TTSOML #142: Elements Required For Political Asylum

Besides the fact that most every country has put the U.S. on a "white list" which is the presumption it is a "safe" country, and that asylum is automatically unnecessary, there are grounds and elements which must be met for obtaining a successful outcome in the application for political asylum.

1. Evidence of harassment by police is one. If it is through the FBI, it shows a nationwide possibility that such an organization or persons within, who may track you, cannot be escaped.

2. You must be able to prove you moved to a new location and that the problems continued to happen in a new location.

3. Unresponsiveness of law enforcement to crimes against a person. For example, the refusal of police to analyse evidence of a rape is the same thing as permitting the crime to happen and going along with it. If someone can prove they had crime happen to them and police continue to refuse to investigate it, or show prejudice, it can help a claim.

4. Crime against a person BY law enforcement. This shows abuse of authority and that there is a political or governmental interest and if it is not investigated, it shows concealment of crime by the government, obstruction of justice, and possible corruption.

5. False arrest. Especially wehre there is false arrest immediately following an attempt to get a story out, about the FBI, to the media. It shows intimidation and the curtailment of free speech.

6. There must be element of "torture" or events which would cause reasonable distress: to fit this criteria, things like sexual assault, which is not investigated, is acceptable, as is false arrest. Being imprisoned without cause is sufficient ground and goes to show one is being targeted.

7. It is not enough to simply be harassed by a group of people in the U.S., or to have crime committed against a person which is never investigated. It must be proved that law enforcement or persons in the government were directly involved and involved in the cover up of such crime. One must also be able to prove that you sought aid and protection, to no avail. You must be able to prove a whole hearted effort to secure protection and justice from ones own government.

8. Any form of physical injury which may have a connection to law enforcement or which is not investigated, is an element which may be included. Also permissable is harassment by persons wthin the justice system while one has been wrongly imprisoned.

9. Documentation is best, whenever possible, to be able to prove event occured and the damages which resulted. For example, if I'm claiming police were not responsive to investigate gross car vandalism which occured not just in Oregon but also in Washington, it is good to be able to prove these vandalisms were witnessed by others and that you were a target. Which is why I obtained sworn statements from neighbors in Wenatchee, where they were able to verify the number of car vandalisms, and that they believed I was targeted when no one else ion the neighborhood was, and to what degree and severity.

10. Death threats which are not properly investigated by law enforcement.

Documentation, such as FOIA reports from the FBI, which would prove my numerous attempts to get records, are good. A notation in any criminal database, which may be used to show I was being slandered or written up in a way which would invite further abuse or unresponsive treatment, is good.

Physical records of physical abuse and assault are also good. Records that I submitted to a DNA test and had photos taken, and then nothing was done, is good documentation.

My case met enough of the criteria for political asylum to be a legitimate candidate. If you look at international laws governing grounds for political asylum, although it may sound extreme, given the FBIs role in what happened to me, and the police harassment, false arrest, and harassment by the Catholic church, and death warnings, I have grounds.

The only thing is that while it would be sufficient for someone in almost every other country, it is not enough and is made null and void simply because the U.S. is automatically considered to be a "safe country" where such things never happen and no one is ever targeted.

I will include a link about grounds for political asylum here. Basically, political asylum is sanctuary from ones own country and/or people within it, where it can be proven ones own government did nothing to curtail crime and harassment or persecution.

Typically, it cannot be random crime or persecution, but must contain elements where one is persecuted by a particular religious group (in my case, members of the Catholic church and their lawyers and law enforcement with ties to the Catholic church), or where one is being punished by espousing, publicising, or speaking about matters which concern the government or persons within the government or law enforcement.

Also good for proofs is the record of Washington state and their removal of my son without grounds, and concealment of our injuries at medical places. Documentation that "the department" was trying to screw us and that they lied on the record, to fit their own agenda, is sufficient grounds. The refusal of any governmental agency to look into allegations of such conduct, and take care of impropriety by "the state" is also grounds. If "the department" is guilty of persecuting me and separating family for their own agenda and to support the agenda of others, and no one intercedes from another governmental agency, after requests for help have been exhausted, this is grounds for asylum or refugee status.

