Thursday, June 17, 2021

Page 12. "Illusions are untrue." (S-2.III.4.)

Upholding the Republic Of China Constitution

International Trade Laws require accurate interpretation. MiracleU starts on Page 1.  擁護中華民國憲法:國際貿易法需要準確解釋,MiracleU從第1頁開始。

http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/page0012.html

 

 

Page 12. "Illusions are untrue." ~A Course In Miracles

www.MiracleU.org TPRO Pages

_page0012 | updated 4 Sept 2021, by Rene Helmerichs


This page: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/page0012.html

lists Criminal Investigations related to the story at http://p1.rene.guru

 

Notice to prosecutors investigating this case: everything I submit to you is completely public.  This is the only assurance that I have that you will do your job because, if you do not adequately investigate this matter and truly sentence these judges to, at the very least, the total amount of time that I have had to be in jail over false accusations, then I will continue to pursue this matter until the entirely reputation of the Taiwan government is destroyed.  And that's not something either of us want!  So I am politely asking you to do your job and stop treating your friends with favouritism.  Stop making me receive your punishments on account of your personal friendships.  What this Defendant has done violates the very foundation of law!  Help me fix it, or get out of the way, but don't stop me or you'll find yourself on their side against me.  Thank you.

 

+13 more individual submissions of Criminal Code Article 169 offences @KLSS (should happen this month)

 

tpro0013_draft

Criminal Code Articles 125, 134+296, 339 @TPRO

The Defendant is a public prosecutor who accepted public money to uphold the law but, instead of investigating allegations of serious criminal fraud at Sesame Street cram school in Tainan City, the Defendant allowed the Sesame Street managers to unlawfully accuse the teacher of intimidation and character defamation.  The Defendant prosecutor did not investigate the allegation of fraud, and the Defendant prosecutor knowingly caused a guilty person not to be prosecuted. 

The Defendant prosecutor knew the cram school managers committed fraud because the prosecutor listened to the cram school managers confirm understanding that the teacher is not lawfully allowed to be a teacher according to Taiwan's laws.  Specifically, the teacher is a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) according to Item 4 of Article 3 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》 81條之1條和第49條第15 doesn't permit a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) to be a responsible person in schools with respect to the development of a child's mind.  The cram school managers had to conceal the teacher's illegitimate teaching qualifications from the clients.  The clients paid tuition to the school under the false pretence.  The school managers deliberately deceived the clients in order to maximize the school's revenue.

Over the course of a two-year criminal trial to follow-up the accusations of the cram school managers.  The Defendant never investigated the cram school managers.  The teacher protested continually, but the Defendant refused to investigate.  Finally, on 24 Aug 2021, the Defendant succeed in closing the case.  The Defendant caused the teacher to be convicted of intimidation and defamation for trying to save the reputation of the cram school.  The teacher had politely tried to spare his friend's reputation, because the teacher does care about the managers, and the managers and teacher were friends.  But the Defendant refused to consider that the teacher had an benevolent motive at all.  Instead, the Defendant acted with extreme prejudice and only malfeasance in office.  The Defendant caused the teacher to be sentenced to imprisonment without allowing the teacher to defend himself, without assisting the teacher to receive a public defender or lawyer, without allowing the teacher to cross-examine witnesses favourable to the teacher's defense, and without allowing the teacher to have any motions or appeals receive fair hearing at all.

This constitutes several offences, among which are offences of Criminal Code Article 125 "Malfeasance In Office", Article 296 "Offences against Freedom" and Article 339 "Criminal Fraud".  The Defendants accepted payment of services under false pretences.  Additionally, according to Criminal Code Article 134, the sentences of Article 296 and 339-4 should be increased up to one-half, because the Defendant is a public servant.

Related to:

Nothing else YET.

