elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society
were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly
expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting.
Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her
partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her
reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main
points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept
them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions.
She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any
interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a
situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic
and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused
to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document
herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to
what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ
from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the
same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what
is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52%
of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her
motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric
and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for
explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at
all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards
our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just
because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its
history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a
miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as
nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International
confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were
solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on
distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents.
I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision
paragraph after paragraph.
Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our
PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages
are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In
reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for
younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot
celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It
makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my
testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in
her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something
wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone
composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the
truth?
We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced
about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who
composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the
Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands