DB's Pixnet

From the mountain looking at the river mouth the direction was facing the Taipei harbor. There was a temple providing lodge for the tourists. How could a yellow submarine be passing by the water without stirring and splashing the pool around? No way. Was the killer whale calling back by the nature? I am not sure. The fresh water supply of the delta was used to attract incoming fleets. And the killer whale? It was a recent movie to portray this fish alike creature or just mammal instead of portraying a shark, in the movie The Jaw. There was a little pond that we used to discard household garbage there, and it was turned to a pond from a pit, leading to complex underground tunnels. You know, just like what were happened to the pit so as it was happened to the pond, I heard someone saying just like this.

And there was the World of Warcraft game, Julia, the player character of mine, with her scimitar or sword swimming in the river, and to the exotic foreign land circling around to seek a fierce shark to complete her quest in the game. That was a shark, not a dolphin in the laboratory mission. And we see that the killer whale was performing that in an amusement show.

DB, August 12, 2013

That day before I registered Wikipedia, in the morning inside an Internet cafeteria, I had noticed the Déjà vu of psychological phenomenon repeated to appear and something was tried to manipulate the memory. In several hours on the same spot, in order to maneuver to get the registering process more smoothly like the mirage taking off, tumultuous turbine noise with backdrop setting off the far side connection intrigue, clearly conveyed the ingenuity of the plot.

The next day I was with full confidence to confide the related details of the law provision by the concise Psychology terminology by the French word the “Déjà vu phenomenon” to back off the negotiating process in only several sentences. I did not escalate the bargaining process as the day before that I adopted to maneuver with the mirage turbine noise of tumultuous sound, or behavior such as wriggling of a huge body on the lobby ground for some wave offering. This wave offering was the man Mr Robert advised me more or less to do some after my grandmother had died in August 1996, that if I could do it in advance maybe my grandmother would not die. Besides the suggestion, there was another one to advise me to express adequate emotional outlet in order to show the anger toward my grandmother’s death and in order not to be mistaken as a cruel man without any feelings. That the suggestions in 1996 which I adopted was really good therefore I let it planted deep in my heart.

That Déjà vu phenomenon was a kind of useful trick, when I learned it in 1996 it was called the reward system problem from the website of a man called Brian. Brian had a brother shot his own head with a gun and this prompted Brian to set up the website. The website of Mr Brian introduced the phenomenon by describing that certain chemical concentration in the brain would lead to the reward system malfunction, that is, making decision without meritorious orientation. Recently this phenomenon was discussed in the Psychology Today magazine with a terminology coined to be Déjà vu, defined to be a kind of short circuit or crosstalk in memory as the Déjà vu phenomenon.

And Mr Robert’s birthday was in August. I didn’t tell him correctly what was my birthday in my sophomore age in 1990, but later I regret to told Mr Robert that my zodiac sign was of Aquarius. Mr Robert had asked for my name and kept down on a paper.

D.B. August 11, 2013, National Central Library

“Have your taxi waiting, (almost) close my door. Close your game, cause I feel better…” That was when the bonus track chanted English singerDido. Not diddle or dildo. Dido from the CD cover she looked a little like the actress Meg Ryan in the movie You’ve Got Mail with her song Thank You in the MTV. But this album was Life For Rent, and the yellow cab waiting outside the local Citibankbranch before it was shutting down. I had a paycheck deposited into my Citibank account which was still active on that day, July 29, 2004, that I carried it back from the Taipei City ZooMcDonald’s with two malicious Toyota dealer members negotiated earlier in the morning until afternoon. One could be dealership owner and the other a rich family offspring saleswoman, they had been involved with the fraud before the deal on November 2, 2002 and failed to notify me thatToyota would buy back Toyota car with window heat insulation defect in Toyota advertisement before the car was brought back. That Toyota car had many problems, though I had bought it fromthe Toyota company with government goods tax official receipt, and had been regularly driving the car to the local Toyota automobile maintenance plant to care the new car, as my university classmate Mr. Yang suggested in August 1996 when he was driving his Volkswagen with us on the interstate of R.I. as a freshman of the Brown University.