 

tpro0012_draft

Criminal Code Articles 134+339, @LEE, CNPC... fraud, involve mental health act

The Defendant (one psychiatrist) receives public money with the contract to uphold the Constitution Of The Republic Of China.  The Defendant unconstitutionally denied the patient a court-requested assessment of mental health on the grounds that the patient refused to stop believing that the patient's source of thinking originates in a non-material Spirit.  When the patient attempted to inform the doctor of the patient's right to religious freedom, the doctor clarified that a different doctor would perform the actual assessment of thinking, but that hospital protocol required patient to believe that thinking originates in the physical body and not an eternal sentience such as the Christian "God" or Muslim "Allah".  In this case, the patient was also a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) as defined in Item 4 of Article 3 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》.  Nine psychiatrists previously stated that the patient absolutely requires medication to maintain a mentally healthy state, and, in case of relapse, should not stop taking medication.  Article 1 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》 guarantees the patient's right to mental health, yet the Defendants intentionally denied the patient the right to an assessment of mental health on the sole grounds that the patient wouldn't stop believing in God as the source of health.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 339-4, Aggravated Fraud, because there are at least three Defendants, and with a sentence increased up to one-half, because the Defendant is also a public servant.  Furthermore, this is currently prevalent all over Taiwan, and, therefore, this is a huge issue to investigate and something 瑞內 definitely intends to pursue to the highest level of court in Taiwan, and then in International Court if the Taiwan Government doesn't do something to help all mental patients ensure they can maintain their Constitutional right to believe in God.

Defendant (Three): 1Psychiatrist 李俊宏(LEE Chun-Hung)、2Dean  吳文正(WU Wen-Zheng)、3‧林研究助理(06_279_5019分機155404670@cnpc.mohw.gov.tw),http://p15.rene.guru

tlaw0004, www.MiracleU.workhttp://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0004.html

yuan0003, Investigate CNPC, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GWXxfYdff2OyLngU3TETubjHxH4kzRK3/view?usp=sharing

FYI 20210531_transcript:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qwn6QL_1opYhkMnz5JCWhi1aivTeWldM/view?usp=sharing

 

tpro0011_draft

Criminal Code Articles 134+169, 339-4 @ZHOU about mental assessment

The Defendant receives public money.  The Defendant (three judges) had a legal contract to assist a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) (me), but they did not help me to ensure that the Constitution Article 13 right of religious freedom is upheld during the mental assessment.  That is, I'm a "Severe Patient" according to Item 4 of Article 3 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》.  The Defendant did not allow me to have an assessment of mental health.  The Defendant false claimed that I didn't cooperate during the assessment.  Therefore, the Defendant received public funds under false pretences, and in directly opposition of the intention of the public funding.  Namely, public funds are given to ensure that the rights of the public are upheld, and not violated.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 339-4, aggravated fraud because the Defendants accepted payment of services under false pretences and at least three people are involved.  Additionally, the sentence should be increased up to one-half, because the Defendant is also a public servant.

Defendant (Three): 1Judge 周宛瑩(ZHOU Wan-Ying)、2Judge 蕭雅毓(XIAO Ya-Yu)、3Judge 李俊彬(LEE Jun-Bin),http://p23.rene.guru

Relates to:

yuan0003, Investigate CNPC, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GWXxfYdff2OyLngU3TETubjHxH4kzRK3/view?usp=sharing

yuan0006, 13 July 2021 Missing Statements, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyEkFhd-iLnfZsV73ZorWzW9GT01tv_o/view?usp=sharing

tpro0003, Courtroom Interpretation: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0003.html

 

tpro0010_draft

Criminal Code Articles 134+339-4 @ZHOU about courtroom interpretation

The Defendant is three judges who receive public money to uphold the law, yet they intentionally violated Article 99 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》) when they required a foreigner who is deaf, dumb and illiterate with respect to Chinese to pay a private interpreter to receive a translation of the spoken statements of the Criminal trial of 13 July 2021.  The Defendant specifically denied the foreigner the use of the court interpreter on 28 July 2021.  The Defendant wouldn't allow the foreigner to receive a printed English version of the Chinese indictment which the court interpreter had prepared.  The Defendant also stopped the court interpreter from reading the English translation of the indictment to the foreigner so that the foreigner (the Defendant in the Criminal proceedings) did not receive a copy of the accusations in a language that the English-speaking foreigner understands.  Thereby did the Defendant also contravene Item 1 of Article 95 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》).  The Defendant receives public money to uphold the law, and the law does not allow judges to leave a person completely defenceless without any ability to communicate!

