close
Date: 101/08/30 @ 14:26
To: Supreme Court
Name: David CK Chang
E-mail: chaokai_chang@hotmail.com
Telephone: 29550553
TITLE: Meritoriousness in Aug 27 filed legal complaints is to discharge responsibility for Ms Chiu Shu-Chen death postmortem report
Content:
Dear Chief Justice Mr Hao-Ming Rai and Supreme Court Justices:
About Complaints letters, 2012/08/27 @ 13:43 To: Taiwan High Court, Subject: “According to Criminal Code 213 perjury in official document keeping, Taiwan Banciao District Court involved Aug 10th subversion criminal case”, in which filed legal complaints document mentioned “About BP Yu, Year 101 HE NO.3498, 135477, Mr Liu Dong-Yun forged signature and stamp in official documents case, dismissed with least regard mentioned in only acknowledgement letter...although the suspect Mr Liu Dong-Yun in August 2004 of jurisdiction Taipei District Court as Taipei District Court Prosecutor or Judge... According to Criminal Code 100(subversion provision) officials at Taiwan Banciao District Court Prosecutors Office or at Taiwan Banciao District Court, criminal prosecution exempt privilege is subject to exception, that is, do not apply.”, Taiwan High Court Lawsuit Counselling Division has already replied in email form, which is attached at the end of this complaints letter document.
Meritoriousness in Aug 27 email letter form filed legal complaints is argument about the privy no longer hold any responsibility for Ms Chiu Shu-Chen death case, which happened on July 13, 2004. Mr Liu Dong-Yun forged the post-mortem by signing my name Mr Chaokai Chang on it to filed legal records, which caused lots of legal troubles thereafter in the following decade. Hereby the privy, me, discharge the responsibility alleged for the 2004 Ms Chiu Shu-Chen death case, with the forged document criminal lawsuit filed to Taiwan Banciao District Court, with only dismissal by Taiwan Banciao District Court Prosecutors Office with least regard mentioned in acknowledgement.
From reliable sources, on July 15, 2004 and August 1, 2004, Taipei County local Panchiao Military Police Station called for Taipei District Court jurisdiction Judge Mr Liu Dong-Yun to cope with Ms Chiu Shu-Chen’s death case which happened on July 13 after midnight at 2 a.m. and a post-mortem report was written by the enlisted Taipei District Court Judge Mr Liu Dong-Yun after inquesting the death body. The disputing point was believed to be that the official mobilization name roll to enlist Taipei District Court Judge Mr Liu Dong-Yun to the criminal scene from the 1993 July 43rd Reserve Officer Class of Military Police Academy Student Officer Brigade, while the name enlisted on the name roll could be recorded in my name S.Lt. Mr ChaoKai Chang. On July 15, 2004 Mr Judge Liu Dong-Yun signed the post-mortem report, August 1 Mr Judge Liu Dong-Yun was with my uncle Chang Wu-xiong to inquest Ms Chiu Shu-Chen’s death on scene again, but Ms Chiu Shu-Chen’s body seemed to be gone after the post-mortem signed on July 15. No signs of interment or cremation was found, therefore it was supposed to be sort of evidence destroying crime followed upon the deceased as adequate criminal provisions could inflict penalty. Besides, when Mr Judge Liu Dong-Yun reported to Panchiao Military Police Station at least twice for enlisting on July 15 and August 1, the on-duty report document was registered with my name Chaokai Chang, in addition to the inquest on July 15 Mr Judge Liu Dong-Yun signed post-mortem with my name Chaokai Chang on the report. The homicide or simply death case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen seemed to be classified in governmental account, because Ms Chiu’s bosom friend, television actress Ms Tsai Tsan-Te filed a lawsuit to local Banciao District Court after reporting to former Taipei County Police Station about Ms Chiu’s death case and having quarrels, only dismissed by the law court with same reason given by the police of that Ms Chiu Shu-Chen was a movie star from Hong-Kong, could not be your Taipei County Hope Elementary School classmate.
(Translating footnote: I was informed at the moment that elementary school classmate Ms Tsai Tsan-Te having legal troubles when dealing with Ms Chiu Shu-Chen’s death case, when a help request from Ms Tsai Tsan-Te notifying she knew my MP Reserve Officer second lieutenant status in Panchiao Military Police Station jurisdiction, but this was coming with information that a subversion case had filed against me by one of my 43rd Reserve Office classmate, though that subversion case against me was dismissed without official notification.)