And the New York Times said that the son of their chief executive officer Mr. W , addressed as a lawyer of the Citibank headquarter, got shot dead in the New York Citibank office, in the online edition and later in the printed edition. I heard that later in their Citibank New York office Mr. W’s son was still there, but seemed to hold an MBA degree. My university classmate Mr Liu with the local Citibank’s legal affairs apartment secretary Ms. Sue engaged was there when the Chief Executive Officer’s son got shot dead on scene, just after they were arguing for something. That son of Mr. W had a law degree, though. My classmate Mr Liu at the time had a New York Timessubscription in that agency alike shared Citibank office, and with Ms. Sue from local Citibank he got a bargain with some officer for the US immigrant affairs to cover their misdeed of cheating on my social security number and 1996 applied green card. That sounded like a perfect deal, though Ms. Sue of Citibank secretary got a detention earlier this year for unknown reasons. They seemed to be waiting for the local law court’s decision to put me into the psycho-asylum by currently entangled libel law suit, by no means of any ethical concerns.

D.B., August 9, 2013

When we are rambling through the boutique street in the skyscraper building, we can see bags, apparel, golds, diamonds and so on, arranging elegantly in the display window. Tiffany’s, Cartier’s, diamonds are a girl’s best friend. Extroverts are always showing enthusiastic attitude toward people, and easy to ask and get those diamonds to become their best friends. But if they hate it, we can find that in the old television advertisement that diamond with the ring is thrown into the sea. Therefore they could not be finding back again.

—————————

Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend Lyrics
from Great American Legends: Marilyn Monroe

The French are glad to die for love.
They delight in fighting duels.
But I prefer a man who lives
And gives expensive jewels.
A kiss on the hand
May be quite continental,
But diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

A kiss may be grand
But it won’t pay the rental
On your humble flat
Or help you at the automat.

Men grow cold
As girls grow old,
And we all lose our charms in the end.

But square-cut or pear-shaped,
These rocks don’t loose their shape.
Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

Tiffany’s!
Cartier!
Black Starr!
Frost Gorm!
Talk to me Harry Winston.
Tell me all about it!

There may come a time
When a lass needs a lawyer,
But diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

There may come a time
When a hard-boiled employer
Thinks you’re awful nice,
But get that ice or else no dice.

He’s your guy
When stocks are high,
But beware when they start to descend.

It’s then that those louses
Go back to their spouses.
Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

I’ve heard of affairs
That are strictly platonic,
But diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

And I think affairs
That you must keep liaisonic
Are better bets
If little pets get big baguettes.

Time rolls on,
And youth is gone,
And you can’t straighten up when you bend.

But stiff back
Or stiff knees,
You stand straight at Tiffany’s.

Diamonds! Diamonds!
I don’t mean rhinestones!
But diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

Songwriters
Gordon, Martin

"The Power of the Bilingual Brain" of the July 22, 2013 Time magazine. The grade 1 through 4 Language textbook with simplified Chinese taught by pingyin, is currently used in the elementary school of the Utah state, according to the Time article. The Taiwan human rights case, Mr David CK Chang, mentioned by name on the Language textbook which was published in 2004 should be like one of the kind. The grade 6-15 who would be bilingual to study this Mandarin language textbook may be happened in several years later to use another advance textbook of World geography and history of Sociology category, in monolingual English to discover the human rights cases without specific names mentioned in the textbook, which contents should be as "There are many human rights cases happened in areas such as Taiwan, Iran..." Among which the Iran human rights case target was informed to be killed in 2004 July, just at the timing of the grade 1-4 Language textbook was under bipartisan review at Taipei county.

