Health Line: The Mis Use Of Health Documents In Dirty Competition.

A Case Study From The Biotech tropicana Systems Forensics Files.

Aboubakar YARI¹ And Venus YARI¹;

--------------

Affiliations:

Abstract:

In competition for interests, anything may be used to gain in competitive advantage particularly where arbitration systems are ousted, including health documents. We previously discuss the ‘Revisiting Conspiracy Sites’.  Here, we add one more evidence that further supports our conspiracy theory, q health document.

Keywords: Competition; Conspiracy; Evidence;

Background:

SuspectR immigration processing comports a status report that is normally processed by an immigration service designated surgeon. Where preliminary tests are not conclusive, the designated surgeon may transfer a file to a specialist for further investigation. Two separate heath reports may therefore be produced. Indeed in suspecR case, two reports were produced. A preliminary test produces a positive case (R+),. A secondary advanced test produces a negative report (R-). The R+ may result in inadmissibility for immigration benefit. The R- will reverse the lost of benefit due to R+.

Hypothesis:

1. The R- report may be withdrawn for the files for the purpose to change the outcome of the file.
2. The file containing the R+ without the R- may be propagated to gain without merit, a competitive advantage in a dirty competition.

Discussion:

The R+ file may be used to cause damage to the opponent in both time and space.

Here, it is important to clarify that the health issue did not damage in anyway the processing of the application.  The application was processed with the R- report reversing the R+; SuspectR did receive temporary immigration benefits including benefits to live in and work legally while awaiting additional clearances such as confirmation of birth certificate authenticity from birth place authorities. It is during the clearance phase that suspectR missed an appointment time for a hearing with an immigration judge. SuspectR did appear but late, after the immigration judge has issued an ’in absentia’ removal order. A fault that comes with a 10 years bars from re-application. SuspectR was removed on the b The iasis of that order and await for the 10 years bar to expire in his home country. By the date of this publication, the 10 years bar has expired and suspectR became eligible for re-application at anytime. It is during that wait period  that suspectR suffers serious harassments on the basis of that R+ health report. The details discussed by the harassers suggest that they did have access to suuspectR  personal files. How? The answer to the how was discussed elsewhere and is not an issue in this investigative report. [1;2] Here, we discuss different scenarios how the R+ report when obtained may be used in time and space in a malicious competition to gain a competitive advantage, without merit.; particularly where arbitration systems ceases to operate.

1. In Space:

Scenario 1:. Travel form country A to country B where a visa is required.

A malicious competitor who lacks the abilities to compete with suspectR in accordance with established rules may use the R+ report without the R- in desperate effort to prevent suspectR from traveling to country B, where suspectR may get   a competitive advantage over the weaker but malicious competitor. Here, we must stress that the R+ report is a ground of inadmissibility for public health reasons in many countries.

Scenario 2:In country competition.

A malicious competitor having possession of both R+ and R- may use the R+ report to exclude suspectR from one community where suspectR would be a competitive challenge for the weaker competitor and the R- report to promote the inclusion of suspectR in another community where suspectR  may competitive abilities will instead counter select against him and weaken his competitive abilities. In line with the reasoning above, the the R+ and the R- may be used to promote or damage relationships within one community; particularly in communities with an educational background below the level of understanding the significance of the R+.   

2. In time:

Scenario 3: R+ to damage business relations within a time period

Within the 10 years bar period, when suspectR is barred by law from re-applying for immigration benefits, a weaker but malicious may use the R+ report damage suspectR business relations in home country in efforts to delay progress in business activities .

Scenario 3: R- to promote damaging relations

After the expiration of the bar when suspectR regains by law eligibility to re-apply, the weaker but malicious competitor will use the R- to promote relations that may delay in re-application efforts.

Analysis:

The scenarios above when placed in the context of a poor country that cannot balance its budget without foreign aid that comes with conditions set forth by the donor.; a country so poor that  cannot even fund its internal administrative operations without aid. A country with a GDP less than the yearly business sales of a single medium enterprise of the country with which suspectR business development activities were aligned to, the scenarios above become beyond hypothesis self evident facts. Competition in its real sense becomes senseless for people who are striving to survive to the next day meal. The daily budget for fun activities of the competitor is more than the yearly salary of the authority in charge of securing the rules of competition in the poor country. In such circumstances it would be unreasonable to try to compete based on international rules of competition. SuuspectR did not only succeeded in keeping pace with competition but expand its business activities. How? By playing smarter than the competitors and their poor allies. This case demonstrated the importance and the value of investing time and resources in developing internal commercial forensics capabilities to cover business activities, in the resource poor settings.  

It is worth noting that suspectR submitted a second special application for immigration benefit. The details of the special application were discussed elsewhere. Here again, suspectR received a temporary prima facie eligibility for immigration benefit subject to a fingerprint clearance for approval. SuspectR did not have an opportunity to submit the fingerprint. Here, we stress that the special application provides a venue to overcome the immigration decision to remove without a formal trial. The immigration judge is an administrative judge under the authority of the attorney general, not a judicial judge. Should suuspectR have the opportunity to submit the fingerprint for clearance, the special immigration agency has authority to directly submit any compelling evidences to the attorney general who has authority to over rule the immigration judge and order the pursuit of processing of the special immigration files. Here, again one may formulate a reasonable hypothesis of linkage between the health report R+/R- and the difficulties in submitting the fingerprint.

References:

 [1] A. YARI & V. YARI ;      Conspiracy Sites Revisited;  Investigative Reports (1):(1) 6, 2016 at http://btforensics.ucoz.com/publ/investigative_reports_1_1_6_2016/1-1-0-8

[1] A. YARI & V. YARI; SMARTPolicing Police: Investigating Potential Passport-Visa Processing Links. Investigative Reports (1):(1):2, 2015 at http://btforensics.ucoz.com/publ/investigative_reports_1_1_2_2015/1-1-0-2