The Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) web site reproduces a Globe and Mail letter to the editor written by R. Burstyn which names Lubomyr Prytulak.  However, the Burstyn letter was in response to two earlier Globe letters which the CJC web site fails to reproduce, the first by Len Rudner and the second by Lubomyr Prytulak.  The left column below shows these three letters in chronological order from top to bottom: Rudner-Prytulak-Burstyn.  The right column below shows the Prytulak letter as it was submitted to the Globe, with two passages deleted by the Globe presented in bold:

FIRST LETTER
The Demjanjuk trial Re Nazi Trial Keeps a Sense Of Humour (March 5):  It is not usual for history � even the Holocaust � to be presented in a variety of artistic formats.  In such a way, new audiences can come to understand events in a manner that may not be accessible via straight-forward narration. That said, playwrights still have an obligation to tell the truth.  In Ray Conlogue's review of The Trials of John Demjanjuk, he says that Mr. Demjanjuk's lawyers discovered that the Israeli and U.S. governments had "hidden crucial information proving he was not Ivan [the Terrible]." This is incorrect.  In fact, it was the Israelis who discovered the evidence that eventually led to Mr. Demjanjuk's acquittal.  This is borne out in the transcript of the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 1993: "But for the actions of the Israeli prosecutors, the death sentence against Demjanjuk probably would have been carried out by now....  The Israeli prosecutors did not learn of the exculpatory evidence from Russia until after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to death in the Israeli trial court....  The prosecutors travelled to Russia to investigate the matter thoroughly." Back in Israel, "in the face of extremely strong popular feelings against the accused, [they] publicly turned it over to the Supreme Court of Israel." LEN RUDNER, director, community relations, Canadian Jewish Congress, Toronto Globe and Mail, 06-Mar-2004, p. A18.
SECOND LETTER		SECOND LETTER AS SUBMITTED
Demjanjuk 'evidence' Len Rudner (The Demjanjuk Trial � letter, March 6) misinforms readers on both his points. First, there was massive cover-up of exculpatory evidence.  Here is what U.S. judge Gilbert Merritt told Ha'aretz: "Today we know that they � the OSI, the prosecution in the case and the State Department � lied through their teeth.  Even then they knew without a doubt that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible, but they hid the information from us.  I am sorry that I did not have the information at the time.  If I did, we would never have ruled in favour of his extradition to Israel." Second, the Israelis never discovered any evidence that exculpated John Demjanjuk.  What they did do was to respond to overwhelming pressure from many directions to release an obviously innocent Mr. Demjanjuk, and their "discovery" was one that saved them embarrassment. That is, they "discovered" that Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka was really some other Ukrainian, Ivan Marchenko, who, being dead, was in no position to object. LUBOMYR PRYTULAK, Ukrainian Archive, Vancouver Globe and Mail, 08-Mar-2004, p. A12.		In his letter to the editor of 06-Mar-2004, Len Rudner misinforms Globe readers on both his points. First, there was a massive cover-up of exculpatory evidence.  Here is what U.S. Judge Gilbert Merritt told Ha'aretz: "Today we know," says Merritt, "that they � the OSI, the prosecution in the case and the State Department � lied through their teeth.  Even then they knew without a doubt that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible, but they hid the information from us.  I am sorry that I did not have the information at the time.  If I did, we would never have ruled in favor of his extradition to Israel."  Merritt claims that what happened in his courtroom was "nothing short of a witch hunt.  In retrospect, it reminds me of the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts 300 years ago.  The prosecution, counseled by the OSI, presented documents and witnesses whose testimony was based on emotions and hysteria, but not hard evidence.  To my regret, we believed them.  This instance is a prime example of how justice can be distorted."  [Yossi Melman, "Who Lied About Demjanjuk?", Ha'aretz, 14-Nov-1997] Second, the Israelis never discovered any evidence that exculpated John Demjanjuk.  What they did do was to respond to overwhelming pressure from many directions to release an obviously-innocent John Demjanjuk, and their "discovery" was one that saved them from embarrassment.  That is, they "discovered" that Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka was really some other Ukrainian, Ivan Marchenko, who being dead was in no position to object.  This expedient spared the Israelis the embarrassment of having to admit that the expression "Ivan the Terrible," with corresponding deeds, were invented in the 1970's, and had been unheard of prior to that time. Lubomyr Prytulak, Ph.D. Ukrainian Archive at www.ukar.org, Vancouver Letter to the editor submitted by email 06-Mar-2004
THIRD LETTER
Not misinformed I read with some concern the letter from Lubomyr Prytulak (March 8) taking Len Rudner of Canadian Jewish Congress to task for allegedly misinforming readers about the issue of suspected Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk. What strikes me as strange, however, is that, try as I might, I could find no attempt by Mr. Rudner to misinform (The Demjanjuk Trial � letter, March 6).  Indeed, Mr. Rudner's only point was that Israel did not hide evidence that eventually led to Mr. Demjanjuk's acquittal by the Israeli Supreme Court.  In doing so, Mr. Rudner quoted directly from a decision of the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeal to buttress his point. If Mr. Prytulak wants to take issue with anything, it should be the U.S. Sixth District Court of Appeal.  That he would point a wrongful, accusing finger at the Canadian Jewish Congress is curious indeed. R. BURSTYN, Thornhill, Ont. Globe and Mail, 10-Mar-2004, p. A18.

