Date: 100/01/28 @ 11:58
To: Judicial Yuan
Name: David CK Chang
TITLE: Details of the waiver 1981 RAPC(Risk Agreement of Possessed Child).
Content: Dear Chief Justice Mr Hao-Ming Rai:
The following legal complaint is describing the details of the waiver 1981 RAPC(Risk Agreement of Possessed Child) document mentioned by two complaint documents sent to Judicial Yuan earlier this month(2011 January). The waiver RAPC was about the rights give-in on a 10-year-old manipulated possessed child Mr David Chang, a forty-year-old citizen of now the New Taipei City Panchiao District jurisdiction. The two Judicial legal complaints were,100/01/23 @ 16:12, “The Original Document of Risk Agreement of the Possessed Child Which Mrs Wu Shru-chen Claimed Dr Ma Ying-jeou had in 1996 Civil Rights Case.” 100/01/25 @ 13:30, “The supporting evidence of the Waiver of legal liability, RAPC(Risk Agreement of Possessed Child), discussed by the Human Rights Council in 1996 New York City.” This waiver RAPC mentioned in these two complaint documents was signed by my sister Mei-ling Chang when she was nine years old on a Lego toy company selling exhibition at Taipei City with my mother Mrs Wu Ying-shing when she was thirty-six years old in 1981. The timing was 1981, after the rapprochement breached between the ROC(Taiwan) and the USA, and the anniversary of Mr Ma Ying-jeou went to Boston for his Harvard Law School study of the doctorate degree. In Taipei City of some toy brick educational exhibition occasion(Lego), the nine-year-old child Ms Mei-ling Chang guided by the toy product promoting salesperson to sign an agreement of the content, “Agreement to give up legal compensation for any risk happened in the process of the manipulated possessed child (on scene).” The educational exhibition salesperson emphasized that any child who plays through the tutoring process would enhance IQ significantly. My nine-year-old sister was frequently praised for smart, quickly had my name “Chao-kai Chang” instead of hers signed on the paper and jumped onto the toy brick pile(Lego) on scene playing for about ten minutes before she was pushed down the toy brick pile by senior twelve-year-old male children who came in the exhibition. My mother was standing around the toy brick pile(Lego) but seemed to casually read books displayed on another booth. There were foreigners looked like infant educational workers or teachers, came near my mother and the salesperson who was collecting the signed agreements(waiver RAPC), blaming and notifying my mother that how could she(let my sister) sign that kind of legal rights give-in on document, because that was equal to slavery contract. Some young female of exhibition workers seemed to be from the Women Association in Taipei City, remarked in an arid tone that although many parents on scene signed that slavery contract with Lego toy company, there still were a lot more Taipei citizens did not sign that waiver RAPC. No wonder they were country folks coming from suburban area Taipei County without savvy of any law concept. Those ‘country folks’ who signed the waiver RAPC(Risk Agreement of Possessed Child) in 1981 at a Lego exhibition were very few, perhaps six of numbers count, including the agreement signed by Mr Lien Sheng-wen(Lien, Sean) of that pushy twelve-year-old group coming in the exhibition during my sister playing Lego toy. Mr Sean Lien(Sheng-wen Lien, the son of former Vice President Lien Chan) signed a subsidy attached contract when he was an elementary school teenager with pay around NTD$5000 monthly. It was later confirmed by an investigating law court in Taiwan(1994 and 1996, along with USA Sergeant Eva Ivory death case investigating and the filed lawsuit of relatives of Taiwan death recruits, as notified at Panchiao, Taipei County) that contract was a commercial sponsored one of merit-based, which was leading Mr Sean Lien in 1996 to have a chance to be enrolled to the subsidy offering commercial sponsor related Ivy League educational institute in New York City, the Columbia University. The 1981 Lego company and contract collecting party on that waiver RAPC did not have any mention of the effective duration nor did they have any mention of effective area. That was a slavery agreement by law except only Mr Sean Lien had a subsidy of NTD$5000 monthly for certain years. However, there were many other parents in the exhibition refused to sign that agreement. During the Lego educational exhibition in 1981, I was only 10 years old and at home myself, reading the children newspaper Mandarin Daily News, newly subscribed in my name, Chao-kai Chang, delivered just for the first week. In August 1996, this waiver RAPC(copy of that original document) was used by Taipei authority and the American Reading Machine Membership Company(ARM-MC, Taiwan area), submitted through a Japanese of the United Nations worker as the purpose of paper-form evidence for a plea of not guilty to the USA Federal Court in New York City on the Sergeant Eva Ivory Taipei death case, with the United Nations Human Rights Council officials as the jury. My role was blurred 1996 in New York City with my international student status with the F1-Visa issued by City University of New York Baruch Business School of its I-20 form. I never had any substantial material rewards paid from that Lego exhibition waiver contract except that my sister who signed it at the age of nine years old played the Lego toy bricks for only 10 minutes on scene. The Lego educational toy company was merged by an American financial group after that Taipei city sale promotion exhibition with those controversial RAPC waiver contracts collected by the ARM-MC and government officials related parties.
This following paragraph provides details related to the legal environment of Taipei in 1983 when my nine-year-old sister Ms Mei-ling Chang, instead of me, signed my RAPC(Risk Agreement of Possessed Child) in Lego toy exhibition. Last year on September 23, 2010 on Yahoo! Kimo personal website, I posted an article: “The White Fang of Mr Jack London and the United Nations child abuse case”. There was a law case of Taipei District Court mentioned in my Yahoo! Kimo posted article to reveal such a legal environment of Taipei. That lawsuit was happened two years later after my RAPC, a.k.a. slavery status agreement, had been signed by my nine-year-old sister, when I was twelve years old. That was about a series of classic literature adapted for children with hardcover which my mother Mrs Wu Yu-shing check out from the Taipei County Hope Elementary School Library for me to read. That hardcover series of books was edited and translated or adapted for children by an alumna who was just graduated from Harvard University majored in literature. She was from the Chang-Hua County of Taiwan. This series of classic literature adapted by that Harvard alumna for children seemed to have some copyright disputes with the England original author. However, the law case was that my cousin Mr Chang Jia-ling who was Taipei County Short-long Elementary School pupil in the Chung-her city area, with his mother Mrs Lin(Liu) Ming-hui, and one relative of then Taipei County Administrative Chief Mr Lin Fong-cheng, came to Taipei District Court to sue that “Harvard Man(Woman)” of the Chang-hua County citizen conducted abuse by verbal threats to the young children when the book company did the auxiliary reading. Because the country folks had no savvy of law concepts, they finally lost the lawsuit but shared a reconciled compensation for humanity of amount NTD$100,000. That was a big deal of money at that moment. My father Mr Chang Cheng-chi who was graduated from Tatung College in Taipei City and employed by the National Enterprise Taiwan Power Company, he had a monthly salary only NTD$8,000, just jumped from a promotion with NTD$3,000 several months before. My aunt Mrs Lin(Liu) Ming-hui shared the total reconciled compensation NTD$100,000 offered by the Harvard alumni defendant with NTD$18,000. But the worst thing was that my aunt Mrs Lin(Liu) Ming-hui previously heard that some interests groups would harass those who filed a lawsuit. When my aunt with one relative of former Taipei County administrative chief Mr Lin Fong-cheng walked out of the Taipei District Court, one member of the attorney who defended the Harvardman’s case warned my aunt Mrs Lin(Liu) Ming-hui, saying that they were not suing a “Chang-hua County citizen” but were suing a “Harvard Man(Woman).” My aunt Mrs Lin(Liu) Ming-hui was afraid of revenge upon her young son Mr Chang Jia-ling, instead of writing down her son’s name she had my name “Mr Chao-kai Chang”, the name of eleven-year-old Hope Elementary School pupil, on the Taipei District Court law document as the only plaintiff who sued that Harvardman. The case finally settled with a reconciliation of NTD$100,000, but officially my aunt lost the lawsuit with my name. Up to this moment in 2011 when I am forty years old, I have never been officially informed by the Taipei District Court about this case which had my name on the law court document. Two years after that losing lawsuit settled with reconciliation compensation, when I was fourteen years old, my teeth were almost cut and destroyed by energy device to be filled in the Duke University twin brothers dental clinic around my home on Chunghsio Road of Panchiao City. This was recorded in the United Nations file as a child abuse case, filed by Ms Hillary Rodham of Yale University alumna in 1979 and continued through 1984, transferring to Ms Chen Chu of the National Cheng-chi University(NCCU) student. When I came to National Central Library in 2006, it was informed to me that this child abuse case with the infant teeth destroyed by energy device, was done by the young son of Mr Lin Fong-cheng who was in the United States of America in 1979 for higher education study. He signed a military contract in the USA, and was forced to commit suicide before the ethnics white young trooper of Arkansas ordered by his governor to commit suicide and died in Taiwan. Therefore such a law environment was something to bestow a curse upon the UN case of abused child, David Chang, that is me, until I was forty years old, affected by sort of governmental secret documents and the death chronically involved. That is why in spite I was graduated from university in 1993 I was still without a marriage, a job or a kid, no more than a slavery of lowest social status, pauper.
In the above paragraph mentioned my aunt Liu(Lin) and relative of the Taipei County Administration Chief Mr Lin Fong-Cheng, of de facto identity theft using my name “ChaoKai Chang” at Taipei District Court to sue a Harvardman of children books author, and that case settled with a reconciled humanity compensation NTD$100,000 but should be announced a defending success. In this Taipei District Court appealing case the sole plaintiff of my name “ChaoKai Chang” which appeared on the law court document, was a defeated case. But as the defending lawyers at session break on court made a warning to my aunt and relative of Mr Lin Fong-cheng, there were reasons to believe that the UN Case of abused child “Mr. ChaoKai Chang, a.k.a. Mr David Chang” was suffering a post law court revenge, with his teeth dented by energy device to cut and filled by the Ivy League Duke University dentist near his house. In the complaint letter sent to Judicial Yuan on October 21, 2010, titled “Ms. Chen Chu of the Democratic Progressive Party(DPP) had a false motive to proceed this civil rights case”, the contents mentioned about “…late President Mr Chiang Ching-Kuo, his English Secretary Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou ever through some channels to find my mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing for filing a case against the American Reading Machine (ARM) company. Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou said that he had persuaded two grammar school teenagers in Taipei City to join the lawsuit against that American ARM company. Mr Ma Ying-Jeou said that he wanted my mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing and me to join the lawsuit as the third partner represented in Taipei County. Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou said that he had confidence to win the lawsuit. As he mentioned the lawyer fees to commission him for filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou told my parents that was around NTD$100,000 or NTD$200,000.” In those years messages contents notifying the plaintiff-would-be side, the teenager Mr David Chang, me, were through my mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing from Hope Elementary School areas and also through my father Mr Chang Cheng-Chi from the National Enterprise of Taiwan Power Company. It was said that there were three lawyers including a National Taiwan University(NTU) Law School graduated lawyer came to my father’s office at the Taiwan Power Company at Taipei City, telling him that the chance to win the lawsuit was very low and Mr Ma Ying-Jeou even participated in the reading machine membership fees collecting and without Taiwan lawyer license. It was because the American Reading Machine(ARM) company had paid an amount of money of one million New Taiwan dollars through the company cashier Ms. Chen Chu, hired three lawyers to go to Taiwan Power Company and suggested my father to give up the lawsuit, therefore we did not pay that amount of commission money to Mr Ma Ying-Jeou to file the lawsuit. It was not because we could not afford the lawyer commission or unwilling to pay that commission. As I was communicated with the Harvard Business School Alumni in those years, probably Mr George Bush Jr. of the ARM company PR, saying that if the pupil of Mr President Chiang Ching-Kuo, i.e. Mr David Chang, had commissioned lawyer to sue the ARM company, he as the company PR would let Mr David win this case. Mr PR George Bush Jr. argued that it would be as well as an American interests to make pupil Mr David win such an amount of money and planning a schedule in his future to study in the USA, say, Harvard University and to be his junior. But lawsuit in court was not that easy as we were thinking when under persuading or lobbying outside the court. In those years the young Bush Jr. of Harvard alumni could be probably a scapegoat for his senior to undertake responsibility for the ARM company. The timing was coincident with moment of rapprochement breach between Taiwan and the USA. The late President Mr Chiang Ching-kuo observing that a lot of Taipei area school teenagers and their parents coming to the law court to sue the ARM company misdeeds, Mr Chiang only told the audience with such messages, “We cannot afford to make the Americans angry,” and “…but to sue the American company was your own business.” After these years, in 2011, today, simply eyeing such case of not paying lawyer fees to sue in the court, I had an article posted on personal website blog on December 8, 2010, “Ridiculous United Nations Human Rights Cases of Taipei,” translated to English on December 10, 2010. In the article I mentioned about the 43rd USA President Mr George W. Bush and the 42nd USA First Lady Mrs Hillary Clinton. In those days if this lawsuit case against the ARM company PR Mr George Bush Jr. which required lawyer fees of NTD$100,000 to NTD$200,000 paid to Mr Ma Ying-Jeou, only defeated or something, there would be a legal document as such remained in the law court of Taipei jurisdiction. For these several months after this article posted on my personal website, to certain degree be censored and controlled by this library software WEBSENSE, the privy cannot be denied to be the governmental controlled target. That is to say, as to the personal interests, for sure there would be damage and loss influenced by the case. For your reference, sir.
David CK Chang,
Citizen of New Taipei City Panchiao District,
January 28, 2011,
National Central Library,
Translated by DB, June 9, 2011, National Central Library, Taipei City