The Sound of Music 真善美

Remarks, "Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang, 20130530"

2013-05-31T18:30:00.000+08:00

Dear Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien:

The appeal for the custodial sentence of district court libel case, case number New Taipei District Court 101 Savant Yi 2318, was rejected by Taiwan High Court on April 30. The Taiwan High Court in the appeal rejecting document apparently mentioned that both the high court and the district court were aware of the defendant citing the Criminal Procedural Code 158 to describe a fact legally as evidence for the libel case of the defendant to be acquitted, that the district court should have known in 1983 the defendant was summoned by district court to testify against Mr Liao Cheng-Han for the rape case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, in which Mr Liao and Ms Chiu had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen resulting from the rape case and to have their daughter registered in Hong Kong government later in 1985. The defendant was underage at that time, only 12 years old and instead to be presented in court by his mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing as the proxy to testify the rape case.

As to the citing of Criminal Procedural Code 158, defendant Mr David Chang alleged that since the district court thirty years ago had ever summoned twelve years old underage defendant to testify the rape case against Mr Liao Cheng-Han, the district court should have known that because of the rape case testified, in which the two privies Mr Liao Cheng-Han and Ms Chiu Shu-Chen had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen registered later in Hong Kong, and therefore it would have been conflicts in logic when the district court summoned Mr David Chang of the rape case witness thirty years ago to be defendant of libel case today for the libel plaintiff claiming that Ms Liao Yu-Wen was not daughter of Mr Liao Cheng-Han, with the affidavit thirty years ago to be rape case testimony and today to be conviction of a libel case.

The district court and the appellate court for the sued libel case, in one year summoned, rejected the appeal of, and convicted the defendant Mr David Chang, a related rape case witness thirty years ago with victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen against Mr Liao Cheng-Han. The law court actually sentenced the witness of rape case to be a convicted libel criminal today of the Yahoo website blog, which was intended to be testifying the July 13, 2004 death case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, only for a reason that on the Yahoo website the defendant Mr David Chang of former witness of rape case referred the dead body of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to her daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen and then made the referee her daughter referred to her father Mr Liao Cheng-Han to have one year custodial sentence of libel verdict from the district court. It was miscarriage of justice for the conflicts in logic per se to sentence a witness to be the convicted. The law court apparently violated general conventions of law and common sense.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/05/20130530.html

監察院長信箱20130530

監察院長信箱20130530

2013-05-30T20:57:00.002+08:00

網路陳情登錄時間：民國102/05/30 20:51:43
陳情信箱登錄確認信函時間：民國102/05/30 20:55:03
陳情人姓名：張朝凱
通訊地址：新北市板橋區忠孝路204號3樓
電話： 29550553
被陳訴機關：司法院
陳情摘要：
一、事實經過
敬愛的王建煊院長鈞鑒：

今日早上收到監察院函，102年5月28日院台業二字第1020780707號，主旨為「台端102年5月21日電子陳情書收悉。茲復如說明，請查照。」說明為「所訴不服臺灣新北地方法院審理101年度易字第2318號台端被訴妨害名譽案件之裁判結果等情乙節，仍宜請參酌本院102年5月16日院台業二字第1020163278號函意旨。」

關於司法救濟部份內容，陳情人張朝凱於臺灣高等法院上訴書狀提出證據通則內容刑事訴訟法第158條「事實於法院已顯著，或為其職務上所已知者，無庸舉證」，臺灣高等法院上訴駁回刑事判決書指出「..其係因罹患精神疾病而為本案犯行，且已出現幻想等症狀」等等不符法律事實內容，而上訴駁回書以刑法第87條第1項、第3項，維持原第一審判決監護1年，因而形同宣告監護陳情人，對陳情人進行民法第16條違反侵權。臺灣高等法院德股102年上易字第777號刑事判決，以「未依據卷內既有訴訟資料或提出新事證，指摘或表明原判決有何採證、認事、用法等足以影響判決本旨之不當或違法之情形，其上訴未敘述具體理由」。臺灣高等法院在上訴駁回判決書明顯提到知悉妨害名譽案被告，引用刑事訴訟法158條乙節，與案件所述相關之未成年證人由母親代理出庭乙節，但是完全否定陳情人張朝凱在法律上之任何答辯法定權利。

事實上對1983年12歲未成年海山國中新生之陳情人為妨害名譽案件被告，曾在板橋地方法庭傳喚為廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案件之證人，因未成年由母親吳玉幸代理出庭，三十年後2013年1月31日竟以陳情人偵探2004年7月13日邱淑貞死亡案之作證網路部落格網頁，充為妨害名譽案件之定罪證據，並且將偵探無名女屍死者邱淑貞之關係人廖鈺玟與其父親廖鎮漢乙節，用以充做法庭犯罪定罪之證據理由，地方法院與上訴法院明顯枉法。

對於刑事訴訟法規定不得上訴於第三審案件，另外再審20天期限亦於今日屆滿，除了最高法院檢察總長提出之非常上訴，101士易2318妨害名譽案件法律程序已經完全終了。
　　
二、違法失職情事及其證明方法
對於刑事訴訟法第158條證據相關內容，將當年傳喚為證人相關之事件於30年後傳喚用於定罪，地方法院與上訴法院明顯邏輯顛倒，錯誤已經超越法律規範之等級者。
　　
三、具體訴求
將同一法律相關事項，證人傳喚之後，再以被告傳喚定罪，明顯違反一般法律原則常理。
　　
四、相關證據資料及文件清單
監察院函102年5月28日院台業二字第1020780707號

※ 欲查看網路陳情全文，請點選民眾陳情全文
陳訴事項曾否向權責機關陳情反映？曾向權責機關陳情反映。
陳訴事項是否仍於行政救濟或司法訴訟程序中否。原因：相關行政救濟或司法訴訟程序已告終了
陳訴人身分是否要求保密：不要保密
目前處理情形：您的陳情案件正由本院處理中。
處理日期： 102/05/30

Remarks, "20130521, Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang"

2013-05-22T11:58:00.002+08:00

Remarks, "20130521, Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang"

Dear Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien:

Your letter sent on May 16, 2013 had been received today. The Judicial Yuan shall be impeached, because the libel criminal court had convicted a witness thirty years ago of libel today, using the same facts very witness testified in court as the convicted evidence.

Ms Liao Yu-Wen was Mr Liao Chen-Han's daughter because Mr Liao raped Ms Chiu Shu-Chen in 1983 to have the daughter. The Hong Kong Women and Children Protecting Organization and governmental officer in 1983 came to Taiwan to assist the twelve years old Ms Chiu Shu-Chen with her infant to sue Mr Liao Chen-Han a rape case to make the infant Liao Yu-Wen registered to be a Hong-Kong born of United Kingdom nationalist, with the required information of her mother and father's name. The police and district law courts were investigating the adolescent gang rape case of victim Ms Huang and the eleven years old victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen of underage raped case, the criminal court was to summon the twelve years old underage privy Mr David Chang, me, to be present in court to testify the rape case and the gang rape case. But privy David Chang had a United Nations Child Abuse Account to refuse the court sommon by the proxy custodian as privy David Chang was underage. Therefore the law court was to summon underage privy David Chang's mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing to present in court as the proxy of underage Mr David Chang, through her served public elementary school teachers and pricipal's office to require Mrs Wu to present in court. The privy David Chang was underage and not yet matured to be with capability to participate in the gang rape of victim Ms Huang and the rape case of 11 years old underage victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen raped by Mr Liao Chen-Han. For this the United Nations Children Protection Account had filed a testifying procedure proving it was not yet potent for the underage privy Mr David Chang and to clarify that it was not yet matured enough to be logically legal or proper to be alleged as the rape case or gang rape suspect, and that the underage child Mr David Chang in 1983 was to be summoned by the law court as the witness, not as the suspect to Ms Chiu Shu-Chen's rape case against Mr Liao Chen-han.

Therefore, as to the Case No. 101 Yi 2318 Libel case with the legal consisting element void, that Ms Liao Yu-Wen was Mr Liao Chen-han's daughter for sure to consider that 1983 Ms Chiu Shu-Chen sued against Mr Liao Chen-Han for a rape case, it was Mr Liao Chen-Han to rape Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to be pregnant to have their daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen, and thirty years ago of the same jurisdiction to summon the twelve years old underage privy Mr David Chang as witness but the witness privy was underage to have his mother to be proxy to present in court. For this context, the libel court of 2012 New Taipei District Court Case No. 101 Yi 2318 Libel case, was to be violating civil rights to make the witness convicted, using the same facts of 1983 rape case testified in court to let the summoned witness testified but indicted and convicted, with the same evidence testified for the rape case thirty years ago to convict him a custodial for one year sentence.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/05/20130521.html

監察院長信箱20130521

Comments on identity theft of USA Green Card of mine. Facebook Picture of Passport album

2013-05-22T11:40:00.001+08:00

"Comments on identity theft of USA Green Card of mine. Facebook Picture of Passport album"

1. Passport Album Cover comment:

The AIT(American Institute at Taiwan) in October 2002 had asked for a check-up for my old passport of number M11659963 with my Baruch F1 Visa attached before the recent outbreak of green card identity theft engaged me in the law court. My 2002 May renewed passport was with legal issue of changing passport number, to become of No.132909476 issued by Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially. The AIT officials approved my B1/B2 Visa for five years up to 2007, before the passport was overdue last January in 2012. I did not comprehend what it was when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card, in October 2002. I had a social security card number SSN057-86-4042 issued in 1996 August from New York City Brooklyn Borough Bureau. But I did not have a chance to claim back my social security number, and my green card which seemed to be applied from my United Nations Child Abuse Case custodian Mrs Hillary R. Clinton in Washington D.C. Actually my green card was applied in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification of Taipei civil rights case, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying for me a green card because the officer explained that the social security account was not enough for the Taipei human rights or civil rights account for the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School registered international student at New York City.

2. Picture of Passport comment:

My 1996 passport, No. M11659963, was attached with 1996 Fall Baruch F1 student Visa which was issued on June 29, 1996 by officials of New York Government Education Dept. at JFK airport. The passport was due on January 23, 2002 when I was working at HuaNan Commercial Bank, notified to renew it because somebody had been falsifying my passport when it was overdue. I ignored that notification but was fired by the HNCB Bank on May 1. I was applying a passport renewal at the first week in 2002 May, but delayed for two times to receive the renewed passport at the end of 2002 May. The renewed passport was with legal issue of changing the passport number. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the official window was giving me another passport of No. 132909476. It was after my trips in 2002 summer to Europe and mainland China, when I submitted a USA travel and sight-seeing B1/B2 Visa application to American Institute at Taiwan(AIT) in 2002 October, the AIT officer asked for a check-up for my old passport of No. M11659963 which was with my Baruch F1 student Visa attached. On the day I received the USA B1/B2 Visa for travel and sight-seeing, after I was leaving the AIT Visa issuing window located at No. 7, Lane 134, Sec. 3 Xinyi Road, Da-an District, Taipei City, on spot there were some quarrels and taunts about a green card to do with me and apparently could be discerned by myself and the AIT officer at the AIT office counter. My B1/B2 Visa was approved by AIT for five years up to 2007, before the passport attached the B1/B2 Visa was overdue last January in 2012. However, I did not comprehend what it was when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card in October 2002, and therefore I had lost a chance to claim back my social security number with my green card under identity theft, which was applied by myself in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City because of the approval of a human rights or civil rights account at Taipei. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification from the White House or New York Government, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying a green card for me because the officer explained to me that social security account only was not enough for my human rights or civil rights account at Taipei, and she said that I was a citizen of New York City with Social Security Number to apply permanent residency in that I had registered to the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School to be registered international student at New York City. She was suggesting my friend Mr Tan Bo-Wei who was accompany me there, supposed to be the Polytech University student, that he should stay at New York City to register the Polytech programs to be qualified for the citizenship.

3. Picture of Visa comment:

My 1996 Fall Baruch F1 Visa attached on my 1996 passport, No. M11659963, issued on June 29, 1996 by officials of Education Dept. of New York Government at JFK airport.(The airport tax which was mentioned later for target of legal disputes, actually was collected by the Education Dept. officer of New York State to do a favor for me at the JFK Immigrant Office with the Baruch I-20 form exchanged for F1 Student Visa) The passport was due on January 23, 2002. I had a social security card number SSN057-86-4042 issued in 1996 August from New York City Brooklyn Borough Bureau with my Baruch College business graduate school F1 Visa status. I did not comprehend what they said, there were quarrels and taunts on spot about my green card and apparently could be discerned by myself and the AIT officer at the AIT office counter, when the AIT officer told me that I had a green card, in October 2002, and I had lost a chance to claim back my social security number under identity theft with my green card, which seemed to be applied from my United Nations Child Abuse Case custodian Mrs Hillary R. Clinton in Washington D.C. with that social security number. (Actually my green card was applied in person on August 26, 1996 at the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City. The Social Security Number was approved on the very day with a notification of Taipei civil rights case, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying for me a green card because the officer explained that the social security account was not enough for the Taipei human rights or civil rights account for the City University of New York(CUNY) Baruch Graduate School registered international student at NYC.)

http://www.facebook.com/chaokai60

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.492201120846195.1073741826.100001689355919&type=3

Remarks, "Plastic box displayed in law court concerned lynch of petty theft"

2013-05-22T11:27:00.000+08:00

Remarks, "Plastic box displayed in law court concerned lynch of petty theft"

Earlier this year on January 31, 2013, before the New Taipei District Court was to decide a custodial sentence for the libel case against me, the law court made a polygraph when I was sitting in as the observer of the fraud criminal law court of Farmer's Association of New Taipei City, an undergoing polygraph was hinted to be concerned with a plastic box displayed in front of fraud law court about New Taipei City Farmer's Association's seal misused to bid a land in Banciao areas, and I was only court observer on the day before my libel case sentenced on the very day on January 31 at 5:30 P.M. to receive a guilty custodial one year sentence.

Something about the plastic box displayed in front of the law court on January 31, 2013 was concerned with a lynch case of a petty theft. The lynch victim of Mr Su Ming-Hsin in 2000 August was a NTD$450 plastic box petty theft criminal suspect in the French Mall Hyper, Geant Far Easter A-Mart, located on Sichuan Road at Banciao City, Taipei County, the former Banciao District in New Taipei City. Mr Su Ming-Hsin was a National Security Bureau(NSB) agent officer and employee of the Banciao Farmer's Association of Taipei County, the former Banciao Farmer's Association of New Taipei City. Several days within Su died in August 2000, the plastic box with pink color was carried by Banciao Farmer's Association staff and the law enforcement official to Sanchung Military Police Station burned in the incinerator within the 105th MP Investigation station. A month later there was a false Taiwan made plastic file box shown up in the office of Banciao Farmer's Association, and a year later there was a same style, French US manufacturer's blue color plastic box displayed in Banciao Farmer's association, apparently served as the purpose for perjury.

http://chaokai60.blogspot.tw/2013/04/blog-post_23.html

台北縣農會蘇明信私刑案之愛買塑膠文件盒

監察院長信箱20130521

2013-05-21T19:09:00.002+08:00

網路陳情登錄時間：民國102/05/21 18:58:32
陳情信箱登錄確認信函時間：民國102/05/21 19:01:12
陳情人姓名：張朝凱
通訊地址：新北市板橋區忠孝路204號3樓
電話：29550553
被陳訴機關：司法院

陳情摘要：
一、事實經過
敬愛的監察院王院長建煊先生鈞鑒：

5月13日監察院函院台業二字第1020163203號，於5月15日收妥並於當日下午前往位於忠孝東路監察院說明並於收發室呈交當日陳情說明文件；

今日5月21日早上另外收到5月16日監察院函院台業二字第1020163278號，主旨為「台端102年5月10日陳情書及同年月9日電子陳情書收悉。茲復如說明，請查照。」
說明內容為：「一、按本院職權係對公務人員或機關涉有違失情事，認有調查必要且經詳細調查後，依職權行使糾正、糾舉或彈劾，並非司法機關行使司法權後之第四審，無權逕為變更法院裁判，合先敘明。二、所訴不服臺灣新北地方法院審理101年度易字第2318號及臺灣高等法院審理102年度上易字第777號台端被訴妨害名譽案件之裁判結果乙節，仍應請循法定程序尋求救濟，才能發生應有的法律效果；另如認公務人員或機關涉有違失情事(非其職權行使認定事實或證據取捨之爭執)，請再詳予具體敘述並檢附相關佐證資料影本供參。三、如有法律上無法瞭解的問題或其他訴訟程序的疑義，可就近向財團法人法律扶助基金會各地區分會或民間公益團體附設之法律諮詢機構洽詢請教(免費)。」

感謝王院長建煊先生5月16日的親切回函，雖然明顯未提到5月15日的陳情說明書感覺像有些時間差。
　　
二、違法失職情事及其證明方法
1983年士林法院代表台北地方法院與板橋地方法院審理的廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案件，經香港婦幼保護組織扶助的未成年11歲邱淑貞與女兒廖鈺玟案件與少年幫派組織警事調查與法庭證人傳喚，是要求當時未成年12歲的陳情當事人張朝凱，即30年之後今天的43歲101易2318廖鎮漢妨害名譽案被告與陳情當事人前往作證的，但因陳情當事人有聯合國受虐兒案登錄受保護，因而證人傳喚被直接拒絕，而改由後埔國小教職員與校長辦公室要求受聯合國保護陳情當事人張朝凱的母親吳玉幸以陳情當事人未成年為理由代理出庭，陳情當事人當時小學六年級剛升上海山國中一年級之開學日第一天，生理與心理都尚未成熟到與廖鎮漢及其他青年中學三名少年嫌犯共同進行強暴與輪姦犯罪，在生理未成熟部份30年前事實上有經過國際兒童保護組織作證確認程序的，在經過30年物換星移人事皆非之後，當年地方法院對香港婦幼保護組織與政府官方扶助廖鈺玟母女提告之廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案件，可明顯確定在30年之後於2012年新北地方法院101易2318廖鎮漢妨害名譽案當事人之陳情人張朝凱，在1983年當年遭法庭傳喚廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案是為證人身份，因兒童生理與心理未成熟在法律邏輯上不可能為法庭犯罪嫌疑人。因而101易2318妨害名譽案件之主要法律構成要件部份，廖鈺玟為廖鎮漢之女而且是強暴邱淑貞所生者，並無疑義而且被告之陳情當事人張朝凱係當年經法庭傳喚為未出庭證人者。今日在同一司法院管轄下，竟傳喚昔時未成年而未出庭證人為今朝法庭被告，對相同案件事實要求當庭證詞，並以當庭證詞用以裁判有罪之監護裁判一年，矯飾為無罪裁判意欲強制執行人身自由限制與人格權等剝奪等處份，對於廖鈺玟為廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞所生之一節，在30年前傳喚陳情當事人為證人，30年之後傳喚陳情當事人為被告，司法權玩弄法律，豈非監察院彈劾之責歟？
　　
三、具體訴求
101易2318妨害名譽案件之法律構成要件，廖鈺玟為廖鎮漢之女而且是強暴邱淑貞所生者，被告即陳情人張朝凱當年係以未成年證人而拒絕出庭傳喚者，在同一司法院轄下30年後，竟傳喚證人為被告，對相同事實要求當庭證詞並裁判為有罪之監護一年，司法院違反法律濫權瀆職，監察院職守有責必須彈劾，否則同樣觸犯政府公務員瀆職罪。

妨害名譽案件始於司法院，對憲法第八條違反侵犯民權部份怠忽職守未處理，並引用1987年左右台灣大學法律系主導修訂將憲法納為法庭私有而排除民眾，敘述為憲法唯獨司法院可解釋，為違反世界潮流與台灣特有反民主與反動之修訂成文法，一併提交監察院處置匡正民權為荷。
　　
四、相關證據資料及文件清單
1.5月13日監察院函院台業二字第1020163203號
2.5月16日監察院函院台業二字第1020163278號

※ 欲查看網路陳情全文，請點選民眾陳情全文

陳訴事項曾否向權責機關陳情反映？曾向權責機關陳情反映。
陳訴事項是否仍於行政救濟或司法訴訟程序中否。原因：相關行政救濟或司法訴訟程序已告終了
陳訴人身分是否要求保密：不要保密
目前處理情形：您的陳情案件正由本院處理中。
處理日期：102/05/21

監察院長信箱20130509

2013-05-09T20:37:00.001+08:00

網路陳情登錄時間：民國102/05/09 20:26:26
陳情信箱登錄確認信函時間：民國102/05/09 20:31:06
陳情人姓名：張朝凱
通訊地址：新北市板橋區忠孝路204號3樓
電話：29550553
被陳訴機關：司法院

陳情摘要：
一、事實經過
監察院王院長建煊先生鈞鑒：

台灣新北地方法院101年士易第2318號妨害名譽案，陳情人張朝凱於102年2月5日聲明與2月8日補充理由上訴之後，在今天收到台灣高等法院刑事判決書，臺灣高等法院德股102年上易字第777號刑事判決，以「未依據卷內既有訴訟資料或提出新事證，指摘或表明原判決有何採證、認事、用法等足以影響判決本旨之不當或違法之情形，其上訴未敘述具體理由」，於102年4月29日駁回陳情人張朝凱之上訴。因而所有司法訴訟程序已終了。
　　
二、違法失職情事及其證明方法
陳情人張朝凱於妨害名譽案件在2月8日於新北地方法院補提之刑事上訴理由補充狀，對於妨害名譽案三則法律構成要件缺乏，提出無任何一法律構成要件具備為明顯事實者。

除了已在地方法院判決之前答辯狀申明中文所述「私生女」意思為「非婚生女兒」，表達的意思並非侮辱性詞彙之外，其二為妨害名譽案告訴乃論當事人廖鎮漢死亡之既成事實，陳情人上訴所主張新北地法院第一審不當或違法判決者，為違反刑法第314條所規定之「本章之罪，須告訴乃論。」規定內容，對於陳情人所述報紙與電視媒體公告內容視為未知內容，因而新北地方法院以民法第8條所規定視廖鎮漢未宣告死亡情形，而採用妨害名譽案代理告訴人蔡明澤與新北市刑警大隊於法庭所做之偽證，偽證廖鎮漢為民法第6條之未死亡提告人，而以違反憲法第7條平等權、憲法第142條節制資本、與憲法第16條之訴訟權，強制陳情人張朝凱接受亞東醫院強制醫事精神鑑定，罔顧陳情人張朝凱於新北地方法院為時一年期間當庭溝通行為能力狀況下，逕行宣告陳情人張朝凱受法院判決監護一年而為無行為能力，即民法第15條受監護宣告之人，無行為能力之內容，因而以法庭不當或違法判決進行實質違反陳情人民法第16條權利能力及行為能力，不得拋棄之法律權益者。對於新北市刑警大隊與新北地方法庭偽證廖鎮漢提告之侵權部份，陳情人張朝凱業已於101年8月10日提告新北市刑警大隊與廖鎮漢共同內亂案件，與101年4月2日提告劉東昀檢察官瀆職案，與遭憲法第16條違反情形之逕行結案而以再議性質提告相關詐欺與偽證案件。

其三為廖鈺玟為廖鎮漢與邱淑貞所生之非婚生女兒，為1983年起始為期三年之內經板橋地方法院、台北地方法院及士林法院共計三間法院進行法律程序處理者，因而陳情人張朝凱上訴書狀提出刑事訴訟法第158條事實於法院已顯著，或為其職務上所已知者，無庸舉證，刑事訴訟程序法律之證據通則內容，因而陳情人所提出者為依法律正當提列證據事實，並非上訴駁回刑事判決書所載「..其係因罹患精神疾病而為本案犯行，且已出現幻想等症狀」等等不符法律事實內容，而上訴駁回書以刑法第87條第1項、第3項，維持原第一審判決監護1年，因而形同宣告監護陳情人，對陳情人進行民法第16條違反侵權。查在1983年海山國中新生開學日之教室強暴案件，搭機前往香港之受害者邱淑貞與廖鈺玟以未成年單親媽媽與幼兒保護原則，接受大英國協租界屬地香港政府官方進行國際保護，於臺北市與臺北縣共計三間地方法院提訟處理後，香港皇家灣醫院以士林法院提告案件之廖鎮漢姓名與和解法律文件攜回香港處理登錄廖鈺玟為香港籍受未成年少女強暴案件保護，父母為黑松企業廖鎮漢與未成年邱淑貞所生者。

1983年當時海山國中教室發生之強暴案，除了廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞外，尚有一件板橋劉家女兒，大約民國58年次青少女於同時間與同地點遭受青年中學三人以上輪暴案件，當時士林法院兼具二審尚未廢除，板橋劉家女兒在邱淑貞在香港接受皇家警察以邱淑貞母女以未成年強暴案接受保護後，隨後亦搭機前往大英國協租界屬地香港以板橋地區青少女遭受輪暴申請香港保護，由劉姓改為黃姓提報聯合國未成年少女遭受幫派輪暴保護調查案件，據悉1983年同時提告之板橋劉家輪暴案受害者黃女之案件為士林法院一審不起訴後於士林法院進行二審上訴後遭駁回，而邱淑貞遭廖鎮漢強暴案為士林法院一審勝訴後進行和解，香港皇家灣醫院以該士林法院一審勝訴與和解法律文件攜回登記，當時黑松小開廖鎮漢並於黑松企業與居住地之台北市宴請地方人士與台北市議員及立法委員賢達等，以宴席公開與邱淑貞及親屬談和以符合士林法院法庭和解要求，為多年往事為公開既成事實。同時期以學生校外會輔導提告少女遭受強暴案與遭受青少年幫派輪暴案件，在台北地方法院出庭之廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案是由台北縣海山國中教職員出庭作證者，在板橋地方法院出庭之廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞案與板橋劉家黃姓少女遭受青年中學等三人輪暴案，是由後埔國小與海山國中教職員出庭作證者。

台北縣與台北市三間地方法院提告處理期間，當時來台之香港輔導提告者於法院處理時表明為大英國協租界屬地香港官方身份後，有遭到台北市長官或政府權威人士以管轄權問題談判台灣遭受外交困境之社會上公開討論情事，黃女經士林法院一審上訴與二審不起訴或上訴駁回，同時士林法院有會同板橋地方法院及台北地方法院調查邱淑貞遭廖鎮漢強暴案，士林法院一審告知邱淑貞是遭到廖鎮漢一人強暴案件而非遭受三人輪暴提訟案件，惟因邱淑貞當時已告知與廖鎮漢進行和解，因為強暴案採告訴乃論程序案件而不起訴處理，而且當時其黑松企業家長親屬隨後於台北市宴請地方賢達與政府官員與邱淑貞談和以符合法庭不起訴仲裁所述之和解要求，是故士林法院當時代表告知邱淑貞強暴案不起訴裁判，意思表示並非告知並非廖鎮漢強暴邱淑貞，而是邱淑貞已經與廖鎮漢和解，因而士林法院代表板橋地方法院與台北地方法院之仲裁，意思表示即為廖鈺玟為於法庭詢問已與邱淑貞和解之廖鎮漢所涉告訴乃論強暴案件之非婚生女兒，因而為陳情人張朝凱於上訴所提刑事訴訟法第158條規範之法定證據內容。
　　
三、具體訴求
無任何一構成要件的妨害名譽案件，經102年1月31日新北地方法院第一審判決，102年4月29日台灣高等法院刑事判決駁回上訴，

依照中華民國刑事訴訟法與憲法規定：
刑事訴訟法第1條犯罪，非依本法或其他法律所定之訴訟程序，不得追訴、處罰。
憲法第8條非依法定程序之逮捕、拘禁、審問、處罰，得拒絕之。

提出申請監察院調查與彈劾。
　　
四、相關證據資料及文件清單
台灣高等法院刑事判決書 102年度上易字第777號；102.4.30

※ 欲查看網路陳情全文，請點選民眾陳情全文

陳訴事項曾否向權責機關陳情反映？曾向權責機關陳情反映。
陳訴事項是否仍於行政救濟或司法訴訟程序中否。原因：相關行政救濟或司法訴訟程序已告終了
陳訴人身分是否要求保密：請保密
目前處理情形：您的陳情案件正由本院處理中。
處理日期：102/05/09

監察院長信箱20130508

2013-05-08T20:35:00.001+08:00

網路陳情登錄時間：民國102/05/08 20:22:07
陳情信箱登錄確認信函時間：民國102/05/08 20:25:32
陳情人姓名：張朝凱
通訊地址：新北市板橋區忠孝路204號3樓
電話：29550553
被陳訴機關：司法院

陳情摘要：
一、事實經過
監察院王院長建煊先生鈞鑒：

監察院5月2日來函「發文字號：院台業二字第1020780575號，主旨：台端102年4月27日電子陳情書收悉。茲復如說明，請查照。」已於今日郵局掛號信函收妥。

今日102年5月8日下午4時30分由民眾本人親往臺北市忠孝東路1段2號監察院陳情中心與收發室，依監察院王院長建煊先生來函說明指示，「參酌102年2月21日院台業二字1020780248號監察院來函意旨，檢附檢察署處分書、歷審法院裁判書相關佐證資料影本」，於監察院1樓民眾陳情中心詢問與填寫後附上佐證資料影本共計七項，於收發室由陳情人於5時送件蓋收件章。

102年5月8日依監察院來函指示要求檢附相關檢察署處分書、歷審法院裁判書相關佐證資料影本，總計七項，清單如下：
一、憲法第8條釋憲聲請案：
司法院大法官書記處書函影本1件；
二、新北市刑警大隊與廖鎮漢共同內亂案：
101他667(板檢)、101他4063(新北檢)書函影本計2件；
三、廖鎮漢妨害名譽案：
101黃偵2752(板檢)、101士易2318(板院)，板檢起訴書、板院刑事聲請證據保全駁回處分、板院精神鑑定處分裁定書函、板院刑事判決書等，佐證資料影本計4件；
四、新北市刑警大隊與廖鎮漢共同誣告案：
101黃偵15130，板檢不起訴處分書、板檢再議無理由通知書函、101上聲議5545 理由補充，高檢署再議業已駁回通知書函、高檢署誣告案不起訴聲請再議駁回處分書，佐證資料影本計4件；
五、劉東昀檢察官瀆職案：
板檢結案通知書函影本計4件；
六、豐田汽車殺人未遂併同詐欺案、國安局幹員張麗娟殺人未遂與詐欺案：
101荒他3499、101荒他3500，板檢結案通知書函影本1件；
七、法務部移文單影本計1件。
　　
二、違法失職情事及其證明方法
上列七項佐證資料影本，詳細清單如下：
一、憲法第8條釋憲聲請案：
司法官大法官書記處書函101.8.23處大三字第1010023720號；
二、新北市刑警大隊與廖鎮漢共同內亂案：
1.臺灣高等法院檢察署函101.8.24檢紀平字第1010000796號；
2.臺灣新北地方法院檢察署函102.1.9新北檢玉知101他4063字第301030號；
三、廖鎮漢妨害名譽案：
1.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署檢察官起訴書101年度偵字第2752號，101.7.5；
2.臺灣板橋地方法院刑事裁定101年度刑全字第25號，101.9.4；
3.臺灣板橋地方法院函101.9.28板院清刑士101易2318字第064458號；
4.臺灣新北地方法院刑事判決101年度易字第2318號，102.1.31；
四、新北市刑警大隊與廖鎮漢共同誣告案：
1.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署檢察官不起訴處分書101年度偵字第15130號，101.7.5；
2.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署函101.7.27板檢玉黃101偵15130字第224137號；
3.臺灣高等法院檢察署函101.8.6檢紀芥字第1010000688號；
4.臺灣高等法院檢察署處分書101年度上聲議字第5545號，101.8.3；
五、劉東昀檢察官瀆職案：
1.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署書函101.4.25板檢玉101他1705字第16340號；
2.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署書函101.6.28板檢玉101他2150字第126667號；
3.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署書函101.8.3板檢玉101他3178字第224790號；
4.臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署書函101.8.23板檢玉101他3498字第135477號；
六、豐田汽車殺人未遂併同詐欺案、國安局幹員張麗娟殺人未遂與詐欺案：
臺灣板橋地方法院檢察署書函101.8.23板檢玉101他3499、3500字第135484號；
七、法務部移文單：
法務部檢察司函101.3.5法檢二字第10104009730號。

三、具體訴求
一、8月20日於高院司法院收文書面聲請釋憲。
二、因原告微風廖鎮漢已死亡而無原告而將新北市刑大列為誣告共同被告，經不起訴再議駁回後形同廖鎮漢法律上存在，因而被迫提告新北市刑大為內亂案件共同被告。101年8月10日提告後於9月16日於高檢署陳報狀一件。
三、法官詢問後強制被告接受醫事精神鑑定。
四、101.4.2提告誣告案，101.8.9送達高檢署駁回處分通知函；
五、101年4月2日提告101他1705劉東昀瀆職案，4月27日送達板檢書函通知瀆職案結案，陳情人於法律程序7日內於5月1日提告再議性質刑事詐欺案101他2150，並於訴狀檢附瀆職告訴狀為附件，7月2日送達板檢書函通知詐欺案結案；陳情人於7月3日提出再議聲請，板檢於8月6日再以書函通知已予結案。因101黃偵2752妨害名譽案無任一法律構成要件，且已提告誣告及檢察官瀆職，板檢卻於7月20日送達7月5日妨害名譽案起訴書，故陳情人張朝凱於7月22日另行提告檢察官劉東昀偽造文書案，板檢於8月27日再以書函通知結案。
六、豐田汽車與國安幹員兩件刑案，原提告為兩件不在場證明。
七、司法訴願電郵法務部移文單。
　　
四、相關證據資料及文件清單
如陳訴事項一(事實經過)、與陳訴事項二(違法失職情事及證明方法)中所條列之七項佐證資料影本清單。

※ 欲查看網路陳情全文，請點選民眾陳情全文

陳訴事項曾否向權責機關陳情反映？曾向權責機關陳情反映。
陳訴事項是否仍於行政救濟或司法訴訟程序中是
陳訴人身分是否要求保密：不要保密
目前處理情形：您的陳情案件正由本院處理中。
處理日期：102/05/08

Background about pleading impeachment of Judicial Yuan violating citizen Constitutional rights; Legal complaints to New Taipei District Court submitting to Supreme Court

2013-05-04T17:20:00.000+08:00

Date: 2013 April 30; 102/04/30 @ 14:27
To: New Taipei District Court submitting to Supreme Court
Name: David CK Chang
Email: chaokai_chang@hotmail.com
Telephone: 29550553

Title: Detail background information about pleading to ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-shien of Control Yuan for impeachment of Judicial Yuan violating citizen Constitutional rights in district court libel case

Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr Yang Ding-Zhang:

Without any necessary legal consisting elements, New Taipei District Court Case Number 101 Savant Yi 2318 Libel criminal case had been sued by Breeze Center Mr Liao Cheng-Han for more than one year against privy Mr David CK Chang, me, began on December 29, 2011, the New Taipei City Criminal Police Squad violating ROC Constitution Article 8th of habeas corpus constitutional rights of citizen, arrested the privy Mr David CK Chang, me, from home at No. 204 ChungHsio Road, Banciao District, New Taipei City, for the reason of Breeze Center Mr Liao Cheng-han sued a libel case against the privy because the privy had posted an article on Yahoo website personal blog. Firstly, the libel case was sued without lawful plaintiff because the Breeze Center Mr Liao Cheng-Han had died on March 17, 2008 and this criminal case shall be sued by only the libel case victim himself according to the criminal code mandated. The death certificate of plaintiff Mr Liao Cheng-Han in 2008 was applied by the former Air Force Commander Chen Zhaomin from Pentagon, USA. In 2008 Commander Chen Zhaomin went to the United States and visiting the Pentagon, in person proceeding the paper works of documents of the death of Mr Liao Cheng-Han, the former Black Cat flying pilot. Secondly, the privy’s Yahoo website article was serving for the purpose of detective investigation and written form testifying to death criminal case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen on July 13, 2004 being raped, killed, chopped into pieces, and thrown into the high seas during military action at Banciao apartment next to the privy Mr David CK Chang’s house, to be a first class brutality of war crime promulgated in November 2004 by Hong Kong and Singapore agents. The New Taipei City Criminal Police department arrested citizen from home and conducting interrogation for ambiguous reasons for a libel case lawsuit against the privy, then transferring the interrogation to the former Banciao District Court Prosecutors Office, now the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office, for more than a year went through three investigation courts, tried on August 29, 2012 and January 16, 2013 in criminal court and sentenced guilty on January 31, 2013, although the criminal court judge justified by written form in verdict that “The privy Mr David CK Chang was innocent but should serve for one year as a custodial inmate in adequate institution.” In fact, the penalty sentenced to deprive freedom and the privy has to do time for one year as the inmate of certain custodial house, and that is a de facto guilty sentence. The New Taipei District Court was successively violating the ROC Constitution Article 7th, the Article 8th, and the Article 16th against the privy’s civil rights during this one year of libel criminal lawsuit. Several petition letters pleading for impeachment of Judicial Yuan were filed in electronic document letter form sent to the Control Yuan ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien. The most recent pleading letter for impeachment of the Judicial Yuan violating citizen Constitutional rights was sent three days ago on April 27, 2013.

