ГУЛаг Палестины

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