Remarks, “20130705 Letter to Ombudsman Wang of Control Yuan”
1. Of a false allegation libel charge which the accused suspect or defendant had been strongly arguing for eighteen months to be without any legal element to consist the crime, the dismiss of a libel criminal investigation which the defendant claimed the evidence out of a witness status thirty years ago of the rape case which was bringing upon the birth of the illegitimate daughter that inappropriately referred by the libel court as legal consisting element and alleged a cumulative penalty, serving nothing but only a lie coming from the very law court, if a second prosecutor of the same libel court intended to decide a dismiss with the evidence claimed by the accused innocent witness wishing to testify for a criminal death case to be innocent with the plaintiff withdrawing the libel lawsuit, the prosecutor statement should be going as such, “The investigation for the allegation of libel with the plaintiff withdrawing accusation to be dismissed.” The prosecutor’s statement should not be stated as “A cumulative penalty allegation confirmed by the prosecutor with the plaintiff withdrawing the libel lawsuit to dismiss the investigation.”
2. The impeachment of New Taipei District Court Prosecutors Office Prosecutor Hsu Shi-Yuan was requested by the very prosecutor for a simple closure from the District Court Prosecutors Office with a letter sent to the libel accused defendant who filed the impeachment, offered a simple statement saying that, “The impeachment accusation from the very libel criminal suspect was apparently lacking objective justification against the very prosecutor with the government judicial establishment conducting the investigation.” That is to say, the impeachment was simply closed by the District Court Prosecutors Office by lying to the legal consisting elements of libel case to rule an innocent libel suspect to be with an offense of misdemeanor, in spite of that which impeachment accusation was clearly stating that the prosecutor was confirming the false charged libel lawsuit and miscarriage of justice of No. 101 Savant Yi 2318 Libel Case lying to the evidence that the same district court ever summoned rape case witness bringing to court to be succeeded with clear law court statement of an additional cumulative penalty allegation of same libel case but dismissed investigation of the accusation with the same libel plaintiff withdrawing the lawsuit. That the District Court Prosecutors Office dictated the closure of impeachment of prosecutor saying that the libel suspect grossly inferred the prosecutor violating law provisions without any objective justifications, for the defendant and libel accused had been securing his innocence to the law court in written legal documents by a thirty-years-ago-summoned-witness status of the rape case that bringing about the birth of the illegitimate daughter which was right to be the libel accusing plaintiff repeated argued as the libel consisting legal elements in the same two accusations, it would be the response from the District Court Prosecutors Office simply framed the innocent defendant to assert that the innocent defendant had repeated twice to accuse the libel investigating prosecutors without any objective justification and was adequate to be deemed as rebellious toward the law court libel investigation to be wasting the time of the criminal law court, or simply a misdemeanor without careful thinking and shall be subject to custodial sentence instead of a proper libel criminal guilty sentence with penalty inflicted.