ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

E) If a) there is any technical defect or underwear shadow, which was offensively interpreted

as "TB" b) this x-ray matches my body constitution c) an obviously normal result was blatantly

interpreted as "abnormal". We would like to be given a permission to take this film or its copy to

medical specialists to determine it.

F) How all contradictions, deceptions, violations can be explained (each event).

G) Examples: a) Half a year ago IMS officials refused to submit us ruling and forms for medical

examination for all family members assuring us that only my wife has to go through them. Now

in contradiction with what was said before they ordered my younger daughter and me (now

omitting my older daughter) to do examinations. B) Why my mother's file was illegally attached

to mine. c) How could so many ungrounded medical tests be ruled for my mother, keeping her

more then one year (!) in limbo, etc.

H) How all such decisions might be appealed?

I) Has my mother and me same IMS agents or agents of the same unit? Who are supervisors

of all agents, attached to our files (including Immigration Medical Services - IMS).

J) How to reach them?

K) If Immigration's agents (IMS included) are subjects of Criminal Code - or they are

completely uncontrolled and impunitive.

L) If they are not (impunitive) what is the way to complain about

1. Deliberate damage of my (my family's) financial, social, and psychological situation.

2. Criminal manipulation of the medical data

M) How could I know if W. Brzezinska's M.D. rapport with a "concern" about my health

presents not only in my mother's but in my file as well?

N) Why my file is proceeding not on Montreal - as normally - but in Ottawa?

I must warn you that I will contact police or RCMP in case of any further anonymous calls

("private call" indication) from Immigration and will disregard any letters, until they will not be

signed and carry the name and phone number of the person who is responsible for the

decision. All anonymous telephone calls, which accuse me of concealing a number of

infectious diseases, must be stopped. Anonymous letters from hospitals on behalf of

Immigration with same insinuations are unacceptable as well. I have also received a receipt for

a blood test for syphilis, which I never did, from a Lab, where I never went. I was also called by

two other laboratories, which pretend that I did tests for infectious diseases, and this is not

true. All such provocation must be stopped immediately!

.

All 5 (or 6) documents must be evaluated to consider and answer my complaint. Please,

answer all questions, which arise from the documents. I ask you to respond to this complaint in

writing. However, another solution is just to consider my case as "finished" with no further

demands. Will appreciate your cooperation.

Yours,

Lev GUNIN

November 30 2000

Chronology in GUNINS' case

November 1994

refugee claim

March 1997

refugee claim rejected.

(In the negative decision our refugee

claim description was severely

distorted; document includes such

direct and indirect statements as a)

nothing bad could happen in such a

beautiful country like Israel, b) people

who were taken to Israel for

Sochnut's expense are property of

Israel, c) people who refused to

change their believes and opinions

are guilty on persecutions themselves

because provoked them c) no

minimum of confidence). January

1998

- Federal Court closing our case on a

ridiculous ground of Immigration's "no

minimal confidence" ruling.

January 2000

- positive decision in response to our

humanitarian appeal.

March 2000

an interview lead to the Certificat de

selectione du Quebec issuing by

Quebec's Immigration

March 2000

bureaucratic humiliation and blatant

manipulation of medical data by

Federal Immigration starts to torpid

the completion of the case

Chronology in

Elisabetha GUNIN (Epstein's)

case:.1994

refugee claim + Wanda Brzezinska,

M.D. makes a false report (see Doc.

4b, 7a, 7b).

March 1997

refugee claim rejected.

January 1998

- Federal Court closing our case on a

ridiculous ground of Immigration's "no

minimal confidence" ruling.

November 1998

marriages a Canadian citizen

November 22 1999

my mother's marriage interview.

Nov. 23, Madame Helene ROY

replaces the initiative negative

decision, based on "medical

concerns" (dr. Brzezinska's rapport),

by a positive one.

January 2000 - Certificat de

selectione du Quebec was issued for

my mother.

January 2000, a ruling from IMS

ordering my mother additional tests:

strum creatinine (blood test) and

echocardiogram.

