DB's Pixnet

Dear Google Chrome Customer Service:

Using Google Chrome to log in Pinterest.com online software, with problem to log in, seemed to be denied access or denied log in. The log in problem have been reported to the Pinterest.com with a request for help letter. For this issue I would report to the Google Chrome feedback in order to make sure this problem would be solved upon Google Chrome browser.

Another issue which may be concerned *(with Google) was that previously in this May probably *(Google official) kindly *notified me, a local Google Drive document and Google Blogspot user, *(of a matter) that the local Taiwan high court judge was disguised by a lower court prosecutor *identity to participate in an operation *(to) delete a high court judgement letter which was typed in by *(the Google document user) myself. This piece of information earlier I had reported *(via) Google Chrome feedback channel *(to Google, and) the latest update *(information) related to *(this) situation *(was) that a related district court judge being detained for identity theft upon a high court judge *(sentenced) that high court false verdict *(to reject a libel appeal together) with *(two other) high court judges, but the detained judge or prosecutor was with a rich family background therefore that false high court verdict was left unchecked.

I am very sorry that the local Google acting administration *(probably with office in the establishment of the Legislative Yuan National Defense Committee or in the National Security Bureau of a call center was acting) for Microsoft hotmail SkyDrive account, PChome blog account, Google blogspot, Google drive account etc, to decide *(an illegal infringement without noticing the user to delete online website articles though with magisterial document presented) for the *(Google acting agent granting the) deleting was to blame. And for a recently notified law court precedent showed that a high court *misplaced verdict generally *was using to lure the defendant of libel suspect with a convicted death sentence to make an appeal to the higher court for the misplaced libel lawsuit, which was just the case happened to myself as a blog writer *(with identity theft wrongly placed my name in several death sentences in this March), *(only would be rejected and) to pass an execution of death sentence *(right away) (which had been decided for the contempt of court). *(Before the libel case appeal rejection this May, in this March the district court was heard several identity theft cases happened to bring about several death sentences upon this Taiwan human rights account and a libel defendant myself, therefore surely left with several death sentences without execution). The information which had been notified *(was) for two identity theft *(cases) (caused) law court death sentences in this March *(upon this Taiwan human rights account) (right) before the Google administration granted the law enforcement illegal operation to delete that *(high court appeal rejection) document from Google website and Microsoft accounts, etc. That would be an abuse of government power upon a human rights account in the pretext of law court gross negligence *(to increase the risk of law court falsified death sentence execution with identity theft issue left unchecked).

For your information,
Mr David Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
September 25, 2013,*(Revised Sept. 26, 2013)
National Central Library,
Taipei City

Today is September 12, at A.M. 11:00 I was in the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors Office to consult the filed subversion cases. The defamation case sued on the day before has been with a high court prosecutors office case number. But previously filed subversion cases, the Toyota subversion case and the NSB agent Chang Lee-chuan subversion case has not yet any related information. The High Court Prosecutor's Office consultation appointed me on next Monday September 16 coming to the High Court Prosecutor's Office again for asking the related information.

This morning reporting to the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors Office with the US social security number and green card identity theft case, when consulting the filed subversion cases with the prosecutors office consulting officer, in speech form reported that the regulation fees of social security number card of USD$50 was paid on 1996 August 26 by the China Trust Bank New York Elmhurst Branch credit card in cash registered function, at the Brooklyn Bureau of New York City Government. In addition to that $50 US dollars paid by credit card, the Brooklyn Bureau officer charged me another $100 dollars by credit card to fill the Form I-551 for the green card application.

In addition to the National Security Bureau organization, agent Ralf Liu was affiliated to the Military Intelligent Bureau organization of ROC Taiwan, surely the green card identity theft was covered by that organization as well. I discussed with the High Court Prosecutors Office consulting officer about how could I resolve the dilemma, if as he suggested to report to the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office for the custody of one year executing with a miscarriage of justice libel case on the executing date September 23, then the green card identity theft case which previously I had reported to the Control Yuan would have no chance to be done with justice, and Taipei District Court judge Liu Dong-Yun with his affiliated organization such as CIA organization would get away with the green card identity theft and the other illegal misconducts in the aftermath of 2001 Thanksgiving Day illegal lynch to threaten to kill the victim of a green card identity owner for his organization with a military car accident, and then today succeeded with a miscarriage of justice libel case to sentence the victim of a green card owner for custody one year and depriving the victim, me, for any chance to claim back the green card identity.