I made more than enough attempts to get help. Even as my son was being taken from me, and I was denied resaonable public defense, and denied discovery prior to fact finding, as my son was pulled out of my arms, no one did anything to help me or my son. And many people within "the department", Weantchee, Oregon and Washington justice systems, and all the way to the East Coast NYC and D.C. offices, I had tried to make my voice heard and I was refused justice. The refusal to assist was not just limited to one small location, but was fairly nationwide. I tried to get help outside of my own area to be able to prove I had tried to get assistance in other locations, to no avail.

If I continue to have problems with CPS, especially after changing locations, and there is still stalling, lying, and attempts to keep me from being reuinited promptly with my son, this can also be used to prove grounds. It would then prove not only Wenatchee CPS, but that an organization which is under a national umbrella, still has people within it who are trying to tamper with the truth and delay or stall. On it's own it would be nothing, but all of the things together, are enough to prove persecution.

Below I've included wiki information about the right to asylum and I'll try to find another organization website which I found helpful long ago, when I was trying to find out what the laws were, and what my rights were. I told Christa I knew I had grounds for political asylum and if I got it, for myself and my son, and then was able to live a normal life elsewhere, it would prove all the slander was wrong about me. Some people didn't want this. Imagine.

The problem is, the Catholic church is everywhere, and this has been the root of the problems for me. Not all are bad within the church, but too many with connections to this church AND concurrent connections with law enforcement have defamed me, deprived my son and I of justice, harassed and abused us, and caused problems. The best thing would be to go to a country where there is not as strong of a Catholic influence, especially in the intelligence, justice systems, law enforcement, and social services or other "state" or governmental fields.

And a country would have to be willing to make a special exception for me and my son, and acknowledge there are needs for medical care which should be met, especially for my son. It would aso need to be a country that isn't afraid of a free spirited and vocal woman. Humanitarian and other aid is given usually, without looking at what contributions one can bring to the country, but I think my child and I have a lot to offer. As long as we are not a drain on any countries economy and can be somewhat self-sufficient, I do not see why my son and I are not an advantage to any country. I am still able to do anything I put my mind to, as long as there are not bullies holding me back.

*************
Right of asylum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right of asylum (or political asylum) is an ancient judicial notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign country, or Church sanctuaries (as in medieval times). Political asylum should not be mistaken with modern refugee law, which rather deals with massive influx of population, while the right of asylum concerns individuals and is usually delivered in a case-to-case basis.[verification needed] However, the two may somehow overlap, since each refugee may demand to be accorded on an individual basis political asylum. This right has its roots in a longstanding Western tradition—although it was already recognized by the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Hebrews—Descartes went to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France (followed by many English nobles during the English Civil War), etc. Each state offered protection to foreign persecuted persons. However, the development in the 20th century of bilateral extradition treaties has endangered the right of asylum, although international law considers that a state has no obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.
Contents
[hide]
1 Medieval right of asylum
2 Modern political asylum
2.1 Right of Asylum in France
2.2 Right of Asylum in the United Kingdom
2.3 Right of Asylum in the United States
3 See also
4 References
[edit]Medieval right of asylum



Remains of one of four medieval stone boundary markers for the sanctuary of Saint John of Beverley in the East Riding of Yorkshire


