Swiss Asylum News
April 2, 2012
Ripped from the news headlines, David Chase Taylor’s legal fight for political asylum in Switzerland is possibly the most daring and compelling case ever assembled. Involving the Super Bowl, nuclear terrorism and the Obama administration, Taylor’s case is unique, shocking and definitely one of a kind.
On February 1, 2011, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed to the world via leaked classified diplomatic documents that Al-Qaida was on the brink of using a nuclear bomb and that the West was on the verge of a “Nuclear 9/11″. What the diplomatic documents failed to mention was actual target, date and location of the impending nuclear terror attack.
Published 4 days prior on January 28, 2011, David Chase Taylor’s free ebook, entitled The Nuclear Bible, specifically named Super Bowl XLV on February 6, 2011, in Dallas, Texas, as the target, date and location of the impending nuclear terror attack. The Nuclear Bible, which took Taylor over a year to research and write, exposed the nuclear terror plot using over 1,000 mainstream and alternative news articles.
After publishing The Nuclear Bible, Taylor conducted multiple radio interviews and phoned numerous intelligence and law enforcement agencies throughout America to personally ensure that no acts of terror were conducted on his fellow American citizens.
Overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence has now surfaced in the aftermath of the failed Super Bowl XLV nuclear terror plot which unequivocally shows that Taylor’s actions did indeed stop, or at least postpone, a state-sponsored nuclear terror attack upon America.
The Focus of Intelligence Services
Based on the sudden interest in David Chase Taylor by U.S. intelligence services immediately after the release of The Nuclear Bible, Taylor, anticipating retaliation and fearing for his life, applied for political asylum in Switzerland on March 8, 2011.
Evidence that foreign intelligence services were interested in Taylor first emerged in the form of a February 1, 2011, phone conversation between David Chase Taylor and Officer Olivier Ruembeli of the Swiss Federal Criminal Police. During the phone conversation, Taylor was informed by Officer Ruembeli that an immediate meeting in Bern, Switzerland, was wanted based on the demands of U.S. intelligence services.
This demand was later reiterated in a February 3, 2011, email whereby Officer Ruembeli informed Taylor that “U.S. intelligence services” have “demands that we [Switzerland] act.”Despite repeated verbal and written attempts by Taylor to inform Officer Ruembeli that he was not interested in meeting with anybody, Officer Ruembeli continued to contact Taylor in hopes of gaining a meeting to satisfy the intelligence demands.
Most recently, U.S. Army intelligence officer James Wesley Rawles lashed out at Taylor stating, “Taylor’s request for asylum in Switzerland has apparently been ignored because it is groundless and unsubstantiated. His visa status in Switzerland is tenuous, at best.” Cleary, U.S. and NATO intelligence agents hoping that Taylor is not issued political asylum in Switzerland so they can eventually have their way with him.
Citizen or Refugee?
Since first applying for political asylum in Switzerland on March 8, 2011, David Chase Taylor has been repeatedly denied legal expediency and answers in respect to his political asylum case. The main legal question pending in Taylor’s case today is whether or not Taylor will be treated as a refugee or as a citizen. Currently, Taylor is being told that there is no legal differentiation between a journalist who is both an EU and American citizen residing in Switzerland with a valid Swiss “B” residence permit, and that of a refugee from a 3rd world country who has entered Switzerland illegally.
Should Taylor subject himself to the refugee asylum process, which totally disregards his E.U., U.S., and Swiss “B” residence permit [Valid until 2015], his current status as a legal resident of Switzerland will ultimately be jeopardized. Essentially, the Swiss government is asking Taylor to give up ALL of his legal rights in order to initiate the asylum process.
I. Upon surrendering his U.S. and German passport, as is required in the asylum application process under Swiss asylum/refugee law [Asylum Act 142.31], Taylor’s current Swiss “B” residence permit [Valid until 2015] would automatically be invalidated based on the fact that he no longer has in his possession the German passport which the Swiss “B” residence permit is based on.
II. According to Swiss asylum/refugee law [Asylum Act 142.31],upon submitting an application for political asylum, Taylor would subsequently be issued a Swiss “N” residence permit and his current Swiss “B” residence permit [Valid until 2015] would become void.
III. Should Taylor’s application for political asylum be denied, as is always possible, at best he would have to reapply for a new Swiss “B” residence permit and there is no guarantee he would receive another. At worst, he could be immediately deported out of Switzerland as is clearly stated in Swiss refugee/asylum law [Asylum Act 142.31].
The Legal Question
Clearly, Taylor’s life is in real danger. He obviously cannot risk subjecting himself to inapplicable refugee laws, the Swiss “N” residence permit and the chance of not receiving another Swiss “B” residence permit. Anything that would put Taylor at risk of potential deportation from Switzerland is a bold step in the wrong direction.
Therefore, legal clarification is needed in Taylor’s case as to whether he is in fact bound by the refugee/asylum law. The following question been repeatedly posed to Taylor’s case handler, Ms. Nelly Davoli, as well as an attorney Mr. Jans Lietz at the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich:
Is David Chase Taylor’s case for political asylum governed under Swiss refugee/asylum law [Asylum Act 142.31], and if not, what legal statute(s) is David Chase Taylor’s for case for political asylum governed under?
To date, both Davoli and Lietz have failed to address the legal question posed by Taylor. Is Taylor being denied his right to political asylum under E.U. and U.S. citizen? And if not, why is a country as legally sound as Switzerland enforcing blanket laws in which EU and American citizens are subjugated to the same legal policies and procedures as refugees from 3rd world countries?
As of April 3, 2012, all emails and letters sent in respect to this most basic legal questions have failed to be answered by Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich and their legal department.
Switzerland’s Reputation at Stake
For centuries, people who have been persecuted for political reasons have sought asylum in Switzerland. The reason for this lies not only in Switzerland’s geographical position but in their unique state of political neutrality.
According to Switzerland’s asylum policy: “Any person who is threatened or persecuted in their home country in accordance with criteria recognised under international law will be granted asylum in Switzerland”.
Given the history of Switzerland and their stated asylum policy, one would think that the obvious interest in David Chase Taylor by intelligence services along with the mounting evidence in respect to The Nuclear Bible and Super Bowl XLV would suffice in his case for political asylum, especially considering the torture, assassination, illegal rendition and secret prisons that U.S. and NATO are affiliated with.
If David Chase Taylor is ever forced to leave Switzerland there is little doubt that:
1. Taylor may be TORTURED in retaliation for his journalistic endeavors
2. Taylor may be SET-UP, CONVICTED, & IMPRISONED for crimes not committed
3. Taylor may be EXTRADITED out of Switzerland to a secret prison
4. Taylor may be ASSASSINATED in an attempt to silence him
5. Taylor may be KIDNAPPED (Illegal Rendition)
Right now, the government of Switzerland has an opportunity to help the world’s most endangered journalist. There is no question why David Chase Taylor is in need of political asylum, only why he is currently being denied due process under Swiss law. How Switzerland ultimately ends up handling the case of Taylor will have historical implications and will likely dictate the fate of political asylum on an international level.