The Power of the Bilingual Brain
By Jeffrey Kluger / Salt Lake City Monday, July 29, 2013, Link:

The Power of the Bilingual Brain
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2147707,00.html

Remarks, "20130722 Letter to Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien of Control Yuan"

This morning I have received the letter from Control Yuan Chief Mr Ombudsman Wang Chien-Shien, 102.7.8 Yuan Taiwan Affairs 1020780992, the gist is "The Control Yuan had received your petition in electronic letter form on July 14, 2013. As explanation in the following, please be aware." The explanation is "In your petition letter mentioned that the Taiwan New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office was alleged infringing your constitutional rights simply by a closure of two filed criminal cases, the attempted murder and fraud case against the Toyota Company, and the attempted murder and fraud case against the National Security Bureau agent Ms Chang Lee-Chang, please submit substantial details and matters of the legal establishment infringement, and as well provide photocopy of the mutual communicating legal documents of the establishment for reference."

As the part of Control Yuan Chief Mr Wang Chien-Shien mentioned "substantial details", the contents of attempted murder, fraud cases and infringement of constitutional rights had been detailed in the petition letter, and others such as the evidence of the Taiwan Internal Revenue Service or the National Tax Bureau governmental printed electronic taxed receipt was provided on July 14, 2013 petition letter as evidence of taxed goods certificate legal document of the criminal fraud case against Toyota company.

As the part of "provide photocopy of the mutual communicating legal documents", the privy had submitted on May 8, 2013 P.M.4:30 to Control Yuan first floor the Reception Mail Room, "Photocopies of decision documents of the Prosecutors Offices, photocopies of the verdict documents of the Law Courts". The sixth item on May 8 provided was photocopy of "Taiwan Banciao District Court Prosecutors Office letter, 101.8.23, Ban Prosecutor Jade 101 He 3499, 3500, No. 135484, of cases closure acknowledgement letter of the attempted murder and fraud case against the Toyota company on July 22, 2012, and the attempted murder and fraud case against the National Security Bureau agent Ms Chang Lee-Chuan...

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/07/20130722.html
監察院長信箱20130722

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Habeas corpus is a judicial device by which jailed people may require their jailer to justify their imprisonment to a court. It is a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to give federal courts review over state court convictions and to enforce federal constitutional guarantees. It is generally accepted that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the right during the Civil War met with strong opposition.

Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Applying to arrests and to searches of persons, homes, and other private places, this amendment requires a warrant, thereby placing a neutral magistrate between the police and the citizen.

Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Indictment by a grand jury requires the decision of ordinary citizens to place one in danger of conviction. Double jeopardy means that when one has been convicted or acquitted, the government cannot place that person on trial again. The self-incrimination clause means that the prosecution must establish guilt by independent evidence and not by extorting a confession from the suspect, although voluntary confessions are not precluded. Due process of the law requires the government to observe proper and traditional methods in depriving one of an important right. Finally, when the government seizes property to use in the public interest, it must pay the owner fair value.

Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Defendants in criminal cases are entitled to public trials that follow relatively soon after initiation of the charges. Witnesses must be brought to the trial to testify before the defendant, judge, and jury. Defendants are also entitled to compel witnesses on their behalf to appear and testify.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Remarks, "20130714 Letter to Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien of Control Yuan";

Please Control Yuan Chief Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien Shien make an impeachment of the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office that infringes the ROC Constitution Aritcle 8th which states The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and infringes the ROC Constitution Article 16th which states the equal protection of the laws, in that violating constitutional rights of the citizen Mr David Chang. The details are stated as the following:
1. New Taipei District Court(the former Banciao District Court) Prosecutors Office Libel Case No. 101 Yellow Investigation 2752, without any legal consisting element to prosecute the defendant, violating the ROC Constitution Aritcle 8th, The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. New Taipei District Court(the former Banciao District Court) Prosecutors Office, Criminal Case No. 101 Barren He 3499, Toyota Attempted Murder Case and Fraud Case; New Taipei District Court(Banciao District Court) Prosecutors Office, Criminal Case No. 101 Barren He 3500 National Security Bureau Agent Ms Chang Lee-Chuan Attempted Murder Case and Fraud Case, in the pretext that the government involved in the Case Number "He" Cases to conclude the criminal cases simply with a closure of the two filed criminal law cases, violating the ROC Constitution Article 16th, the equal protection of the laws.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/07/20130714.html
監察院長信箱20130714

Human Rights Case name Mr David Chang,
which mentioned in the USA textbook, published 2004 in Arkansas, later the copyright was sold to some publisher in Tennessee, Alabama or Texas state. The textbook is circulating mostly in the states of Arkansas and Texas. The textbook is used by some of the elementary schools in the Florida areas. That textbook was brought upon to some Taiwanese political review including bipartisan DPP and KMT politicians in 2004 before the copyrights was sold from the Arkansas publisher to Alabama or Tennessee publisher.

