A Series of Special Reports of Lawbreaker Judges in Taiwan 1
By Dr. James Yuan Chen, Cell Phone:+886933355656
台北高等行政法院101年度訴字第1298號解聘並列冊永不適用教師案，審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等枉法裁判，有權無The Sued No. 1298 for the year 2012 of the Taipei High Administrative Court about tenure lecturer dismissed and listed as inappropriate teacher forever violates the constitution in Taiwan by presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin(胡方新), Siao Huei Fang(蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao(李君豪), which is definitely contrary to the decrees. But the judges do it without taking any responsibilities. 責，事證明確如下：
Surely, they play unfair things with the participants. The concrete evidence is as follows:
The judgment not applying the recognized laws or improper use violates the required decrees. One of the following circumstances, of course, is contrary to the laws of their judgment: (a) the organization of the judgment of the court which is not legitimate; (b) the judges who should avoid the case participation but not; (c) the authority of the court identifying the job range inappropriately or violating the limited range of the public power ownership ; (d) the parties without legal representation or representatives; (e) contrary to make public the provisions of oral arguments; (f) the judgment contrary to reasons or without reasons. Administrative Litigation Law Article 242 and Article 243 are set respectively.
The lecturer Dr. Chen catches President Chen Zheng Nan (陳正男) and Department Head Luo Yi Syuan (駱藝瑄) cheating against his promotion through book and research reviews by outsiders and files a suit against the cheaters in the academic year of 2004. Thereafter, a series of revenge continuously happen through four Presidents, Chen Jheng Nan (陳正男), Lin Huei Jheng (林輝政), Siao Cyuan Yuan (蕭泉源), and Wang Ying Wei (王瑩瑋). They interpret the lawsuit and communicative emails as misbehaviors and punish Dr. Chen several times on purpose: no seniority promotion and pay successively, no publication reviews promotion, one-year sick leave approved but suspended and hiring stopped in the academic year 2007, then the hiring also stopped in the academic year 2008, contemporarily hired in the academic year 2009 and 2010 and the school reporting to the Ministry of Education for discontinued hiring but rejected twice, on December 27 of 2011 fired and listed inappropriate teacher forever not based on the law. Up to the present time, Dr. Chen hasn’t had any incomes and has to pay all the bills monthly, including home loans, credit loans, tax bills, billing everyday life, and paying tickets. There are many debts and no ways to borrow money from fiends or banks. Due to urgency and irreparable harm, Dr. Chen applied for stopping implementing the administrative punishment but judges requested pay for judgment first and then rejected the application. They are liars and cruel people. They just put Dr. Chen down. Everyone saves natural disasters, but they create a human catastrophe.
According to the Sued No. 1298 for the year 2012 of the Taipei High Administrative Court about tenure lecturer dismissed and listed as inappropriate teacher forever, the illegal processes are as follows:
The courts of the three levels are responsible respectively as follows: the fact investigation for the district court, the strict fact investigation for the high court, and the law review for the highest court. The presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) don’t take the responsibilities doing the strict fact investigation for this case. On the contrary, they reject the teacher’s application for the preservation of evidence claims and witness claims. The judges abuse their power and violate the laws obviously.
The case was opened one court session only. This time is called "debate tribunal." Dr. Chen described the case details very clearly but like doing the sing-man show. The defendants and the judges "do not argue or ask," also " had no comments on plaintiff". Evidently, the judges violate the provisions of public oral arguments. Capricious and arbitrary judgments are proven.
Because Xu Guang-zhi (許光志) is one of the masterminds of the persecution of the human rights of Dr. Chen, he should recuse himself to avoid interest conflicts. Never play the game with two roles, player and referee at the same time. In addition, he is not a qualified public servant. Accordingly, he should be absent from the court presentation based on the laws. The judges ignore Dr. Chen’s expressions and violate the law of lawful representatives on purpose. The illegal judges are proven.
The presiding judges in this case, Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) are the previous illegal judges for the stopping hiring cases. If they accept the case again, Dr. Chen will be worried about whether they will play fair with him or not. Therefore, they should recuse themselves to avoid interest conflicts based on Dr. Chen’s application, but they neglect. They act forcibly like rogues. Obviously, they violate the Public Officer Conflict of Interest Avoidance Act without responsibilities.
According to "freedom of mental evidence," the judges shall not violate the "law of logic" and the "rule of thumb." Because of Dr. Chen’s individual human rights damaged, he files a suit against lawbreakers that is accepted and reasonable. But the judges unreasonably accepted the defendants’ points of view, false accusations. The presiding judges in this case, Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) violate the "law of logic" and aid the evildoers. The judges are unable to identify the limited public power and violate the laws. Unfair judgments are proven.
The school harms Dr. Chen’s interests and there are no ways to communicate with school administrators. Therefore, Emailing letters to the school’s colleagues is acceptable based on the constitution for democratic countries. In such a way, Dr. Chen hopes that colleagues on campus can support school justice. But the judges agree with the defendants' interpretation as “letters of harassment.” The judges abuse power evidently. The presiding judges in this case, Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) collectively Harm Dr. Chen’s "secret communication rights," "public comment rights, " and "the right to freedom of speech". Also, they violate the "rules of thumb" and aid evildoers. Unfair judgments are proven.
According to the judgment contents of the Sued No. 1298 for the year 2012 of the Taipei High Administrative Court about tenure lecturer dismissed and listed as inappropriate teacher forever, the presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) are definitely contrary to the decrees violating the constitution in Taiwan, but the judges abuse power without taking any responsibilities. The concrete evidence is as follows:
（一）「最高行政法院98年7 月份第1 次庭長法官聯席會議決議」並非「法律」，
The "resolution" of the 1st Joint Meeting of the President Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court in July 2009 is not a "law" and shall not be applied as legal references. The presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) cannot identify the limited range of public power and violate the law without any responsibilities. Dr. Chen, based on expertise and experience made this assertion in court on October 3, but the judges disregarded arbitrarily. They take their own course. Based on the law, the judges should stop reviewing the case and make a report to the Council of Grand Justices for explanations because of Dr. Chen’s professional assertion. The judges do nothing without any responsibilities. They are unable to identify their limited public power and abuse power. That is for sure.
"Lawful judgment" is based on law. The so-called "law" means that it is passed by "Legislative Yuan" and announced by the President of Taiwan. The "Presiding Judges’ Joint Conference resolution" is not the law. At best, it is merely "the rule within the administrative office.” It is not an "applicable national law." The presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) cannot identify the limited range of public power and violate the law without any responsibilities. That is for sure.
Unlawful administration will cause judicial accountability that is for sure. The presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) cite the Article 33 of the Teachers Act: "Teachers do not want to complain or refuses to accept the appeal and re-appeal decision making. They can request relief through a lawsuit according to event property or other related safeguard laws like Administrative Appeal Act or Administrative Litigation Act. But the judges agree with the defendants' interpretation of lawsuit as "disorderly conduct." The judgments are in conflict with the facts and laws. It is hard to believe that the presiding Judge Hu Fang Sin (胡方新), Siao Huei Fang (蕭惠芳), and Li Jyun Hao (李君豪) are lawbreakers without any responsibilities.