Last month the privy Mr David CK Chang was staying at the National Central Library, being informed that a law case claiming the land of privy’s private property upon which the privy’s house was built for it was a foreclosed mortgage announced by the USA Federal Law Court in 2000, and bringing it on to the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office earlier this March by some foreigner who could be met with the privy in this public library. The object targeted in law court was private property located at No. 204 Chunghsio Road, Banciao District, New Taipei City, where the privy David CK Chang and his family have been dwelling in, which the claiming creditor 2000 in the USA was Shin Kong Bank, in the Federal Law Court claimed that the land was mortgaged with a deed of land by Mr David CK Chang in person to the Shin Kong Bank for several hundred million US dollars, paid in the Las Vega area within some lottery house or Casino. Over 20 Pings, or 900 square feet, the private property located at No. 204 Chunghsio Road Banciao District, New Taipei City, was a farmland bought by the privy David CK Chang’s family in 1978, or Minguo 67th year, with the introduction of Hope Elementary School teacher Mr Lai to the local largest landowner Mrs A-Yuan (or Mrs A-Man) whose land was across Chung-her and Banciao boundary at Taipei County. It was a fragmental farmland which located all within Banciao boundary. As the local government upgraded from Banciao Town to Banciao City, in government administration there were public policy of urban planning and city redistricting in 1978, the fragmental farmland was changed from the farmland district and redistricted to the residential and commercial land district. In 1978, or Minguo 67th year, the privy’s family through familiar constructor Mr Chen built up a five story apartment alone, and in the summer of 1979, moved into the building as the home of household, downstairs was rent for the textile, factory or garment firms. Mr Liao Cheng-Han, the Heyson soda company’s young son and the client of Rose Law Firm in New York and Arkansas, ever registered his residence address at the downstairs without consent of the privy’s family. In 1981 when privy Mr David CK Chang was K-5, elementary fifth-grade at night when privy’s father was not home, the Military Police Special Squads member Mr Li and his colleague, breaking into the household and dropped dead nearby, resulted to disputes in the United Nations of an investigating case and legal actions with the Black Cat pilot Mr Liao Cheng-Han in the U.S. Federal Law Court in New York areas for decades. The break-in in 1981 to the privy’s house caused at least two items being stolen, according to the privy’s father Mr Cheng-Chi Chang reported to the local police station, including the privy’s temple religion blessing gold medal when he was born and a deed of farmland which was invalidated in 1978 or Minguo 67th year being redistricted to residential and commercial districts and re-registered to the government land administration office. The government told privy’s father Mr Cheng-Chi Chang that modern government did not have the convention to issue a deed of land to the citizen. If the citizen registered again to the land administration office for the private property as a residential or a commercial areas household, that would suffice to invalidate the previous stolen deed of farmland document. For this the government head officer assured the privy’s father Mr Chang Cheng-Chi that he need not to worry about the theft deed of farmland document that someday in the future it would to be taken as legal document coming back to claim his private property. Although the deed of farmland was with US Federal Court sentence document as a mortgage certificate to claim to recover the debt, but in fact the privy’s father Mr Cheng-Chi Chang in 1981 had reported to the Taipei County Police Station to be a theft item, belonging to the privy Mr David CK Chang and his family. Hereby, the privy Mr David CK Chang claim to the New Taipei District Court and Prosecutors Office to seize the stolen goods and return it to citizen of New Taipei City and the privy Mr David CK Chang, because the document, a deed of farmland, was a stolen goods reported in 1981 to the police in spite of that it had been an invalidated document since 1978.

Before June 2000 Mr Bill Clinton was still in the White House as US President, the defense of the U.S. federal court was manifested as some Yale University lawyer, signed in law court document as defendant lawyer Mr William Jefferson, have pointed out that the Chinese character in the deed of farmland was in English to be the meaning of agriculture district and thus was an invalid collateral. But at the moment in the United States of America the defendant was an identity theft offender of the privy David CK Chang’s green card identity, a classmate of privy’s Military Police Reserve Officers, Mr Huang, in the federal law court when his Yale lawyer Mr William Jefferson proclaimed that it was puzzling that apparently the defendant acted to be against his own legal interest to forsake the claim of invalidated mortgaged deed of land at Taipei County. The identity theft offender and federal law court defendant Mr Huang no sooner faked death after the federal law court announced verdict and authorized the claiming of the mortgage collateral at Taipei County, (while another identity theft suspect, Mr Ralf Liu, was alleged to be seen in the same federal court but at the moment had not yet been involved with the mortgage collateral fraud case of privy Mr David Chang's family private property at Taipei County in the very federal law court, until months later Mr Ralf Liu was alleged by another federal felony court to be involved with serial killing of Americans then Mr Ralf Liu made his identity theft to fake as the privy to present in court, and was retrospectively referred to the previous federal court together with or instead of Mr Huang). Mr Huang was one of the two military police reserve officers which Ms Chen Chu signed in 1994 to be CIA agents. For many years in the U.S.A. served as the federal government officer and only could be reached in Washington, DC and New York areas through the Defense Controller Officer. The suspect of deed of farmland mortgage collateral fraud case precedent to Mr Huang to conduct an identity theft to the privy Mr David CK Chang's green card identity together with illegal mortgage of a deed of farmland at Taipei county for loans, was alleged to be Mr Wu, the young son of Shin Kong Bank family Mr Wu Dong-Liang and Mr Wu Dong-Jin brothers. Mr Wu was around the same age as the privy Mr David CK Chang. The young son Mr Wu was said to have been killed in a Las Vegas casino or lottery house, after borrowing money from the bank with the theft deed of farmland as mortgage collateral and conducting an identity theft to privy Mr David CK Chang’s green card or passport in order to apply for his own green card of USA permanent residency. Related identity theft cases, including Mr Liu Yan-Liang conducted upon privy Mr David CK Chang’s green card identity to commit a fraud offense to make the privy’s identity confused or presented in the US Federal Law Court when Mr Liu Yan-Liang was involved in a death and treason federal criminal case related to Mrs Virginia Kelly Clinton, the U.S. President Bill Clinton’s mother, who died on August 24, 1994 in Las Vegas areas. Mr Liu Yan-Liang apparently framed the privy Mr David CK Chang to be the suspect to the Federal Treason Criminal Court. Another identity theft committed to confuse or mislead law court was in June or August 2000 when the New York and California Federal Law Courts were proceeding a treason criminal case against suspects who involved in serial killing of American citizens by participating foreign violence organization, and one of the suspects was alleged to be Mr Ralf Liu who presented in the Federal law court and framed the privy Mr David CK Chang by conducting an identity theft offense to the privy’s green card identity. The green card identity being theft and used to be framing the privy in the federal law court was the social security number account SSN057-86-4042, applied around August 26, 1996 from the office Brooklyn Borough Bureau in New York City. The Social Security Number was approved at the office on the very day with a notification of Taipei civil rights case, and at the same time the officer in the Brooklyn bureau was also applying for the privy Mr David CK Chang a green card but it had not been completed because of lacking a birth certificate of the privy. In addition to the Brooklyn Bureau office the privy applied in person for the social security number with the green card, in 2000 Mitac Corps it was notified that the privy’s United Nations Child Abuse Case custodian Mrs Hillary R. Clinton as the United States First Lady applied another permanent residency green card from the bureau of Washington, DC for the privy. The citizen of former Taishan of Taipei County, Mr Ralf Liu, conducted identity theft by using both the social security number of Polytech University student Mr Tan Bo-Wei and the social security number account of privy Mr David CK Chang which was granted in particularly for the Taipei civil rights case. Mr Ralf Liu in New York City was to apply for jobs after August 2, 1996, the current incumbent New York City Mayor Mr Michael Bloomberg and the Meg Ryan sisters of the former Barnes & Noble bookstore clerks, 1996 in New York City were notifying the privy Mr David CK Chang to deal with the identity theft. Mr Michael Bloomberg noticed in September 1996 that Mr Ralf Liu successively conducted identity theft to Tan Bo-Wei’s and the privy’s social security number accounts. As Mr Tan Bo-Wei also applied for work with job application form filled in the social security number but being rejected because Mr Tan Bo-Wei used the social security number account which the privy Mr David CK Chang had registered with the I-20 form to the Department of Education on June 29, 1996 and also it would be effected after August 2, 1996 the school had opened with the City University of New York Baruch Business Graduate School programs began. According to the federal law, the student Visa exchanged from an I-20 form could not be used to apply for jobs as a work visa with I-41 form, therefore Mr Tan Bo-Wei was using the privy’s, my social security number to fill in the job application form while Mr Ralf Liu was filling in Mr Tan Bo-Wei’s social security number for the job application. Because the social security number being conducted identity theft was not of the privy’s, and besides, the City University Business Graduate School business program classes had begun, the privy, me, Mr David CK Chang, did not follow Mr. Bloomberg’s instruction to render investigative assistance in the investigation of Mr Ralf Liu’s identity theft offense. The privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing on August 21, 1996 rendered a reconciled settlement by signing a reconciliation agreement upon the August 9th death of her mother-in-law Mrs Wang-Me Chang caused by suffering medical gross negligence in hospital, and received a reconciled payment of one hundred and eighty thousand New Taiwan dollars, but then came the intimidation from the government officials that criminal murder case shall not be reconciled and therefore on August 24, 1996 the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing agreed to change the one hundred and eighty thousand new Taiwan dollars payment from being as the reconciled payment to being as the signing bonus of a military contract, and therefore the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing was to be with a military contract signed, paid signing bonus and subject to governmental military control. This was a fraud case on August 24, 1996 because it was a reconciliation act for the death victim’s relative to sign a reconciled agreement with a reconciled payment that the government had something to do with the lethal gross negligence faults, but the death victim’s relative being threatened and cheated to admit that it was instead a legal act signing a military contract with signing bonus money, and from then on was subject to governmental military control having no say about the unfair treatment of dead relatives. More than ten years the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing after the death of mother-in-law Mrs Wang-Me Chang, successively suffered the bereavement of the death of brother-in-law, Mr Ching-Yuan Chang who died in June 2000, her sister Mrs Yu Jin-Zhi’s death on September 28, 1999 in front of the Presidential Office Building Taipei, nephew Mr Zong-dian Liu’s death on October 10, 1999 in Chiayi Sun Link Sea Resort after trapped in the tour bus await death, sister-in-law (Yu) King Zhi on July 15, 2004 or later during the police inquiry and the judicial investigation killed by medical gross negligence in the hospital, the husband of sister-in-law, Mr Weng Guo-ying was also killed in 2007 during the judicial and police investigation, a total of six relatives have been killed in the form of manslaughter to be as an insult, and also to be an affront to the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing for the fraud of reconciliation to be deceived to become signing a military contract with signing bonus, that she was lacking capability of protecting her own relatives and with the military contract she should take the responsibilities of the death of her six relatives, furthermore was required to die for the lacking of capacity to protect the six death relatives, because that was insulting herself to sign the military contract lacking capability to result to the six deaths of relatives. Actually the money amount NTD$180,000 was paid on August 21, 1996 from reconciliation of death of mother-in-law Mrs Wang-me Chang, but the privy’s mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing was then threatened and deceived on August 24, 1996 to be taken as the signing bonus money payment from military contract signing. It was to be an advanced fraud, an unfair deed, an illegal deed of bullying, and an infringement of government.

The Privy Mr David CK Chang, me, staying in the public library from the summer of 2004 until this moment, and on December 29, 2011 was arrested by the New Taipei City Criminal Police Squads with the New Taipei District Court, being violated citizen’s constitutional rights, for more than one year during which period through interrogation, trial, conviction and the privy was appealing to higher court as well as pleading impeachment of Judicial Yuan to ombudsman. The public library the privy Mr David CK Chang was staying in was the National Central Library which located at No. 20 Zhong-shan South Road, Taipei City. Until now, April 30, 2013, the relative harassment from the government has never been stop. Earlier this March, at the National Central Library the privy Mr David CK Chang heard that a lawsuit was filed in the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office about the collateral claim which in 2000 the U.S. federal court announced of a piece of verdict paper with a deed of farmland at Taipei County as foreclosed mortgaged collateral. The New Taipei City Criminal Police Squads after the collateral claim lawsuit was filed against the privy in New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office, came to the Banciao Farmer’s Association to interrogate the privy’s sister Ms Mei-Chi Chang, but it was as matter of fact a harassment to privy’s sister who had passed the qualifying exam to return to the Banqiao Farmers’ Association again after expelled from the institute earlier. This police interrogation was to inquire twelve employees in the Banciao Farmers’ Association. Except for the privy’s sister Ms Mei-Chi Chang, the inquiry at the office with the twelve employees were all questions to do with this government institute, such as whether there was sexual harassment in the Banciao Farmers’ Association, whether there was corruption situation, or whether they had found illegal activities in the Banciao Farmer’s Association, or even a query that if there was a suggestion related to the organization. The exception of the inquiry on April 13 the plainclothes criminal police made was to ask the privy’s sister Ms Mei-Chi Chang only personal questions, about the day before on April 12 that Ms Mei-Chi Chang’s brother Mr David CK Chang, the privy, had posted an article on the Internet titled “Allegation of the McDonald’s involved with money laundering case on campus at National Chiao Tung University, HsinChu City”. The plainclothes interrogated the privy’s sister Ms Mei-Chi Chang and threatening that if Ms Mei-Chi Chang could not stop the privy, her brother, writing those articles and continued posting on the Internet, “we would start another criminal libel case like Breeze Liao Cheng-Han’s lawsuit more than a year ago, and your brother would get a guilty sentence the same as the Breeze Liao’s libel case without fair treatment according to citizen’s constitutional rights.” The plainclothes waited outside until the lunch hours at noon just passed twelve o’clock at noon on April 13, because the employees were fewer in the office of Banciao Farmer’s Association. The two criminal police officers including one signed in 2002 by the former Taipei City Mayor Ma with prosecutor qualification recently, with another plainclothes went into the Farmers’ Association employee’s office and left him to keep a police inquiry record with the twelve employees. The peripheral outside the Farmer’s Association Banciao Office pulled a security crew of members from HsinChu areas. The surveillance area's ranges were covered by the Banqiao Fuchung MRT subway Station and the Family Mart Convenience Store. It was reported from the international Satellite surveillance camera of the presence of McDonald’s money-laundering case suspect, Mr. Chen Mao-yang, identified by unknown people around to call Mr. Chen Mao-Yang’s name loudly in the surveillance range, while the Satellite picture could be with wrongly recorded area name mistaken as Linkuo areas (the marked locations may be mistaken as Linkou Farmers’ Association region). The access privilege to these surveillance pictures of international satellite monitoring camera could be of entry level of confidentiality, as it was manifested at some occasion certain years ago, and the Formosa Satellite could follow it up and take another same content picture when the photo shot was triggered. The highest access privilege permitted on that day was from the former Vice President Annette Lu. The related money laundering criminal case was to do with agency money from the former Secretary of State Mrs Hillary R. Clinton, reported last July after the United States National Day that her agency fee accounts short of USD$70 million, or NTD$200 million dollars. It was alleged that Chicago Agent Colonel David’s young son filed a lawsuit in 2000 at Federal Law Court in California and won, but left the compensation money in the federal court. Ms Shiang-Wen Lu claimed that she was David’s ex-boyfriend, taking back those money, escorted by MP SWAT team with three suitcases of those money from federal law court, hand carrying back to Taiwan, and reported to then Democratic Progressive Party(DPP) Chairman Mr. Chen Shui Bian and deposited in a defense secret account. All the money of USD$70 million, or NTD$ 200 million dollars, excepted the amount deposited in the DPP secret account, most of the money was used by Ms Shiang-Wen Lu spent in various purposes, including agency fees spent on the Giraffe English Institute located on Chunghsio Road, Banciao District, New Taipei City. The DPP party member and the privy’s relative Mr Chia-ling Chang received two million or 10 million New Taiwan dollars by signing the privy’s name Mr Chaokai Chang on the receipt to withdraw a sum of money from the secret account of DPP. Then Mr Chen Mao-yang, also of a DPP party member, also mimicked privy’s name Chaokai Chang repeatedly and signed on the receipt to fetch for several times for an amount of tens of millions of New Taiwan dollars from that DPP secret account, and conducting money laundering to transfer the money to the National Chiao Tung University campus, opened the McDonald’s on campus in 2012. The illegal profit generated from McDonald’s at NCTU on campus was alleged to be reached one hundred million New Taiwan dollars in revenue for one year more until this moment, and the suspect Mr Chen Mao-yang could have sold back his McDonald’s shares to Mr Terence Tsai who had sued a Taipei citizen David CK Chang appropriation lawsuit earlier in court to be a completed cycle of the money laundering. The related lawsuit of the libel case of Breeze Center Mr Liao Cheng-Han sued against privy Mr David CK Chang, it had been previously notified the privy to be an appropriation case filed against the privy Mr David CK Chang by Mr Terence Tsai alleging a man called Mr Chaokai Chang of Taipei citizen with his signature to embezzle agency money for NTD$ 2 million or 20 million dollars and would not return the money. As we all know that according to Money Laundering Control Act, which money generated from certain specific crimes is closely monitored by law enforcement officers sponsored by the banking and financial sector, the financial transaction with proceeds monitored and should be updated for a half-day or one day base report. For what the law convention mandates and how the financial agents enforce the Money Laundering Control Act related regulations, the privy Mr David CK Chang being framed with only several faked signatures and alleged appropriation of agency money from Mrs Hillary R. Clinton’s agency money reported last July, without any chance to justify or even to know why the privy would be jailed or put into custodial house for institutionalization, it’s so preposterous the District Court or the Prosecutor’s Office had never notified the privy of anything about these framed allegations and had that one year custodial sentence done with the absurd libel case of Breeze Center Mr Liao Cheng-Han.

