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.

 
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.

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.

   
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.

 
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.

 
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".