Please see the text below some space
to avoid the obstacle of the right advertisement.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The accusation of the shameless evil deeds of Taiwan Government to abuse its strong power & exert the crowd to not only shelter the illegal but enforce me political & judicial persecutions groundlessly on purpose (including the illegal maltreatment of the Taichung Watching House to me ) -The "law-performers" as the policeman, the official disciplinarian (They & the relevant officials even made false evidences to ensnare me but were indulged by the government on purpose.) & the court fall as tools to shelter the illegal, strike against the innocent & persecute the human rights:
("Chinese Human Rights Association" also deems them illegal, see described below.)                                                                   Chung-Gin Lee 


 
OUTLINE
The foresaying that Taiwan Gov. not only shelter the illegal but enforce me political & judicial persecutions groundlessly on purpose: 

Besides many illegal invading my rights cases: 

The Gov. (including the court) also indulged many illegal invading my rights cases not to manage according to law, but contrarily judged me the non-existent crime & penalty ( -also basing upon the false evidence) absurdly on purpose as follows: 
No.1 The court disregarded the clerk of the former Provincial Tax Bureau Shew-Luan Chang's many illegal crimes described below & the head of the office Gian-Fon Tan's giving false witness for Chang: 

No.2 The agent-head of the discipline-maintaining office of the former Provincial Accounting Department Gin-Lu Sy not only sheltered Chang's crime of fabricating doc., but accused me that I'd torn (or robbed) Chang's transference list copy I'd accused to be fabricated to broken on purpose falsely: 

No.3 Chang falsely accused me that I'd torn up 9 pages of the registry for the docs. undertaken I'd transferred to her (including the record of the evidence of Chi's colluding with Hu to hide my file & also Chang etc. their own on fabricating doc. -see the detail in the above item "Besides many illegal invading my rights cases:" ) arbitrarily -the court judged me six months' penalty absurdly: 

No.4 The policeman Jia-Chen Hwang connived at Chang's criminal act on fabricating the t.l. on purpose, but arrested me -the plaintiff illegally at the instigation of Tan & Sy etc.; after I'd accused his illegal arrest against me, wanting to get rid of his crime so he countercharged me "as a reporter to the police but I'd reviled & struck the policeman -him coming at my request groundlessly to hinder his performance of official business to manage Chang's case on fabricating the t.l. for me" falsely -the court judged me one year's penalty absurdly: 

No.5 The true evidence of the two above courts' judgments (No.3 & No.4 cases) seriously violating the law -the "evidence & experience rules" (including relevant legal percedents): 

No.6 At my being illegally detained at The Taichung Watching House, they also based upon the customarily illegal mind & behaviors that the gov. persecuted me to persecute me -they hung me on the tree shelf causing my sinews & bones seriously injured: 

No.7 To my many years' appealing about the above illegal cases -the Gov. not only sheltered the illegal, but persecuted & maltreated me, Taiwan Gov. still disregards refusing to manage according to law to render me a late-coming justice up to now: 

No.8 To Taiwan Gov.'s brutal & shameless deeds of tramping law &reason &the weaker's human rights arbitrarily, I'll strive with it at all costs -even probably suffering its sequent persecutions & sacrificing my life (being assassinated) to the end:

The foresaying that Taiwan Gov. not only shelter the illegal but enforce me political & judicial persecutions groundlessly on purpose:
I's graduated from Tamkang College & was distributed to the accounting office of the former Provincial Tax Bureau via the pass of the high-degree exam of officials in Jan. 1981. Because the head of the office Gian-Fon Tan wished to use his henchman, so he abused his power & exerted his subordinates to expel & persecute me. And the superior administrative & judicial organizations also based upon "the officials protect one another", absolutely disregarding the law & reason to not only shelter their illegal acts but persecute me groundlessly on purpose (including to indulge them -containing the policeman & the official disciplinarian etc. to fabricate false evidences to ensnare me on purpose):               (Back to OUTLINE)
Besides many illegal invading my rights cases:
In May, 1981 I redistributed a document originally distributed to me to a tax-officer Co-Ho Hu (the original officer of the a.c. borrowed there), so lent the borrowed precedent file to Hu by the way for his reference. Then the head of our section Yang-Wu Chi used the opportunity to collude with Hu to transfer that file to Chi for hiding to ensnare me. (Afterwards Hu denied the case & refused to return the file at my request; though Chi & Tan saw & heard this nearby then, they still disregarded it. So I was compelled to report the discipline-maintaining office of the T.B., accompanied by one disciplinarian to the a.o. & found that file at Chi's seat on the spot. Later on I also reported the case to the superior org. -the former Provincial Accounting Department -if there hadn't been the case, then how dared I fabricate witness (especially the disciplinarian) to accuse my superior falsely? and if it's proved to be false after their investigation, then how could they connive at my fabricating fact to accuse my superior falsely on purpose but not give me severe punishment? so though they distorted the fact to shelter Chi & Hu's crime & Chang etc.'s crime on fabricating doc. described behind, they dared not punish me in the name of "my fabricating fact to accuse my superior falsely"; obviously it could sufficiently prove the case to have been true, otherwise they'd soon use the chance to add the embellishment to it to persecute me surpassing than many illegal cases of invading my rights described behind.) After several days, Tan also reviled me groundlessly for his not granting my asking for the superior org.'s instructions on his ordering me to pass an illegal doc. to get a safer disposal, then degraded me -the office worker to do the job of the clerk Shew-Luan Chang.
Afterwards he continued to exert his subordinates to taunt & jeer alternatively at me, practicing spiritual persecution on me wanting to force me to leave the a.o. automatically for not being able to tolerate it to attain his end to expel me (I also reported these to the former Provincial A.D..), so caused the case that the extra labor of the a.o. Pei-Zon Lee reviled me gratuitously first to his face, then struck me to injury in June 1982 -otherwise how dared she strike me to injury rampantly in public in the office before the head & all the associates? (The disciplinarian of the T.B. got the investigation result from all the associates on the spot then to be that "Lee had caught my hair to hit my head" -causing my serious injury state approximate to the brain-vibration. Including Lee herself & the eye-witnesses all couldn't say out where I'd beaten Lee & she had no injury either, but the gov. still stiffly distorted it to be "my exchanging blows with her" to not only shelter her crime but punish me absurdly by it. The court also judged it to be "my exchanging blows with her" absurdly.)
