423 East 7th Street, RM 528

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Email: p_genevier@yahoo.com




US Senate, House of Representative and Government

UN General Assembly

EU Parliament

Countries Parliaments

Non-Governmental Organizations


Press and Media         

Los Angeles, December 10, 2004


Object: ‘Early resignation of Mr. John Ashcroft and Mr. Donald Evans, lawsuit against the DHS, project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level, ‘65-age limit proposal’ for Country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, war in Iraq, stopping the violence in Iraq rapidly, and job application.



Dear Madam, dear Sir,


I take the liberty of writing you to explain why Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Evans have a important part of responsibility in the difficulties I had/have here in California, to make some remarks about the lawsuit I filed against the DHS, and to make few more remarks about the 65-age limit proposal for leaders, the war in Iraq and the possibility to stop the violence faster in Iraq.  But, first, I must ‘present’ you more details about my computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the world wide level; describe my experience, the efforts I made to develop this proposal, and some of the responses I received; and briefly talk about some job applications I sent and a ‘recommendation’ I received.


‘Recommendation’ of a high- level official of the US  Dept. of Commerce, and I.O. Job applications.


First, I must say that although I am a citizen of (or ‘refugee’ from) France, I have a brother and a sister who are both US citizens.  I also must point out that my sister’s father in law, Dr. Howard Bryant, was, I believe, a ‘high-level official’ of the US Department of Commerce, who has worked, I believe, at the US Patent office, the US Bureau of Census, and toward the end of his career in 93 at the ‘International Statistical Program’.   I don’t know exactly what positions Dr. Bryant had in these different agencies, but I believe he was a manager or one of the ‘directors’.


I met Dr. Bryant only 4 times in my life (twice briefly when I was a student in the US in 85 and 86), the third time was in January 1993 in Paris.  I had just been fired and threatened to have problems for the rest of my life by a very corrupt local administration, the US ‘Department’ of Essonne, near Paris.  Dr. Bryant was stopping in Paris as part of his work with the US Dept. of Commerce, to have a meeting at the OECD with among other officials, Mr. Kincannon (I believe), who was the new OECD Director of the Statistics Division, and who is now the Director of the US Census Bureau. 


Dr. Bryant, who knew that I had studied mathematics in the US, and later had taken night classes in finance and economics (and knew about my professional difficulties), told me that his ‘friend’ at OECD, Mr. Kincannon, was looking for mathematicians and suggested that I applied for a job there.  I followed his advice because, in addition to an appropriate education and a useful experience, I was very interested by the work of international organizations, as you can surely understand, when looking at the work I have done.  After about 10 months and no invitation for an interview, I received a negative answer form the OECD!


Later, I applied to several other I.O.s including (in 96) to the UN Statistics Division (headed at the time by Mr. Habermann, now Deputy Director of the US Census Bureau), and at about the same time the IMF, Eurostat etc.  There is, therefore, no doubt that Mr. Kincannon (OECD Statistics Division Director), Mr. Habermann (UN Statistics Division Director) and Mrs. Carson (IMF Statistics Division Director), all of whom are US citizens, knew who I was when I submitted my project proposal in 97, and knew about my ‘family links’ to Dr. Bryant, a US Dept. of Commerce Director, who was (because of his responsibility) also known in the ‘international statistics community’, I believe. 


After I submitted the project proposal to the European research and cooperation program on 09/24/97, only 3 organizations statistics division refused to comment this INCO proposal (OECD, UN and IMF), the 3 organizations statistics divisions headed by the US citizens mentioned above (who knew me and had turned down my job applications).  Their silence was not only very dishonest (for me and for the international community), but also totally disrespectful toward their international colleagues who had made the effort to respond intelligently (for most of them) to the proposal, and had supported it in writing. 


My motivation to work on this project and my professional experience.


Although Dr. Bryant advised me to apply at OECD, he had nothing to do with the design of my initial research project proposal or even the second one I submitted in 09/97(sadly) (as I mentioned above I only saw him 4 times briefly, and the last time was in September 95), or with my motivation to work on such a project proposal.  In 93, after I was fired, I started analyzing my competences, ‘interest’ and what I could do to be useful to the community.  Then (based on this analysis), I designed a project proposal that was supposed to guide me in my job search.  As some of you may know, this is the appropriate (and recommended by the French unemployment agency) strategy to look for a job. 


I worked on this particular project proposal because, first, I rapidly realized that the threat of the administration was real (even though I did not understand why at the time - 93-, the frauds at the administration were discussed publicly in 97 only), and therefore I thought that it was important to work on a project that was good for everyone.  I also knew that I would go to court (before 5 years as required by law) to contest my dishonest dismissal, and therefore that I had to follow the unemployment agency recommendation to be able to justify my eventual long period of unemployment due to the threats of the administration (again it became rapidly clear that the administration would try to keep me out of job as long as possible).  Finally, and not least, I also had, at the time, a precise ‘vision’ (and understanding) of how the information society would evolve. 


The first project proposal I designed was a very general research proposal whose objective was to design a system to collect, store and distribute the various statistics (and other information) used by I.O. and the pharmaceutical industry, ‘statistics’ that could be qualified as ‘public health variables’.  This initial proposal forced me to make research in very different areas from public health, to computer science, economics, etc., and, of course, to make research on and to contact the companies, organizations and experts that could be interested by this proposal including Reuters for which I started to work in September 94.  To design the INCO proposal (in 97) required all the knowledge on these different subjects and on the work of international organizations I acquired during these research years.


I also used both my education (US degrees in mathematical sciences, courses in finances, economics,…), and my professional experiences.  For example, from 87 to 91, I worked as a marketing controller and then data processing manager for an international company, and I was in charge of preparing the monthly marketing and sales (statistics) reporting.  Some private companies (like this one) constantly reorganize their sale-force, so preparing the statistics can be difficult because the sales sectors or regions change constantly. To produce statistics that match with the previous year or month can be a real problem (that international organizations have when a country like Germany reunite or USSR split up for example, or when the calculation methodology changes).


This company was also designing a new international marketing and sales information system that should fit every European countries ‘structure’.  And after I sent to the headquarter a detailed analysis of the French information systems, they invited me to participate in the design of this new international system in Germany, which was a unique and useful experience to solve the problem I gave myself to solve.  Finally, I worked at Reuters on the development of a new internal trading system, and, as part of this work, I had to solve many network problems, application design problems, and performance problems.  On the financial market, some rates may change every second (or two), which create an important volume of data (and complicated network and performance problems).


And I also worked at Dow Jones Telerate on contribution problems.  Contribution systems are the systems that allow banks and other ‘companies’ to input the rates and other information into the (various private) global networks, they are/were complicated systems (that do not always ‘work properly’ in a highly competitive environment).  So there are no doubt that I had obtained a very appropriate experience to understand all the different aspects of the complicated computer proposal I made in 97.  I had a different approach to the problem that made it possible for me to design an original project proposal and a strategy to improve I.O.s information systems that I.O.s experts had obviously not thought of.


I.O. statistical information systems strategies and some technical aspects of my computer project proposal.


In 1997 when I submitted the project proposal to the Inco-Copernmicus European program, every international organization was studying how it could use the internet more efficiently to collect, manage and distribute its statistics, but everyone of them had designed an independent strategy.  The UN was working on a project whose objective was to collect certain selected indicators from its different agencies, to store them, and to eventually distribute them. 


The IMF had ‘just’ started to work on its SDDS (96) and GDDS  (97) standard of statistics dissemination.  And Mr. Kincannon told me in 1997 (over the phone), after I sent him my project proposal that they, at OECD, had tried to make a unique classification of all the statistics used at OECD like I was proposing for all organizations, but had failed.  He mentioned or implied that my project which proposed to create a unique classification of all statistical indicators used by all international organizations and to develop a unique system for all organizations would therefore fail, but his reasoning was not correct (and obviously not supported by many of his international colleagues).


Doing what I was proposing only at the OECD level did not make sense, but doing it at the level of all IOs made a lot of sense, in fact the main purpose or main ‘scientific’ argument of my proposal was precisely to explain why the proposal made sense for all I.O.s, and why it was important to start with this particular proposal.  (I wrote in the proposal ‘if we use the network as primary technology of our information system, then we can develop a unique system for every organization..’).  I also explained to experts that the main three tasks of the proposals (the classification of statistics, the gathering of knowledge on these statistics, and the computer system to store this classification and knowledge, and to transfer the statistics) justified each other.