June 30, 2000 - IMS ridiculous

demand of a resume from "the last

visit to cardiologist".

July 27 2000

- rapport of Dr. Gordon Creenstein

(anatomy, not pathology) was

submitted to Immigration.

September 2000

another letter from IMS ordering

another urine test and then a visit to

an urologist.

September 19 2000

offensive letter from Immigration

officer. December 2000

IMS final negative decision confirming

the illegal prejudicial decision from

Nov. 99.

- DOCUMENT NUMBER TWO

To Immigration's Canada Complaint Board

(faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237)

From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

A COPY OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO IMMIGRATION

ON MAY 15 2000

By this letter we ask Immigration's agent assigned to my file to make a special ruling to order medical examinations for all members

of our family, not only for Alla GUNIN, my wife. As we know from our legal advisers, this procedure is required for all family members

for the landed immigrant's status. If you insist that only my wife has to do the medical examination, please, send us a written warrant.

We have a well-grounded suspicion that somebody might use the delay in ordering the medical examination for all members of our

family for artificial sabotage of issuing us the landed immigrant's status. We will appreciate your cooperation.

YOURS TRULY

Lev GUNIN

in name of family GUNIN

The 15 of May 2000

COPY - DOCUMENT NUMBER THREE

To Immigration's Complaints Board

(faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237) December 1 2000

From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

I disagree with the Immigration Medical Services decision "ev 7001-850497Z" (with date mentioned: November 23, 2000) from

Ottawa, received by me on November 29, 2000 (anonymous - no name or signature). The goal of this ruling is not to establish the

medical truth but to put a hardship on my family (and me).

My arguments.

(See the decision's text - as it was red to me by dr. Giannakis - in Document N4: on the bottom)

1. The decision ruled that Mr. Giannakis's respond should be submitted before November 30, 2000. Why then the letter arrived only

on November 29? Does it mean that the date in the letter - "November 23" - was incorrect? Or the letter has not been sent in 2-3 days? Or - if it is known that a letter from Ottawa to Montreal goes 5-6 days - why then I was not given more time? I ask you to submit me an explanation what November 30 means and why not December 10 or January 15? I want to know how the agent justified that particular date. Was that small misconduct planned in advance?

2. The suggestion that somebody else went and did the x-ray instead of me was another serious assault. That suggestion was made in ignorance of the fact that on Clark Lab's official (original!) paper IMS (Immigration Medical Service) officer could see my name, date of birth, telephone number, name of the ordering physician, and the number of my medical card (which - everybody knows - has my photo on it). Besides, it mentioned the "MILD PECTUS EXCAVATUM", a cosmetic defect, which I have since birth. Besides, it is known that the film itself has a negative image of the whole ID data! Then this ungrounded abuse was based on nothing and went far beyond any medical or even legal matter.

3. The demand to send an original film from the November 14 x-ray in the light of two above disputed demands might be ungrounded. This x-ray film was already seen by 3 medical doctors: the radiologist at the Clark Lab, dr. Jast (who referred me and evaluated the film), and dr. Giannakis. All three came to a conclusion that there is NOTHING abnormal, not a slightest possibility.

Both dr. Jast and Giannakis also examined me. The official conclusion is NIL ACTIVE. Besides, it was informally evaluated by a chest specialist: with the same conclusion. What else the IMS agent needs? I have a well-grounded concern that 1) he/she will find a black spot even on the whitest paper - because he/she is determined to; and 2) after he/she will find "a black spot" the film will vanish, but not the IMS's "evaluation". Immigration pretended already many times (dates, documents might be provided) that lost our applications, medical data, etc.

4. It was an abuse to mention that "After overview if necessary applicant may have to be referred to the chest specialist." It is a prejudgment and prejudice. "...if necessary", "may" are just a form. It is a very clear message that he/she will not let me alone! Why to speak about next medical procedure before seeing the x-ray?