During the period of my curing injury, Tan also exerted 10 female subordinates (including Chang etc. in the case of "the registry for the documents undertaken" described behind) to assume the name of "the whole staff of the a.o." (Except me & the superior officials, there're still 16 associates remaining in the a.o..) to write a letter to the former A.D. to accuse me that except my signature on & off duty, neither a trace nor a shadow of mine was seen at the usual time (Then how could I undertake the office work?) and (meantime?) I could also create disturbances in the office to bother their work & I'd exchanged blows with the labor Lee, I'd accused the superior falsely -to have hidden my file (See the falsehoood described ahead; and just because it'd been false, so when the judge asked them about how I'd struck Lee while she'd been beating me, what they said were either she hadn't been on the spot then or she didn't know it etc.. With this could still more sufficiently prove the case how they'd talked nonsense.) etc. falsely -with a view to leaning upon "the whole crowd strength" to force the A.D. to transfer my job. (The A.D. not only sheltered their "definite" crime of fabricating document, but used it to threaten my father wanting to transfer my job. The court also judged them innocent.)           (Back to OUTLINE)
The Gov. (including the court) also indulged many illegal invading my rights cases not to manage according to law, but contrarily judged me the non-existent crime & penalty ( -also basing upon the false evidence) absurdly on purpose as follows:
No.1 The court disregarded the clerk of the former Provincial Tax Bureau Shew-Luan Chang's illegal crimes described below -having destroyed the real transference list & fabricated a transference list falsely recorded "with the transference of a registry for docs. undertaken" on it, having made the official make false record on doc. -see described behind & having had the possibility to collude with Tan & Gin-Lu Sy (the agent-head of the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D.) to fabricate a report she'd sent up to the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. on May 16, 1983 falsely recorded that the original of the transference list had been detained by me again at her asking my returning the 9 pages torn of the registry for docs. undertaken to her & refused to return -otherwise did Chang -as a clerk have the audacity to fabricate a report to the superior -moreover the discipline-maintaining office arbitrarily & moreover to the face of "the relevant one of the same case" Sy? -Didn't she fear that the court would show it before "the relative ones" -Tan & Sy at its investigating the evidences publicly & probably ask Tan & Sy about the report & write it on the sentence causing to expose her fabrication falsehood? (From Tan's response to the inquiry of the court, he should have known it.) & Tan's giving false witness for Chang:
Neither Tan nor Chang could show the evidence that Chang had once undertaken docs. -as Chang's signature record to undertake the doc. on the registry list of the doc. or the docs. she had once undertaken & the registries for the docs. undertaken having been transferred to Chang by her predecessors -with the same rank "clerk" as she -even after my having indicated that they should have shown them clearly, they still couldn't. So Tan was forced to take my registry I -the office worker used to record the doocs. I undertook after my being degraded to do Chang's work (After my being degraded, the head of my section began to transfer part of the docs. originally undertaken by him to me.) to "stiffly adhere to it & analogize unreasonably", stiffly saying that clerk-Chang had also undertaken the same docs. as I. With this, could still more sufficiently verify that clerk-Chang had really never undertaken docs. (Before I's degraded, I once acted for Chang's work for a month during her bearing-child vacation. I didn't undertake docs. either, just combined the statements sent from all the inferior units to make a consolidated statement as she said then & at the time of transference.), hadn't used the registry to record the case of Chang's undertaking docs. as they said falsely & had been still less able to transfer it to me out of nothing. Then the transference list copy with that item on it was certainly fabricated.
Besides, as Chang once fabricated the t.l., she just considered to fabricate my (the receiver's) seal & written date (It's May 27 written on it.), but neglected to add her (the transferrer's ) own -causing it could simply be said it's I that made the transference on May 27 singularly, but not both Chang & I were managing the transference & reception on May 27, 1981; later on she also neglected the foregoing falsehood saying that we both had stamped & written the date on the t.l. basing on the true case that we both had done so on the "real" t.l. (According to the law & reason it should have been so too.). She also neglected the fact that "I'd written the date first on the t.l. then had stamped the date " -this's also "the first & later order of my writing date & stamping on the docs. I undertook at the usual time", causing to fabricate it to be "I stamped the t.l. first then wrote the date on the stamp" -this's "the custom that Tan & Chi stamped & wrote the date on the docs. they undertook"; the handwriting was also different from mine; later on she also neglected the foregoing falsehood saying that I'd written the date first on the t.l. then had put the stamping basing on the first & later order of my writing date & stamping on the real t.l. she'd once seen. All these already exposed her fabricating falsehood herself (Then obviously the official seal of my name was carved falsely or stolen to stamp the t.l. by her.). And owing to her fearing of being found out her fabricating falsehood, causing that she dared not show the original of the fabricated t.l. to the prosecutor & the court for examining. So as the senior court still asked her for the original of the t.l. at the second time on May16, 1984 (see described behind) owing to identifing its deeming with my contradiction to her obviously unreasonable false words before the prosecutor (see described behind) causing to unadopt her false words there, she echoed to my above contradiction to her then to make the superior of the a.o. of Tax Bureau write that "according to Chang's sayings that the case that I'd detained her original of the t.l. had once been sent up to the superior gov. (accompanied with the case of the registry for docs. undertaken on June 2, 1983) asking to dispatch someone to investigate it and Chang had also reported the process state in writing on May 16,1983 (adhered to "the process state report of the case of the registry for docs. undertaken")" falsely on the doc. May 25, 1984 -Tan had been transferred to the former Provincial Dept. of Finance then, and furthermore fabricated a report she'd sent up to the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. on May 16, 1983 falsely recorded that the original of the t.l. had been detained by me again at her asking me for the torn-off 9 pages of the registry for docs. undertaken -using it to deceive the court to camouflage her fear of being found out her fabricating falsehood causing not daring to show it to the court & to accuse me falsely simultaneously.
According to Chang's sayings could know that Chang's report about the process state of the registry for docs. undertaken to the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. hadn't been existent before Tan's sending up that case to the A.D. on June 2, 1983; that sufficiently proved Chang's report on May 16, 1983 to be false already. And the registry case Tan sent up was according to Chang's report, neither mentioned the case that I'd detained Chang's original of the t.l. again and didn't attach Chang's report May 16, 1983 either. Besides, according to Tan & Sy's sayings could know that the original of the t.l. was still under their control up to June 16, June 30, 1983; Chang had never reported that case to Tan & (so) Tan had never sent it up either -so Tan couldn't give doc. to me to manage it basing upon Chang's report to him then send it up to the A.D. afterwards after getting no result as the registry case either, and the doc. of the a.o. of the Tax Bureau May 2, 1984 could still only attach the same reports said above again to the senior court (to respond to the senior court's first asking for the original of the t.l. on April 24, 1984) as Tan & Sy had originally done to the prosecutor in 1983 (As the formal docs.' recorded sent & received dates, and numbers couldn't be fabricated that time; so Chang could only fabricate a report she'd sent up to the discipline-maintaining office of the Accounting Dept. privately on May 16, 1983.), Sy hadn't come to investigate that case either. Then how could Chang have written & sent that report to the A.D. on May 16, 1983 under the circumstances that neither did Chang ever report the t.l. case to Tan nor did Tan send it up to the A.D. fundamentally?
Just because it's false, so when Sy came to investigate the registry case on me on June 16, 1983, he couldn't mention that I'd detained Chang's original of the t.l. again basing on (Chang's report to Tan & Tan's report to the A.D. &) Chang's report on May 16, 1983 (He investigated me the case that if Chang had ever transferred her registry for docs. undertaken to me first, he couldn't ask me, "Did you say Chang hadn't transferred her registry for docs. undertaken to you & detain her original of the t.l. refusing to return?", then showed the merely remaining copy of the t.l. to me to verify that Chang had certainly transferred her registry to me. Even though after he fabricated the so-called saying of mine, " Chang didn't make the t.l.." (In fact, I'd written clearly on my report May 14, 1983 to Tan inside the court file that Chang hadn't transferred her registry for docs. undertaken to me but she'd said she had done so falsely, so Tan should have ordered her to show the t.l. to verify it, but not that Chang hadn't made the t.l. & I never said so; also referring to what Tan said behind could sufficiently prove the case how he talked nonsense.), he still couldn't fabricate the following word he should have said, " Wasn't Chang's original of the t.l. detained by you refusing to return?" -if the above reports had really existed already that time, then showed the t.l. copy. But he could (still) just show the copy of Chang's t.l. to me.) and on Tan's report to the police June 30, 1983 also stated that at Sy's investigation on me on June 16, 1983, I'd asked him for the "original case" Tan had sent to the A.D.; owing to "the limitation of regulation", so Sy had just approved to show "the t.l. copy" to me to see (but not owing to the original of the t.l. having been detained by me, so Sy could have only shown the t.l. copy to me) clearly -with these, obviously could still more sufficiently prove the above reports including Chang's report on May 16, 1983 hadn't been existent fundamentally & the original of the t.l. was still under their control up to Sy's coming to investigate me on June 16 & to June 30, 1983. And before Chang's fabricating that report in May 1984, all the reports Tan & Sy offered to the prosecutor couldn't include Chang's & Tan's reports on that case that I'd detained Chang's t.l. original refusing to return & that "important report" describing the details of the process states of both two cases on the registry for docs. undertaken & the original of the t.l. -even though after I said, " If I really detained Chang's original of the t.l. refusing to return again, then why didn't they furthermore go to the A.D. to accuse me?" to contradict Chang's first false saying that the original of the t.l. had been detained by me again as she'd asked me for the torn-off 9 pages of the registry for docs. undertaken at the end of April 1983 at the prosecutor's asking her for the original of the t.l. for examination before the prosecutor and them (Tan, Sy & Chang) on Aug. 25, 1983 (Owing to Chang's fear of being found out her falsehood to fabricate the t.l. causing not daring to show the original of it to the prosecutor for examination, so she made the above false words then.), they could still just remain dumb but couldn't express that the case had certainly existed & showed Chang's report to Tan, Tan's report to the A.D. & Chang's report on May 16, 1983 etc. to the prosecutor. (So Tan could also just give "empty response" to support Chang's false saying on Aug. 25, 1983 on his report to the prosecutor Aug. 26, 1983, saying that I'd detained Chang's original of the t.l. refusing to return the first time (Just because Chang never made such remark before Aug. 25, so Chang didn't report that case to Tan, Tan didn't report it to the A.D., Sy couldn't base them to investigate me either & they couldn't offer the relevant data to the judicial organization as the registry case either, Tan couldn't respond to Chang's remark to the judicial organization before then as the registry case & as he soon did on Aug. 26 after he'd heard Chang's first false saying on Aug. 25 either -so Tan also stated that the original of the t.l. was still under their control up to June 16, June 30, 1983 clearly on his report to the Chung-Shin police-branch June 30, 1983 as described ahead.) to camouflage Chang's fear of being found out her fabricating falsehood causing not daring to show the original to the prosecutor for examing to free her from the crime of fabricating doc. & also to furthermore accuse me falsely, but still couldn't respond to my contradiction on Aug. 25, 1983 before them to say that the case had certainly existed & show the relevant reports described above.) Chang also said first & later that I'd detained her original of the t.l. refusing to return on April 26, 28 or at the beginning of May 1983; the contents were also different among themselves.
Moreover if I really had the continual "serious evil" to detain Chang's original of the t.l. refusing to return again after I had torn off 9 pages of Chang's registry arbitrarily refusing to return; referring to the description how they persecuted me in this text, then not only did Tan already report it to the A.D. -basing upon Chang's report to him (As described ahead, at the superior court Chang also recognized that if there had really been the case, then Tan had already reported it to the A.D. soon basing upon her report to Tan to ask to dispatch someone to investigate & manage it, so she said that the case of the t.l. original had once been reported to the superior org. asking to dispatch someone to investigate it falsely & fabricated a report she'd sent up to the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. on May 16, 1983. With this, could sufficiently prove the falsehood of the t.l. original having been detained by me refusing to return already.), but would the A.D. transfer me to the police accompanied with the registry case & offer all the relevant reports on that case described above to the procetuor (court) for their reference as the registry case -especially under the circumstances of their illegal mind & behavior to not only shelter Chang's crime of fabricating the t.l. but contrarily accuse me that I'd destroyed Chang's t.l. copy I'd accused to be fabricated on purpose falsely to the judicial org..
All these sufficiently proved Chang's falsehood described ahead already & also sufficiently proved that Chang hadn't transferred her registry for docs. undertaken to me indeed; otherwise she had no need to fabricate a t.l. falsely recorded with the transference of that item on it.
And as described ahead, Tan knew that Chang never undertook docs. (So he couldn't show the evidence that Chang had undertaken docs.), she couldn't record the state she undertook docs. on the registry for docs. undertaken & put the docs. having been undertaken inside the registry to send them to Tan for approval clearly, could still less transfer such registry described above to me "out of nothing". He also said, "The officers below the head of the section only make the transference between themselves." -so he hadn't stamped & written the date on the t.l. as a "supervisor". He couldn't know Chang & I were basing upon what items on the t.l. Chang made to manage the transference & reception at Chang's seat (-the later seat of mine with a long distance from him & with the back to his seat) then fundamentally. So before he gave the false evidence that Chang & I had been managing transference & reception then, Chang had transferred her registry to me & I had also transferred mine to her (It meant that he'd "supervised the transference" by Chang's & my seats first & later then to attend the process of "Chang's transference to me & mine to her" separately, different from what he said the officers below the head of the section just made the transference between themselves described ahead -so he hadn't stamped & written the date on the t.l. as a "supervisor"; it could sufficiently prove the falsehood of his false saying already.) at the superior court to free her from the crime of fabricating the t.l., he could also only say that Chang had certainly transferred her registry to me, via his "investigating for verification" (on the one beside him -Chang) with the transference list (he knew to be fabricated clearly) as an evidence falsely many times, but couldn't say that he'd heard & seen this (fundamentally non-existent) case owing to his being supervising Chang's transference to me beside us then, so he could witness for Chang. Moreover according to reason, if there's really the case, then he'd have already said it out at the earliest time to free Chang he exerted to expel & persecute me usually from her crime (as he soon made the same response to Chang on Aug. 26 after his first hearing Chang's first false saying on Aug. 25 described ahead). Just because there's not the case; so even though after my having accused Chang's fabricating the t.l .to the police on June 16, 1983, Tan could not say this at the police station on June 16 (the same before -see his writing on my report to him May 14, 1983 described ahead), on his report to the police June 30, 1983 he still couldn't say this to verify the record on Chang's t.l. copy to free Chang from her crime ; but could still just take Chang's t.l. copy I'd accused to be fabricated uselessly to stiffly use the false record on it as the evidence that Chang had certainly transferred her registry to me -so she hadn't fabricated the t.l.. With this, could still more sufficiently prove that he hadn't attended the process of our transference & reception then indeed, so he hadn't known the state that Chang & I had been managing the transference & reception then fundamentally (And as described ahead, he also knew that the t.l. copy was fabricated clearly.). Obviously what the witness he gave was "with no proof-ability & false too".