Respectfully yours,

David CK Chang,
F121485303, SSN057-86-4042,
Citizen of New Taipei City,
Apr 30, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

司法信箱新北地方法院轉呈最高法院：後憲糾舉司法院違憲提交監察院彈劾相關環境背景細節

2013-04-30T14:43:00.000+08:00

司法信箱 - 寫入確認

[ 寫信 ]

當您看到這個畫面時，表示我們已經收到您的來信，我們會儘快處理，
請勿重複投書。

收信日期：	102/04/30 @ 14:27
收信單位：	臺灣新北地方法院
姓　　名：	張朝凱
電子信箱：	chaokai_chang@hotmail.com
電　　話：	29550553
意見標題：	後憲糾舉司法院違憲提交監察院彈劾相關環境背景細節
意見內容：	最高法院院長楊鼎章先生鈞鑒：關於無任何法律構成要件，101士易2318微風廖鎮漢妨害名譽案，始自民國100年12月29日新北市刑警隊違憲至民眾新北市板橋區忠孝路204號住家逮捕，理由為前空軍特戰司令陳肇敏先生2008年親往美國國防部辦理文件確定已死亡之廖鎮漢委託對民眾提告妨害名譽案，對於訴訟標的文章描述2004年11月香港新加坡通報國際一級戰爭暴行犯罪刑事案件，民眾用以進行偵探與作證之雅虎奇摩部落格文章為妨害名譽案逮捕原因進行偵訊後，移送前板橋地檢署即新北地檢署偵辦，並逾一年期迄今偵查與審判並於今年102年1月31日以實質有罪做一年監護判決，對於法庭連續違反憲法第7條、第8條、第16條部份，民眾已書面電子文件提報監察院調查彈劾，最近一份監察院陳情文件為三日之前於4月27日以板橋地區後憲民眾身份糾舉司法院違憲行為，提交監察院長王建煊先生審核辦理。上月於國家圖書館通報民眾，關於新北地方法院今年3月初由疑似外籍債權人提訟，對象為之民眾張朝凱新北市板橋區忠孝路204號之農地地契於2000年於美國拉斯維加斯地區樂透或賭場向新光銀行抵押借款，疑為曾至國圖進行照面之外籍人員提出債權清償告訴者，為美國聯邦法院2000年左右判決書所附之一份抵押品。民眾板橋區忠孝路204號住宅建物之20多坪地皮，為民國67年之前經後埔國小賴姓教師向中和與板橋農地大地主阿媛(或稱為阿滿)購買之前台北縣板橋市內一塊畸零地，在民國67年因板橋市由鄉鎮升格都市重劃等原因，由農地更改為商業住宅用地，並於民國67年經熟識之陳姓建商獨立興建，於民國68年夏天遷入為民眾戶籍登記住家共五層樓，樓下出租為紡織或工廠成衣商號，與紐約及阿肯色州玫瑰法律事務所往來之黑松企業廖鎮漢曾私自登記為其戶籍地址。在民國70年民眾小學五年級家中遭李姓特勤憲兵與其同僚入侵住宅衍生之聯合國案件懸置糾紛，與黑貓隊員廖鎮漢長期於紐約地區美國聯邦法庭纏訟，民國70年該次失竊案民眾父親張正吉有向當地警察報案，失竊物包括一面民眾出生之廟宇保佑金牌與一張67年已經都市重劃戶政土地事務所重新登記而失效的農地地契。政府告知該法律上為無效之農地地契，在政府土地戶政事務所重新登記即可，現代政府並無製發地契的法律慣例，要民眾父親放心。該農地地契雖於聯邦法庭裁判為抵押憑證債權追討，但是實為民眾父親張正吉向台北縣警察報案失竊贓物，屬於民眾所有，民眾張朝凱除對上月之案件保留刑事詐欺提訟權之外，另外要求新北地方法院查扣贓物，返還於民眾張朝凱。據悉美國聯邦法院於2000年辯護方為當年6月卸任之在任或剛卸任之柯林頓總統，有指出地契上之中文為農地因而為無效擔保品，經當時先後盜用民眾張朝凱姓名身份於美國地區犯罪者，為一黃姓憲兵預官同學，以簽約轉換身份詐欺死亡，並且在柯林頓總統擔任辯護時以耶魯法學院律師為具名，出言聲明不解條件下，黃姓憲兵預官故意將所盜用身份與地契所有人之法律權益喪失於聯邦法庭案件。該黃姓憲兵預官為陳菊兩名1994年簽約人之一，多年為美國聯邦政府工作職員，應可於華盛頓特區與紐約地區經由國防管制人員進行聯絡上。抵押該失效地契借款，查為新光銀行家族吳東亮或吳東進之與民眾約同年齡兒子，有盜用民眾張朝凱身份申辦綠卡或護照於拉斯維加斯地區賭場或樂透借款後遭殺死情事。對民眾張朝凱相關身份盜用案件，包括劉彥良於1994年8月24日美國總統柯林頓母親維珍凱莉柯林頓於拉斯維加斯地區死亡相關之聯邦法院叛亂案誣陷為嫌犯性質盜用身份，與劉夢遠於2000年6月或8月美國加地區州或紐約地區聯邦法庭，在法庭審判組織連續殺害美國人叛亂案件出庭時之誣陷目的對民眾張朝凱進行盜用身份。盜用身份之部份原因為民眾張朝凱的綠卡身份，除了2000年之前美國前第一夫人以聯合國受虐兒案監護人身份於華盛頓特區申請辦理者，另外在紐約市布魯克林區公所於1996年8月26日左右申請社會安全號碼核准時通報台北民權案，同時有辦理綠卡作業但是缺乏出生證明等資料不完全未完成法律程序。前台北縣泰山鄉人劉夢遠於1996年8月2日之後，即先後以同學譚伯威與民眾張朝凱因台北民權案特別核可之社會安全號碼，於紐約市申請工作，為現任紐約市長彭博先生與前紐約邦尼貴族書店員梅格萊恩姐妹於紐約市通報身份盜用案件處理者，當時彭博先生通知時，劉夢遠盜用為譚伯威社會安全號碼，而譚伯威同樣申請工作因紐約市大商研所於8月2日已開學，依I-20規定不可使用為工作簽證I-41表格申請，因此民眾當時因盜用身份法律糾紛與民眾無關，又因商研所已經開學課業原因，未依彭博先生指示與其配合進行相關警事調查協助處理。民眾母親吳玉幸於1996年8月21日對張王密醫療疏失死亡進行書面和解收取新台幣18萬元和解金，但隨即遭恐嚇不得和解並於1996年8月24日改稱為簽約金而為軍事人員遭受軍管，在婆婆張王密死亡後十餘年來遭受小叔張清淵2000年6月死亡、姐姐游金志智於1999年9月28日於總統府前死亡、姪子劉宗典於1999年10月10日於嘉義杉林溪受困遊覽車死亡、嫂嫂(游)金智於2004年7月15日或於之後警察司法調查期間於醫院致死、小姑丈夫翁國英於2007年左右亦於警事司法調查期間遭殺害，共計六人遭以屠戮侮辱形式殺害，並有公開侮辱民眾母親遭和解詐欺所簽軍事身份，無法以軍人身份保護自己親戚情事，甚至要求民眾母親以軍人身份為遭侮辱的多名親戚死亡負責，為在1996年8月21日和解遭詐欺違法的政府進一步使用不正當方法的欺凌侵權行為。民眾於2004年夏天至2011年12月29日遭警察與法院違憲逮捕、偵訊、審判、定罪與上訴，以及自力救濟陳情相關政府與法務長官機構期間皆於台北市中山南路20號國家圖書館，迄今2013年4月30日相關騷擾並未停歇；在上月即3月初於國家圖書館內有聽聞美國聯邦法庭裁判書一紙附帶一張法律上已失效農地地契為抵押債權憑證，由新北市刑警隊至板橋農會騷擾高考及格重新以行政院農委會外派職銜回板橋農會服務之舍妹張美琦，約談農會女性約十二餘人，大多詢問「農會內有無性騷擾，有無貪腐情形，或有無發現違法情形，或是有無建言」等等，與組織機構有關者，唯獨對舍妹張美琦詢問私人問題，大致上內容為民眾於4月12日於網路上貼文「新竹交通大學麥當勞洗錢嫌疑案」，說明要舍妹是否能叫妳哥哥不要再寫在網路上，否則像微風廖鎮漢妨害名譽案一樣於刑警隊與新北地方法庭一樣違憲逕行裁決處理等等。在4月13日中午過後人員較少時分，除了前2002年台北市長徵簽與有檢察官資格的刑警還有一名便衣刑警，進入農會後由第二位便衣刑警做警事詢問並有記錄，外圍從新竹等地區拉至板橋府中捷運站與全家便利超商監控範圍，通報為國際使用之衛星監測照相有新竹交通大學麥當勞洗錢案之陳茂揚先生在場，並有不明民眾出言叫陳先生姓名情事(但標示地點可能誤為林口農會地區)，該國際衛星監測照相為普通等級列管資料，以當地之福爾摩莎衛星同樣拍取相同內容，存取最高等級權限通報為前副總統呂秀蓮，判定為初級機密權限之衛星照片。案件為前國務卿希拉蕊於去年7月美國國慶之後通報業務費用帳目短少美金七千萬元，為2000年支加哥上校大衛幹員之子提訟後，呂向雯以大衛男友名義經特勤隊護航以三只皮箱攜回，相關帳目應為民進黨陳水扁先生國防帳戶登錄美金七千萬元，約為新台幣兩億元，除了民進黨帳戶下，其它大部份由呂向雯使用於不同用途，包括板橋忠孝路長頸鹿美語機構業務費用；另外民進黨籍張家璘以張朝凱姓名領取二百萬或千萬新台幣不詳金額，隨後陳茂揚亦以仿造民眾張朝凱簽名領取新台幣二百萬多次，領取應達上千萬新台幣，洗錢至新竹交通大學麥當勞於2012年開業，回收利潤已達上億元，並有轉賣回蔡旺儒之洗錢情形。查與廖鎮漢妨害名譽案相關，有蔡旺儒提告一件台北市人張朝凱簽名盜用公款新台幣2百萬或2千萬未歸還案件，查金融犯罪洗錢防制法，為銀行金融業出資負責之金融法務人員，半日至一天期即時通報監管異常金融活動者，相關案件法院未通知條件下栽贓構陷情節，已達匪夷所思。敬祝鈞安新北市民眾張朝凱,F121485303,SSN057864042, Apr 30, 2013, 國家圖書館台北市

版權宣告 / 隱私權保護 / 網站安全政策

監察院長信箱20130427

2013-04-27T19:02:00.000+08:00

網路陳情登錄時間：民國102/04/27 18:36:37
陳情信箱登錄確認信函時間：民國102/04/27 18:40:41
陳情人姓名：張朝凱
通訊地址：新北市板橋區忠孝路204號3樓
電話：29550553
被陳訴機關：司法院

陳情摘要：
一、事實經過
監察院長王建煊先生鈞鑒：

民國102/02/22 20:21:03與民國102/02/26 15:15:12院長信箱標註處理日期分別為102/02/25與102/03/01，今日查詢業已知悉，覆述如下：
『您的陳情案件本院已核定處理方式，除依[監察院收受人民書狀及處理辦法第十三條]規定有不予答復，以及屬建議性質意見，本院已錄供行使職權參考者外，本院將以郵件答覆您處理情形。』「監察院收受人民書狀及處理辦法」第十三條人民書狀經本院處理後，除依法令不得對外宣洩之事項者外，應函復陳訴人。但有左列情事之一者，不予函復：一、匿名書狀。二、陳訴人死亡或所在不明者。三、陳訴人於短期內連續遞送內容類同之書狀，經併案處理，業經函復者。四、陳訴人之案件業經函復，而續訴書狀無新事證者。五、陳訴內容空泛、荒謬、謾罵者。
人民書狀經各委員會處理後，應否函復，依其決議辦理。
陳訴人所附證件如係原本，而有發還必要時，予以影印附卷備查，原本檢還。
　　
二、違法失職情事及其證明方法
原新北市刑警隊逮捕民眾，偵訊後移送新北地方法院，逾一年期微風廖鎮漢妨害名譽案件，法律上無任何一構成要件，並連續違反憲法第7條、第8條、第16條部份，民眾業已儘可能詳盡敘明處理。

在法律案件相關事實部份，以高院槍決受刑人廖協志之弟與警察八號分機通緝犯身份，使用變更姓名為廖俊三之弟弟姓名，在美國聯邦法庭偵查審理期間經施茂林幹員提報總統蔣經國先生特別核准簽約之廖鎮漢，於2008年3月17日於板橋金富帝寶社區遭槍擊死亡後，是由美國國防部通知包括其經紐約聯邦法庭登記設籍之板橋市忠孝路204號住宅民眾與板橋憲兵隊少尉官張朝凱，另外通報為前空軍司令或特戰司令陳肇敏先生，即後來國防部長親往美國洽談辦理文件作業，並於回報國防部登錄時國防部文書揶揄詢問為何以司令身份前往處理。先前通知陳肇敏先生因江國慶案件司法訴訟，因而曾有對相關已死亡廖鎮漢卻於司法院違法濫訟案件，未能於道德責任或職守部份提出任何身為廖鎮漢死亡書面文件辦理證人之理由說明資料匯入。民眾張朝凱於交通大學1991年就讀期間新拍片中國時報報導一年殺青之國片，邱淑貞同名軍情局簽約人姐姐邱淑真，在當時校園即有司法院相關司法濫訟案件通報，民眾業已於司法院妨害名譽案件相關文件與期間之司法訴願文件中詳細說明。在2004年7月中旬發生與2004年11月通報香港與新加坡因美國長春藤大學校友涉案低調處理國際一級重大戰爭暴行犯罪，邱淑貞於軍事行動中遭強姦殺害死亡與分屍棄置公海案件，當時於板橋忠孝路住家旁聽案件調查匯入審查資料，即有新北市圖書館於今年初妨害名譽案裁判與上訴期日非正式方式告知法院裁判有罪或監護判決理由，以非正式觀看告知或得知當年國安局與軍情局政治角力偽證性質「四個好色的女人」片頭帶出的主角邱淑貞影像，板橋憲兵隊轄區後憲民眾，查邱淑貞與邱淑真兩姐妹先前分別做的法院案件答詢內容於匯入調查之審查資料已相當詳盡完整，經查調查時間在2004年11月原為偽造證物用途使用之「四個好色的女人」片頭姓名邱淑貞，影像為其姐邱淑真，邱淑貞在調查資料匯入其先前法律案件調查答覆詞時業已死亡，經國際一級戰爭暴行犯罪調查審查匯入資料明顯於案發調查鄰近現場可得，判定原司法院或新北地方法院應有能力可以自行辦理查核先前誤判的地方法院相關案件而予以更正情形者，而不應為固執於不能翻案先前司法誤判案件而持續引用為判例，形成司法紀律缺乏司法執業行為者，因之提報監察院與院長王建煊先生審核。

按原2004年8月2日於民眾張朝凱住家按鈴通報後憲民眾責任處理者，為司法院長賴浩敏先生之兒子，於1994年夏天林口莒園憲兵特勤隊編為一特勤排約30餘名二兵入伍生，與民眾因板橋憲兵指揮部調派支援值星少尉憲兵檢閱官於憲兵特勤排檢閱時照面之雅，並於2000年至2004年間掛階憲兵中尉特勤軍官身份追求民眾張朝凱表妹翁淑芬而稱呼為其男友，於2012年新北地檢案發後經民眾查證為前司法院長翁岳生之姪女，即與民眾張朝凱同為親戚之往來關係者；無任何法律構成要件之妨害名譽案件，就無任何法律構成要件妨害名譽案件濫訟逾一年並判決有罪之司法紀律鬆弛部份，原社區內對民眾住家按鈴涉案嫌疑人與司法院長官賴浩敏先生有直系血親之案件利害關係人適用利害關係迴避原則，一併提報監察院與院長王建煊先生審核。

