Saturday, September 26, 2009

高雄捷運 42.7公里 28.8億/Km 節省23%: 弊案
內湖線 14.8公里 54.8億/Km 追加134%: 拒查



高捷會是弊案嗎? Jason2009/09/25

看起來,為了拯救貓纜和柵湖線的弊端危機,馬政府和爪牙們又開始塑造民進黨「新的」弊案。

高鐵是其中一個,但是對國民黨來說有點麻煩。第一,現在主事者是歐晉德,總統的好朋友。第二,高鐵的決策大都是在國民黨執政時搞出來的,有點綁手綁腳。第三,如果說要把民進黨執政時對高鐵的財務處理,塑造成像是官商勾結的樣子,那要怎麼解釋2000/03國民黨還擁有政權時,就拿政府當作高鐵貸款三千多億元的擔保?又要怎麼解釋現在銀行團讓高鐵借新還舊又降息的「勾結」行為?

於是有人把腦袋動到高捷上面來,想讓虧損的高捷看起來像是弊案。

高捷營運得不好是事實,但現在大眾運輸工具沒有一個營運得好。經濟這麼壞,國內投資衰退,交通工具的使用率怎麼會高 ?這麼多人都失業在家,幹嘛出們搭捷運、高鐵?

高捷會不會是弊案?先不要說我們沒有聽說高捷開到一半門會關不起來,也沒聽說旅客要在中途下車去走鐵軌的瘋狂事,或者是車廂裡面會漏水等等。我們光拿高鐵、高捷、和內捷這三條軌道工具的「每公里造價」和「追加預算比例」來比較,就可以大致看出,哪一個看起來最像是弊案!


說明:每公里造價扣除土地成本。

看到了吧?高捷如果是弊案,不會省下政府四百多億。高鐵被批得一文不值,營造的經費也只追加8%。而內湖線呢?從328億元暴增為767億元,追加了一倍還不止。

哪裡有弊案,不是很清楚嗎? 〔 資料來源: 傑森等等我 | 引用網址 〕

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

高鐵: 一查再查
貓纜 捷運木柵內湖線 新生高架橋: 拒查

The cost for the 345 Km 高鐵 is 15 億/Km; the cost for the 14.8 Km 捷運木柵內湖線 is 50 億 /Km.

高鐵 is Taiwan's pride; 捷運木柵內湖線 is Taiwan's embarrassment and headache.

高鐵: 一查再查.
捷運木柵內湖線: 拒查.

王定宇 張銘清跌倒案: 徒刑4月
蘇安生踹前總統:判刑2月

踹傷阿扁男子蘇安生通緝遭逮| 即時新聞| 社會新聞| 聯合新聞網

2009年8月25日 ... 愛國同心會成員蘇安生(68歲)去年踹傷前總統陳水扁,並對前駐日代表許世楷「架拐子」
,被台北地檢署依傷害、公然侮辱罪嫌起訴,分別被法院判刑2月與拘役30天...
udn.com/NEWS/SOCIETY/BREAKINGNEWS2/5099357.shtml

尋找夢想的天空:黨國司法重判王定宇與輕判蘇安生的天壤之別待遇- 樂多日誌

2008年10月31日 ... 主張和中國統一的「愛國同心會」成員蘇安生對駐日代表許世楷架拐子、踹前總統陳水扁臀部,才求刑四個月,還成了馬冏九流政府的國慶貴賓,王定宇明明 ...
blog.roodo.com/fairy220/archives/7479707.html - 頁庫存檔 - 類似內容 -

張銘清案 民進黨質疑差別待遇

中國評論 - ‎2009年9月21日‎
中評社台北9月22日電(記者鄒麗泳)民進黨籍台南市議員王定宇去年推倒大陸海協會副會長張銘清事件,台南地方法院昨天宣判,王定宇一審被判4個月。民進黨上午表達尊重司法判決結果,但也強調,原告張銘清從未到台灣出庭、也沒有配合司法辦案,相關證據顯示對張銘清非常禮遇 ...

