ГУЛаг Палестины

      She told me that an especially aggressive immigration officer would be called from Toronto "to calm" me down. She was right.
      3.10. Later it came out that Mrs. Broder sabotaged not only our immigration claim, but also translations of the articles, of documents, in
      other words - everything, what she has to translate. Her distortion of the my wife's birth certificate data enabled immigration officer to
      excuse her report made to the Israeli embassy about us.
      3.11. Not only Lucy was related to Israel, but also Mrs. E. Broder. Soon after we met she married a businessman from Israel, who
      maintained all business contacts in Israel - according to his words. She was born in Odessa, but lived several years in Cuba: it is also an
      information to reflect.
      3.12. It is too painful for me to believe that my lawyer did not remove two above-mentioned paragraphs that Mrs. Broder inserted without
      our permission because he acted on purpose. I still want to trust him, and I prefer to think that he was tired, and this was what caused his
      mistake. When he was finishing to fix "mistakes", distortions and non-authorized "adjustments", which Mrs. Broder have did in her
      "translation", it was late at night, and both him, and me, especially, my mother, were tired, and I did not check the translation properly. I also
      trusted him, and this is why I signed the new version without a proper check. I also prefer to think that he did not let me verify translations of
      all the documents in my file before the hearings (I asked him many times to give me documents of my file for a control) because he was
      constantly busy, and could not prepare them to me. If he would give me that chance, I could discover before the hearings that Mrs. Broder
      falsified the translation not only of our claim, but of all other documents as well (like my wife's certificate). I know that the immigration
      committee, which gave no positive decision to "Russians" from Israel at all, would answer "no" even if there were no distortions in
      translations at all.
      3.13. Some sort of misunderstanding - I believe - happened between my lawyer and me, in result of which the most important remarks
      about IRB's negative decision in our case were not submitted with the appeal. This is why I am asking you to take this submission in
      consideration when decision in my appeal will be considered.
      I submitt examples of Mrs. Broder's sabotage in Supplements, Documents # 92,93, 94, 95, 96, 97.
      NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]
      PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT 3 of DOCUMENTS]]]
      GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 APRIL-MAY 1997
      DOCUMENT 1 (2-nd version)
      (Was submitted to Amnesty International via E-MAIL)
      MY COPY OF APPEAL TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
      Why I appeal? 1) Because my complains, which I once submitted to Amnesty International from Israel, played if not the main, a very
      important role during all the 3 immigration hearings in our case. 2) Because if not directly, then indirectly (from a particular point of view) IRB
      members insinuated that I must be punished for my contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during my
      immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere
      on a wider scale. 4) Because in the former USSR as well as in Israel I was a human rights activist and was considered a human rights
      activist by the people and press. 5) Because during the hearing the immigration officer falsified Amnesty International's (and other human
      rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6) Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees in general) but
      faces abuses, ungrounded accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the
      human rights, placing the very basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because I'm absolutely certain (and I have presented undeniable
      evidences to the immigration board) that I'm going to be killed and the members of my family are going to be killed if we will be turned back
      to Israel since I could suggest that something like a death penalty was considered there against me for my views.
      Why I Appeal Before I Have The Immigration Board's Final Decision In My Case? 1) Because I have to dispute the very procedure of the
      hearing in our case, which abused us and placed our lives under the definite danger. 2) Because I know of some examples when a final
      negative decision was sent to refugee claimants together with a deportation order without the rights to appeal. 3) Because after what
      happened during our immigration hearing I feel insecure even here. 4) Because it looks like they violated some legal and moral norms while
      hearing our case not for giving us later a positive decision. 5) Because now, when the information about us was submitted by the
      immigration officer to Israel there can be a wave of wider pressure from Israel to turn us back. I was actually expelled from the former
      USSR, where I was persecuted for my artistic, philosophical, ideological and political views, where I was beaten, prevented from social and
      professional success, watched and threatened. I was deported to Israel. When we moved away from the USSR we tried to escape to a
      third country but were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel by force.
      We were systematically assaulted, beaten, disgraced, threatened, discriminated against (persecuted) in Israel. We were denied a
      permission to leave the country, and could not go away for 3 1/2 years. We collected thousands of evidences in discrimination and
      persecutions. Israeli state radio made a provocation, aiming to eliminate me, Israeli newspapers called to destroy all my works - but for this
      immigration board it's still not "enough"...
      *Why I Think My Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
      Inside The Courtroom: 1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, etc.) have been
      disappeared or were ignored as if they were (disappeared).See pages A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5. 1-a)Only my college diploma was mentioned
      during immigration hearings, and the commissioners acted as if my university diploma does not exist. In reality I mentioned it during the
      hearings and the copy of this diploma also was in my file. 2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not
      they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated me). Pages B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4.B-5. 3) Other documents were mentioned as
      incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to
      these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same way my words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating
      question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was
      repeated - but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the
      same answer again and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's
      clear that such a method violates moral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological
      pressure can not be taken into consideration. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4. 5) Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They
      shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their own - and later based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own
      statement posing it as my - not their - words. E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to
      appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were
      mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their
      disapproval by the norms of democracy or by my approval of the democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was
      treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not to
      Canadian but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5, G-6. This position neither being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself
      made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. G-7, G-8. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but
      a pure pro-Israel's propaganda. Its goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of
      Israel as a "good" country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our
      personal history. So the only criteria chosen to support the board's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only
      admissible attitude to refugees has to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2,
      H-3. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a
      number of recognized human rights.I-1, I-2, etc. 10)They also (indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel for my
      views - it's justified because I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about
      us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a
      country refugee claimants escaped from .K-1, K-2, etc. 12)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer
      distorted and sometimes falsified their meaning.L-1, L-2,ect. 13) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by
      it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time
      documents that were represented by my lawyer (or my documents) newspapers, statements, declarations, and so on - weren't treated as
      equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In the same
      time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a
      number of my documents may be considered as more objective and independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) The immigration officer used 1) an
      open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position
      during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a
      witness to their hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel
      and so on; 7) her behavior towards us and Metelnitsky family was so incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or
      to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc. 15)A "yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is absolutely
      impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc.
      Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper
      to my first lawyer's translator, Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own
      inventions and sentences which sounded like provocation. I demanded a translation back to Russian from her, and she did it. She wrote it
      by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent me
      from complaining. I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1, 2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder sabotaged the translations of
      newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people
      "to do me a favor" (I think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded the most important paragraphs in
      her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also
      sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which I prepared to support my claim. She told us that she has
      translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew - but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert
      note we gave to him: Then no documents were translated. 2-C,ect. 4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological
      warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular
      phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These
      phrases were taken from articles, which I wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles, which I hadn't presented to
      Mrs.Broder or to my lawyer when she was doing the translation of my refugee claim. The members of the immigration board have exploited
      these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it might not happened occasionally.2-E, etc. 6) There is a visible
      connection between the immigration officer - and information, which might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
      gentlemen acted once as an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article
      was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine)
      against me. This article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as a
      government's agent I told him some things which I never told to any other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of
      family Metelnitzky these things were used by the immigration officer (against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a
      contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against
      me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the
      immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of
      the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a
      Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and - may be legal
      rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal
      translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she
      sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration
      officer's tactics in that issue.
      CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or
      a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's
      and mine) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human
      rights violations in Israel, which not concerns Arabs, can be calmed down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear
      that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their
      words, their behavior - everything - was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after
      getting a status in Canada. Before that we don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the
      rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for
      the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and
      that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation
      back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt
      about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ...
      we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but
      a brutal act of a vengeance.
      SUPPLEMENTS:
      1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION
      HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN
      GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4
      DOCUMENT 3
      TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
      From Lev 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 Blears 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 no
      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 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 sent 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. 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 general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just
      because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its
      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 Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents.
      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. The information from our
      PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes 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 what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for
      younger children may be totally different. 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 that 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. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during 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 this happened because of that, and this 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 call 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 between constitution and real life there were thousands of executive laws, 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 from the real life is the Law of Return, which
      was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". 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 is going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power!