_cjcu0001 | updated 27 June 2021, by Rene Helmerichs
This page summarizes a recent investigation sent to the Tainan District Prosecutor's Office on 25 June 2021. The investigation is available and tracked under TPRO item 2 at http://p12.rene.guru
Summary of crime:
The Chang Jung University Faculty Of Translation translated the exact same English statement two different ways. One way alleges Extortion, one way doesn't.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't the exact
same person who translated the exact same statement two different ways on
behalf of two separate contracts with her employer,
First, the person submitted an incorrect translation to the court. The court paid her. That's referenced in the PDF file.
Then she submitted a different translation to me, which I told her that I would also submit to the court. That's also referenced in the PDF file.
Then I paid her.
After I paid her, she realized that I would submit her inconsistent translations to the same court file.
Next she began insisting that I didn't provide her with context.
Really, how much context does the expression "X buys me Y" need? It's not like it means "You have to pay me X in order to buy Y from me", which is exactly what she told the court.
"X buys me Y" means the same as "X buys Y", which means "Pay the amount of X to get Y."
If the accuracy of a translation always depends on a translator's subjective feelings, then Google Translate would never be accurate since it's an automatic translation service.
The professor claims that her submission to court 6 months earlier is correct, and that the translation which she provide me (and I paid her to provide an ACCURATE translation) on 22 June 2021 is no longer correct.
She said it was correct, but when she found out that it's the same translation which she already translated, and which she wants to imply extortion, she changed her mind and claimed that I didn't provide context.
To use an example, essentially what she was look at clear water under a red lamp and declare "The water is red." to the prosecutors. Then I came along and asked her "What color is the water without the light?" and she replied "It's clear."
When I pointed out that she can't tell the court that the same sentence which I'd been holding the entire time is red and is clear, she lost her mind. She literally told me that she'd stand by her first translation. When I tried to reason with her, she wrote back that she felt threatened. Honestly, what choice did I have? At that point, I had to report her to the prosecutors or find my own ass even more bruised.
Proof of that analogy is in the smaller print 40-combined pages in Exhibit F of the 25 June 2021 submission. The PDF submission is linked below her e-portfolio below.
Frankly speaking though, I'd have to be either really stupid, or actually honest, if I were to advertise all of this on the internet knowing that I'm literally calling her and Her Spirit on to try to disprove the fact that she is intentionally allowing prosecutors to continue to use a knowingly false statement (it's knowingly false be cause told me it was false!).
Because I'm arguing the SAME context and the SAME thing the WHOLE time, I'm always going to be able to add more context as long as I'm still arguing about THE SAME context.
I'm truly at a loss of words to describe the insanity going on inside this woman's head.
This is Sally Wu's e-Portfolio:
She submitted the correct translation to me, and then, realizing the translation was incorrect, the professor trying to justify her mistake instead of fixing it. Read all about it:
And remember to read the FINE PRINT in the last 40-condensed pages.
Are you ready to help Me save the world? http://p1.rene.guru
End of page. Comment on the Main Page:
Journal Of A Schizophrenic, with a twist.