17-03-2010, 03:46 PM
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO VIKLUND FOR THE LAST TIME
NOTE: I would remind those new to this thread that
collusion between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams
has been established based upon exchanges between
them that are found in earlier posts on this very thread.
JUDYTH'S REPLIES ARE IN BOLD:
1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?
Who are you to dare ask such a question of a person you have never met and for whom you have only secondhand information. Further, do you think I would expose the agents who saved my life? Do you think I would place in my files everything pertaining to the case, knowing that snoopers such as you exist?
2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?
They are not “experts” (as you are) in technical legal terminology. They were only trying to help, when I was accused of being an illegal alien. My friends did not know that ‘granted political asylum’ is a term that could only be used after being granted ‘permanent political asylum’—something I told them would not happen.
3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?
You are wanting to hear motive in this loaded question. Let’s get to the ‘question’ : WAS it a “standard asylum seekers case”? I was an American woman with a service dog, handicapped, who had just come from another EU country and should have been sent right back to that other EU country. I was the first American non-combatant woman, I was told, in decades, to enter the system. After five days of inquiries, etc., they advised me I could never win the case, but I would receive help by being allowed into the system for my protection. Is any of this “standard?”
a) I came from Hungary and had been there only one month, yet was not returned to Hungary, as EU agreements specify. Was that standard? No.
B) I was granted inhibition: few people obtain it. Is inhibition “standard”?
c) I was not immediately deported to the US at the outset, even though the US is on a list of countries considered ‘safe.’ Is there another non-combatant American in the system anywhere? Why wasn’t ‘standard deportation’ upheld?
d) I was advised to make an appeal in person. Other kinds of appeals were also made, as I was guided on what to do so I could stay as long as possible until my family could help me. Such advice does not get into an official record. Why would it? I was also advised to appeal on Swedish national television to receive inhibition. After the TV appeal was made, inhibition was granted. That was not ‘standard.’
4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?
I exerted ‘every possible means’ because I faced real danger. I had to leave a good teaching job in Hungary, with free housing, free bus transport, health insurance, an annual plane ticket to the US, and $750/mo. teaching 25 hours a week total, for two high schools. I had prestige and good living conditions for a single person there.
Imagine how horrible it was to have to leave, due to death threats. How expensive.
My options were not exhausted regarding living in Sweden. I could have filed a third appeal from any country outside Sweden (or not) and then returned, to take a position in a company that offered to hire me so I could stay in Sweden. I could have stayed under a business residency permit. Such permits are good from six months to two years and are renewable. What business is this of yours, Mr. Vuklund?
5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Court who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?
Again, a loaded question. Asking ‘why’ is a common rhetorical ploy. You ask why and then add any old question to the ’why.’ The ploy tries to extricate information that has nothing to do with the question. It also makes a reader of the question suspicious of me instead of being suspicious of Mr. Viklund’s motives. BTW, Citation, please.
6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?
This intrusive question into my civil rights is none of your business. I have witnesses who will privately verify the fact to Dr. Fetzer and others who are of reputable character--who respect issues of privacy and human rights (unlike yourself) to reveal the names of the kind people who helped me.
I never said that the court decisions themselves would be kept confidential. I said you gave out information that shows you know more than you should have. You snooped.
In my view, these areas have a certain degree of importance, as far as her stay in Sweden. She has given all kinds of explanations and none of them can be corroborated with what is shown in the decisions from the Swedish Courts. Therefore, this is a good opportunity for her to straighten these things out, once and for all.
I have others as well, but as I stated yesterday, these would be a good start.
I have patiently responded to this person who called me mentally deranged on a public forum without the insult being removed by a moderator. I asked Mr. Viklund who HE worked for. When he failed to reply, I posted information available. He next asks:
So, Mr Fetzer, will you assist in making these issues clarified?
