Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Civil Lawsuit against three Taiwan Criminal Court Judges

我今天起訴了台灣刑事法院的三位法官。

_zhou0001 | dated 28 July 2021, by Rene Helmerichs

PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXAFBnYGTcy9SYW65ExId-b6Gn9O55BV/view?usp=sharing

Lawsuit tracked at: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0003.html

Book intro at: http://p1.rene.guru

 

中華民國 | Taiwan

708台南市安平區健康路三段308

發文日期:中華民國110728

受文者:

 

臺灣臺南地方法院民事簡易庭

Taiwan Tainan District Court Civil Summary

 

解釋中文:聲請訴訟救助

(瑞內是英文外籍人士)

Interpret Chinese: claiming assistance

 

原告:(一個) Plaintiff:

1、是瑞內(ReneHelmerichs

 

被告:(個) Defendant:

一起工作:708臺南市安平區健康路三段308

臺灣臺南地方法院法官

1周宛瑩(ZhouWanying

2蕭雅毓(XiaoYayu

3俊彬LiJun-Bin

 

見證:(個) Witness:

1林泓帆(ScottLin

 

主旨 | Purpose

原告要求支付新台幣297000元的法庭文件翻譯費,被告在法律上要求被告協助原告翻譯。該金額還包括研究法律、尋找被告要求原告使用的必要律師並與之溝通的時間。被告於110728日在法庭上提出請求。

The Plaintiff seeks NT$297,000 in payment of the translation of court documents which the Defendants are legally required to help the plaintiff translate.  The amount also covers time to research the law, and find and communicate with the necessary lawyers which the Defendants required the Plaintiff to use.  The Defendants made the request in court on 28 July 2021. 

 

說明 | Description

被告是三名法官,他們主持了針對原告的刑事訴訟。110728日,在台南區刑事法院南院武刑歲1081170案中,原告告知被告,發生了對原告憲法權利的嚴重侵犯。原告請求被告幫助原告停止違反憲法的行為。

The Defendants are three judges who presided over criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.  On 28 July 2021, in the Tainan District Criminal Court case "南院武刑歲1081170", the Plaintiff advised the Defendants that a severe violation of the Plaintiff's Constitutional Right is occurring.  The Plaintiff requested the Defendants to help the Plaintiff to stop the Constitutional violation.

被告告訴原告,他需要獨自在家翻譯所有內容,並聯繫律師。被告人告訴原告人,在被告人告訴原告人在法庭上自我代理後,他應徵詢律師的意見。被告知道法律援助基金會不願為原告提供律師。並且,在110713日的法庭上,原告直接要求被告(審判長)為原告提供律師,他們也沒有這樣做。被告亦知悉原告有嚴重精神疾病史。

The Defendants told the Plaintiff he will need to translate everything at home, alone, and contact a lawyer.  The Defendants told the Plaintiff that he should seek the advice of a lawyer after the Defendants told the Plaintiff that the plaintiff is self-represented in court.  The Defendants knew that Legal Aid Foundation is unwilling to offer the Plaintiff a lawyer.  And, in court on 13 July 2021, the Plaintiff directly requested the Defendants (the presiding judges) to provide a lawyer to the Plaintiff, which they also did not do.  The Defendants are also aware that the Plaintiff has a history of severe mental illness.

被告人不遵守中華民國刑事訴訟法第二條要求被告人對有利和不利被告人的情況給予同等重視。當原告以違反憲法為由要求法院接收請願書時,被告(代表法院)回答說,他們不相信發生了違反憲法的行為。但是,它們不是憲法法院。程序倫理要求被告將此事提交給主管當局。如果事情無關緊要或與案件無關,那麼被告可以向原告要求額外的付款或處罰,但是,刑事訴訟法要求被告必須首先接受請願。

The Defendants did not adhere to Article 2 of Republic Of China Criminal Procedural Law which required the Defendants to give equal attention to circumstances both favorable and unfavorable to an accused.  When the Plaintiff asked the court to receive a petition on grounds of a Constitutional violation, the Defendants (representing "the court") replied that they do not believe that a Constitutional violation occurred.  However, they are not the Constitutional Court.  Procedural ethics required the Defendants to forward the matter to a competent authority.  If the matter is frivolous or unrelated to the case, then the Defendants can request additional payment, or punishment, from the Plaintiff, however, Criminal Procedural Law requires that the Defendants must first accept the petition.

