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
MIT, UCLA
…
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 not ‘evidences’ 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).
Conclusion.
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).