Mr. Viklund, a validated expert in translation and protocol, knows how to properly address the distinguished Dr. Fetzer. He refused to reveal his occupation, though he did not deny that he solicited people in a New York ad to hire him to conduct private internet investigations to obtain information, with himself as “source” to be kept confidential. Have a nice day.
FINAL STATEMENT:
I ASK THAT THIS FINAL RESPONSE TO MR. VIKLUND, WHO HAS DARED ASK WHO MY (CONFIDENTIAL) HANDLERS WERE, BE POSTED AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, WITH THE STATEMENT “MR. VIKLUND IS NOW INFORMED, SINCE HE WAS ALLOWED TO POST ABUSE OF JUDYTH BAKER AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, BY STATING THAT SHE HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS, THAT SHE WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO ANYTHING MR. VIGLUND POSTS OR ASKS. JUDYTH BAKER HAS RELIED AS PATIENTLY AND POLITELY AS POSSIBLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.
MR. VIKLUND’S 2001 ADVERTISEMENT, OFFERING TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS, FOR HIRE, IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HIS ETHICAL STANDARDS.
JVB
This post has been edited by Glenn Viklund: Today, 11:46 AM
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='187140' date='Mar 17 2010, 12:43 PM']I promised a summation of my views on the asylum issue, and here it is.
These are the questions I directed to Judyth. I received no answers and have instead added my own suggestions.
1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?
Suggestion: There has been no such decision, anywhere. Not in the US, not in Europe. No stamps is simply just the result of crowded airports, lazy customs or something along these lines. It happens every day to tens of thousands of travelers. The reason for her to make something other than that out if this, is to add further credibility to all kinds of alledged threats.
2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation in my first posting – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?
Suggestion: Shackelford presented a document as proof of asylum (of some ”kind”, never mind that ”kind” of asylum did not and do not exist, that's not the point here.) Read my first posting here on EDU to see exactly what Shackelford said. This was NOT to prove her involvement in the process or that she was not in the country illegally. Judyth provided them with this view and that's what they went with.
To Martin Shackelford: I'll be briefly in the US this summer, I'll bring you a newly cooked Janssons Temptation and buy you a beer, just to get your take on this embarrasing fiasco. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that you're not to happy with how this thing transpired..I must also apologize to you. You did provide incorrect information, but only Pamela and Marsh criticized me with all kinds of nonsense for bringing this information forward. You did not, which I stated in my first posting here. For this, I apologize.
3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?
Suggestion: Basically the same reasons as given in the first question, see more related to this, below.
4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?
Suggestion: Well, that's a good question, considering how easy it is to determine that she tried everything, but had to leave. As I mentioned in my first posting, this fits well into the broader picture where she wants to give the impression of her making all the choices, her setting the agenda, her case being very special and claims along these lines.
5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Courts who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?
Suggestion: Does any Governmental Agency anywhere, ever do anything regarding Judyth without having some, dark sinister motive behind their actions? In this case she's suggesting that they somehow had to say they did not believe her story for reasons of political correctness. What this goes to show, is how little Judyth understand about how things work in Sweden. But of course, her side of this argument adds lots of weight to her more generally speaking. ”Yes, even Swedish Courts were afraid of to speak up”. But when reading the verdict, they did indeed speak up, loud and clear. Here's an example:
Judyth tells the Court: ”I have proof that I was kidnapped and harmed in Holland”. When motivating their decision, here's how the Court responded:
”Regarding the alledged kidnapping in Holland, this has not been elaborated on, and it nevertheless is not likely to have occured” [my translation]. Which of course is the bureaucratic, judicial version of saying: Sorry Ms Baker, we don't believe a word of this.
Really, a no brainer, this one.
6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?
Suggestion: No one ever told her this. In the rare exception, which her case was not, black out of sensitive parts is step one. Only in the extremely rare case does complete confidentiality of the Courts decisions apply. It goes without saying that every single official she ever got in touch with is well aware of this.