具體而言,醫生堅持認為患者無權相信思維源自精神或上帝。

Specifically, doctors insist that patients do not have the right to believe that thinking originates from Spirit or God.

請願書涉及憲法第13宗教信仰自由。原告將請願書匯總至110728日的法庭聆訊記錄。呈文解釋說,醫生以原告不願停止相信精神為由,明確拒絕原告接受法庭要求的精神評估。醫生隨後告訴原告,法院應將原告派往別處進行評估。由於被告拒絕協助原告接受心理健康評估,因此被告也違反了心理健康法第1條。

The petition concerns Constitutional Article 13, "freedom of religious belief".  The Plaintiff summarized the petition onto the courtroom hearing record of 28 July 2021.  The submission explains that the doctor specifically denied the Plaintiff the court-requested mental assessment on grounds that the Plaintiff was unwilling to stop believing in Spirit.  The doctor then told the plaintiff that the court should send the plaintiff elsewhere to conduct the assessment.  As the Defendants refused to assist the Plaintiff receive a mental health assessment, therein did the Defendants also violate Article 1 of the Mental Health Act.

原告確實有權進行心理評估。原告最近在精神病院度過了872天,是一名確診的重度精神病患者。此外,精神科醫生有法律義務不以患者在患者的妄想中認為患者不是肉體而是精神為由,拒絕原告進行法院要求的精神評估。確定錯覺是醫生的工作,而不是以錯覺為由駁回評估。

The Plaintiff does have the right to a mental assessment.  The Plaintiff recently spent 872 days in psychiatric incarceration, and is a diagnosed severe mental patient.  Furthermore, a Psychiatrist has a legal obligation not to deny the Plaintiff a court-requested mental assessment on grounds that the patient, in the patient's delusion, believes that the patient is not a body but a spirit.  It's the Doctor's job to identify the delusion, and not dismiss the assessment on grounds of the delusion.

更可笑的是,被告人以公然違反憲法為由拒絕接受刑事調查申請。醫生以思想起源於肉體為由,堅持要求病人進行腦部掃描,這違反了中華民國憲法第十三條宗教信仰自由。醫生剝奪了病人選擇相信病人有聖靈或病人的思維過程起源於聖靈的自由!

It is even more ridiculous that the Defendants refused to receive an application of Criminal Investigation about the blatant Constitutional violation.  The doctor violated the Republic Of China Constitutional Article 13 "Freedom of religious belief" when the doctor insisted that the patient must conduct a brain scan on grounds that thinking originates in the physical body.  The doctor denied the patient the freedom of choice to believe that the patient has a Spirit or that the patient's thinking processes originate in the Spirit!

如果耶穌基督從死裡復活,當他的身體死了的時候,他會停止思考嗎?世界上每個主要宗教都接受這樣一個事實,即思維起源於精神,精神不具有任何物理形式。因此,在進行法庭要求的精神評估時拒絕腦部掃描是每個人的宗教權利!

If Jesus Christ came back from the dead, did he stop thinking while his body was dead?  Every major religion in the world accepts that fact that thinking originates in Spirit and that Spirit is not of any physical form.  Therefore, it is the religious right of everyone to refuse a brain scan while conducting a court-requested mental assessment!

110728日,被告在法庭上真的只是浪費了原告的時間。他們對此案一事無成,一再剝奪患者就其歧視進行上訪的權利,這本身就違反了中華民國憲法第8條。

On 28 July 2021, the Defendants really only wasted the Plaintiff's time in court.  They accomplished nothing with regards to the case, and they consistently denied the patient the right to begin petitions about their discrimination, which is itself a violation of Republic Of China Constitution Article 8.

