08-03-2010, 09:04 PM
Judyth responds to more questions from Jack White and from Barbara Junkkarinen:
Jim...JVB claimed to be one of the women in this photo. Please ask her which one is her. Thanks.
Jack
==WE NOW HAVE EVIDENCE that Jack White did not read my answers to Dave Reitzes, POSTED BY DR. FETZER. I made it clear that I never knew for sure if this was my photo or not.
Jack repeats the question. Either he is not interested in finding out the truth about me, by reading what was posted, thus failing to read my comment about that very question, or his memory is faulty, or he is being specious. I regret that none of these possibilities are complimentary, and I fear that he will take umbrage thereby.
In 2006, Shackleford was able to stablize the photo and I then told him the pattern on the dress was not the same and I no longer believed this could be me. This was after what was posted to the Simkin Forum.
But if Jack White had actually read what you had posted, Jim, he would not have asked the question.
Jack is not reading the posts. Is he just throwing red herrings out there? Remember, the more questions you ask a witness, the more people decide the witness must have problems. That's human nature and psychology.
Barb is also misrepresenting the matter in Sweden. She avoids the fact that she and others accused me of being an illegal alien. Pamela and Shackleford did not trot the information out to create trouble, but in my behalf.
She repeats what was found in my file and makes it look like being rejected means I had no case. That was not true. I would have been deported at once had that been the case. Imagine all the people that would be in the system if they just let 'everybody' who came into Sweden seeking political asylum to be granted entrance.
Barb also did not mention, did she, that I had the right to file another petition. Such petitions can take up to a year to be answered. I did not want to be a parasite in the system: I obtained the means to survive without filing another petition.
Even Barb must admit that THAT is true.
She seems to wish to place my rejection in a bad light, when it is remarkable that they protected me for so long when I was an American woman. I am not allowed to tell the details of who helped me in the system to make sure that my case was placed in INHIBITION.
INHIBITION IS A SPECIAL DEVICE USED WHEN MORE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED. IT IS INVOKED SO THAT THE DEPORTATION ORDER CANNOT GO THROUGH.
Look at this case of a woman in 2000. It shows how important and unsuaul INHIBITION is (since Barb did not show you how important that was, I will):
Complaint No. 164/2000
Submitted by: L.M.T.D. (name withheld)
Alleged victim: The complainant
State party: Sweden
Date of submission of complaint: 22 March 2000
The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 15 May 2002,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 164/2000, submitted to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant and the State party,
Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
1.1 The complainant is L.M.T.D., a Venezuelan citizen currently residing in Sweden. She claims that her return to Venezuela following Sweden's refusal to grant her political asylum would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. She is represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the complainant:
[what follows is a list of evidence]...<snip>
2.5 The complainant and her family applied for political asylum in Sweden on 19 March 1998. The Swedish National Migration Board rejected the application on 24 August 1998, claiming that the facts did not in any way constitute grounds for asylum in Sweden...An application for inhibition was later filed with the Aliens' Commission, but it was denied...
...
5.1 ...The complainant nevertheless maintains that there is a clear danger that she would be put on trial and given a long prison sentence and that there is therefore also a danger that she would be subjected to torture in a Venezuelan prison, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
YOU SEE THAT IN THIS CASE, INHIBITION WAS DENIED, THOUGH THE PERSON FEARED TORTURE ON BEING RETURNED TO VENEZUELA WITH CHAVEZ IN POWER. HOWEVER, I WAS GRANTED INHIBITION.
IT MEANT THAT I WAS ABLE TO SAY MUCH LONGER IN SWEDEN. I DID NOT ABUSE THAT PRVILEGE AND LEFT AS SOON AS I WAS ABLE AND DID NOT FILE A PETITION TO TRY TO STAY LONGER. I COME AND GO IN SWEDEN NOW BECAUSE I NEVER RECEIVED A DEPORTATION ORDER.
note also, from the website, in regard to the negative I got that was placed in INHIBITION: ordinarily, you do not even get a lawyer. However, I was given a lawyer.
'Appealing the decision':
'If you believe the refusal is incorrect, you may appeal against it, but you have no right to remain in Sweden and wait for the decision on your appeal. Normally you do not have the right to a public counsel that can help you with your appeal. The appeal must be in writing and be received by the Swedish Migration Board within 21 days from the date on which you were notified of the decision.'
HOWEVER, I WAS GIVEN A LAWYER IN UPPSALA, AND HE PREPARED BRIEFS. I WAS ALSO GIVEN INHIBITION, AS BARB HERSELF MENTIONS.
HER MAKING IT SEEM THAT I CAME TO SWEDEN FOR NO GOOD REASON AND WAS 'KICKED OUT' SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. IT IS A MISREPRESENTATION.
IN ADDITION, SOMEONE WHO IS DEPORTED HAS TO GIVE BACK THE CARD THAT I STILL HAVE. I CAN PROVE THAT I STILL OWN THE CARD. IF I HAD RECEIVED A DEPORTATION ORDER, THIS CARD WOULD NOT BE STILL IN MY POSSESSION. NOTE THIS QUOTATION FROM THE WEBSITE:
"Before you leave the country, you must return your LMA card. You must also return your debit card if you previously received financial compensation from the Swedish Migration Board."
ANOTHER RULE IS THAT A PERSON DEPORTED IS NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN TO SWEDEN FOR, I BELIEVE, FIVE YEARS.
Judyth
[quote name='Jack White' post='186003' date='Mar 7 2010, 10:10 PM']Jim...JVB claimed to be one of the women in this photo. Please ask her which one is her. Thanks.
Jack[/quote]
Jim...JVB claimed to be one of the women in this photo. Please ask her which one is her. Thanks.
Jack
==WE NOW HAVE EVIDENCE that Jack White did not read my answers to Dave Reitzes, POSTED BY DR. FETZER. I made it clear that I never knew for sure if this was my photo or not.
Jack repeats the question. Either he is not interested in finding out the truth about me, by reading what was posted, thus failing to read my comment about that very question, or his memory is faulty, or he is being specious. I regret that none of these possibilities are complimentary, and I fear that he will take umbrage thereby.
In 2006, Shackleford was able to stablize the photo and I then told him the pattern on the dress was not the same and I no longer believed this could be me. This was after what was posted to the Simkin Forum.
But if Jack White had actually read what you had posted, Jim, he would not have asked the question.
Jack is not reading the posts. Is he just throwing red herrings out there? Remember, the more questions you ask a witness, the more people decide the witness must have problems. That's human nature and psychology.
Barb is also misrepresenting the matter in Sweden. She avoids the fact that she and others accused me of being an illegal alien. Pamela and Shackleford did not trot the information out to create trouble, but in my behalf.
She repeats what was found in my file and makes it look like being rejected means I had no case. That was not true. I would have been deported at once had that been the case. Imagine all the people that would be in the system if they just let 'everybody' who came into Sweden seeking political asylum to be granted entrance.
Barb also did not mention, did she, that I had the right to file another petition. Such petitions can take up to a year to be answered. I did not want to be a parasite in the system: I obtained the means to survive without filing another petition.
Even Barb must admit that THAT is true.
She seems to wish to place my rejection in a bad light, when it is remarkable that they protected me for so long when I was an American woman. I am not allowed to tell the details of who helped me in the system to make sure that my case was placed in INHIBITION.
INHIBITION IS A SPECIAL DEVICE USED WHEN MORE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED. IT IS INVOKED SO THAT THE DEPORTATION ORDER CANNOT GO THROUGH.
Look at this case of a woman in 2000. It shows how important and unsuaul INHIBITION is (since Barb did not show you how important that was, I will):
Complaint No. 164/2000
Submitted by: L.M.T.D. (name withheld)
Alleged victim: The complainant
State party: Sweden
Date of submission of complaint: 22 March 2000
The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 15 May 2002,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 164/2000, submitted to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant and the State party,
Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
1.1 The complainant is L.M.T.D., a Venezuelan citizen currently residing in Sweden. She claims that her return to Venezuela following Sweden's refusal to grant her political asylum would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. She is represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the complainant:
[what follows is a list of evidence]...<snip>
2.5 The complainant and her family applied for political asylum in Sweden on 19 March 1998. The Swedish National Migration Board rejected the application on 24 August 1998, claiming that the facts did not in any way constitute grounds for asylum in Sweden...An application for inhibition was later filed with the Aliens' Commission, but it was denied...
...
5.1 ...The complainant nevertheless maintains that there is a clear danger that she would be put on trial and given a long prison sentence and that there is therefore also a danger that she would be subjected to torture in a Venezuelan prison, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
YOU SEE THAT IN THIS CASE, INHIBITION WAS DENIED, THOUGH THE PERSON FEARED TORTURE ON BEING RETURNED TO VENEZUELA WITH CHAVEZ IN POWER. HOWEVER, I WAS GRANTED INHIBITION.
IT MEANT THAT I WAS ABLE TO SAY MUCH LONGER IN SWEDEN. I DID NOT ABUSE THAT PRVILEGE AND LEFT AS SOON AS I WAS ABLE AND DID NOT FILE A PETITION TO TRY TO STAY LONGER. I COME AND GO IN SWEDEN NOW BECAUSE I NEVER RECEIVED A DEPORTATION ORDER.
note also, from the website, in regard to the negative I got that was placed in INHIBITION: ordinarily, you do not even get a lawyer. However, I was given a lawyer.
'Appealing the decision':
'If you believe the refusal is incorrect, you may appeal against it, but you have no right to remain in Sweden and wait for the decision on your appeal. Normally you do not have the right to a public counsel that can help you with your appeal. The appeal must be in writing and be received by the Swedish Migration Board within 21 days from the date on which you were notified of the decision.'
HOWEVER, I WAS GIVEN A LAWYER IN UPPSALA, AND HE PREPARED BRIEFS. I WAS ALSO GIVEN INHIBITION, AS BARB HERSELF MENTIONS.
HER MAKING IT SEEM THAT I CAME TO SWEDEN FOR NO GOOD REASON AND WAS 'KICKED OUT' SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. IT IS A MISREPRESENTATION.
IN ADDITION, SOMEONE WHO IS DEPORTED HAS TO GIVE BACK THE CARD THAT I STILL HAVE. I CAN PROVE THAT I STILL OWN THE CARD. IF I HAD RECEIVED A DEPORTATION ORDER, THIS CARD WOULD NOT BE STILL IN MY POSSESSION. NOTE THIS QUOTATION FROM THE WEBSITE:
"Before you leave the country, you must return your LMA card. You must also return your debit card if you previously received financial compensation from the Swedish Migration Board."
ANOTHER RULE IS THAT A PERSON DEPORTED IS NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN TO SWEDEN FOR, I BELIEVE, FIVE YEARS.
Judyth
[quote name='Jack White' post='186003' date='Mar 7 2010, 10:10 PM']Jim...JVB claimed to be one of the women in this photo. Please ask her which one is her. Thanks.
Jack[/quote]