Lev GUNIN Dec. 01 2000

Copy - DOCUMENT NUMBER FIVE

From Lev GUNIN ( 514-499-1294)

Document 5

LETTER TO THE MONTREAL CHEST INSTITUTE - A Copy

(The letter was submitted on November 09 in respond to an anonymous letter from the Montreal Chest Institute received on November 6 2000; below you can find a modified version (November 12-14), which was submitted to the same destination on November 15).

.

Lev GUNIN

address

telephone

From Lev GUNIN to anonymous person, author of the letter (the copy of the letter is enclosed).

Montreal Chest Institute

3666 St-Urbain

Montreal, QUEBEC H2X 2P4

Sir or Lady! Please, forward this letter to an appropriate Immigration department, which you mentioned on page 1 of your letter.

First of all, any suggestions that I could be infected by tuberculosis were ridiculous. I had some other suggestions, but later a medical doctor I spoke to - as well as my legal advisers - told me that the only answer of what happened is that Immigration might just make a false report on my x-ray. Besides, a x-ray could not determine whether or not any of such shadow means tuberculosis, or simply any kind of pneumonia, bronchitis, or a combination (see medical books). Any conclusions based on only one x-ray are ridiculous, partial, and prejudicial. In modern time - when there are so many flu infections accompanied by pneumonic consequences (side effects) such conclusions are a complete nonsense. It is obvious that your decision to attach me to the Infectious Disease Unit (IDU) before you have a 100 percent proof of any tuberculosis infection and initiate an appropriate legal procedure was a drastic misconduct. The only admissible way to handle the situation was (before sending me to the Infectious Disease Unit)

1) to request a second opinion in existing x-ray

2) to send me a letter for my physician for another x-ray.

On November 14 I did another x-ray. It revealed that there is no any suspicious shadow, no abnormalities - and (as my medical advisers told) could not be 2 weeks before, especially tuberculosis-like shadows. Was my x-ray photo (a negative) replaced by somebody else's or IMS (Immigration Medical Services) just falsified the reading of my x-rays, - I do not know. That all is a subject of a criminal investigation.

Because I am depressed, I did not notice that the Montreal Chest Institute (MCI) belongs to Royal Victoria Hospital, an institution I had several formal conflicts with. Somebody from the hospital's administration used to submit me an offensive number of requests for donation to the hospital even after I have sent a note that by then was on welfare. The hospital's administration also did an attempt to extort money from me for services, which were covered by Medicare. In that hospital I heard several times that people like me are "illegal in Canada and should not be given medical help "for the cost of Canadians". Then I was treated by negligence at the emergency room, then - it was a medical misconduct over my CSST claim. Dr. Evenson's M.D. (Royal Victoria) secretary played games with me, actually denying an appointment from May till November 2000. A number of legal and medical violations used to take place there. And in all such minor incidents immigration matters or even Immigration itself were involved. One of immigration specialists advised me not to turn to Royal Victoria because that hospital is "enormously influenced by Immigration".

The fact that a page with a request for a donation to the Royal Victoria Hospital was included into your letter was another outraged abuse.

Eventually it is possible that doctor Giannakis had sent me for x-ray not to "La Cite" - as my mom and my wife, - or another medical institution but to Montreal Chest Institute because he received an order (not a request but an order, which he could not disobey as an Immigration representative) from Immigration to do so.

By this letter I declare that I am considering your way of handling the situation dangerously offensive and depriving me of my constitutional rights because of the above mentioned as well as the next reasons:

FIRST, I will DISREGARD any anonymous letters like your present one until a letter from you would be signed, addressed from a real person with his/her clear name and telephone number.

SECOND, you have no legal rights to treat me as a contagious carrier until an undeniable medical proof is established.

THIRD, by sending me to the IDU you may expose me to contacts with real infected carriers.

FOURTH, you are not a police, Immigration, secret police or death squads to a) act secretly-anonymously refusing to sign your letter,

b) to write me anything like "by Immigration law, you are requested (...)". Since you are not immigration layers or Immigration officials, you are forbidden to judge in a case like mine what Immigration law requires. Such a statement in a case like mine must be submitted only directly from Immigration. If you are part of Immigration (officially) - then my rights were violated when I wasn't informed about that before doing the x-ray at your unit.