дин  Розенберг,  какие  вмешивались в  ход  разбора  в
Федеральном Суде жалоб беженцев из  Израиля на любой стадии и в любой форме.
В   Парламенте    всю   эту   тяжелую   пирамиду   беззаконий   поддерживают
депутаты-сионисты - Люсьен Робияр, Жак Лассаль, Ирвин  Котлер, Леонор Каплан
и  другие.  После  Люсьен  Робияр на  пост  Министра  Иммиграции снова  была
поставлена  очередная  еврейка  -  Леонор  Каплан,  пусть  более  порядочный
человек, чем абсолютно беспринципная садистка Робияр,  но  в силу еврейского
происхождения  не  имеющая  возможности противостоять еврейскому давлению  и
следованию еврейским интересам.

     Чтобы действовать  наверняка,  еврейские  круги привлекли к  "охоте  на
беглых  рабов"  даже   иммиграционных   адвокатов  -  открытых  или  скрытых
сионистов,  - стремясь, чтобы поток русскоязычных беженцев попадал именно  к
этим  адвокатам. Эти адвокаты-сионисты, такие,  как Джеральд  Постельник или
Сильвия Левек, брались за беженские дела русских только с одной целью: чтобы
дела  своих  клиентов  провалить. Если  дело было  слишком  щекотливое,  эти
адвокаты шли на подлог, на  обман, на что  угодно --только  бы торпедировать
его. Они заявляли в Комиссию по Беженцам, что точно знают, что их клиент (ы)
покинул  (и) Канаду,  и  беженский файл  закрывали.  Сильвия Левек и  другие
адвокаты-предатели   являлись   в  Комиссию  по  Беженцам  и  заявляли,  что
убедились, что их  клиент  представляет  собой  опасность  для  Канады  -  и
требовали  его  депортации!!!  Если  не  удавалось полностью  подкупить  или
запугать иммиграционного адвоката, использовали его секретаря, как  правило,
своего агента, который (ая) уничтожал важные  документы, некоторые документы
заменял  собственноручно  изготовленными  фальшивками,  искажал  суть  самых
важных   документов,  материалов,  показаний.   Этим  занималась,  например,
секретарша адвоката Ле Брона Элеонора Бродер, израильская гражданка.

     Одновременно   были  задействованы   сотрудники   медицинского   отдела
Иммиграции и  ангажированные  Министерством Иммиграции врачи, так называемые
иммиграционные врачи. Такие врачи, как, например, Барбара Бжезинска (кстати,
родственница бывшего госсекретаря США),  "ставили" заведомо ложные диагнозы,
умышленно   подрывали  здоровье  своих   пациентов,  работали   в   условиях
конспиративного  сговора  с  Министерством  Иммиграции.  Медицинский   отдел
Иммиграции - Immigration Medical Services (IMS) - вместе  с  иммиграционными
врачами  занимались  (и  занимаются)  подлогом,  фальсификацией  медицинских
данных, медицинскими репрессиями против неугодных, и  это особенно страшно и
неприемлемо.

     В  противостоянии   бежавшим   из   Израиля  русскоязычным  диссидентам
использовались шпионские методы. На более высоком уровне  были задействованы
израильские секретные службы. На более же низком уровне израильско-еврейские
круги,   противостоящие   беженцам   из   Израиля,   пользовались   услугами
монреальского филиала израильской военизированно-охранной службы Isra Guard.
Сам  факт того,  что подобного рода  израильская служба  вообще действует  в
Канаде -  вопиющий.  Это  нарушение суверенитета Канады и вмешательство в ее
внутренние дела. Чувствительная, конфиденциальная информация попадает в руки
полицейскио-военных и  прочих  органов государства  Израиль -  как будто это
происходит   в   внутри   самого  Израиля.  Израиль   получает   возможность
манипулировать самыми ранимыми и деликатными материями в Канаде  - как будто
Канады не суверенное государство.

     Все эти методы хорошо  прослеживаются  на  примере нескольких беженских
дел.

     Вот эти дела (ниже следуют тексты на русском, английском  и французском
языках):


     Дело семьи Буяновских

     To The Federal Court of Canada from  Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March
20, 1997.
     Galina Buyanovsky
     175 Sherbrook St.West,
     Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
     CANADA H2X 1X5

FEDERAL COURT
     Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
     Ontario K1A 0H9
     CANADA



