Switzerland’s Reputation At Stake: Nuclear Whistleblower David Chase Taylor Denied Political Asylum

September, 18, 2012

SWITZERLAND, Zürich — It   has now been over 500 days since whistleblower journalist David Chase Taylor has been denied political asylum in Switzerland. Taylor officially applied for asylum on March 8, 2011, shortly after publishing information which essentially caught the Obama administration red-handed attempting to conduct a state-sponsored act of nuclear terror at Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, Texas, on February 6, 2011.

Since applying for political asylum, the treatment of Taylor by certain factions of the Swiss government, namely the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich, is shocking and unprecedented according to Swiss citizens monitoring Taylor’s case. Taylor, who is both a U.S. and E.U. citizen, has been subjugated to Swiss refugee laws and procedures which ultimately strip away all of his inherent U.S. and E.U. rights.  Despite being issued a Swiss “B” Residence Permit, which essentially guarantees him the same rights as a Swiss citizen, Taylor is being treated exactly like a political refugee who just entered Switzerland illegally with no form of identification.

In essence, the Swiss government is asking Taylor to give up all of his legal rights, passports and permits before they ever consider granting him political asylum. The downside to the refugee asylum process is that if Taylor complies and is not granted political asylum, he will be forced to leave Switzerland within 48 hours. Despite the political persecution, Taylor has publicly vowed that he will never give up his quest for political asylum nor his right to be treated as a legal law-abiding citizen of both the United Stated and Germany.

Failure to Answer
In official letters sent to the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich dated March 14, 2012, April 17, 2012, and September 17, 2012, the following legal question has been repeatedly asked in respect to Taylor’s case:

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, this very basic legal question has not been answered. Is it possible that Taylor’s case is in fact not governed under Swiss refugee/asylum law [Asylum Act 142.31] and that Taylor is purposely being misled and misinformed about his legal rights under Swiss law? After a lengthy phone conversation between Taylor and Jans Lietz, an attorney for the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich, Taylor was guaranteed a written answer to the aforementioned legal question. Instead of getting an answer, Taylor was contacted by a student /trainee/intern (see below), who aside from not being legally able to practice law in Switzerland, failed to answer the question.

Mr. Fricker
In an unprecedented legal maneuver, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich appointed a law student /trainee/intern with only one declared name to handle legal inquiries and communication in Taylor’s case for political asylum. Despite repeatedly asking for a legal, lawful and binding response to the question of which statute Taylor’s case falls under, one “Fricker, M.A. HSG in Law” officially responded to Taylor inquiry in letters dated April 11, 2012, and April 19, 2012. By the declared title alone, this individual does not have the legal authority to practice law in Switzerland or act on behalf of the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich and the Swiss government. Therefore, any subsequent pseudo-official response from this individual is not legally binding and borders on legal malpractice.

The appointment of a non-lawyer to handle legal matters in Taylor’s case appears to be calculated move by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich to gain plausible deniability if and when Taylor’s case gains national or international attention. This move basically allows the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich to act outside of Swiss law while simultaneously giving themselves a premeditated legal loophole to jump through if and when the media or the Swiss public catch on to Taylor’s case.

Petition for Withdrawal of Asylum
Despite numerous letters, phone calls and emails from Taylor to the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich pleading for political asylum, the rogue government office had the impudence to send a letter dated March 23, 2012, formally asking Taylor to withdraw his bid for political asylum. The audacious request clearly shows a blatant disregard for the seriousness of Taylor’s case and while the motive behind the letter is not clear, it is possible that the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich was hoping that Taylor would mistakenly sign the letter due to his lack of fluency in the German language. Regardless, Taylor has stated on the record that he will never sign any document relinquishing his right to political asylum in Switzerland.

Legal Representation Denied
Due to the unprecedented unprofessionalism exhibited by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich, David Chase Taylor sought legal representation and has personally contacted over 50 asylum attorneys within Switzerland. Although some attorneys contacted were not initially interested, about a dozen or so took great interest in Taylor’s case and planned to meet with him at a future date.

In every single case to date, all Swiss attorneys remotely interested in representing Taylor suddenly changed their mind and quickly cut off all communication with Taylor, all before ever meeting with him. The attorneys in question curiously failed to return phone calls and emails or stated that they were too busy, had to go out-of-town or that they were no longer interested in the case. While one can speculate about the motives behind their sudden lack of interest, it appears that Taylor’s case is just way too controversial to handle.

To date, the actions or lack thereof exhibited by the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich indicate that outside forces may be at play in Taylor’s case. After all, Taylor’s case is being ignored and delayed by a rogue branch of the Swiss government which has historically functioned in accordance with Swiss law. If there was in fact a concerted agenda to ignore, delay and ultimately dismiss Taylor’s case, what would the underlying motive be?

The information released by Taylor in The Nuclear Bible and his subsequent case for political asylum are dangerously unique, historically unprecedented and are already proving to be geopolitical game-changers. Theoretically, if Taylor is ever granted political asylum in Switzerland, the Swiss government would be admitting in a de facto manner that Taylor’s life is in inherent danger and that the U.S. Federal government is indeed guilty of attempting to conduct state-sponsored nuclear terrorism upon its own citizens.

Naturally, that Swiss media and the international press would eventually pick up on a nuclear terror whistleblower and a global media storm would likely ensue. Obviously, that cannot be allowed to happen and therefore it appears that Taylor’s case for political asylum will ultimately be dismissed by Swiss authorities until the public pressure is too much to bear.

As of September 18, 2012, Taylor began flying a large American flag outside of his apartment window in a symbolic gesture of conviction that he will prevail despite all the trials and tribulations he must endure. In what appears to be a good sign of things to come, Taylor’s apartment just happens to be located directly over the Zürcher Beratungsstella für Asylsuchende which is theoretically supposed to help people with their asylum cases in Switzerland.

Regardless of what illegalities has transpired to date, the Swiss government still has the 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. How Switzerland ultimately acts in respect to Taylor’s case will likely have profound historical implications, especially in respect to Switzerland’s reputation as an oasis of political neutrality, rule of law and political refuge. Something has to give; the question is what, when and where?


Comments are closed.