423 E. 7th  Street,  # 528

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Email: p_genevier@yahoo.com, pierre.genevier@laposte.net

Ph. (213) 622-1508



Mr. Rick Santorum, Senator of Pennsylvania



Mr. George W. Bush, President

Mr. Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security

Mr. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Mr. Bill Frist, Senate

Mr. Tom Daschle, Senate

Mr. Dennis Hastert, House of Representatives

Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives

Senators and Representatives

(Committees: Aging, Government Affair, Ethic, Government Reform, International relations, Standards of Official Conduct,)


United Nations General Assembly

Nobel Committees

I.O. Chiefs


            Los Angeles, August 23, 2004




Object:  Your response to my letter sent on July 14th 2004, my previous letters sent on January and November 2003, and March, April and July 2004, ‘lawsuit’ against the ‘INS’, proposals submitted to the International Community (65-age limit for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs and computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data).



            Dear Mr. Santorum, (Dear Madam, Dear Sir,)


I received your short response to my fax letter dated July 14th 2004, but it seems that I did not explain well enough the purpose of my letter or that you did not have enough time to notice the important issues it raises.  So I take the liberty of writing you (and your ‘colleagues’) again to try to clarify certain points and make additional remarks that will help you to understand my point of view (I hope).


First I must summarize your response: You thank me for sending you my correspondence concerning my lawsuit.  You mention that due to the Separation of Powers doctrine in the United States Constitution, you cannot intervene ‘in any ongoing judicial matter or an issue before a court of law.  And finally, you give me the contact information of Senators Boxer and Feinstein (Senators for California), and return the letter and claim for me to forward them to these senators.  


Second, I must say that I had already forwarded my letter dated July 14th to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and to about 87 other Senators (the Senators that I could reach by fax or by email, 10 senators give neither a fax number nor an email address on their Website so I could not contact them).  And thirdly, I believe I must give you (and your ‘colleagues’) some precisions about the content of the previous letters I sent to your colleagues (Mr. Frist, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Hastert, letters mentioned in the object of my July 14th letter and of this one), because it is critical to have a clear understanding of my objectives and of the issues I address. 

Previous letters and some of the issues discussed.


In my letter of January 14th 2003 (att. 2) addressed to Mr. Bush, your colleagues, various other US personalities (Mr. Rehnquist, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Schamlensee, Mr. Gray Davis,), Mrs. Frechette (UN) and Mr. Stern (World Bank), I presented several documents describing the two proposals (and arguments justifying them) I submitted to the international community, and mentioned the difficulties I was having in California.  I also discussed more extensively the benefits of the 65-age limit proposal for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs that could still have prevented the conflict with Iraq at the time.


I wrote that ‘the problem of limiting the age of high-level Leaders is both a management (or governance) issue and ethical issue’ and that not talking about this 65-age limit proposal would be a ‘large scale lying’ to the people of the world (words that Mr. Schmalensee had used in an article about the WorldCom scandal).  You may agree that, in the light of the CIA misrepresentations on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, these words were more than ‘appropriate’.  I also mentioned that establishing such an age limit was not against the idea of democracy, and gave examples of similar limits.  In my last letter I mentioned that France had a 65-age limit for the president of public companies (and still has because the recent attempt to change this law on July 9 did not work, it seems). 


The US has also established a similar limit since it limits the presidential mandate to two terms, which is an indirect limit of age.  In this January/03 letter, I also explained that some leaders had imposed on themselves such limit and gave the example of Dr. Brundlandt who did not seek a new term as Head of WHO, mainly because of her age.  And opposed her behavior to the unethical behavior of Mr. Annan (66) who sought a new term as UN Secretary General although he admitted publicly several times his responsibility in the Rwanda Massacre.  The UN did respond to my letter on behalf of Mr. Annan (to tell me to contact the US mission!), but nothing was said publicly or done, and the war took place, based on lies, as we now know for sure. 


In my letter of November 10 2003 (att. 2) addressed to the same US officials and to the 8 University Presidents I had contacted in May 2002 (copy the Nobel Committees, EU Parliament,), I described more precisely the difficulties I was having in California, and addressed several other issues related to my two proposals and to the recent actuality.  I discussed the unfair ‘remuneration system’ in the US where you see a governor, chief justice, or other high level civil servants, make between $175 000 and $200 000 a year while a movie star can make 20 millions dollar per movie, or an executive like Mr. Grasso can serve himself a 150 millions dollars salary in one year.   I will come back on this salary issue in the next section, because it is related to the 65-age limit proposal and it is critical also. 


In this letter I also discussed the responsibility in the war in Iraq.  The responsibility of universities and intellectuals I had contacted in May 2002.  These ‘intellectuals’ who could not ignore the importance of this 65-age limit proposal and the immediate impact it could have (I had mentioned in my May 02 letter that this proposal could perhaps prevent a then possible conflict with Iraq), have the responsibility to analyze and ‘understand the problems and to explain to other that understanding.  Some of them did not hesitate to criticize Mr. Bush publicly for his position (or intention) in Iraq, but no one said a word about the proposals, not even Mr. Schmalensee and MIT ‘who are experts in ethic and statistics’.      


The responsibility of the press and media also to whom I had written several times to explain the importance of my two proposals, but that remained silent, although they never miss a chance to give us all the details on Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson trials or on even less important subjects.  Two newspapers (NYTimes, Washingtonpost) have now acknowledged that they did a poor job in covering the Iraqi crisis, but they still did not discuss this age limit proposal, the role it could have plaid to avoid the Iraqi conflict, and the outrageous behavior of Mr. Annan and others who mentioned that everything should be done to avoid the conflict, but would not have even discuss the issue publicly to keep their jobs.


And finally the responsibility of the UN and the World Bank that have done a very poor job of preventing the deadly and costly war although I had explained them clearly the importance of the 65-age limit proposal for at least two years, and the grave consequences of not addressing this issue publicly.   It is only in my letters of March and April 2004 (att. 3) that I informed your colleagues of my lawsuit.  I also explained that now that the war was ‘over’ and I had filed a lawsuit, ‘your’ silence on these issues would mean that you encourage (d) or cover (ed) the errors made on my case (that indirectly resulted in the silence of the press and media).  


The 65-age limit proposal for Leaders and the related ‘unfair salary system’ issue.


Now, please let me come back again to the 65-age limit proposal, because it is a critical proposal, as you (surely) understand.  But for clarity purpose, I will not list again its different advantages, and instead attach the letter I sent in January 2004 to the Globe and Mail (att.1) in Canada (letter in which I summarized the arguments justifying this proposal and responded to Mr. Martin public remarks on this subject or the related subject of mandatory retirement at 65).


This proposal would, of course, indirectly limit the lifetime earnings of high-level politicians (even though it would not keep them from continuing working). And this is a serious problem, of course, in a country like the US, which gives already very low salaries to its high level public servants in comparison to other professions as we have seen above.  To me, Mr. Rehnquist should not (have) stay (ed) Chief Justice from 65 to 80, but I still think that he deserves the (15 x $ 200 000) 3 millions he earned in this period.  The Chief Justice certainly deserves much more these 3 millions dollars over his lifetime work than a 25 years old golf player wining a PGA event deserves 1 million dollars in 4 days! 


Or much more than Mr. Grasso deserves his 150 millions dollars in one year…. But it is still wrong (even a form of corruption) to compensate the low salaries of high-level civil servants by letting some of them like Mr. Rehnquist, Mr. Greenspan,.. to continue at the highest level several years after 65.  Recently the press mentioned that Mr. Ridge was thinking of working for the private sector, because he was worried that he could not afford the university for his 2 children.  The article explains that Mr. Ridge has a $ 845 000 house financed through loans, I believe, and about that same amount of money in various stocks.  This means that Mr. Ridge, a successful politician who has been elected 5 times to congress and twice Governor, and is now the Secretary of perhaps the biggest Department, has accumulated about 1 million dollars in his lifetime of work at the service of the public.


Again this is certainly not very much when you know that a 25 years old golfer can make this amount in 4 days, or that a basketball player on trial for rape (or not rape) can sign a contract for almost 20 millions dollars a year during 7 years!  These great differences in salaries demonstrate the very little value ‘you’ (the US) give to the work of politicians and civil servants, and the very little respect ‘you’ have for work and integrity in general!   There is no intellectual, ethical or (honest) managerial (or even moral) basis justifying these very high salaries (in comparison to civil servants salaries).  They are just the result of a dishonest marketing strategy designed to manipulate the population and to sell more easily certain ideas and some products (movies, news, sports events,…).


I think that you (Mr. Santorum), a ‘professional’ (and successful) politician with 7 children, should be particularly concerned by Mr. Ridge example, unless, of course, you or your wife inherited a large amount of money that will help you to pay for your children university fees.  And as a parenthesis, these high university fees are also due to the high salaries of some of their employees. [The average salary of university presidents is about $475 000 (according to the UC website) which is about 3 times your salary or Mr. Ridge’s salary (about $175 000 according to the article I read).  And the salary of the football coach of the university of Colorado is about 1 million dollar (according to TV report on the allegations of rape at the university of Colorado) about 6 times your salary!] 


