2014年8月29日星期五




陳麗如說:「人與畜牲的差異,就是透過教育後,學習了知書達理,所謂(讀聖賢書所為何事?)但,時至今日,我們卻只能眼睜睜的、無奈和無助般的等待老天爺來懲罰這些惡人?人性如此卑劣?甚至於禽獸不如。自私自利、泯滅人性來迫害他人?果真牠的列祖劣宗全是邪靈來投胎?中國文化根本就是騙局,殘暴的人種?悠久的歷史只是鬥爭無恥的輪迴罷了。」
語文法資管教育博士陳昱元公評:
台灣政治係屬詐騙集團圖利文化,法界與醫界是詐騙集團大亨,醫院及法院是他們的營業場所,立法院是他們立法圖利據點。拿著健保卡看病,醫院向衛生署請款,請領多少錢,給患者簽證確認了嗎?醫院不會偽造單據請款嗎?但沒人監督。最高法院及地方法院刑事自訴案不聘律師,法官拒絕辦案,圖利律師賺錢、法官賺錢、或法官透過律師當白手套收賄,沒人監督。法官評鑑是假象,因法律見解不同不予評鑑,公說公有理婆說婆有理,法官說的是真理,台灣法官很神。馬英九說司法獨立,任由貪贓枉法法官繼續濫下去。選前騙選票,選後騙鈔票,人民死翹翹。有智慧的選民!妳還投票給醫生和律師候選人嗎?妳還投票給現任共犯立法委員嗎?市長與市議員合照看板,不是告訴妳幫派治市嗎?不是告訴妳球員兼裁判圖利集團治國嗎?請不要投票造業!萬般帶不走,只有業隨身。阿彌陀佛
clip_image002
clip_image003
clip_image005clip_image006clip_image007clip_image009clip_image011clip_image012clip_image013clip_image015clip_image016clip_image017clip_image018
clip_image020
clip_image023clip_image024clip_image022clip_image025clip_image026clip_image027
clip_image029clip_image031





2014年2月13日星期四

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.

http://yuhyuanchen.blogspot.tw/

A Series of Special Reports of Lawbreaker Judges in Taiwan 1

By Dr. James Yuan Chen, Cell Phone:+886933355656

Email: yuhyuan.chen@msa.hinet.net

clip_image002

clip_image004

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:

一、判決不適用法規或適用不當者,為違背法令。有下列各款情形之一者,其判決當然違背法令:(一)判決法院之組織不合法者;(二)依法律或裁判應迴避之法官參與裁判者;(三)法院於權限之有無辨別不當或違背專屬管轄之規定者;(四)當事人於訴訟未經合法代理或代表者;(五)違背言詞辯論公開之規定者;(六)判決不備理由或理由矛盾者。行政訴訟法第242條、第243條分別定有明

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.

二、當事人於93學年度下學期逮到校長陳正男及系主任駱藝瑄對本當事人著作外審升等上下其手教唆外審委員不給過關證據後,遞狀澎湖地檢署偵辦,引來了一連串的歷任校長謀害意志學校委員私仇公報的報復(歷任校長陳正男、林輝政、蕭泉源、王瑩瑋)。此後學校以「誣控濫告」及「濫發電子郵件」為由解讀為「行為不檢」:連續不給「年資晉級加薪」、不給「著作外審升等」、95學年度因長期受虐有點輕生念頭醫生診斷情緒障礙回學校請長期病假一年未滿學校就在96學年度決議停聘一年、97學年度決議繼續停聘、98及99學年度學校以「暫時繼續聘任」認定並二次報教育部「不續聘」遭教育部駁回、100年12月27日教育部同意「解聘」並依法無據要求學校行文教育部「列冊永不適任教師」,迄今二年多來沒有收入,每個月還得繳房貸信貸稅單帳單罰單…,債台高築且借貸無門,因有急迫性及無可挽回的傷害曾二度向法院聲請「暫時停止解聘行政處分」,法官先騙裁判費再駁回聲請落井下石。從民國93年起迄今,一路子「行政扭曲事實官官共犯謀害」、「司法不查動機真相次次包庇濫權」,當事人情何以堪!

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.

