The Hong
Kong in judiciary terror calls
for your immediate attention!
What the
human civilization undertakes to do to defeat the September 11 terrorist
mastermind Laden is “Three
measures for aviation safety” issued by President Bush on
September 27, 2001, not American forces or “Anti-terrorism leaders’
declaration”, because the evil Laden is still at large!
“Three
measures for aviation safety” will absolutely preclude any other
hijacking and provide you a sense of safety on the airplane. While you
enjoy your flight above the clouds and looks down at the Victoria Port
of Hong Kong, the author of “Three measures for aviation safety” (Chinese patent application
No. 01255903.2, American patent application
No. 10/029,951), a minor company and an unknown Hong Kong citizen
Lin Zhenman, is under the attack of judiciary terror from Hong Kong
Court of Last Instance!
Are you surprised or
totally in the dark about this? How is it?
“Three measures for aviation
safety” was sent to the executive officer of Hong Kong on
September 17 2001. In his letter, Lin Zhemin asked the executive officer
Zeng Yinquan to forward it to
President Bush! On learning that his request was rejected, Lin
Zhenman faxed it on September 19 2001 to the United States Consulate in
Hong Kong and asked the latter to hand it over to President Bush! Mr.
Tony Liu of the Consulate said in his phone call at 4:00PM of September
26 2001: “…I’d like to extend my thanks to you on behalf of the US
government, you may rest assured “about the patent! …”
You
may still wonder why the Hong Kong Court of Last Instance should make
such a wild judgement in Hong Kong, which is blessed with the Basic
Law?! Lin Zhenman is also perplexed!
But this is the fact and the case is simple:
The
unfortunate company was deceived into buying an inoperable injection
molding machine, so they brought the agent of the machine to court. Law clearly
stipulates that the court may be requested “anytime
during the trial” to send a person to the site and check
whether the machine can operate or not! Any just court should do this!
The
judge of the original court ordered that the request should be made
before the trial! And The Court of Appeal
went
even further by distorting the law, saying that the judge has the “discretion”
to modify the law!
Article
22 1 (a) of the Regulations of the Court of Last Resort stipulates that
appeal was a natural human right!
But
the person obstructing the appeal was not the defendant but
The Hon Mr. Justice Andrew Li of Chief Justice
. The standing justice officer of the Court of Last Instance issued a
summons to strike out the appeal and Andrew
Li of Chief Justice
instructed the appeal committee to arbitrarily make a final trial
of the court’s application to simply make on-site check whether the
plastic machine can operate or not! That is to say, Hong Kong Court made
a judgement not based on fact but on the perception of the judge, who
has the “discretion” to modify the law!
The
plaintiff has the right to know the reason for the judgement made by the
Court of Last Instance! The plaintiff has the right to know why the
judge of the last instance denies the right of appeal. The plaintiff
asked Andrew Li of Chief Justice
but instead the standing justice officer of the Court of Last Instance
gave an absurd reply, “there is no reason for something
invisible!”.
Is this the investment environment of Hong Kong? Is this the human
rights condition of Hong Kong?
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman told Hong Kong media that no newspaper dared to
speak out and the chairman of the Journalists’ Association is “on
holiday”!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman wrote to every officer of Hong Kong Administration
for help, and the coordinator Liang Zhenyin of the Administration
expressed his concern in his reply, but there is judiciary independence
and cannot do anything to help!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman submitted his complaint to nearly 80 current chief
judges without any response!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman asked over 200 barristers for help without any
response!
The plaintiff Lin Zhenman asked Department
of Justice Ms. Elsie Leung
for help but she said tion judiciary independence is impossible!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman asked the Assocation of Chinese Companies for
help. Now the members of the Association are signing, but very slowly!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman asked the College Student Union for help. Some
members of the Union proposed a demonstration, but this idea was not
ripen!
The
plaintiff Lin Zhenman wrote to the Legislative Office for help, but only
one councilor name’s Miss.Ye Huiqin was expressed her readiness to
write a letter to ask Andrew Li of
Chief Justice
! Secretary general of the Legislative Office asked us in the reply not
to turn to the legislators! Is the Legislative Office really
incompetent? But the Basic Law clearly stipulates that the Legislative
Office has the right to dismiss a judge of last instance.
On
Apr. 29, 2002, when the plaintiff Lin Zhenman turned his files to Hong Kong
Higher Court for documentation, he received a bankruptcy threat in case of any
further complaint!
Against
this background, Lin Zhenman had to turn to Hong Kong citizens, to the force
representing civilization, and to the leaders of the Chinese government, asking
the People’s
Congress for legal construction! However in any
circumstances, Lin Zhenman is ready to appeal to President Bush even if he has
to sacrifice the profit of “Three measures for aviation safety” and rid judiciary terror from Hong
Kong Court of Last Instance headed by Andrew Li of Chief Justice!
He
had to turn to any country, large or small, so long as its leaders are
law-minded!
But, do trust in your own power and dial 852-25304411of Hong Kong Court of Last Instance, send an emailjudenq@jud.gcn.gov.hk, or go directly to the office of executive officer Zeng Yinquan cso@cso.gov.hk and ask him why Hong Kong suddenly lost legal control! Because Hong Kong people can’t do without judiciary dignity.
If
you accept judiciary civilization, please email your support to lzm@ycec.com！
Statement
1.
Why did
the Court of Last Instance not honor the natural right of appeal of the company?
If it is impossible to clarify in writing the reason for keeping the party
involved out of the court, then retrial is necessary. I hereby express my
serious concern for the judiciary right and human rights in Hong Kong!
2.
Why did
the court not play fair by simply checking whether the machine is operable or
not? Either as the company or as common citizens, we are deeply concerned about
this. It is my understanding that the judgement of the Court of Last Instance
should be well grounded!
3.
The laws
of Hong Kong have unmistakable stipulations! Rule 41 for the Higher Court
specifies that “court expert” may make the request “anytime during the
trial”, but why did the judges insist on the request being made before the
trial! Why did the Court of Appeal distort the law, saying that the judge has
the “discretion” to modify the law! Why did Andrew
Li of Chief Justice not provide legal
construction and correct the mistakes? I hereby express my concern for the
judiciary ethics in Hong Kong!
Identity of Statement maker:
Date:
