Remarks, “20130708 Letter to Ombudsman Mr Wang of Control Yuan”
The trivial proof of Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 which the law court was violating, leading to the miscarriage of justice of libel case in New Taipei District Court No. 101 Savant Yi 2318, explained to the Control Yuan Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien as following:
Given the Assumption C, the logic which backs up the criminal procedural code provision 158 is, If A then B. However, adding the condition with the privy as the defendant of libel case was also the witness of the rape case summoned by district court thirty years ago to be the evidence of the controversial libel consisting legal element of illegitimate daughter which is known to the district court, the assumption would change from Assumption C to Assumption I. Given the Assumption I, the initial condition of logic changed from A to X, and the logic which backs up the criminal procedural code becomes, If X then Y. But if the Supreme Court Prosecutors Office still denies the evidence revealed by the defendant as a law court rape case witness and the cited criminal procedural code would be with the logic that, If X then B. Because the law court is lying to the evidence of controversial libel legal element of the illegitimate daughter and seems ignorant of the absence of legal consisting element of the libel case, therefore decides a custodial sentence upon the privy as the libel defendant. The law court violates the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 with the fallacy of composition, in that, if one of the accused citing the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 to expect to be acquitted from the libel court only with bona fides is true, therefore all the accused citing the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 would expect to be acquitted from the libel court only with bona fides. This is clearly fallacious, because many are not only with the bona fides but with the evidences.
If the Supreme Court were to insist the conflicts in logic of violating Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158, which would serve as a brutal lie only, the privy as the libel defendant would have to end up the trivial proof with the argument of Copernicus versus the church of heliocentric theory to conclude the logic deduction.
However, the trivial proof of law court violating the criminal procedural code should be only submitted with a lawyer who could appear in the supreme court, or with the condition that the supreme court summons the defendant to present it. Therefore, the privy as the libel defendant of a miscarriage of justice case, only in written appealing document claim the libel case verdict to be invalidated by the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 1 succeeding the Criminal Procedural Code Provision 158 violation.
Hereby, Mr David CK Chang, as the privy and the libel defendant, make a request to the Control Yuan Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien for an impeachment of the Supreme Court Prosecutors Office for denying the miscarriage of justice of the concerned libel case.