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

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

Dear Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien:

Your letter sent on May 16, 2013 had been received today. The Judicial Yuan shall be impeached, because the libel criminal court had convicted a witness thirty years ago of libel today, using the same facts very witness testified in court as the convicted evidence.

Ms Liao Yu-Wen was Mr Liao Chen-Han's daughter because Mr Liao raped Ms Chiu Shu-Chen in 1983 to have the daughter. The Hong Kong Women and Children Protecting Organization and governmental officer in 1983 came to Taiwan to assist the twelve years old Ms Chiu Shu-Chen with her infant to sue Mr Liao Chen-Han a rape case to make the infant Liao Yu-Wen registered to be a Hong-Kong born of United Kingdom nationalist, with the required information of her mother and father's name. The police and district law courts were investigating the adolescent gang rape case of victim Ms Huang and the eleven years old victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen of underage raped case, the criminal court was to summon the twelve years old underage privy Mr David Chang, me, to be present in court to testify the rape case and the gang rape case. But privy David Chang had a United Nations Child Abuse Account to refuse the court sommon by the proxy custodian as privy David Chang was underage. Therefore the law court was to summon underage privy David Chang's mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing to present in court as the proxy of underage Mr David Chang, through her served public elementary school teachers and pricipal's office to require Mrs Wu to present in court. The privy David Chang was underage and not yet matured to be with capability to participate in the gang rape of victim Ms Huang and the rape case of 11 years old underage victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen raped by Mr Liao Chen-han. For this the United Nations Children Protection Account had filed a testifying procedure proving it was not yet potent for the underage privy Mr David Chang and to clarify that it was not yet matured enough to be logically legal or proper to be alleged as the rape case or gang rape suspect, and that the underage child Mr David Chang in 1983 was to be summoned by the law court as the witness, not as the suspect to Ms Chiu Shu-Chen's rape case against Mr Liao Chen-han.

Therefore, as to the Case No. 101 Yi 2318 Libel case with the legal consisting element void, that Ms Liao Yu-Wen was Mr Liao Chen-han's daughter for sure to consider that 1983 Ms Chiu Shu-Chen sued against Mr Liao Chen-Han for a rape case, it was Mr Liao Chen-Han to rape Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to be pregnant to have their daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen, and thirty years ago of the same jurisdiction to summon the twelve years old underage privy Mr David Chang as witness but the witness privy was underage to have his mother to be proxy to present in court. For this context, the libel court of 2012 New Taipei District Court Case No. 101 Yi 2318 Libel case, was to be violating civil rights to make the witness convicted, using the same facts of 1983 rape case testified in court to let the summoned witness testified but indicted and convicted, with the same evidence testified for the rape case thirty years ago to convict him a custodial for one year sentence. 

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/05/20130521.html

監察院長信箱20130521

1. Album Cover comment:

The AIT(American Institute at Taiwan) in October 2002 had asked for a check-up for my old passport of number M11659963 with my Baruch F1 Visa attached before the recent outbreak of green card identity theft engaged me in the law court. My 2002 May renewed passport was with legal issue of changing passport number, to become of No.132909476 issued by Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially. The AIT officials approved my B1/B2 Visa for five years up to 2007, before the passport was overdue last January in 2012. I did not comprehend what it was when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card, in October 2002. I had a social security card number SSN057-86-4042 issued in 1996 August from New York City Brooklyn Borough Bureau. But I did not have a chance to claim back my social security number, and my green card which seemed to be applied from my United Nations Child Abuse Case custodian Mrs Hillary R. Clinton in Washington D.C. Actually my green card was applied in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification of Taipei civil rights case, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying for me a green card because the officer explained that the social security account was not enough for the Taipei human rights or civil rights account for the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School registered international student at New York City.