Eight years later, me, Mr David ChaoKai Chang was privy of the implication, being sued in Panchiao District Court for months finally the prosecutor decided to bring me to be trialed in the district court on August 29, 2012 for a criminal libel case, for only an article posted on Yahoo website related to the 2004 Ms Chiu Shu-Chen criminal death case. The privy Mr David CK Chang on August 20 had filed to Constitution Court Grand Justices Meeting for explanation appeal about the August 29 criminal libel trial upon citizen without any necessary legal elements constituting the crime, apparently violating ROC Constitution Article 8 ruling for illegal arrest and trial could be refused by citizen, while as a matter of fact cannot be rejected by the privy because a subpoena from Banciao District Court was issued. The Constitution Court judicial officials concerned me for the appeal application in procedure deficiency of applying Constitution Court Grand Justices explanation, the judicial officials firstly had focused on whether a prosecution writ should be or could be attached to the appealing constitution explanation application, and secondly had focused on whether an adequate lawsuit in lower court would have been settled about the constitution explanation appeal filed on August 20 to the Constitution Court Grand Justices Meeting. For these two concerned points, firstly a false charge case against the libel allegation plaintiff Liao Chen-Han and the New Taipei City Criminal Police had been settled on August 10, when Taiwan High Court prosecutors office director denied appeal to the high court for the rejection of reconsideration to the dismissed false charge of libel case from lower court while the director suggested a void legal procedure to file a request for prosecution together with lawyer when the dismissed false charge involved criminal libel case had already been decided to be trialed on August 29. Secondly, on August 10 after Taiwan High Court prosecuting office director denied appeal, the privy filed to the high court for Criminal Code 100 subversion case against the New Taipei City Criminal Police and Breeze Mr Liao Cheng-Han. Therefore the argument about not to attach the prosecuting writ to application form appeal to the Constitution Court Grand Justices is because of that it is only a law court decision to bring the privy to trial, of a legal procedure depended upon which that August 29 libel criminal trial would be carried on. It is not about a single law provision application violating the Constitution or any legal settlement violating the Constitution to be subject to applying to the Grand Justices Constitution explanation procedure. The legal argument is in that perjury such as Chiu Shu-Chen death case induced legitimate establishment judiciary in lower court in its legitimate power to embody the law, act against the Constitution without obligated self-regulation. Except for executive order, this is about the law that could violate the Constitution hereby the privy apply for the Constitution explanation. The application appeal on August 20 to Constitution Court Grand Justice Meeting for the Constitution Article 8 violating doubt clearing explanation, which was filed on August 20 well according to the applying procedural law for Grand Justices Constitution Explanation Meeting.
By law the privy Mr David ChaoKai Chang, me, on July 13 to July 15, 2004 had a perfect alibi to the Chiu Shu-Chen criminal death case, to be located by two policemen on patrol and the National Security Bureau agents and visiting public with relatives of privy included within NSB office at Mt. Yang-Ming and Kaohsiung branch, driving Toyota sedan on the Youth Road at Kaohsiung City in front of California Motel which was owned by Breeze Mr Liao Chen-Han. On August 27, 2012 the privy Mr David ChaoKai Chang filed legal complaints to Taiwan High Court in email form document mentioned previously filed two criminal case against Toyota and NSB agent, both dismissed with least regard in acknowledgement. Except for that these two law suit cases were murder combined with fraud felony per se, the privy filed these two felony cases to Taiwan Banciao District Court for ad hoc purpose to claim two perfect alibis for July 29, 2002(translating footnote: July 24-July 29, 2002) and July 13, 2004, but both felony cases got a least regard in acknowledgement letters of dismissal. The District Court legal dismissal letters case number are as following: Dismissal letter case number BPYu Year 101 HE 3499, 3500 NO.135484 for dismissing July 23 the privy filed murder and fraud lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation with case number BP Barren Year 101 HE NO.3499, and for dismissing July 23 filed murder and fraud lawsuit against NSB agent Ms Chang Lee-Chuan with case number BP Barren Year 101 HE NO. 3500. On August 6 the privy also submitted with one piece of reason with two evidence items of documents of photocopy about the Toyota lawsuit(with Toyota sold stolen car engine number 3zz4132619 on the documents), official documents of Toyota customer receipt, official car tax ticket and official new car plate number license; of NSB agent lawsuit, biochemical injection cancer trial test in hospital physical examination form which was alleged for intruding agency training purpose of toxic potential.
Best Regards,
David CK Chang, Citizen of New Taipei City,
F121485303,
August 30, 2012,
National Central Library,
Taipei City
From: Legal complaints autoreply system(Do not reply) (no_relply@mail.judicial.gov.tw)
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:24:01 AM
To: chaokai_chang@hotmail.com (chaokai_chang@hotmail.com)
Reply to 2012/8/27 1343 Legal complaints service letters about "According to Criminal Code 213 perjury in official document keeping, Taiwan Banciao District Court involved Aug 10th subversion criminal case", For your reference.
Lawsuit counselling service for citizens rule Number 7 regulates...
Taiwan High Court Lawsuit Counselling Division
Translated by DB, September 16, 2012, National Central Library, Taipei City
NB. Oct 4, 2012 from http://davidjerry.multiply.com
http://davidjerry.multiply.com/journal/item/142/Meritoriousness-in-Aug-27-filed-legal-complaints-is-to-discharge-responsibility-for-Ms-Chiu-Shu-Chen-death-postmortem-report-
全站熱搜
留言列表
