period of time, and he also suggested that our claim have to be based on everyday occurrences and social conflicts, but not on political
persecutions. When we met Mrs. Eleonora Broder next time I started to fight each sentence, but it was very complicated since my wife had
arguments with me taking Eleonora's side. But I want to make it clear: MY WIFE AND ME - WE NEVER AUTHORIZED MRS. BRODER
TO CHANGE OR MODIFY OUR REFUGEE CLAIM. We only agreed to allow some shortening.
3.4.Very soon Mrs. Broder called us and told us to sign her translation. I asked her to read us the context in Russian, but she refused
motivating her refusal by the lack of time. She also told us that only 5 more days are left (to complete the PIF and submit the claim; and that
the total number of days is 14), and if it would not be submitted, then a deportation order is going to be issued for us. (In reality 20 days or
even more are given, but we did not know about that). Then I told her that I could type my story with her shortenings just in 1 hour in English
myself - and give her or another translator to sign it (because I wanted to control its context, and I was not good enough in French by then).
She told me that in Quebec only French-written claims are accepted. Because of her threats and because my wife was near a hysterics I
was forced to sign it.
3.5.In December 1994 and January 1995 I gave a copy of Mrs. Broder's translation of my refugee claim to several people; they knew
French very well. Using their help I discovered that the context of our refugee claim was seriously distorted and sometimes even converted
by Mrs. Broder. Some details were given in such interpretation (translation) that they contradicted with other details. We also discovered
that the text of her French translation was different from her back translation into Russian made after my request and written by her own
hand. (I wanted to verify her translation). When Lucy's purposes of what she did to us might been explained by various reasons, the
purpose of Mrs. Broder might be only one: to sabotage the translation. I repeat that she distorted the translation not because of
incompetence or unconsciousness mistakes but on purpose. And I have good evidence: she excluded one paragraph from my story
without even discussing it with us. It was a description of humiliation over other Russian-speaking workers and me by employers-Israelis in
August 1991. Instead of typing this paragraph she made a statement in my name not just generalizing the situation, but placing an abstract
declaration about slavery in Israel. When I asked her later why she did it, she answered that immigration commissioners would never believe
that something like this exist in Israel. "They would call it "slavery" - and tell you that slavery doesn't exist in Israel. Why then she inserted
that pure statement about slavery in Israel in my name? If even a description of real events, which could be treated as a denunciation of
slavery is "bad", a pure statement about slavery (without any explanation) is "more worse" then?! I could only explain that by favor, which
Mrs. Broder did to the commissioners (immigration oficer in particular) - because they later used this exactly paragraph (in Mrs. Broder's
translation of my refugee claim) as a key indication of "exaggerations" and based their rejection of our refugee claim mostly on it. Mrs.
Broder also told me that she inserted this paragraph because I mentioned slavery in one of our conversations. I said that it does not mean
that I permitted to insert it.
3.6. I said that I do not remember if I really said that. In response Eleonora said that she secretly recorded all our conversations and now
could prove that I told it. She never agreed to correct her translation. She even threaten me by telling that she is going to present above
mentioned tapes to the immigration tribunal - and she claimed that I spoke enough on these tapes to make a conclusion that I am
dangerous to Israel and "was persecuted correctly".
3.7. The translation of our claim was also made in a sarcastic and humiliating manner as if the translator not just repeated the Russian text
in French, but wrote a humorist story about what was described. 3.8. Lucy constantly threatened us during my dispute with Eleonora, and I
think that her threats came as a reaction on my pretensions to Eleonora. She was threatening us from February till May 1995. She told that
she did a lot for us - but we are not thankful - and we are going to pay for it. She often told us with bravado that she knows everything about
us. She said that some people follow us, that my phone is bugged, and that my mails are searched. And she demonstrated her knowledge
about really discreet information, which should be known only to my lawyer. I asked my lawyer and demanded from Mrs. Broder not to make
publicly known information, which should be discreet, but Lucy demonstrated her access to everything, what took place in my lawyer's office
-from the dates of our appointments with him to the dates of our immigration hearings, and so on. She used to come to the immigration
tribunal each time when our hearings took place - and even appeared in the room where the hearing took place: each time without our
permission.
3.9. One time she told me with the same bravado (it was in February 1995) that a very partial committee is going to be assigned to my file.
She told me that an especially aggressive immigration officer would be called from Toronto "to calm" me down. She was right.
3.10. Later it came out that Mrs. Broder sabotaged not only our immigration claim, but also translations of the articles, of documents, in
other words - everything, what she has to translate. Her distortion of the my wife's birth certificate data enabled immigration officer to
excuse her report made to the Israeli embassy about us.
3.11. Not only Lucy was related to Israel, but also Mrs. E. Broder. Soon after we met she married a businessman from Israel, who
maintained all business contacts in Israel - according to his words. She was born in Odessa, but lived several years in Cuba: it is also an