The Actus reus and the Mens rea of Petty Theft 2000.3.29 alleged case

English: City University of New York system logo.

English: City University of New York system logo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1.”Mr. Chang who was involved a petty theft to defend the rights of citizens to budge the Special Interests Group(SIG) to reveal the identity and also a company’s e-commerce in Mr Douglas Tong Hsu’s French Hypermarket…” (Date:099/11/12 @ 13:39, TO:Justice Yuan, Title:Petty-theft witness under Justice secret protection with a new identity of National Security Bureau female military officer was alleged to wiretap and hook up to receive the call of CitiBank Customer Service; NSB officer alleged to wiretap and hook up receiving call of the CitiBank Customer Sevice)

2.”Mr David Chang, the suspect of petty theft case happened in Douglas Tong Hsu’s French Mall, he had a dialogue in February 2000 with the NSB Second Lieutenant Officer Ms Yang Shru-chen, who was the later Taipei District Court Prosecutor Ms Yang Shru-chen in March 2000, to say that he was engaged in a process to investigate the local human rights offense and drug gang activities, and the energy device or weapon harassment of resulting fraud caused by gangster criminals which may cause the death of a lot of citizens…Besides, the young son of Mr Douglas Tong Hsu, the petty officer or sergeant of the Panchiao Military Police Station in 2000, was said to be appeared in the Mall on the very day…”  

“The applicable law were : 
The ROC Criminal Code Article 23: For now unlawful infringement, and for the right to defend themselves or others act, not of punishment.  
The ROC Criminal Code Article 24: Behavior to prevent themselves or others because of life, body, liberty, property out of the emergency, not of punishment.  
The ROC Code of Criminal Procedure Article 63: The presiding judge, ordered Judge, Magistrate or Prosecutor entrusted with the law court proceedings date specified, should notify the related persons to be summoned to attend and present in the litigation proceedings. But this provision can be skipped if the litigation related parties have presented or if there are other special provisions regulated in this law.”(Date:100/01/05 @ 14:20, TO:Judicial Yuan, Title:Details of the Long-term Harassment by NSB Agents and The Law Applicable to the Case; The law applicable to the NSB harassment case )
 
3.”The Actus reus and the Mens rea” from Wikipedia,  
*****This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.***** 
“One of the mental components often raised in issue is that of motive. If the accused admits to having a motive consistent with the elements of foresight and desire, this will add to the level of probability that the actual outcome was intended (it makes the prosecution case more credible). But if there is clear evidence that the accused had a different motive, this may decrease the probability that he or she desired the actual outcome. In such a situation, the motive may become subjective evidence that the accused did not intend, but was reckless or willfully blind.[citation needed] 
Motive cannot be a defense. If, for example, a person breaks into a laboratory used for the testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of an actus reus, i.e. entry without consent and damage to property, and a mens rea, i.e. intention to enter and cause the damage. That the person might have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest such testing does not affect liability. If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the sentencing part of the trial, when the court considers what punishment, if any, is appropriate.[citation needed]” 
 
4.Around the Mother’s Day in May 1996, the City University of New York(CUNY), Baruch Business Graduate School had sent the I-20 form to grant the admission to me, Mr David Chang. On this day around 1996 mother’s day I appeared with my family members at the French Mall the same French HyperMart Mall as the March 29, 2000 dismissed petty theft case mentioned above, that is, the Geant HyperMark in Banqiao(reference to the article with a France national flag thumbnail picture, posted on Yahoo! blog on 2010/07/23 11:29, “The story of Mr Wua and Ms Li(Chinese language)”小華與小俐的故事 http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/chaokai_chang/article?mid=1860&prev=1874&next=1856&l=f&fid=19″ ). The timing was just one month before I went to New York City for the hindered overseas graduate study departure on June 29, 1996 for three months before dropout. My sister Mei-ling Chang on this day in May 1996 was screaming in public because she was directly attacked by the energy device of harassment in the parking lot of the French Mall Geant Hyper, accompany the attack was the insulting that she was a psycho and an activity of making a remote reference to the Taipei international student Mr David Chang, me, claiming that David Chang probably was to be also a psycho. There was also an activity of paying for information transaction ongoing, happened with USA and Taiwan two-party agents involved. The USA side agent was identified as the City University of New York faculty, but the exchange activity could be conducted by another private university system independent agent such as agent from Rochester University, and also could be an agent from the State University of New York(SUNY) public school system. The Taiwan side was a salesman or clerk in that French Mall of Geant HyperMart at Panchiao(Banqiao). The transaction ended with a dialogue which the Taiwan side French Mall Geant Hyper salesman boasting that Taiwan with advanced technology to deliver the psychotherapy records of both Mr David Chang and his sister Mei-ling Chang’s within the very information exchange transaction day. The USA side returned words that the New York City with advanced financial technique that we Americans paying you for that information with modern financial credit system that you could cash it in no time after this transaction completed. The dialogue seemed to refer to a new regulation of USA that every information exchange transaction with a fixed amount of pay, NTD$ 48,000, or USD$1,600. The message flow further revealed the intent of USA agent that he did not care his identity to be revealed but intended to have a record kept of that transaction together with the Taipei counterpart’s identity(could be for investigating 1994 August sergeant Eva Ivory death case). To leave a record, the USA agent offered Taiwan agent in that French Mall a double amount of bonus, saying that since that Taiwan agent was giving not only Mr Chang’s psychiatric record but also Chang’s sister’s, the USA agent would pay double, that is, USD$3,200, or NTD100,000. Certainly the USA agent knew that the money amount would just be the threshold to start a money laundering investigation.