We need the system to store the knowledge and classification (codification) and transfer the data, we need the classification and knowledge to build the system and we need the knowledge on statistics to design the classification (and codification).  When designing such a system, one must study many parameters like the cost of the system vs. the tasks it will perform. One must also look at the organization required to implement and maintain the system.  It does not make sense, for example, for European countries to develop a computer system to transfer the statistical data via Internet with the OECD, then another system with Eurostat to transfer almost the same statistical data, another one with the IMF and one with the UN, it would be much to costly to implement and to maintain, and totally inefficient.  


Moreover, some organizations like ILO, UNESCO,.., collect only a limited number of statistics, and, for them, developing a computer system only for their organization was not cost efficient, but, at the same time, they needed to improve their statistical data collection techniques, and developing a system in cooperation with other organizations was the perfect solution.  Finally, to facilitate the integration of data, it is also important to have a unique code and label for the same statistic that may be used in different organizations, otherwise the users cannot know (without an additional work) if the different organizations are using the same calculation method, for example, or are talking about the same indicators or quantity. 


Bad faith and dishonest motivations


From my research and discussion with some experts, I knew that I.O.s were not working on such a classification, so in September 97, when I presented the proposal to I.O.s,  I knew that, if only one of them responded to me positively, I would get a positive response from all the other organizations because, if one organization answered positively, it confirmed that they were not already working on such a statistics codification and computer system, and therefore that the other would also be interested.  And this is what happened, at the exception of OECD, IMF and the UN (they did not even bothered to respond in writing to explain why they did not agree with the proposal!  Only Mr. Johnston asked another OECD director to send a brief response in April 99, just after I contacted Mr. Turner, it seems!). 


You can notice in the attached letters of support for the project that I have received a letter from UNESCO, then FAO (I received two letters form the FAO only one is presented here), CIS, UNIDO, Eurostat, ILO, WFP.  Who headquarter expressed its interest, but Who Euro wrote to me that they did not want to participate because they were working on the same project, which of course was not possible because the main idea of my project proposal was to design a unique system for all I.O.s including Who headquarter and Who subsidiaries (Who Euro,).  I also received a letter from the German Chief statistician telling me that he did not want to participate because he thought that the UN was working on a ‘similar’ system.


Again the UN was not working on a ‘similar’ (or same) system because the main purpose of the proposal was to explain the importance of designing a unique system and codification for all organizations (and the European experts confirmed in their evaluation that the proposal was ‘original’).  The UN had chosen a strategy independent from the other organizations like the IMF and OECD, which was a wrong strategy given the Internet specificity.  The World Bank also sent a very questionable evaluation (they pretended that poor countries would not benefit from the project although this is exactly the opposite, they would be the first to benefit from such a project).  There were an obvious bad faith from few members of the international statistical community, and a great dishonesty from Mr. Kincannon, Mr. Habermann, and Mrs. Carson who had key positions to ‘stop the project’.


After ILO, UNESCO, Eurostat, CIS,…, had expressed their interest for the proposal, it was very easy for the UN, OECD, and IMF to build on from this consensus or agreement between the other organizations to start a new more efficient strategy to collect and integrate the data, and/or even to use the low cost research project to see what difficulties would come up, but they remained silent.  Until very recently (MM. Ashcroft and Evans early resignations) I thought that Mr. Habermann was a German national, so I did not understand what was the main motivation of Mr. Kincannon, Mrs. Carson and Mr. Habermann for refusing to promote such a proposal. 


I now strongly believe that their motivation for refusing to support or to comment in writing the project was not a technical, management or even a political motivation.  I believe that it was just a pure dishonest behavior and a form of discrimination toward me, someone they knew from being a ‘relative’ of their colleague (or former colleague, Dr. Howard Bryant), someone they had refused to hire, someone who had (indirectly and certainly not voluntarily) humiliated them by presenting a strategy that was widely supported by many of their international colleagues, and someone who had pointed out their mistake in developing their strategies independently from the other organizations.