Medieval boundary marker at St. Georgenberg, Tyrol
See also: Sanctuary
Many ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, recognized a religious "right of asylum," protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent. This principle was later adopted by the established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.
According to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderers, thieves or people accused of adultery. It also concerned the fugitive slave, who would however be handed back to his owner if this one swore on the Bible not to be cruel. This Christian right of asylum was confirmed by all following councils.
In England, King Ethelbert made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about 600 A.D. By the Norman era after 1066, there had evolved two kinds of sanctuary: all churches had the lower-level kind (sanctuary within the church proper), but only churches licensed by the king had a broader version (sanctuary in a zone surrounding the church). There were at least twenty-two churches with charters for a broader kind of sanctuary, including Battle Abbey, Beverley (see image, right), Colchester, Durham, Hexham, Norwich, Ripon, Wells, Winchester Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and York Minster.
Sometimes the criminal had to get to the church itself to be protected, and might have to ring a certain bell there, or hold a certain ring or door-knocker, or sit on a certain chair ("frith-stool"), and some of these items survive at various churches. In other places, there was an area around the church or abbey, sometimes extending as much as a mile and a half, and there would be stone "sanctuary crosses" marking the boundary of the area; some of those still exist as well. Thus it could become a race between the felon and medieval law officers to the nearest sanctuary boundary, and could make the serving of justice a difficult proposition.
Church sanctuaries were regulated by common law. An asylum seeker was to confess sins, surrender weapons, and be placed under the supervision of the head of the church or abbey where the had fled. They then had forty days to make one of two choices: surrender to secular authorities and stand trial for the alleged crimes, or confess their guilt and be sent into exile (abjure the realm), by the shortest route and never return without the king's permission. Anyone who did come back could be executed by the law and/or excommunicated by the Church.
If the suspect chose to confess their guilt and abjure, they would do so in a public ceremony, usually at the gate of the church grounds. They would surrender their possessions to the church, and any landed property to the crown. The coroner, a medieval official, would then choose a port city from which the fugitive should leave England (though the fugitive sometimes had this privilege). The fugitive would set out barefooted and bareheaded, carrying a wooden cross-staff as a symbol of protection under the church. Theoretically they would stay to the main highway, reach the port and take the first ship out of England. In practice, however, the fugitive could get a safe distance away, abandon the cross-staff and take off and start a new life. However, one can safely assume the friends and relatives of the victim knew of this ploy and would do everything in their power to make sure this did not happen; or indeed that the fugitive never reached their intended port of call, becoming a victim of vigilante justice under the pretense of a fugitive who wandered too far off the main highway while trying to "escape."
Knowing the grim options, some fugitives rejected both choices and opted for an escape from the asylum before the forty days were up. Others simply made no choice and did nothing. Since it was illegal for the victim's friends to break into an asylum, the church would deprive the fugitive of food and water until a decision was made.
Henry VIII changed the rules of asylum, reducing to a short list the types of crimes which were allowed to claim asylum. The medieval system of asylum was finally abolished entirely by James 1 in 1623.
During the Wars of the Roses, when the Yorkists or Lancastrians would suddenly get the upper hand by winning a battle, some adherents of the losing side might find themselves surrounded by adherents of the other side and not able to get back to their own side. Upon realizing this situation they would rush to sanctuary at the nearest church until it was safe to come out. A prime example is Queen Elizabeth Woodville, consort of Edward IV of England:
In 1470, when the Lancastrians briefly restored Henry VI to the throne, queen Elizabeth was living in London with several young daughters. She moved with them into Westminster for sanctuary, living there in royal comfort until Edward IV was restored to the throne in 1471 and giving birth to their first son Edward V during that time. When King Edward IV died in 1483, Elizabeth (who was highly unpopular with even the Yorkists and probably did need protection) took her five daughters and youngest son (Richard, Duke of York) and again moved into sanctuary at Westminster. To be sure she had all the comforts of home, she brought so much furniture and so many chests that the workmen had to knock holes in some of the walls to get everything in fast enough to suit her.[1]
[edit]Modern political asylum