But the court still disregarded all the above true evidences to adopt "Tan's witness with no proof-ability also false & Chang's one-sided, contradictory false words" absurdly to find Chang's report May 16, 1983 & her t.l. copy to have been true absurdly, saying that Chang had certainly transferred her registry for docs. undertaken to me, what I said she hadn't transferred her registry to me according to the false record on the t.l. copy fabricated shouldn't have been true absurdly.            (Back to OUTLINE)
No.2 The agent-head of the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. Gin-Lu Sy not only sheltered Chang's crime of fabricating doc., but accused me that I'd torn Chang's transference list copy I'd accused to be fabricated which he'd given me to examine lawfully held in my hand to broken on purpose, or I'd robbed Chang's t.l. copy back from him after his having taken it back causing it broken falsely:
The court disregarded the state that Sy had admitted that Chang's t.l. copy had been pulled (torn) to broken by himself on June 16, 1983, still adopted "the mainly contradictory, unconsistent words" made by Sy & the witnesses Tan, Chang & clerk Li-Jen Chen before or later & among themselves (They said that Chang's t.l. copy had been torn to broken under the circumstances that after I'd accused Chang's fabricating t.l. to the police, at Sy's asking me to return Chang's copy he'd given me to examine owing to my refusing to return it, so I'd torn it to broken with strength; or it'd been pulled to broken by Sy or torn to broken by me at the pull & tearing process; or after Sy's having taken it back, owing to my robbing it back again causing to rob it broken (Sy accused me that I'd robbed Chang's t.l. copy from him illegally ( after his having taken it back) causing it broken falsely to the A.D., causing me to be severely punished; but to the police he accused me in other words falsely -at his asking me to return Chang's t.l copy fabricated he'd given me to examine, owing to my refusing to return it to him, so I'd torn it to broken on purpose.). These could sufficiently prove the falsehood of the so-called "cause" ascribed to "my refusing to return Chang's t.l. copy at Sy's asking me to return it or my robbing it back again after Sy's having taken it back", causing that copy to be torn to broken; also sufficiently proved it to have been ascribed to Sy -Sy etc. wanted to camouflage Chang's criminal evidence after my having accused her fabricating doc. -the t.l. to the police (So Tan & Sy sheltered Chang's crimes on fabricating the t.l. & wiping out my name I'd originally written on the registry for docs. undertaken which I'd just used for four months before my transference to her to replace it with her own official seal to destroy, fabricate doc., neither investigated it to manage according to law themselves nor asked the police to do so; but contrarily accused me to have torn up Chang's t.l. copy I'd accused to be fabricated on purpose falsely to the police & said that I'd made false accusations against my associates & should have been severely punished absurdly to them; and as described ahead, Tan even gave false evidence for Chang to shelter her crime of fabricating the t.l..), so up to Sy to rob back Chang's t.l. copy fabricated which he'd given me to see lawfully held in my hand suddenly & violently causing it pulled to broken; otherwise it'd never be torn to broken gratuitously.), said that Chang's t.l. copy fabricated had been torn to broken by me absurdly.     (Back to OUTLINE)
No.3 Chang falsely accused me that I'd torn up 9 pages of the registry for the docs. undertaken I'd transferred to her (including the record of the evidence of Chi's colluding with Hu to hide my file (The court was investigating that matter at Chang etc.'s fabricating doc. case described ahead then.) & also Chang etc. their own on fabricating doc. ) arbitrarily -the court judged me six months' penalty absurdly:
The court adopted both Chang's and witness Chen's "primarily contradictory, unconsistent false words" before or later & between themselves many times on the time I'd borrowed (to tear up), returned Chang's registry & the plot of the process (Including the following obviously unreasonable states: according to Chang's & Chen's words that even I hadn't taken glue but could have stuck the torn-off cover back after I'd torn off 9 pages & the cover of the registry; the torn-off 9 pages could "disappear groundlessly" & both Chang & Chen said they'd been watching "the whole process from my borrowing till returning Chang's registry" beside me then, but Chen couldn't have seen the state I'd torn & stuck Chang's registry as Chang'd done.) to find one criminal fact among them (causing several different criminal facts of mine to exist simultaneously in fact but not as the court said what Chang & witness Chen said were always the same -just with the only one criminal fact so it (the court) found it falsely); & adopted Chang's sayings that at my turning over her registry to see, I'd torn off 9 pages instantly then & at my returning her registry on the spot the same day, she'd found & known that 9 pages of it had been torn off clearly then many times prior to the inferior court (Tan also based upon her sayings to write that at my returning Chang's registry, she'd instantly examined it & had found 9 pages had been torn off then clearly on the docs. no. 1961, 2290 (year 1983) of the a.o. of the T.B. inside the court file.) together with her overthrown unconsistent words she made after the inferior court to camouflage her seriously unreasonable falsehood -"instead of timely forbidding & taking back the evidence of the torn-off 9 pages easily on the spot, sending me together with the loot to the court; but contrarily accusing me & asking for the torn-off 9 pages painstakingly & groundlessly after the event", said that Chang always said she hadn't seen me tear off 9 pages & up to the time I'd returned her registry on the spot the same day, she still hadn't found 9 pages had been torn off yet; the next day she'd just found it then absurdly (So she couldn't forbid my tearing her registry & take back the evidence of the torn-off 9 pages in time.).
The court also knew that Chang said she had once seen me stick the front cover of the registry for docs. undertaken clearly on her report May 16, 1983 to the discipline-maintaining office of the A.D. she fabricated at the superior court clearly -if I'd had glue to use at that time; then she'd already discovered that I'd stuck back the whole torn-off cover to the tenth page wholly exposed outside "mixing with the evidently different hand-writings of mine & hers" after my having torn off 9 pages & the cover of the registry & the front 9 pages recorded by me had disappeared then clearly (This state was quite different from that just to stick the slight breakage of the front cover well while most part of the front & the connected side cover of the registry was still attached to its original place well (The court also said that there's no trace of breakage on the front cover of the registry -it sufficiently proved that even if there had been breakage, then it'd been sure to be very slight.  The fact is that the pages & the cover were torn off from "the right-sided thickness of the registry", so actually it still needed to stick back the partially torn-off connected cover to the right-sided thickness of the registry, also differed from what Chang said.), there's absolutely no possibility to mix them up.). What she said that she'd mistaken it for that I'd just been sticking the "(fundamentally non-existent) slight breakage" of the front cover well for her then falsely couldn't be established fundamentally. (Moreover according to reason if I really had the fact to tear up & stick Chang's registry arbitrarily, then Chang could also surely see the action that I tore off 9 pages (As described ahead, Chang had said that she had seen me tear off 9 pages prior to the inferior court indeed, after then she overthrew it.) bound with 2 nails together with the connected rather thick cover with the length of 26 centimeters painstakingly & with strength before I stuck its front cover back to the registry, the state that I disposed the torn-off 9 pages & I stuck back the partially torn-off connected cover to the right-sided thickness of the registry. And witness Chen watching the whole process "from my borrowing up to returning Chang's registry" together with Chang beside me could also surely see the whole state (including the state "I stuck the front cover back to the registry" Chang saw). But they both said that they hadn't seen these -obviously from their words "so self-conntradictory, obviously violating the reason & unable to exist together" sufficiently proved that I hadn't had the case to tear up & stick Chang's registry arbitrarily as Chang's false accusation against me fundamentally. Just because it's false, so as described ahead, what Chang & witness Chen said the time I'd borrowed Chang's registry to tear up & the plot of the process before & later and between themselves were seriously divergent, unconsistent & with the case obviously unreasonable.). Besides, the registry had been torn off pages 18% approximate to 1/5, and was returned right after having been torn & stuck well; it could be detected that the registry had become thinner, slighter, the glue didn't dry up yet & the symptom of the glue overflowing from the breakage to stick hand by sight or via touch & grasp, could surely be found out the registry had been torn off some pages & the cover of it had been stuck back again. But the court still stiffly said that the registry with no flaw & Chang always said that she hadn't found it having been torn & stuck at my returning her registry.
