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 us a favor" (We 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. 3) The

translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.

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: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board

and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,

in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.

Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The

members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't

occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This

gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a

humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This

article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told

him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these

things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7)

Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is

an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.

We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be confirmed, if

somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'

from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the

submission of that legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to

translate his wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that

issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects

what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and

profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice of the immigration officer. She was a real

judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on her words exclusively:

Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers

completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations.

Nothing what the judges said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to

deny our claim was made by the immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only

a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an