Mini-Research on SEM's / Federal Court ruling
Several
years ago there was first in my life financial debt (created due to
fraudulent cutting access to my money by British Barclays bank) for
paying for my apartment in the center of capital of Ukraine. Today
I need to create another debt just for sending a letter(!) to the
Federal Court of Switzerland?
The
Swiss governmental SEM knows I have ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY since 2018,
when the bank in Zurich, Switzerland refused to help me. From its
side, the SEM does not pay me even the minimal 3 Franks per day other
people around have for granted. It also refused to provide me with
tickets for reaching nearest cities, where free lawyers and post
offices are located, forcing me to run 34 kilometers for implementing
that root on my own (see my videos in the "Hard Way For The
Justice" -
https://financialgenocide.blogspot.com/2019/11/hard-way-to-justice.html).
The Federal Court is aware of the whole story, but keep demanding
from me 750 CHF (absolutely impossible in my situation), otherwise
threating me with dismissing my case and deporting to Ukraine that I
left for escaping the death.
I
qualify that as Financial
Genocide
Formally,
the clear definition of the proposed Financial Genocide is currently
absent in the UN's and internatinoal legislation, let alone at the
national level. However, that does not mean the problem of Financial
Genocide does not exist. Historically, for example, this idea has
always been present in practically any immigration legislation. The
need for asylum or refugee status has always been recognized in
corresponding laws for situations where foreign governments committed
genocide against a certain race or group of people.
My
case it is an example of genocide of a certain group of people. In
particular, the people WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY! I first warned
Ukrainians about danger of that situation six years ago, when nobody
believed into its reality. Because of that I was forced to come the
full way through it on my own, until ultimately appearing in
Switzerland, where the whole story started its repeating at the next
(higher) round of its historical spiral, evidently aiming to embrace
victims of the next global financial crisis. Swiss federal employees
do not believe my words, although this time my "private"
Financial Genocide is set by the Barclays bank to be extended to the
level of the richest people of all countries, including Switzerland.
Article
3 of Swiss Asylum Act states:
"Refugees
are persons who in their native country or in their country of last
residence are subject to serious disadvantages or have a well-founded
fear of being exposed to such disadvantages for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or due
to their political opinions".
That
does not say about a need to be at a really final stage of that chain
of "serious disadvantages" as the only valid condition for
considering people refugees. Moreover, the law explicitely allows a
person just to "have a
well-founded fear of being exposed to such disadvantages for reasons
of ... nationality, ... or due to their political opinions", -
and that
was precisely my case!
On
September 7 I wrote to the SEM:
"According
to Article 7 of Asylum Act, "Refugee
status is credibly demonstrated if the authority regards it as proven
on the balance of probabilities."
Negative decision of the SEM in my case means the probability of what
I am saying is lower than 50%.
Really?"
Compare
that with international legal practice on the matter, e.g., in the
United States:
"Fortunately,
asylum applicants don’t have to prove that persecution is
guaranteed to await them upon return. In fact, one court said that,
“Even a ten
percent
chance of persecution may establish a well-founded fear.”
Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001).
What
is common for these two approaches? In both cases the digits are
SUBJECTIVE!!!
What's the difference then between mathematical values they express?
It's similar to deciding which particular infinity is bigger than
other ones. They are the same! No matter whether you add to it 0.001,
or billion, it always remains infinity! So, it's really not important
what exactly value is assigned to the values. The main purpose of
such approaches is to formally hide the underlying subjectivity.
Look,
in general, how difference between two subjective values can be
measured by precise mathematical numbers? Strictly speaking, under
these conditions the mathematically exact numbers stop being numbers.
The problem is in any court decision there is always a fact of
similar artificial assigning, after which the digits simply stop
being digits. They become manifestation
of subjective process of assigning, where resulting court decision
is intrinsically subjective!
Judges
can make any decision. And that seems is the biggest
juridical secret!
The
main question then becomes why exactly decision on my case appeared
negative?
