rying now to freeze their file to avoid
     giving them the permanent residents
     papers and continues persecutions.To
     punish Lev Gunin they startet to
     humiliate over his old mother (check the
     link)
     Complete update of GUNINS tragedy is
     here


     Next Document  Main Page

     For The Federal Court, Second-Stage Appeal Procedure

     FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18
     ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ )
     FOR THE FEDERAL COURT, AFFIDAVIT February 24, 1998

LIST OF ITEMS
     INTRODUCTION: An explanation why some important (from my point of view)
details never appeared in my refugee claim.
     (This document).
     1. Why the refugee board's decision has formed an additional
     risk of return for my family, and me.
     (This document).
     2. How my lawyer's  translator torpedoed  my  chances to get a positive
decision.
     (Document #3).
     4. My  observations  regarding the hearings  and the negative  decision
(Document # 3).
     (Group of Documents #4).
     5.  My  observations  regarding  the  text  of  the  negative  decision
("Conclusive Decision").
     (Document # 5).
     6. My final statement.
     (This document, paragraph 1.7.).

     In any  decision  in our case I ask you  to take into consideration the
next documents, which I have submitted on November
     the 7-th, 1997, for post-determination revue.

     7. Adjustment to my refugee claim  as an essential explanation  of that
risk.
     (Document # 2).
     8. List of supporting documents.
     (Document # 6).
     9. Supplements.
     (Group of Documents # 7).
     10.List of Organizations.
     (Document AC)


INTRODUCTION
     Introduction.1.  There  are some important,  from  my  point  of  view,
details, which never appeared in my refugee claim.
     My advisers were strongly opposed to the next passages.

     a) Anything that could throw a  shadow to the  state's  of Israel  good
image.
     b) Statements, which would mention Israeli army.
     c) Any claims,  which could  include politics or  politically motivated
persecutions.

     Introduction.2.  They said (may be,  indirectly) that the  influence of
Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said
     that  by  mentioning about the  violations of Russian  speaking people'
human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in
     Israeli  army,  or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered
in Israel, we could make the commissioners just
     furious.  They could  accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which  became
very popular when an excuse must be
     found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.

     Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me,
partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even
     better  then  before, that  they  were  right,  and I  must  completely
recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could
     understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le  Brune,  recommendations  were
very wise. In the same time my lawyer's
     translator inserted 2 statements  into  my refugee claim, which I never
authorized her to insert and which were in
     complete  contradiction  to  my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a
statement that I was a well-known dissident in
     ex-USSR.  The  2-nd  is  a  declarative passage  about slavery. In  the
Document #3 you could read more about this.

     Introduction.4. Suspending  some information  from entering  my refugee
claim I did it  because  I  was afraid that  the IRB members  -  instead  of
defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".

     Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's
translator's distortions and because of
     commissioners'  aggressive  behavior)  I  was forced  to  mention  such
things, which I decided not to mention before.
     When it  became  clear that the commissioners  were  extremely  partial
towards us, and that we had no what to loose,
     all  three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any
more.

     Introduction.6.  In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention
in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not
     recommend  to  mention,  were accessible for  the  Immigration Board as
others (besides my main refugee claim)
     documents in my file. I handed them over to  my lawyer, and he adjusted
them to my file before or between the
     hearings.  It means that the information, which I enter now in Document
# 2, is not new, and was in my immigration
     file  before. In the same time, it was  up to  my lawyer  to share this
information or not. Recently I took all documents,
     which  were in  my  file,  away from my  lawyer, including  letters  to
Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in
     Supplements),  and others. My  lawyer's  notes were  written on top  of
them, what you can see on one of the copies. It
     means  that I have  rights to mention  them now because  by time of our
refugee hearings they were accessible for the
     commissioners because were part of my immigration file.

1
     1.1. In this document, I am going  to  explain, prove and show, why and
how all my family members, and I, would face
     risk to  life, extreme sanctions and inhuman treatment not just because
of the danger for us in general, but also
     because of the refugee board members' actions.

     Please, do not make a  final decision in  my  case without studying all
supporting documents, because they content the
     main argumentation about this risk.

     1.2. This risk  of  return  to Israel  has been  increased  during  our
residency in Canada because of the next actions of
     IRB members.

