網路城邦▼
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇 　 字體：小 中 大
要高檢署控告陳水扁內亂外患罪
2008/08/09 00:51:28　瀏覽818｜回應0｜推薦5

回應： 蔡英文神話陷危機•••

老銀,
I am very interested in your following
response:
"國務機要費鬧得如火如荼時
我和一位朋友跑去台北地檢署控告陳水扁內亂外患罪
結果被當日執勤的檢察官兇了一頓
我這才知道這個罪要告只能高檢署受理
如果沒告成對方
小心自己會被檢方論以誣告之罪
其罪嫌也是內亂外患罪 .......
If the above were true than practically
you can Google all the material including the speech and video then copy them
as evidences of控告陳水扁內亂外患罪 at
高檢署. Being ex-President of ROC during
his presidency, his public comments on
INSULTING THE NAME OF ROC ITS SELF WERE
CONSTITUTING 內亂罪 BY MEANS OF LABELING
"ROC IS LP" that might cause a riot from
real ROC supporters. The following are the reasons and facts:
1.陳水扁 was paid by ROC tax payer.
2.陳水扁 was the elected then President of ROC.
3.陳水扁 denied the voter's voice against the rules of Democracy.
4.陳水扁 insulting the National identity he was serving under oath.
5.陳水扁 was motivated to destroy the country he was representing.
Some of you after reading this response, please add your version on the
charges控告陳水扁內亂外患罪 . Particularly those of you practice
the law must breast your self so that the same would not happen in the
future.

2008-08-08 14:31 ｜ 老銀

2008-08-09 00:34 ｜ fair

fair兄，

1、謝謝回應。
2、那會兒的google沒有現在詳盡，我和朋友也沒考慮周全，拿著相關剪報就去地院了。事實證明，除非是學法律的，不然真不會想到咱們法律條文可真是繁瑣纏人。這是不經一事，不長一智。
3、有關刑法規範之內亂外患罪，後者又比前者多。但在構成要件上，一定要具備「主觀之犯意」。
這就是問題所在了，我們如何向檢方證明扁有此主觀之意圖？此外，刑法又規範構成要件，須是以「外力脅迫、暴力等」實施其行為。這，又非我們所能認定了。所以，內亂外患罪的構成要件不但嚴謹，而且細密。
4、我們當時告不成貪腐的陳水扁，如今綠營的柯建銘和高志鵬又怎麼告得成馬英九？何況他們和我當初一樣都跑到台北地檢署去告，依法該署是沒管轄權的。
5、今早看新聞，都還在講他們跑去地院告馬英九的事，足見就連媒體也未查證此事，真是荒謬到家。
6、客觀來看，昨天民進黨的告訴，會出現兩種狀況：
a、執勤檢察官收下告訴狀，然後丟進抽屜中，等過一陣子，再以「台北地檢署無管轄權」為由簽結。
b、柯高等民進黨立委明知告不成，可已經對媒體放話了，只好演一場故意跑錯地方的戲碼。否則，他們真到高檢署告了，最後必定會讓自己死得很難看。

2008-08-09 08:03 ｜ 老銀
老銀
Your replies enlightened my knowledge and experience about Taiwan today.
First I would say that the mentality of those DA or court house clerks
surprise me with their high-handed attitudes. It is the people who is the
boss & who is furnishing them putting food on the
table. In Taiwan, it is the other way around.
I have been in the States for more than 20 year.
All the law man are trained to be courteous
polite and willing to help if there is a case involving the legal matter.
Back to our point, IMHO any lawsuit must be established with evidence
and implication of the matter to the public.  That is why we need public
DA to defend our system.
陳水扁 in many case betrayed the trust of the people the government
and the legal system. He was trying to put law in his own hand to
 have it interpreted to his favor.
I can understand why in his then administration no DA dared to
challenge him with actual law-suit against him. Now under Ma's
administration, do we still have to subject
our self to his extortion by his way of manipulation in the law system? 
 There must be a way to stop this madness.
J, appreciated your response to me. I understand your view but can not
share the same that let 陳水扁 get away with the crimes he had committed.

fair兄，

中華民國的憲法和法律設計，當初就是依循大陸法系，
這和美國的海洋法系基本就不同。

美國的檢察官也好，獨立檢察官也好，都是民選的。
一般法律系畢業的，想當檢察官，除了要經過好幾個
考試的關卡，還得先從助理檢察官幹起。

等他們能幹到DA這一位置了，除了法學素養踏實外，
多半都已經具備豐厚的社會經驗。

台灣卻不同，只要考上司法特考，再受個短期訓練，
就可以當檢察官了。

問題就出在這裡。
這幫剛出爐的新科檢察官，多數都不到30歲，幹勁當然有，
但缺乏人文素養和社會經驗等各種磨練。一旦把他們擺
進這個主掌人民司法權益和利害的位置，面對各種利益
的誘惑，老實講，真是令人不寒而慄。

總之，台灣司法問題盤根錯節，不是這樣一篇短文就能概括的。

所以，我以前常勸朋友，最好離法律遠遠的，
非不得已別去碰，否則即便是再有理的原告，
一走上司法途徑，也是傷痕累累──就算告贏了，
也被剝了好幾層皮。

2008-08-09 10:10 ｜ 老銀
( 時事評論｜政府 )
回應 推薦文章 轉寄 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