Among the conclusions that the above letters invite are the following:

1. THE GLOBE AND MAIL SUPPRESSES THE UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE
   
   The first Globe and Mail deletion marked in bold font above reveals Judge Merritt finding an adequate counterpart to Demjanjuk only by casting back three centuries to the Salem witch trials.  The Globe and Mail, however, refuses to publish a description of a Ukrainian suffering a wrong of historic proportions at the hands of Jewish leadership even when that description is recommended by a distinguished American Judge and is quoted by a Jewish writer and is published in an Israeli newspaper.
   
   And the second Globe and Mail deletion marked in bold font above to the effect that "Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka" is a fiction created more than three decades after the end of WW II for the special purpose of persecuting John Demjanjuk is also news that is not fit to print on the pages of the Globe and Mail.  However, to this day, the "Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka" that was imagined in the series of John Demjanjuk show trials continues to be systematically excluded from scholarly accounts of the Jewish holocaust, as is documented in my letter to Neal Sher at
   
   

   • 15-Oct-1998   Lubomyr Prytulak to Neal Sher   The Ivan who never was
     www.ukar.org/sher07.html.
     
     

   The "Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka" story is disbelieved not only by all scholars, but also by the vast majority of Treblinka survivors, and can be depended upon to be believed mainly by Jewish leadership, who began believing it only in the 1970s, and who rest their belief on nothing better than a mere handful of "witnesses whose testimony was based on emotions and hysteria."
   
   

2. THE RUDNER-BURSTYN DEFENSE OF ISRAELI JUSTICE IS MERITLESS
   
   Any comment that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit made concerning the quality of Israeli justice expressed an opinion on a question that the court had not been asked to decide, and concerning which it sought no evidence or argument, and that the Court made without full deliberation.  The comment, in other words, was obiter dictum � a casual, off-the-cuff, by-the-way, not-highly-relevant, incidental impression that carries small weight:
   
   

   A remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, "by the way," that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Excerpt from "obiter dictum" in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1968, p. 1222.

   
   Obiter dictum is often abbreviated to dictum, under which heading can be found the further elaboration:
   
   

   Dicta are opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without argument, or full consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself.  Obiter dicta are such opinions uttered by the way, not upon the point or question pending, as if turning aside for the time from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects. Excerpt from "dictum" in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1968, p. 541.

   
   We know that the Court's rosy view of Israeli justice was obiter dictum from its unambiguously declaring that the only question before it concerned a single instance of American injustice, and what its finding on the question of this single instance of American injustice was:
   
   

   The question before the court is whether attorneys in the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), a unit within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to disclose to the courts and to the petitioner exculpatory information in their possession during litigation culminating in extradition proceedings, which led to the petitioner's forced departure from the United States and trial on capital charges in the State of Israel.  For the reasons stated herein we conclude that 0SI did so engage in prosecutorial misconduct that seriously misled the court. John Demjanjuk v Joseph Petrovsky, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 17-Nov-1993, pp. 1-2  www.ukar.org/sixthc00.htm

   
   In case anyone didn't hear it the first time, the Court repeats what was its sole concern, wherein is not to be found any intention to evaluate Israeli justice, or to hear evidence or argument concerning the quality of Israeli justice:
   
   

   Our sole concern in these proceedings, which began with entry of our order of June 5, 1992, has been to determine whether any acts or omissions of Department of Justice attorneys resulted in the district court and this court improvidently approving extradition of Demjanjuk to Israel in this habeas corpus action. John Demjanjuk v Joseph Petrovsky, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 17-Nov-1993, p. 40  www.ukar.org/sixthc00.htm

   
   And the Court repeats what was its sole conclusion, wherein is not to be found any exculpation of Israeli justice:
   
   

   For the reasons set out herein we vacate the judgment of the district court and the judgment of this court in the extradition proceedings on the ground that the judgments were wrongly procured as a result of prosecutorial misconduct that constituted fraud on the court. John Demjanjuk v Joseph Petrovsky, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 17-Nov-1993, p. 40  www.ukar.org/sixthc00.htm

   
   The obiter dictum of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is insufficient to exculpate Israeli justice for the reason that anyone who reviews the quality of Israeli justice in Demjanjuk proceedings � which it must not be forgotten the Court did not do � discovers that Israeli corruption was massive and egregious and undeniable.  For example, the very witnesses whose American testimony Judge Merritt describes above as "based on emotions and hysteria" were the witnesses that provided the backbone of the prosecution case in Israel, where their emotions and hysteria scaled new heights.  As the hypothesis that Demjanjuk had ever set foot in Treblinka has today been totally abandoned, these witnesses stand revealed as false witnesses who came within a hair's-breadth of getting John Demjanjuk hanged.  Fully aware of the unreliability of these emotional and hysterical witnesses, the Israelis refused to allow the Demjanjuk defense to cross-examine them.
   
   Generally, the Israelis did not build their own case against John Demjanjuk, they only attempted to flesh out the American case that Judge Merritt debunks.  Thus, every instance of OSI spoliation (suppression or destruction) of evidence was gratefully inherited by the Israelis, who may be faulted not only for enjoying the fruits of the OSI spoliation during the course of the Israeli trial, but also over the years of the trial never once having discovered and publicly protested any spoliation that had been conducted on the part of their OSI brethren, and for the many years following the trial, never once having expressed disapproval of any spoliation discovered by anybody anywhere.
   
   Take, for example, the Pilichowski Letter � also commonly referred to as the Polish Main Commission Letter � whose evaluation starts with the premise that if over an interval of thirteen months John Demjanjuk had indeed been guilty of murdering six and a half times the number of people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, then he would have appeared on German and Soviet and Polish lists of Treblinka guards and of Nazi war criminals.  The Poles are particularly pertinent, as having been among the leading victims of the Nazis, they were strongly motivated to hunt down Nazi war criminals, and Treblinka being on their soil, they had particularly good access to Treblinka evidence.  Therefore, Professor Dr Czeslaw Pilichowski of the Polish Main Commission reporting that John Demjanjuk could not be found on any Polish lists constitutes persuasive evidence that John Demjanjuk did not kill 870,000 people at Treblinka or anywhere, and that if he served in any capacity at all, it must have been at such a subordinate or informal level, and in so innocuous and inconspicuous a role, as to have entirely escaped notice.  The Pilichowski letter, however, was withheld from the defense, as is explained in the three documents below by, respectively, Congressman James Traficant, by the Ukrainian American Bar Association, and by former OSI chief Martin Mendelsohn on pp. 118-122 of his testimony:
   
   

   • 28-Feb-1990   James Traficant in the Congressional Record   The Case for John Demjanjuk, Sr.
     www.ukar.org/trafic03.htm#E
     
     

   • 17-Jun-1990   UABA in The Ukrainian Weekly   60 Minutes finds Maria Dudek, OSI suppresses Pilichowski letter
     www.ukar.org/uaba01.html
     
     

   • 25-May-2000   Lubomyr Prytulak to Martin Mendelsohn   Three questions
     www.ukar.org/mendel02.html
     
     

   It was the American OSI that spoliated the Pilichowski letter, but if the Israelis were not complicit in that spoliation, then they can at least be faulted for having benefitted from it, and for never having discovered and protested it themselves, and for never having publicly rebuked the OSI for it after it had been discovered by others.
   
   But on top of reaping the fruits of OSI fraud, the Israelis piled on fraud of their own, of which it would be a needless digression to cite more than two examples.
   
   The first of the two examples of Israeli suppression of exculpatory evidence that will suffice relates to the only documentary evidence which placed John Demjanjuk in German uniform � the Kremlin-supplied Trawniki ID card www.ukar.org/idcard.html.  The Kremlin was so fearful of being called upon to vouch for the Trawniki ID card's authenticity, and to disclose its chain of custody, that it refused to hand the card over to the Israelis directly, but only allowed it to be transported to Israel by American citizen Armand Hammer who came with the advantage of presenting the appearance of lacking Kremlin membership, and of presenting the appearance of lacking qualification to comment on the card's authenticity, as would befit a disinterested party performing no more than the work of a courier.  On top of participating in this cover-up of the Trawniki ID card's chain of custody, Israel can be faulted for its suppression of the BKA opinion, as explained below.  That is, Israeli Police Superintendent Amnon Bezaleli, having received the Trawniki ID Card from Armand Hammer, transported it to the world's leading forensic laboratory for authenticating Third-Reich documents � the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), or Federal Criminal Police Office, in Wiesbaden, Germany.  Upon the BKA informing Bezaleli that the card appeared to be an amateur forgery, Bezaleli demanded that the BKA terminate its analysis and return the card to him, and the Israelis proceeded to convict John Demjanjuk and sentence him to death � relying heavily on the authenticity of the card � without informing the defense of the BKA opinion.  An account of the BKA matter can be found in my letter to Alan Dershowitz in the section titled Where Were the Experts? at
   
   

   • 14-May-2001   Lubomyr Prytulak to Alan Dershowitz   The Trawniki Identification Card
     www.ukar.org/dersho09.html#Experts.
     
     

   It is a measure of the relentless mendacity of Jewish leadership that it continues to this very day to rely on the Trawniki ID card in its persecution of John Demjanjuk, while also continuing to this very day to keep that card from being handed over to the BKA for a definitive analysis, as has been protested to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who houses the card within Kremlin walls, at
   
   

   • 16-Dec-2004   Lubomyr Prytulak to Vladimir Putin   You must allow the BKA to examine the Trawniki ID card
     www.ukar.org/putin/putin22.html
     
     

   The second of the two examples of Israeli suppression of exculpatory evidence that will suffice was Israeli prosecutors extracting from Richard Glazar his promise not to testify at the Demjanjuk trial even though Glazar was believed to have been at Treblinka ten months, and even though he was at the time of the Demjanjuk trial writing a book on his Treblinka experiences:
   
   

   • 08-Sep-1979   Richard Glazar to Norman Moscowitz   I could see you in your office
     www.ukar.org/glazar02.html
     
     

   • 27-Sep-1988   William J. Wolf tapes Richard Glazar   Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe
     www.ukar.org/glazar.html
     
     

   • 11-Dec-1988   Roma Hadzewycz interviews William Wolf   Wolf says Glazar mum
     www.ukar.org/wolf02.htm
     
     

   • 24-Dec-1988   John Broadley to Richard Thornburgh   Broadley demands interview reports
     www.ukar.org/broadl01.html.
     
     

   Len Rudner claiming that "it was the Israelis who discovered the evidence that eventually led to Mr. Demjanjuk's acquittal" is Israeli spin on the reality that when they found themselves unable to pin the title of "Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka" on John Demjanjuk, they turned around and pinned it on another Ukrainian, Ivan Marchenko, whose acquiescence was guaranteed by his being dead.  The Israelis were forced to acquit John Demjanjuk on the strength of the evidence and the arguments presented by the Demjanjuk defense, all of which the Israelis had long been privy to.  The Israeli "discovery" of Marchenko served the purpose of continuing to defame the Ukrainian people by perpetuating the myth of a Ukrainian "Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka," and which fresh fabrication being even flimsier than the one against Demjanjuk, would be incapable of exculpating Demjanjuk in any court adhering to Western standards of justice.
   
   

3. THE CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS STRANGLES THE FLOW OF INFORMATION
   
   As neither you, the National President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, nor any other CJC representative, is elected, none of you is able to lay claim to representing the Jewish people, as you have already seen documented at
   
   

   • 26-Jul-2004   Lubomyr Prytulak to Ed Morgan   Jewish Complaints of Canadian Jewish Congress Authoritarianism
     www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan09.html.
     
     

   What the CJC web site publishing only the last of the three Globe and Mail letters above adds to the picture of unelected CJC leadership is the detail that the unelected CJC leadership suppresses dissenting views, which is fully compatible with spoliation having been the chief tactic relied upon by CJC wunderkind Steven Rambam (former collaborator with Irwin Cotler in the 60 Confessions Hoax, and particularly beloved of Irving Abella) in his recent failed attempt to shut down UKAR using the venue of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  The CJC modus operandi of suppression of information is evident as well in the wholesale spoliation of Prytulak documents in the ongoing Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) case of CJC v Prytulak, as is manifested most clearly in the CHRC confession of Mary M Gusella having withheld the 29-Jul-2005 Prytulak Comment from Disposition Committee member Aimable Ndejuru for the purpose of obtaining his anti-Prytulak vote fraudulently.
   
   The CJC intolerance of dissent contrasts startlingly with the Prytulak practice of publishing alongside his own views all CJC documents, as for example the original CJC complaint which is available for all the world to examine at www.ukar.org/chrc/cjc01.html.  Reciprocity would require the CJC publishing on its web site not only its own submissions to the CHRC, but Prytulak submissions as well, which reciprocity is unlikely to be realized given that over the two years of CHRC proceedings to date, the CJC hasn't so much as mentioned the existence of CJC v Prytulak proceedings on its web site, or in fact in any public forum.
   
   Another instance of the CJC suppression of information, then, is the CJC going so far as to deny its web-site visitors not merely Prytulak submissions, but all information relating to CJC v Prytulak.  Such total silence is compatible with the interpretation that CJC leadership is aware that its persecution of Prytulak is meritless and vexatious, and aware that its misconduct in the persecution is reprehensible, and that it is afraid to disclose any of it even before the very community that it claims to represent and that may be expected to receive the information with the greatest sympathy.  CJC absolute silence on the matter of CJC v Prytulak is indicative of consciousness of a wrongdoing that the CJC is anxious to hide not only from Canadians generally, but even from the Jewish community.