The United Nations child abuse case, case name Mr David Chang, who had in person signed a UN investigation agreement on August 6, 1996 in the New York City, then the killings of six relatives ensued…“More than ten years the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing after the death of mother-in-law Mrs Wang-Me Chang, successively suffered the bereavement of the death of brother-in-law, Mr Ching-Yuan Chang who died in June 2000, her sister Mrs Yu Jin-Zhi’s death on September 28, 1999 in front of the Presidential Office Building Taipei, nephew Mr Zong-dian Liu’s death on October 10, 1999 in Chiayi Sun Link Sea Resort after trapped in the tour bus await death, sister-in-law (Yu) King Zhi on July 15, 2004 or later during the police inquiry and the judicial investigation killed by medical gross negligence in the hospital, the husband of sister-in-law, Mr Weng Guo-ying was also killed in 2007 during the judicial and police investigation, a total of six relatives have been killed in the form of manslaughter to be as an insult…”
-- from "Background about pleading impeachment of Judicial Yuan violating citizen Constitutional rights"; A Legal complaints to New Taipei District Court submitting to Supreme Court.

The trivial proof of Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 which the law court was violating, leading to the miscarriage of justice of libel case in New Taipei District Court No. 101 Savant Yi 2318, explained to the Control Yuan Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien as following:

Given the Assumption C, the logic which backs up the criminal procedural code provision 158 is, If A then B. However, adding the condition with the privy as the defendant of libel case was also the witness of the rape case summoned by district court thirty years ago to be the evidence of the controversial libel consisting legal element of illegitimate daughter which is known to the district court, the assumption would change from Assumption C to Assumption I. Given the Assumption I, the initial condition of logic changed from A to X, and the logic which backs up the criminal procedural code becomes, If X then Y. But if the Supreme Court Prosecutors Office still denies the evidence revealed by the defendant as a law court rape case witness and the cited criminal procedural code would be with the logic that, If X then B. Because the law court is lying to the evidence of controversial libel legal element of the illegitimate daughter and seems ignorant of the absence of legal consisting element of the libel case, therefore decides a custodial sentence upon the privy as the libel defendant. The law court violates the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 with the fallacy of composition, in that, if one of the accused citing the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 to expect to be acquitted from the libel court only with bona fides is true, therefore all the accused citing the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 would expect to be acquitted from the libel court only with bona fides. This is clearly fallacious, because many are not only with the bona fides but with the evidences.

If the Supreme Court were to insist the conflicts in logic of violating Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158, which would serve as a brutal lie only, the privy as the libel defendant would have to end up the trivial proof with the argument of Copernicus versus the church of heliocentric theory to conclude the logic deduction.

However, the trivial proof of law court violating the criminal procedural code should be only submitted with a lawyer who could appear in the supreme court, or with the condition that the supreme court summons the defendant to present it. Therefore, the privy as the libel defendant of a miscarriage of justice case, only in written appealing document claim the libel case verdict to be invalidated by the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 1 succeeding the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 violation.

Hereby, Mr David CK Chang, as the privy and the libel defendant, make a request to the Control Yuan Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien for an impeachment of the Supreme Court Prosecutors Office for denying the miscarriage of justice of the concerned libel case.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/07/20130708.html

監察院長信箱20130708

1. Of a false allegation libel charge which the accused suspect or defendant had been strongly arguing for eighteen months to be without any legal element to consist the crime, the dismiss of a libel criminal investigation which the defendant claimed the evidence out of a witness status thirty years ago of the rape case which was bringing upon the birth of the illegitimate daughter that inappropriately referred by the libel court as legal consisting element and alleged a cumulative penalty, serving nothing but only a lie coming from the very law court, if a second prosecutor of the same libel court intended to decide a dismiss with the evidence claimed by the accused innocent witness wishing to testify for a criminal death case to be innocent with the plaintiff withdrawing the libel lawsuit, the prosecutor statement should be going as such, "The investigation for the allegation of libel with the plaintiff withdrawing accusation to be dismissed." The prosecutor's statement should not be stated as "A cumulative penalty allegation confirmed by the prosecutor with the plaintiff withdrawing the libel law suit to dismiss the investigation."

