusal of the National Insurance to issue me welfare when I was unemployed (this was a precondition of the Labor Exchange for registering me), about Tax Agency's refusal to give me the tax exemption as all fresh newcomers, and so on. I also presented receipts of the registered mails to Israeli Ministry of Police and Ministry of Eternal Affairs with the copies of the letters, responses from the Ministry of Culture and Education, and course "Talpiot", medical documents, testimonies, and so on. I presented innumerous orders from Israeli draft board to appear for tests and interrogations as the proof that the necessity of traveling to the draft board so often distorted my normal life, affected my employment possibilities, and deteriorated our financial situation because the draft board situated not in our city, and the buses tickets were extremely expensive for us, fresh immigrants. I presented Israeli Tax Agency's official requests, submitted to me in violation of Israeli laws about fresh immigrants, which ordered us to present a report about busyness we never had, and deteriorated our financial situation because we had to hire a lawyer to compose such a report. Plus, the Tax Agency documents were submitted to us from Jerusalem in violation of Israeli district rules. And also my wife presented medical, judicial, governmental, and other official documents, which corresponded to events, which happened to her and the children. And Mister Judge called that all "sources fiables"! Incredible! Then, my lawyers quoted sometimes the same documents, which the Ministry of Immigration used against our claim, but different paragraphs. If these are the "sources fiables", then it had to correspond to IRB, too, because they used the same sources! In paragraph [8] of His conclusion Mister Judge wrote: documentary prove shows that claimants could turn for help to Israeli authorities - and obtain the help. If police refused to cooperate, there are multiple other organizations. He completely ignored the fact that we turned for help to Israeli authorities, to all possible governmental institutions, to all possible organizations (see above), but were refused. Only the list of organizations we turned to consist of two pages. Plus, in support of our claim we presented official documents as the proof that we really turned to all these institutions. Now it is clear that He simply refused to compare our arguments with the Ministry's of Immigration, to take our arguments into consideration and present them objectively, but simply copied the Ministry's point of view and presented it as His own. IN OTHER WORDS, HE REFUSED TO JUDGE! So, He violated the whole legal procedure itself, turning the Federal Court procedure into clownery, and producing a decision, which had to be prepared in advance, without any connection with the Federal Court hearing, documents, presented by us, or judgement of the arguments presented by two sides. He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought us to a suicidal situation! He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought us to a suicidal situation! In the same time Mister DubÊ was sincere or rather cynical enough to tell me the truth: he pointed that people like me, who claim something that the powerful circles do not want to recognize, "see miracles in the middle of reality". I understood very good what he wanted to say by that. To fight what the powerful politicians made an opinion and hope that an ordinary man like me could win was to expect a miracle! If the state of Israel and powerful Jewish communities decided to stop admission of the Russian speaking refugee claimants in Canada, they did it, and stopped all "Russian" refugees, including me. More persistent I was, more evidences I presented that I was persecuted, more unbeatable material proof I found, more strong they wanted to reject me. NEXT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT NUMBER 10 HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE CASES CONTENTS: 1. Part 1: Humanitarian Cases, Main Part 2. Part 2: Exceptional contribution, which Gunins could bring to Canadian cultural heritage 3. List of Photos: Adjustment to PART 2 4. List of Documents: Documents, Chacklist-2 5. Explaination PART