Admittedly, an inch of progress seems to have been made; Judyth, yesterday:
”The latest test is trying to discredit the very obvious fact that when I applied for political asylum, an action I took to escape death threats in Hungary, I was not immediately deported after they heard my case. No matter how many experts they drag out, the fact is that I was accepted for consideration, and even got a writ of inhibition, which is unusual. ”
Her asylum experience has now boiled down to ”I was accepted for consideration” which definitely is more in line with reality. Funny, as this is precisely what I stated in McAdams forum fifteen months ago. Which, at that point, resulted in bucket loads of yelling from her friends.
But, and I must agree with Jack White's brilliant way of putting it – it's hard when you have a moving target. Because despite this considerable return to reality, she once again changes the story. Now we are to understand that despite public records of all relevant decisions made and actions taken in her case, there is this thing with developments outside of the records. Things that are impossible to track down, of course.
Yes, and I said so in my first posting: Certainly they may have cut her a little slack about this and that, it's more than likely that they did. And certainly, I believe she was treated well, with lots of expressions of understanding for her situation from people around her, including, no doubt, officials.
However, there's a huge gap from this to all claims of special handlings in important aspects of Judyth's case. Whatever actions that was taken on her behalf ”on the ground”, none of it could have contradicted or added anything of significance as compared to what is to be found in the public records today. To suggest otherwise, if that is what she is now doing, is ridiculous. Had Judyth had anything else to say in relation to the questions I asked, she would certainly have done so.
I've gone through this very carefully. Looking at what Judyth says now and what she said through her friends back in 08. Going through the cases as they are officially outlined by the Swedish Courts. Having a few phone conversations with officials and having a few discussions with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. I'm an economist by profession and indeed used to check and double check the facts, prior to making any conclusions.
To re-iterate:
1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.
2. This was denied later that fall.
3. She immediately appealed this decision.
4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.
5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.
How these five simple facts could end up described as something very different is remarkable. And would indeed not normally be of any importance at all. In this particular case, however, I think the above is very revealing. Her story related to this fits well into how events often unfold when it comes to Judyth. There's a claim. She changes details when proven wrong. She accuses others of misrepresentations and worse. She makes new claims, and the story itself has now changed considerably.
An example is the above question about the lack of stamps in her passport. She has repeatedly claimed that this is done ”for her protection” - when, as I've shown, this is simply not true. But, this fits well into all, no matter unsubstanciated, of her claims that she is continously being hunted and threatened. To the Courts she says she has proof of this. Nonetheless she fails to produce any such evidence. The Courts leaves no doubts as to what their opinion is. And remember, this was the chance of a lifetime for Judyth. Not only could she have stayed, worked, received pension and lived in Sweden, but she could also have received ”governmental approval” of her need to get asylum. Think about that for a second. How would Judyth have been able to use a positive decision in her favour when it comes to telling her story? I'm sure most people in this forum can imagine at least some of the possibilities. Oh dear...
And yet. With all this at stake, she fails. And judging by the statements from the Courts, she failed miserably. No elaboration on these threats (which is absolutely remarkable, on the Internet forums she can elaborate until the end of times on just about anything), no proof and ”we do not believe this”. Period. In an earlier posting, I stated that she'd exhausted her options. Another example of this is that she filed for an ”Oral Hearing”, a sort of last resort where you can make your case verbally to the Court. This claim was flatly denied. They found no need to hear Judyth personally lay out her story. What does this suggest?
In her story there are quite a few of these incidents mentioned. Has she ever filed a report about any of these abuses and/or criminal actions that she claims to have been subjected to? Has anyone ever been charged? Has anyone ever been convicted? We're talking about serious crimes here, kidnapping, being run over by cars, attempted murder and the likes. It's certainly no nickel and dimes crimes.
To my knowledge, the answer is no to all of those questions. Having in mind that this refers to a considerable number of issues, this cannot be explained as a coincidence. It's a pattern. She claims this and she claims that, but she has no proof. She doesn't even bother to report all these extremely serious incidents. Her words are not supported by her actions.