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoule' refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
These are the accepted terms and criteria as principles and a fundamental part in The U.N. 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees' Non-refoulement order.
Since the 1990s, sexual persecution has come to be accepted in some countries as a legitimate category for asylum claims, when the claimant can prove that the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.
[edit]Right of Asylum in France
Political asylum is recognized in France (droit d'asile) by the 1958 Constitution. It has been restricted due to immigration policies with the December 30, 1993 law, the Debré law of April 24, 1997, the May 11, 1998 law and the December 10, 2003 law. Henceforth, critics, including the Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l'homme - LDH) have opposed what they see as a practical abandonment of a longstanding European judicial tradition.
Political asylum is also defined in France by the 1951 United Nations (UN) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified in 1952), the additional 1967 protocol; articles K1 and K2 of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty as well as the 1985 Schengen Agreement, which defined the European policy on immigration. Finally, right of asylum is defined by article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
On a purely judicial level, only four conditions may be opposed to the accordance of political asylum to someone who has proven being subject to persecution in their country: the presence of the alien represents a serious threat to public order; the request should be addressed by another sovereign state; the request has already been accepted in another state; or the request is an abuse on the system of political asylum.
The December 10, 2003 law has limited political asylum, giving two main restrictions:
it invented the notion of "internal asylum": the request may be rejected if the foreigner may benefit from political asylum on a portion of the territory of the state
the OFPRA (Office français pour la protection des réfugiés et apatrides - French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons [1]) now makes a list of allegedly "safe countries" which respect political rights and principles of liberty. If the demander of asylum comes from such a country, the request is treated in 15 days, and receives no welfare protection. They may contest the decision, but this does not suspend any deportation order. The first list, enacted in July 2005, included as "safe countries" Benin, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius Island, India, Senegal, Mongolia, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Croatia. It had the effect of reducing in six months by about 80% the number of applicants from these countries. The second list, passed in July 2006, included Tanzania, Madagascar, Niger, Albania and Macedonia.[2]
Thus, although the right of political asylum has been conserved in France in despite of the various anti-immigration laws, it has been severely restricted. Some people claim that, apart from the purely judicial level, the bureaucratic process is also used to slow down and ultimately reject what might be considered as valid requests. According to Le Figaro, France granted 7,000 people the status of political refugee in 2006, out of a total of 35,000 requests; in 2005, the OFPRA in charge of examining the legitimacy of such requests granted less than 10,000 from a total of 50,000 requests.[3]
Numerous exiles from South American dictatorships, in particular from Augusto Pinochet's Chile and Argentina, were received in the 1970s-80s. As a current example, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, tens of homeless Afghan refugees waiting to be accorded political asylum have been sleeping in a park in Paris near the Gare de l'Est train station. Although their demands haven't been yet accepted, their presence has been tolerated. However, since the end of 2005, NGOs notes that the police separate Afghans from other migrants during raids, and expel in charters those who have just arrived at Gare de l'Est by train and haven't had time to make the demand for asylum (a May 30, 2005 decree requires them to pay for a translator for helping them in official formalities) [2].
[edit]Right of Asylum in the United Kingdom
Further information: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
In the 19th century, the United Kingdom accorded political asylum to various persecuted people, among whom were many members of the socialist movement (including Karl Marx). With the 1894 attempted bombing of the Greenwich Royal Observatory and the 1911 Siege of Sidney Street in the context of the propaganda of the deed anarchist actions, political asylum legislation was restricted.
[edit]Right of Asylum in the United States
Main article: Asylum in the United States
The United States honors the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees, who apply for refugee status overseas and then asylum after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually.
[edit]See also

Exile
Extradition
Immigration policy
Internally displaced persons, a subcategory of displaced people
Refugee
Refugee law
United Nations and League of Nations
Deportation
[edit]References

^ Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, pp. 35-36
^ Asile politique: la France ajoute cinq Etats à sa liste de pays «sûrs», Le Figaro, April 27, 2006 (French)
^ "La porte étroite de l'asile politique", Le Figaro, February 13, 2007, p.20 (French)
Kent Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1996.
Gerhard Franke, Das Kirchenasyl im Kontext sakraler Zufluchtnahmen der Antike. Historische erscheinungsformen und theologische Implikationen in patristischer Zeit. Franfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2003.
Christian Traulsen, Das sakrale Asyl in der Alten Welt. Zur Schutzfunktion des Heiligen von König Salomo bis zum Codex Theodosianus (Jus ecclesiasticum 72). Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Krzysztof Burczak, Prawo azylu w ustawodawstwie synodów galijskich V-VII wieku, Lublin, 2005.
Peter Fell and Debra Hayes, What are they doing here? A critical guide to asylum and immigration. Birmingham, Venture Press****************