This constitutes several offences, among which is the offence of Criminal Code Article 339-4 "Aggravated Fraud".  The Criminal Fraud is aggravated because the Defendant accepted payment of services under false pretences and at least three people are involved.  Additionally, according to Criminal Code Article 134, the sentences of Article 339-4 should be increased up to one-half, because the Defendant is a public servant.

Relates to:

yuan0005, Ability to Verify Statements, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rwpuErjKmVzTVsh9Avz3xEEoCpVM3_ky/view?usp=sharing

yuan0006, 13 July 2021 Missing Statements, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyEkFhd-iLnfZsV73ZorWzW9GT01tv_o/view?usp=sharing

tlaw0003, Courtroom Interpretation: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0003.html

 

tpro0009_draft

Criminal Code Articles 128, 134+296, 339-4 @ZHOU about lawyer

The Defendant is three judges who receive public money to uphold the law, yet they intentionally violated Item 5 of Article 31 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》) when the Defendant did not appoint a public defender 【案號:108年度易字第1170號】.  Rene (瑞內) was the Defendant of the Criminal Proceedings which had three trial dates: 13 July 2021, 28 July 2021, and 11 Aug 2021.  On 13 July 2021, the Defendant read 瑞內 the three rights stipulated in Article 95 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》).  瑞內 specifically notified the Defendant that 瑞內 requires the assistance of a lawyer or public defender.  On 28 July 2021, contrary to Item 1 of Article 95, the Defendant did not read 瑞內 the three rights stipulated in Article 95.  Also on 28 July 2021, 瑞內's Legal Aid Foundation lawyer terminated the relationship.  On 28 July 2021, 瑞內 lost his legal council.  瑞內 refused to begin new courtroom proceedings without a lawyer present.  On 11 Aug 2021, the third day of the trial, the Defendant again contravened Item 1 of Article 95 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》) because the Defendant did not inform 瑞內 of the three rights stipulated in Items 2 to 4.  The Defendant required 瑞內 cross-examine the prosecutor's witness without a lawyer or public defender, and in a language which 瑞內 does not understand.  On 11 Aug 2021, 瑞內 protested against the extreme fraudulence of the Defendants.  瑞內 left the courtroom.  But the Defendant insisted to break the law even more!  The Defendant is well aware that 瑞內 is deaf, mute, and illiterate with respect to Chinese language, and that 瑞內 is a low-income wage earner who sternly requested the assistance of a lawyer, yet on 24 Aug 2021, the Defendant ruled that 瑞內 is guilty of all accusations.  瑞內 never received right of Article 96 of the "Code Of Criminal Procedure" (《刑事訴訟法》), the right to give an explanation.  Instead, the Defendant didn't allow 瑞內 to have a lawyer, didn't allow 瑞內 to give any explanation whatsoever, didn't allow 瑞內 to defend himself against the accusations, and decided that 瑞內 is guilty. 

This constitutes several offences, among which are offences of Criminal Code Article 128 "Malfeasance In Office", Article 296 "Offences against Freedom" and Article 339-4 "Aggravated Fraud".  The Criminal Fraud is aggravated because the Defendants accepted payment of services under false pretences and at least three people are involved.  Additionally, according to Criminal Code Article 134, the sentences of Article 296 and 339-4 should be increased up to one-half, because the Defendant is a public servant.

