Pierre Genevier

P.O. Box 70045

Pasadena, Ca 91117-7045


Dr. George Rupp, Columbia University

M. John J. DeGioia, Georgetown University

M. Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard University

M. Henry S. Bienen, Northwestern University

M. John L. Hennessy, Stanford University

M. Scott S. Cowen, Tulane University

M. Steven B. Sample, University of Southern California

M. Richard C. Levin, Yale University


            Pasadena, May 29th, 2002


Object:  Proposals made to Country Leaders and International Organization (I.O.) 'Chiefs', leader's responsibilities, justice, information society, democracy, and education.


Dear MM. Presidents of University,


I take the liberty of writing you to present you two proposals made to Country Leaders and I.O. 'Chiefs', and to describe you some of the difficulties I encountered while working on the preparation and presentation of these proposals.  I also would like to solicit your support to defend my work and my legal case in front of the justice and the concerned 'bodies' and people.


The first proposal is a cooperation project proposal to develop a computer system to transfer and integrate more efficiently statistical data at the worldwide level.  It was first submitted to a European program (Inco-Copernicus).  The experts judged it 'innovative and beneficial for I.O.', and gave it overall a good evaluation (att. n 1), but they still put it in the second place of the reserve list, mainly because I am an 'individual'!  So I presented the proposal to Mr. Chirac, and mentioned this unusual rejection's motive and the context in which I had worked on the project (dismissal, unemployment…). 


Although Mr. Chirac wrote me an encouraging letter, the French Government and the French European Commissioner for Science, Mrs. Cresson, did not support (or finance) the proposal or my application for a job in a national or international 'organization' (att. n 5.1).  Instead I was victim of all sorts of errors from administrations, particularly from the higher Courts that were judging my dismissal case, and from the Department that had fired me in 93 (see att. n 3.1).  I also experienced other forms of persecution that made my life very difficult for years.


Despite these difficulties I continued to present the proposal to G8 country Leaders (except France) and I.O. Chiefs as well as to more than 150 countries.  Many experts around the world expressed their interest in writing, so I designed a second project proposal, taking into account all the remarks made, and proposed a group of pilot countries to realize the project (att. n 2.3).  As I was presenting the project proposal to Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, I also described some of the problems we had/have in France (a high unemployment level, an exaggerated corruption…). 


And made some remarks concerning 'our' fight against poverty.  In particular, I mentioned the importance of time in this fight, and presented arguments justifying the establishment of a limit of age, 65, for Country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs (see att. n 2.1).  This second proposal is also critical because it 'encourages' Leaders to admit that they have responsibilities, helps them to assume these responsibilities, particularly the important ones like the long term planning and the preparation of new generations, and reminds them of the importance of time in our fight against poverty.


Our Leaders cannot ignore that many people, particularly in Africa, have a life expectancy at birth of 50 or less, that many people live in extreme poverty, that many people are unemployed, …, and that '90 % of the world’s working- age population is not covered by pension schemes capable of providing adequate retirement income.'  And they cannot pretend that they do not have at least a part of responsibility in this situation, so taking a lower profile at 65 for a Leader is not only 'logical' strategy, it is also a way of showing respect toward the poor and the new generations. 


To apply this rule would be, I believe, a major management or governance contribution to the world and gift for the new generations and the poor at the beginning of this new century.  As side effect, we can mention that some leaders like Mr. Saddam Hussein (who is 65, I believe) or Mr. Muggabe (78) would probably be encouraged by their own people to let their place to younger collaborators.  It would not necessarily lead to a drastic and immediate change in regime, but would most probably simplify the dialogue with these two countries (and perhaps prevent a war).


Unfortunately, some of the main Leaders concerned did not respond to this proposal.  The Pope, for example, refuses, it seems, to even think about his retirement despite his bad health (see, att. n 6.2).  The comments of his speaker are ridiculous, if not outrageous, and the words of the Pope are not appropriate when he says that 'as long as I live I will yell: Peace in the name of God'.  You don't have to be the Pope or President of a country to express you point of view and to be heard, Mr. Carter showed that recently.  In fact former Leaders have an easy access to the press and media. 


