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
Universities
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.
Conclusion.
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).