Defendant (Three): 1Judge 周宛瑩(ZHOU Wan-Ying)、2Judge 蕭雅毓(XIAO Ya-Yu)、3Judge 李俊彬(LEE Jun-Bin),http://p23.rene.guru

Relates to:

yuan0007, Dismiss Case, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p53rkP2MTMK299s_pqpLTq9k0f7t5Wk_/view?usp=sharing

yuan0004, Disqualify Judges, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNRgZZ98vzH57yvwy2jO-Qu3lJGSIZi0/view?usp=sharing

tlaw0005, Criminal Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0005.html

 

tpro0008_draftt

Criminal Code Articles 339-4 @KLSS

The Defendants hired a teacher knowing the teacher is a "Severe Patient", therein is an implied agreement to ensure the teacher can restore his reputation and not remain a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」).  The agreement is stipulated in 《勞動基準法》第1571 because we all must adhere to the law, and 《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》 81條之1條和第49條第15 doesn't permit a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) to be a responsible person in schools with respect to the development of a child's mind.  「嚴重病人」 is defined in Item 4 of Article 3 of Taiwan's Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》.  The Defendant received phone calls just hours after the teacher began an international petition to restore his reputation.  The Defendants required the teacher not to disclose the teacher's past to anyone attending the Defendant's place of business.  In an ensuing Civil Court case, the Defendant claimed they terminated the teaching contract on grounds that the teacher informed clients that the Defendants illegally concealed information from the clients.  The false termination constitutes the criminal offence of aggravated Fraud because at least three managers gained illegal benefit when they avoided paying NT$1,080,000 in salary to the teacher, in addition to concealing serious child endangerment at the school.

Defendant (Three): 1General Manager 江佩樺(CHIANG Clare)、2Teaching Dept. Manager 徐乙彤(XU Denise)、3ESL Prog. Manager 黃姿瑜(HUANG Stacy),http://p7.rene.guru

Related to:

EVERYTHING.  This is the start of everything.

 

tpro0007 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 339-4 Aggravated Fraud @TLAF @SCOT

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

The Defendant is a legal professional who knowingly violated the client's rights, continually over three years.  Public money is exchanged under false pretences.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 339-4, aggravated fraud because at least three people are involved.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0007.html

Defendant (at least three): ‧Two wouldn't give their names3‧Lawyer 林泓帆(LIN Scott

Begun 31 Aug 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lgDzF3cnIyZxJ4ayDhqkS7UOe6BI2UE7/view?usp=sharing

Relates to Civil litigation:

tlaw0002, No Assessment Damages: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0002.html

(I feel like I have to revisit this or stick onto this one to impress its seriousness)

 

tpro0006 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 339-4 Aggravated Fraud @CJCU

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

The Defendant (a translation department) took the right of ownership of the meaning of English statements when the Defendant submitted false translations to court.  Since the Tainan District Court and I paid the Defendants in two separate contracts, public and private money was exchanged under false pretences.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 339-4, aggravated fraud because the entire English translation department is involved.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0006.html

Defendant (Fourteen): 1Manager 陳凱惠(CHEN Kai-Hui),2Principal 李泳龍(LEE Alex)、3‧‧Dept Dean 藍月素(LAN Yu-Su)、4Prof 董大暉(DONG Da-Hui)、5Prof熊彬杉(HSIUNG Pin-Shan)、6Prof李盈瑩(LEE Ying-Ying)、7Prof 陳孟琳(CHEN Meng-Lin)、8Prof 劉康怡(LIU Kang-Yi)、9Prof 吳宜錚(WU Sally)、10Prof LEE Marsh Steven(馬強)、11Prof 高煥麗(KAO Huan-Li)、12Prof 陳亮秀(CHEN Liang-Hsiu)、13Prof 陳采體(CHEN Tsai-Ti)、14Prof 邱東龍(CHIU Andrew

Begun 31 Aug 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kJBXNhbZfYz3kUSfwC8R5F4w804yGHoU/view?usp=sharing

Relates to litigation:

tlaw0001, Correction Assistance: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0001.html

tpro0002, Crime Code 168 Perjury: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/tpro0002.html