The French leaders do not give a good example in this matter either.  Mr. Jospin (65) was ready to serve and help France for another 5 years as President, but for one 'little' percentage of vote missing he finally decided to quit public life and to let his colleagues at the socialist party without a leader and France without his 'experience'.  Of course, no one can blame him for wanting to take a rest or to enjoy a more quiet retirement life, but he could have planned his succession more carefully.  He is not the only one responsible because he had the full support of his government and partisans.   


Some of you may think that this is a waste of talent, intelligence and experience, that it demonstrates a poor management (or governance) from a country supposed to be so advanced, and that it shows a bad example to developing countries, especially when the President, Mr. Chirac (69), who often talks about good governance and ethic, makes even worth (att. n 4.1)!  And some of you may also find 'regrettable' that the President of the World Bank, who 'dreams of a world free of poverty', does not point out this bad behavior, and instead 'credit it' by 'touring' the World at 68!  


The old leaders simply refuse to consider the proposed arguments and to assume their responsibility.  Quite a few leaders have either passed the limit like Mr. Wolfensohn, Mr. Chirac, or will soon reach it like Mr. Annan.  But only few have planned (at least officially) their 'retirement' or succession like Mr. Jang Zeming or Mr. Duisemberg who has recently (finally) announced that he will step down in 18 months.  They cannot argue that they have not been informed because I did write to them.  The silence of the press and media facilitates their unfair and bad behavior. 


The behavior of the press and media, particularly in France, is surprising and not 'honest' as mentioned in my letter of December 23rd 2001(att. n 2.1).  I have presented the proposals and my request against France to several French newspapers, but they did not mention anything although it would have had an impact on the French presidential election and although they often talk on subject of less importance.  I will not discuss here their behavior that is easily explainable, even if it is condemnable.  The liberty of the press is (too often) used to forget that the press and the media, too, have responsibilities.


In February, I informed 4 French 'deputes', but only one answered me, Mr. Bayrou (att. n 5.2).  He did talk about 'la releve', the 'renewal', in his Presidential campaign, but he never explained why Mr. Chirac and Mr. Jopsin's behavior is (was) very bad.  He used the 'idea' to criticize his main opponents by saying that 'for 20 years it has been the same persons who lead France', but did not want to impose on himself and his possible supporters any rule.  It was intellectually dishonest or a bad reasoning that turned against him, the people of France and the people of the world.


As you understand, the silence of the Press, the politicians and I.O chiefs on these proposals and remarks is very grave for everyone and for me.  For everyone because the proposals would have a significant impact on poverty and peace (att. n 3,2).  And for me, because, as the result of my 'remarks' and proposals, administrations make constant mistakes that worsen my situation tremendously.  The document I sent to the INS to justify my asylum application describes briefly some of the difficulties I encountered in Europe, the fear I have, and the links with my work and the French actuality (att. n 3, 4).


My 'legal' case is very complicated now and raises several important issues.  First the evaluation of my proposals (evaluation of the intellectual work, of the importance for the community…) can now only be done by international or political 'bodies' (ACC committee, General Assembly of the UN, country Leaders…) since many experts around the world have already given their point of view.  This evaluation is not only critical for the international community because the proposals were said to be (directly or indirectly) beneficial for everyone, but also critical for my trial to estimate the violation of the article 3 by France.

Moreover we cannot ignore that more information is given to the public through the Internet and other 'media'.  And we cannot ignore the consequence of this new information society, the fact that 'individuals' have now access to and can analyze a great amount of information, and eventually propose solutions to complicated problems that could have been proposed only by Leaders or organizations' experts in the past.   In my case, it was even my responsibility to do so and to work on a project related to my competence and interest.


So no one can blame me for the work I have done and no one should punish me for presenting an 'innovative' solution accepted by many experts, au contraire.  Since 'we' now make serious effort to protect the intellectual property, the intellectual work to make this kind of proposals should also be 'protected'.  Political decisions are more often based on scientific studies and logical reasoning than it was in the past, so this situation should happen more often.  The two proposals are not easy to make, and they are in some way both 'scientific' and political proposals, they also represent many years of hard work.


Finally, as already mentioned, these proposals are critical to defeat poverty and maintain peace, and many personalities and experts have intellectually supported them, so it is not fair to hide them from the public.  This bad behavior raises an issue concerning 'our' political system, democracy, and 'our' political objective, the promotion of democracy.  If 'we' hide important fact, knowledge and explanation to the public, 'our' democracy is not honest (because the people's vote is not fair).  And 'we' promote a system that we know is dishonest without making the effort to improve it!


The other legal issues (the unfair legal help system, lawyer's fee system, jurisprudence of the ECHR…) are also critical for everyone because 'we' invest a lot of money and effort to defeat poverty and to maintain peace at the worldwide level.  If the poor (in rich countries) cannot even defend their cases properly in front of the justice, we won't be able to fight efficiently corruption and poverty.  We now know that 'corruption is a core poverty issue' and that poverty creates many other problems like public health problems or wars. 


The World Bank has already noticed the importance of law to fight poverty

(att. n 6.1), but in my opinion Mr. Wolfensohn is too 'restrictive' in that matter.  He says 'We need to think through how the rule of law needs to be improved in developing and transition country to deal most effectively…'.  We must not limit ourselves to developing and transition countries, we must absolutely have a global approach and action on that matter, and include developed countries as well to obtain significant results.  The exaggerated corruption in France has taught us that at least, we now know the impact on some African countries of the Elf case, of the contested sales of Arm to Angola…  


Moreover developing and transition countries must see the effort 'we' make to fight poverty because they see that there are many poor in rich countries too.  If rich countries can't even have a fair legal help system or lawyer's fee system, how can we expect poor countries to have one.  In France you have many people that are supposed to think about these problems, and the clerks, judges and others have all the necessary 'tools' (computers, ...).  Even the jurisprudence of the ECHR is discriminatory towards the poor as I explained.  'Our' law system - designed to make sure that individuals can contest laws or systems violating their fundamental right - does not work for the poor.


For example to criticize a law or a system of laws that would violate your fundamental rights, the European Convention requires you to prove your 'status' of victim.  Some lawyers who criticized (at the ECHR) the legal help system of their country did not obtain satisfaction because they could not justify their victim's status.  This means that only a poor could denounce at the ECHR the unfair legal help system and lawyer fee system, but at the same time everything is done to make sure that the poor never get to this stage or cannot contest any system. 


In France the law forces you often to use a lawyer (and if it is not the law, the judge can do it illegally also, it seems, like in my case!).  And the judge of the ECHR rendered a jurisprudence that found the obligation of a lawyer in front of 'Conseil d'Etat' (the Administrative Supreme Court) compatible with the convention although this obligation is clearly discriminatory towards the poor (att. n 3).  Then the European convention guarantees a legal help only in criminal cases, not in civil cases. This means that the poor are forced to use a system in civil cases that they cannot even criticize! 


The chance that poor complain about the unfair legal help system (at the ECHR) is then minuscule.  If when it finally happens, the Court does not even study the complaint, it is clearly dishonest!  Or if the person is sent in the street to make sure that 'he' will not complain and try to improve 'his' situation by obtaining justice, it is also very unfair.  We realize that 'our' system of laws protects much more the criminal than it does protect the poor victims (in Switzerland, drug dealers could stay in refugee shelters, while I was sent in the street, unfortunately this is not the only example I could give!).


 We can easily explain why the system is made that way, but I will not discuss this here.  Instead, I would like to mention the last issue raised by my case, it concerns the laws for refugees (and how the refugees are handled).  This subject is becoming more important in Europe after the elections in Austria, France, Holland, because extreme right parties became much stronger.  The way Switzerland and Belgium handled my case demonstrates the weaknesses in the 'European' asylum system of law.  Moreover asylum seekers or refugees are often humiliated and badly handled.


The serious 'refugee cases' should automatically lead to a complaint at the international justice.  If we want to diminish the number of refugees, countries must be punished for 'producing' refugees.  And the victims of severe human rights violations (with obvious proofs) must receive compensations as well as protection.  I was very surprised to notice that, among the many refugees I met, I was the only one complaining at the same time at the international justice.  The European immigration authorities seem to discourage it, instead of taking advantage of it. 


Even the social workers and 'charity' organizations dealing with refugees often give wrong advice, and certainly do not encourage these kinds of complaints!  In my case everything has been done to prevent me from presenting my case to the national and international justice, I was sent 3 times in the street in 3 of the richest countries in the world.  In Belgium, it is the social service that sent me in the street although I had just presented my case to the Supreme Court!  They perfectly knew that they were doing something wrong!  This is outrageous when you know the effort made to fight poverty in the World.  And it constitutes a violation of article 34 of the European Convention, the article that guaranties an effective access to the International justice. 


