incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to
these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same way my words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating
question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was
repeated - but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the
same answer again and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's
clear that such a method violates moral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological
pressure can not be taken into consideration. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4. 5) Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They
shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their own - and later based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own
statement posing it as my - not their - words. E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to
appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were
mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their
disapproval by the norms of democracy or by my approval of the democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was
treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not to
Canadian but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5, G-6. This position neither being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself
made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. G-7, G-8. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but
a pure pro-Israel's propaganda. Its goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of
Israel as a "good" country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our
personal history. So the only criteria chosen to support the board's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only
admissible attitude to refugees has to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2,
H-3. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a
number of recognized human rights.I-1, I-2, etc. 10)They also (indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel for my
views - it's justified because I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about
us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a
country refugee claimants escaped from .K-1, K-2, etc. 12)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer
distorted and sometimes falsified their meaning.L-1, L-2,ect. 13) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by
it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time
documents that were represented by my lawyer (or my documents) newspapers, statements, declarations, and so on - weren't treated as
equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In the same
time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a
number of my documents may be considered as more objective and independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) The immigration officer used 1) an
open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position
during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a
witness to their hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel
and so on; 7) her behavior towards us and Metelnitsky family was so incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or
to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc. 15)A "yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is absolutely
impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc.
Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper
to my first lawyer's translator, Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own
inventions and sentences which sounded like provocation. I demanded a translation back to Russian from her, and she did it. She wrote it
by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent me
from complaining. I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1, 2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder sabotaged the translations of
newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people
"to do me a favor" (I think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded the most important paragraphs in
her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also
sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which I prepared to support my claim. She told us that she has
translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew - but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert
note we gave to him: Then no documents were translated. 2-C,ect. 4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological
warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular
phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These