The lookout was located in the primary inspection line booth and contained a photograph of you. The lookout notice stipulated that you were to be referred to immigration secondary if seen on the primary line by a Custom's inspector. I suggest to you that given this evidence, if you had in fact shown your British passport, the mere sight of it would have generated more than a cursory look from the Custom's inspector at Douglas, B.C. on the evening of October 30, 1992.

Other persuasive evidence comes from Mr. Harold Musetesiu and Mr. Kevin Tufford, both of whom are immigration investigators from Toronto. They have made sworn statutory declarations that they spoke with you on November 01, 1992 at the Primrose Hotel in Toronto (exhibits C-9/10).

You were asked if you had left Canada at any time since your inquiry in Vancouver on Friday October 30, 1992, entered the United States then reentered Canada. You told the officers that you had remained in Canada continuously since your arrest in Victoria, British Columbia.

You acknowledge that you made this statement to the officers but did so because you did not believe Mr. Musetesiu was an immigration official. You had doubts about him because he was not wearing a uniform as immigration personnel apparently do in Britain and because he was wearing fatigue pants, a black t-shirt and a leather jacket, had long hair and an earring.

Mr. Musetesiu was called as a witness. He testified that upon arrival at the Primrose hotel he spoke with Wolfgang Droge, who was involved in the organization of your lecture. Mr. Droge was asked to summon you to an adjacent empty banquet room. Mr. Droge and Mr. Musetesiu are well known to each other from previous dealings with each other. Mr. Droge introduced Musetesiu to you as an immigration officer and Musetesiu testified that he showed you his badge and identification card to you at the outset of your interview with him which you have denied. Upon return to the lecture room, you had lingering doubts about Mr. Musetesiu so you sent your assistant, Paul Norris to confirm his credentials, which he did. Later that same evening you encountered Mr. Musetesiu in the elevator of the hotel and you again asked to see his ID which he showed you reluctantly.

Even if you were not entirely satisfied that Mr. Musetesiu was a immigration officer, you had to believe that it was at least a possibility, in light of your introduction by Mr. Droge and the line of questioning that followed in your interview by the officers. I am at a loss as to why you simply would not have told the officers that you had left Canada and reentered, if this was in fact what had happened. You have offered no reasonable explanation as to why you felt compelled not to tell the truth. If you were so leery of Mr. Musetesiu why would you not just simply refuse any of their questions and walk away.

In assessing your evidence as a whole, you have been unable to persuade me that you did leave Canada on October 30, 1992. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting your evidence. It did it not have the ring of truth to it, but observing you and listening to your testimony, I could not help but get the impression that you were at times re-citing a rehearsed script. I found you to a difficult witness who was often confrontational with the Case presenting officer when he asked you straight forward questions.

When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one conclusion; the event was a total fabrication and never took place. I can only speculate that you and your supporters concocted your story to garner further publicity and prolong your stay in Canada, both of which you have done with some success. [Emphasis Nizkor's] That being the case I find that the action taken by Canadian Immigration authorities at Niagara Falls on November 1, 1992 was based on facts that at the time appeared indisputable and have now been found to have been valid, namely that you were at the time of your attempted entry to the United States on November 1, 1992 a person to whom a departure notice had been issued but who had not been granted lawful permission to be in the United States.

Accordingly, I find you to be a person described in paragraph 27(2)(i) of the Immigration Act in that you are a person in Canada other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, who left Canada on or before the date spesified in a departure notice but has been allowed into Canada pursuant to paragraph 14(1)(C).

Consequently pursuant to section 32(6) of the Immigration Act you are hereby ordered deported.

DATED AT NIAGARA FALLS THIS 13 DAY OF NOVEMBER 1992. [signature] Kenneth Thomson Adjudicator

The original plaintext version of this file is available via ftp.

[ Previous | Index | Irving Index ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]