FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: [BATA] 論文門破案! 英司法判決: LSE沒蔡英文口試紀錄

33 views
Skip to first unread message

BATA Editor

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 4:29:21 AM11/30/21
to BATA

From: Hwan Lin [mailto:hw...@uncc.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 9:49 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Risenhoover Paul Maas; Editor BATAAllen Kuo; BATA
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [BATA] 論文門破案! 英司法判決: LSE沒蔡英文口試紀錄

 

Michael:

 

It’s a win. The student record of Tsai held at the LSE has 278 pages. The LSE Council has concluded that it contains no PhD thesis examiners or the exam report. Yet, from the same student record, the LSE legal team led by Kevin Haynes sent to Taiwan’s Department of Jurisdiction a list of two examiners for October 16 1983. What does this inconsistency mean? This is why I called the ICO decision of 11/26/2021 a win for you and for all who called Tsai a doctorate scammer.

 

The inconsistency indicates that a handful of persons at the LSE had been working to cover up the scandal.

 

Hwan

 

______________________________________________

Hwan C. Lin

Associate Professor of Economics 

Belk College of Business

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

 

 

 

 

 



On Nov 29, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Caution: Email from External Sender. Do not click or open links or attachments unless you know this sender.]
 

The ICO has already made a determination so questions about the search will have to be addressed before the Tribunal.  The search can be made easy by examination of p. 74-75 of Tsai's LSE student file.  This is about two different stories not an inadequate search.

Michael

 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 8:17 AM Risenhoover Paul Maas <sovereignnat...@gmail.com> wrote:

so he does not actually conduct the search... 

have you asked the ICO to release their requests and any responsive records they received...

the factual basis for their determination that on a civil adjudication standard, on the balance of probabilities, LSE does not have what you asked for...

 

 

Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> 於 2021年11月29日 週一 下午10:10寫道：

As Head of Legal Team Haynes oversees all FOI requests.  The buck stops with him.

 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 8:06 AM Risenhoover Paul Maas <sovereignnat...@gmail.com> wrote:

the criminal evidence or Affidavit context is very different from the FOIA request context...

 

what makes you think Hayes would have been the responsible officer for conducting the FOIA search ?

 

 

Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> 於 2021年11月29日 週一 下午10:00寫道：

If LSE does not have the names then how did Kevin Haynes have them to give to ROC prosecutors against Peng?

 

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 11:52 PM Risenhoover Paul Maas <sovereignnat...@gmail.com> wrote:

why would LSE hold these documents? didn't LSE explain long ago that the degree issuing institution at the time was the University of London?

 

 

 

Risenhoover Paul Maas <sovereignnat...@gmail.com> 於 2021年11月29日 週一 下午12:55寫道：

Section 1 – information not held

In scenarios where there is some dispute between the amount of information located by a public authority and the amount of information that a complainant believes may be held, the ICO, following the lead of a number of Information Tribunal decisions, applies the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

In other words, in order to determine such complaints the ICO must decide whether on the balance of probabilities a public authority holds any information which falls within the scope of the request (or was held at the time of the request).

In order to assist with this determination please answer the following questions:

·        What searches have been carried out to check no information was held within the scope of the request and why would these searches have been likely to retrieve any relevant information?

·        Please describe thoroughly any searches of relevant paper/electronic records and include details of any staff consultations.

·        If searches included electronic data, which search terms were used and please explain whether the search included information held locally on personal computers used by key officials (including laptop computers) and on networked resources and emails.

·        If no or inadequate searches were done at the time, please rectify this now and let me know what you have done.

·        If the information were held would it be held as manual or electronic records?

·        Was any recorded information ever held relevant to the scope of the complainant’s request but deleted/destroyed?

·        If recorded information was held but is no longer held, when did the [public authority] cease to retain this information?

·        Does the [public authority] have a record of the document’s destruction?

·        What does the [name of PA] formal records management policy say about the retention and deletion of records of this type? If there is no relevant policy, can the [name of PA] describe the way in which it has handled comparable records of a similar age?

·        If the information is electronic data which has been deleted, might copies have been made and held in other locations?

·        Is there a business purpose for which the requested information should be held? If so what is this purpose?

·        Are there any statutory requirements upon the [name of PA] to retain the requested information?

In summary you are required to provide a thorough response to the above questions in order to comply with your statutory obligations. The Commissioner will therefore challenge responses and assertions made which fail to satisfactorily address our questions and require a more detailed explanation. The Tribunal has also demonstrated that it is very critical of public authorities who fail to respond adequately to our enquiries. We therefore expect a public authority where appropriate to provide full details of its searches to support its conclusions.

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/key-questions-for-public-authorities-foi-act-2000/#1

 

Are there criminal offences in the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, section 77 states that it is a criminal offence to alter, block, destroy or conceal information.