I must remind you that I was able set up this proposal although I never worked in international organization, in a national institute of statistics, or even in a research institute or university.  I made the research at night, after work or as part of my responsibility as an unemployed.  When I designed the Inco proposal, I was living in a 14 square meters room with no kitchen, I was unemployed and I had almost no money, but I still managed to find (and to decide) 2 universities, a research institute and 2 private companies (in Eastern Europe and the CIS) to participate in the proposal with me (a member of the Russian Academy of science even accepted to participate in the proposal!).


A difficult work, an important proposal for the world, and a dishonest ‘management’.


Writing the proposal was/is not an easy job.  I wrote the project proposal only few days before the call for proposal because, among other reasons, I did not know which partners I would have or how much time and money I could count on before the last few days of the call for proposals.  So it was a real achievement to write a proposal that not only fits the call for proposal goals, but also that was understood and supported in writing by so many organizations experts (see att. 1).  To write the proposal in such a short time required to know exactly what problems international organizations had, what solutions would be best for them, and, of course, what technical solutions or technologies could be applied. 


As you have seen above, I made the efforts to acquire the exact experience, education and knowledge I needed to make the proposal, which fell within the responsibility of Mr. Habermann, Mr. Kincannon and Mrs. Carson, and of I.O.s Chiefs.  They had never offered this kind of cooperation to their colleagues although the evidences show that they would have welcomed it for the benefit of everyone.  As I have mentioned in some of my letters (including my recent letter of August 2004 to the US senate…), this proposal is very important for the world, not just because it will improve the transfer and integration of statistical data, but also because it gives a real hope to solve the problem of poverty rapidly (by developing computer and information systems that can be used by every country).


So the silent of these three US experts (which was in contradiction with the many letters of support and the positive comments from other organizations and countries experts) should have stricken the I.O.s Chiefs (Mr. Annan, Mr. Johnston,  Mr. Camdessus, Mr. Kohler,) who also have the responsibility to design the long-term strategy of their organization.  MM. Annan, Wolfensohn, Somavia,, who knew in what context I made the proposal, knew that the proposal had been put on the second place of the reserve list because I was an individual (which was very unfair given that I done all the work), and knew about my situation (poor unemployed, victim of a corruption scandal in France,…) should have ‘spoken up’ and corrected the problem, especially after G8 leaders had recommended a greater cooperation between international organizations (in one of the G8 meetings).  


They should have also discussed the 65-age limit, which exists in many organizations. For Mr. Annan who has covered the Rwanda massacre and the fraud of Saddam Hussein and other countries on the oil food program, it may seems like the least of his grave faults, but it is not.  The computer project proposal and the 65-age limit proposal for leaders (that would have encouraged Saddam Hussein to resign to avoid the war), are critical for the resolution of our global problems, and Mr. Annan refusal to discuss these proposals, particularly after he responded to my January 2003 letter, has and continue to cost many lives and a lot of money.  Mr. Annan, who is supposed to be ‘a spokesman for the interest of the world’s people, particularly the poor and vulnerable among them’, forget those whose life expectancy at birth is 50 or even 40, or the 3 billions of very poor.  His and other I.O. Chiefs silence was a great management and intellectual fault, which is significant of serious problems at the UN and other UN agencies (oil food program, Rwanda massacre, bad results on poverty,).


G8 leaders (particularly the US Presidents or French President) also should have corrected the unfair responses (or silence) of these experts and the unfair EC evaluation of my computer project proposal (blaming me who had done all the work).  They missed a chance to promote the cooperation they had encouraged in 99 or 2000 during one of their annual G8 meetings, because this proposal fitted perfectly their objectives and encouraged an important cooperation between I.O.s.  They should have also addressed the 65-age limit proposal for leaders because I had brought many meaningful arguments and obvious examples justifying it, particularly after it became an obvious tool to prevent the immediate death of many people in Iraq.  This is unfortunately not the only fundamental issue behind our global problems they fail to address [the unfair remuneration, reward (or honor) system; corruption; the role of the ‘church’ (or religious groups) in our modern society; the role of the ‘church’ in a world free of poverty,]!     


My asylum application, the role of MM. Ashcroft and Evans in my difficulties, and the response of the US attorney on my lawsuit against the DHS.