So, with regards to the asylum issue all of this has meant adding a few, but important, facts that are not true, grossly and intentionally overstating the importance, especially as seen and dealt with by the government agency involved, of her case (and of herself), and repeatedly giving the wrong definition of her status in Sweden during this process.
Judyth has shown in this thread that she still does not understand, remarkable as it is for this no doubt intelligent woman, that her story is in the public domain. Thus, she never understood that what she did and that what she told Swedish authorities would be out in the open. That her actions to try to strengthen her story and credibility by connecting the asylum issue to the rest of her JFK-story, could ever be examined thoroughly.
But besides this, the above is clearly not how anyone who is telling the truth is behaving. It is, on the other hand, hallmarks of how people behave when they are dishonest. Judyth has done this before, is doing it here and will undoubtfully do just exactly this in the future. Counter arguments or questions are not allowed and are mostly defined as ”attacks”. Those who do not buy her story are ”personal attackers”. Errors in discussions are always primarily the shortcoming of others, while Judyth's mistakes are rare exceptions, and above all, have a variety of perfectly acceptable reasons.
Does it matter, why bother?
Obviously, I think it does. This asylum thing is not an isolated incident where she's had a bad day. All of us have bad days. When looking at the JVB story, it becomes abundantly clear to me that this is just a continuation of how matters had evolved long before she ever set foot in Europe. In one area after another, about one detail after another, the same familiar pattern was already established. I do not believe her story of how this asylum issue is connected to her earlier claims in the JFK-matter. I do not believe this story for the simple reason that the facts says otherwise. If this immense and ever changing flood of words from Judyth to even some minor degree was matched by facts, by proof, by other witnesses and/or by her own actions and behaviour, it could very well have been quite a different story. Judyth's Internet research now is not gone change this at all. No matter that this research may or may not add to the JFK debate.
And that, FWIW, sums it up on my part.[/quote]
NOTE: I would remind those new to this thread that
collusion between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams
has been established based upon exchanges between
them that are found in earlier posts on this very thread.
JUDYTH'S REPLIES ARE IN BOLD:
1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?
Who are you to dare ask such a question of a person you have never met and for whom you have only secondhand information. Further, do you think I would expose the agents who saved my life? Do you think I would place in my files everything pertaining to the case, knowing that snoopers such as you exist?
2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?
They are not “experts” (as you are) in technical legal terminology. They were only trying to help, when I was accused of being an illegal alien. My friends did not know that ‘granted political asylum’ is a term that could only be used after being granted ‘permanent political asylum’—something I told them would not happen.
3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?
You are wanting to hear motive in this loaded question. Let’s get to the ‘question’ : WAS it a “standard asylum seekers case”? I was an American woman with a service dog, handicapped, who had just come from another EU country and should have been sent right back to that other EU country. I was the first American non-combatant woman, I was told, in decades, to enter the system. After five days of inquiries, etc., they advised me I could never win the case, but I would receive help by being allowed into the system for my protection. Is any of this “standard?”
a) I came from Hungary and had been there only one month, yet was not returned to Hungary, as EU agreements specify. Was that standard? No.
B) I was granted inhibition: few people obtain it. Is inhibition “standard”?
c) I was not immediately deported to the US at the outset, even though the US is on a list of countries considered ‘safe.’ Is there another non-combatant American in the system anywhere? Why wasn’t ‘standard deportation’ upheld?
d) I was advised to make an appeal in person. Other kinds of appeals were also made, as I was guided on what to do so I could stay as long as possible until my family could help me. Such advice does not get into an official record. Why would it? I was also advised to appeal on Swedish national television to receive inhibition. After the TV appeal was made, inhibition was granted. That was not ‘standard.’
4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?
I exerted ‘every possible means’ because I faced real danger. I had to leave a good teaching job in Hungary, with free housing, free bus transport, health insurance, an annual plane ticket to the US, and $750/mo. teaching 25 hours a week total, for two high schools. I had prestige and good living conditions for a single person there.
Imagine how horrible it was to have to leave, due to death threats. How expensive.
My options were not exhausted regarding living in Sweden. I could have filed a third appeal from any country outside Sweden (or not) and then returned, to take a position in a company that offered to hire me so I could stay in Sweden. I could have stayed under a business residency permit. Such permits are good from six months to two years and are renewable. What business is this of yours, Mr. Vuklund?
5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Court who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?
Again, a loaded question. Asking ‘why’ is a common rhetorical ploy. You ask why and then add any old question to the ’why.’ The ploy tries to extricate information that has nothing to do with the question. It also makes a reader of the question suspicious of me instead of being suspicious of Mr. Viklund’s motives. BTW, Citation, please.
6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?
This intrusive question into my civil rights is none of your business. I have witnesses who will privately verify the fact to Dr. Fetzer and others who are of reputable character--who respect issues of privacy and human rights (unlike yourself) to reveal the names of the kind people who helped me.
I never said that the court decisions themselves would be kept confidential. I said you gave out information that shows you know more than you should have. You snooped.
In my view, these areas have a certain degree of importance, as far as her stay in Sweden. She has given all kinds of explanations and none of them can be corroborated with what is shown in the decisions from the Swedish Courts. Therefore, this is a good opportunity for her to straighten these things out, once and for all.
I have others as well, but as I stated yesterday, these would be a good start.
I have patiently responded to this person who called me mentally deranged on a public forum without the insult being removed by a moderator. I asked Mr. Viklund who HE worked for. When he failed to reply, I posted information available. He next asks:
So, Mr Fetzer, will you assist in making these issues clarified?
Mr. Viklund, a validated expert in translation and protocol, knows how to properly address the distinguished Dr. Fetzer. He refused to reveal his occupation, though he did not deny that he solicited people in a New York ad to hire him to conduct private internet investigations to obtain information, with himself as “source” to be kept confidential. Have a nice day.
FINAL STATEMENT:
I ASK THAT THIS FINAL RESPONSE TO MR. VIKLUND, WHO HAS DARED ASK WHO MY (CONFIDENTIAL) HANDLERS WERE, BE POSTED AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, WITH THE STATEMENT “MR. VIKLUND IS NOW INFORMED, SINCE HE WAS ALLOWED TO POST ABUSE OF JUDYTH BAKER AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, BY STATING THAT SHE HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS, THAT SHE WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO ANYTHING MR. VIGLUND POSTS OR ASKS. JUDYTH BAKER HAS RELIED AS PATIENTLY AND POLITELY AS POSSIBLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.
MR. VIKLUND’S 2001 ADVERTISEMENT, OFFERING TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS, FOR HIRE, IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HIS ETHICAL STANDARDS.
JVB
This post has been edited by Glenn Viklund: Today, 11:46 AM
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='187140' date='Mar 17 2010, 12:43 PM']I promised a summation of my views on the asylum issue, and here it is.
These are the questions I directed to Judyth. I received no answers and have instead added my own suggestions.
1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?
Suggestion: There has been no such decision, anywhere. Not in the US, not in Europe. No stamps is simply just the result of crowded airports, lazy customs or something along these lines. It happens every day to tens of thousands of travelers. The reason for her to make something other than that out if this, is to add further credibility to all kinds of alledged threats.
2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation in my first posting – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?
Suggestion: Shackelford presented a document as proof of asylum (of some ”kind”, never mind that ”kind” of asylum did not and do not exist, that's not the point here.) Read my first posting here on EDU to see exactly what Shackelford said. This was NOT to prove her involvement in the process or that she was not in the country illegally. Judyth provided them with this view and that's what they went with.
