What preceded The End Of Debt To Bankers
*************************************
Date: August 19, 2021
To Swiss Presidents and Government
Confidential till August 23, 2021
Either under your silent/criminal approval, or by your direct order, your subordinates turned Swiss law into a weapon. You are KILLING ME BY THE LAW! By YOUR highly manipulated law that shouldn't be (and presumably wasn't) designed for killing. That also may be interpreted as an attempt to kill the Divine Laws that have been the foundation of the world's legislation for thousands years.
Please keep in mind that in accordance with the bulla of Pope Francis (see my letter to him), you and your government lost any immunity against criminal charges, including legal responsibility for YOUR ATTEMPTS OF MURDERING me since 2019,
both in the form of (a) deporting me by force into place of danger to my life (explicitely discussed during SEM's interview), and (b) killing me by hunger and poverty (Financial Genocide ) due to restrictions for me in my home country for most legitimate jobs, and even staying in hotels and hostels,
whether it was done in illegal financial interests of your subordinates, your personal political interests, or for supporting the fraudulent avoidance of paying debts by the international banking group Barclays with its branches in Switzerland.
Double law is not a law by definition! However, my experience of dealing with laws of Switzerland evidenced that Swiss lawmakers (under silent /criminal/ approval by Swiss Presidents and Government) have INTEGRATED this "doubleness" into the Swiss legislation system! The example of that abuse (that I faced personally) includes the main Asylum Act (AsyIA) of Switzerland, which reserves for the state a right for any(!) final decision.
I have all reasons to believe that a similar principle is deeply integrated in oher Swiss laws, which means the End Of Swiss Law! Together with the End of Swiss Government on the top of it.
Many
lawyers stress a disproportionately exclusive status of the Swiss
state for decisions about asylum. In particular, they suggest asylum
seekers always keep in mind the state has an exclusive right for
taking any final decision. By advocating this feature, Swiss
lawmakers obviously overdid about desire to secure their rights for
more than 100%. However, appearing because of them at the edge
between life and death, I am turning that super advantage into their
biggest failure!
Well, traditionally, in international law, the right of asylum has been viewed as the right of a state, rather than the right of an individual. Morgenstern (see supra note 7, at 335) argues the asylum seeker "has no general 'right' of asylum against the state" (Source).
The Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1967 provides in Article 1(1) that "asylum granted by a State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ...". Further, Article 1(3) of this Declaration vests the state of asylum with the authority "to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum.' While the second aspect of the right of asylum is the right of an individual to seek asylum. And that is not the crime, as Swiss authorities fraudulently tried to convince me for justifying their general lack of RESPECT for me during dealing with my case,
- including absolutely unnecessory, yet highly embarrassed types of searches carried by Swiss police, called by SEM despite having their own highly paid security staff (who had the monthly salary exceeding 10,000 US$ per month, according to their personal confessions to me, - absolutely impossible reward for that kind of job in my country); temporal, yet absolutely illegal placing me in a criminal prizon of Zurich, the tiny cell with local criminals, -
which ultimately resulted in illegal deportation me by force, HANDCUFFED, to the country of my origin, against the international Principle of Non-Refoulement!
The third component right under the umbrella of the right of asylum is the right of an individual to be granted asylum. "Although Grotius and Suarez are said to have recognized the right of asylum as the natural right of an individual entailing a corresponding state duty to grant asylum, this view has not yet been generally recognized under international law."
Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the right of an individual "to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution", - despite that the right for asylum was a part of original design. However, by substituting the words "to enjoy" for the words "to be granted" in Article 14(1), the drafters indicated their desire not to oblige states to grant asylum to individuals. During discussions on the draft Covenant at the Seventh Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Yugoslavian representative voiced a concern that the right to asylum was absent from the draft. The Yugoslavian representative proposed an additional article to the Covenant, providing for an individual's right of asylum. This proposal failed, however, because many representatives did not consider the right of asylum to be an individual's fundamental right.
