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