Taiwan Prosecutors ★ Police

一、DVD:<02112020總幹事> 02-11-2020

the complainant：	Chief ?
the accused：	Oh ~ this is Executive Secretary
the complainant：	the floor at front of my room No. 1XX7 has lots of dirt, which have not been cleaned at all since last year
the accused：	1XX7 ~
the complainant：	Yes
the accused：	OK
the complainant：	OK

二、DVD:<01162020清潔員> 01-16-2020

the complainant：	lots of dirt occupied all floor at front of my door, cannot clean it ?
the accused：	I can't do it
the complainant：	can not ? it's been a long long time ~ up to 5 months
the accused：	no !!

★ comment Taiwan judicial system
Int'l & local Institutions	reviews & comments
USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 3-11-2020	Some political commentators and academics, publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high profile, politically sensitive cases. Judicial reform advocates pressed for greater public accountability, reforms of the personnel system, and other procedural improvements
USA Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 3-13-2019	" justice ministry was insufficiently independent and conducted politically motivated investigations of politicians. "
<Liberty Times, Taiwan > 7-1-2020 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1383385	( Avoid judicial monsters ) : The main reason that the public do not trust the justice is lacking of external supervision (外部監督力量) and hence quite many controversial legal judgments were out there
<United Daily 聯合報> 10-31-2020, https://udn.com/news/story/7321/4977543	Taiwan's judiciary spends lots of money on advertising themselves, but, the truth us Taiwan's justice always made a detour whenever encountering the power and the rich people. (司法砸錢宣傳遇權貴卻轉彎) The Supreme Court (最高法院大法庭) has many cases to solve, but no one wants to touch sensitive issues.
<United Daily 聯合報> 7-14-2020, https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4699302	Taiwan's president has never talked about anti-corruption, in recent years, the prosecutors and investigation gov. have not solved any big corruption cases, unlike lots of crack-downs in old days, instead, they focus on New National Security cases. No wonder Taiwan president insists abolishing Special Investigation Division (SPD) .
<China Times 中時> 5-27-2020 https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200527000524-260118	The public trust on Taiwan's prosecutors was suffered severe injuries from the Minister's "guides" and "leads" (部長下指導棋重傷檢察公信力)
<United Daily 聯合報> 5-16-2020 https://udn.com/news/story/121092/4567513	The ruling party DPP has been more "authoritarian" than the way "authoritarian" government in old days was, no wonder the first thing the public have not satisfied with is the judicial reform. Many question the judicial system was reduced to be the government's tool ― to strengthen monitoring the public, and many worries, their political opponents (過去四年許多作為卻比過去威權更威權，立法、執法上不斷加強對人民的監控，司法不斷被質疑淪為掌權者工具，司法改革卻是人民最不滿意的重中之重 )
<Liberty Times 自由時報> 7-1-2020 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1383386	劍青檢改：Taiwan's Control Yuan was reduced to political "hit-man".
<United Daily 聯合報> 5-4-2020 https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4539908	Even law circle people are not satisfied with Taiwan's judicial reform
<United Daily 聯合報> 11-8-2019 https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4173205	scandals in judicial circle again and again
<United Daily 聯合報> 5-20-2019	How long can Taiwan judiciary stand being lynched and tortured ? ( 司法還能忍受多久的凌遲？) The Control Yuan (監察院) and the Prime Ministry (行政院) repeatedly have taken judiciary as sacrifice-offering (司法當祭品)
<Liberty Times 自由時報> 5-11-2020 https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/1287753	Taiwan's prosecutors should not be haughty, arrogant and condescending to make themselves "superior or powerful". Enforcement officers should have empathy in mind and being humble.
<The Apple Daily>, Nov. 2, 2020, editorial : (tw.appledaily.com/headline/20201101/NI6TYHSBLVADXO37NO3KMBAS2E/)	Taiwan's judicial system keeps treating the power and the rich with different standard, which crashes the public's trust on Taiwan's judiciary. (頻頻打擊司法公信力的「權貴減罪公式」一再上演)
United Daily 8-20-2020, editorial https://udn.com/news/story/7338/4818831?from=udn-catehotnews_ch2	The Grand Justice of Taiwan has made itself to be the ruling party's "affiliate organization".
United Daily 1-8-2020, editorial:	The ruling party has been good at collectively dividing the spoils ... the judicial system and investigation gov. have been obsequious and dared not to investigate the power and the richness (brief).
The Apple Daily, 9-13-2020, editorial	The dark networks those wealthy businessmen created can make the administration, the parliament, the Control Yuan and the judicial system to take care of the 'missions' they gave, e.g., the over-the-counter (OTC) stock and Interest Arbitrage Transaction are good tools to control the officials. Taiwan's judicial reform has not achieved the goal. https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20200912/XRWWTEZPLBGARBFFHQVXMYCH2Q/'; https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/20200912/NAQP67HBRRAP5LZ3ZW4AFWTAEQ/ Taiwan judicial reform has not reached planned performance; Taiwanese are not willing to wait any longer for a trusty justice.
The Apple Daily, 5-10-2020, editorial	Some survey shows near 80% Taiwanese do not trust justice, even Judicial Yuan's survey showed 60+ % Taiwanese do not trust justice.
Liberty Times, 4-30-2020:	The crux of Taiwan legal system's problem is its party-state system. Judicial reform just failed because the judicial govt. rejected jury system and dual system (jury system -assessor system), now the structure remains and the judges still hold the power of judgment.
CTS TV news,7-10-2019	National Chung Cheng university's survey shows that 80.9% Taiwanese don't trust the judges, only 32.3% nationals are satisfied with prosecutors.
The Apple Daily, 5-10-2020, editorial	Some survey shows near 80% Taiwanese do not trust justice, even Judicial Yuan's survey showed 50+ % Taiwanese do not trust the judges.
The Apple Daily, 5-8-2020	The practice and process of Taiwan's judicial reform is at least 10-20 years behind Japan's or Korea's. (林裕順／警察大學刑事系教授)
United Daily, 5-10-2020, editorial	Grand justice of supreme court ignored Pan-Green Coalition's (黨產會，中選會、促轉會，甚至內政部和其他中央政府機關) violation of the law, such as selective enforcement 、trespassing of private goods, auditing non-governmental organization even beyond the legal empowered bottom line ...
<The Apple Daily 蘋果日報> 3-14-2019 https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20190314/ 4MAXLUAS3QNDAUXMGWOKPXOT2U/（莊佳瑋）	The number of Prosecutors' unsolved cases increased a lot.
<Liberty Times> headline、3-16-2019	Taiwan prime minister is not satisfied with judicial reform
<United Daily 聯合報> 2-26-2019	National Chung Chen university survey (中正大學民調): more than 80% Taiwanese are not satisfied with judicial reform, the public trust on the judges low down to about 20%
<United Daily 聯合報> 9-28-2019 社論	蔡政府近來弊案頻仍，但仗立委、政務官或檢調徇私護短、掩蓋，戕害社會正義、助長貪腐。(udn.com/news/story/11321/4071079)
台北市市長柯文哲 ( United Daily 聯合報 United Daily 2-27-2018 聯合筆記)	"監獄是關沒有辦法的人"
民視(FTV), 7-26-2018	法官信任度不到 16%。

犯罪者"negative tort by omission".作为过错与不作为过错的区分是现代过错侵权行为法的基础，因为，过错侵权行为法不应要求他人承担积极作为的义务，而仅能要求他人承担消极不作为的义务。 tort侵權行為 To distinguish tort by negligence from tort by not acting is the basis in modern tort by negligence. Tort by negligence do not obligate people to act actively but only obligate people not to act, adequate causation theory,相當因果關係理論

quate causation theory因果理論 adequate causation theoryplacing person in false light

WHAT did prosecutor and police say ?	the complainant's view
1. The police station spoke to the victim (complainant) reporting the case that the chief or the residents' committee for our building should be the right one to bring the law-suit to the court because the dirt and oil were splashed mainly to the corridor, a property of the building, not of mine.	Obviously, those police have not correct legal knowledge, because the suspect has been public-insulting against the particular resident. If someone spits ptysis at front of you and the mouth water down on the street in Taipei , only the Taipei city hall owning the ground at front of you is entitled to bring a suit for being insulted ?
2. Taipei prosecutor office refused to conduct any investigation to arrest the suspects and jumped to an end.	It's very questionable to close the case without opening a court session to review the proofs.
3. The victim brought a suit again, but the prosecutor office and police station said they can't catch the suspect(s).	Recently, there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those cases seriously, and conducted investigations very soon, even some victims chose low-profile - refusing to bring a suit to the courthouse, besides, those HK cases were reported by media in HK, US, Canada etc. The Taiwanese victim told prosecutor that the case suppose is politics-related too, and suppose will catch a "chain gang" with, probably, some top politicians. But it seemed to be a failure in here.
pic.: Recently, there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those cases seriously, and did investigations soon even some victims chose low-profile - didn't bring a suit to the courthouse. The picture above is one case among them being reported by TV media.
4. After the complainant brought a suit again, Taipei prosecutor opened a court session, and asked victim some questions below: (1) The case was already closed in last time, why did you suit it again? (2) Why are splashing dirt to your house and damaging your house's wall a crime of public insult and criminal intimidation ? (3) Who are the suspects ? (4) Your monitor camera got some evidences ?	the complainant's answers (1) If it is not within reason, there will be no court session today. (2) Just like the suspects splash dirt and oil to you and cut prosecutor's clothes, these certainly are crimes. (3) I do not run detective business, how can I solve the case ? not to mention this most likely is political case. (4) No ( but the prosecutor and police should be easy to know the monitor camera is nothing but an off-line scarecrow ! )
5. Taipei prosecutor office again close the case, because: (1) There's no evidence showing the janitor and Executive Secretary or Director General splashed dirt. (2) The behaviour (act) being accused is 『nothing to do with 』crime.	(1) Compared with Hong Kong police, Taiwan prosecutor and police seemed to be incapable and less enthusiastic to find out the truth。 (2) The janitor and Executive Secretary or Director General are obligated to actively clean the corridor, because that's why they got salary for, intentionally ignoring what happened (ps: Sept 2019 ~ Sept 2020) certainly is a crime of omission, and most likely they are the prime suspects or collusion accomplices, co-conspirators, or hired thugs.. Lasting for so many months make them the criminal liability of recidivists, a even more serious crime. For legal details pls. read as below:
Brief of the Criminal Complaint document According to Taiwan's courts' decisions in recent years, the scope of crime of omission is not limited to serious crimes such as crime of intentional homicide, blood guilt and offenses of causing bodily harm. For example, ◆ "A" wrote something illegal on chalkboard to public insult "C", and then "B" having the duty to clean the board did not wipe it out for a month ... ◆ "A" posted bad words on the net to public insult "C", and then "B" ( platform manager ) put off to delete those defamation words ... ◆ A guest star did public insult against another one nearby, but the TV show host did not stop the guest ... 　 The courthouses have never judged those public insults as legal behaviors. 　 A legal precedent (31年度上字第2324) of the Supreme Court : If the perpetrator doing something in some specific situation as expected, hence causing something bad not to happen, the perpetrator's "not acting so" is Elements of Criminal Law. (倘「行為人為期待應為之特定行為，則構成要件該當之結果即不致於發生」，則行為人之不作為，即與構成要件) 　 The complainant's DVD shows it is easy to clean the dirt, probably only take 3 minutes to wipe all out. The DVD also shows the complainant reminded the janitor and Executive Secretary of cleaning the floor for more than one time, but nothing has changed. Both of them have the duty to do it, but intentionally ignored it, therefore it is causation。