2. The impeachment of New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office Prosecutor Hsu Shi-Yuan was requested by the very prosecutor for a simple closure from the District Court Prosecutors Office with a letter sent to the libel accused defendant who filed the impeachment, offered a simple statement saying that, "The impeachment accusation from the very libel criminal suspect was apparently lacking objective justification against the very prosecutor with the government judicial establishment conducting the investigation." That is to say, the impeachment was simply closed by the District Court Prosecutors Office by lying to the legal consisting elements of libel case to rule an innocent libel suspect to be with an offense of misdemeanor, in spite of that which impeachment accusation was clearly stating that the prosecutor was confirming the false charged libel lawsuit and miscarriage of justice of No. 101 Savant Yi 2318 Libel Case lying to the evidence that the same district court ever summoned rape case witness bringing to court to be succeeded with clear law court statement of an additional cumulative penalty allegation of same libel case but dismissed investigation of the accusation with the same libel plaintiff withdrawing the lawsuit. That the District Court Prosecutors Office dictated the closure of impeachment of prosecutor saying that the libel suspect grossly inferred the prosecutor violating law provisions without any objective justifications, for the defendant and libel accused had been securing his innocence to the law court in written legal documents by a thirty-years-ago-summoned-witness status of the rape case that bringing about the birth of the illegitimate daughter which was right to be the libel accusing plaintiff repeated argued as the libel consisting legal elements in the same two accusations, it would be the response from the District Court Prosecutors Office simply framed the innocent defendant to assert that the innocent defendant had repeated twice to accuse the libel investigating prosecutors without any objective justification and was adequate to be deemed as rebellious toward the law court libel investigation to be wasting the time of the criminal law court, or simply a misdemeanor without careful thinking and shall be subject to custodial sentence instead of a proper libel criminal guilty sentence with penalty inflicted.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/07/20130705.html
監察院長信箱20130705

Remarks, "20130702 Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien"

The libel trial against ROC Constitution Article 8th in New Taipei District Court to allege that defendant Mr David Chang was writing a Yahoo blog to disseminate in public that Mr Liao Cheng-Han and Ms Chiu Shu-Chen had an illegitimate daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen was libel act to injure Mr Liao Cheng-Han's good name, which allegation was conflicted with the truth and based on law court's own lies to deny that the defendant was thirty years ago an underage witness summoned by the same district court of the rape case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen against Mr Liao Cheng-Han, which raping was leading to the birth of Ms Liao Yu-Wen. The New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office, the New Taipei District Court, the Taiwan High Court, and the Supreme Prosecutors Office all lied against the Criminal Procedural Code provision 158 to deny a legitimate evidence that the defendant Mr David Chang secured with his status of an underage witness summoned by the same law court thirty years ago.
...the justices was not act to be ignorant, but act to perform a miscarriage of justice with lying in the law court. Therefore, according to ROC Constitution Article 8th, submit impeachment of Judicial Yuan breaching discipline with lying in libel criminal court to the Ombudsman Mr Wang.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/07/20130702.html

監察院長信箱20130702

Remarks, the appeal to the Supreme Court on June 11 2013

This statement in Chinese(optional) was the testimony of 1983 rape case happened at the Hai-Shan Junior High School, Taipei County, that Ms Chiu Shu-Chen was raped by Mr Liao Cheng-han. This testimony had not been submitted in person to the law court by the witness Mr David CK Chang before, because the witness was twelve years old and underage thirty years ago. The witness Mr David Chang's mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing appeared in the law court instead, on behalf of the underage witness Mr David Chang.