To Martin Shackelford: I'll be briefly in the US this summer, I'll bring you a newly cooked Janssons Temptation and buy you a beer, just to get your take on this embarrasing fiasco. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that you're not to happy with how this thing transpired..I must also apologize to you. You did provide incorrect information, but only Pamela and Marsh criticized me with all kinds of nonsense for bringing this information forward. You did not, which I stated in my first posting here. For this, I apologize.
3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?
Suggestion: Basically the same reasons as given in the first question, see more related to this, below.
4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?
Suggestion: Well, that's a good question, considering how easy it is to determine that she tried everything, but had to leave. As I mentioned in my first posting, this fits well into the broader picture where she wants to give the impression of her making all the choices, her setting the agenda, her case being very special and claims along these lines.
5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Courts who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?
Suggestion: Does any Governmental Agency anywhere, ever do anything regarding Judyth without having some, dark sinister motive behind their actions? In this case she's suggesting that they somehow had to say they did not believe her story for reasons of political correctness. What this goes to show, is how little Judyth understand about how things work in Sweden. But of course, her side of this argument adds lots of weight to her more generally speaking. ”Yes, even Swedish Courts were afraid of to speak up”. But when reading the verdict, they did indeed speak up, loud and clear. Here's an example:
Judyth tells the Court: ”I have proof that I was kidnapped and harmed in Holland”. When motivating their decision, here's how the Court responded:
”Regarding the alledged kidnapping in Holland, this has not been elaborated on, and it nevertheless is not likely to have occured” [my translation]. Which of course is the bureaucratic, judicial version of saying: Sorry Ms Baker, we don't believe a word of this.
Really, a no brainer, this one.
6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?
Suggestion: No one ever told her this. In the rare exception, which her case was not, black out of sensitive parts is step one. Only in the extremely rare case does complete confidentiality of the Courts decisions apply. It goes without saying that every single official she ever got in touch with is well aware of this.
Admittedly, an inch of progress seems to have been made; Judyth, yesterday:
”The latest test is trying to discredit the very obvious fact that when I applied for political asylum, an action I took to escape death threats in Hungary, I was not immediately deported after they heard my case. No matter how many experts they drag out, the fact is that I was accepted for consideration, and even got a writ of inhibition, which is unusual. ”
Her asylum experience has now boiled down to ”I was accepted for consideration” which definitely is more in line with reality. Funny, as this is precisely what I stated in McAdams forum fifteen months ago. Which, at that point, resulted in bucket loads of yelling from her friends.
But, and I must agree with Jack White's brilliant way of putting it – it's hard when you have a moving target. Because despite this considerable return to reality, she once again changes the story. Now we are to understand that despite public records of all relevant decisions made and actions taken in her case, there is this thing with developments outside of the records. Things that are impossible to track down, of course.
Yes, and I said so in my first posting: Certainly they may have cut her a little slack about this and that, it's more than likely that they did. And certainly, I believe she was treated well, with lots of expressions of understanding for her situation from people around her, including, no doubt, officials.
However, there's a huge gap from this to all claims of special handlings in important aspects of Judyth's case. Whatever actions that was taken on her behalf ”on the ground”, none of it could have contradicted or added anything of significance as compared to what is to be found in the public records today. To suggest otherwise, if that is what she is now doing, is ridiculous. Had Judyth had anything else to say in relation to the questions I asked, she would certainly have done so.
I've gone through this very carefully. Looking at what Judyth says now and what she said through her friends back in 08. Going through the cases as they are officially outlined by the Swedish Courts. Having a few phone conversations with officials and having a few discussions with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. I'm an economist by profession and indeed used to check and double check the facts, prior to making any conclusions.
To re-iterate:
1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.
2. This was denied later that fall.
3. She immediately appealed this decision.
4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.
5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.
