Upholding the Republic Of China Constitution

Friday, July 30, 2021

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

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號

發文日期：中華民國110年7月28日

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（Rene‧Helmerichs）

被告：（三個） Defendant:

一起工作：708臺南市安平區健康路三段308號

臺灣臺南地方法院法官

1、周宛瑩（Zhou‧Wanying）

2、蕭雅毓（Xiao‧Yayu）

3、李俊彬（Li‧Jun-Bin）

見證：（一個） Witness:

1、林泓帆（Scott‧Lin）

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110年7月28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。110年7月28日，在台南區刑事法院“南院武刑歲108易1170字”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108易1170字", 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110年7月13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條“宗教信仰自由”。原告將請願書匯總至110年7月28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!

110年7月28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.

110年7月13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.

110年7月28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110年7月28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110年7月13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110年7月28日，被告拒絕原告參加2021年7月13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110年5月31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

110年7月13日的法庭聽證會記錄。

The Court hearing record from 13 July 2021.

110年7月28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.

在QR下載所有內容：

Download all at the QR: