To Federal Court of November 12
Federal
Administrative Court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Postfach
CH-9023 St. Gallen
Fax
+41 (0)58 465 29 80
Federal
Administrative Court. St. Gallen, Switzerland
This
is my response to the Federal Court's letter of October 30, 2019
Last
week you said to me:
"Finally,
it should be noted that the Court of First Instance has already noted
that, despite the
fact that it is undeniable that ethnic tensions may actually exist in
Ukraine at the moment, it cannot be inferred from this that there is
systematic
discrimination
against persons belonging to the Russian-speaking community
(CF.
judgment of the General Court E-898/2016 of 18 April 2016 --
<hereinafter
: Case#2>
--- and references cited)."
Beginning
with, the referred CF Court's decision is absolutely inapplicable in
my case:
The
Case#2
is
about young Ukrainian who was trying to escape a military service in
2014, at the peak of EuroMaidan revolution. In addition, "he
claimed to be running off his country as a result of the
administrative proceedings instituted against him by reason of
purchasing a vehicle abroad with subsequent transfer of funds",
"to
which are added the criticisms that he allegedly expressed against
the new Ukrainian authorities via his social network".
The only reference to language issues were that "he
was refused a hotel room upon his arrival, thus he would have felt
discriminated against as a Russian-speaking Ukrainian, which is why
he would have to leave the country in the airplane to go to
Switzerland, where his sister lived".
In
contrast, in my age of well after 50, I had to leave my home country
3+ years later, despite I never was saying I was trying to avoid a
military service (I already performed that duty during 2 years in my
young age). And I did it EXCLUSIVELY because of numerous threats to
my life due to my political activity! My route, timing, and proof for
my excellent financial status at the point of departure is available
in the SEM's files. I never broke the law, and always tried to avoid
any involvement in suspiciously dubious business practice. During one
and a half of years I was dealing with all the impossibility of
existence without any money at all (as well as no right for a legal
job, no relatives), just because I always count on my own abilities
first. But even the later advantage the SEM managed to turn against
me.
In
that court hearings the "system" conflict in relation to
using Russian language was not studied at all. Rather, it was shortly
mentioned that the fact of existence that problem could not be
decisive for Swiss asylum: "The
fact that he is Russian-speaking person is not decisive in this
respect, as there is no reason to believe that, as a Ukrainian
national, he would risk suffering a discriminatory sentence linked to
his extraction".
More
serious questions, however, are raised by its main conclusion the
Court has made a part of its negative decision on my case. The
existing discrimination against Russian-speaking people in Ukraine is
not "system"?
Please see the detailed denial of that allegation in my
"Mini-Reasearch
on UA language" here:
In
may case the language problem is not the only one. But it suddenly
became a decisive point for the SEM's decision on obligatory
deporting me to Ukraine!
Despite,
once again, I have all reasons to state I have all required chances
for the positive decision on my Swiss asylum!
Meanwhile,
the conclusions of the court like "he
is young and obviously able to support himself",
"financial
aid from his sister in Switzerland is not to be excluded",
and "he
did not claim any particular health problem"
are less relative to me as the SEM allegingly suggests. I have no
parents anymore. And I have no home in my home country anymore! Even
if exclude the direct threats to my life due to my political
activity, I would be forced to start everything anew in the bankrupt
country with inevitable start of a civil war in the nearest future,
where my knowledge of Russian and English languages, on which I
obtained all education, is categorically excluded from the official
list of state languages forever (see details in my Mini-Research on
UA language"). And even the exceptionally good for my age of 54
health, caused by years of hard and purposeful efforts that
ultimately allowed me to remain alive after impossible existence
without money doomed by my own bank,
Swiss
authorities use against me, as a reason for rejection asylum help and
dying somewhere outside "neutral" Switzerland, rather than
for a really successful integration into it.
Some
Court's opinions sound weird for those who has a first-hand
experience of living in Ukraine during last five years. For example,
the Case#2 briefly remarks that if the authorities were "aware
of the criticisms he claimed to made, via the social network of which
he was a member, against them with regard to the terms of their
accession to the power, that they did not, however, considered
anti-government to the point of trying to apprehend him after
preventing him from leaving the country legally".
That assumption is naive both for its inapplicability to my
particular case, and for the general practice of related security
agencies. If the police really decides to arrest somebody, it's next
to impossible to escape that. And if the state decides to attack
somebody, that's hardly to be made by state officers. Rather, the
task would be assigned to certain third-parties, officially
not-related to the top governmental officials. And I have all reasons
to believe the attacks to me discussed during SEM's interviews were
practiced by the sides alike . There would be no official orders. The
reality of current Ukrainian environment is people can go to the
work, and simply never return back.
It
may be there are no serious reasons "relating
to the appellant's identity"
in the Case#2, which would prevent his return to Ukraine, but in my
case those reasons exists, and they are serious ones. See beginning
of that topic at my websites
Today
the Swiss lawyers blame me why I did not wait for the point when it
would be impossible to leave the country legally, after which the
state would try to detain me, but I would miraculously escape police,
the National Security Service, and with the help of deception somehow
cross the Swiss border illegally. In other words, why I tried not to
break the law, and ultimately remained alive!
It
may be the conclusions of Court like "the
asylum application of a person who would have access to protection in
a part of the territory of his country of origin where he has no
reason to fear persecution or exposure to serious harm may be
rejected if it is reasonable to consider that he can remain in that
part of the country"
(ATAF 2011/51 consid. Eight) have sense for the Case#2, but not for
me. What exactly part of the country can be considered "safe"
for me, if I protested against robbery of the WHOLE country, and
faced threats from both political sides, the most strong and
aggressive of which has came to the top state power now.
My
activity wasn't distributed in some specific local area. I used
Internet that exposed my views to the whole country. On another hand,
its target was the top managers of the whole country. So, to what
part of the country I should go then according to SEM's suggestions?
What the Case#2 has common with my case? Excepting the country of origin of its applicant, nothing! The same can be said about its other references.
I
would be grateful to the Court if it finds the real legal precedents
when a Ukrainian citizen refuses to break the law, even with the
danger to his LIFE, with a documented evidence for that fact during
last 20 YEARS(!) (otherwise I would get my money from my Barclays
bank accounts and never appeared in Switzerland asking for the help),
then makes IMPOSSIBLE survival during almost two years of his
existence
WITHOUT ANY MONEY AT ALL, which ultimately caused biggest financial
players to own me the ABSOLUTELY
UNPRECEDENTED in the banking history
"INFINITE
Debt!", and continues to fight for the future of millions
people, despite the desperate uncertainty of his own personal status.
Speaking about referred by the Federal Court concepts of "Attribution" theory, and "Protection" theory, they both produce a favorable decision for my situation. For the former case I experienced threats from indirect agents of the state, professionally trained and exceptionally supported financially. For the later case, most Ukrainian people will strongly doubt the opinion of Swiss experts about perfect availability of adequate protection against persecution in Ukraine.
For
beginning, see my "Mini-Research on Ukrainian Protection":
It
is just a small tip of the huge iceberg
of
other related evidences on the subject.
By
the way, the Court's materials for the Case#2 "also
note that since
June 2014, Ukraine is no longer on the Swiss list of so-called safe
states where
it was registered in 2007",
....
And
my arguments
presented to the Federal Court on October 28
were
excluded from any discussion and even mentioning at all!
ALL
MY LIFE I RESPECTED THE LAW!
Now
I am starting to doubt the Swiss justice!
Having
absolutely no legal support, last week I tried to contact some free
lawyers, once again. Their behavior, however, appeared rather
shocking!
When
the lawyers read just one last page of the recent Federal Court's
decision, they simply refused to help me, - WITHOUT READING MY CASE
AT ALL!
The
Federal Court's judges should not ignore the reality that their
decisions are considered by other professional lawyers as fully
legitimate legislative acts, - AS
LAWS,
despite they are not the laws!
From my appeal to the Swiss government:
From my appeal to the Swiss government:
"The
Judge Dantele
Cattaneo
is not a legislative body
(moreover,
that is directly forbidden for him
due
to obligatory separation of the three governmental branches).
He
is not the Law!"
In
my case, the lawyers were practically paralysed by the Court's
statements like
"so
far as the conclusions of the appeal were, from the outset, doomed
to failure".
It's
like announcing a final death sentence out of cancer, no matter
whether that diagnose is true or not.
I
have more than enough reasons to state that is not true!!! But
realizing it in practice appears technically impossible!
Among
other things, it seems the Federal Court uses the same approach
towards initial SEM's decisions, without reading related details,
where that thoughts appeared first.
My
point is I found the Swiss state may take any decision about my
asylum it wants to, no matter what the Law is used. So, why its
decision is negative in my case?
Is
it a political decision?!!!
Anyway, Swiss authorities simply are making me a politician!
My
original political case triggered another political case with my
bank, which is even more important for the public interest, and much
larger than the original one!
If
required, the Federal Court can apply a Special
Procedure
for
my case according to the Article 30 2-1 (PA): "If
it is likely that many people will be affected by a decision or if
the identification of all parties requires disproportionate effort
and excessive costs".
Nevertheless,
the SEM did not address that side at all, despite it was a part of my
appeal from the beginning. And despite my repeated and desperate
attempts to draw his attention (see my emails and Text to Lawyer) to
this side of the case, which SEM unfairly called "unrelated"
to my asylum appeal (yet another "separation" of the SEM).
Switzerland
has a stable juridical and other infrastructure. Nevertheless, the
level of abusing the law by Swiss authorities in my particular case
appeared extraordinary!
If
I cannot achieve protection in such presumably perfectly safe country
as Switzerland, what kind of protection I supposingly will be able to
achieve in Ukraine?... The fact which I am trying to prove now is
that my case was wrongly marked as "doomed
to failure" from the beginning.
But
I know the TRUTH. How I can accept the lie of the Federal Court? That
will be my lie!
I
am a Christian. And according to the Bible, the truth cannot be
different for different people, as the SEM suggests. The truth
is only one!
"Let
your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever
is more than these is of the evil one"(Matthew
5:37 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:37>).
And the whole decision on my case boils down to just one simple
choice:
I
am either trustful person, or not.
The
whole case is about that only.
I
state I am a honest person
the
words of whom should be trusted
(and
refer <> to my whole life as evidence).
The
SEM states I lie.
And
the Court makes the choice now.
If
Swiss authorities state the real events of my own life are
falsification, I will need to continue my mini-research. Obviously,
with corresponding publishing its result at the public Internet. And
I cannot guarantee consequences of that will cost Swiss authorities
less than their positive decision on my political asylum.
What
are chances for (balance of "probability of success") in my
case? According to SEM, ZERO! Isn't it that fact a clear evidence
about what exactly level of protection I should expect in officially
corrupt Ukraine the SEM complains for absence of?
The
fact of issuing their negative decision has created the missing proof
of evidence in my favor the Swiss authorities wanted to obtain from
me.
And from now on I may use that fact against Switzerland.
Swiss
.... was ideal for me.
And
I still hope it will be ideal!
And
I need to do all that being under constant
SEVERE PHYSICAL PAIN
from
the from at the place of my destroyed teeth, obtained during
suffering from the HUNGER and COLD at the streets of rich
Switzerland:
This
is video of September. Because of refusal of Swiss SEM in any medical
help about it, since then my teeth were destroyed to a much greater
extent, and now it has been transformed into two
OPEN
BLEEDING WOUNDS!
In
a way, that was a religious
conflict:
I was believing into Christ and his justice
(https://bmoney2017.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-life-vs-new-death-part-2.html
),
while
my opponnents believed into another God, - money and its absolute
power on the earth, replacing with it all other gods. That is, the
Religion
of Money.
While nobody is capable to serve two masters, "You
cannot serve God and mammon"
(Matthew 6:24 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:24
).
"Mammon
in the New Testament of the Bible is commonly thought to mean money,
material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is
associated with the greedy pursuit of gain"
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
).
Such
extreme forms of manifestation of that as the global
FinancialGenocide
my
life case is a part of, are about complete forgetting about
everything the Christ was teaching the world, and cold practicing
Devil's math at approaching the impossible for existence zero ground
level without thinking about human lives behind it:
I
am desperately fighting for being a HUMAN!
Dear
Judge, be a human too, rather then a "counting machine"!
I
am kindly asking the Federal Court to review its decision on my
asylum.
According
to Article 5 B(a) the Federal Court is empowered to "create,
modify or cancel rights".
Important
point:
Absence
of money,
caused by the need to leave my home country due to my political
activity against state financial frauds, and aggravated by stealing
from me my life savings with the help of the Swiss Barclays bank,
appeared
for the Federal Court the decisive reason for dismissing my case?!!
According
to this paper, YES:
Then
the outcome of the whole legal procedure appears directly dependable
to financial status of applicants. "You have Money - you have
Justice!"?? The more money, the more "justice"? No
money at all means no Justice at all?!!
The
SEM silently agrees with the above. Being fully aware about
"progress" of my appeal to the Federal Court, it has made
no move towards asking the court for a monetary relief in my case.
Let alone complete reconsidering its decision on my asylum, which
obviously abuses Swiss Law. At the same time, it enjoys such monetary
relief for itself as a state organization. It can become a precedent,
however, for my using the hidden from the public knowledge on the
matter against both SEM and Federal Court.
According
to The Code of Judicial Conduct
(https://www.bvger.ch/bvger/en/home/about-fac/ethik-charta.html),
the judgies "shall
refrain from any conduct which might give rise to questioning their
independence".
So, are the judges of the Federal Court independent from the power of
Money our civilization is based upon? And answer to this question is
principal.
In
particular, it may affect validity of the currently popular
"protection" theory that denies right for asylum if an
official state infrastructure is formally in place. When the level of
such "protection" directly depends on the level of
financial rank of the country, it will become obvious that most poor
countries are simply unable to provide any real protection for
majority of its population. Ukraine is currently the poorest
<https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/what-is-wrong-with-the-ukrainian-economy/>
country of Europe, thus incapable for a reliable legal protection by
definition. So, where to Switzerland, one of the richest country of
the world, proposes me to apply for the help, with supporting its
conclusion by evidently broken "protection" theory?
Please note, the above-mentioned document may become a negative verdict for the whole juridical system of Switzerland then!
***
In
the full accordance with Swiss legislation, including the FederalAct
on Administrative Procedure
(PA)
172.021, and AsylumAct
(
AsylA) 142.31, I kindly ask the Federal Court for the following:
1.
Relieve me from paying its procedural fees;
2.
According to Article 55, II-4 (PA) reserve assigning that obligation
(1) to the SEM due to its obvious abusing the law;
3.
According to Article 33, V-2 (PA), reserve assigning those
obligations (1)(2) to the SEM related to the price of obtaining the
proofs it demands from me;
4.
According to Article 33 H-bis-3 and 4 (PA), agree for using
international English language for communication for my case: "Where
a party produces documents that are not in an official language, the
authority may, with the consent of the other parties, waive the
requirement to translate them. ... If necessary, the authority orders
a translation".
In my understanding, English should be known by everyone at the top
level of Swiss society. The SEM is fully aware of a negative effect
of using machine translation for any successful presentation. The
fact neither SEM nor Federal Court (with all their proficiency in
Swiss legislation, together with their categorical refusing my
requests for translator's assistance) never proposed to me
communicate in English, says a lot about their prejudice about my
case and me personally.
5.
According to Article 11, III-2, and Article 26 G-1-bis (PA), perform
our further communication on the matter through electronic email
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Sergiy
Beloy,
MSc.
in Information Management (degree with distinction from the
University of East London, UK),
Creator
of BMoney.
Comments
Post a Comment