In fact, according to reason if I really had the case to tear up & stick Chang's registry arbitrarily, then not only could Chang & Chen -watching the whole process from my borrowing till returning Chang's registry beside me surely see it but owing to the registry with obvious flaw could Chang also surely find out the registry having been torn & stuck at my returning her registry on the spot, they could surely refrain from my tearing up Chang's registry & take back the evidence of the 9 torn-off pages easily in time then. There's absolutely no reason that they couldn't find it out then but the next day, causing unable to forbid my tearing up the registry arbitrarily & take back the evidence of the 9 torn-off pages in time. (Also referring to the obviously unreasonable "cause" Chang said that "she'd happened" to find it out the next day, could still more sufficiently prove the state that she fabricated the false words intentionally to fulfil her purpose to accuse me falsely.)
The evidences in the "reason" item on the sentence were also self-contradictory one another; the court still said that Chang's sayings before & later were all the same & consistent with witness Chen's sayings falsely. Besides disregarding the true states described above (including not consistent with the data inside the court file), the court knew that I'd had the possibility to copy the record of "the relevant evidence that Chi had colluded with Hu to hide my file" on the registry for preparatory use before my transferring the registry to Chang clearly, but still said it's sure that I'd copied it to the court after my having torn it off arbitrarily absurdly, namely, on the one hand I wanted to offer the evidence to the court (Meantime it's also the evidence that Chang etc. fabricated doc. to accuse me falsely to have accused the superior to have hidden my file etc. falsely described ahead.), but on the other hand I tore it up on purpose simultaneously, also self-contradictory & obviously unreasonable -as accusing me to have torn up Chang's t.l. copy fabricated -the criminal evidence I'd accused her falsely described ahead (And as described ahead, it already sufficiently proved that I hadn't had the case to tear up Chang's registry arbitrarily fundamentally, then how could I furthermore copy one page of them after I'd torn off 9 pages docs.?); and simply based upon Tan's & Sy's baseless docs. -the "hearsay" evidence basing upon Chang's accusation, then judged me the non-existent criminal fact that "I'd torn up & discarded 9 pages of Chang's registry (to Chang's & Chen's faces) arbitrarily in the accounting office" (Then how could I still copy one page of them said above to the prosecutor afterwards?) & penalty (6 months) absurdly under the circumstances that the court neither detected the criminal fact how I'd torn up, stuck Chang's registry nor acquired the evidence of the 9 torn-off pages discarded -"without any lawful positive evidence".            (Back to OUTLINE)
No.4 The policeman Jia-Chen Hwang connived at Chang's criminal act on fabricating the t.l. on purpose, but arrested me -the plaintiff illegally at the instigation of Tan & Sy etc.; after I'd accused his illegal arrest against me, wanting to get rid of his crime so he countercharged me "as a reporter on Chang's fabricating doc. to the police on June 16, 1983, but I'd reviled ( -What things are the police?) & struck the policeman (Hwang) ( -taking the telephone pipe to strike him causing his left arm slightly hurt -but the injury certificate didn't record the scope of the injury according to the regulation, the court still didn't order him to mend it according to law) coming at my request groundlessly to hinder his performance of official business to manage Chang's case on fabricating the t.l. for me" falsely -the court judged me one year's penalty absurdly:
The Chung-Shin police-branch not only sheltered the criminal acts of Hwang's fabricating the evidence described behind & Chang's fabricating the t.l. on purpose, but said that I'd accused Chang to fabricate the t.l. falsely absurdly on the transfer doc. to the prosecutor. The prosecutor Sheau-Kang Chen didn't summon witness Chen for inquiry on the case of the registry for docs. undertaken; on the case of my being accused to have reviled & struck the policeman Hwang, he even didn't tell me the suspicious fact I'd been accused according to law yet, then prosecuted me on the same day upon his receipt of Tan's letter asking him to prosecute me as soon as possible, regardless of the investigation procedure having not been lawfully ended yet. On the prosecution doc. he didn't record the evidence to find my criminal facts according to law either, but still said that my criminal acts had been sufficiently verified already absurdly. The judge of the inferior court Wen-Chan Horng was once accused by me due to his illegal judgment to "distort my being struck to hurt by the extra labor of the a.o. to my exchanging blows with her" (So he said to fine her -having struck me causing my serious hurt described ahead but never recognized her crime $500 to show to give her slight punishment.), nevertheless he didn't parry according to my request, but abused his power to arrest, detain & judge me illegally. On the registry case he didn't inquire the witness Chen either, but regardless of the law, reason, the true states & my human rights distorted my being oppressed, persecuted & forced to adopt "the self-defensive lawful legal acts" & my clear saying to his face in session, "The court should judge to dismiss the prosecutor's illegal prosecution procedure according to law (As he didn't want the prosecutor to mend it according to law either.) & owing to my having applied for your parry (In fact he himself should have also parried according to law.), so I don't accept your illegal judgment." (Before then I'd also stated it clearly to him in writing.) to write that I hadn't thought to work carefully & diligently, but had made random accusations against my associates & him etc. -namely, my customary behaviors were bad & I'd rejected to come to the court (with no reason), despised the court, had no regard for law & discipline, had insulted him, the attitude after my having committed crimes was seriously bad falsely on his sentence, so he said needing to severely punish me 18 months' penalty under the circumstances that "the court got no lawful positive evidence on me" (From this could see the extent how he abused his power to violate the law!). The superior court also maintained his illegal detainment & judgment illegally -So from such deeds of theirs to "disregard to maintain the false appearance of the least procedure justice" could see how urgently they persecuted me!
What the "cause" of my reviling & striking Hwang the court found "as a reporter to the police on June 16, 1983, but I'd disregarded the policeman Hwang at his arrival (about a.m. 9:40) groundlessly, hadn't stated the case situation to him, but had just quarreled, though through his counsel still the same ( -I still hadn't stated the case situation to him -then why had I still had the need to report to the police asking to come to manage Chang's crime of fabricating t.l. troublesomely?) ( then I'd reviled & struck Hwang at his performing the official business according to law)" was different from the record of the official report Hwang had made to the Chung-Shin police-branch on June 16, 1983 ( As Hwang knew it "obviously unreasonable & unreliable" to accuse the reporter to the police "having disregarded the policeman requested to come by herself groundlessly, having not stated the case situation to him, having just quarrelled, though after his counsel still the same" & having subsequently reviled & struck him to hinder his performance of official business to manage the reported case for herself falsely -so even though after Tan & Sy had said that I'd just quarreled at his arrival instead of stating the case situation I'd reported to the police asking to investigate & manage Chang's fabricating doc. to him, though after his counsel still the same falsely to his face at the police as described behind (Just because it's false, so Tan overturned it & stated that I had stated the case situation to Hwang at Hwang's arrival without quarreling clearly on his later report to the Chung-Shin police-branch June 30, 1983 -and as described behind, he could never shelter me if I'd really had the case of quarreling; and what Hwang said that where & with whom I'd been quarreling before & later were also different each other as described behind.), he still dared not say so. So he camouflaged the fact that "I'd called the police to manage Chang's case of fabricating t.l." intentionally but distorted it to write that I'd been the defendant creating disturbances in the office reported (by somebody) to the police, at his arrival to manage me -the one having created (and was also still creating) disturbances, owing to my only quarrelling instead of listening to his management, so I'd reviled & struck him falsely on his report (also to camouflage his delinquent responsibility not to manage Chang's case of fabricating doc. according to law & Chang's crime); at the superior court he also said that he hadn't known whom the one had been to report to the police falsely. With these, could still more sufficiently prove the falsehood of Tan & Sy's false words at the police & what the court found that as a reporter to the police, but I'd had such "cause" to revile & strike the policeman absurdly couldn't be established.), and was also different from Tan's report to the Chung-Shin police-branch on June 30, 1983 described ahead (It showed that I'd stated the case situation to Hwang instead of quarrelling clearly.); what Hwang said that I'd been quarrelling with Sy (at the receiving-area) or with Chang (at Chang's seat) before & later were also different each other -All these could sufficiently prove that I hadn't had the "cause" to revile & strike the policeman that as a reporter to the police, but I'd disregarded the policeman requested to come by myself groundlessly, had just quarreled instead of stating the case situation to him, though through his counsel still the same ( then I'd reviled & struck him) fundamentally; of course, I didn't have the furthermore subsequent criminal acts to revile & strike the policeman owing to it.
