10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) 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 our lawyer (or our 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 our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) 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 G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second 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 behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) 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 let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , 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 G. from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
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 us a favor" (We 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. 3) The
translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.
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: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board
and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.
Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The
members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't
occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a
humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This
article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told
him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these
things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7)
Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is
an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.
We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be confirmed, if
somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'
from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the
submission of that legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to
translate his wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that
issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects
what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and
profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice of the immigration officer. She was a real
judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on her words exclusively:
Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers
completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations.
Nothing what the judges said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to
deny our claim was made by the immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only
a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an
acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of
an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is not. This is a privilege of an academic institution but not of an
executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel is a democracy in an imperative manner giving the refugee claimants no
possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is clear from what was discussed during our immigration hearings that Israel
has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in
special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single
son - and who's not, an imprisonment for months without an official accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable
may be for a mental hospital - but not for a "democratic society". An opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to
Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to do with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G.
as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was possible to help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to
various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police, the Ministry of internal affairs and police, which were unanswered, to
the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just ignores everything. And recognize only the ungrounded Israel's
declarations. And the immigration officer - a person who sends faxes to Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's in
tight connection with Israelis - is the only person who has a decidable voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!
We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because
1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings
- and I can widen them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In
Israel where the ideology and the patriotic education play a very important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted for
that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were so strong that if we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called
"21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israeclass="underline" Because in Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will
employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we faced in Israel we feel fear - and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our
psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is impossible for us to live in Israel any more. In the name of God, in the name
of Justice - HELP US!!!
CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G. case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather