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 law’ at
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.]
Conclusion.
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).