張銘清跌倒案 王定宇8日起訴求刑1年2個月
蘇安生踹前總統陳水扁及前駐日代表許世楷86天起訴求刑4個月


自由電子報:王定宇被求刑 綠委批雙重標準 【10/30 11:48】

〔本報訊〕檢方偵辦中國海協會副會長張銘清跌倒案,今天將民進黨籍台南市議員王定宇求處1年2個月徒刑,民進黨立委聽聞後,群起聲援,其中,民進黨立委管碧玲質疑,檢方雙重標準。

管碧玲指出,愛國同心會成員蘇安生日前偷襲前總統陳水扁及前駐日代表許世楷2人,檢調偵察時間長達86天,且僅求刑4個月,但對照王定宇案件,偵察時間僅9天,卻求刑1年2個月。

管碧玲強調,類似的案件,蘇安生確實有打人,但王定宇是否確實是造成張銘清倒地元兇,至今情況不明,沒想到王定宇的偵察時間要比蘇安生快10倍、求刑重3倍,顯見其氣氛詭譎;管碧玲直言,總統馬英九將台灣的司法,當成大禮送予中國。

Saturday, September 19, 2009

馬干預司法 與納粹無異

德國慕尼黑大學講座教授許迺曼(Bernd Schunemann)表示,「德國納粹時代的法律人選擇沉默,結果嚴重危害世人」、「在民主法治推動的過程,法律人絕不能裝聾又裝瞎,才不會淪為替政治服務,國家憲政運作才不致出現危機。」...

民進黨在台南市長許添財連日來請益與徵詢過程以及黨內折衝下,決定將擇日拜會司法院長賴英照,要求大法官會議儘速就扁案換法官的釋憲文做出宣告,這是民進黨行動的第一步,專案小組也將繼續進行黨內的對話,並整合本土社團的意見。
Why are 司法院長賴英照, 大法官, law professionals and anyone silent?

藍營圍攻洪英花 法界批馬下指導棋

〔記者林俊宏、楊國文、林嘉東/台北報導〕士林地院庭長洪英花對扁案判決的「自始無效」論,遭到藍營人士圍攻,一名司法官昨天痛批總統馬英九在背後下「指導棋」,透過司法院來打壓洪英花,並暗指馬此種干預司法之舉,與德國納粹時代的作法無異。

指馬干預司法 與納粹無異

此位不願具名的司法官昨天引用德國慕尼黑大學講座教授許迺曼(Bernd Schunemann)的說法表示,「德國納粹時代的法律人選擇沉默,結果嚴重危害世人」、「在民主法治推動的過程,法律人絕不能裝聾又裝瞎,才不會淪為替政治服務,國家憲政運作才不致出現危機。」

這位司法官說,德國的法律學者早已在反省過去納粹時代的種種錯誤,難道台灣還要回到過去兩蔣威權時代,司法人甘願淪為政治服務的工具之一?國家憲法既然出現爭議,就應容許各種多元討論意見,「這樣才是民主國家的象徵。」

揚 塵綜合法律事務所律師林宇文昨天也表明認同洪英花論點,他表示,扁案於台北地院分案時,由幾位庭長開會後,逕將後起訴的「扁案」併給前案、審理「珍案」的 蔡守訓合議庭,這種以行政命令方式換法官,牴觸法官法定原則,蔡守訓所組成的合議庭不是合法法官,所做出來的判決當然自始無效,洪英花法官的論點沒有錯。

前 台北地院審判長、執業律師吳孟良表示,法官法定原則是審判獨立的核心,台北地院當初將有重大貪污及犯罪金額一億元以上的扁案定位在金融專庭審理,抽籤分案 後,由周占春審判長負責,就應該由他承審,即使北院後來以庭長會議的五位庭長決議更換法官,也不具代表性,應該是加上十三位審判長成員才對,否則應不致有 審判合法性與否的爭議。

吳孟良也指出,庭長只是一個「行政職」,庭長會議的成員是所有十八個審判庭,包括五位庭長及十三位審判長組成,北院怎麼可以找五位庭長開個會,就決定審理扁案採「後案併前案」,此決議根本不具代表性,其做出的決定也頗有問題。

綠營支持者 擬聲援洪英花

〔記 者李欣芳/台北報導〕士林地方法院庭長洪英花主張扁案判決自始無效,連日來遭藍營及親藍媒體圍剿,綠營支持者有聲援洪英花的聲浪,有綠營大老建議,可發動 送花給洪英花等為扁案人權發出正義之聲的法官,以實際行動給予溫暖,否則法界將來恐因扁案引發寒蟬效應,導致沒人敢講真話。

民進黨在台南市長許添財連日來請益與徵詢過程以及黨內折衝下,決定將擇日拜會司法院長賴英照,要求大法官會議儘速就扁案換法官的釋憲文做出宣告,這是民進黨行動的第一步,專案小組也將繼續進行黨內的對話,並整合本土社團的意見。

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Manthorpe: no convincing evidence
1,500-page judgment .. bafflegab

Evidence fails to support life sentence for Taiwan's former president

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunSeptember 16, 2009

When a court in Taiwan imposes a life sentence, there is an automatic appeal to a higher panel of judges, but former president Chen Shui-bian and his wife Wu Shu-chen should not nurse too many hopes that the draconian penalties imposed on them last week will be moderated.

