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, International Organizations

EU Parliament

Countries Parliaments




Los Angeles, May 4, 2005


Object: Lawsuit against the DHS, State of California, and the LA County, criminal complaint refugee status, proposals submitted to the International Community [65-age limit for Country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data], poverty issues, new research proposal, political persecutions.



Dear Madam, dear Sir,


Referring to my recent letter of December 10 2004 (and the previous ones) concerning my two proposals submitted to the international community and the unfair difficulties I had/have in California and elsewhere, I take the liberty of writing you again to give you additional information on my case [because the difficulties I have are significant of serious problems in rich countries and have important political implications, I believe], to make few more remarks on the different subjects I discussed earlier, to present you a new research proposal and to ask for your support. 


 Refugee status, lawsuit against the DHS and other administrations, harassment, criminal complaint.


On December 15 2004, the DHS/USCIS Nebraska refugee center accepted the different evidences of my refugee status (it had asked me to present on October 25 2004, att. 2.1, att. 2.2) and granted me a Refugee (A3) employment authorization card (att. 2.3).   At about the same time (October- December 2004), the Assistant US Attorney, attorney for the DHS, pretended again that I was (am) not a refugee and not even a legal alien [which was in total contradiction with the DHS/USCIS appreciation of my case and documents!]  And when I asked the District Court to sanction her for these statements and many other lies she made, the Judge also pretended that the documents I presented (verification of status listing me as a refugee, administrative law judge certification of my refugee status, confirmation of the rehearing unit, and even the recent refugee employment authorization card) were notevidences’ that I am a legal alien and a refugee!


What is the point of asking aliens to apply for immigration documents including employment authorizations if these documents are not evidences that the aliens are here legally!  The judge’s decision was/is completely absurd, and also extremely dishonest, like all the lies of the Assistant US Attorney.  It is even an obvious form of intimidation and harassment because the refugee status is a matter of life and death and I am constantly forced to file new complaints to deny the obvious lies although I live in extremely difficult conditions.  I filed a motion to disqualify the judge, but the motion was denied with no explanation.   The district court also ignored all the lies of the Assistant US Attorney in her motion to dismiss, and my arguments on the immunity for misrepresentation, and dismissed the case on the ground that the Federal Government is immune for misrepresentation under 28 USC 2860 (h).

[Although, as you know, this immunity applies when the damage is due to a ‘commercial decision’ based on the government misrepresentation, but not when the misrepresentations lead to the loss of the most basic social benefits necessary to survive or are made on a matter of life and death like the refugee status!  And this immunity does not apply either when the misrepresentations are collateral to negligent performance of operational tasks, which is the case (in my lawsuit) since the misrepresentations were collateral to other grave wrongdoings including many alleged grave crimes, att. 1.]  After I complained about the Assistant US Attorney and the judge’s remark on my immigration status at the DHS in January 05, the DHS/USCIS Nebraska refugee center decided that it had made a mistake in granting me (2 month earlier) the refugee employment authorization card (att. 2.4), although I had explained clearly the situation in my response, see att. 2.2). 


Moreover, according to 8 CFR 207.9 only the ‘INS’ District Director can say that a refugee status was granted by mistake, and to do so, he must give the refugee 30 days to respond to his intend to terminate the refugee status.  My refugee status was never terminated, it was certified several times, and, of course, it was justified also.  Justified, not only because I was victim of obvious persecutions in France, but also because the two countries, Switzerland and Belgium, that studied my asylum application before the US, processed my application very badly (see att. 2.5).  Switzerland refused to study my case because I could not pay the processing fee (and refused to give the fee waiver also), and Belgium rendered a decision that was no conformed to the European convention of Human Rights [Belgium had been sentenced for this type of decision by the ECHR just 2 weeks before I applied for asylum, but they made no effort to change the decision and forced me to leave the country by illegal means.]  


To take away my refugee status now makes it easier to obtain a dismissal of the civil case by the justice, to cover the INS (and other administrations) employees and the alleged grave crimes, but it would be very unfair.  It would even be an obvious form of retaliation against me for denouncing the outrageous wrongdoings on my case [which is a crime, 18 USC 1513 (att. 1)].  I filed a criminal complaint (att. 1) including evidences showing that the misrepresentations were collateral to grave crimes, felonies punishable by up to 20 or 10 years in jail (conspiracies, retaliation, ).  But, the US Attorney office and the District Attorney’s office refused twice to investigate and prosecute the crimes I described, with decision letters not appropriately motivated (the US Attorney office did not even sign the letters).  There is an obvious conflict of interest because the District Attorney office is an entity of the LA County and the US Attorney’s civil office is mentioned in the complaint.


The three defendants perfectly understand the gravity of the underlying wrongdoings to my civil lawsuits, and the gravity of my situation, but they take advantage of the fact that I don’t have lawyer and that I am very poor; and use the time against me. Although the damage (I suffer) is very high (1,7 Millions dollars), and it increases by $20 000 every month, these three administrations refused to participate in an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) procedure despite my repeated requests [and it is the LA County that finances the ADR program to lower the cost of litigation!].  They also refused to respond to the discovery question to cover the wrongdoings, again grave crimes according to the evidences  [and the DPSS even continued to threaten me to sent me in the street for no valid reasons]. They gamble with public money, and put pressure on the judge to dismiss the case by letting the damage increase significantly [this is not in the best interest of the community].  


As I have mentioned in some of my previous letters to the US Congress and Government, these problems are significant of problems in the US administration (local, State, and Federal) and of the administrations unfair behavior toward the poor and vulnerable people (homeless, asylum seeker see att. 3, prisoners,…).  Civil servants (social workers, DSS and DPSS legal officials, US attorneys,) like the US soldiers who tortured prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere or some DHS civil servants who treat asylum seekers badly according to a recent studies (att. 3), take advantage of the extreme vulnerability of individuals to hurt (physically harm) them, with the management approval or at least with the management ‘indifference’.  This tendency is serious and general enough to be underlined again.

Unfair remunerations systems, differences between ‘power’ and ‘ responsibility’, and royal incompatibility.


I would like to come back on the unfair remuneration system and the differences between ‘power’ and ‘responsibility’ because it is related to the problems described above.  It is obvious that while the salaries of movies stars, sport stars, pop stars, and high level executives [$230 millions for this year ‘champion’ when the chief justice makes $ 200 000, this gives an idea of how much the ‘society’ values justice!] has increased in outrageous proportions, the salaries of civil servants and politicians staid limited in comparison.  In our information society, this increasing difference (that no one can ignore) necessarily creates a feeling of being ‘lower than nothing’.  I mention these words an INS officer used in front of me to qualify his colleagues status verifiers [when I explained him that they had just confirmed me that I had been given the refugee status!].  The status verifiers are not ‘lower than nothing’ (au contraire, their work is critical because without them the INS control system falls apart).  It is this man who feels that he is ‘lower than nothing’ in comparison to the movie, sport, pop and other ‘stars’ (he is ‘forced’ to admire).


These outrageously high salaries - not at all in relation with their recipient’s contribution in the progress of society - unfairly lower the contribution of civil servants and politicians (and others) in the progress of society and lead to grave problems.  The case of Martha Stewart, a business executive who was sent to jail not long ago and came out of jail a billionaire (significantly richer than when she entered jail), is a new example of this problem. This ‘reward’ is, as you understand, completely unfair, and totally the result of the ‘noise’ the press and media made about her stay in jail and her case.  The ‘star system’ used by the press and media (and other) to increase their revenue lead to disproportionate salaries and rewards that hurt the society [their wealth is not even in relation with their relative talent or integrity (as anyone can see)].  Politicians can understand this problem, raise the public awareness on the issue, and use our more precise information systems to correct it with adapted new laws [it is not about raising individual tax, it is about paying fair salaries].   


In my letter of April 7 2003 addressed to the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, I discussed the differences between ‘power’ and ‘responsibility’, and explained that ‘we have acquired so much knowledge, developed so advanced technologies and systems of laws, and ‘agreed’ on such high principles (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regional human rights convention,…) that the only ‘power’ ‘we’ have is the power to be stupid or dishonest (and indirectly to make people’s life miserable).  All the knowledge ‘we’ acquired, the technologies and systems of laws ‘we’   developed, and high principles ‘we’ agreed on give ‘us’ responsibilities, but no ‘power’, in fact it would be wise to simply stop using this word ‘power’ when it is in reference to government, administrations or leaders ‘attributions’.  At every level of the hierarchy, individuals try to show their ‘power’ (to be stupid or dishonest), instead of assuming their responsibility, and this creates many of the problems we are facing today and handicap ‘us’ in the fight against poverty.’  


Unfortunately, the problems I described you above are good examples of this remark.  Several civil servants involved in my case acted (stupid and dishonestly) to make my life miserable although they knew there was nothing I could do (or I had tried everything, complaint at the administrative court, at the INS,…) to obtain a clarification on my case and to prevent them from acting like this.  A federal judge, with 30 years of experience, who writes that a valid employment authorization card is not an evidence of legal status in the US, when the purpose of these cards is precisely to give the alien an evidence of his legal status, is very stupid and dishonest!  It seems that civil servants tend to compensate or express their frustration due to their low and limited salaries (in comparison to ‘stars’ and other privileged people) by showing exaggeratedly the power they have over those who are vulnerable.  And unfortunately, some high level civil servants promote this type of behavior.    


  Mr. Annan, for example, encourages this behavior when he promotes a total impunity and immunity for leaders by staying Secretary General of the United Nations although, at the same time, he admitted a part of responsibility in the Rwanda massacre, he let grave frauds take place in the oil for food program, and he refused to discuss the 65 age limit proposal for leaders (that concern him directly) when it could have prevented the war in Iraq although it was precisely his job to present this solution to the UN Security Council.  He pretends that the intermediate report from Mr. Volcker on the oil for food program fraud cleared him from any wrongdoings although others obviously interpreted the report differently, and two high senior investigators even resigned because they thought the report was not severe enough toward him! [The effort of Mr. Volker to avoid these 2 investigators to testify in front of the US Congress reinforced my previous (and others) comments on the credibility of the UN investigation process on this (and other) ‘affair’.] 


Mr. Annan is also disappointed by his son’s behavior, but everyone understand that between a 28 years old employee who uses his father ‘connection’ to try to make his company win a contract, and a 60 years old senior official of the United Nations who does not see that his son’s activities may cause eventual ‘ethical’ problems, it is the 60 years old one with 30 years of experiences who should know better and is more to blame.  Mr. Annan also now criticizes the US and England by pretending that they knew that Saddam Hussein was smuggling oil to Syria and Jordan and let him do it, but it is not now that he must say this.  It was his responsibility to notice the problems in this program and to correct them when they took place, not after they ended up or lead to a war.  Mr. Annan was (rightly) asked to resign (by Senator Coleman) to show (and promote) accountability at the UN and around the world, and he acts completely stupid and does exactly the opposite although more than 6 billions are concerned by his behavior (particularly the poor)!        


To conclude with this ‘section’ I would like to describe a ‘royal incompatibility’ or another obvious form of stupidity and dishonesty in rich countries, more precisely advanced countries that keep a king as head of state (England, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium,).  The concept of royalty is completely opposed to the principles of democracy and human rights that these countries pretend to promote.  They show a terrible example to developing (and other) countries (they often criticize for not respecting human rights).  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in its first article that ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’, so obviously they violate this first article when they let a tiny group of people be born with the right to be head of state!  Moreover the basis of democracy is precisely to have the head of state and other country officials elected by the people; kings, heads of state, never run for election against anyone!   Politicians and IOs should be very ‘picky’ on these 3 very important intellectual issues.  