I can now explain why MM. Ashcroft and Evans have without any doubt a responsibility in the difficulties I had/have here in California (and discuss their motivations).  In my asylum application I explained that I was victim of persecutions in France because I was the victim of a widely advertised political scandal involving high-level French politicians, and because I had presented my two proposals and described the dishonest behavior of French politicians to the international community.  I had also attached around 20 letters of support from international experts and high-level politicians (2 G8 leaders).  The natural thing to do was therefore to forward a copy of my asylum application to Mr. Ashcroft in May or June 2002 (the INS was part of the US DOJ until March 2003, I believe) and for him to contact Mr. Evans or directly Mr. Kincannon at the US Census Bureau.


Moreover, few days after I submitted my asylum application, I wrote to several well-known US University Presidents to ask them for their intellectual support to defend my proposal and my case in front of the appropriate institutions.  Again the appropriate step for them was to contact higher-level officials of the USDOJ and the US Department of Commerce, including MM. Kincannon, and Habermann of the US Census Bureau, to give them their point of view or perhaps to obtain some details on my computer proposal. Therefore, MM. Ashcroft and Evans were most certainly also informed of my letter to the US university presidents, of my proposals, and of family link with Dr. Bryant.


Finally, in January 14 2003, I wrote to Mr. Bush and several other US officials or personality (and the UN and World Bank), to describe the difficulties I was having here with my refugee status and to present (again for some) my proposals (including the age limit that could still have prevented the war in Iraq), and there again the appropriate step (for Mr. Bush, Daschle, Frist,…, ) was to contact MM. Ashcroft and Evans (and/or possibly directly Mr. Kincannon and Habermann) to know the nature of the problems I was having with my asylum application and to have some details on the project proposal I presented.  There is therefore no doubt that, at one point, MM. Ashcroft and Evans were informed of my asylum application, of the proposals I had submitted to the international community, and of the many difficulties I was having in California. 


Given my justified asylum application, my US ‘relatives’, the importance of my proposals, the many letters of support I had received, and the fact that I studied 5 years in the US, there was no reason to let me have so many troubles here in California, and to cover the fraud that took place on my case (the probable undocumented change of the record).  Altering a federal record(18 USC 1519) or ' issuing a fraudulent verification of status’ (18 USC 1546) is very grave fraud punishable by up to 20 years in prison, (even 25 years if it is to help a terrorist).  Whatever error was made (the alteration of the record or the issuance of a fraudulent verification of status), I am victim of a grave federal crime, punishable by jail time!  So Mr. Ashcroft (and other INS officials) knew the gravity of the errors made on my case, and had a good reason to ‘speak out’ and end my problems.  The INS Audit Office that received my complaint should have even referred the case to the FBI (because it was a serious crime and raised serious organizational problems).


If they did not speak or correct the problems, it is necessarily because they had dishonest reasons for remaining silent like to cover their own error, the need to avoid a public debate on the 65-age limit proposal to make sure the war in Iraq would take place (and later to avoid handicapping Mr. Bush re-election).  They also had the need to avoid a public debate on my computer project proposal, which demonstrated an obvious bad faith (dishonesty) of 3 of their ‘colleagues’ (MM. Kincannon, Haberman, Mrs. Carson,) (and of IOs and G8 leaders) that had/have great negative consequences for the world!  Is it Mr. Ashcroft who gave me the refugee status or who asked to change my refugee status, or did he simply avoid to respond to my letter of complaint to cover the fraud of his employees to avoid a public debate on the issues of my case? 


I don’t know, and as part of the discovery for my case, I have, in October, asked the US Attorney office to respond to some of these questions, and to admit that the INS record has listed me as a refugee at some point, but the Assistant US attorney did not respond. Instead, she continues to lie, to pretend that she does not understand the complaint and that I have never been given the refugee status, and to ask the judge to dismiss the complaint without addressing the issues of the case.  She wrote in her motion to dismiss that I complained about the fact that some INS employees had said that I was a refugee when in fact I was not.  But I wrote exactly the opposite in my complaint, I complained about the fact that some INS employees argued that I was not a refugee and that their colleague status verifier had made an error in reading the record, although I had obviously been given the refugee status and an administrative law judge confirmed it.