Depending on the nature of the incident, an authority or its individual members of staff could be charged with this offence. The penalty is a fine.

There are no financial or custodial penalties for failure to provide information on request or for failure to publish information. But you could be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a decision notice, enforcement notice, or information notice. This could lead to a fine or, in theory, jail for a senior officer of the authority.

Sample questions we ask public authorities

We have published the standardised sample copy that our case officers use when writing to public authorities, including introductory information about the exemptions and key questions we may need to ask. The questions are not exhaustive and case officers tailor their correspondence in each case.

We have made this internal ICO resource available to help with transparency around freedom of information requests and how we approach casework. It may help public authorities to consider these questions, when deciding if relevant exemptions apply.

 

Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> 於 2021年11月29日 週一 上午12:44寫道：

Thank you Allen, however it is not a complete win, there is still an unresolved conflict between LSE official position and what the LSE Head of Legal Team told the ROC prosecutors.  I will appeal.

Michael

 

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021, 10:23 AM Allen Kuo <alle...@timebyte.com> wrote:

Thank you Michael Richardson, you have done a great job!

 

論文門破案! 英國判決出爐! 彭文正：

LSE沒蔡英文口試紀錄｜政經關不了（完整版）｜2021.11.28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjyAyyu64jk

 

 

Allen Kuo

--
This is the Bay Area Taiwanese American E-Mail Group. Our main objective is to provide open communication channel for the Taiwanese American community, let the Taiwan Spirit grow and pass down to the future.
---
這是 Google 網路論壇針對「Bay Area Taiwanese American」群組發送的訂閱通知郵件。
如要取消訂閱這個群組並停止接收來自這個群組的郵件，請傳送電子郵件到 bay-area-taiwanese-...@googlegroups.com。
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/61a3acf2.1c69fb81.e7337.9135SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN%40gmr-mx.google.com。

--
This is the Bay Area Taiwanese American E-Mail Group. Our main objective is to provide open communication channel for the Taiwanese American community, let the Taiwan Spirit grow and pass down to the future.
---
這是 Google 網路論壇針對「Bay Area Taiwanese American」群組發送的訂閱通知郵件。
如要取消訂閱這個群組並停止接收來自這個群組的郵件，請傳送電子郵件到 bay-area-taiwanese-...@googlegroups.com。
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/CAEUZ_rMr8t0T3aZuSkifp0VTtkwLjBgK5kAMcjaf_4zQ1ECrUQ%40mail.gmail.com。

--
This is the Bay Area Taiwanese American E-Mail Group. Our main objective is to provide open communication channel for the Taiwanese American community, let the Taiwan Spirit grow and pass down to the future.
---
這是 Google 網路論壇針對「Bay Area Taiwanese American」群組發送的訂閱通知郵件。
如要取消訂閱這個群組並停止接收來自這個群組的郵件，請傳送電子郵件到 bay-area-taiwanese-...@googlegroups.com。
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/CAEUZ_rOAff6Tacyj4nrGfcB5Shpt4_O%3DgB6bA0a_zKd%3DbR0BUA%40mail.gmail.com。

Risenhoover Paul Maas

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 7:22:48 AM11/30/21
to BATA Editor, Hwan Lin, Michael Richardson, BATA
example of a report form... obviously, they are usually only one page... 




in Taiwan, it appears the academic department would be responsible to forward the oral defense report form for data entry...

  “Verification Letter from the Oral Examination Committee for Postgraduate Students” (hereafter referred to as the Verification Letter)

  Article 5-2 Following a postgraduate student’s degree examination and thesis review, the student’s department (graduate institute, special program, or degree program) shall submit, within one week after the Verification Letter was signed, the student’s original copies of the degree examination application form and degree examination evaluation report, and a duplicated copy of the Verification Letter to the Division of Registrar for data entry.
   

BATA Editor <edito...@gmail.com> 於 2021年11月30日 週二 下午5:29寫道：
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/61a5eeee.1c69fb81.47485.6e17%40mx.google.com。

Taitzer Wang

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 9:02:17 AM12/1/21
to Lin, Hwan, Richardson, Michael, BATA

Hi Michael and Hwan,

I agree with Richardson that ICO should investigate the difference between LSE council in the two respects, namely, TIW’s “Ph.D.” oral examiners and exam reports.

However, taking Richardson’s understanding into account that "LSE has been saying they lack the examiner identities for two years now", I regard Hwan’s claim of "a win" has merit in another respect.  Remember the so-called October 8 2019 LSE statement https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2019/j-October-2019/LSE-statement-on-PhD-of-Dr-Tsai-Ing-wen, which I mentioned to Jerome earlier yesterday.  The second paragraph of the statement is:

 "We can be clear the records of LSE and of the University of London - the degree awarding body at the time - confirm that Dr Tsai was correctly awarded a PhD in Law in 1984."

LSE can't have its cake and eat it too.  Such LSE 2019 statement is in direct conflict with the ICO’s decision of “[LSE] denied holding the requested information” this time.  Thus, I strongly believe that the FOIA Decision notice of 11/26 can be taken as an evidence that the LSE 10/8/2019 statement is not an LSE official post as has long been suspected.  Maybe it would be something helpful to Richardson's appeal to ICO.

Thank you very much (and Dennis and others) for your hard work. Together, you have made it clear to the public that the London School of Economics and Political Science has been contradicting itself during your thesis investigation. Unfortunately, University of London has remained silent so far.

Taitzer  12/1


Risenhoover Paul Maas

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 12:08:01 AM12/2/21
to Taitzer Wang, Lin, Hwan, Richardson, Michael, BATA
The ICO decision says NOTHING about Dr. Tsai's graduation with the D.Phil. in Law (specializing in international trade).
On the contrary, the ICO says that LSE knows that UL conferred the degree.
All the ICO decision says is that any records held by LSE were not wrongly destroyed (and does not describe the record retention policy applicable to those types of forms),
and that the ICO believes the LSE reply that LSE does not have a piece of paper (located in the student academic record, or appropriate place) indicating the name of the UL examiners.
The ICO rightly opines that there is no reason why LSE records would have ever listed the names of UL examiners.

The UK has many many many joint doctoral programs among institutions, where the primary degree granting institution records likely maintain such information, and the related institution does not.

Moreover, under the fugitive doctrine, in American and British practice, the courts in Taipei may proceed to find the fugitive guilty, in absentia.

So the idea that the criminal case has to cease because the defendant now feels it inconvenient, even though he not only did NOT protest jurisdiction, but voluntarily WELCOMED jurisdiction and submitted to it. Had he protested jurisdiction from the beginning, instead of boasting that the criminal process would prove his allegations, aspersions and claims to be correct, he might have a better argument now against continuing jurisdiction once having latched. But that may be water under the bridge.

Under Neely v Henkel, a fugitive from US Military Government controlled island of Cuba, was refouled for trial, implying that fugitive refoulement is not extradition. See 18 USC 3185.

Of course, politically speaking, neither the Taiwanese DPP nor the Chinese KMT would want to admit they are subject to directives of United States Military Government, at least not admit so publicly and notoriously.


Mr. Hay to Mr. von Mumm.

Department of State,
Washington , October 25, 1899 .

Dear Mr. von Mumm: The Attorney-General advises me that on the 10th instant a verbal request was preferred to him, on your behalf, for information relative to the practice or procedure as to the extradition and return to this country of criminals escaping therefrom to Cuba, to which he then made reply that no case has been presented to the Department of Justice raising that question; and that on the 19th [Page 319]instant the subject was again presented to him by a messenger from your legation to whom Mr. Griggs said, repeating his statement of the fact that no such case had come before his Department, that his official functions did not permit him to advise the embassy upon the subject except through the Department of State, and then only upon a question actually arising in the Department of State.

At the same time, it has appeared proper to Mr. Griggs to state, and he desires me to repeat it to you, that in the recent case of the return to Cuba from New Orleans of a person committing an offense in Habana, he took the ground that in view of our military occupation and government in Cuba extradition was not really involved, and that the criminal should be returned upon the proper requisition of our military authorities in Cuba; and he adds that he can perceive no reason to doubt that the same view and practice would apply in the reverse case to a criminal going to Cuba from the United States, should such a case arise.

I am, etc.,

John Hay.


Taitzer Wang <tai...@gmail.com> 於 2021年12月1日 週三 下午10:02寫道：
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/47E3415E-B169-4453-854F-E0264ED3F0A8%40gmail.com。

Allen Kuo

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 12:31:16 AM12/2/21
to bay-area-taiwanese-american, Risenhoover Paul Maas

[RPM] Of course, politically speaking, neither the Taiwanese DPP nor the Chinese KMT would want to admit they are subject to directives of United States Military Government, at least not admit so publicly and notoriously.

==>

1) Could you please provide any evidence? Otherwise both the Taiwanese DPP and the Chinese KMT will consider it an insult.

 

2) If this is true, then I am afraid that the real and final Gatekeeper for this TIW Thesis Gate might be some political decision makers in the U.S.?

 

Thanks;

Allen Kuo

Kuochih Hong

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 1:26:53 AM12/2/21
to Risenhoover Paul Maas, Taitzer Wang, Lin, Hwan, Richardson, Michael, BATA
I do not agree with the points RPM indicated.  Although UL was the body offering the degree. Before 2007,   but it was based on the recommendation of LSE where TIW was the student.  TIW’s student records especially the viva oral exam. should be at LSE, not UL.  I  got my PhD in Chemistry from the University of Chicago (UC), UC granted the degree based on the recommendation of the dean of Physical Science Division （equivalent to College of Science) which in turn was based the recommendation of the Chemistry Department where I was doing my studies/research and where was the body having my student records.  