三、就台北高等行政法院101年度訴字第1298號判決的審判過程而言,其違

背法令事實如下:

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:

(一)各級法院職掌分別為:第一審是「事實審」、第二審是「嚴格事實審」、第三審是「法律審」。本案審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等怠忽職守,未盡職做好「嚴格事實審」,逕行駁回當事人「保全證據聲請」及「證人聲請」,法官權限辨別不當,違背法令判決事證明確。

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.

(二)本案只開庭一次,這一次叫「辯論庭」,當事人描述案情唱獨腳戲,被告

及法官「不辯」也「不論」,法官違背言詞辯論公開之規定,枉法裁判事證明確。

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.

(三)因許光志是執行校長意志迫害本當事人人權的主謀之一,依法應利益迴

避,不得球員兼裁判,且未具公務人員資格,無權充當訴訟代理人,本當事人庭

上聲請撤銷許光志充當訴訟代理人資格,法官充耳不聞,觸犯「當事人於訴訟未

經合法代理者」,違背法令枉法裁判事證明確。

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.

(四)本案審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等係前「停聘案」枉法

裁判法官,再審判本案恐有偏頗之虞,本當事人當庭聲請法官迴避,法官不予理

會,霸王硬上弓,觸犯「依法應迴避之法官參與裁判者」,違背法令枉法裁判事

證明確。

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.

(五)「自由心證」判決不得違反「論理法則」及「經驗法則」:當事人權益受損,

依法向法院告發理所當然,法官卻認同被告的「誣告濫告」說,審判長法官胡方

新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等違反「論理法則」,助紂為虐,權限辨別不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確。學校傷害當事人權益,溝通無門,為使真相大白,基

於「國家法益」及「個人法益」把學校不法行政的事實寄電子郵件給同仁知道,

希望同仁主張校園公平正義,法官卻認同被告的「信件騷擾」,傷害當事人的「秘

密通訊權」及「可受公評之事」的言論自由權,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、

法官李君豪等違反「經驗法則」,為虎作倀,權限辨別不當,違背法令判決,事

證明確。

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.

四、就台北高等行政法院101年度訴字第1298號解聘案的判決書內容七而言,

審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等違背法令枉法裁判的事實如下:

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」,

不得當法律引用,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等權限辨別不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確:本當事人根據學識及經驗,10月3日在庭上提出本

主張,法官不予理會,一意孤行。法官依法應就本當事人主張,暫時停止審判,

聲請大法官解釋,未料,法官不當一回事,權限辨別不當,違背法令判決,事證

明確。

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.

(二)「依法判決」,法就是「法律」。所謂「法律」,就是「立法院通過」「總統

公布」後實施者。「庭長法官聯席會議決議」只是「機關行政內規」,並非「全國

適用的法律」,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等法規適用不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確。

"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.

(三)違法行政造成司法追究,理所當然。審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法

官李君豪等引用教師法第33條規定:「教師不願申訴或不服申訴、再申訴決定

者,得按其性質依法提起訴訟或依訴願法或行政訴訟法或其他保障法律等有關規

定,請求救濟。」但卻認同被告「興訟」解讀為「行為不檢」之說,理由矛盾,

違背法令判決事證明確。

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.

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.

http://yuhyuanchen.blogspot.tw/

A Series of Special Reports of Lawbreaker Judges in Taiwan 1

By Dr. James Yuan Chen, Cell Phone:+886933355656

Email: yuhyuan.chen@msa.hinet.net

clip_image002

clip_image004

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:

一、判決不適用法規或適用不當者,為違背法令。有下列各款情形之一者,其判決當然違背法令:(一)判決法院之組織不合法者;(二)依法律或裁判應迴避之法官參與裁判者;(三)法院於權限之有無辨別不當或違背專屬管轄之規定者;(四)當事人於訴訟未經合法代理或代表者;(五)違背言詞辯論公開之規定者;(六)判決不備理由或理由矛盾者。行政訴訟法第242條、第243條分別定有明

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.

二、當事人於93學年度下學期逮到校長陳正男及系主任駱藝瑄對本當事人著作外審升等上下其手教唆外審委員不給過關證據後,遞狀澎湖地檢署偵辦,引來了一連串的歷任校長謀害意志學校委員私仇公報的報復(歷任校長陳正男、林輝政、蕭泉源、王瑩瑋)。此後學校以「誣控濫告」及「濫發電子郵件」為由解讀為「行為不檢」:連續不給「年資晉級加薪」、不給「著作外審升等」、95學年度因長期受虐有點輕生念頭醫生診斷情緒障礙回學校請長期病假一年未滿學校就在96學年度決議停聘一年、97學年度決議繼續停聘、98及99學年度學校以「暫時繼續聘任」認定並二次報教育部「不續聘」遭教育部駁回、100年12月27日教育部同意「解聘」並依法無據要求學校行文教育部「列冊永不適任教師」,迄今二年多來沒有收入,每個月還得繳房貸信貸稅單帳單罰單…,債台高築且借貸無門,因有急迫性及無可挽回的傷害曾二度向法院聲請「暫時停止解聘行政處分」,法官先騙裁判費再駁回聲請落井下石。從民國93年起迄今,一路子「行政扭曲事實官官共犯謀害」、「司法不查動機真相次次包庇濫權」,當事人情何以堪!

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.

三、就台北高等行政法院101年度訴字第1298號判決的審判過程而言,其違

背法令事實如下:

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:

(一)各級法院職掌分別為:第一審是「事實審」、第二審是「嚴格事實審」、第三審是「法律審」。本案審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等怠忽職守,未盡職做好「嚴格事實審」,逕行駁回當事人「保全證據聲請」及「證人聲請」,法官權限辨別不當,違背法令判決事證明確。

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.

(二)本案只開庭一次,這一次叫「辯論庭」,當事人描述案情唱獨腳戲,被告

及法官「不辯」也「不論」,法官違背言詞辯論公開之規定,枉法裁判事證明確。

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.

(三)因許光志是執行校長意志迫害本當事人人權的主謀之一,依法應利益迴

避,不得球員兼裁判,且未具公務人員資格,無權充當訴訟代理人,本當事人庭

上聲請撤銷許光志充當訴訟代理人資格,法官充耳不聞,觸犯「當事人於訴訟未

經合法代理者」,違背法令枉法裁判事證明確。

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.

(四)本案審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等係前「停聘案」枉法

裁判法官,再審判本案恐有偏頗之虞,本當事人當庭聲請法官迴避,法官不予理

會,霸王硬上弓,觸犯「依法應迴避之法官參與裁判者」,違背法令枉法裁判事

證明確。

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.

(五)「自由心證」判決不得違反「論理法則」及「經驗法則」:當事人權益受損,

依法向法院告發理所當然,法官卻認同被告的「誣告濫告」說,審判長法官胡方

新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等違反「論理法則」,助紂為虐,權限辨別不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確。學校傷害當事人權益,溝通無門,為使真相大白,基

於「國家法益」及「個人法益」把學校不法行政的事實寄電子郵件給同仁知道,

希望同仁主張校園公平正義,法官卻認同被告的「信件騷擾」,傷害當事人的「秘

密通訊權」及「可受公評之事」的言論自由權,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、

法官李君豪等違反「經驗法則」,為虎作倀,權限辨別不當,違背法令判決,事

證明確。

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.

四、就台北高等行政法院101年度訴字第1298號解聘案的判決書內容七而言,

審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等違背法令枉法裁判的事實如下:

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」,

不得當法律引用,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等權限辨別不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確:本當事人根據學識及經驗,10月3日在庭上提出本

主張,法官不予理會,一意孤行。法官依法應就本當事人主張,暫時停止審判,

聲請大法官解釋,未料,法官不當一回事,權限辨別不當,違背法令判決,事證

明確。

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.

(二)「依法判決」,法就是「法律」。所謂「法律」,就是「立法院通過」「總統

公布」後實施者。「庭長法官聯席會議決議」只是「機關行政內規」,並非「全國

適用的法律」,審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法官李君豪等法規適用不當,

違背法令判決,事證明確。

"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.

(三)違法行政造成司法追究,理所當然。審判長法官胡方新、法官蕭惠芳、法

官李君豪等引用教師法第33條規定:「教師不願申訴或不服申訴、再申訴決定

者,得按其性質依法提起訴訟或依訴願法或行政訴訟法或其他保障法律等有關規

定,請求救濟。」但卻認同被告「興訟」解讀為「行為不檢」之說,理由矛盾,

違背法令判決事證明確。

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.