|
May 11, 2007
|
Confirmation of Claim to Political Refugee Status in New Zealand
|
| |
- Justice Gendall, Memo NZ High Court , Question re NZ Deportation Policy, Aug 22, 2006
- Crown Reply to Memo and Wilfred Rebuttal to Errors of Fact and Disposition, Sept, 2006
- Wilfred Application for Swiss Residency, Oct 25, 2006
- Swiss Dept of Justice, Response and Legal Opinion re Wilfred Refugee Eligibility, Nov 28, 2006
- New Zealand / UNHCR Confirmation of Claim to Refugee Status, May 11, 2007, Claim #7440099
- Petition and Complaint presented to United Nations Human Rights
Council on April 12, 2007 Against the United States and the State of
Colorado. ref: UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251
|
Section 34
discusses the process by which Harmon finally concluded that the only
way his rights would be fully restored and his safety and freedom
assured was to apply for political refugee status in New Zealand under
the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Awaiting
a discretionary decision of the Associate Minister of Immigration for
the opportunity of receiving lawful status in New Zealand, after having
received two strikes against him by the Removal Review Authority and the
New Zealand High Court would seem at best tenuous, and at worst a
pending human rights disaster. The Associate Minister’s potential
“strike three you’re out!” scenario becomes a logical conclusion based,
not only on the momentum of the first two court decisions, but also
Justice Gendall's Memo exchange with the Crown, discussing NZIS
deportation procedures. The final Case Dismissal included the option of
deportation, if not to the US, then Canada. This recommendation
persisted in spite of the fact that Canada is documented as a partner
with the US in the judicial and human rights abuses against Harmon and
his children. Harmon has been informed by government sources that such a move could publicly and politically be construed as setting
an unwanted precedent in offering a stateless person any lawful status
in New Zealand when New Zealand is clearly not a member of the UN
Convention on stateless persons:
Discussions with
Harmon’s attorney, Al Manco as well as his local Member of Parliament,
Hon David Carter speculated that the best he could expect to receive
from New Zealand Immigration under an offering of “lawful status” was an
ID card with a work permit, with no right to travel wherein it could
take up to 10 years to obtain NZ citizenship and finally the right to
travel via an international passport. The obvious
result of the anticipated discretionary decision ranges from a forced
deportation ending up back in the hands of the US justice system and the
CIA, or essentially a lengthy term of lawful exile in New Zealand.
With
these prospects in mind, it was an easy decision to begin the process
of making an application for residency in Switzerland in October, 2006
(see attached Wilfred Applies for Swiss Residency PDF). Harmon
and Carolyn have close business associates in Zurich, Switzerland with a
furnished apartment nearby, utilized for their regular business visits
before Harmon’s US passport was cancelled. The
result of this effort, although the application itself could not be
considered, was to receive an unsolicited legal opinion and
recommendation from the Swiss Department of Justice, Federal Office for
Migration (see attached Swiss DOJ Answer and Opinion PDF). The Swiss recommendation pointed out the following in part:
“New
Zealand, which is not a signatory state to the 1954 Convention relating
to the Status of Stateless Persons, now refuses him [Mr. Wilfred] a
residence permit. On the other hand, your client explicitly claims that
were he to be deported to the United States by New Zealand authorities,
‘further violations of his human rights will be assured to the extent
that he realistically fears for his life’.……
If
the latter is true, he has the possibility to file an application for
refugee status in New Zealand, as it is a signatory to the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (ratification of 30th June, 1960). You can find detailed information under www.unhcr.org.au/nzqanda.shtml.
Article 33 of the Convention stipulates that states shall not expel or
return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers
of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened…. Moreover,
according to Article 28, the states must issue refugees lawfully
staying in their territory, travel documents for the purpose of travel
outside their territory.
As New Zealand is a democratic country that upholds the rule of law, and fulfills its international obligations, it will not deny your client the protection he needs. [emphasis mine]”
With
the misgivings of a process in New Zealand that has been not only
exorbitantly expensive, but also dismally dysfunctional from a common
sense perspective; Harmon has made up his mind from this point forward
to place his confidence in the over arching authority of the United
Nations. His hope is that New Zealand, as a
member and signatory to the UNDHR, as well as the UN Convention for
Refugees, will honour their long standing commitment to human rights and
grant him due process, and thereby approve his bid for political
refugee status that will finally end his status as a persona non grata
and be officially accepted once again as a free and sovereign individual
on planet earth.
In
addition to his bid for UNHCR political asylum in New Zealand, Harmon’s
good friend and business associate, international attorney Major Guneet
Chaudhary of Jurisconsultus in New Delhi, India has also submitted
Harmon’s human rights Petition and Complaint
to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland
against the United States and the State of Colorado. You may read about
the UN Human Rights Council forums and procedures, and view the Mandate
of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) by
accessing the following links:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UN Human Rights Council, Complaints Procedure OHCHR Mandate
Index of PDF Documents in Case History Section 34:
Pg 1-3 Justice Gendall Memo, re NZIS Deportation Policy, Aug 22, 2006
Pg 1-3 Crown Reply to Justice Gendall Memo, re NZIS Deportation Policy, Sep 1, 2006
Pg 1-11 Wilfred Rebuttal to Crown Reply re NZIS Deportation Policy, Sep 13, 2006
Pg 1-3 Wilfred Application for Swiss Residency, Oct 25, 2006
Pg 1-4 Swiss Dept of Justice, Answer and Opinion, Nov 28, 2006
Pg 1 Wilfred vs USA and State of Colorado, Petition and Complaint, UNHRC, April 12, 2007
