Taiwan Criminal Procedure Code Article 18 Motion to disqualify Judges

《刑事訴訟法》第18條聲請法官迴避

_yuan0004 | dated 30 July 2021, by Rene Helmerichs

List of Pages at: http://p1.rene.guru

Court PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNRgZZ98vzH57yvwy2jO-Qu3lJGSIZi0/view?usp=sharing

708台南市安平區健康路三段308號

受文者：臺灣臺南地方法院

發文日期：中華民國110年7月30日

中華民國 | Taiwan

南院武刑歲108年度易字第1170號

Tainan District Court case "108年度易字第1170號"

聲請法官迴避

Motion to Disqualify Judges

主旨| Subject

《刑事訴訟法》第18條

當事人遇有下列情形之一者，得聲請法官迴避：二、法官有前條以外情形，足認其執行職務有偏頗之虞者。

Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code

A party may make a motion to disqualify a judge in one of the following circumstances: (2) where circumstances other than those specified in the preceding article exist which would justify a view that the judge may be prejudiced in the exercise of his functions.

說明| Description

法官的偏見使被告無法為自己辯護。在110年7月28日的法庭上，法官否認了被告的以下關鍵權利：

Prejudice from the judge left the defendant without the ability to defend himself.  In court on 28 July 2021, the judges denied the following crucial rights of the defendant:

一、三名法官剝奪被告人《精神衛生法》第一條規定的精神衛生權。具體來說，三名法官知道被告之前是「嚴重病人」，有長期嚴重的精神疾病史，包括872天的精神病住院治療。法官們知道精神科醫生之前曾宣布被告在精神上沒有能力在法庭上自我辯護。《嚴重病人》在《精神衛生法》第3條中被定義為「指病人呈現出與現實脫節之怪異思想及奇特行為，致不能處理自己事務，經專科醫師診斷認定者。」

1. The judges denied the defendant the right of mental health stipulated in Article 1 of the Mental Health Act (精神衛生法).   Specifically, the three judges knew the defendant was previously a "severe mental patient" (「嚴重病人」) with a long-standing history of severe mental illness including 872 days of psychiatric hospitalization.  And the judges knew psychiatrists previously declared the defendant not mentally competent to self-represent in court. 「嚴重病人」 is defined in Article 3 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》 as 「指病人呈現出與現實脫節之怪異思想及奇特行為，致不能處理自己事務，經專科醫師診斷認定者。」

二、三名法官阻止被告就110年5月31日評估（被告要求）期間發生的違反《憲法》第13條的行為向憲法法院提出申訴（聲請）。具體來說，醫生主張身體評估必須伴隨精神評估，理由是思想起源於身體，但憲法第十三條（「人民有信仰宗教之自由」）允許被告相信思想起源於精神（上帝）和不是身體。被告以宗教信仰為由拒絕進行腦部掃描，並要求醫生進行精神評估，但醫生拒絕在未進行腦部掃描的情況下進行精神評估。醫生隨後寫信給法庭說被告不合作。被告向法庭解釋說，被告確實想要進行精神評估，但被告不明白為什麼被告必須放棄信仰精神的權利才能進行評估。被告請求法院向憲法法院提出這一問題，但法官拒絕並堅持認為被告拒絕精神評估（即法官只重複醫生所說的話，不允許被告向憲法法院請願）關於違反憲法的法院）。

2. The three judges prevented the defendant from petitioning (聲請) the Constitutional Court about the violation of "Constitution" Article 13 which occurred during the assessment (which the defendant requested) on 31 May 2021.  Specifically, the doctor claimed that a physical assessment must accompany the mental assessment on grounds that thinking originates in the physical body, but Constitution Article 13 (「人民有信仰宗教之自由」) allows the defendant to believe that thinking originates in Spirit (God) and not the physical body.  The defendant declined the brain scan on grounds of religious faith and asked the doctor to proceed with the mental assessment, but the doctor refused to allow the mental assessment without performing a brain scan.  The doctor then wrote the court that the defendant didn't cooperate.  The defendant explained to the court that defendant does want a mental assessment but the defendant doesn't understand why the defendant should have to give up his right to believe in Spirit in order to have the assessment.  The defendant requested the court to raise the issue to the Constitutional Court, but the judges declined and insisted that the defendant refused the mental assessment (that is, the judges only repeated what the doctor said, and didn't allow the defendant to petition the court about the Constitutional violation).

三、前款除違反第十三條（「人民有信仰宗教之自由」）外，還構成違反中華民國第十六條（「人民有請願、訴願及訴訟之權」）的行為。總之，這些侵權行為剝奪了被告進行心理評估（和心理健康）的權利。

3. The preceding paragraph constitutes a violation of Republic Of China Article 16 (「人民有請願、訴願及訴訟之權」) in addition to the violation of Article 13 (「人民有信仰宗教之自由」).  Together, the violations deny the defendant's right to a mental assessment (and mental health).

四、此外，三名法官否定被告自110年7月13日起請法庭口譯員翻譯法庭訴訟程序的權利（法官否定被告於7月13日和7月28日在法庭上獲得口頭翻譯的權利，並否定口譯員於7月28日將其帶到法庭的書面副本）。

4. Additionally, the three judges denied the defendant's right to ask the court interpreter to translate the court proceedings from 13 July 2021 (The judges denied the defendant the right to have an oral translation in court on 13 July and in court on 28 July, and denied the defendant to have a written copy which the interpreter brought to court on 28 July).

五、三名法官在110年7月13日和7月28日的兩次庭審中都否認了被告獲得法律顧問的權利。

5. And the three judges denied the defendant's right to legal counsel in both the court hearings of 13 July and 28 July 2021.

衛生福利部嘉南療養院司法精神醫師李俊宏比照告訴法庭，一個人只有在停止相信Spirit（心靈）後才有權進行精神評估（即，不再相信思考不是源於身體。）。不管病人的妄想有多嚴重，病人都沒有權利堅持永恆的精神存在。醫生直接暗示被告人不能相信一個永恆思考的精神（無所不知，永遠存在）是每個人一直思考的源泉。換句話說，在精神病醫生願意完成法院要求的心理評估之前，精神病醫生要求患者停止相信上帝。然後法官不允許進行憲法調查。

Jainan Psychiatric Center (衛生福利部嘉南療養院) Forensic Psychiatrist (司法精神醫師) Chun-Hung Lee (李俊宏) told the court, mutatis mutandis, that a person is only entitled to a mental assessment if the person stops believing in Spirit (i.e., stops believing that thinking does not originate in the physical body.).  It doesn't matter how severely delusional the patient is, the patient has no right to insist that an eternal Spirit exists.  The doctor directly implied that the defendant is not allowed to believe that an eternally thinking Spirit (all-knowing and ever-present) is the source of everyone's thinking all of the time.  In other words, the psychiatrist required the patient to stop believing in God before the psychiatrist was willing to complete the court-requested mental assessment.  And then the judges wouldn't allow a Constitutional investigation.

這個故事的寓意是：不要和一個瘋子爭論，因為他會讓你發瘋，在你發瘋的時候，你不知道你實際上違反了多少法律，因為你只關心讓瘋子閉嘴。「 得保持緘默、無須違背自己之意思而為陳述」不允許法官否認一個人反對肆意偏見的權利。在本案中，法官表現出極端偏見，他們希望阻止被告在刑事審判中為自己辯護。這也值得對腐敗進行調查，因為法官公然浪費了法庭資源。

The moral of this story is: don't argue with a crazy person, because he'll drive you insane, and in your insanity, you won't know how many laws you are actually breaking since you only care about silencing the crazy person.  The "right to silence" doesn't allow judges to deny a person the right to defend against wanton prejudice.  In this case, the judges displayed extreme prejudice in their desire to prevent the defendant from defending himself at his criminal trial.  This also merits an investigation of corruption, since the judges flagrantly wasted court resources.

我的名字的意思是「把你自己放在我的鞋子裡，做我」，它是英語的直接翻譯。

My name means "Put yourself in my shoes. Be me."  It's a direct translation from the English.

謹   狀 | End argument

在QR下載所有內容：

Download all at the QR:

L-QR Web: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/yuan0004.html

R-QR PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNRgZZ98vzH57yvwy2jO-Qu3lJGSIZi0/view?usp=sharing

 

被告Rene‧Helmerichs（中華民國：是瑞內）

中華民國110年07月30日

Republic of China, July 30, 2021

 

"Are you ready yet to help me save the world?"

====

#rene.guru

End of page.  Comment on the Main Page.

Upholding Freedom Of Religion in China:

www.miracleu.org