And what the "criminal fact" the court found "I'd reviled Hwang first then had taken the telephone pipe to strike him" was also quite different from the true state on "the major contents, plots, before & later order of my reviling & striking Hwang" inside the court file (causing that in fact as the registry case described ahead, I didn't have the only one criminal fact to be existent as the court said as it found falsely ) -Tan & Sy said that I'd struggled to free Hwang from his (illegal) arrest against me owing to my only quarrelling instead of stating the case situation to him though through his counsel still the same (One way it's not the "criminal in force" corresponding to the criminal code regulation being able to be arrested on the spot according to law; and the falsehood of my only quarreling instead of stating the reported case situation to Hwang was described ahead.) -causing to hinder my management of official business, my freedom to hurt & the stripe way of my clothes twisted to change its originally good appearance scratched to damage by him; and just because Hwang's arrest against me was illegal, so he never dared to admit it (Tan, Sy etc. wanted to shelter Chang's crime on fabricating doc., so instigated Hwang to arrest me illegally -see the falsehood they argued the false cause Hwang'd arrested me falsely described ahead (It sufficiently proved they also admitted that Hwang could have never made illegal arrest against me groundlessly, so fabricated such "cause" wanting to rid of their crime of instigating Hwang to arrest me illegally by it.); otherwise how dared & could Hwang (especially as a "coward" never daring to admit his arrest against me under the circumstances that he'd been witnessed so clearly as described ahead) abuse his power, exert violence to arrest a plaintiff -an officer on duty publicly before the superior officials & the crowd in the gov. office? (So Tan & Sy didn't "keep the legal obligation" to forbid him at the process of his illegal arrest against me either.) What his criminal act to arrest me illegally was quite clear, but the superior court still said that even though Hwang had certainly caught my arm, had also been the act to perform the official business according to law absurdly on such deeds of Hwang's indulgence to Chang's crime on purpose but making illegal arrest against me. From this could see the extent how the court connived at the illegal on purpose & trampled my human rights with slight!), (without reviling & striking Hwang), then had left the office instantly without coming back again (Besides that they could never shelter me to get rid of my crime as described behind, and in fact, I went to the hospital instantly to examine my injury, after the registering & waiting, I was examined by the doctor about a.m. 10 -the injury certificate inside the court file also with the time record.), then how could I still revile & strike Hwang there? Tan showed that I hadn't reviled Hwang clearly at the police, Sy showed that I hadn't reviled & struck Hwang clearly at the police -moreover it's Hwang himself that made their records under the circumstances that they could collude with each other to make the false record easily (So as described behind, they fabricated the false records time in collusion.), they still didn't say out. Tan also showed that I hadn't reviled & struck Hwang clearly on his report to the Chung-Shin police-branch June 30, 1983 (What he wrote falsely was that I'd taken Chang's abacus wanting to strike Hwang.). Hwang even said that I could have taken the telephone pipe with left hand to strike him at the receiving-area where with no telephone & at least several meters away from the nearest superior's table -the location of the telephone falsely. And what "the major contents, plots, the before & later order I'd reviled & struck him" he & witnesses said before & later & among themselves were contradictory, unconsistent either; witness Chen also said that she hadn't seen me take the telephone pipe to strike Hwang clearly.
The evidences in the "reason" item on the sentence were also self-contradictory among themselves. The court discarded these evidences profitable for me described ahead on purpose refusing to adopt them (They had grudge with me, so had so many criminal acts to invade my rights described ahead, and Tan, Sy even fabricated the false words that I'd taken Chang's abacus wanting to strike Hwang forbidden by Tan (at the police & on Tan's report June 30, 1983) Hwang never spoke of (Just because it's false, so Sy & Tan even said that I could have taken Chang's abacus wanting to strike Hwang at the receiving-area ( -referring to Hwang's statement) -where with no abacus and also at least several meters away from Chang's table (the location of Chang's abacus).), then how could they furthermore shelter me if I had really had the case to revile & strike Hwang? So naturally it could sufficiently prove that I certainly hadn't had such criminal acts.), still said that Sy's evidence profitable for me hadn't been existent falsely (The superior court said that Sy'd just pointed to the thing of Chang's t.l. copy having been torn to broken by me to make a statement at the police (without stating the case having come about after the policeman Hwang's arrival -but as described ahead, it wasn't consistent with the true state), so couldn't deem his words at the inferior court (It's that I'd taken the telephone pipe to strike Hwang first then had reviled him -not consistent with the before & later order the court found that I'd reviled Hwang first then had taken the telephone pipe to strike him either.) false owing to his not stating my having reviled & struck Hwang then (at the police) clearly on the sentence -it sufficiently proved that the superior court also deemed that if Sy had really stated the case having come about after the policeman Hwang's arrival at the police having shown that I hadn't reviled & struck Hwang clearly (What his false saying was that I'd taken Chang's abacus wanting to strike Hwang forbidden by Tan.), but at the inferior court had made such statement, then it'd been false. Then the superior court's still discarding the evidence profitable for me refusing to adopt it on purpose was still more illegal -as described ahead, what its false saying was that Sy's statement profitable for me hadn't been existent to camouflage its illegality on abandoning it on purpose. ) & said that what the sayings Hwang, Tan, Sy etc. made before & later & among themselves were all consistent falsely -not consistent with the true state inside the court file either.
