diseases, must be stopped. Anonymous letters  from hospitals
on behalf of
     Immigration with  same  insinuations  are unacceptable as  well. I have
also received a receipt for
     a blood test for syphilis, which I never did, from a Lab, where I never
went. I was also called by
     two other  laboratories, which pretend that I did tests for  infectious
diseases, and this is not
     true. All such provocation must be stopped immediately!
     .
     All  5  (or 6) documents must  be  evaluated to consider and  answer my
complaint. Please,
     answer all  questions,  which arise  from the documents. I  ask you  to
respond to this complaint in
     writing.  However,  another solution  is  just to  consider my  case as
"finished" with no further
     demands. Will appreciate your cooperation.


     Yours,
     Lev GUNIN

     November 30 2000
     Chronology in GUNINS' case

     November 1994 -
     refugee claim
     March 1997 -
     refugee claim rejected.

     (In the negative decision our refugee
     claim description was severely
     distorted; document includes such
     direct and indirect statements as a)
     nothing bad could happen in such a
     beautiful country like Israel, b) people
     who were taken to Israel for
     Sochnut's expense are property of
     Israel, c) people who refused to
     change their believes and opinions
     are guilty on persecutions themselves
     because provoked them c) no
     minimum of confidence). January
     1998
     - Federal Court closing our case on a
     ridiculous ground of Immigration's "no
     minimal confidence" ruling.
     January 2000
     - positive decision in response to our
     humanitarian appeal.
     March 2000 -
     an interview lead to the Certificat de
     selectione du Quebec issuing by
     Quebec's Immigration
     March 2000 -
     bureaucratic humiliation and blatant
     manipulation of medical data by
     Federal Immigration starts to torpid
     the completion of the case



     Chronology in

     Elisabetha GUNIN (Epstein's)
     case:.1994 -
     refugee claim + Wanda Brzezinska,
     M.D. makes a false report (see Doc.
     4b, 7a, 7b).
     March 1997 -
     refugee claim rejected.
     January 1998
     - Federal Court closing our case on a
     ridiculous ground of Immigration's "no
     minimal confidence" ruling.
     November 1998 -
     marriages a Canadian citizen
     November 22 1999 -
     my mother's marriage interview.
     Nov. 23, Madame Helene ROY
     replaces the initiative negative
     decision, based on "medical
     concerns" (dr. Brzezinska's rapport),
     by a positive one.
     January 2000 - Certificat de
     selectione du Quebec was issued for
     my mother.
     January 2000, a ruling from IMS
     ordering my mother additional tests:
     strum creatinine (blood test) and
     echocardiogram.
     June 30, 2000 - IMS ridiculous
     demand of a resume from "the last
     visit to cardiologist".
     July 27 2000
     - rapport of Dr. Gordon Creenstein
     (anatomy, not pathology) was
     submitted to Immigration.
     September 2000 -
     another letter from IMS ordering
     another urine test and then a visit to
     an urologist.
     September 19 2000 -
     offensive letter from Immigration
     officer. December 2000 -
     IMS final negative decision confirming
     the illegal prejudicial decision from
     Nov. 99.


     - DOCUMENT NUMBER TWO -
     To Immigration's Canada Complaint Board
     (faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237)
     From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

A COPY OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO IMMIGRATION
     ON MAY 15 2000

     By this letter we ask Immigration's agent assigned to my file to make a
special ruling to order medical examinations for all members
     of our family, not only for  Alla GUNIN,  my wife. As we know from  our
legal advisers, this procedure is required for all family members
     for the landed  immigrant's status. If you insist that only my wife has
to do the medical examination, please, send us a written warrant.
     We have a well-grounded suspicion that somebody might  use the delay in
ordering the medical examination for all members of our
     family  for artificial  sabotage  of issuing us  the landed immigrant's
status. We will appreciate your cooperation.