The fight against poverty, the fear to defeat poverty, the role of the US in the fight against poverty, new research proposal.


I would like now to make some additional remarks on the fight against poverty and present you a new research proposal.  First, I believe that every one of you would agree that ‘we’ don’t need poverty or that the US or France, for example, does not need the about 3 billions people living under $2 / day to be rich.  In fact, it is exactly the opposite, the US is very rich because Europe and Japan,, are rich, and can buy US products.  Everyone seems to agree that trade is beneficial for everyone.  And it is obvious that the 3 billions very poor cannot buy cars, stereos, fridges, or go to the movie, (or do not even consume at all or participate in the trade system).  We can therefore imagine that, if these 3 billions people were not so poor, they would, like Europeans, buy US products or Japanese products, and that everyone would end up being richer!  We can also deduct further that solving the problem of poverty rapidly would probably create a steady growth (or diminish the risk of recession) in rich countries for quite a while (which is good for everyone).      


In this context, one can naturally wonder why our progresses on poverty are so slow, why our objective on poverty are so ‘low’ (outrageously so inhuman), and why so little effort is made to really tackle the problem of poverty.  The response comes rapidly when one read about our environment problems like the global warming, important emission of greenhouse gas … If we could (and did) take these 3 billions very poor out of poverty in just one day (meaning giving them cars, televisions, electricity,..), it would most surely kill us all [because the earth would not support the over pollution and our natural resources would probably vanish before we can find other means to produce the energy we need or can find natural resources substitute].  Scientists have summarized these problems when they started talking about ‘sustainable’ development (‘development which lasts’), but this nice word does not prevent the fear everyone (including ordinary people) is entitled to have when he/she thinks about this grave problem.    


One of the intermediate reports of the Millennium project mentions this fear (2 lines in 50 or so pages report), but you rarely hear Mr. Annan, Mr. Wolfensohn or other political leaders explain or say to the people that solving the problem of poverty is not just about giving money to poor country, it is also about changing our behavior (or life style), so that the poor can consume and ‘pollute’ more without endangering ‘our’ effort to protect our environment.  Instead of constantly asking for more money for poor countries, Mr. Annan (and others) should try to fight people’s fear of destroying the earth if they give too much money to solve the poverty problem, and encourage everyone to change his /her behavior (life style).  And, of course, the best way to encourage everyone to change his/her behavior is to show the example [for Mr. Annan, to respect the 65-age limit for leaders to show more respect toward the poor and the new generation, and to show more accountability toward the other people around the world by resigning immediately].


It would also be wise to link the discussion on the Kyoto protocol to the discussion on the fight against poverty, and to ask for common engagements on these two related subjects [even though the negotiation are already complex], so that everyone understands that rich countries do not diminish their emission of greenhouse gas (or lower their consumption of energy) just to protect the planet, but also to solve the problem of poverty faster [to let poor countries and people enjoy more rapidly the benefits associated with the progress of our society].  The commitments of the Kyoto protocol should be associated with poverty reduction engagements [including behavior or life style change] and should be taken by every country because it is critical that everybody understands that, if rich countries inhabitants modify their behavior (warm their swimming pool with solar energy instead of oil, take the metro or bus more often for those who have a car,), it is also to improve the life conditions of the poor, and therefore that poor countries inhabitants must also change their behavior (not stone women who get rape outside marriage, avoid massacre and conflict,).


Everybody must play its role intelligently if we want to control the FEAR (of solving the problem of poverty too rapidly), which handicap ‘our’ effort (in collecting more money, for example).  And again, as I mentioned in one of my first letters to G8 leaders and IO Chiefs, the ‘time’ is a critical factor to solve the problem of poverty because the number of poor people (more than half the planet population) increases faster than the number of rich people.  So we must set up a strategy that solve the problem rapidly not only because we must end the suffering of billions of people without delay, but also because it is the best or (probably) only way to solve the problem (we must break this ‘demographic’ vicious cycle).  The role of the US in this process is critical, of course, but the US (and Mr. Wolfowitz) would have more credibility in its effort to defeat poverty, if it tackled the US social problems [homelessness, increasing number of people living under the poverty level, etc.] and took a leading role in the ‘protection of the environment’.  


To conclude with this section, I would like to present you a recent ‘new’ research proposal I submitted to some MIT and UCLA scientists (att. 5).  It is based on my previous computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level.  The objective is to design (write the specifications, do the analysis and design) the system I had offered to develop in 97 and to study the economical effect of the strategy (developing computer systems that can be used by every country’s administration) this project underlines.  I think everyone would agree that we have not found yet the perfect political (or economical) system; even International Institutions promote democracy (it still needs to be perfected).  But we certainly can hope that ‘we’ will eventually reach an agreement on what is best for everyone, and therefore can imagine that ‘we’ will eventually develop a common information system for the planet.  The research proposal I present is a new step toward this objective [you may say a logical one after the development of the Internet, the World Wide Web and the common system of national of accounting (SNA)].  It shows that we can develop systems independent from country’s information systems, which are, at the same time, the basis for a future common one for everyone.    


Proposals submitted to the international community, political persecutions, and the role of politicians.


I would like now to describe some of the (political) motives behind the ‘difficulties’ I had here and in France.  You can understand that my two proposals [the 65 age limit for country leaders and IO Chiefs, and the computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the world wide level] that would help to maintain peace and would help to solve the problem of poverty more rapidly, have political implications that can easily create me ‘political’ difficulties; and understand why, despite the many letters of support from experts and even politicians I received, I was/am still victim of obvious political persecutions.  The 65-age limit proposal encourages leaders to change their behavior [to respect more the poor and the new generation] and to promote accountability, but obviously few want to advertise this necessity to defeat poverty and to improve administration’s efficiency; and the computer proposal - which would help to solve the problem of poverty more rapidly - ‘appears’ ‘dangerous’ (in theory) if, at the same time, we make no effort to change our behavior (or life style)!  


The 65-age limit proposal had also direct political implications in the ‘actuality’ in the US and in France since it could have prevented the war in Iraq (that many wanted here in the US, it seems); and it would have prevented Mr. Chirac and Mr. Jospin from running for president in the 2002 French presidential election.  These two unfortunate ‘coincidences’ (or not) play also a role in my worsening situation [even if it does not excuse it].  Similarly, the computer project proposal (supported by many experts) was obviously not supported by the US experts (formerly) leading the Statistics Division at the UN, IMF and OECD [for personal reasons, it appears] as I explained in my last letter of December 2004.  This lead, without any doubt, to some difficulties in my asylum process, and was an additional motive to avoid that the press and media talk about my case and proposals before and after the war.


Finally, the fact that politicians and administrations tend to cover their wrongdoings plays also a role in the problems I have.  As you can read in the attached criminal complaint, the evidences show that grave crimes took place, which, of course, may (would) have consequences in the career of some of the civil servants who committed them or covered them (if an appropriate investigation took place).  In France, the problem was similar since the Senator President of the Administration that fired me and threatened me to have problems for the rest of my life, was sent to jail, and the unfair reversal of my judgment and other persecutions were critical to protect him and others from worse punishment.  The grave and numerous corruption scandals, the high unemployment level, and the specific ‘emploi fictif’ frauds of political parties, made my case (of an illegal dismissal while at the same time the president of the administration paid his wife for no work!) even more embarrassing for politicians and administrations (and certainly a case that should not be publicly ‘advertised’).