Besides, the court also disregarded Hwang's "seriously unreasonable management situation" -Hwang could arrested me illegally (Just because his arrest against me is illegal, so he simply dared to make a display of power deceptively, but dared not arrest me earnestly. So I could struggle to free a tall, strong, professionally-trained policeman from his arrest as a "barehanded weak female" (Otherwise how could I struggle to free him from his arrest -and how could he allow it?); and he dared not disclose it after his returning to the Chung-Shin police-branch & as described ahead, he never dared to admit it either -also to camouflage the obviously unreasonable falsehood that he could arrest me illegally, but couldn't arrest me as a "criminal in force" to revile & strike him publicly according to law as described behind.), but couldn't arrest me on my criminal acts to revile & strike him publicly according to law (According to reason now that he arrested me rampantly & illegally at my not being "any criminal in force" as described ahead, then if I really had the case to revile & strike him in public causing to "not only seriously damage the image of the policeman's representing the country to perform the official powers, hinder his performance of official business but render his being insulted publicly", then he surely resented me very much & could still more arrest me instantly on the spot according to law to transfer me to be dealt with according to law but never let me misbehave wildly to insult him publicly before the crowd & leave without any treatment to me pretending as if nothing had occurred at that time. At the inferior court the judge also asked him that why he hadn't arrested me (as a criminal in force) on the spot as I'd reviled & struck him, it sufficiently proved that the court also thought such management state of his "being able to arrest me illegally but not being able to arrest me on my criminal acts to revile & strike him publicly on the spot according to law" obviously unreasonable, but still disregarded it on purpose.); and from his return to the Chung-Shin police-branch about a.m. 10 till my going to the police to accuse his illegal arrest against me in the afternoon off my duty (He'd already left the police-branch owing to off-duty then, later on he's summoned back by the police but dared not be confronted with me to explain why he'd obeyed the orders of Tan etc. to arrest me illegally in the morning.), he still didn't report the case of "his official business assigned in the morning having not been able to be performed & having caused his being reviled & struck to hurt" to the police & go to the hospital to take the injury certificate yet (As described ahead, it's still more unreasonable.); and disregarded his fabricating evidences:
After my having accused him, wanting to countercharge me to get rid of his crime, so he urgently went to the hospital to examine his injury -no matter his injury was caused by himself or other cause, as described ahead, it sufficiently proved it with no connection with my striking him to hurt. As the hospital had been off duty then, so he couldn't take the injury certificate until the next day June 17 (after the hospital was on duty). But wanting to camouflage his obviously unreasonable management situation described ahead, so he colluded with Tan, Sy to write their records time earlier than my report time to the police falsely & wrote the date of his report to the Chung-Shin police-branch attaching his injury certificate the hospital wrote on June 17, 1983 to be June 16, 1983 falsely (and also wrote the false contents of the report as described ahead) to show that he'd already accused me basing upon them before my accusing him -also to show that he'd taken the injury certificate on June 16, 1983 already falsely (And if there had been these report, injury certificate & records described above existent at my report to the police off duty, then the Chung-Shin police-branch would also soon base upon them to make record on me -such a "serious suspicious criminal" to "have torn up the registry docs., the copy of the t.l. & have reviled, struck the policeman" & transfer me to the prosecutor, but never "let me come & leave the police-branch as I pleased" without any disposal on me. Just because these objects weren't existent then, so later on the police-branch based upon them to "summon me in writing" to go there to account for them (The superior court also found it's I that had accused Hwang first.); but owing to not attaching a "summons", so I didn't go.). Moreover wanting to make the falsehood that after I'd known being accused of hindering the performance of official business (But as described ahead, I didn't know what the contents, the suspicious facts were.), then countercharged him, so he altered the date "June 18, 1983" originally written on the copy of my bringing in a private lawsuit (not via the prosecutor) against him to the court later to "June 28, 1983" arbitrarily, then the Chung-Shin police-branch transferred it to the prosecutor -so from these could see that wanting to attend the end to strike against me, Hwang etc. came to the step to see the law & discipline as nothing to act rampantly to violate the law as they pleased already -but for their hoping for the shelter of gov. basing upon "the officials protect one another" as it had done to the illegal crimes of the relevant ones described ahead (In fact, they'd certainly fulfilled their wishes.), then how would they dare to have no regard for law & discipline & misbehave boldly & unscrupulously to trample the law & my (the weaker's) human rights to such an extent?
The court said that Hwang had already reported to the Chung-Shin police-branch on June 16, 1983 (attaching the injury certificate which the hospital wrote on June 17, 1983 & he could take it just then) absurdly to judge me the fundamentally non-existent "criminal cause & facts" that "as a reporter to the police, but I'd disregarded the policeman (Hwang) requested to come by myself groundlessly, had just quarreled instead of stating the case situation to him, though through his counsel, still the same; then I'd reviled & struck him subsequently to hinder his performing the official business to manage Chang's case of fabricating t.l. for me" & penalty (a year) absurdly. (Because from all these said above already sufficiently proved that I hadn't reviled & struck Hwang fundamentally -so as described ahead, besides the profitable sayings for me that I hadn't reviled & struck Hwang made by Tan, Sy etc. with grudge with me & having so many illegal acts to violate my rights never with the possibility to shelter my crime, Hwang couldn't arrest me as a "criminal in force" on the spot at my public reviling & striking him then according to law either especially under the circumstances that he could have even arrested me illegally, and from his return to the police-branch about a.m. 10:00 till my going to the police to accuse him in the afternoon off my duty, he still didn't report it & his not being able to perform the official business assigned in the morning to the police & go to the hospital to take the injury certificate yet & he fabricated evidences at his wanting to countercharge me falsely to get rid of his crime after my having accused his illegal arrest against me; and "what the cause, the major contents, the plots, before & later order I'd reviled & struck Hwang" Hwang & witnesses Tan, Sy etc. said before & later or among themselves were seriously divergent, unconsistent & there're "seriously unreasonable cases" as described ahead.)           (Back to OUTLINE)
No.5 The true evidence of the two above courts' judgments (No.3 & No.4 cases) seriously violating the law -the "evidence & experience rules" (including relevant legal percedents):
According to the law (the evidence rules) that "if the main words unprofitable against the defendant made by the accuser, witnesses before & later or among themselves were contradictory, unconsistent or obviously unreasonable", then they couldn't be adopted fundamentally -in the "general resolution of the criminal court's conference of the supreme court Nov. 26, 1940" also stated: "Though the statements made by witnesses & the accuser before & later & among themselves are not consistent, the "main statements" are not unconsistent, then the court's adopting the evidence can't be deemed illegal." clearly -it sufficiently proved that if the main statements were contradictory, unconsistent, then they couldn't be adopted fundamentally (And in the famous case of Jian-Ho Su etc. 3 prisoners sentenced to death, the head of their judges of the supreme court's criminal court also stated that after the court checked the 3 defendants' statements one another, could find the "main statements" among themselves consistent publicly on Nov. 16, 2000 -it still more sufficiently proved that if the main words unprofitable against the defendant were not consistent, then they couldn't be adopted fundamentally.). And the principle of the law of the criminal procedure is to "find the truth" (the legal precedent No. 118 1967), so the legal precedent No. 656 1964 also stated: "The finding of the criminal fact should be based upon true evidence.", it sufficiently proved that if the evidence had been proved to be false via the court file, then they could still less be adopted to be the evidence unprofitable against the defendant. And " the court's intentional abandoning the evidences profitable for the defendant made by the witnesses with grudge with him never having the possibility to shelter his criminal acts was also illegal" -also referring to the legal precedent No. 3772 1983: "The superior court based upon the appealer's confessing her criminal fact to deem that even summoned her son (the best familiar one of hers) to the court to give her profitable evidence as she expected, still couldn't make a sufficiently profitable finding for her, so didn't summon him to make an investigation (& adopt it) & wrote the reason clearly, then it's the use of the authority according to "the experience rules".", it sufficiently proved that the evidence profitable for me made by Tan, Sy etc. with grudge with me having many illegal acts to invade my rights as described ahead never with the possibility to shelter my criminal acts could certainly sufficiently prove that I certainly hadn't had the criminal acts said above, then the court's still abandoning them on purpose certainly violated the "evidence experience rules". (And as described ahead, both two cases still with many ways profitable for me, after the court had made "a synthetic examination & consideration" should still more have made a profitable finding for me according to law.)          (Back to OUTLINE)