YOURS TRULY
     Lev GUNIN
     in name of family GUNIN

     The 15 of May 2000
     COPY - DOCUMENT NUMBER THREE -
     To Immigration's Complaints Board
     (faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237) December 1 2000
     From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

     I   disagree  with   the  Immigration  Medical  Services  decision  "ev
7001-850497Z" (with date mentioned: November 23, 2000) from
     Ottawa, received by me  on November 29,  2000 (anonymous  - no name  or
signature). The goal of this ruling is not to establish the
     medical truth but to put a hardship on my family (and me).
     My arguments.
     (See the decision's  text -  as it was red  to me by dr. Giannakis - in
Document N4: on the bottom)
     1. The decision ruled that Mr. Giannakis's respond should  be submitted
before November 30, 2000. Why then the letter arrived only
     on November  29? Does it  mean that the date in the letter -  "November
23" - was incorrect? Or the letter has not been sent in 2-3 days? Or - if it
is known that a letter from  Ottawa to Montreal goes 5-6 days  - why  then I
was not given more time? I ask you to submit me an explanation what November
30 means and why not December 10 or January 15? I want to know how the agent
justified  that  particular  date.  Was  that  small  misconduct  planned in
advance?
     2. The  suggestion that somebody else went and did the x-ray instead of
me was another serious assault. That suggestion was made in ignorance of the
fact that on Clark Lab's official (original!) paper IMS (Immigration Medical
Service) officer could see my name, date of birth, telephone number, name of
the ordering physician, and the number of my medical card (which - everybody
knows  -  has my  photo  on it).  Besides,  it  mentioned  the "MILD  PECTUS
EXCAVATUM",  a cosmetic defect, which  I  have  since birth.  Besides, it is
known that the film itself has a negative image of the whole ID data! Then -
this ungrounded abuse was based on  nothing and went far beyond  any medical
or even legal matter.
     3.  The demand to  send an original film from the  November 14 x-ray in
the light of two above disputed demands might be ungrounded. This x-ray film
was already seen by 3 medical doctors: the radiologist at the Clark Lab, dr.
Jast (who referred me and evaluated the film), and dr. Giannakis. All  three
came to  a  conclusion  that  there  is  NOTHING  abnormal, not  a slightest
possibility.
     Both  dr. Jast and Giannakis also examined me. The  official conclusion
is NIL ACTIVE. Besides, it  was informally evaluated  by a chest specialist:
with the  same  conclusion.  What  else  the  IMS  agent  needs?  I  have  a
well-grounded concern that  1)  he/she will find a  black spot  even on  the
whitest  paper - because he/she is determined  to;  and 2) after he/she will
find "a  black spot" the film will  vanish, but  not the IMS's "evaluation".
Immigration   pretended  already  many  times  (dates,  documents  might  be
provided) that lost our applications, medical data, etc.
     4.  It was  an abuse to  mention  that  "After  overview  if  necessary
applicant may  have  to  be  referred  to the chest  specialist."  It  is  a
prejudgment and prejudice. "...if necessary", "may" are just a form. It is a
very clear  message that  he/she will not let me alone!  Why to speak  about
next medical procedure before seeing the x-ray?

     Lev GUNIN Dec. 01 2000

     Copy - DOCUMENT NUMBER FIVE -

     From Lev GUNIN ( 514-499-1294)
     Document 5
     LETTER TO THE MONTREAL CHEST INSTITUTE - A Copy -

     (The letter was submitted on  November  09 in respond  to an  anonymous
letter from the Montreal Chest Institute received on November 6  2000; below
you can find a modified version (November 12-14), which was submitted to the
same destination on November 15).
     .
     Lev GUNIN
     address
     telephone
     From  Lev GUNIN  to anonymous person, author of the letter (the copy of
the letter is enclosed).
     Montreal Chest Institute
     3666 St-Urbain
     Montreal, QUEBEC H2X 2P4

     Sir or Lady! Please, forward this letter to an appropriate  Immigration
department, which you mentioned on page 1 of your letter.

     First of all, any  suggestions that I could be infected by tuberculosis
were ridiculous.  I had some other suggestions, but later a medical doctor I
spoke to - as well as  my legal advisers -  told me  that the only answer of
what happened is that  Immigration  might  just  make  a false report  on my
x-ray. Besides,  a x-ray could not determine  whether  or  not  any  of such
shadow means tuberculosis, or simply any kind of pneumonia, bronchitis, or a
combination (see medical books). Any conclusions based on only one x-ray are
ridiculous,  partial, and prejudicial.  In modern time -  when there  are so
many flu infections accompanied by  pneumonic consequences (side  effects) -
such conclusions are  a complete  nonsense. It is obvious that your decision
to  attach  me to the Infectious  Disease Unit  (IDU) before you have a  100
percent proof  of  any  tuberculosis infection  and initiate an  appropriate
legal procedure  was a drastic misconduct. The only admissible way to handle
the situation was (before sending me to the Infectious Disease Unit)
     1) to request a second opinion in existing x-ray
     2) to send me a letter for my physician for another x-ray.

