Adobe Acrobat Document Aug2206, Gendall Memo, NZIS Deportation Policy
Adobe Acrobat Document: 260 kB, 36 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Sep0106, Crown Reply, Gendall Memo, re Deportation
Adobe Acrobat Document: 305 kB, 42 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Sep1306, Wilfred Rebuttal to Crown Reply
Adobe Acrobat Document: 72.2 kB, 10 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Oct2506, Wilfred Applies for Swiss Residency
Adobe Acrobat Document: 70.5 kB, 9 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Nov2806, Swiss Dept of Justice, Answer and Opinion
Adobe Acrobat Document: 457 kB, 1.05 minutes @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Wilfred v USA, UN OHCHR Petition and Complaint
Adobe Acrobat Document: 605 kB, 1.4 minutes @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Nov 05-30, 07 Rebuttal to Refugee Report
Adobe Acrobat Document: 860 kB, 1.98 minutes @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Jan2308, NZ Refugee Decision, Declined
Adobe Acrobat Document: 1.5 MB, 3.48 minutes @ 56kbps

Case History Section 34


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 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