She perfectly knows that altering an official record or issuing a fraudulent verification of status is a very grave fraud punishable by up to 20 years in jail, so she lies and pretends that the record never listed me as a refugee (despite the 4 documents I have that confirm it), and at the same time she refuses to go and ‘interview’ the status verifier who issued the verification listing me as a refugee although his office is 7 floor below hers!  Her behavior is outrageous, and obviously supported by her management (Mr. Ashcroft) and the DHS (Mr. Ridge).  She (they) tries to take advantage of time, of the procedure, of the fact that I do not have a lawyer, and of the dishonesty of some employees of the court!  You understand that it is very difficult for me to question directly MM. Ashcroft and Evans (or even Mr. Ridge) to know what happened, although it is obvious they had/still have something to do with my problems.  I will continue to have problems with the administration as long as my case is not discussed publicly, because the consequences of telling the truth on my case are too damaging for these politicians (I.O.s Chiefs, and G8 leaders). 


The 65-age limit proposal for country leader and I.O. Chiefs, the war in Iraq and stopping the violence rapidly in Iraq.


I must come back again to the 65-age limit proposal for country leaders and I.O. Chiefs because this proposal and the efforts I made to explain its importance to maintain peace around the world since 2000, prove that the US and England do not have the sole responsibility of the War in Iraq.  In fact, they demonstrate that several other ‘actors’ of the Iraqi crisis who pretended that they were opposed to the war (Chirac, Annan, the Pope, ) had an even greater responsibility in the War than the US and British administrations.  Since there is an obvious hate of Americans in Iraq, and in some other parts of the world, and that this hate creates a lot of violence in Iraq (and other parts of the world), it is important to explain to the world who had a responsibility in the war and why the war took place (especially now that it is obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq).


An honest explanation on the underlying (or basic) issues of the war (65-age limit, the Oil food program fraud, UN and I.O.s management problems, unfair ‘remuneration’ system,) and an honest explanation on the responsibility of older leaders (including Saddam Hussein) would diminish the hate of and the violence against Americans, and would also make it easier to find an international agreement on how to best help the Iraqis.  If countries like France acknowledged that they should have raised the 65-age limit issue (publicly) to encourage Mr. Saddam Hussein to retire in early 2003 (or even before during the French presidential election), the public opinion in these countries (France, Germany,) would change and would be more willing to aid to relieve the pressure on and violence against the US.    The international community should also admit that a war in 21 century is the symbol of a failure of the UN and its Secretary General that should lead to the immediate resignation of the secretary general.


Following the recent public statement of Senator Coleman who said that Mr. Anan should resign, so that the international community can make all the light on the oil food program, I would like to remind you again one of the important arguments of my 65-age limit proposal.  This 65-age limit proposal would prevent older leaders who have accumulated wrong doings to hold on to power to be in a better position to cover their dishonesty.  This was/is the case of Mr. Saddam Hussein, of Mr. Chirac or Mr. Berlusconi who have also used their immunity and power to avoid being sentenced/prosecuted for grave frauds, and of several other leaders around the world.  Mr. Annan also uses his position to cover his (and others) dishonesty when he refuses to forward documents to the US Senate, and he even chose and pay his judges (a more than 70 or 75 retired US official, Mr. Annan is not in a hurry to get the results of the investigation), which is outrageous!  The UN Secretariat should also be responsible for his frauds in front of the people (countries parliaments). 


To diminish the violence in IRAQ rapidly and to bring more justice to the world, not only Mr. Annan should resign immediately, but a 65-age limit for (countries and IO) Leaders should also be established to prevent dishonest older leaders (like him) to hold on to the highest responsibilities to cover their grave frauds (crimes) and to give themselves a life long immunity. As you may know, the 28 USC 455 asks judges who have a personal interest in the judgment of a case to disqualify themselves to avoid conflict of interest, so MM. Annan, Chirac, the Pope, Wolfensohn,, should have brought immediately the issue to the public in early 2003, and explain that this limit was a possible solution to avoid the war, but since they have a personal interest in this issue, they prefer to let the people and experts discuss and decide on this issue! 