 

tpro0005 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 169 False Accusations @KLSS

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

The Defendant (three senior managers of a large cram school) gave knowingly false testimony in two Civil Court trials concerning termination of a teaching contract with the intention to punish the teacher.  According to Articles 71 and 74 of the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), the Court cannot make the same ruling if the testimony were honest.  The grounds of termination were only self-defence against fraud, and the law prevents companies from firing individuals who are exposing corruption at the company.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 169, false accusation because the Defendant stopped the teacher (me) from receiving: 1. unpaid salary and, 2. an assessment of mental health, on the basis of their false testimony.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0005.html

Defendant (Three): 1General Manager 江佩樺(CHIANG Clare)、2Teaching Dept. Manager 徐乙彤(XU Denise)、3ESL Prog. Manager 黃姿瑜(HUANG Stacy),http://p7.rene.guru

Begun 20 Aug 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9K37jGWNPy4utVUGR_mgsm0Z0AmuXXJ/view?usp=sharing

Relates to:

tlaw0006, Civil Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0006.html

tlaw0005, Criminal Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0005.html

tpro0001, Crime Code 168 Perjury: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/tpro0001.html

tpro0004, Crime Code 294 Abandonment: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tpro0004.html

 

tpro0004 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 294 Abandonment @KLSS

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

The Defendant (three senior managers of a large cram school) abandoned the teacher when the Defendant prevented the teacher (me) from receiving an assessment of mental health.  The Defendant knew the teacher is a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」).  「嚴重病人」 is defined in Item 4 of Article 3 of Taiwan's Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》 81條之1條和第49條第15 doesn't permit a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) to be a responsible person in schools with respect to the development of a child's mind.  An assessment of mental health was obligatory.  The Defendant made the agreement on 23 Jan 2018.  In court, the Defendant claimed to terminate the Health Insurance and the employment of the teacher on 25 Jan 2018.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 294, abandonment, because they had a duty to support a helpless person and actively prevented a knowingly mentally ill person from receiving an obligatory assessment of mental health.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0004.html

Defendant (Three): 1General Manager 江佩樺(CHIANG Clare)、2Teaching Dept. Manager 徐乙彤(XU Denise)、3ESL Prog. Manager 黃姿瑜(HUANG Stacy),http://p7.rene.guru

Begun 20 Aug 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m8SdwrfvGRnGOWTScKtBA7AdFT2VT-Pb/view?usp=sharing

Relates to:

Civil litigation upcoming

tlaw0006, Civil Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0006.html

tlaw0005, Criminal Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0005.html

tpro0001, Crime Code 168 Perjury: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/tpro0001.html

tpro0005, Crime Code 169 False Accusations: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0005.html

 

tpro0003 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 294 Abandonment @ZHOU @CNPC

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

About: The Defendant (three judges and a psychiatrist) had a legal contract to assist a "Severe Patient" (「嚴重病人」) (me), but they did not provide assistance necessary for the patient's survival.  That is, I'm a "Severe Patient" according to Item 4 of Article 3 of the Mental Health Act 《精神衛生法》.  The Defendant did not allow me to have an assessment of mental health and thereby causing me to remain depended on my wife (because nine psychiatrists previously asserted that the patient cannot function independently without medication).  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 294, Criminal Abandonment, because the Defendant had a duty to support a helpless person.

Flipside: The Defendant had a legal contract to help me uphold the law, but they did not help me to ensure that the Constitution Article 13 right of religious freedom is upheld during the mental assessment.  In the first case it was abandonment, in the second it is fraud.  I'll submit an investigation of aggravated fraud in the near future.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0003.html

Defendant (Four): 1Judge 周宛瑩(ZHOU Wan-Ying)、2Judge 蕭雅毓(XIAO Ya-Yu)、3Judge 李俊彬(LEE Jun-Bin),http://p23.rene.guru4Psychiatrist 李俊宏(LEE Chun-Hung),http://p15.rene.guru

