ГУЛаг Палестины

certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of

blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal

importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects

involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,

which is directed toward insuring rapid death!

Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.

Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the

case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has

nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do

with work in Massachussets.

Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,

"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his

business in violation of Massachusetts law should

serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."

A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way

discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of

justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred

screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a

law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of

this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that

report, data later supported by several other sources whose

qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is

pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who

threaten his livelihood.

David Thomas, 2/28/97

CODOH can be reached at:

Box 439016/P-111

San Diego, CA, USA 92143

Comments from Fred Leuchter

Dear David Thomas,

Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely

true.

The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,

although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The

Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial

would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an

agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the

things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or

change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's

dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual

promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the

Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he

would not break the law by saying things or doing things he

had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never

admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply

agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his

life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not

broken the law.

Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of

people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge

Court.

Fred Leuchter

4/5/99

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