在民國102/01/12 16:17:35監察院長信箱，登錄姚嘉文司法流氓案件，以板橋憲兵隊轄區後憲身份進行糾舉與申請監察院調查彈劾相關案件，監察院調查彈劾案申請民眾於隔日晚上8時許於板橋市忠孝路住家20公尺內，台北客運公車651公車站牌下車前，遭遇訊息匯入通知軍事任務之騷擾行為，肉眼目視判定為前法務部調查局1992年民眾大學2年級至1995年7月憲兵少尉官退伍期間，派駐交通大學校園幹員鄭志勇2003年秋天通報失蹤或死亡後之遺孀，於2000年圓山羽球場照面認識任職於世華銀行之妻子，名字為葉馨霞並經即時訊息通知具有國防軍事人員身份，下車前錯身時口頭出言說明類似「這樣就不配」等等非正式引起注意之招呼目的用語，與時間發生在前半年內於博愛特區國防部臨近可充為入伍生親友會休息區之國家圖書館內，疑似鄭志勇母親人員接觸的訊息通報鄭志勇幹員失蹤疑似死亡之冤情狀況前提與環境下，利用人性弱點以鄭志勇幹員死亡遺孀孤兒寡母身份，對民眾張朝凱一天之前於監察院長信箱1月12日提報內容，會同當日通報的任務行動，匯入偽證資料進行之(軍事行動)混亂誤導行為。對於此板橋憲兵隊轄內通知後憲民眾資料，原監察院長信箱案件提報人民眾張朝凱，因而於民國102/02/26 15:15:12於原先司法院法官職涉案人連美惠與法務部調查官鄭志勇2003年重大國安任務司法犯罪聯合國調查案件，加上鄭志勇幹員死亡部份內容。監察院長信箱申請調查彈劾民眾張朝凱業已於昨日以司法訴願文件提報司法院最高法院長楊鼎章先生，要求對新線索作調查員鄭志勇於2003年秋天台北市內湖金龍教練場軍事行動後之生存證據錄影之照片證物鑑定，理由為新線索顯示一份今年4月13日交通大學控82同學會YouTube錄製鄭志勇照片，於最高法院司法信箱之司法訴願文件102/04/26 @ 11:32 『關於訴願提報聯合國調查鄭志勇幹員死亡案之新線索』提報，作輔助證物證據鑑定，與原聯合國2004年11月(或誤植為2005年11月)於台北市公園路台北車站星巴克咖啡通報為重大刑案牽涉國安局業務司法犯罪相關內容做資料檢核分析，並通報機構名冊現職佔用板橋憲兵隊轄區現任職缺人員官振鵬，或非板橋隊現職於約一年之前於板橋憲兵隊部辦公室政治角力下，聲明暴力殺人意圖強制交接張朝凱憲兵官職務職位之非人事命令派遣現任職軍事演習等級敵對軍官從事之軍事行動告知者，對於監察院長信箱提報案件內容影響所及，在軍事行動板橋憲兵隊責任區，匯報錯誤偽證法務部調查員死亡交大控工系同學資料於後憲民眾張朝凱，所衍生新北市民眾責任糾舉與提報監察院調查彈劾資料錯誤部份，通報最高法院個人臉書同學會社團近日訊息來往內容，以保留追查情報與反情報軍事混亂部份之責任歸屬判定權利。
　　
三、具體訴求
無任何法律要件之妨害名譽案件相關司法紀律違反情事，曾提報於最高法院訴願、憲法庭之司法院大法官會議憲法第八條違憲解釋，另外在忽略之兩份監察院長信箱文件亦提出憲法第七條違反部份說明，對於豐田汽車殺人未遂併同詐欺與國安局幹員張麗娟殺人未遂與詐欺相關案件之不在場證明用途刑事告訴，與劉東昀檢察官公務員偽造文書、瀆職、詐欺案之同一案件，以遭結案司法漠視處理再議聲明期間法律程序連續提告再議性質案件，每一案件提告之新北地方法院皆以他字案漠視處理，僅有對101年4月2日民眾提告之與妨害名譽案件相對誣告案，被告於相對案件誣告案遭不起訴與駁回後即無再聲明提告之可能，而予以不起訴處份，其他提告案件以他字案結案含糊司法信函通知，意思表示為照會逕行忽視相關案件者，對於民眾憲法第16條訴訟權明顯進行侵權。

司法紀律懲戒約束為最高法院權責，監察職權依孫文學說敘明為疊床架屋，不同於西方國家三權分立者，民眾遭受憲法權第7條、第8條、第16條等漠視違反，依國家憲政制度，提交監察院彈劾，以竟司法救濟有時而窮，尋求體制內維護民權監察之力。

敬祝鈞安
新北市民眾張朝凱, Apr 27, 2013
　　
四、相關證據資料及文件清單
1.中華民國102年1月7日監察院來函，發文字號院台業二字第1010781858號
2.中華民國102年2月21日監察院來函，發文字號院台業二字第1020780248號

※ 欲查看網路陳情全文，請點選民眾陳情全文

陳訴事項曾否向
權責機關陳情反映？曾向權責機關陳情反映。
陳訴事項是否仍於行政救濟或司法訴訟程序中是
陳訴人身分是否要求保密：不要保密
目前處理情形：您的陳情案件正由本院處理中。
處理日期：102/04/27

司法信箱最高法院：關於訴願提報聯合國調查鄭志勇幹員死亡案之新線索

2013-04-26T11:33:00.001+08:00

司法信箱 - 寫入確認

[ 寫信 ]

當您看到這個畫面時，表示我們已經收到您的來信，我們會儘快處理，
請勿重複投書。

收信日期：	102/04/26 @ 11:32
收信單位：	最高法院
姓　　名：	張朝凱
電子信箱：	chaokai_chang@hotmail.com
電　　話：	29550553
意見標題：	關於訴願提報聯合國調查鄭志勇幹員死亡案之新線索
意見內容：	最高法院院長楊鼎章先生鈞鑒：關於民眾於102/03/05 @ 17:11司法信箱-最高法院之司法訴願文件『姚嘉文先生致死調查官證人與尤清、謝長廷於張王密死亡案關係』，第四段內容提到1992年交通大學就讀期間法務部調查員同學鄭志勇部分內容：「...以偽證為藉口共同對兩名憲調組李調查官與法務部調查局鄭志勇調查官證人提報為偽證共犯，兩名證人並於2005年底皆已確悉死亡」，今日有與錄音語音證物同等級之輔助證物部份新資料線索匯入，為今年4月13日新竹交通大學控82同學會，工作幹部曾志淵同學以電子郵件於今日交寄於民眾微軟電郵信箱之YouTube同學會資料之影像照片內容資料，進行肉眼辨識判定為輔助證據內容，應為法務部調查局幹員鄭志勇未死亡的照片輔助證物。另外於民國102/02/26 15:15:12監察院提報調查彈核司法院違紀文件部份內容，於第二段「違法失職情事及其證明方法」，第3小節部份亦提到法務部調查局鄭志勇幹員親屬於星巴克咖啡匿名詢問與親屬因幹員死亡提報聯合國調查情事：『在2005年11月(備註：或2004年11月)於台北車站前星巴克咖啡時「當事人技巧詢問出在兩個月前已於2005年9月執行槍決」的情節...與相同案件死亡已申請聯合國調查仲裁之鄭志勇幹員親屬，進行商量共同申請相同案件與聯合國調查仲裁。』，也敬請週知為資料來源係屬美商在台商業公司建築物內會同聯合國遞送資料，徵實性價值較高之資訊，陳報於司法院與法務部為證據鑑定徵信之參考標準。影片資料不易上傳，但交通大學1993年控82同學半數為陽明山國安局常客與工作幹部，部份人員兼具法務與憲警輔助司法人員，法務部或司法院長官應可直接洽詢獲得徵實資料，僅附上今日於臉書http://www.facebook.com/chaokai.chang個人所屬之交大同學會社團『控巴２，這是瞎瞇碗糕？』，近日與同學往來訊息部份回覆內容，提供司法院最高法院長官與機構參考為荷。『控巴２，這是瞎瞇碗糕？』曾智淵　4月19日21:36 同學大合照曾智淵星期二18:46 第一排左起：東煒，楊雅，勇伯，張正誼，忠哥，小康康，佳雯，陳永平老師，楊谷洋老師，楊春美老師，孟琬瑜，林盈熙，大慶，黑人傑，館長，洪士程，江文榮，賴桑，楊榮文。張朝凱星期三14:51 我們的各位同學，可以請問一下嗎？第一排的「勇伯」阿勇是是原來我們82-A班的那位7號同學嗎？我知道那是馨霞新婚的老公，但是我看他和正誼站在一塊，有些眼熟可能會有誤會... 我跟馨霞和正誼，還有俊中用訊息說了，如果誤會大到必須上法院處理相關偽證罪，那我已經43歲被法院案件耽誤又沒結婚，可能大家以後就沒辦法再來往了...我有以訊息請馨霞和她在千禧年還是嬰孩的小朋友解釋清楚，就這樣子囉，老同學們！張朝凱星期三14:56 我跟馨霞和正誼，還有俊中用訊息說了，如果誤會大到必須上法院處理相關偽證罪，那我已經43歲被法院案件耽誤又沒結婚，可能大家以後就沒辦法再來往了...我有以訊息請馨霞和她在千禧年還是嬰孩的小朋友解釋清楚，就這樣子囉，老同學們！張朝凱 16分鐘前今天(備註：曾智淵)寄到電郵信箱4月13日同學會阿勇的照片我收到了，馨霞的照片也有，今年初在板橋忠孝路651公車(備註：與鄭志勇配偶馨霞)接觸丟的錯誤資料也可以做部份釐清，更正案件部份錯誤線索，但原案通報為重大刑案牽涉國安局業務司法犯罪，板橋憲兵隊轄內後憲不得不通報司法院，先跟阿勇與其他同學說聲抱歉。但是(備註：機構名冊現職)佔用板橋憲兵隊轄區現任職缺人員應為官鳥(備註：官振鵬)，在匯報轄下無責任後憲民眾造成困擾部份，預先向陽明山官署上常客同學群，保留追查權利。總之，對人員接觸匯入錯誤資料，造成誤判資料部份先說聲抱歉敬祝鈞安新北市民眾張朝凱, SSN057864042, F121485303, Apr 26, 2013 國家圖書館台北市

版權宣告 / 隱私權保護 / 網站安全政策

台北縣農會蘇明信私刑案之愛買塑膠文件盒

2013-04-23T16:49:00.000+08:00

台北縣農會蘇明信私刑案之愛買塑膠文件盒

關於『2002年外交部護照領事處護照盜用與殺人案』April 15, 2013：1.「農會相關案件擺了一個粉紅色的塑膠盒」與2.「在愛買量販店標價新台幣450元產品遭竊盜」部份說明：

板橋愛買量販店竊盜嫌疑犯在2000年8月於板橋新埔國小埔漧附近某幼稚園對面與新店溪河堤外，發生疑似遭處以私刑(Lynch)撞死案件；當時於台北縣農會擔任雇員之國安局人員蘇明信，於2000年初於板橋四川路愛買遭錄影竊盜疑似遭處私刑案(Lynch)，時間發生在當事人購買同型式藍色扣環商品之後三天或一週內，蘇明信自行前往愛買商場購買時發現粉紅色偏好商品價格高於定價因而攜出時未付款或遭受國安指導員複製指令前往竊取遭錄影存證之情形，前往板橋愛買意欲與當事人行為相同因而購買的法裔美商塑膠器皿與文具公司出廠相同款式文件盒文具，於法國國營之家樂福量販店商場同一家法國知名家族微波塑膠器皿製造商標示定價為新台幣400元，但是放置於板橋農會充做證物用途之文件盒，塑膠扣環原先並非藍色而應為蘇明信攜出之粉紅色扣環的塑膠文件盒，在2000年8月中旬蘇明信遭台南車籍紅色福特小客車撞死後一週內，粉紅色扣環塑膠文件盒遭板橋農會或台北縣農會上級職員，同時兼任蘇明信的國安指導人與當地憲兵隊長官，以國安局刑事案件法務長官身份與名義攜往三重憲兵隊，即台北縣憲兵調查站105組所在之辦公室的一部焚化爐，將證物直接燒燬。

在相關案件查緝方面，台北縣農會之國安局雇員，在2000年8月後相隔一個月內，與相隔一年之後，總共存檔兩份蘇明信遭私刑死亡案與愛買量販商場竊盜案相關檔案的撰寫。在兩份相關檔案提報撰寫，對於已銷毀證物部份的處理，是以另外的台製廠商的300元粉紅色文件盒製品攜往農會以供查詢，時間發生在後另外又以法國知名家族美商微波塑膠製造商的藍色扣環的同型商品攜往板橋農會提供證物查詢，形同以兩件農會內部蘇明信使用之文具名義，在蘇明信死亡之後由外部攜入農會，放置於已死亡蘇明信生前服務之農會內混淆為相同證物者。與人二檔案協同之板橋農會塑膠文件盒偽造證物與當事人發生刑案相關者，為當事人在新北地方法院超過一年期無任何法律構成要件的微風妨害名譽案纏訟期間，因涉入盜用當事人社會安全號碼綠卡身份與殺人案栽贓之新北地檢署檢察官違法起訴條件下，而有在今年1月稍早當事人到庭聆聽判決前，於新北地方法庭旁聽台北縣農會舞弊案件時的測謊與相關情事，當天於法院旁聽案件時為與微風妨害名譽案無關另外不同的案件，案件為林口鄉農會標售板橋國光忠孝路附近重劃區的一筆土地時，未經授權使用台北縣農會關防或是使用主管私章所核准標售一筆農會土地的衍生弊案。但是在法庭旁聽時所暗示告知的測謊行為，據悉是先前與板橋農會包括騷擾我的直系二等血親妹妹之後，農會與國安局相關法務人員所撰寫人事二處檔案，所用的偽造證物塑膠文具文件盒置於法庭上展示，同時因微風妨害名譽案當日宣判當事人未理會法警書記員告知判決不須到庭，或新北地院第6庭為臨時庭常為通緝犯查緝或槍決死刑裁定所使用不等，皆有逕行處分之歷史，因而當事人當日終日到庭等候聆聽判決，而進行之相關測謊行為，實為法律上之事實描述者。

法國知名家族企業即法裔美商塑膠容器公司協同台灣法務調查人員送交的錄影帶描述，應為愛買量販店內蘇明信對新台幣450元同樣商品，時間發生在當事人以現金購買付款新台幣450之後三天或一個星期之內，所發生的國安幹員侵占愛買量販店法裔美商公司商品或是因國安局命令複製當事人行為造成相同情事；另外當事人於愛買櫃台結帳購買的商品相同，時間發生在之前於法國國營之家樂福量販店，已購買多項相同廠商的完全同質之塑膠文件盒產品，但單價最高之商品為愛買量販店售出的藍色扣環的完全同質產品標價新台幣450元，當事人在當日經櫃台結帳以現金新台幣500元付款找零50元新硬幣，共計新台幣450元結帳後攜出所購買之單一商品，另外於愛買購買類似的台灣廠商製造的綠色塑膠文件盒，標價新台幣300元折扣後為277元。送交聯邦法庭之證物為經愛買櫃台以現金付款的錄影帶，疑似遭國安局某幹員剪接後移花接木作成竊嫌錄影證物，以同一案件剪接付款購物錄影帶提交為竊盜商品之錄影帶證物烏龍幹員情事，在2000年底曾被美國聯邦法院人員將案件退件同時斥責送件幹員製造麻煩，據悉國安局某幹員應該是將購物付款錄影帶加以變造，把愛買收銀櫃台的塑膠文件盒商品使用現金付帳的畫面剪掉，留下於櫃台等候時翻找皮夾駕駛職照姓名身份與櫃台結帳錄下的顧客身形面孔資料，混淆充做該商品竊盜案竊嫌出入愛買商場之證物，在2000年底聯邦法庭法檢官誤判案件時使用遭幹員篡改的商場顧客購買記錄帶為竊盜商品之證物而遭上級法院糾舉之故。

在法國國營的家樂服量販店商場當事人另外購買的相同的法國知名家族製造商，即法裔美商同商品原定價為新台幣400元，最低折扣價為七五折300元(2件600元)，該法國某知名家族企業在相關案件回報時說明於國營家樂福商場每件賣出商品皆有惠予當事人不等之折扣，有惠予折扣所有商品總計新台幣2077元全部以現金給付購買，共計有黑色扣環商品兩件，淺綠色扣環商品一件(單件購買折扣實付新台幣350元)，黃色扣環商品一件(單件折扣新台幣380元)。再加上台製廠商一件綠色文件盒塑膠廠商允諾比照法國微波塑膠盒製造商給予折扣為新台幣277元，6件塑膠文件盒商品，總計新台幣2077元。所有文件盒文具，除了兩件折扣較低價，其中一件黑色扣環文具盒因當事人於農會服務之妹妹要求提供可以盛裝文件的文具後給予其攜往農會，另外同一折扣之黑色扣環文件盒文具於2004年當事人與母親於樓梯談話時不慎摔落地面毀損，談話中所插入訊息為某非洲族裔(黑人)管制人員因告知先前購買以折扣諷刺其廉價後，這次又將黑色扣環文具摔到地面損毀，告知不滿即便當事人是不小心才發生的也不可以，而要脅告知欲進行未知之報復侵犯情事，因2004年之後的這些年未告知任何後續狀況，目前並不清楚非洲族裔的黑人管制員到底有做出什麼不利報復行為；但是於板橋農會展示的，蘇明信疑遭私刑致死前所使用之偽造證物藍色扣環塑膠文件盒商品，或是另外有台製塑膠廠商作證當事人綠色文件盒商品有付款而與案件不相關的同質台製之粉紅色文件盒商品，兩件偽證性質證物可以說是確定為經其他來源攜往農會，時間發生在蘇明信死亡之後，在目的上除了農會的文件文具性質，另外純粹是因為欲充做蘇明信私刑死亡案相關的偽證用途。

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
April 23, 2013,(revised April 24, 2013)
National Central Library,
Taipei City

Reading "My Life, Bill Clinton" Ch24-Ch26

2013-04-21T15:35:00.000+08:00

My Life, William Jefferson Clinton 2004, Alfred A. Knopf, Random House, Inc.

5. Page 334, Ch24
“In 1987, I might have made a decision rooted in self-confidence and driven by ambition, but I didn’t. What finally decided the question for me was the one part of my life politics couldn’t reach: Chelsea. Carl Wagner, who was also the father of an only daughter, told me I’d have to reconcile...
’...long time ago I made a promise to myself that if I was ever lucky enough to have a child, she would never grow up wondering who her father was.’”

Note 5:
This paragraph was with Bill’s words which echoed with my heart for when I was in my high school age, the same thinking was ever coming to my mind. But we could ponder on what Bill said in that “if I was ever lucky enough to have a child,” what Bill was trying to say to us.

6. Page 335, Ch24
“In July, Hillary, Chelsea, and I went to the summer governors’ conference in Traverse City, Michigan, to wrap up my year as chairman. I was succeeded by New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who promised to continue our work for welfare reform, and with whom I had a good relationship. After we adjourned, the Democratic governors went to Mackinaw Island, where Governor Jim Blanchard brought us together to meet with all our presidential candidates, including Senator Al Gore, Senator Paul Simon, Senator Joe Biden, Congressman Dick Gephardt, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, former governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, and Governor Mike Dukakis. I thought we had a good field, but I favored Dukakis...He was governing as a ‘New Democrat,’ and he knew what it was like to lose an election to negative attacks and make a successful comeback. Even though most Americans thought of Massachusetts as a liberal state, I believed we could sell him because he was a successful governor and could avoid the errors that had sunk us in previous elections. Besides, we were friends...”

Note 6:
In this paragraph mentioned Senator Joe Biden to be presidential candidate whom Hillary, Chelsea and Bill met at Mackinaw Island after the wrap up as chairman with the meeting adjourned. In Nigel Hamilton’s 2003 biography, “Bill Clinton, An American Journey, Great Expectation,” Betsey Wright was assigned the chairman of the Northern democratic association, before she became the White House Chief of Staffs. And that sounds interesting when we ponder this passage, “...as a liberal state, I believe we could sell him because he was a successful governor...Besides, we were friends.”

7. Page 336, Ch24
“I appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press along with Bill Bennett, who had succeeded Terrel Bell as President Reagan’s secretary of education...he had once inscribed a book to me with the words “To Bill Clinton, the Democrat who makes sense,” he apparently came to believe that either he had been wrong or I had lost whatever sense I had when he wrote those words.
Around the time of the Meet the Press interview, Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the judiciary committee, asked me to testify against Judge Robert Bork, who had been nominated to the US Supreme Court by President Reagan.”

Note 7:
We could see that Bill, that is, Mr Clinton, as the author of his own autobiography, using his original name, William Jefferson Clinton, as the name of the copyright author. We could think about what the words implied that when secretary of education Bill Bennett sent the words to presidential candidate Bill by the inscription in book, “To Bill Clinton, the Democrat who makes sense.”
The US Judicial Power is supposed to make judgement without any intervention. The judiciary committee sounds like officials of magistrates, and the chairman of the judiciary committee seemed to be the chief magistrate. When Bill said that Senator Joe Biden “asked me to testify against Judge Robert Bork,” Bill was subordinate to Mr Joe Biden. When Bill met me in November 1990, he told me that he was used to be an “Attorney General,” and the legitimate power to order Bill to testify against a judge would be coming from the gubernatorial line authority.

8. Page 356, Ch 25
“Looking back on it, I can see how the statement looked ambivalent and a touchy arrogant, but it was an honest expression of how I felt, as I began the first campaign since 1982 that I could lost. I got a break soon afterward, when Jim Guy Tucker decided to withdraw from the race and run for lieutenant governor instead, saying a divisive primary would only increase the chances of a Republican victory in the fall, no matter who won. Jim Guy had made a judgement that he could win the lieutenant government’s race easily, then become governor in four years.

Note 8:
As far as I know, when I was in CUNY Baruch 1996 summer, Mr Jerry Brown was the one succeeded the Arkansas Governor at that time and was editing his Arkansas Gazette, which there had a discussion in 1996 with the White House staffs. Mr Jim Guy Tucker, during this period before 1996, was running for the lieutenant governor. He was the lieutenant governor to Bill in the Arkansas government.

9. Page 384, Ch 26
“February 4 issue of Star, in which Gennifer Flowers said she had carried on a twelve-year affair with me...
A year earlier, Flowers’s lawyer had written a letter to a Little Rock radio station threatening a libel suit...
Flowers, whom I’d known since 1977 and had recently helped get a state job, had called me to complain that the media were harassing her even at the place she was singing at night...
The media, to their credit, exposed Flowers’s false claims about her education and work history...”

Note 9:
When 1990 November Bill met me at HsinChu City, there was a girl ten years elder than me, living at Tainan and commuted between Tainan and Taipei. Bill hadn’t met her for some years, Bill(Robert Clinton) told me he was married and had a daughter during the three-hour lunch. If it was from 1989 to 1990, there would be almost two years during which period without any possibilities that they could have any affairs between each other.
Bill told me on November 1, 1990 in a three hours lunch, that he had a brother alike companion died for some reasons Bill could hardly to explain clearly. According to the description in Nigel Hamilton’s 2003 biography, “Bill Clinton, An American Journey, Great Expectation,” Bill’s young companion was with him coming to the Arkansas governor’s Mansion, where Bill first met Flowers and her high school companion in 1977. Bill’s companion, a college graduated and President Nixon’s recruit, died there. That girl on November 1, 1990 was living at Tainan commute between Tainan and Taipei. She graduated from Chinese Culture University in 1994, had an MBA degree in 1996 from the same university. In 1998 she earned a psychology Master degree from University of Texas. Several years later, she got her Ph.d degree in psychology from University of Arkansas. Nigel Hamilton in 2003 biography, “Bill Clinton, An American Journey, Great Expectation,” had a comparison between her and Hillary, both of Republican daughters, both of feminists, both of blonde, but with a little difference that one embraced the alien(extraterrestrial) while the other rejected it as an “experience not comfortable rather than extramarital experience.”

9-1, Page 384, Ch 26
“Her name had been on the list of five women Larry Nichols alleged I had affairs with during the 1990 governor’s race. At the time, she had strongly denied it.”

Note 9-1:
After November 1, 1990, Bill was coming back to Taiwan again and stayed for several months. Bill rented a room near the library in Taipei County and looked up the archive newspapers for materials of surrogate pregnancy. Before 1980 governor Frank White’s wife died in an accident, she seemed to give birth to a child which was not her own, that is, a surrogate pregnancy.

9-2, Page 384, Ch 26
“The press reported that Flowers had been paid for the story, and that she had vigorously denied an affair a year earlier.”

Note 9-2:
After a letter was sent to a radio station, Little Rock or Florida, the radio station staffs seemed to be familiar with some magazine reporters, had that letter released with the Star magazine February 4 issue. The Star paid Gennifer Flowers for that report in the Star February 4 issue, but had not told Gennifer Flowers that the report was connected with the letter Gennifer Flowers or her lawyer sent to the radio station, which the radio station gave them for legal purpose.

9-3, Page 385, Ch 26
“I was dropping in the New Hampshire polls, and Hillary and I decided we should accept an invitation from the CBS program 60 Minutes to answer questions about the charges and the state of our marriage...
We taped the program at the Ritz-Carlton in Boston on Sunday morning, January 26, for showing later that night, after the Super Bowl. We talked to the interviewer, Steve Kroft, for over an hour. He began by asking if Flowers’s story was true. When I said it wasn’t, he asked if I had had any affairs. Perhaps I should have used Rosalynn Carter’s brilliant response to a similar question in 1976: “If I had, I wouldn’t tell you.” Since I wasn’t as blameless as Mrs. Carter, I decided not to be cute. Instead, I said that I had already acknowledged causing pain in my marriage, that I had already said more about the subject than any other politician ever had and would say no more, and that the American people understand what I meant.”

Note 9-3:
The Star testified that they had paid Gennifer Flowers for the report of Star February 4 issue that Gennifer Flowers said she had carried on a twelve-year affair with me[Bill], which should mean Gennifer Flowers agreed and recognized with the statement as she received the payment. [9-2] “...and that she had vigorously denied an affair...”
When Bill was asked by CBS program 60 Minutes that if Flowers’s story was true, Bill answered that it wasn’t. This could be justified because the testimony Gennier Flowers made, “she had twelve year affair with Bill” and “she had vigorously denied an affair,” conflicted with each other. Bill did not want to answer the further question from the CBS 60 Minutes that if he had any affairs.

9-4, Page 387, Ch 26
“Ironically, almost exactly six years after my January 1992 appearance on 60 Minutes, I had to give a deposition in the Paula Jones case, and I was asked questions about Gennifer Flowers. I acknowledged that, back in the 1970s, I had had a relationship with her that I should not have had...But I was under oath, and of course, if I hadn’t done anything wrong, I couldn’t have been embarrassed. My critics leapt on it. Ironically, even though they were sure the rest of the deposition was untruthful, this one answer they accepted as fact. The fact is, there was no twelve-year affair. Gennifer Flowers still has a suit against James Carville and Hillary for allegedly slandering her. I don’t wish her ill, but now that I am not President anymore, I do wish she’d let them be.”

Note 9-4:
Bill acknowledged that in the 1970s having “a relationship with Gennifer Flowers that Bill should not have had.” That is to say, under oath, Bill admitted a relationship which was previously supposed not to exist. What Bill meant by “there was no twelve-year affair,” firstly Bill said that he did not want to wish Gennifer Flowers ill, he was saying that he was trying to help Gennifer Flowers with her troubled lawsuits by clarifying her conflicted testimony in this statement. Secondly, early in 1977 or 1978 Bill’s first inauguration as the Arkansas governor, neither Bill was called Governor Bill, nor Governor Frank White’s daughter to accompany him in the inauguration would be called Gennifer Flowers. Therefore, there was no twelve-year affair between Bill and Gennifer Flowers, as Bill said under oath.

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042,
April 21, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

Reading "My Life, Bill Clinton", Ch1-Ch23

2013-04-19T17:47:00.000+08:00

My Life, William Jefferson Clinton 2004, Alfred A. Knopf, Random House, Inc.

1. Page 182, Ch17
“We spent the next several days together, just hanging around, talking about everything under the sun. The next weekend Hillary went up to Vermont on a long-planned visit to the man she had been dating. I was anxious about it. I didn’t want to lose her. When she got home late Sunday night I called her. She was sick as a dog, so I bought her some chicken soup and orange juice. From then on we were inseparable. She spent a lot of time at our house on the beach and quickly won over Doug, Don, and Bill.
She didn’t do so well with my mother when she came to visit a few weeks later, partly because she tried to cut her own hair just before Mother arrived…”

Note 1:
This paragraph sounds like Hillary and Bill’s first dating.
In 1982 summer when I was just local junior high school pupil, there was a call out to testifying from remote law court in Arkansas and I was as a reference, for two years before in 1979 when Hillary was located at the airport in the New York City. But that conjured up memory was at the time when I was only a grad K-4 pupil during the classes break playing in school yard with other pupils. My home did not have telephone at the moment, therefore some critical information such as the shape of a public telephone or the calling in airport could not be recognized in the communication, and as a ten-year-old boy I could only realize that someone called me which my grad senior pupil reminded me that somebody using that real time message to call me, but failed to take note of the importance of that communicating. Hillary was making phone calls at the airport using public phone, and in 1982 during the Arkansas law court was held that complete content with telephone making was conjured up for a testifying reference purpose, as Hillary carrying a United Nations Child Abuse Case account preliminary documents in 1979 at New York airport telephone booth.

2. Page 218, Ch 18
“Hot Spring headquarters”
“I rented an old house on College Avenue, which was kept open mostly by college students, and often on weekends by my cousin Roy’s fifteen-year-old daughter, Marie Clinton, alone. We
painted big CLINTON FOR CONGRESS signs. Today there’s one word over the old signs: TATTOO.”

Note 2:
This reminds me when I was City University of New York, Baruch Business Graduate School student in 1996 summer, the White House staff mentioned that Hillary had two more daughters, after Bill(Robert Clinton, as it was mandated to reveal this name for the statement in this autobiography reminded us that we could not use the name “Bill” legally to address him at least before Nov. 1990) met me on November 1, 1990 when I was a sophomore at NCTU. The two daughters were five years old and three years old, while Chelsea was seventeen years old at the moment. But we could only find out Chelsea as the Clintons’ only daughter in a statement dated in 1990, and pictures of her as the only First Family daughter from the autobiographies.

3. Page 245, Ch 20
“Vince Foster”
“One day early in the legislative session, I appeared at a committee hearing to speak against a measure. The room was packed with people representing interests who were for it, including Vince Foster…”
Page 246
“We often worked until midnight to catch up, and in the process we developed a great rapport and had a terrific time.”

Note 3:
From Hillary’s autobiography “Living History”, Vince Foster was involved with “Travel Gate Scandal”, then committed suicide.
From Bill’s “My Life”, page 282, the third page of the pictures, “Miss Marie Purkins’ School for Little Folks in Hope,” Vince Foster was Bill’s kindergarten classmate.
And from page 245 and page 246, Vince Foster and Hillary were all from the Rose firm.

4. Page 323, Ch 23
“[White] went after Hillary, alleging she had a conflict of interest because the Rose firm was representing the state in its fight against the Grand Gulf nuclear plants. We had a good response to that charge, too. First, the Rose firm was working to save Arkansas money by lifting the burden of the Grand Gulf plants, while White, as a board member of one of the Middle South Utilities companies, had voted three times to go forward with construction of the plants. Second, the Public Service Commission hired the Rose firm because all the other big firms were representing utilities or other parties in the case. Both the legislature and the attorney general approved the hiring. Third, the money the state paid to the Rose firm was subtracted from the firm’s income before Hillary’s partnership profits were calculated, so she made no money from it. White seemed more interested in defending the utility’s effort to soak Arkansas ratepayers than protecting them from a conflict of interest. I asked him if his attacks on Hillary meant he wanted to run for first lady instead of governor. Our campaign even made bumper stickers and buttons that said, “Frank for First Lady.”
White’s final charges did him in. He had been working for Stephens, Inc., then the largest bond house outside Wall Street.”
(Page 325)”…Over the years, I came to like Frank White and his wife, Gay, and to enjoy being on programs with him. He had a great sense of humor, he loved Arkansas, and I was sad when he died in 2003.”

Note 4:
This paragraph could also be found from Nigel Hamilton’s “Bill Clinton, An American Journey, Great Expectation,” biography, seemed to come from the Arkansas law court documents.
Frank White was the former governor of Arkansas.

* do in. To do someone in means to kill them; an informal expression.
* do time. Someone who is doing time is in prison; an informal expression.

“Gay,” apparently was not a real name of former Arkansas governor Frank White’s divorced wife but used in the law court to hint some fact. She seemed to die in a car accident in 1980 after a testimony was given in the Arkansas law court.

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042,
April 19, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

Oblivion

2013-04-18T16:06:00.002+08:00

In 1996 June in the New York City, a young boy with a blue baseball cap coming by the news stand when I was discussing the price of a pack of cigarette in New York City with Mr Robert De Niro, and the young boy told me that he was called Tom. Tom, you don’t know Tom? Oh, I just forgot at that moment, many things obsessed me. So, the boy lying on the grass in the picture of the movie Oblivion was Tom, just as 1996 he told me as a young boy with the same baseball blue cap. After I went to the local movie theater and watched the movie “Oblivion” Tom Cruise was starring, this was the first thing which was coming into my mind.

In the movie “Oblivion”, Jack Harper(Tom Cruise) was Tech 49 lived with Victoria(Andrea Riseborgough) at Sky Tower 49, Platform Tech 49. One day Jack Harper(Tom Cruise) was fighting with repairman Tech 52 who came to repair the crashed No. 166. Jack Harper Tech 49 tied Tech 52’s hands and was using Tech 52’s Bubble Ship helicopter coming back to Sky Tower 52. The two repairmen(Tom Cruise) fighting of Tech 49 with Tech 52, looked just like the World of Warcraft game level 75 Quest, Mystery of the Infinite, “My Future Self thinks shes a Holy Melee … looking whispers – and it turns out its a future me to help me in my quest. As the quest mobs came, and we protected the hourglass. … the item enhancement for a piece of gear I will probably replace in a few levels anyway.” Tech 49 Jack Harper went into Sky Tower 52 and found out that Victoria was also the hostess of Tower 52, greeting him just like she was in the Tower 49. Victoria blocked Jack Harper, the repairman Tech 49 outside Sky Tower 49 for Jack bring back a woman Julia(Olga KuryLenko) from the radiation zone. Morgan Freeman was also starring in the movie. He acted just like an angel role in Jim Carrey’s movie or a Sion mentor role in Keanu Reeves’ movie, the Matrix.