     A). IRB, assigned to our  file, contacted Israel and informed  Israelis
about our refugee claim in Canada (see Group of
     documents  # 4, Document  # 3,  p.p.  1,2,3;  Document  #  1,  page  1,
paragraph # 3, point 5), also p.2, point
     11), also p.3,  point 8); and also Supplements, Documents # 6, 7). That
would increase the possibility of
     vengeance to us from Israeli authorities.
     B). Even if a  definite information -  that the  embassy  of  Israel in
Canada could already know about the content of our
     immigration file - is wrong, sooner or later they would know it. Trying
to find defense and justice, I have submitted a
     short description  of our  immigration hearings  and of  the final IRB'
negative decision to hundreds of human rights
     organizations and to  thousands of  other  destinations.  I  made  them
available on Internet for the same purposes. So,
     Israelis know them, too, anyway.
     C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and  the immigration officer
instead of defining whether or not we could
     face persecutions in Israel  (as we claimed), concentrated  on accusing
us as if it was a criminal court. They
     characterized me  as  an exaggerator and  defamator, dangerous (they do
not use this word but it is the only
     characteristic of  what  they meant)  to  the  state  of  Israel*  (see
commentaries in the end of  this part). Their insinuations  that I turned to
innumerous places in Israel,  including human  rights  organizations,  MP's,
police, Amnesty International (see the list of them in Supplements, Document
# 8; see also copies of documentary proof of my appeals to
     various  organizations  in  Supplements, Documents  #  9,10,11,12)  not
because I looked for protection but to
     "spread slender  about Israel"** (see comments 2  at  the  end of  that
part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here
(in Canada)  they were used as an excuse to deny our  refugee claim, and the
negative decision
     was   logically   presented  as   a  "punishment"   for  "slander"  and
"exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last
     paragraphs  on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs  1, 2).  Israeli
authorities would consider Montreal's
     "immigration court's" (IRB) decision to  define us as enemies of Israel
and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading
     order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably,  an
Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,
     expressed her  almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality
in such tones and colors, which could
     perfectly correspond  to the manners  and mentality of Israelis.  Their
most sensitive feelings would be touched by her
     words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be
removed to Israel (please, read the
     whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open
threats, including a threat to
     open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).
     D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the
negative decision somehow separated me
     from  other members of my family. They almost  openly let know that  my
family suffering and refused the status only
     because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis  to separate
me from my family or even take away our
     children (I  know several  precedents). Rejection of my  refugee  claim
because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
     (in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the  negative
decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
     anything to  me  (if Canadian  court did what  it did, why should  they
wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely
sure  that  within  days or  weeks I  could  be imprisoned  in  Israel  and,
probably,  killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also
because of what the commissioners' did.
     E). The political situation  in Israel has been  changed, too, since we
left, to the worse. I present documents (see
     Supplements,  Document  # 19), which  shows that the  present extremist
government is not ready to maintain just
     any tolerance. This is why the  commissioners' actions  would  lead  to
more severe consequences if we would be
     removed back  to Israel. By the  time of  the  hearings  these  changes
already took place, and the commissioners had to
     know pretty good about that...
     F). Policemen in  Israel could still remember  my wife's, mother's, and
my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry
     of Police and Ministry of Internal  Affairs. Now, - when in their brief
description of my refugee claim members of IRB
     severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments),  - how
could we turn for defense in Israel any
     more?   The  IRB  members'  action  made  us  completely  insecure  and
unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since
     the  context of  their negative  decision is already  known to  Israeli
authorities].

     *  The  negative decision mentioned  the  paragraph about slavery in my
refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that
the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph
correspond to  a  specific  tendency  in  Israel called "kablanut",  3)  two
newspaper articles, which described  "kablanut" and openly  denounced  it as
slavery. (See these articles  in Supplements, Doc. #81). An  affidavit about
the  event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me
in Israel by Lev Ginsburg  (see Supplements, Doc.82). We  became victims  of
extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were
respected more  then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles
and  other  documents   provided  by  another  side  were  totally  ignored.
Documents,  which  demonstrated   non-competence  and  partiality  and  were
provided by the members of Israeli government
     (Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions  (Israeli embassy) or committed to
Israeli government  fundraisers (Dr.  Livny) were presented as only reliable
and "independent"!
     **  After  expressed  by  IRB members' insinuations  that I  turned  to
various organizations and  institutions in Israel not for  protection but to
"spread slander" I  could have no protection in Israel any  more  if removed
there. IRB's insinuation is  a verdict for non-protection in  the  state  of
Israel! How could we go back there now?!

CHILDREN.
     During our refugee hearings, the commissioners  had chances to  observe
our children.
     They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still
not in norm.

     Because of abuses and  insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and
hyper kineses. It stopped only about one
     year ago. We  possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period
of refugee hearings the children still had
     impulsive  face  muscles' contractions  and other  visual  neurological
disorders.

     We also had a psychological evaluation at this point concerning Ina.
     From  observing our children,  the commissioners could  understand that
because the children are shy and timid they
     could  be  abused or even killed by  Israeli children. That would bring
additional danger to their lives. Such children as
     ours have always  much more chances to be abused or  even killed in the
countries with the dominated "east temper".
     Because in spite of the time, which passed since we came from Israel to
Canada, both Ina and Marta visually reacted
     to  the discussion about their life in Israel with horror and fear, the
commissioners had a chance to see how deep the
     psychological  trauma  affected  the children  and also how  easy  such
children could become targets for abuses in
     Israel.