     On  November 14  I did another x-ray. It revealed that there  is no any
suspicious shadow,  no  abnormalities  -  and (as my medical advisers  told)
could  not be 2  weeks before, especially tuberculosis-like shadows.  Was my
x-ray  photo  (a negative) replaced by  somebody else's  or IMS (Immigration
Medical Services) just falsified the reading of my x-rays, - I do not  know.
That all is a subject of a criminal investigation.

     Because  I  am depressed,  I  did not  notice that the  Montreal  Chest
Institute (MCI) belongs to Royal Victoria Hospital,  an  institution  I  had
several  formal  conflicts with. Somebody from the hospital's administration
used to  submit  me  an  offensive number  of  requests for  donation to the
hospital  even  after I  have sent a  note that  by then was on welfare. The
hospital's administration also did an  attempt  to extort  money from me for
services, which were  covered by  Medicare. In that hospital I heard several
times that people  like  me are "illegal in Canada and should not  be  given
medical help "for the cost of Canadians". Then  I was  treated by negligence
at  the emergency room, then -  it  was  a  medical misconduct  over my CSST
claim.  Dr. Evenson's M.D. (Royal Victoria) secretary played games with  me,
actually denying  an appointment from  May till November  2000. A  number of
legal and medical violations used to take place there. And in all such minor
incidents immigration matters or even Immigration itself  were involved. One
of immigration specialists advised me not to  turn to Royal Victoria because
that hospital is "enormously influenced by Immigration".

     The  fact that a  page with  a  request for  a donation  to  the  Royal
Victoria Hospital was included into your letter was another outraged abuse.

     Eventually it is possible that doctor Giannakis had sent  me  for x-ray
not  to "La Cite" - as my mom and my wife, - or  another medical institution
but to Montreal  Chest Institute because he received an order (not a request
but an order, which  he could not disobey as an Immigration  representative)
from Immigration to do so.

     By this letter I declare that I am considering your way of handling the
situation dangerously offensive and depriving me of my constitutional rights
because of the above mentioned as well as the next reasons:

     FIRST, I will  DISREGARD any  anonymous letters like  your present  one
until a letter from you would be signed, addressed from a  real  person with
his/her clear name and telephone number.

     SECOND, you have  no legal  rights to treat  me as a contagious carrier
until an undeniable medical proof is established.

     THIRD, by sending me to the IDU you may expose me to contacts with real
infected carriers.

     FOURTH,  you  are  not  a  police, Immigration, secret  police or death
squads to a) act secretly-anonymously refusing to sign your letter,
     b) to write  me  anything like "by  Immigration law,  you are requested
(...)". Since you are not immigration layers  or  Immigration officials, you
are  forbidden  to judge in a  case like mine what Immigration law requires.
Such a statement  in a case like mine must be submitted only  directly  from
Immigration. If you are part  of Immigration (officially)  - then my  rights
were violated  when I wasn't informed  about that  before doing the x-ray at
your unit.

     FIFTH, my legal  advisors,  and me,  we are confident that you  have no
legal  rights to  deprive me of choosing between  medical  institutions  for
medical tests  or  evaluation.  You can  not  bring  me to  do a test or  an
evaluation  exclusively in your institution by a  forceful order. This  will
violate my basic human rigDocument 5hts. Even KGB had  no official rights to
oblige anybody who was not an imprisoned suspect or convinced criminal to do
a medical evaluation without some sort of choice.

     SIXTH,  I  would ask Immigration  to allow me  do another  x-ray before
doing anything else.

     SEVENTH,  evaluating  my case,  some human rights activists think  that
somebody at  Immigration is so  furious, so angry about me and that  such an
outraged  misconduct  was  demonstrated  in  my  case  that  Immigration  is
eventually ready to do any damage to my health through blood, e-ray tests or
sadistic bureaucratic humiliations.

     EIGHTH, I  think that the  most realistic  explanations of an  eventual
abnormality, which could be seen on the x-ray picture, were:
     1) eventual shadow from the underwear, which I did not  remove  from on
beneath of the hospital robe, and the robe itself, which I've putted on in a
wrong way
     2) a dust spot or another kind of essence on the hospital robe
     3) traces of somehow inhaled gas different from air
     4) reading of  a normal  x-ray (with no abnormalities) was deliberately
falsified by IMS

     NINTH,  before   doing  the  e-ray  I  received  a  strange  call  from
Immigration, through which I was accused of refusing a "medical treatment".