However, this raises the questions most Swiss lawyers prefer do not ask in public:
Why Switzerland introduced, - and officially legalized!, - the law that may not be considered a law at all? Existence of the reserved for one specific party (state) an exclusive right to enforce any decision, at least at the Swiss asylum "laws", violate the Golden Rule for equality of the law for everyone!
Why Switzerland call it a law? It simply may not be called a Law!
I demand to ABOLISH Swiss Asylum Law!
In the interests of all asylum seekers!
Obviously, with possibility of contesting all previous decicions
of the Swiss SEM and Federal Court in millions of other cases!
Including my own case.
What is a sense for asylum seekers in existence of such complicated thing as Swiss Asylum Act (AsiIA), - the awkward framework with a reserved opportunity for any decision in interests of the opposite party?
It creates a false illusion for the international community about existence of a formal legitimacy for the SEM/court's decisions on Swiss asylum. While politicians only are the biggest beneficiaries for existence of such "asylum laws". The whole army of otherwise useless related lawmakers, lawyers, and judges get quite decent payment for doing the job, result of which is not needed without state's order by anybody in the world!
They have replaced the law with their own personal tool endowing them with the power of God's scale to do everything they want to. But they are not Gods!
See more about contradictions of Swiss legislation in my
Re. "End Of World Law!"
Swiss
SEM Federal Ministry advised me to forget the story of their
embarrassing deporting me to my country hancuffed, and start
everything anew. That is, to go back into their system, where state
has exclusive rights for generating any decision! Considering amount
of the problems the state artificially created for me early, it's
easy to predict its future decision is going to be negative. Starting
from the legal need for its 100% rejection because of my appearing in
home country, about which professional lawyers of the SEM must know.
What kind of a double-faced advice was that?
***
If Switzerland in general, and leaders of its SEM in particular, do not see me as the future citizen of this country, despite all my loyalty and high education, the Settlement should compensate me the savings the SEM did at my expense since 2019. In particular,
(1) towards purchasing/renting an apartment or home, - of Swiss quality and price!, - in a country of my choice;
(2) financial source of basic income stolen from me by the SEM in result of its fraudulent rejection of my Swiss asylum status, which nearly cost me my life after returning to my home country;
(3) reimbursing my losses for the future, caused by SEM's cancellation of my possibilities for earning in rich Switzerland, once corresponding rights for a job would be provided to me since approval my Swiss asylum status in 2019.
The URGENT sending of the first money transfer for $5,000 to my name via Western Union instant service in Ukraine is a must.
Main
financial resources related to such Settlement should be located at
savings accounts of a respectful Swiss bank, with official assurance
of the state in the legitimacy of origin for this source of income
for me.
No banking loan or any kind of debt in the Future will be considered! The proposed Settlement simply recovers Swiss actions of the Past and Present.
The Settlement also assumes canceling all fees and related fines of Swiss Federal Court it issued to me in 2019 for my appealing to it, as illegal.
It also assumes cancelling the Swiss prohibition for my visiting Switzerland (and Liechtenstein that I never visited), including all related restrictions for entering the EU, if any.
Otherwise,
I will be forced to profit exclusively from taking corresponding
actions with announcing the precedent of abolishing the whole
legislative system of Switzerland, - together with shameful dismissal
of Swiss Presidents and their Government, and charges for their
attempts of killing me by artificially created poverty, - as the only
possible source of income you left for me.
In
interests of a great amount of legal Swiss residents, who trusted to
this country their capitals and the Future of their families, I
propose to Swiss Government to make a positive desicion for this
proposal ASAP,
- by August 23, 2021
By that date the process of the Settlement
should be completely implemented.
(You had several YEARS for the preparations).
Sincerely,
Sergiy Beloy,
Creator of The Global Anti-Theft (GAT) Regulator,
Msc. in Information Management (degree with Distinction from the University of East London, UK)
Re. my recent letters to Swiss Government, SEM, UN:
BMoney2017.blogspot.com/2021/07/swiss-future-at-stake.html
BMoney2017.blogspot.com/2021/07/to-swiss-presidents-update.html
BMoney2017.blogspot.com/2021/08/switzerland-celebrates-end-of-money.html
No comments:
Post a Comment