Begun 16 Aug 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ni3693ok8KSxgnbU96ZKiEvcls--AjmF/view?usp=sharing

Relates to:

tlaw0004, www.MiracleU.workhttp://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0004.html

yuan0003, Investigate CNPC, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GWXxfYdff2OyLngU3TETubjHxH4kzRK3/view?usp=sharing

FYI 20210531_transcript:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qwn6QL_1opYhkMnz5JCWhi1aivTeWldM/view?usp=sharing

 

tpro0002 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 168 Perjury @CJCU

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

About: The Defendant submitted false translations to the Tainan District Court on 9 December 2020, throughout December 2020 and January 2021, and again on 8 July 2021, with the intention to cause me to receive criminal punishment, and which did occur on 24 Aug 2021.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 168, Perjury.  It's related to tpro0006, investigation requests of Articles 169 False Accusation, 294 Abandonment, and 339-4 Aggravated Fraud.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/tpro0002.html

Defendant (One): 1Prof 吳宜錚(WU Sally),http://p13.rene.guru

Begun 25 June 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TOmgIvbsQj353eh02k6P1fZavYVCRew5/view?usp=sharing

Relates to:

tlaw0001, Correction Assistance: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0001.html

tpro0006, Crime Code 339 Fraud: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0006.html

FYI Sally: http://sally.talk2dream.com

 

tpro0001 at Tainan (臺灣臺南地方檢察署)

Criminal Code 168 Perjury @KLSS

Procuratorate case number, 案號:

About: Cram school managers lied in Civil court on 26 Nov 2018.  They told the judge they never knew about my three years of psychiatric incarceration in Canada.  The case was about wrongful dismissal.  The managers and I agreed that I will undergo an assessment of mental health before returning to work (after I suffered a perceivabled school was only allowed to hire me on the condition that I can restore my reputation.  When the school asked me not to inform clients about the situation, the school committed criminal fraud.  The judge didn't consider the criminal fraud because the managers lied.  This constitutes an offence of Criminal Code Article 168, perjury, because the false courtroom testimony directly altered the judicial ruling.

Tracking: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/06/tpro0001.html

Defendant (Three): 1General Manager 江佩樺(CHIANG Clare)、2Teaching Dept. Manager 徐乙彤(XU Denise)、3ESL Prog. Manager 黃姿瑜(HUANG Stacy),http://p7.rene.guru

Begun 7 June 2021, PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vb59TuptmoRxA4B9gXIfGLQ_Ht3dtMox/view?usp=sharing

Relates to:

tlaw0006, Civil Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0006.html

tlaw0005, Criminal Retrial: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tlaw0005.html

tpro0004, Crime Code 294 Abandonment: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tpro0004.html

tpro0005, Crime Code 169 False Accusations: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/08/tpro0005.html

 

00 at Tainan, Qiaotou, and Kaohsiung (臺灣)

There were over a dozen separate complaints in 2018 and 2019.  They were made at multiple courts in Tainan and Koahsiung City, Taiwan ("Republic Of China"). 

Most early filings were against Kidsland, some were against Kan Ning University, one was against Set TV News Group. 

None were heard.  However, since the foundation of all of these complaints is an argument about the legal definition of the word "mind", which originated in Canada, there is no way to end the argument in Taiwan except with agreement to revisit the argument in Canada. 

With a fully public record on the internet, we're going to find out whether the Taiwan government truly advocates worldwide honesty and worldwide peace, or how long they'll pretend to hide the fact that the story is also restoring awareness the People's Republic Of China actually owns Taiwan.  About Taiwan's ownership, reference http://p5.rene.guru

 

Next Page 13: http://p13.rene.guru

====

Upholding the Republic Of China Constitution

www.MiracleU.org | www.MiracleU.work | http://talk2dream.com

End of page.

No comments:

Post a Comment

yuan0010

 PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YE9exsa52pdj2GsDIuw9TfdB8swvemkw/view?usp=sharing