5. In February, 2000, the young son of Mr Douglas Tong Hsu, a petty officer who was ever subordinate to Mr David Chang, me, in 1994 before Sergeant Eva Ivory’s death on August 14, 1994 at the Panchiao Military Police Station. Mr Hsu and his son ever had a quarrel with the dead USA sergeant Ms Eva Ivory in 1994 about his short stature and ever filed a false record accusing that Mr David Chang hit his son the petty officer’s head in the military camp while actually that was another platoon leader Mr Wang Chien-Tien did. Mr Hsu’s young son was said to be appeared in the French Mall, Geant HyperMart on the very day which the alleged petty theft case happened. Mr Douglas Tong Hsu told some local official later in that year that his young son had just returned back to Taiwan with the California girl from Orange County Ms Lily King on a military training off Taiwan area(in the USA) for more than 10 months. Mr Douglas Tong Hsu was arranging them to avert the pursuit of the relatives of some dead recruits from that off-Taiwan-military-training and just happened to make use of this petty theft law court dismissed case on March 29, 2000.

6. During July to August in 1996 at New York City, Mr Liu Dong-Yun of the later Taipei District Court prosecutor and judge, who was in Military Police(MP) Academy 43rd class of July 1993, appeared in the New York City military gathering occasion to watch the CUNY Baruch student David Chang, me, attending graduate school class and doing homework. Around a week or so before August 9, 1996 Mr Liu Dong-Yun was asked angrily by a USA commander of a Pyramid with a top as talisman of the Washington DC area, “Who carried it here? I will punish him!” Mr Liu Dong-Yun said it was carried by “David Chang” and used his index finger pointing to the surveillance monitor to refer to me, at the time attending the Baruch business school graduate program. I was observed secretly by around ten to twenty MP 43rd classmates and some one hundred other citizens from Taipei area who came to New York City in early June1996. I was observed by them to attend the CUNY Baruch graduate school business class since August 2, 1996, and also my name was appeared on the revenge list secretly handed in by NSB(National Security Bureau) agent Ms Chen Chu and Legislator Mr Chen Shui-bian previously in 1994 after Eva Ivory had died. That USA commander who asked Mr Liu Dong-Yun about the talisman seemed avidly seeking the missed pyramid top of the military talisman of Washington DC, but anyhow he could not find it. Within that week my grandmother Chang Wang-me was killed by medical gross negligence in TVG(Taipei Veteran General) Hospital of a secret direct order in the name of a discrimination parallel Human-Resource-Second-Division file written by former governor Mr Clinton in November 1990 who came to Taiwan and asking for my name saying it was used for a report to the United Nations Child Abuse Case. The order was from the KMT(Kuomintang) system command line of KMT Chairman Lee Tang-hui secretly conducted command passing to the later Examination Yuan Chief and Legislator Mr Yao Chia-wen of the DPP(Democratic Progressive Party) member who was then with DPP Legislator Mr Kong Ning-shang. Mr Yao gave a direct order online in message form to the TGV Hospital surgeon to kill my grandmother, and it was later reported in paper form with Mr Yao Chia-Wen’s name on it by one of the 105th MP Investigating Station officer but later covered by then Taipei County Administrative Chief Mr Sue Chen-Chang in 2000. The Harvard MPH alumni of DPP legislator Mr Lee Ying-yuan seemed to have a backup report to the USA after Mr Sue Chen-Chang had covered this case in 2000. That talisman with top of pyramid shape was said to be carried back to Taiwan to Mr Douglas Dong Hsu’s keeping, and the explanation to the USA official query later was that the talisman had been brought to the USA from Taiwan after sergeant Eva Ivory’s death on August 14, 1994, therefore the talisman was belonging to Taiwan and therefore brought back to be kept by Mr Dong Douglas Hsu.

David CK Chang, SSN057-86-4042,

June 5, 2012,

National Central Library,

Taipei City

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s