It is clear that the big corporations (and rich Americans) that pay directly or indirectly these outrageous salaries (in comparison to the civil servant salaries) have no respect for the work of their senators, representatives, and administrations!  And that you and your ‘colleagues’ who remain silent on this issue show very little dignity and very little respect for work by accepting such a situation.  Giving politicians and civil servants low salaries in comparison to other professions is as dangerous as letting Leaders like Saddam Hussein accumulate 2 billions dollars or more by taking a percentage on the exploitation of the countries natural resources (or like Omar Bongo collect ‘Elf’ millions of $).


Politics seems to be in the US a part time or temporary job, that people do when they are tired of being a businessman, a movie star, or are a retired 70 years old journalist whose relative has become a ’celebrity’ and can assist in financing a campaign.  This is a serious problem, because politics is, au contraire, one of the most difficult jobs, especially in our increasingly complex society.  It is also a grave problem, because the US has a great influence around the world, and is not just ‘copied’ for what it does right, but also for what it does wrong.  International organizations keep leaders older than 65  (Mr. Annan, Mr. Wolfensohn,) who have (had) very poor results (Rwanda Massacre, poverty, war in Iraq,…) despite the rapid evolution of sciences, technologies and our state of knowledge.


The silence of G7 countries and I.O.s Leaders on the 65-age limit proposal and their dishonest strategy.


  I would like now to use again an argument of my November 10/03 letter concerning the strategy of politicians on this age limit issue and the civil servant salary issue.  It appears clearly that US political parties (and rich Americans) make very little efforts to make politics and civil services financially rewarding (or appealing) in comparison to other professions, and little efforts to prepare and motivate younger generations of politicians and civil servants to replace the old one.


This makes it easier for some older politicians and civil servants to hold on to the highest political positions after 65 (MM. Rehnquist, Greenspan, Kennedy, Chirac, Annan, Wolfensohn,), but it indirectly slows down tremendously the reform of the ‘system’ or society.  It is well known that older people are resistant to change and are not as well trained on the new technologies as the younger generations.  Moreover, people who stay a long time in high-level positions are less likely to be critic over the systems they have (themselves) developed than younger managers who are eager to bring their new knowledge and to use their more appropriate experiences or more in ‘phase with the time’.           


Mr. Busch’s recently made nominations of older (than 65) ‘officials’ to certain specific high level positions and praised their long experience.  But even though there is no doubt that a 65 (or more) years old ‘politician’ has a longer experience than a 45 years old ‘politician’, it is also obvious that this ‘long’ experience is not ‘in phase’ with the rapid evolution of the society.  To support this remark I will take the example of Mr. Goss who was recently named Chief of the CIA.  He has, himself, said in an interview that he was not competent or did not have the needed qualifications for this CIA Director job, which, of course, has become a very ‘technical job’ and requires (among other competences) a great knowledge of the new information and communication technologies.


The improper use of the new technologies and knowledge slows down the resolution of problems like poverty, which has a great impact on other problems like the maintenance of peace, and again keeping older that 65 leaders in high-level management position is a form of corruption (a ‘core poverty issue’).  The recent report of the World Bank which presents the ‘bad’ results on poverty (apart from China’s results) indirectly points out a certain correlation between these outrageous results and the outrageous and unethical behavior of older leaders like MM. Chirac, Annan, Wolfensohn, Arafat, Sharon, Muggabe, Saddam Hussein, Jean Paul II,, Mitterrand, who show (ed) no respect for the new generations and for the poor [several of which are or were ‘associated’ with various scandals, corruption, rape of children by priests,). 


Deliberately assigning (or holding) older than 65 leaders to certain ‘key’ positions to slow down progress and the resolution of our grave problems of society (like poverty, peace) is a very dishonest strategy, and not talking about this age limit issue publicly is also very dangerous for democracy.  Certain components of the ‘civil’ society (the press and media, NGOs,) support directly or indirectly this strategy, like the Catholic Church that keeps an old and sick Pope in office (I will not discuss their motivation for doing so).  But this should not keep the senators and representatives (congress) of the most advanced country in the world from discussing and debating publicly the issue, au contraire, it is your duty to do so.  


The computer project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level.


I would like now to use the computer project proposal to improve the international statistical information systems, to explain how this dishonest strategy affect the progress of the society, and to confirm with an example some of the arguments I presented above.   First I will try to explain again why this particular proposal is so important.  Although you may not be experts in computer and information systems, you should be able to understand the following arguments. 


The computer project proposal I submitted to international organizations and countries (7 years ago) gives a real hope and a direction to solve the worldwide problem of poverty rapidly. As you know, poor countries have nothing, and needs everything, food, medicine,, and information systems.  But when rich countries send food, medicine,, to one country, it is only available for that particular country, and if they want to send food, medicine,, to another country, they need to multiply the investment by the number of countries they want to help. 


It is not the same for computer and information systems that have become increasingly important in ‘our’ information society.  If we develop a system in cooperation with all countries, then the system will be available for everyone at the same cost.  When one knows that a relatively small country like France (66 millions inhabitants) spent in 2000 about 9 billions Euro in computer related spending for all its administrations and this amount will continue to increase significantly in the future, it is obvious that poor countries will not be able to afford the improvement of their computer and information systems for a longtime. 


The project (and the strategy) I am proposing would then help poor countries tremendously, and rich countries also, because they spend quite a lot of money in helping poor countries to solve their problems.  The interest of the many international experts who responded positively to this proposal confirms its importance.  Unfortunately, the European Commission experts who said that the proposal was ‘innovative’, beneficial for International Organizations, and overall ‘well formulated’, still put it in the second place of the program reserve list (according to what I was told).  When you know that around 1300 proposals (from more than 20 countries) were presented and only about 200 were selected, this is more than bad luck ‘for the world’ that would have benefited from it. 


These same European experts did manage to put me (the coordinator, poor and unemployed who had spent a lot of time and effort to design and write the proposals) responsible for not financing the project.  They explained in their evaluation that the fact that the coordinator was an ‘individual’ was a weakness, although to me it was an asset, because it made it very easy to assign the responsibility of the project to the appropriate organization by giving me (an unemployed) a job in this ‘appropriate’ organization.  I pointed out this injustice for me (and for the world) to Mr. Chirac, (and then to I.O. Chiefs, and other G8 leaders), but he did not feel the need to correct this error, and instead let the administration steal me everything I had and send me in the street!  


There is now no doubt that these leaders have lied to the people on the possible solutions to the Iraqi crisis, and that some even lied about the real reasons for the war (whether these lies were intentional or not).  So I feel it is my responsibility to question their integrity and judgment on other matters like my computer project proposal that was supported by many experts around the world.  [The US Chief Statistician also never bothered to respond to my project proposal, but the torture in Iraq, the report on the CIA work, and the errors made on my case demonstrate that the US administration can make serious ‘errors’].


I will not try to discuss here the motivation of these Leaders, because this is a complex subject, but I must mention that these older leaders, MM. Chirac, Annan, Wolfensohn, Johnston, …, have in common that they cannot discuss in public the computer project proposal I presented, its advantages and its technical aspects as they can talk about an economical reform for example.  And, harming the world (in delaying the realization of computer project beneficial for everyone for several years) was/is for them a better alternative than seeing their incompetence on a specific subject publicly revealed or than letting other people more competent discuss publicly these ‘new’ political issues.       


My letter of July 14 2004, your response and your responsibilities.


As you could read in the above paragraphs, my lawsuit was not the main subjects of my 2003 letters (au contraire the objective of these letters was also to avoid the lawsuit).  The main issues were my proposals (one of which could have prevented the Iraqi conflict while achieving one of your objectives ‘getting rid’ of Mr. Saddam Hussein).  These proposals were designed to solve certain of our grave and complicated problems, and definitely concern the US Senators (and government); this is why I had to contact you.  The objective of my July 14 letter (and of this one) was (is) also to avoid filing another lawsuit.


Since the judge took a final decision and neither the USCIS nor I appealed it, it seems, there is no ‘on going matter or issue before a court of lawat this time related to my problems with the ‘INS’ (the appeal concerns only the LASS and CASS).  Your response, the first one I received from any senator, is therefore ‘strange’ (not to use another word), and your reference to the Separation of Powers is irrelevant.  Moreover, it is part of your responsibility to discuss the issues of my case.  You have a Committee on Aging that is ‘a focal point in the Senate for discussion and debate on matters relating to older Americans.’ [And a Committee on Ethic].  The 65-age limit for leaders is ‘a matter relating to older Americans’ (even if it only concerns directly a short number of them) and is an ethical issue.


You also have a Committee on Rules and Administration that deals with matters relating to subjects like ‘corrupt practices’ and ‘election of the president’, and is therefore concerned by the age limit proposal and related remarks I made (see above p. 3 paragraph 4).  And you have a committee on Governmental Affairs which deals with matters relating to subjects like ‘Census and collection of statistics, including economic and social statistics’ or ‘the status of officers and employees of the United States, including their classification, compensations and benefits.’  This last committee is therefore concerned by my computer project proposal and my remarks on the salaries of civil servants and politicians. 


In this July/14 letter I also mentioned that the difficulties I had were also due to general problems in the US administration, which should encourage you to look into my case in more detail.  [The misrepresentations of facts, I referred to the CIA misrepresentation on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and the silence on my age limit proposal. The torture on weak people, I referred to the torture in Iraq and how the US treats the poor, particularly the homeless.  The violation of international convention, I referred to the torture, the opening of almost all the homeless letters by the social services, and the loss of letters by the INS or justice Department].


[The Assistant US Attorney argued in her motion (although it was not the appropriate place to do so) that I am an illegal alien, but, of course, she omitted to explain why I have at least 3 official documents listing me as a refugee!  I did not come to the US to be an illegal alien or to do anything illegal, au contraire I came to obtain the protection and help of your administration to obtain justice against France (as your laws allow me to do).  So when ‘you’ give me an official verification of status listing as a refugee, I believe that ‘you’ wanted to do so.  The judge obviously did not accept her remark, since he gave me the possibility to file a new complaint, but ‘you’ still should erase the doubt some dishonest civil servants created (es) on my refugee status].


Finally I mentioned (on July/14) that ‘unlike your CIA analysts who lied about (and made mistake on) the existence of Weapons of Mass destructions, I did not make a mistake when in 2000 I explained to G8 leaders and IO Chiefs the importance of this 65 age limit to maintain peace around the world.  The conflict with Iraq confirmed without any doubt the importance of my proposal, not only because Mr. Saddam Hussein was 65 in early 2003, but also because the international community was very divided on the necessity of a war as I had explained it would (in my 12/2001 letter), if International Organizations and Countries did not discussed this issue.


            When ‘you’ remain silent on my two proposals, ‘you’ do not jut show no respect for democracy by hiding solutions to our problems to the American people (and the world), ‘you’ also steal my intellectual work although I am very poor and have been homeless for 3 years now (is America not rich enough that it needs to rob a homeless?!).  [Moreover, since I was able to present a meaningful strategy to improve the international statistical information systems (supported by many experts around the world), I demonstrated a natural ability to analyze these problems and to propose appropriate solutions, and it would be wise to use this ability by giving me an appropriate job, instead of sending me constantly in the street.] 




I know that the Senators and Representatives receive many letters and that it is possible that you looked at my letter only briefly or simply not at all, but given the importance of the subjects I discuss for the world (and America), I must ask you and your colleagues to make an effort.  You now know that my letter (s) did not only concern my personal case, since it (they) addressed issues that are important for everyone.  And you know that its (their) objective was also to avoid a lawsuit, that, at this time, there is no on going lawsuit against the ‘INS’ before a US court, and that there should not be one, because the main issues of my case, the silence on my 2 proposals and the efforts made to avoid a public debate on them, concern you more than they concern a court of law.


            Last November I wrote to the 2 Nobel Committees to explain that the silence of your ‘intellectuals’ on my 2 proposals was not compatible with the Nobel Spirit, because it was not ‘in the greatest benefit of mankind’, and that they should not qualify for any Nobel Price until they have apologized for not discussing them.  It is obvious now that many lies were made (intentional or not), not just on the possible solutions of the Iraqi crisis, but also on the real motivation behind the war, so perhaps it should be ‘you’, the US ‘representatives’, who should apologize to the people of the world.  If you were honest in the conclusion of your CIA report, it should not be difficult (even if you still think that Mr. Saddam Hussein had to go). 


I proved the importance of my two proposals and the recent history confirmed without any doubt the validity of my remarks and the necessity of the 65-age limit proposal for the maintenance of peace (and the fight against poverty).  So I ask you to discuss publicly these proposals and to give me the credit I deserve for the difficult work I have done.  I also ask you to end the constant administrative errors on my case and to compensate me for the persecutions and unjust hardship I suffered.  I look forward to hearing from you and remain 


Yours sincerely,





            Pierre Genevier


Attachments. Att. 1:  Letter sent to the Globe and Mail (5 pages). Att. 2:  Letter dated January 14 and November 10 2003 (24 pages). Att. 3:  Letter dated March and April 2004 (4 pages).