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

     Dear  Sirs! This  appeal is formal. It composed  not by a lawyer but by
the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a
     non-official  letter we  want  an  official response. We  claim  that a
wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel
     exists, and that Canadian Ministry of Immigration  is manipulated by  a
foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was
     denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned to  our case
was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the
     Informative  Committee  Canada-Israel,  an  organization  that  may  be
considered as a shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations
     that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from
Israel with partiality were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal
     Court  indirectly  recognized  that.  Despite  of  that  Mrs.  Lucienne
Robillard  -  Canadian  Minister  of  Immigration  [  look  over  her  anger
declaration
     about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see  our  BIBLIOGRAPHY
in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's
     mandate  (for  the  next  term).  52% of refugee claimants from  Israel
obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it
     is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards
refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was
     terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't  terminated  in
general. And this person whose partiality towards the
     Russian-speaking people was already recognized is sent now to  hear the
cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from
     Kazachstan are  too often  told  that  they  are not  eligible for  the
political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada.
     For example,  the first hearing of  a refugee claimant  from Kazachstan
was dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to
     his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not
a province of Israel, but an independent state? Why refugees from
     Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent
to Israel anyway**?
     Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a  kibbutz in Israel and holds an
Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs.  Lucienne Robillard  is his ex-wife
and
     his best friend  now?  If only  one  of these questions can be answered
positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct!
     And  the last question  about Mr. La Salle.  Since he  was  accused  in
partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in
     force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to  Israel, and it's
obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent
     commissioner,  not by a person whose whole life and social activity  is
devoted to Israel. The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs.
     Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different
way. She sabotaged the cases of all her employer's clients, distorting
     the translation of the most important documents and  statements: Always
in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's face and to
     send Russian  from Israel back. Being  afraid of her  angry clients she
flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most
     favorite  sabotage  action  was  to  distort  the  real  indication  of
nationality  or  another  data  in her  translations of birth  certificates,
passports,
     and  other  documents.  This  trick  she  used  when  she  "translated"
documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer.
     Commissioners like Mr.  La Salle,  Mr. Dorion, and like the immigration
officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking
     people, based  their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes".
She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee
     claimants'  stories  and so  called  pifs'  data. She  placed  a  wrong
information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came
     from  a  country with another mentality and  different  culture.  If  a
Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator
     help, we  didn't.  Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into
Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that
     back translation actually is in contradiction with  her French version.
Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
     official  documents'  translations  were  related  to the  people whose
hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably -
     Mr. Dorion. In other words, were  attended by people whose relations to
Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more
     detailed and precise proof of  Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to
you.

     Mr. La  Salle based his rejection of our claim  generally on one thing.
He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and
     distortion of our words,  too. So, he interpret our words  that we were
persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we
     said that in  our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were
mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no
     indication  of Teudat  Zehuts  in our  words.  It  is obvious  that the
meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking
     immigrants  as  strangers, not like real  Jews, and  this is  the  main
source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not
     a  Jew). But if even there was no  distortion of our words: Does Mr. La
Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat
     Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s
is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No
     wonder that no democratic state  (we  don't speak about Israel now) has
such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in
     ex-USSR  and in  South African Republic was  accused by the  democratic
press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
     obligatory indication of nationality in  her  code. Does  it means that
Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in
     passports? If  so, and  also  if  we  are  on  Canadian  soil, then the
investigation about the indication of  our  nationality in  our passports is
illegal
     (at  least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr.
La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As
     an Israeli he couldn't ignore  this issue - because in  Israeli society
it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that
     there is an  obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel,  not
only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the
     commissioners  like Mr. La Salle avoid  mentioning it - this is one  of
the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no
     paragraphs  in  our  refugee claim  declaration  where we  mention  the
indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the
     source of our  troubles. In  the same  time we  name other reasons like
social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination
     in  our  life  in  Israel*****.  Why then  the  "Teudat  Zehuts"  issue
dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?
     Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of  Israel, and Israel
wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other
     countries. Let  me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID.
It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from
     Canada's  social number or medical insurance card,  or  any  other  ID.
Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given
     to police  or  to  other  authorities. In  Israel  T.Z. is the only  ID
recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic
to
     school, from employment  office to  hotel - is an obligatory rule. That
fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's
     declaration paragraph by  paragraph,  but our  main point  is that  the
decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on
     our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel.
We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
     tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration,
which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do
     with juridical documents.

     Dear Sirs! You  must take  into  consideration  that Mr. La  Salle gave
identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for
     example). 4 from 6 main topics  in his answers to  us and to family  Z.
are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't
     care to  deny the credibility of  the events described  in our claim by
analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not
     be; because it couldn't happen in Israel  (in  such  a beautiful Middle
East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"
     as  "very  little inter-community tension had been  noted" (p.5 of  his
response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such
     "evidences"  were  truth (we  have  evidences that even the  members of
Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to
     explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly
explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses
     his  motivations  on p.4 of  his  decision:  "Monsieur Nikitin  est  de
nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In
     other words,  he  didn't  write  "were  Jewish  in  Israel",  or  "were
considered as Jewish in Israel", but  he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that
for
     h i m they are Jewish. So, under  which  laws he  considered our claim:
Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
     on  p.5  he  wrote  that "Mrs.  Buganovky {instead  of  Buganovsky} was
hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,
     precisely".  We can comment that phrase very  "directly and precisely"!
This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.
     They compose a question like "are you  sure  that you did an attempt to
lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer
     "yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am
not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions
     of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6
on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family
     Z.  This  paragraph  doubts  about what  happened to  our  daughter  in
kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no
     inter-communal  tensions in Israel" and because  "efforts  were made to
sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took
     these "evidences"  from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd
like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same
     document be used as a  contra-argument  in the matter  of two different
girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We
     mean us and family Z.). 2. How  can a  document, which must be composed
before the events described in our refugee declaration took
     place, be used  as an  "evidence"?!  Does  it have a  license  for  the
future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made
     efforts  to sensitize school officials"  to discrimination or violence,
the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"
     were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they
met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we
     also want  to express our deep  concern  about  the credibility of this
Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit
     A-1 (5.4)  mentions 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 the Exhibit
     A-1 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 Exhibit  A-1  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 can  present
another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
     strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr.
La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is
     mobilized to welcome new immigrants from  the former USSR. It's hard to
believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any
     juridical  document! 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  (Mr.  La Salle's intention  to  choose this
particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The
suggestion that the Histadrut can not