From the start, the campaign to prosecute Chen, who stepped down in May last year after two four-year terms as president, and his wife for corruption have not passed the smell test of a fair and independent judicial process.

Many people both in Taiwan and abroad have commented since the process began that it looks more like political persecution of Chen, whose Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) promotes Taiwan as an independent nation, by the new Kuomintang (KMT) party of president Ma Ying-jeou than a genuine attempt to eradicate graft in high places.

Ma and the KMT, which for 50 years ran Taiwan as a one-party state under martial law until it was pushed by the United States into democratization in the late 1980s, have been edging Taiwan toward some kind of political union with China since they regained control of the administration in May last year.

In sentencing Chen and Wu to life in prison, the court has, doubtless inadvertently, presented Beijing with a gift and Taiwan's 23 million people a stern warning that they are not masters in their own house.

To put it bluntly, no convincing evidence was presented during the trial on which Chen could be convicted of corruption, embezzlement or money laundering by an impartial court, though that cannot be said of Wu, her brother or her children.

The campaign to prepare the expectation that Chen is guilty and would go to prison for a long time began during the investigation by prosecutors.

There was a steady stream of often scurrilous and insubstantial stories leaked to the media, whose proprietors are largely KMT supporters, spinning a web of guilt around Chen.

Chen was then held incommunicado for a month late last year before any indictment was presented. He was formally detained on Dec. 20 and when he applied for bail, was granted it.

But there was then an uproar by KMT legislators and a new judge was made head of the court. He is Tsai Shou-hsun, who, coincidentally no doubt, had recently found Ma not guilty of charges of, while mayor of Taipei, misusing discretionary funds, very similar charges that Chen faced.

Tsai immediately ordered Chen's pretrial detention to continue in case the former president tried to influence witnesses. And Tsai has presided over the trial and delivered the verdict.

And the documentation around these cases is so voluminous it smells of bafflegab.

The indictment is 202 pages in Chinese. The press release from the Taipei District Court announcing the verdict is 59 pages and this, apparently, is a prelude to the full 1,500-page judgment.

The first 190 pages of the indictment track the $30 million US in campaign donations and $15 million US in presidential discretionary funds on their way to accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

This is the money laundering case, but it is only a crime if the money was illegally obtained. And nowhere in the prosecution's case is there evidence that this money was got illegally. There's a lot of supposition and sly suggestion, but no evidence.

In Taiwan, election law says, despite efforts by Chen's administration to change it in the face of KMT obstruction, that leftover campaign donations belong to the candidate. And Chen dealt with the discretionary funds in exactly the same way as predecessors.

Chen says he left the family finances to Wu, who is known to be avaricious and has some reason to seek the security that money brings.

In 1986, Chen and Wu, while travelling around Tainan County thanking supporters, were attacked by a man driving a farm tractor. The driver missed Chen, but ran over Wu and a campaign aide. He backed up and drove over Wu again and then drove over her a third time.

Her back was broken and since then she has had to use a wheelchair. The driver was questioned by police, who concluded it was an accident, and no charges were laid.

There is little doubt that Wu received bribes in the case of land acquisition for a high tech science park.

But there was no evidence that she told Chen. Indeed, all the evidence says the couple has fallen out because Wu lied to her husband about what was going on.

jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com

臺灣法律人 又聾又瞎

德國學者許迺曼:法律人不可又聾又瞎

http://news.sina.com 2009年09月14日 23:04 中央社即時

  (中央社記者翁翠萍台北15日電)德國慕尼黑大學法學院講座教授許迺曼博士今天接受國立政治大學頒授名譽法學博士學位後表示,法律人要做弱勢者的守護神,不可又聾又瞎,才不會淪為替政權服務。

  許迺曼也在稍後的演講表示,歌德所說「隻管伸手進入豐富生活並抓住它」,也適用於法律,他勉勵在場法律系所學生保持熱忱,即使遭遇阻力或負面批評,都不要氣餒,要持續努力追求心中正義的理想。

  政治大學上午由校長吳思華頒授名譽法學博士學位給許迺曼,肯定他促進台德兩國法學教育與學術研究交流的貢獻;這是許迺曼(Bernd Schunemann)繼蒙古國家大學、西班牙薩拉哥薩大學、秘魯摩客瓜大學、喬治亞共和國第比利斯大學後,所獲得的第5個名譽博士學位。

  許迺曼指台灣已實現把古老專制文化與西方個人自由民主思想融合的奇蹟,因此,他期待台灣、台灣法學界和政治大學繼續發展、繁榮與興旺,也對政大頒授至高學術榮譽的加冕,表彰他的努力,讓他有喜悅與驕傲的幸福感覺。

  吳思華致詞時說,許迺曼26歲獲得博士,隔年取得律師職業許可,常承接一般辯護人無能為力的疑難刑事案件並維持常勝紀錄,有「穩坐德國刑事法學界第一把交椅」、「不疑不惑獻身法與正義」等美譽,1991年至今訪台7次,對促進台德兩國刑事法學交流有莫大貢獻。

  吳思華表示,由於許迺曼對刑法學領域影響深遠並具啟發性,政大經法學院推薦與審慎遴選程序,依學位授予法頒給名譽法學博士學位。980915

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

扁案判決書長達1,400多頁 重約3公斤

How much of this 1,400 pages and 3 kg is evidence, the only thing valid in the court?
Almost none. See the full text at 扁案一審判決書.pdf

Why did the judge hand down a 3kg 1,400 page life-imprisonment verdict with almost no evidence?
Answer: this is not a legal case. This is political persecution.

士林地方法院刑庭長: 扁案判決自始無效

I hereby demand a clarification from the Justice Department and the Grand Justice:
when the case has been handled so unconstitutionally, is the verdict valid?
Why is Grand Justice silent on this? Why is the Justice Department silent on this?
扁案判決自始無效

◎ 洪英花 (士林地方法院 刑庭長)

法官的審判權源自「主權在民」,法院是為了維護人民訴訟權而存在,法官身為人民權利守護神,自應守憲守法、捍衛人民權利。違反正當法律程序作成的「無效裁判」,自不具實質正當性,對任何人均不生羈束力。扁案判決自始當然無效。

(一)違反憲法第八十條、第十六條及司法院釋字第五三○號

我國憲法第八十條審判獨立在建構公平法院,「法定法官原則」為其核心價值,並在落實憲法第十六條訴訟權之保障,「法定法官」為實現公平正義之鑰,為我國憲法第八十條、第十六條及司法院釋字第五三○號所明定。蔡守訓合議庭並非扁案「法定法官」,無權審理扁案。

(二)違反憲法第八條及司法院釋字第三八四、三九二號

憲 法第八條明定,人民非由法院依法定程序不得審問處罰。所謂「法院」,當指有審判權之法官所構成之獨任或合議之法院(司法院釋字第三八四號、第三九二號參 照)。「法定法官」乃能依法對人民審問處罰,蔡守訓合議庭為「簽呈法官」,對扁案既無審理權責,更無羈押權,扁案判決自始、當然無效。

(三)違反司法院釋字第六五三號

憲法第十六條保障人民訴訟權,係指人民有權利請求依正當法律程序公正審判,不得因身分不同而予以剝奪,亦據司法院釋字第六五三號解釋理由書闡明。阿扁雖貴為前總統,其正當法律程序及人身自由權之保障,與一般人民應相互平等,不容漠視或更加(相對)嚴苛。

(四)違反刑事訴訟法第六條

刑事訴訟法第六條係針對數同級法院相牽連案件合併管轄之規定,依其精神,同一法院相牽連案件固得合併由其中一法官合併審判,惟其合併均須以裁定移併,扁案換法官未以「裁定」移併,自屬違法。

(五)違反憲法第七十八條、第一七一條、第一七二條、第一七三條、憲法增修條文第五條第四項及司法院釋字第三七一、五七二、五九○號

合併審判固在防杜裁判歧異並顧及訴訟經濟,惟多係出於被告對於合併審判無爭議之情況下為之,被告若堅執抗議,其「法定法官權利不可被剝奪」。

法官審理具體個案,發生違憲爭議,應積極扮演聲請釋憲角色,並等候大法官之釋憲判斷,不容率爾依憑個人主觀之認知,怠於形成違憲確信,跳躍程序爭議,逕入實體審理。

(六)違反司法院釋字第四一八號、第四三六號

司 法院釋字第四一八號指出「憲法第十六條保障人民有訴訟之權,旨在確保人民有依法定程序受公平審判之權利。」釋字第四三六號亦表明「國家刑罰權之發動與運 作,必須符合正當法律程序之最低要求。」個案正義的落實,所賴絕不止於實體審理結果的有罪、無罪,並兼含程序實踐的過程與堅持。(作者為士林地方法院 刑庭長)