The appeal to the Supreme Court on June 11, 2013 of the 101 Savant Yi 2318 Libel Case of Breeze Liao Cheng-han was focused on the fact that because the defendant Mr David Chang thirty years ago was the district law court summoned witness of the criminal case Mr Liao Cheng-han raping Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, thus it was not simply within the district court and high court's own discretion to claim the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 to judge against the fact that Mr Liao Cheng-han raped Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to have a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen thirty years ago, and therefore the defendant Mr David Chang appealed to the Supreme Court to invalidate the process for the reason of violating Criminal Procedural Code Provision 1.

June 20, 2013 A.M. 11:00 at New Taipei District Court,

1. Inquiry of Prosecutor Hsu Shi-yuan's impeachment filed on June 6, 2013 about the case number, which is "No. 102 Ample He 2951".

2. Consulting the prosecutors office and district court and civil lawyer foundation that if it was necessary to file a civil lawsuit with regulation fee payment to require that Time magazine's subscriber address of three digit postal code to change back to officially five digit postal code, formerly ruled by the Taipei District Court and the New Taipei Prosecutors Office with the Banciao Post Office to mandate the Time magazine to use a three digit postal code as a special case to deliver the magazine to the New Taipei City Banciao district citizen Mr David Chang's house, palpable violation of law convention and citizen legal interests and ever refused by the Harvard Business Review magazine and the Psychology Today magazine.

3. On June 17, 2013 allegation of an identity theft case had been reported to the police office at Chendu Road, Banciao district, that the identity theft suspect could have committed felony criminal case and would get away with the identity theft offense using my Time magazine account covered by the district court, and chances are that it could be just the customer in the revealed Time magazine customer information data account to be the subsriber of the postal code 22043. The idetity theft case ensued from the potential felony criminal case were alleged to be committed by the Time magazine account suspect, and were orally registered to the police office on June 17 and registered to the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office today on June 20.  

Dear Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien:

The appeal for the custodial sentence of district court libel case, case number New Taipei District Court 101 Savant Yi 2318, was rejected by Taiwan High Court on April 30. The Taiwan High Court in the appeal rejecting document apparently mentioned that both the high court and the district court were aware of the defendant citing the Criminal Procedural Code 158 to describe a fact legally as evidence for the libel case of the defendant to be acquitted, that the district court should have known in 1983 the defendant was summoned by district court to testify against Mr Liao Cheng-Han for the rape case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, in which Mr Liao and Ms Chiu had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen resulting from the rape case and to have their daughter registered in Hong Kong government later in 1985. The defendant was underage at that time, only 12 years old and instead to be presented in court by his mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing as the proxy to testify the rape case.

As to the citing of Criminal Procedural Code 158, defendant Mr David Chang alleged that since the district court thirty years ago had ever summoned twelve years old underage defendant to testify the rape case against Mr Liao Cheng-Han, the district court should have known that because of the rape case testified, in which the two privies Mr Liao Cheng-Han and Ms Chiu Shu-Chen had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen registered later in Hong Kong, and therefore it would have been conflicts in logic when the district court summoned Mr David Chang of the rape case witness thirty years ago to be defendant of libel case today for the libel plaintiff claiming that Ms Liao Yu-Wen was not daughter of Mr Liao Cheng-Han, with the affidavit thirty years ago to be rape case testimony and today to be conviction of a libel case.

The district court and the appellate court for the sued libel case, in one year summoned, rejected the appeal of, and convicted the defendant Mr David Chang, a related rape case witness thirty years ago with victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen against Mr Liao Cheng-Han. The law court actually sentenced the witness of rape case to be a convicted libel criminal today of the Yahoo website blog, which was intended to be testifying the July 13, 2004 death case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, only for a reason that on the Yahoo website the defendant Mr David Chang of former witness of rape case referred the dead body of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to her daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen and then made the referee her daughter referred to her father Mr Liao Cheng-Han to have one year custodial sentence of libel verdict from the district court. It was miscarriage of justice for the conflicts in logic per se to sentence a witness to be the convicted. The law court apparently violated general conventions of law and common sense.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/05/20130530.html

監察院長信箱20130530