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042,
April 18, 2013,
Taipei

2002年外交部護照領事處護照盜用與殺人案

2013-04-16T19:35:00.000+08:00

2002年5月外交部護照領事處盜用護照與殺人案：

在2002年5月上旬民眾因護照於1月到期辦理到期護照更新時，據了解已在外交部領事處櫃台護照被職員收起要求隔週再前往領取，相關事實推定係為高層警事與外交相關訊息匯入，內容為外交部北美司或其他駐外單位責怪職員為何將護照收起並要求民眾隔週領照係為違反法律，另外據悉有兩名非洲邦交國成員與美籍賴比瑞亞教職人員將證物錄影帶攜回，與一名加拿大使館駐外代表由加拿大返台查詢相關情形者。兩名非洲邦交國人員另外在2004年11月時，於台北市公園路台灣大學附設醫院旁公車站牌，在民眾剛從公車下車前往國家圖書館時，以訊息連上匿名要求處理「是否為軍事機密判定」與「軍事機密相關案件」之相關內容來源而使用為證詞者，民眾並沒有當場正式進行答覆。

在2002年5月外交部護照領事處盜用護照與殺人案中，民眾應外交部職員要求隔週前往領取更換之護照時，應有發生外交部職員發生遭挾持或殺死案件，為以多國警事與政府等級訊息與人員多方告知之言談或同等證詞之警事詢問內容來源，法律效力應可推定為事實，例如在2002年8月2日於德國法蘭克福，有歐盟所屬重型機車警察告知為紐約市立大學校友布萊恩繞至高架道路匝道口上升15公尺內搭載與查驗身份時，暗示護照號碼更改可能在美國有身份盜用問題牽涉，與護照相關身份輸入個人數位助理電腦查詢之訊息通報，為護照相關持有人涉嫌殺人案件之公務調查與重大刑案檔案身份確認，於德國法蘭克福當天接續訊息標示為德國前總理告知歐盟警察該持有德國申根簽證之台灣遊客，在身份上無誤且與殺人案件無涉，因遊客持德國申根簽證在德國境內必須放行。

2002年5月發生的相關護照盜用與殺人案件，在事發距今10年之後，在去年2012年1月底左右於國家圖書館內通知訊息，時間在民眾應付新北市刑警大隊違反憲法第8條的住家進行逮捕與新北地方法院先後違反憲法第7條、第8條與第16條的偵查庭與法庭審判期間，在國家圖書館內訊息通知民眾的護照又如十年前於2002年一樣再度到期法律上容易被盜用，提醒民眾換發以避免法律上糾紛，時間在數個月之後在新北市圖書館與新北市議會中間的停車場靠近圖書館公佈欄區有挖苦民眾的訊息，內容為『這個板橋民眾身家財產與社會地位沒那麼好，普通民眾能申請與更換兩次護照出國，一生中能到美國去見世面與到歐盟旅遊已經算相當不錯了，這個「沒那麼好」的民眾不可能再有更新護照的可能性。』我猜這應該是國際護照盜用非法組織的相關人士，這樣的溝通內容對組織內盜用護照的成員，等於以實質溝通方式鼓勵他們「大膽的盜用吧！法律上絕對沒問題的。」無法律構成要件的微風妨害名譽案於新北地方法院濫訟了一整年，並於今年1月31日判決實質有罪精神監護一年，據悉為建國中學同學劉彥良於去年2012年1月15日左右前往美國並以盜用之護照申請綠卡方便其出入美國，新北地方法院對無任何法律構成要件案件被告民眾最後裁判的無行為能力精神監護判決，等於是以司法違法掩護身份盜用並侵害當事人法律利益，民眾已經向監察院申請對司法院的違反憲法行為進行調查與彈劾。

在新北地方法院無任何法律構成要件的妨害名譽案纏訟一年期相關資料匯入，包括在今年2013年1月31日到庭聆聽判決當天旁聽隔壁法庭審判，在審判席上有農會相關案件擺了一個粉紅色的塑膠盒，有提示測謊調查相關訊息與其他資料匯入整理來源，據悉應為前台北縣長林豐正先生存檔之板橋四川路愛買量販店美籍法裔微波塑膠容器製造商人之塑膠文件盒產品遭竊警事提報內容，因美籍法裔商人之美國公司所屬上架愛買量販店之塑膠文件盒產品，在愛買量販店標價新台幣450元產品遭竊盜(有竊嫌錄影證物登記者)而有法律上純粹商品遭竊損失者，因後來身份不明竊嫌疑似遭私刑撞死，而在法律上除了商品遭竊盜損失併同其他麻煩糾紛之可能性而必須處理者，法律上即為未知竊嫌是否為遭私刑撞死案件可能產生法律責任而以證物錄影帶提報竊盜與竊嫌警事案件處理者。愛買竊盜嫌疑案件與2002年5月台北市濟南路外交部護照領事處10樓職員發生遭挾持或殺死案件相關者，為不明身份之竊嫌警事提報為台北民眾查緝者，據悉為私刑致死之竊嫌設籍台北市之板橋蘇明信其外交部職員之父親於台北市濟南路外交領事處10樓辦公室遭挾持或殺死，當時辦公室內有盜用民眾護照姓名或掩護其美國同僚盜用人劉夢遠幹員的台北地方法院法官職劉東昀幹員(兼有板橋地方法院檢察官身份)在場，在辦公室內與民眾照面的蘇姓職員或是另一名外交部稽查人員要求因為劉東昀為軍事人員非外交部公務員不可到服務民眾的窗口讓民眾看見，而由訊息判斷在場的劉東昀幹員可能已經躲在辦公室後方牆壁外，因而所有其對談資料除了發放民眾新護照與舊護照時不明外交部職員以手指輔助提醒護照號碼不同的交談為實質口頭交談內容之外，其他相關資訊推定應為由即時的訊息內容了解而獲得，位在外交部台北市濟南路的大樓10樓的護照領事處以大理石開孔的窗口狹小，洽公民眾只能看到辦公桌的部份桌面與外交部職員臉孔，同時外交部護照領事處職員與洽公民眾出入口不同兩方以綠色大理石牆分隔，僅有在大樓13樓與14樓有相連接通道，另外訊息通知辦公室的後方有一堵牆。對於相關挾持或殺人案件，外交部蘇姓職員的親屬與非洲邦交國有相關錄影帶檢視情形，蘇姓職員的親屬曾於調查期間，說明身為軍事人員或牽涉組織犯罪叛亂案，不方便出面處理情事，另外相關之外交部護照領事辦公室殺人案件處理，為通知由憲兵隊高立吉前往處理者。

另外在案件牽涉到民眾親屬部份，非洲邦交國詢問時通知的相關資訊，有訊息通報民眾親戚民國61年次的張嘉麟或民國59年次的張家璘姓名者參與該「軍事行動」，在初次做證時因告知在辦公室後方牆壁以外樓梯間未進入辦公室，而描述其目擊經由樓梯間進入辦公室者為外交部挾持或殺人案嫌疑人員，但是據錄影帶證物判定並非為其描述者而遭偽證處死威嚇，因而民眾之親戚有對遭以護照姓名持有者當事人名義進行誣陷殺害外交部職員為嫌犯的案件有放棄代為辯護或是參與誣告護照所有人民眾情形者，據非洲邦交國提供資訊內容為張嘉麟或張家璘所處該樓梯間並非通往辦公室的唯一通道，有另外的通道連接與其他人員進入。據相關訊息的通報進入外交部護照領事處的挾持或殺人案件涉嫌者，有蘇永耀(或姓李而為李永耀)、高東煒、蘇明信的弟弟(或使用其父親姓名通報)、民國61年次的張嘉麟(或民國59年次的張家璘)只有到辦公室下一階的樓梯間、劉東昀、蘇明信的父親(或者同時有另外一名外交部身份不明的稽查職員)。

另外在昨日網路貼文後有相關訊息匯入，是憲兵隊長官高立吉與林美慧為板橋隊憲兵官，在2002年5月外交部護照領事處盜用護照與殺人案案發當時，在護照領事外道路停放的公務車輛上聊天，情況就像憲兵隊長官高立吉在1995年時於三重憲兵隊與板橋憲兵隊林美慧初次見面時，愉快的聊天那樣子。

David CK Chang,
SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
April 15, 2013(Apr 16, 2013 revised)

越南政府換發之投資憑證

2013-04-13T14:59:00.000+08:00

越南政府換發之投資憑證

2013 April 13, by David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303;

由越南政府收歸國有的前景文技術學院張萬利兄弟，所代表的倒帳建設投資公司，在2000年換發股票市場投資憑證，媽媽和我討論時提到投資權證上有越南政府的紅星國徽，後來在農會辦理類似股票集中保管與公務人員財產陽光法案相關登記，因隱私權保護由國安局下負責之地區農會個人私有財產帳戶申報，在投資權證於經板橋農會於政府登記後匯進農會帳戶台灣的投資利息與利潤，媽媽在2003年9月時給了我新台幣1萬元的分紅。

先前我以訴願形式回報的，盜用我護照身份與美國社會安全號碼的交大同學劉夢遠，曾有通報於國安局翻查這件由農會進行隱私權保護干預的越南政府國有投資憑證，在法律上是毫無問題的；相關情節還包括板橋住家地契於民國73年遭竊，並於民國85年我於板橋憲兵隊服役身家調查資料洩露於憲兵組織後，由組織集團犯罪形式於美國地區進行騷擾，包括新光或台新銀行一件盜用身份進行偽造房屋抵押糾紛，應該是以法律形態公開騷擾板橋農會任職的我的妹妹。

備註：

P.M.6:00 2013 April 13,

by David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303;

從信箱兩天未收信判斷家人有事未歸；今早出門到國家圖書館前的通知，使用新光或台新銀行以73年遭竊之未重劃農地地契，在美國盜用我的身份抵押與提告案件，昨日再度騷擾我母親與妹妹；今日下午在國圖內貼文「越南政府換發之投資憑證」文章，證明除房屋不動產外另有備援經濟來源後，國圖內另通報10年前聯邦法庭案件，於上個月另行於新北地方法院提訟，並於昨天由被告訴微風廖鎮漢共同叛亂案涉嫌刑警與檢察人員，至板橋農會以查封房屋訴訟名義騷擾者。

新竹交通大學麥當勞洗錢嫌疑案

2013-04-12T19:39:00.000+08:00

FaceBook 社團「控巴２，這是瞎瞇碗糕？」

2013年3月12日 09:35 張朝凱
最近2/5(2/8)新北地方法院的妨害名譽上訴案還未通知，可能不克參加...

2013年3月12日 11:43 曾智淵
同學，沒問題的，你保重

星期四
2013年4月11日 16:55 張朝凱
嗨，everybody！
在4月13日同學會到新竹「我們的」母校交通大學時，是不是可以幫我稍微詢問一下校內新開設的麥當勞，我記得幾個月前曾智淵有在這個控巴FB社群內以照片介紹過，

(PS.還有不好意思的是，我把曾'r的fb帳戶做了設定限制，因為在新北地方法院相關案件還未結束，除了板橋網咖殺人嫌犯偽造照片案之外，另外還有通知的一件「台北市人張朝凱簽名借用盜用2000萬或200萬新台幣未歸還」的案件，除此之外還有德國(紐約市大校友的重型機車警察等人)以比照美國綠卡申請做人道救援保護的公民證件，也被咱們同學因為國防簽約需求而盜用，先向曾'r說聲抱歉。)，

交通大學校區麥當勞業主押金好像需要新台幣200萬或500萬元，還有常態營運費用，除了偽簽姓名詐欺盜用公款之外，還牽涉到洗錢經濟犯罪(是felony聯邦法律重罪)，我今天拿早餐卡去板橋重慶路二店吃麥當勞時已經在餐廳內口頭通知麥當勞了。

星期四
2013年4月11日 22:44 曾智淵
我們當天看看有沒有機會去光復校區，整個活動地點都在博愛！

2013年4月12日 15:38 張朝凱
曾智淵還有各位同學，這件事情是這樣子的：
板橋網海爭霸網咖與環球影城85度C咖啡的偽造殺人嫌犯相片案，偽造證據照片所交付法院的林美慧檢察官是前呂副總統支持的板橋憲兵隊1994年學妹，和官鳥的身份或是曾'r新竹的憲兵官身份是相同的，但是因為林學妹在張麗娟監察人之後至板橋隊亂寫存檔與判決檔案造成至少一件嘉義人游金智與兒子劉宗典短期間同時死亡的聯合國人權違反檔案；另外連美惠法官簽的也許是美國聯邦調查局幹員約，但是在台灣的法律環境上誤導法庭條件其實是相同的；

交通大學校內麥當勞是由在美國有偽造文書前科與6個月左右拘禁或服刑的照片軟體擁有人陳同學蓄意模仿偽簽的，而林美慧與陳同學有易名(或盜用身份姓名)，生下兩名子女，在法律環節關係上是這樣子；交通大學校園為20多歲學生類似受保護小朋友環境，而林學妹因1998年清大王水案關係，當時出現在麥當勞工作時有做至少訊息通報，並非各位大哥目前在職或仍有往來之法務情資機構書面通報的死亡身份，

相關案件則為美金7000萬元或新台幣2億元之國際洗錢與境內洗錢之重大犯罪，據悉是希拉蕊國務卿在去年美國國慶日之後，也可以說是最近提出的業務費用帳目短少通報，應為2000年經由加州法院賠償案攜往台北但領取人與帳目不清者，在法律條件上可以為盜用希拉蕊帳目下的公款，為聯邦法律felony。

2013年4月12日 15:53 張朝凱
這些資料的法律關係摘要，是最近新開設的交通大學校內麥當勞速食店，涉入美國聯邦法重罪洗錢案經濟犯罪，是由在美國有詐欺監禁半年前科的建中校友陳先生嫌犯，台北民進黨關係人偽簽領取的，同時曾智淵交付地方法院的偽造照片使用的Photoshop軟體也是半年監禁前科的陳先生嫌犯所有的；洗錢案件為國際通報，在台灣境內台北與新竹的洗錢案應為法務金融調查所掌控者；另外陳先生涉嫌人與林美慧檢察官有兩名(婚生)子女的,為在法律灰色地帶的婚姻夫妻關係，就是曾智淵拿本班多人投資的環球85度C咖啡店偽造照片的交付所有人。

建中校友陳先生嫌犯，據通報是偽簽哈佛大學法律系校友註冊姓名曹文生的名字，領取費用遭留置而判刑的；另外一名關係人蔡同學半年期間，以非受刑人身份在美陪同監禁者。偽造文書盜用費用的法律情節是完全相同，也就是交大校園麥當勞洗錢案的前提。

談法律上關於前央圖93年7月15日館藏光碟自由時報

2013-04-06T20:45:00.002+08:00

談法律上關於前央圖93年7月15日館藏光碟自由時報

一、自由時報，創辦人三重幫林榮三，發行人吳阿明，社址在臺北市南京東路二段137號1樓，位於「聯邦商業大樓」內，或遷於台北市內湖區，臺北市內湖區瑞光路399號1樓，位於「聯邦大樓自由廣場」內，在2004年即93年7月15日並非在高雄地區發行之報紙。

在2004年7月15日的自由時報與2004年7月18日的中國時報兩份報紙，在2004年7月底與2004年11月幾個月內，我手上兩份報導當天的報紙都有，為刑事訴訟法關於法院管轄當地的大眾傳播媒體公告週知之事實，適用刑事訴訟法第 157 條公眾週知之事實，無庸舉證。
在司法、法務與警事調查，或是相關國安局的刑事相關調查，例如憲調組或法務部所屬調查站，對於2004年7月15日與7月18日兩大報紙報導公告之刑事槍擊殺人案消息，適用刑事訴訟法第 158 條事實於法院已顯著，或為其職務上所已知者，無庸舉證。

二、中華民國刑法
第 16 條除有正當理由而無法避免者外，不得因不知法律而免除刑事責任。但按其情節，得減輕其刑。
第 14 條行為人雖非故意，但按其情節應注意，並能注意，而不注意者，為過失。
行為人對於構成犯罪之事實，雖預見其能發生而確信其不發生者，以過失論。
第 169 條意圖他人受刑事或懲戒處分，向該管公務員誣告者，處七年以下有期徒刑。意圖他人受刑事或懲戒處分，而偽造、變造證據，或使用偽造、變造之證據者，亦同。
第 213 條公務員明知為不實之事項，而登載於職務上所掌之公文書，足以生損害於公眾或他人者，處一年以上七年以下有期徒刑。
第 214 條明知為不實之事項，而使公務員登載於職務上所掌之公文書，足以生損害於公眾或他人者，處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或五百元以下罰金。

三、關於司法院之法人機構，雖於法律上適用刑法偽證罪之相關條文產生構成要件，但是在法律判例實務上不得訴訟政府部門本身者，參考例如美國相關法源，美國憲法第11條修正案：
Amendment XI (1798)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

David CK Chang,
April 6, 2013,
National Central Library
Taipei City

An alibi on 2004 July 15 from Caesar Park Hotel per Citibank request for customer

2013-03-28T20:35:00.000+08:00

An alibi on 2004 July 15 from Caesar Park Hotel Kenting per Citibank request for customer

The night on 2004 July 13, I was driving my Toyota 1.6 Altis(which was purchased from Toyota Tao-Miao Company Ltd., seemed to be Breeze Center 2001 Spring Toyota sample car, of Japan model Prius 1.5, and I had sued a fraud case against Toyota company last July in 2012), and before 9:00 P.M. checked in the California Hotel, which was located at the Youth Road, Kaohsiung City.

The next day on 2004 July 14, I was driving my purchased Toyota Altis 1.6 from the California Hotel at Youth Road, Kaohsiung City, down the way to the most southern part of Taiwan at Kenting and checked in the Caesar Park Hotel, Kenting. There were rumors that a stolen car police report to do with my car, murder cases, military exercises in Kaohsiung City, and I had met a killer with Toyota driver seat window remote opening to the killer the night before, that area seemed to be under police surveillance. Because I was Citibank Citi-Gold credit card customer, the Citibank had requested the Caesar Park Hotel reception to make a residence testifying to the police for the Toyota owner who had checked in their Caesar Park Hotel, with their Citibank Citi-Gold credit card statement would be served as a legal proof for the CitiGold customer to avoid legal dispute in the future, before I left the Caesar Park Hotel Kenting in the afternoon on July 15.