They are therefore multiple political reasons for my difficulties, and I believe it is the politician responsibility to fix the problems, not just for justice sake, but also for ‘management’ purpose.  I have contacted without success the politicians leading these administrations (att. 4) and the US Attorney and District Attorneys offices, so I must ask you for your help again.  I am not saying that administrations should not defend themselves, (they must do it for the interest of the community), but they should not lie, cheat and torture a victim [one day I have the refugee status, the next day I don’t have it anymore, the next I have it again, the next I don’t have it again, etc. and this for the past 3 years!].  I have made many efforts to try to find a solution to my problems before filing my civil or even criminal complaint, and my good faith cannot be doubted because I asked the rehearing unit to confirm the administrative law judge decision certifying my refugee status (att. 2.2), I also complained at the INS audit office (that could have easily resolved the problems).



To conclude, the obvious and continuous problems I have with administrations (and other forms of persecutions) are totally unfair, and obviously partially politically motivated.  The 3 administrations refused to discuss the issues despite the grave wrongdoings that took place and the rapidly increasing damage, and some even continued to threaten me and harass me.  The Federal judge took very questionable decisions and the US Attorney and District Attorney offices unfairly refused to investigate the crimes I described, so I must ask you again for your intervention [to end the grave difficulties I have], to have the crimes I described investigated and prosecuted, and to reach a fair and rapid settlement on my case [my refugee status was justified, the difficulties I have here are another proof of this fact]. 


The behavior of certain civil servants (torture of prisoners, bad treatment of asylum seeker, bad treatment of the poor by social workers,) should encourage you to tackle some basic problems of administrations including the unfair remuneration system, which lower tremendously and unfairly the contribution of civil servants and politicians (and others) in the progress of society, and the tendency of civil servants to show their ‘power’ (to make people life miserable) instead of assuming their ‘responsibility’ to improve everyone’s life.  Politicians and IOs can easily raise the public awareness on these issues, use ‘our’ more precise information systems to adapt the law, and promote more accountability for administrations.  It is also urgent to ask ‘kings and queens’ to step down in rich countries!


To solve the problem of poverty rapidly is economically good for everyone (and probably the only viable strategy to tackle the problem), but everyone must do additional efforts (change in behavior or life style) to protect our environment and to ‘control’ the FEAR people have to endanger our environment if they give too much money to resolve the problem.  To associate every person around the world to our poverty reduction effort, precise poverty reduction engagements (behavioral changes,) should be associated to the Kyoto protocol commitments. The 65-age limit for country leaders and IO chiefs is a symbol of this behavior change necessity since it encourages our leaders to show more respect for the poor and the new generation (who will ‘inherit’ the earth situation ‘we’ will leave them). 


Finally, the new research proposal I submitted to several scientists at MIT and UCLA has for objective to present ‘you’, political leaders and IO managers, a more detailed and more up to date design of the computer system I offered to develop in 1997, and to support this ‘system design proposal’ with an economic analysis of the strategy (developing computer systems that can be used by every country’s administration) that this project underlines.  If one of these two universities accepts to give me the opportunity to work on this new proposal, we will need the cooperation of International Organizations and of some countries administrations, so I would like also to ask you for your cooperation and support in this important task.  I look forward to hearing from you and remain 


            Yours sincerely,





Pierre Genevier


Att. 1: Letter dated 04/04/05 sent to prosecuting agencies (14 pages).  Att. 2: Request for evidences sent by the USCIS (DHS) Nebraska Refugee Center on October 25 2004 (att. 1.1, 1 page), response sent on November 6 2004 (att. 1.2, 4 pages), refugee employment authorization card (att. 1.3, 1 page), Intend to deny employment authorization sent on January 28 2005 (att. 2.4, 2 pages), response sent on February 19 2005 (att. 2.5, 5 pages).  Att. 3:. Article about the bad treatment of asylum seekers in the US (3 pages). Att. 4: Letter sent to the politicians leading the 3 administrations concerned in my trial (2 pages).  Att. 5:  Letter sent to the MIT scientists with the new research proposal (4 pages).