Again I want to remind you that these older than 65 leaders show no respect for the new generation they had the responsibility to prepare, and acknowledge their failure in preparation of competent leaders. MM. Chirac, Annan, Berlusconi, Wolfensohn, Saddam Hussein , Arafat, (Kerry ), the Pope, Sharon, Martin, Fidel Castro, Muggabe, …, behave outrageously, and hurt their country and mankind.  In 2000 I had understood the importance of this proposal for the maintenance of peace and the fight against poverty around the world. And although I was very poor and had a lot difficulties, I made the effort to write to G8 Leaders and I.O. chiefs, but no one listened, and not even 3 years later a war starts because a 65 years old leader refuse to step down, and several other leaders refuse to address the issue publicly.  What other proof do you need?  You must absolutely stop and denounce this lie.


INTEL, one of the most well-known computer companies (and many others), limits at 65 the age of its CEO, France also limits at 65 the age of president of public companies, there are many good reason to do that, and many examples that support the importance of this limit, the war in Iraq is one of them.  What happens in Palestine is a good example also.  Mr. Arafat made no effort to prepare the new generation of leaders, and now one of his likely successors is 70, and the other one is young, but is in the Israeli jail!   There is no need for a leader to wait for the last moment before death to retire (leaders can easily keep a lower profile after 65).  Growing old is the normal process of life, and older leader should be happy to have many more years ahead of them to appreciate the ‘performance’ of their successors and the ‘good’ preparation work they have done. 





To conclude, MM. Ashcroft and Evans (and also Mr. Ridge) have an important responsibility in the grave difficulties I had/have here, and an important responsibilities in hiding the important issues of my case to the public.  Particularly the 65-age limit proposal that could have prevented the war with Iraq, and my computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level that would have a great impact on our fight against poverty and the resolution of our global problems.  In my letter of August 2004 addressed to US senators (and other institutions) I explained that my difficulties were due mostly to the silence on my two proposals and to the efforts made to avoid a public debate on these (and my case) issues, and today I bring you more proof of this fact. 


The discussion of my two proposals remains critical for the international community to stop the violence in Iraq (and in other parts of the world) rapidly, and to demonstrate the international community willingness to tackle our grave and urgent global problems.  The silence on the 65-age limit proposal for leader show that MM. Chirac, Annan, the Pope (Saddam Hussein), and other older leaders who pretended to oppose the war in Iraq, have in fact a greater responsibility in the war than the US and British administration because they deliberately hide to the people a possible solution of the Iraqi crisis to hold on to their position after 65.  At the same time they showed no respect for the new generation and the poor.  A public acknowledgement of their error would help to reach an agreement on how to best help the Iraqis and would reduce the hate and violence against Americans.  


The efforts made to avoid a public debate on my 2 proposals are also an additional proof of the serious problems in international institutions like the UN, G8, (the oil food program, the Rwanda massacre, the security problems that lead to the bombing of the UN headquarter in Iraq, obvious disagreement of G8 leaders on the necessity of a war in Iraq, ‘immunity’ for MM. Berlusconi and Chirac are other examples of these problems).  Although I.O.s and the G8 (group of the most advanced countries) have an important intellectual responsibility, they deliberately fail to address the important intellectual and fundamental issues behind our global problems [65-age limit for leaders; unfair remuneration, reward honor system; corruption; the role of the ‘church’ in our modern society,].      


Finally, I would like to stress again that I have made a very difficult work under very difficult condition for the benefit of everyone, and that all the difficulties I encounter are totally unfair.  The LA County is planning to send me in the street again in January - before the justice even renders its decision.  They have already sent me in the street more than 16 times since I asked for their help in 09/2002 and since I was given the refugee status - status that entitled me to housing assistance- and I have been homeless for more than 3 years.  My two proposals are meaningful and supported by many experts, examples and unfortunately, now by an obvious ‘proof’ that it is well-founded, so I am asking you for justice (for me and for the billions peoples who live on earth, particularly the 3 billions very poor like me who work very hard to come out of poverty).   Remaining silent on my condition, my work, my proposals and the constant injustice I suffer, makes you responsible for the injustice and for the damage caused by this silence.  Bring more justice to the world, the violence in Iraq will diminish rapidly.  I remain 


            Yours sincerely,





            Pierre Genevier


Att. 1:  Summary description of the project proposal, letters of support from UNESCO, FAO, CIS, UNIDO, ILO, Eurostat, World Food Program, OECD, and letters of support from countries (England, Romania, Norway, Iran, Italia, France,). 

Att. 2: Verification of status listing me as a refugee (2 pages).