110713日,原告人在法庭上也向被告人明確表示,原告人希望得到律師的幫助。原告明確表示,法律援助提供的律師不適合作為原告的律師,法院應為原告指派一名公設辯護人。並且,如果情況並非如此,那麼由於他持續的嚴重精神病和妄想症,原告顯然誤解了情況,這需要進行心理評估,並且需要對被告進行調查,以了解他們為什麼拒絕幫助原告接受心理評估。

In court on 13 July 2021, the Plaintiff also clearly indicated to the Defendants that the Plaintiff desires the aid of a lawyer.  The Plaintiff clearly stated that the lawyer provided from Legal Aid was not suitable as the Plaintiff's lawyer, and that the court should assign a public defender to the Plaintiff.  And, if this was not the case, then the Plaintiff clearly misperceived the situation as a result of his ongoing severe psychosis and Delusional Disorder, which necessitates a mental assessment, and which necessitates an investigation into the Defendants as to why they refuse to help the Plaintiff receive a mental assessment.

110728日在法庭上,原告再次自我辯護。由於被告要求原告尋找並諮詢律師,在被告得知法律援助基金會不願提供法律服務後,原告要求提供必要的資金尋找合適的律師,翻譯與律師的溝通,並提出有關違反憲法的請願書。

In court on 28 July 2021, the plaintiff was again self-represented.  Since the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to find and consult a lawyer, after the Defendants learned that the Legal Aid Foundation is unwilling to provide legal services, therefore, the Plaintiff requests the necessary money to find a suitable lawyer, to translate communication with the lawyer, and to file petitions about Constitutional violations. 

儘管110728日在法庭上有足夠的法庭口譯員坐在原告旁邊,但被告還要求原告支付翻譯公司費用,並在家裡進行庭外翻譯,這很多,可能需要第二次訴訟以確保足夠的賠償。(在110713日的法庭上,被告明確表示被告有責任確保原告收到針對原告的刑事審判的譯文,但在110728日,被告拒絕原告參加2021713日的庭審!)

Despite the fact that an adequate court interpreter sat beside the Plaintiff in court on 28 July 2021, the Defendants also required the plaintiff to pay a translation company and conduct the translations outside of court at home, which is a lot, and may require a second lawsuit to ensure sufficient compensation.  (In court on 13 July 2021, the Defendants clearly stated that the Defendants are responsible to ensure the Plaintiff receives a translation of the criminal trial against the Plaintiff, however on 28 July 2021 the Defendants denied the Plaintiff the 13 July 2021 court hearing!)

結論:原告有嚴重的精神疾病史。他值得進行心理評估。被告拒絕開始調查醫生為何在110531日拒絕精神評估,可能是因為結果將徹底改變全球所有醫生進行精神評估的方式。為了拖延不可避免的調查,被告要求原告尋求律師並用外語與律師溝通。出於這個原因,原告現在要求被告提供能夠完成被告請求的手段,因為尊重原告的心理評估權利是被告的法律責任。

Conclusion: The plaintiff has a history of severe mental illness.  He deserves a mental assessment.  The Defendants refuse to begin an investigation as to why the doctor declined the mental assessment on 31 May 2021, probably because the result will drastically change the way all doctors conduct mental assessments all over the planet.  In attempt to delay the inevitable investigation, the Defendants required the plaintiff to seek a lawyer and communicate with the lawyer in a foreign language.  For that reason, the Plaintiff now requires the Defendants to provide the means to be able to accomplish the Defendant's request, because it was the Defendant's legal responsibility to respect the Plaintiff's right to a mental assessment. 

 

頁附卷 | Attached pages

110713日的法庭聽證會記錄。

The Court hearing record from 13 July 2021. 

110728日的法庭聽證會記錄尚未公佈。法院可以直接索取該副本。

The Court hearing record from 28 July 2021 is not yet available.  The court can please request that copy directly.

 

QR下載所有內容:

Download all at the QR:


L-QR Web: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0003.html

R-QR PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXAFBnYGTcy9SYW65ExId-b6Gn9O55BV/view?usp=sharing

 

謹狀 | Sincerely

 

原告:Rene Helmerichs(中華民國:是瑞內)

中華民國1100728

Republic of China, July 28, 2021

 

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,就像「瑞內」是直接翻譯一樣。

My name means "Put yourself in my shoes. BE me." 

It is a direct translation from the English, just as "Rene" is a direct translation.

 

Back to Taiwan Court Litigation List: http://p18.rene.guru

 

"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

No comments:

Post a Comment

tpro0010

 PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghAn8MN2dYDR-EA46t1Ke5hRyXiwHDfs/view?usp=sharing