2. Picture of Passport comment:

My 1996 passport, No. M11659963, was attached with 1996 Fall Baruch F1 student Visa which was issued on June 29, 1996 by officials of New York Government Education Dept. at JFK airport. The passport was due on January 23, 2002 when I was working at HuaNan Commercial Bank, notified to renew it because somebody had been falsifying my passport when it was overdue. I ignored that notification but was fired by the HNCB Bank on May 1. I was applying a passport renewal at the first week in 2002 May, but delayed for two times to receive the renewed passport at the end of 2002 May. The renewed passport was with legal issue of changing the passport number. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the official window was giving me another passport of No. 132909476. It was after my trips in 2002 summer to Europe and mainland China, when I submitted a USA travel and sight-seeing B1/B2 Visa application to American Institute at Taiwan(AIT) in 2002 October, the AIT officer asked for a check-up for my old passport of No. M11659963 which was with my Baruch F1 student Visa attached. On the day I received the USA B1/B2 Visa for travel and sight-seeing, after I was leaving the AIT Visa issuing window located at No. 7, Lane 134, Sec. 3 Xinyi Road, Da-an District, Taipei City, on spot there were some quarrels and taunts about a green card to do with me and apparently could be discerned by myself and the AIT officer at the AIT office counter. My B1/B2 Visa was approved by AIT for five years up to 2007, before the passport attached the B1/B2 Visa was overdue last January in 2012. However, I did not comprehend what it was when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card in October 2002, and therefore I had lost a chance to claim back my social security number with my green card under identity theft, which was applied by myself in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City because of the approval of a human rights or civil rights account at Taipei. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification from the White House or New York Government, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying a green card for me because the officer explained to me that social security account only was not enough for my human rights or civil rights account at Taipei, and she said that I was a citizen of New York City with Social Security Number to apply permanent residency in that I had registered to the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School to be registered international student at New York City. She was suggesting my friend Mr Tan Bo-Wei who was accompany me there, supposed to be the Polytech University student, that he should stay at New York City to register the Polytech programs to be qualified for the citizenship.

3. Picture of Visa comment:

My 1996 Fall Baruch F1 Visa attached on my 1996 passport, No. M11659963, issued on June 29, 1996 by officials of Education Dept. of New York Government at JFK airport.(The airport tax which was mentioned later for target of legal disputes, actually was collected by the Education Dept. officer of New York State to do a favor for me at the JFK Immigrant Office with the Baruch I-20 form exchanged for F1 Student Visa) The passport was due on January 23, 2002. I had a social security card number SSN057-86-4042 issued in 1996 August from New York City Brooklyn Borough Bureau with my Baruch College business graduate school F1 Visa status. I did not comprehend what they said, there were quarrels and taunts on spot about my green card and apparently could be discerned by myself and the AIT officer at the AIT office counter, when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card, in October 2002, and I had lost a chance to claim back my social security number under identity theft with my green card, which seemed to be applied from my United Nations Child Abuse Case custodian Mrs Hillary R. Clinton in Washington D.C. with that social security number. (Actually my green card was applied in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification of Taipei civil rights case, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying for me a green card because the officer explained that the social security account was not enough for the Taipei human rights or civil rights account for the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School registered international student at NYC.)

http://www.facebook.com/chaokai60

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.492201120846195.1073741826.100001689355919&type=3

Earlier this year on January 31, 2013, before the New Taipei District Court was to decide a custodial sentence for the libel case against me, the law court made a polygraph when I was sitting in as the observer of the fraud criminal law court of Farmer's Association of New Taipei City, an undergoing polygraph was hinted to be concerned with a plastic box displayed in front of the fraud law court about New Taipei City Farmer's Association's seal misused to bid a land in Banciao areas, and I was only court observer on the day before my libel case sentenced on the very day on January 31 at 5:30 P.M. to receive a guilty custodial one year sentence.

Something about the plastic box displayed in front of the law court on January 31, 2013 was concerned with a lynch case of a petty theft. The lynch victim of Mr Su Ming-Hsin in 2000 August was a NTD$450 plastic box petty theft criminal suspect in the French Mall Hyper, Geant Far Easter A-Mart, located on Sichuan Road at Banciao City, Taipei County, the former Banciao District in New Taipei City. Mr Su Ming-Hsin was a National Security Bureau(NSB) agent officer and employee of the Banciao Farmer's Association of Taipei County, the former Banciao Farmer's Association of New Taipei City. Several days within Su died in August 2000, the plastic box with pink color was carried by Banciao Farmer's Association staff and the law enforcement official to Sanchung Military Police Station burned in the incinerator within the 105th MP Investigation station. A month later there was a false Taiwan made plastic file box shown up in the office of Banciao Farmer's Association, and a year later there was a same style, French US manufacturer's blue color plastic box displayed in Banciao Farmer's association, apparently served as the purpose for perjury.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/04/blog-post_23.html