"If
you have been specifically targeted for persecution, this will
greatly strengthen your case. For example, asylum applicants have
provided evidence that they were threatened
or
followed,
placed on a death list, received
individual warnings,
knew of colleagues being killed, and so forth."
I
was followed by unknown to me people, many times, who finally
threatened
to my life, clearly demanding to remove my videos from Youtube or
leave the country.
"The
more serious and widespread the threat of persecution to the group
with which you are identified or of which you are a member, the less
individualized the threat of persecution you need to show."
I
so many times when people similar to those who threatened me beaten
or attempted to kill everybody who openly protested, including armed
police officers and famous Ukrainian politicians.
"If
you are unable to prove persecution in the past, ... you will need to
show a good reason to fear future
persecution,
by providing credible (believable), direct, and specific factual
evidence. That will likely involve submitting documentary evidence
(such as human
rights reports, newspaper
articles, ... and credible and persuasive testimony (your own story).
...
If you cannot show that you were individually targeted, the next best
thing is to show a pattern
or practice
in your home country of persecution of a group of persons similarly
situated to you."
"Attach
reports about human rights conditions in your home country for the
preceding two or three years (and make sure to include the years(s)
during which you were persecuted)."
I
fairly tried to do that. Since the end of September I provided both
SEM and Federal Court with a lot of related examples. For example, in
my first reply to Federal Court
<https://financialgenocide.blogspot.com/2019/11/mini-research-on-ukrainian-protection.html>
I
doubted the SEM's opinion about reliability of Ukrainian state
"protection" by referring Ukrainian press-releases like
"Lawyers
of the injured activists collected and transferred to the Ukrainian
Truth Association data on 55 attacks on public figures which occurred
since the beginning of 2017. All of them remained undisclosed".
Does
similar practice for those 55 cases exist in Switzerland? No. Why
Swiss authorities then strongly insist to look for a "reliable"
protection out of Switzerland and precisely in the place where that
practice exists?!!
Today
I can add to it the Report
of Human
Rights Watch
of June 25, 2019 "Ukraine:
Investigate Journalist’s Killing", which is
devoted to Vadym
Komarov, 58, who lived and worked in Cherkasy, 200 kilometers from my
Kyiv city.
"He carried out hard-hitting investigations, and ultimately died
from injuries in May attack”.
"Media
freedom has increasingly been under pressure in Ukraine. The media
watchdog, Institute of Mass Information, has documented at least six
cases of journalists beaten or injured in the first five months of
2019. It reported that 12 more received threats and 48 faced
obstruction of their professional activities, including damaged
equipment and restricted access. The murder of renowned journalist
Pavel Sheremet, in 2016 in central Kyiv, remains unresolved. Attacks
against activists and human rights defenders have also been on the
rise since 2018."
Moreover,
another report of the Human
Rights Watch
of October 2018 "Ukraine: Address Attacks against Activists and
Human Rights Defenders" states:
"More
than 50 attacks on activists and human rights defenders in Ukraine
have been recorded by local human rights organizations in just the
last nine months, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and
Frontline
Defenders
said today.
... The
purpose of such attacks is clear: to silence activists and human
rights defenders and to discourage others from speaking out against
injustice and standing up for human rights"
I
left Ukraine because of fighting for its Future, and because I know
its "protection" reality better than the SEM. The main
problem is the SEM did not believe my words from the beginning,
cutting similar references as "non-related". Such
approaches can discurrage anyone from any political activity.
Should
I become a politician, who fights for Human Rights here, in
Switzerland, on example of my own asylum case?!!
I
struggle with the court-related issues here, in Switzerland. It has
been technically difficult for me to implement a legislative
protection in this safe country. And up to now I receive only
negative decisions. How similar processes can be possibly better in
Ukraine? Let alone without money, the court is aware of. Moreover,
the fact of complaining and applying to the court itself can trigger
certain aggressive activity against me. I have no desire to check the
later with my own life (just tell me who has).
Nevertheless,
Swiss authorities use that argument of "protection" theory
for issuing negative decisions on my appeal. Why? To hide their
political decision for my rejection under formal excuses of the law
that has sufficient provisions for any decision?
"Protection
against non-state prosecution in the State of origin shall be
considered sufficient if the subject has effective access to a
functioning and efficient protection infrastructure and it is
individually
reasonable
to use such national protection system."
In
my case it wasn't "individually reasonable". Based on my
life experience, I had serious fears that my appeal for the help to
police will be turned against me. Most attacks to Ukrainian political
activists were qualified as a casual "hooliganism" to not
disturb the public with negative statistics. It's difficult to
explain to foreigners. My SEM's interviewer, for example, managed to
turn even my sincere words that I preferred not to apply to police as
always resolved my problems on my own against
me,
falsely stating in his report it was exclusively my own choice to
refuse help of the national protection system. To better understand
Ukrainian reality, I would advise you to study the legal case against
Attorney
General of Ukraine
in 2016-2019 Yuriy Lutsenko, who “succeeded” in escaping his
arrest and running outside the country.
***
From
my recent Open Letter To Swiss Presidents
<https://financialgenocide.blogspot.com/2019/11/to-presidents-of-swiss-confederation-2.html>:
"In
my case clear0ly subjective opinions of governmental employees at all
levels substitute the Law. In particular, in my official response to
Federal Court of November 12
<https://financialgenocide.blogspot.com/2019/11/to-federal-court-of-november-12.html>
I referred the fact of "deification" the words of the judge
I was a witness of personally. In particular, his words about my
chances for the asylum "doomed
for failure"
were treated as the final "death sentence" for any related
activity (all new lawyers to whom I showed just one page of the
Federal Court decision refused even to read my case after that). And
that despite that opinion was a subject of influence from the fact of
intentional FALSIFYING
<https://financialgenocide.blogspot.com/2019/11/1-evidence-of-sems-falsification.html>
of available information by the SEM."
***
It's
also worth repeating that in my previous letters to officials of the
SEM and Federal Court I stressed the fraudulent nature of their
leading approach of SEPARATING
my
case into small unrelated parts for assisting making any conclusion
they want to. In particular, I was talking about separation of
political and financial sides of my life story, then about further
separating of the former into threats to my life from the state only,
with dividing the facts into formally proven and unproven ones, thus
destroying integrity of the whole case. Selective using of the
resulting tiny "atoms" of a complex multidimensional truth
allows distorting of the later. The result is rather controversial:
While it might correspond to the Letter
of
the Law, its Spirit
definitely
appears beyond consideration.
Today
that convenient for federal employees separation
from reality
transforms into
Countdown
to my KILLING
by
continuing my Financial Genocide
in
correspondence with their official decision to
deport
me to the country, where I received threats to my life,
AT
ANY MOMENT!
It
doesn't matter whether that killing will be for POLITICAL, FINANCIAL,
HUMANITARIAN, or BANKING reasons. What's the difference?
The
Federal Swiss employees cynically state there is a difference, and
the difference matters. Well, that could be so for hem personally, as
under certain wordings their responsibility for the killing may
formally disappear. But for me it's definitely not. My dying on the
streets out of hunger and cold due to my conflict with Barclays bank
differs from dying on the same streets due to political reasons?
Really?!! Is there a difference at what streets and at what country
my financial genocide can be completed? The result is set to be the
same! The death is always death.
But
I am a live person. And I am a human. I
demand respect!
Especially
taking into account the unprecedented scale
of
both financial and political aspects of my life case (see
BMoney2017.blogspot.com
and BGate2018.blogspot.com
for details). Meanwhile, in just one week there will be 100 days
since I applied to Switzerland for protection, with no progress about
it from the side of Swiss government so far. And that is despite any
delay for resolving my really URGENT
case,
including delay for settlement my banking problems, is AGAINST
Swiss NATIONAL INTERESTS!
Comments
Post a Comment