How these five simple facts could end up described as something very different is remarkable. And would indeed not normally be of any importance at all. In this particular case, however, I think the above is very revealing. Her story related to this fits well into how events often unfold when it comes to Judyth. There's a claim. She changes details when proven wrong. She accuses others of misrepresentations and worse. She makes new claims, and the story itself has now changed considerably.
An example is the above question about the lack of stamps in her passport. She has repeatedly claimed that this is done ”for her protection” - when, as I've shown, this is simply not true. But, this fits well into all, no matter unsubstanciated, of her claims that she is continously being hunted and threatened. To the Courts she says she has proof of this. Nonetheless she fails to produce any such evidence. The Courts leaves no doubts as to what their opinion is. And remember, this was the chance of a lifetime for Judyth. Not only could she have stayed, worked, received pension and lived in Sweden, but she could also have received ”governmental approval” of her need to get asylum. Think about that for a second. How would Judyth have been able to use a positive decision in her favour when it comes to telling her story? I'm sure most people in this forum can imagine at least some of the possibilities. Oh dear...
And yet. With all this at stake, she fails. And judging by the statements from the Courts, she failed miserably. No elaboration on these threats (which is absolutely remarkable, on the Internet forums she can elaborate until the end of times on just about anything), no proof and ”we do not believe this”. Period. In an earlier posting, I stated that she'd exhausted her options. Another example of this is that she filed for an ”Oral Hearing”, a sort of last resort where you can make your case verbally to the Court. This claim was flatly denied. They found no need to hear Judyth personally lay out her story. What does this suggest?
In her story there are quite a few of these incidents mentioned. Has she ever filed a report about any of these abuses and/or criminal actions that she claims to have been subjected to? Has anyone ever been charged? Has anyone ever been convicted? We're talking about serious crimes here, kidnapping, being run over by cars, attempted murder and the likes. It's certainly no nickel and dimes crimes.
To my knowledge, the answer is no to all of those questions. Having in mind that this refers to a considerable number of issues, this cannot be explained as a coincidence. It's a pattern. She claims this and she claims that, but she has no proof. She doesn't even bother to report all these extremely serious incidents. Her words are not supported by her actions.
So, with regards to the asylum issue all of this has meant adding a few, but important, facts that are not true, grossly and intentionally overstating the importance, especially as seen and dealt with by the government agency involved, of her case (and of herself), and repeatedly giving the wrong definition of her status in Sweden during this process.
Judyth has shown in this thread that she still does not understand, remarkable as it is for this no doubt intelligent woman, that her story is in the public domain. Thus, she never understood that what she did and that what she told Swedish authorities would be out in the open. That her actions to try to strengthen her story and credibility by connecting the asylum issue to the rest of her JFK-story, could ever be examined thoroughly.
But besides this, the above is clearly not how anyone who is telling the truth is behaving. It is, on the other hand, hallmarks of how people behave when they are dishonest. Judyth has done this before, is doing it here and will undoubtfully do just exactly this in the future. Counter arguments or questions are not allowed and are mostly defined as ”attacks”. Those who do not buy her story are ”personal attackers”. Errors in discussions are always primarily the shortcoming of others, while Judyth's mistakes are rare exceptions, and above all, have a variety of perfectly acceptable reasons.
Does it matter, why bother?
Obviously, I think it does. This asylum thing is not an isolated incident where she's had a bad day. All of us have bad days. When looking at the JVB story, it becomes abundantly clear to me that this is just a continuation of how matters had evolved long before she ever set foot in Europe. In one area after another, about one detail after another, the same familiar pattern was already established. I do not believe her story of how this asylum issue is connected to her earlier claims in the JFK-matter. I do not believe this story for the simple reason that the facts says otherwise. If this immense and ever changing flood of words from Judyth to even some minor degree was matched by facts, by proof, by other witnesses and/or by her own actions and behaviour, it could very well have been quite a different story. Judyth's Internet research now is not gone change this at all. No matter that this research may or may not add to the JFK debate.
And that, FWIW, sums it up on my part.[/quote]