No.6 At my being illegally detained at The Taichung Watching House, they also based upon the customarily illegal mind & behaviors that the gov. persecuted me to persecute me -they hung me on the tree shelf causing my sinews & bones seriously injured (up to now the injury trace has still remained):
At my being illegally detained at the Taichung Watching House, they also based upon the customarily illegal mind & behaviors that the gov. persecuted me to persecute me; after they'd forced me to labor illegally, then they used my not attending the volume they regulated "privately" (Because it'd influence the amount of their sharing the premiums.) as an excuse to close me in the sleeping-room but didn't give me drinking water to maltreat me on purpose. After my protest to strive for it, they not only didn't give me water but up to the two female wardresses (surnamed Hwang & Chang) on the spot then to call several male warders & the head of their ward-section to hang me on the tree shelf outside the room causing my sinews & bones seriously injured. (The injury trace has still remained up to now.) Owing to fearing to be accused, so the next day their superior -the supervisor (surnamed Lin) came to pacify me & promised to cure me well. According to the regulations then, there're only the western medicine treatments allowed in the Watching House but not the Chinese medicine treatments allowed (the same to the jail) -the detainees couldn't summon the doctor of Chinese medicine outside to come into the Watching House to cure even at their own expenses either. But wanting to cure my injury of sinews & bones, so the Watching House exceptionally let my father invite a curer of the Chinese medicine outside to come inside to cure me paid by the Watching House itself. (Meanwhile I once went to the former Provincial Taichung Hospital to examine my injury in the custody of the wardress, stating the cause of my being injured to the physician to the wardress's face.) The head of the Watching House Jye Chang also once went to see me receive the above treatment. The treatment continued to the time I's transferred to the Taichung Jail, then the Watching House broke the promise to cure me well they had once made, no more paid the expenses to cure me. (Because I'd been deeply persecuted by the gov. as described ahead feeling dispirited too much & feared that even I accused them would also be the same result as former cases -just in vain; so I never accused them to the court -in fact, as I accused them to the Ministry of Legal Affairs & the Supervisory Yuan around June, 2000 & the later time asking to give the punishment they had deserved; they certainly don't attend to it (also referring to the sayings said behind).) After my being transferred to the Taichung Jail I soon reported the state that I'd been maltreated to injury by the Watching House to it. After their having investigated it to be true, so they exceptionally approved me via my father to invite the same curer of the Chinese medicine described ahead to come into the jail to cure me at my own expenses. For the economic element, I terminated the above treatment after several times. Meanwhile I also once went to the Taichung Rong-Tzong Hospital to examine my injury in the custody of the wardress of the Taichung Jail several times. What the criminal act to maltreat me to injury of the Taichung Watching House was obviously clear!          (Back to OUTLINE)
No.7 To my many years' appealing about the above illegal cases -the Gov. not only sheltered the illegal, but persecuted & maltreated me, Taiwan Gov. still disregards refusing to manage according to law to render me a late-coming justice up to now:
I once stated these illegal acts of the administrative organizations & the judicial organizations (the illegal judgments) described above in detail to the "Association of Chinese Human Rights", they also deemed them illegal, so replied to me wishing me to apply to the chief-prosecutor of the supreme court for bringing in an extraordinary appeal to ask the supreme court to revoke the original sentences & make other judgments on these two cases & state the cases to the Supervisory Yuan asking to investigate the relevant responsibilities. However these ways said above had been adopted by me many times (including my asking the Supervisory Yuan to transfer these two illegal cases to the chief-prosecutor of the supreme court wanting him to bring in an extraordinary appeal according to law), but all were disregarded. And I once published these cases described above (the same stated to the "Association of Chinese Human Rights") on the newspaper Dec 1, 1998 to petition the gov. to render me justice publicly; later on I also stated the cases to the Supervisory Yuan again & to the Ministry of Legal Affairs asking to manage them according to law (including to give the punishment to these relevant officers having seriously invaded my rights described ahead) to render me justice, but were still disregarded. Meanwhile I also stated the cases to several commissioners of the Legislative Yuan asking to give these two illegal judgments to the Minister of Legal Affairs to transfer them to the chief-prosecutor of the supreme court wanting him to bring in an extraordinary appeal according to law to render me justice and to transfer these illegal cases described above to the Supervisory Yuan asking them to "make the above enquiry and management according to law"; and I also stated the above cases to the President Palace asking to give them to the Supervisory Yuan to make the above enquiry and management according to law, but all were still disregarded as the above cases. Up to now the gov. still rejects to render me justice on these two illegal judgments having persecuted me more than 20 years & destroyed my whole life -of course, it can still less inquire into the responsibilities of the relevant illegal officers having seriously invaded my rights said above and give the punishment they had deserved according to law ( The Supervisory Yuan didn't attend to these illegal cases described ahead until I put up the white cloth written "the gov. persecutes my human rights" before its gate in Dec. 2000, then they're narrowly to transfer the case I'd been maltreated to injury by the Taichung Watching House to the Mininstry of Legal Affairs for "their referrence to manage" -to the other cases, they still didn't manage, but the Ministry of Legal Affairs still didn't manage according to law. Though in July 2001, the Supervisory Yuan quoted my words to transfer my accusing the shelter of the Ministry of Legal Affairs to the Taichung Watching House (including its first transferring my two illegal judgments) to the Ministry of Legal Affairs to manage -to the other illegal officers' responsibilites, they still don't manage, but they still shelter the illegal and reject to render me jusdice. After that, the Supervisory Yuan doesn't attend to my subsequent petitions to it any more.); how they neglect the law to force my human rights comes to such an extent! (Also referring to the report of the China Times on June 25, 2000 -the supreme court deemed Tainan superior court's adopting evidences not consistent with the court file illegal, so revoked its judgment to give the remittance of that case to the superior court to renew its judgment; and as described ahead, my two judgments had been more illegal than it (Its illegal case was just part of many illegal cases of mine.), but Taiwan gov. still stiffly disregards the laws to say that my judgments were lawful & doesn't render me justice. With this can still more sufficiently prove the extent how Taiwan gov. slights & tramples the laws & my human rights!)       (Back to OUTLINE)
No.8 To Taiwan Gov.'s brutal & shameless deeds of tramping law &reason &the weaker's human rights arbitrarily, I'll strive with it at all costs to the end:
So besides that I swear I'll strive with the gov. at all costs to the end to maintain the weaker's dignity & human rights -even though I'll run the risk of being persecuted by the gov. again & sacrificing my life, and pierce the self-decptive false appearance of Taiwan gov.'s boasting of "ruling by law, respecting human rights & pursuing justice" to disclose the real face of its "abusing strong powers & exerting the crowd to trample the laws & (also force) the weaker's human rights arbitrarily -with the way "the strong oppress the weak & the crowd tyrannize the single"" here to make the shameless deeds of Taiwan government's "saying, one thing and doing, another; absolutely disregarding the law & reason to judge right & wrong, black & white arbitrarily as they pleased -to the illegal they wanted to shelter, then saw the definite criminal evidences as nothing to point at black & call it white to shelter them on purpose (and connived at them (including the law-performers -as the policeman & the official disciplinarian etc.) to fabricate evidences to ensnare me on purpose as described ahead); but to me they wanted to persecute, then blacked me groundlessly to judge me the non-existent criminal acts & penalty without proof absurdly on purpose and also making the false record on the sentence to make the self-deceptive false appearance of the lawfulness of the judgments described ahead" known to the world inside & outside Taiwan; and appeal to everybody to make them known to others widely & notice that whether Taiwan gov. will persecute me again -no matter in the brightness or dark (After I published the above statements on the newspaper to plead with the gov. to render me justice publicly, besides they still didn't render me justice ,and as I's riding the motorcycle on the street, I also met some strange traffic accidents several times.) owing to getting angry from embarrassment "at my disclosing many illegal criminal acts of theirs to strive for & maintain the weaker's dignity & human rights".     (Back to OUTLINE)          -If there's anything wrong in grammar etc. in this text, please be tolerant and welcome your corrections...........9/7/2001