     The description  of multiple assaults of our children were also ignored
by the commissioners. The IBR members also
     probably  knew that  by the  time of  our  hearings Israeli authorities
could take children away from Christian, atheist,
     mixed, or non-traditional Jewish families...

     In the  text  of  their  negative decision  the  IRB  members seriously
distorted some paragraphs of our refugee claim,
     which described multiple abuses against our children.

     Through  all  mentioned  above  (active or  passive)  actions,  the IRB
members had shown themselves as people with no
     mercy, open  to cruelty and ready  to commit abuses themselves. If they
had no attention or mercy even towards the
     children,  who then they are and how could such people make  a decision
in our case?!

WIFE.
     The commissioners had also a chance to observe my wife.
     My wife  Alla (look  over  our  refugee claim) suffered  very much from
multiple abuses, batteries, insults, and
     discrimination in Israel. That all caused already serious damage to her
mental and physical health. During first two
     years in  Canada, she suffered from the consequences of that damage. (A
surgery was done to her in relation with
     what  happened  to  her in  Israel;  she often cute  her  hands, stroke
herself not on purpose because of her mental
     disorder; once she spent several days in an emergency; by then a danger
has threaten her life).
     A psychologist  found  her mental disorders serious  enough. He told us
that they came in result of her previous life
     period,  what means in result of our life  in Israel. (See her  medical
reports: Supplements, Documents #13, 14,
     15, 16, 17, 18).

     Only about a year and a half ago her mental and physical wounds started
to heal, and she came almost completely
     back  to  norm.  But even now  more time is needed and  the  danger  of
deportation back to Israel has to be liquidated for
     complete improvement of her health.

     During our  refugee hearings, the IBR members had to see that  she  was
paralyzed by fear and horror so much that
     hardly  could speak.  They  could see that  she was near  an  emotional
collapse, and they had to understand that it must
     be connected with what happened to us in Israel.

     By observing us, by listening to my wife's, and my, replies IBR members
could easy understand that we belong to a
     rare  type of people,  for whom any suppression of their own  pride  is
unbearable. We could become refugee
     claimants and agreed for all the degrading procedures only because of a
threat to our lives, only! We care about our
     children lives, and we  know that  they need  us. Otherwise,  we  would
never let a person like Mrs. Judith Malka
     humiliating over us!  It  was absolutely  clear  that something  really
serious (like a threat to our lives) had to happen to
     force people like us to become refugee claimants.

     To ignore their observations the IRB members had not  to care about our
fate at all. Their indifference demonstrated
     that they came with  prepared in advance  negative attitude towards all
Russian speaking refugees from Israel in
     general. Nothing  could change this attitude, no matter who is  sitting
in front of them... It was visually clear that such a
     partial  attitude   could  not  be  affected  by  their  emotions,   by
compassion; or they rather had no emotions, no
     compassion at all...

     Please,  read my wife's statement in Group of Documents # 4, Document #
2.

MY MOTHER.
     Everything that corresponds to my  children and my wife corresponds  to
my mother as well. If the commissioners had
     no  mercy towards the children  and towards the  woman, who suffered so
much, then may be they expressed
     compassion towards an old mother  who might loose her  single son  (she
told them that her younger son died) if we
     would be removed to Israel? No, they had no shame  before an old mother
to use their unfair methods and
     demonstrate no sign of a mercy!

ME
     I am  the  very person, whom Israelis persecuted long before then I was
taken to Israel (see Document #2). I was
     taken to Israel by force,  against my  will  (see Document #2,  page 4,
paragraphs 2.16., 2.17., and the NOTE).
     When I was in Israel, Israeli State radio (RADIO RECA) called me in one
of its auditions (3 December 1993, around
     noon) "a  racist."  The  radio  correspondent  Daniela  Linor  gave  an
opposite meaning to one of my articles (see
     Supplements,  Document  #  27).  In  that  article  ("Israeli  (Jewish)
Apartheid") I denounced the discriminatory practice
     of Israeli authorities against some of the ethnic minorities, including
Buchara origins. If not my good relations with
     some  of  the Buchara  people and my attempts to  help some  of them to
fight discrimination, I could be in a serious
     danger.  The  community of Buchara  is  one  of the  most sensitive and
united communities in Israel. This event was
     already discussed during my immigration hearings, but the IRB committee
did no comments. One newspaper
     ("Vremja", 5 September 1994,  page 18), which published my article "Why
Israel is against the Victory Day?", in its
     comment called the public to destroy  all my works and presented  me as
traitor and enemy. It was very well known
     that this newspaper was by then  close  to the right  opposition led by
Mr. Netanyagu, and expressed its opinions (see
     the original  and its  translation in Supplements, Document  #28).  IRB
members did no comments to that, too.
     The same newspaper  ("Vremja",  1  August 1994, Supplements, Document #
29) placed an interview with me,
     distorting my words and trying  to  discredit me. The interviewer,  Mr.
Mark Kotlarsky, was my friend, and I trusted him.
     But he  composed that interview in a humiliating manner,  portraying me
as a