Even now, it will be impossible to present a case against Belgium or a new case against France, if I do not obtain the asylum in USA and a job to have the necessary resources (see att. n 3.1).  The universities you manage propose courses in law, computer related fields (MIS, system engineering…) and other sciences, they even have demonstrated their competence in these fields, so you surely can understand the subjects I discuss here and evaluate the importance of the proposals and issues raised by my case for the community.


You may feel that your leading positions in education and research bring you an important responsibility toward the people of the world and you may accept to give both your intellectual and financial support.  Poverty is one of the most important problems we have to solve (quickly) (if not the most important one), so the proposals I presented you should not be forgotten or buried because I am poor or victim of 'important' corrupted politicians.  Au contraire, this is my status of poor and victim that allows me to complain and entitles me to obtain justice.


Just like 'your' role in society entitles you to encourage everyone to rely more on reason and the knowledge 'we' have acquired and to remind certain leaders to show more respect towards the new generations and the poor.  Your financial support will make sure that the proposals and issues will be properly discussed and judged by the concerned 'bodies' and people for the benefit of all.  As you will notice in my resume (att. n 7), I taught mathematics in a US university and had various professional experiences in Europe, so I can teach again or adapt to your needs or work full time on these problems. 


I would be pleased to meet you or your collaborators to discuss these subjects and a possible collaboration.  I remain


Yours sincerely,





Pierre Genevier



                                                Cooperation Project Proposal.

Att. n 1: Summary of project proposal, European Commission experts evaluation and letters of interest (from international organizations: UNESCO, FAO, UNIDO, ILO, OECD, EUROSTAT, … From countries: Romania, England, Italy, Norway, Morocco,…) (20 pages).


                        Presentation to Leaders and experts, other proposal and remarks.

Att. n 2: Copy of the letter of December 23rd, 2001 sent to Country Leaders and International Organization Chiefs (10 pages, 2.1).  Copy of the Letter sent to 7 I.O. chiefs dated November 23rd 1999 (5 pages, 2.2).  And copy of the letter sent to I.O and country experts to present the second proposal (4 pages, 2.3).


                        Asylum demand, International Justice decisions, judgment, etc. 

Att. n 3: Response to the INS Questionnaire (form I-589) to justify my asylum demand (23 pages, 3.1).  Non-motivated decision of the European Court of Human rights and translation (2 pages, 3.2).  Example of a motivated decision from the ECHR (8 pages, 3.3).  Decision from the Office the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2 pages, 3.4). First judgment from 'Tribunal Administratif de Versailles' sentencing the Department of Essonne to pay me a compensation for my illegal dismissal (8 pages, 3.5).  Copy of the French Document presented to the Belgium administration and to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights (only the 10 pages - out of 500 - containing the outline and the attached documents list, 3.6).


                        The frauds in France, corruption, and letters.

Att. n 4: News paper articles concerning the frauds and trial: Trial of M. Dugoin, President of the Department of Essonne, Frauds on travel expenses at the RPR, M. Pasqua and M. Chirac. Other frauds and trials, M. Lagerfeld, Lady Diana, M. Dumas (Elf case) (23 pages, 4.1).  Study on unemployment in France (2 pages, 4.2).


Att. n 5 : Letters written on behalf of Mr. Chirac, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, and Mrs. Cresson, copy of the letter sent to M. Chirac and Jospin on July 13th 2001(4 pages, 5.1).  Letter sent to the French 'Deputes', answer from Mr. Bayrou (2 pages, 5.2).


                                    Articles and resume.

Att. n 6: Article form the World Bank concerning the utilization of the law to fight poverty (2 pages, 6.1). Article concerning the trip of the Pope to Azerbaidjan (1 page, 6.2).


Att. n 7: Recent resume (2pages).


Ps:  Since the time aspect is critical, please let me give you some details on my 'immigration' status. I entered in the USA on April 16 2002 with a 'tourist status' (I 94 W limit to stay until July 15 2002).  My asylum application was sent to the INS on May 15th and is pending as of 5/21/02.