In the early morning at 3:00 A.M. 2004 July 16 I was driving my Toyota Altis 1.6 back to Taipei from the road outside the Tzu Chi University at HuaLien. I was staying there for hours from 9:00 P.M. July 15 to 3:00 A.M. July 16. I read two newspapers of July 16 and July 15 in the afternoon on July 16, when I had driven back to Taipei, parked my car at the rent parking lot and had grabbed a sleep until P.M. 2:00. July 16, there was a newspaper report of July 15 news on the Liberty Times, which was two nights before, with a closeup, half of the front page picture of a Toyota Prius with windshield glass shattered with a bullet hole and with news report of driver killed by rifle. The China Times same Prius 1.5 rifle killing was reported two days later on 2004 July 18, which was felt a little weird. It was notified that the rifle killing event upon a Toyota Prius 1.5 driver was only blocks away from the California Hotel, Kaohsiung City, at the same night I had checked in that hotel. The Liberty Times front page news closeup picture of Prius 1.5, was notified to be of that same Toyota Prius 1.5 model as the Breeze Center 2001 received three sample model cars from the Toyota Japan company, which Taiwan authority imported for a testifying purpose upon the three Breeze Center Toyota sample cars which had tax legal quarrels previously. The shot dead victim of newspaper closeup picture in the Prius 1.5 car was said to drive the car to the spot, chasing for a coordinated pursuit mission after my Toyota Altis 1.6, which was alleged by police reports to be a stolen car owned by Mitac Mr Miao Hua-bin and modified from the 2001 Breeze Center Japan sample car, before the victim Prius 1.5 driver was shot dead, on purpose, surely. As I was informed, the shot dead murder event was happened on the same day 2004 July 14 just passed midnight, and I had checked in the California Hotel before 9:00 P.M. on July 13. The killer at 8:20 P.M. July 13 looked at me from outside the remote opened driver seat window, went to the Kaohsiung City police station to report a cut harm by the Toyota car owner on his hand, which the killer was holding a Rambo Knife invading "his family owned" California Hotel, as the killer claimed to the police. The Kaohsiung City Police Station dismissed the killer to say that it was definitely cut by himself by his own Rambo knife. The killer was said to leave the police station around the timing when the Toyota Prius driver shot dead case was happening.

David CK Chang,
SSN057-86-4042, F121485303
March 28, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

台新銀行2004豐田汽車信貸設質抵押清償證明書，與業務名片聯絡姓名

2013-03-28T13:44:00.000+08:00

清償證明書〈車主：張朝凱 A93-0-2687〉

查牌照6E-1022號(引擎/車身 3ZZ41332619號)車輛，前經台北區監理處(所‧站)為動產抵押之設定登記，茲因抵押權債權已消滅，爰依照動產擔保交易法第十條第一項之規定申請，均處鑒核，准即註銷原登記為感。

此致公鑒

立書人：台新國際商業銀行股份有限公司
法定代理人：吳東亮
地址：台北市中山北路二段四十四號
代理人：台新國際商業銀行南京東路分行
經理：李忠權
地址：台北市南京東路三段289號2樓
C01 01359
---------------------------
林美君
台新國際商業銀行
消金業務部北一區汽車貸款科
台北市南京東路三段289號2樓
代表號：(02)2546-5598 分機：835
---------------------------
高淑媛
0929-124-299
台朔汽車
朔源實業股份有限公司
中和營業所：中和市中正路488號
電話：02-2221-4064
*****
桃苗汽車股份有限公司
彰化銀行苑裡分行
58070113749100
*****

Further documents for proving Id-theft upon SSN057-86-4042 to subscribe HBR and Time magazines‏

2013-03-23T15:29:00.001+08:00

From: David Bryan Chang (chaokai_chang@hotmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:03:05 PM
To: HBR Adi Ignatius (hbreditor@hbr.org); enquiries@timeasia.com (enquiries@timeasia.com); irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com (irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com)
Cc: JAROCorgtw法官協會 (jaroc@judicial.gov.tw); asia_customer@timeasia.com (asia_customer@timeasia.com)

Dear Ms. Irina Lin, Time magazine and HBR magazine:

Further documents for proving the Id-theft upon social security number account SSN057-86-4042 to subscribe to the HBR and Time magazines.

In addition to the email letter which sent today earlier with JPG pictures of my passport M11659963 and 132909476 to be falsified by Mr Ralf Liu and Mr Liu Yang-Liang to be used together with my social security number SSN057-86-4042 to apply green cards from the Ohio and the Washington DC seperately, which was apparent illegal conduct, sir. And Mr Ralf Liu was subscribing to HBR for several years in the New York City and in 2006 subscribing HBR for one year at Taipei. Mr Liu Yang-Liang was subscribing to Time in August 2009 for three or more years, and subscribing to HBR for five years in 2010 April, and both are alleged fraud conducts in identity theft misdemeanor.

Providing further documents for clarifying my social security card number SSN057-86-4042 account in JPG format pictures. The first document was a letter from Baruch College Director Ellen Washington on 1996 April to congratulate my I-20 Form from Baruch MBA program on April 3, 1996. The second document was Baruch MBA program syllabus of 1996 Fall from Prof. Gordon in MIS, Information Systems for Management course. The third document was 1996 Fall MIS course student presentation team six, with my name Chao-Kai Chang on the presenting plan. The fourth document was the homework cover page with grade "Excellent!" of 1996 Fall Baruch MBA course, the Organizational Behavior Management. The instructor was Associate Professor Ms. Tery Mitchel, African ethnic with Harvard Business School DBA degree. These four documents in JPG form could be served to prove that I was present in Baruch while fetched the social security card with number SSN057-86-4042 from Brooklyn Borough Bureau of New York City.

Best Regards,

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
March 23, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

------------------------------------------------------

David CK Chang

3rd Fl.,204 ChungHsiao Rd., Banciao District,

New Taipei City, ZIP 22064, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Tel: (02)-29550553,

Tel: 886-2-89529809, N/A

Mobile: 886-(0)930568181, N/A

0953718256, N/A

Identity theft misdemeanor in Time and HBR magazine subscribers upon SSN057-86-4042‏

2013-03-23T15:15:00.001+08:00

From:	David Bryan Chang (chaokai_chang@hotmail.com)
Sent:	Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:30:43 PM
To:	HBR Adi Ignatius (hbreditor@hbr.org); enquiries@timeasia.com (enquiries@timeasia.com); irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com (irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com)
Cc:	JAROCorgtw法官協會 (jaroc@judicial.gov.tw); asia_customer@timeasia.com (asia_customer@timeasia.com)

Dear Ms Irina Lin, Time magazine and HBR magazine:

For the social security number SSN057-86-4042 identity theft issue in Time and HBR accounts, enclosed with JPG pictures of my 1996 Jan 23 passport attached with my 1996 Jul 5 issued student F1-Visa from Bernard M. Baruch College, New York, NY 10010, which shall suffice for claiming back my social security card number account SSN057-86-4042, and hereby clarifying the issue of green card applied with this social security number account to subscribe Time or HBR magazine intended a fraud for legal proving purpose, in New York or Taipei areas.

As far as I was notified by in message, 2000 and later in 2002 May, the falsifying passport with number M11659963 was used by Mr Ralf Liu, he was subscribing to the HBR magazine in New York City, with alleged identity theft fraud, sir. Mr Ralf Liu was using the falsified passport and my social security number, but failed a Ohio residency report when leaving his job the hiring company falsifying the document for him did not tell him the green card was applied from Ohio. Mr Ralf Liu thought it was a green card from New York Government, when the job closed he felt rejected without reason and chose to come back to Taipei investigating the identity theft account. But Mr Ralf Liu seemed to know another residency applied with this identity theft account to be a green card applied from the Washington DC by Mrs Hillary R. Clinton, later he came back to the USA and was fetching a green card from Washington DC Bureau to put into a drawer in some New York City agency. But Mr Ralf Liu have not notified me anything about this green card.

The other identity theft group in 2000 was notified to be including Mr Liu Dong-Yun and Mr Liu Yang-Liang and they conducted with social security identity theft to apply a green card in the Ohio State. Their identity theft group seemed to apply from Ohio State University for my eighth I-20 form after I had dropped out and come back to Taipei on October 22, 1996, in addition to my previous applied seven I-20 forms, which were I-20 forms from George Washington University, Northeastern University, Kent University, SUNY Buffalo, Texas A&M University, Dallas University, and CUNY Baruch. Besides this unknown identity theft conduct, one of the identity theft group member who secretly came back to Taipei, which was Mr Liu Yang-Liang, he was subscribing to Time magazine in 2009 August for three years or more years, and was further subscribing to the HBR magazine in 2010 April for five years, with alleged identity theft fraud in Taipei area, sir.

The passport attached with my 1996 Baruch F1 Visa, passport number M11659963 was due on 2002 Jan 23. In 2002 May when I went to Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Taipei City to renew the overdue passport, in the establishment of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the officials said passport number was changed, it was changed to a new passport number 132909476, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs establishment there was a message from then DPP President Chen Shui-Bian saying to change Chang's passport number was to protect the citizen Mr Chang not under lethal attacked in the foreign sight-seeing tours in China or European areas. The DPP President Mr Chen Shui-Bian was denoted that he had reported to the USA Hillary R. Clinton that Mr Chang was planning for a get away, in that Mrs Hillary R. Clinton had Mr Chang's custody in UN Child Abuse Case, but worried that Chang could be under lethal attack, because Mrs Hillary R. Clinton did not respond immediately, therefore DPP President Chen changed Mr Chang's passport number. It was responded by foreign diplomat agency seemed to be from US, or the People First Party member at the moment, and noticed Mr Chen Shui-bian it was a violating of passport conventions to change Mr Chang's passport number, and pointed out that DPP President Mr Chen Shui-bian was intended to cover his own DPP National Security Bureau(NSB) agent or CIA agent in the USA, which was Mr Ralf Liu, who was conducting an identity theft and falsifying my passport in the USA area. From the message in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the falsified passport could be covered from Taiwan government official, not only the Japanese company boss from China Shanghai areas. Except Mr Ralf Liu falsified my passport, the new passport number 132909476 was reported later to be falsified by Mr Liu Yang-Liang to conduct an identity theft, he was going back to the US probably Ohio State to fetch another green card with this identity theft account and the new passport number, sir.

Best Regards,

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
March 23, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

------------------------------------------------------

David CK Chang

3rd Fl.,204 ChungHsiao Rd., Banciao District,

New Taipei City, ZIP 22064, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Tel: (02)-29550553

Tel: 886-2-89529809, N/A

Mobile: 886-(0)930568181, N/A

0953718256, N/A

For Time and HBR magazine to verify misdemeanor of identity theft in both accounts

2013-03-22T14:25:00.000+08:00

From:	David Bryan Chang (chaokai_chang@hotmail.com)
Sent:	Friday, March 22, 2013 2:10:22 PM
To:	HBR Adi Ignatius (hbreditor@hbr.org); enquiries@timeasia.com (enquiries@timeasia.com); irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com (irina.lin@quantiumsolutions.com)
Cc:	JAROCorgtw法官協會 (jaroc@judicial.gov.tw); asia_customer@timeasia.com (asia_customer@timeasia.com)

Dear Ms Irina Lin, Time magazine and HBR magazine:

As the identity theft issue to my identity related accounts of the Time and HBR magazines, or even of Citibank accounts to be whitewashing international crimes, I have a copy of Citibank credit card statement in October 2005 which could serve as the purpose to clarify my identity. Enclosure. My HBR and Citibank accounts could be verified in the credit card statement enclosed in this email letter in JPG-format picture that my HBR account paid $594 in 4 years term from 2005 through 2010 April for subscribing payment, and to verify my Citibank Citi-Gold credit card account in itself of this 2005 October credit card statement though the credit card account was closed in 2006 June. Same as my passport overdue gap during 2002 January through 2002 May delayed by the processing officials and even changed my passport number deliberately and probably this time overdue again with a gap since 2013 January for an identity theft timing, to report to the USA agency for the green card issue of residency in Washington DC or Ohio State which were reported years ago. The US agency AIT had checked up my I-20 with old passport in 2004, probably for this issue, when I was applying a five year term B1/B2 VISA with the new passport number. For your reference.

For the Time Hong Kong customer service and Ms Irina Lin email letter reply on March 21 which mentioned that there could not be located another customer account to be related with my identity theft issue, in my English or Chinese name, address at No 204 Chunghsio Road Banciao District in New Taipei City, my passport number, Taiwan identity card number F121485303, or USA social security card number SSN 057864042, in the Time magazine subscriber accounts, I have further information for the Time magazine and the HBR magazine to follow up this misdemeanor which was alleged by the New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office(the former Banciao District Court Prosecutors Office) in 2009 December and 2010 April to be happened in your subscribing customer accounts.

The Time magazine hired Holland TNT deliver workers in 2009 August subscribed to the magazine by using a faked identity credit card, which was using a passport in English name with social security card number applying from the Taiwan Business Bank and filled in the delivering address to be identity theft address at Chunghiso Road, in former Panchiao(Bancio) Taipei County(New Taipei City). More than three months the TNT worker for Time magazine had been fetching the magazine from Time TNT office which was billing in the victim's identity theft account and address, therefore the police from local post office could not have any delivery record in the victim dwelling Banciao Post Office. After the Baciao District Court Prosecutors Office in 2009 notifying the Time magazine this identity theft issue, and in 2010 March or April with an informal method queried the HBR magazine about the victim social security number identity theft issue, probably the TNT worker's Time subscribing account was arbitrated to be the same misdemeanor committed out of psychosis as that of another appropriated faked identity HBR account which he started after 2010 April the victim's HBR account was due, that TNT worker from Time magazine subscriber registering center with arbitrated legal issue demanded to change his delivering address from victim's to a new address of a dead classmate's problem address. The address was, 6th Fl. No. 5-11, Alley 217, Sec. 3 Chunghisao East Rd., Taipei City. The Time account delivered to a new name of Mr Yang Da-Ching, in several months later changed to Mr Huang Da-Ching, which was name of the dead classmate with a nuance, of Mr Huang Teng-Ching and matched the delivered address in the Taipei City which the dead classmate used to dwell in. That TNT worker still had been fetching the magazine from the Time and TNT delivery center for several months, then fetched the subscribed Time magazine from the magazine delivered Taipei City address of Mr Yang/Huang Da Ching's, which was supposed to be the Time magazine identity theft account should be located, sir.

Earlier this January and February local police officer Mr Da Y. Tsong followed up this identity theft issue in the Time account, still cannot find out the delivery record in the Banciao Post Office to the identity theft victim, further the identity theft suspect changed his name in Time which name was deceased in legal status. Several days later on my birthday Feb 18, I had the ads reply subscribing order form sent back to the Time.

The Time ads reply subscribing order had a time limit to reply before 2010 May, but it was delivered to my house on 2010 June 2, after a weekend. As I was always receiving my Citibank mail-order DM with favorite goods overdue, I was sure that was a mocking subscribing coupon which was sent to me intended to be overdue. Therefore, I did not reply that subscribing order immediately though the guiding message from local Taipei District Court or New Taipei District Court law enforcement people hinted to subscribe for them to follow up the identity theft criminal case. The subscribing order was arrived in 2010 June, passed the 2010 May special subscribing YES rate. It was also rumored that in the Taipei District Court who sent out the Time ads reply order from the Time magazine office, died months later in 2010 with HBR editor Ms Julia Kirby, the elder sister of a Holland girl of University of Pennsylvania freshman who I met at Philadelphia YMCA on August 7 1996. The two sisters had the same name.

Best Regards,

David Chang, SSN057-86-4042, F121485303,
March 22, 2013,
National Central Library,
Taipei City

------------------------------------------------------

David CK Chang

3rd Fl.,204 ChungHsiao Rd., Banciao District,

New Taipei City, 22064, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Tel: (02)-29550553

Tel: 886-2-89529809, N/A

Mobile: 886-(0)930568181, N/A

0953718256, N/A

The Sound of Music 真善美

Remarks, "Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang, 20130530"

監察院長信箱20130530

Remarks, "20130521, Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang"

Comments on identity theft of USA Green Card of mine. Facebook Picture of Passport album

Remarks, "Plastic box displayed in law court concerned lynch of petty theft"

監察院長信箱20130521

監察院長信箱20130509

監察院長信箱20130508

Background about pleading impeachment of Judicial Yuan violating citizen Constitutional rights; Legal complaints to New Taipei District Court submitting to Supreme Court

司法信箱 新北地方法院轉呈最高法院：後憲糾舉司法院違憲提交監察院彈劾相關環境背景細節

司法信箱 - 寫入確認

監察院長信箱20130427

司法信箱 最高法院：關於訴願提報聯合國調查鄭志勇幹員死亡案之新線索

司法信箱 - 寫入確認

台北縣農會蘇明信私刑案之愛買塑膠文件盒

Reading "My Life, Bill Clinton" Ch24-Ch26

Reading "My Life, Bill Clinton", Ch1-Ch23

Oblivion

2002年外交部護照領事處護照盜用與殺人案

越南政府換發之投資憑證

新竹交通大學麥當勞洗錢嫌疑案

談法律上關於前央圖93年7月15日館藏光碟自由時報

An alibi on 2004 July 15 from Caesar Park Hotel per Citibank request for customer

台新銀行2004豐田汽車信貸設質抵押清償證明書，與業務名片聯絡姓名

Further documents for proving Id-theft upon SSN057-86-4042 to subscribe HBR and Time magazines‏

Identity theft misdemeanor in Time and HBR magazine subscribers upon SSN057-86-4042‏

For Time and HBR magazine to verify misdemeanor of identity theft in both accounts

司法信箱新北地方法院轉呈最高法院：後憲糾舉司法院違憲提交監察院彈劾相關環境背景細節

司法信箱最高法院：關於訴願提報聯合國調查鄭志勇幹員死亡案之新線索