     TENTH, your medical  ethics  should not allow you to send me to the IDU
before  making  your   own  medical  conclusions  (decision)  based  not  on
Immigration's rapport but of your own evaluation of my x-ray test result.

     ELEVENTH, my legal advisors have told me that I have  rights to ask for
a  possibility  to  discuss  my  x-ray  result  with  any  of  your  medical
institution specialists dedicated to such evaluations before going  further.
It is you (on behalf of Immigration or not -  it is does not matter) who are
sending me to Infectious Disease Unit. Because you are sending me  to such a
unit, you  can not deny me  such a discussion. I would like to see the x-ray
original, which was made in your institution on November  1 2000 -  and also
show Document
     5it to my medical advisors.

     TWELVETH, I prefer not to go through further  tests or  evaluations  in
immigration  matters  (for  medical  purposes  -  it's  different)  at  your
institution.

     Yours truly,
     Lev GUNIN
     November 2000 Montreal

     - Document Number Nine -

     RESUME of my visit to Montreal Chest Institute on December 2 2000

     OBJECT Of the Visit:
     1) to  receive  an  official result  (medical resume-evaluation) of  my
x-ray test done on November 1 2000
     2) find out where is the original film and try to obtain it  for making
a copy

REASONS:
     November 23  2000. I have managed to find out who sent me the anonymous
letter (described in Documents 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) from
     Montreal  Chest  Institute (MCI). It  was  M-me  Lucy Gefroy (Jefroi or
Joyfroid?). According  to the  same sources:  she's never seen that x-ray. I
left  her my message  on  849-5211  (ex  2166).  She called me  at 2.15 p.m.
anonymously ("private  call" indication)  - and  asked me  what  I want. She
confessed that she  is M-me Lucy  only when  I  told her that recognized her
voice  comparing it to her answering machine message. That  only  could tell
about her insincerity and guilt. I spoke with her in French, but when I  did
not know some medical terminology in French, and used English, she pretended
that  does  not  speak English at  all. However,  when I switched  to French
again, she started to speak bad English,  which I  could  not understand. It
was  difficult  to get along with her, but finally I convinced  her to speak
French again - and asked her a couple of questions.
     Here they are:
     - Did you see the x-ray?
     - Yes, I did.
     - What  kind of a shadow did you see,  mild? bright? what its form?  On
the right or left side?
     - I can not tell you.
     - Where is this x-ray film now?
     - I can not tell you.
     - Is it at MCI?
     - Immigration took it from us, and, I think, it was lost.
     - What do you mean - lost?
     - Vanished somewhere at Immigration.
     - Can I obtain the result?
     - Listen, your case here is  closed.  You don't have to  come here. Not
any more. We disabled our previous letter's order. Bye.
     She disconnected.

     RESULTS of the visit.
     At MCI's  medical archive employers did not find any  records about  my
x-ray in the computer. They told me that a mistake might
     occur -  because  if  even I  did  the x-ray for Immigration,  its data
(result, date, etc.) since November 1 had to be entered into the
     registry.

     Before  I could  enter room number  28 a  small blond man appeared  and
approached me as in espionage novels (how could he
     react so  quickly, who warned him during my descending from the  second
to  the  first  floor?) "You will  receive nothing  here. And  you  will  be
prosecuted for refusing to see the  doctor, - he shouted  to me. "I was told
that  my  x-ray  has  vanished,  and came to check,  and also to obtain  the
result". He became  almost  pale - so visually he  was frightened, as  if he
lost a million of dollars. He disappeared behind the gray door and soon came
out with an  envelope (my name and photo on it) and signs of a  deep relief.
"Here it is, - he told.
     - You  must visit  a  doctor because  you have tuberculosis". "Are  you
confident about TB you mentioned?" - "Yes, I am". - "I was told that my case
here is cancelled - and I don't  have  to appear". -  "Nobody could tell you
that. You will be prosecuted for your refusal!" -
     "Your  conclusions about the  x-ray was  a mistake,  Sir, and  the film
reveals a technical defect or a shadow of underwear, which I did not remove.
Take  a look - and let me see". - "It is possible. But the law says that you
must see a doctor  anyway,  if even this is our mistake". - "What law,  what
paragraph?  Then  -   I  have  a  constitutional  right  to  choose  another
institution, not yours, to pay such a visit".  Then  he started screaming on
me: "You  don't want to pay, ah? You don't want  to donate  to our hospital?
You cam