Law enforcement, military, government employees or justice should not be affiliated with any political party … even more, they should not be able to vote as long as they work for the government …
[quote=“Belgian Pie”][quote][quote]With all those hundreds of billions that CSB and DPP[/quote] had looted, I am quite sure he will get away scotch free, eventually. Personally, I believe he and his family deserves capital punishment for all those acts of greed, and damages done to the government there of, that essentially amounts to treachery.
[/quote]
I have no idea where you get that figure but it sounds more like a KMT figure of embezzlement and corruption, stealing from the public, over all the years …[/quote]
Yes. LTH also got a nice stash, but mostly from KMT. I believe has never had a chance to get his cut in the Lafayette deal. No where near the amount like the Green Bandits took.
As for CKS and his son, they consider the whole Taiwan belong to them anyway, therefore came down hard on corruption, some were executed. Because that would be effectively dipping into Chiangs’ pocket.
[quote=“LPeterC”]
As for CKS and his son, they consider the whole Taiwan belong to them anyway, therefore came down hard on corruption, some were executed. Because that would be effectively dipping into Chiangs’ pocket.[/quote]
Again, I think you are incorrect here. From all the books I’ve read, it has generally been stated that CKS and his family weren’t corrupt. That they generally lived pretty modest lives, especially CCK. However, they were loyal to a fault (unless directly challenged), so that often meant they tolerated lots of graft within the party without removing the people.
In other words, were they corrupt themselves? I’d say no. Did they tolerate corruption in others that were loyal? Certainly.
Corruption has no meaning for a dictator, they control everything and use the states resources at their disposal. CKS was part of the green gang in Shanghai, he was swimming in corruption as were the whole
KMT apparatus which is obviously one of the main reasons they got booted out of China. His son might have been a bit better sure in his economic and political vision.
I’m sure some here would argue that mafia bosses who avoid the dirty work themselves are also not corrupt. However, I believe the law (to say nothing of common sense) tends to consider the matter in a different way.
Not exactly.
An appeal from a District Court judgment may be grounded on issues of fact or of law, and as such, the High Court may review both questions of fact and of law all over again, even where such questions have already been reviewed by the District Court. However, the grounds on which an appeal may be based when asking the Supreme Court to review are very restricted. Per Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal to the Supreme Court may be made, except on the grounds that the original judgment contravenes relevant laws and or regulations.
One of the areas for reform that Taiwan’s Non-Governmental Judicial Reform Foundation has been pushing from the very beginning back in the late 1990s is the excessive number of appeals that are granted in Taiwan. In this regard, the NGJRF has hoped to reform the judiciary in the following manner:
[b]Civil Matters
a)[/b] enhance fact finding function of District Courts
b) permit appeals to High Courts on legal issues only (in principle)
c) appeals strictly limited to legal issues at Supreme Court
Criminal Matters
Move toward adversarial system in criminal trials
Thanks for the clarification.
This has already happened has it not?
Thanks, Feiren.
Tigerman: you write that appeals only go to the Supreme Court for the following reasons:
But that seems to contradict my experience reading about cases in the news. We hear of appeals to the Supreme Court very regularly. Such as here:
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003517207
[quote]Gary Wang and the other defendants were sentenced for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act (證券交易法), the Banking Act (銀行法), the Company Act (公司法), the Insurance Act (保險法), the Government Procurement Act (政府採購法), corruption, breach of trust, forgery and other offenses, the ruling said.
The case can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.[/quote]
Now surely there were no irregularities in the first two trials. I fully grant that the media may not be reporting correctly but it certainly seems as if people are allowed to take their case to the supreme court most of the time.
I’d appreciate any effort to inform me here.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]Tigerman: you write that appeals only go to the Supreme Court for the following reasons:
But that seems to contradict my experience reading about cases in the news. We hear of appeals to the Supreme Court very regularly. Such as here:
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003517207
[quote]Gary Wang and the other defendants were sentenced for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act (證券交易法), the Banking Act (銀行法), the Company Act (公司法), the Insurance Act (保險法), the Government Procurement Act (政府採購法), corruption, breach of trust, forgery and other offenses, the ruling said.
The case can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.[/quote]
Now surely there were no irregularities in the first two trials. I fully grant that the media may not be reporting correctly but it certainly seems as if people are allowed to take their case to the supreme court most of the time.
I’d appreciate any effort to inform me here.[/quote]
MM, I don’t know very much at all about those particular trials other than what I vaguely remember being reported in the news a while back and now the report that you cited above. So, I’ll just briefly relate what I know of how the Taiwan system is supposed to work and how it often works:
OK… I see where the confusion is coming from… The bit I posted above comes directly from Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan. However, see below for how it really works. You will see clearly, I think, where the JY’s description should be revised ([color=#FF0000]see the parts I bolded in red[/color]):
It is quite true that there are, relatively speaking, a large volume of appeals made to the Supreme Court in Taiwan. I read the report that you cited, but, I don’t know whether there were any irregularities at the District and or High Courts. But, in any event, either party is entitled to appeal the High Court verdict to the Supreme Court. Being entitled to appeal, of course, does not mean that one will be successful.
After the High Court issues its judgment, both parties are notified of the judgment and advised as to the deadline for filing an appeal. Appeals are actually sent to the High Court, rather than to the Supreme Court, for initial processing. The High Court will look at an appeal to make certain that a) it is timely filed and b) it states minimally a desire to appeal the High Court’s judgment. If the appeal does not state specific grounds for the appeal, the High Court will request that the same be submitted to the Supreme Court as a supplement to the original appeal, provided of course that the appellant has appealed in a timely manner.
However, the High Court does not screen appeals with respect to whether the grounds for appeal are based on facts or on law. Thus, if the appeal submitted to the High Court 1) contains a statement indicating the appellant’s desire to appeal the High Court judgment and 2) is timely filed, the High Court will send the appeal on to the Supreme Court.
[color=#FF0000]Unlike in the US [/color](I’m a US attorney, so my contrast will be with the SCOTUS), [color=#FF0000]where the SCOTUS accepts appeals only on a very discretionary basis[/color], [color=#FF0000]Taiwan’s Supreme Court “accepts” all timely and properly filed appeals[/color]. Thus, while the SCOTUS simply does not accept appeals filed on improper grounds (such as on questions of fact), the Taiwan Supreme Court will “accept” and review an appeal even if the appeal argues facts rather than law. [color=#FF0000]According to Taiwan’s relevant law (the stuff I cited above), however, an appeal arguing facts (such as evidentiary issues) should be dismissed or rejected[/color] without any review of the accuracy of its assertions . Of course, even an appeal that argues an improper application or interpretation of law can be dismissed as erroneous or otherwise without merit. Thus, Taiwan’s Supreme Court will accept appeals based on both fact and law issues, but, will (should) dismiss appeals arguing facts without looking at the accuracy or merits of such arguments.
In practice here in Taiwan, even appeals asserting an improper application or interpretation of law usually contain a substantial restatement of the facts, often in a way that puts them in the best light for the appellant, and thus the Supreme Court judges need to look through each appeal to first ascertain whether the appeal is arguing facts or law, and then decide whether to accept or dismiss based on proper or improper grounds and then, if proper grounds, whether to rule in favor or against based on merit or lack of merit in the arguments regarding the application or interpretation of the law at the lower courts.
Thus, the following statement that I cited above should probably be revised somewhat as follows:
In any event, the evidence is not reconsidered at the Supreme Court, except as part of the cursory review to ascertain whether the appeal asserts factual arguments or arguments regarding an improper or incorrect application or interpretation of the law or regulations.
Hope that helps.
Thank you for such a full answer.