First watch this amazing video about prosecutor 林勤綱s theatrical performance in court (檢察官激情演出):
The media hailed his performance as touching. The problem is that 林勤綱 is not an actor paid to perform. He is a public servant getting paid to present beyond-reasonable-doubt evidence that the accused was guilty.
What 林勤綱 did was akin to singing in a library. He might be a tremendous singer, but his behavior is completely inappropriate. And yet the media applauded: praising his performance while ignoring the paucity of evidence presented against Chen.
A fellow who calls himself 《建國廣場》傅雲欽律師 wrote a very long article entitled 我所認識的林勤綱. The article, as his other articles,
does not condemn judicial system's unrestrained violation of due process,
does not condemn its open and completely shameless use of double standards in dealing with Ma and Chen in particular and KMT and others in general,
does not condemn 林勤綱's theatrical performance with absence of legal merits.
I expected 傅雲欽 as a lawyer to educate people about the merit of the case. He did none of that. Worse, he handed Chen an early guilty verdict (陳水扁的罪行), and cheered 林勤綱:
震撼人心
搶盡陳水扁鋒頭
他的「爆紅」
陳水扁的慌張
What kind of person is 林勤綱?
林勤綱曾跟我說他年輕時加入國民黨是充滿熱血的。
This should make us reasonably and strongly question 林勤綱's integrity as a prosecutor.We must demand to know whether 蔡守訓 and others are also KMT members.
The following, just as 林勤綱's performing in court, is completely irrelevant and inappropriate:
《建國廣場》傅雲欽律師: 你們不是還在吃國民黨人或統派的屎嗎？現在雖然改吃扁屎，但扁屎吃多了，就可以以滿口胡言亂語嗎？ Translated: Arn't you still feasting on the feces of KMT or pro-annexation school? Now you switch to eating Chen's feces. Do you get a ticket to be full of gibberish if you get an overdose of Chen's feces?
《建國廣場》傅雲欽律師: 別笑死人了，扁蟲！ Translated: Don't make me laugh to death, Chen-insects!
《建國廣場》傅雲欽律師: 試問現今這個時代，法官還要分藍綠嗎？ Translated: At this age, should judges still be partisan?
The last bullet shows 傅雲欽's satisfaction with KMT-owned judicial system. He sees no problem with
judicial system's unfairness and violation of due process in Chen and Ma's cases
judicial system's stonewalling Diane Lee's (李慶安) case for 513 days as of today
judicial system's stonewalling all treason cases against Ma ying-Jeou. The sidebar shows: 柯建銘2008年8月9日控告馬英九叛國, 距今 363 天
judicial system's refusal to investigate Ma and Hau for 貓纜, 捷運木柵內湖線, and 新生高架橋改善工程
Jerome Cohen and Jerome Keating, among so many others, wrote repeatedly to criticize the judicial system's persecution of Chen. Are these people 陳水扁的打手, 扁蟲, or 扁奴?
Relative to the shock and disgust felt outside of Taiwan about the incredibly illegal proceedings in KMT's persecution of 陳水扁 and his family and friends, Taiwanese are amazingly mute. In regards to the extreme unethical and unprofessional conducts of 台北地檢署檢察官,
In a celebration of the 63rd Law Day (司法節), ... Taipei District Prosecutor Office arranged a show on the stage to humiliate the accused, the former President Chen Shui-bian, who is still under THEIR OWN ongoing investigations.
Taiwanese reactions are inappropriate for civilized people:
None of the prosecutors had been disciplined
Not only that, Justice Minister Wang openly defended the act as clean fun
Judges, prosecutors and lawyers being entertained during the infamous event have been silent, making me wonder how they have the courage and sense of justice to defend citizens' rights.
Taiwanese should reflect on why it is foreigners who are fighting for their justice.
By William Lowther STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON Saturday, Jan 24, 2009, Page 3
Two important Taiwan experts based in Washington have added their names to the open letter published in the Taipei Times earlier this week expressing concern about what they see as an erosion of justice in Taiwan.
The new signatories are former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Randall Schriver and George Washington University academic Michael Yahuda.
In the original letter a group of international academics and writers urged President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to order an independent inquiry into the way police squashed protests during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).
The letter said: “The establishment of a scrupulously neutral commission is essential if there is to be a fair and objective conclusion on the disturbances that occurred during the Chen Yunlin visit.”
Freedom House, Amnesty International and US professor Jerome Cohen have also strongly recommended an independent inquiry.
At the same time, the group has expressed concern about the legal proceedings in the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan that preceded a switch from a three-judge panel that had released the former president on his own cognizance to a court that subsequently detained him again.
The letter said there had been a “widespread pattern of leaks to the media regarding ongoing cases — leaks, which because of their content and nature can only have come from the prosecutors’ offices.”
It mentioned a recent skit in which some prosecutors involved in Chen’s case poked fun at the former president.
“This pattern of behavior displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes,” it said.
It concluded by again urging Ma “to ensure that your government and its judiciary and parliamentary institutions safeguard the full democracy, human rights and freedom of expression.”
In an article published this week in its Taiwan Communique, the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs said the last few months had seen a further erosion of human rights and democracy in Taiwan.
It said the downward slide started in mid-October with the arrest and detention of former and present officials of the Democratic Progressive Party administration and worsened with aggressive police behavior during the Chen Yunlin visit in early November.
“Both developments were reminiscent of Taiwan’s police state under the Kuomintang’s [KMT] martial law, which lasted from 1947 until 1987,” the article said.
It quoted Cohen, who was Ma’s law professor at Harvard, as saying that the recent court proceedings against Chen Shui-bian “mocked the promise” of fairness.
“At what point does the presumption of innocence become meaningless and the pre-conviction detention morph into punishment for a crime not finally proved?” Cohen asked.
The allegation that 扁案 proceeding was unconstitutional cannot be answered with No comment:
黃瑞華與洪英花: the case was handled unconstitionally because of ... 賴英照: No comment.
To say no comment means he will proceed even if the case is indeed handled unconstitutionally. As Justice Chief, he is responsible to make sure that the case was handled legally. So, why is it that he did not even put out a pretense of respecting law? The ethical facade was destroyed by his unethically stonewalling us with no comments when we need him to assure us that the proceeding was legal.
Finally, what's his comment about stonewalling 李慶安's American citizenship investigation for 300 days and 馬英九叛國 cases for 150 days? He has nothing to say.