To the Taiwan court system, I believe Peng P’s two lawyers have a better understanding than RPM .

KC




Sent from my iPad

On Dec 2, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Risenhoover Paul Maas <sovereignnat...@gmail.com> wrote:



Kuochih Hong

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 1:49:35 AM12/2/21
to Allen Kuo, bay-area-taiwanese-american, Risenhoover Paul Maas
Since TIW is the person in charge of Taiwan and Taiwan is in a position that PRC and USA are interested in. Therefore her PhD degree gatekeeper may be  UL/LSE on surface,  it must be taking the political factor into consideration.  That was why I used to say and still keep saying  TIW/Taiwan was/is kidnapped by USA and PRC that both have the power to force the gate keeper to open the curtain.  Therefore, the TIW thesis gate is not just her personal problem, it is Taiwan’s 國安問題！

KC

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 2, 2021, at 12:56 AM, Allen Kuo <alle...@timebyte.com> wrote:



Risenhoover Paul Maas

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 1:57:42 AM12/2/21
to Allen Kuo, bay-area-taiwanese-american
a fortiori reasoning

Dr. Mark Tonsen Chen did not reveal Ambassador Young read a White House Directive until after Chen had left office...

the US State Department maintains that the directive/demarche documents etc must remain classified SECRET... see attached Affidavits from the US Department of State...


評論 > 投書

聽陳唐山爆阿扁的料

◎ 鄭正煜

陳唐山先生有一次在一個十幾位獨派領袖的餐宴上表示：如果不是擔任總統府秘書長，親眼看到美國在台協會楊甦棣處長攜帶「白宮訓令」，就華府反對陳前總統的凍結「國統會」、「國統綱領」與「入聯公投」案，要扁仔細聽，然後楊甦棣就一個字一個字唸，唸完後，陳水扁靜靜的回答：「我知道了！」之後，陳唐山先生說他親眼看到了陳水扁的不為所動與特有堅持。

今年一月十一日，前外交部黃志芳部長在接受監察院約談時表示：二○○六年農曆春節，扁在官田老家喝春酒時提出「廢統說」，台美關係瞬間變得非常緊張，原本扁還想採取進一步動作，黃表示反對，結果扁親自打電話，足足把他痛罵了半小時，印證了陳唐山先生所講的扁的「不為所動」與「特有堅持」！

陳前總統在他絕食期間，用原子筆心在塑膠籃翻過來當書桌的桌面上寫就的《台灣的十字架》，裡邊多次提到美國對建構台灣主體立場的抵制與施壓。其中他說：「美國的立場是不支持，甚至反對台灣獨立的，和平解決慢慢傾向和平統一，這是對台灣非常不利的」。以總統的身分能夠獲得外界所不能有的資訊，再加上特殊的臨場政治感應度，陳前總統對台灣的政治現象與未來，常常展現令人折服的精準判斷，閱讀《台灣的十字架》，會助成閱讀者在既有的知識基礎上具有更好的方向感與判斷的精準度，也增加自己在論述上的說服力。

一般而言，個人的政治資訊比多數民眾高出許多。為了對扁案的法律要件做更深入了解，個人耗了十個小時進入旁聽扁的再羈押庭攻防，中場休息時，曾經也參與美麗島事件軍法大審的鄭勝助律師告訴本人就扁案的綜合判斷是：「這個案子是陳水扁做為台灣人的原罪」。

事實正是如此：有原罪豈可不揹十字架。

（作者為台灣南社社長）

翻貼網頁 : 聽陳唐山爆阿扁的料 ◎ 鄭正煜(轉貼於自由時報)
2009/01/25 09:17
瀏覽1,384
迴響0
推薦0
引用0

陳唐山先生有一次在一個十幾位獨派領袖的餐宴上表示：如果不是擔任總統府秘書長，親眼看到美國在台協會楊甦棣處長攜帶「白宮訓令」，就華府反對陳前總統的凍結「國統會」、「國統綱領」與「入聯公投」案，要扁仔細聽，然後楊甦棣就一個字一個字唸，唸完後，陳水扁靜靜的回答：「我知道了！」之後，陳唐山先生說他親眼看到了陳水扁的不為所動與特有堅持。

今年一月十一日，前外交部黃志芳部長在接受監察院約談時表示：二○○六年農曆春節，扁在官田老家喝春酒時提出「廢統說」，台美關係瞬間變得非常緊張，原本扁還想採取進一步動作，黃表示反對，結果扁親自打電話，足足把他痛罵了半小時，印證了陳唐山先生所講的扁的「不為所動」與「特有堅持」！

陳前總統在他絕食期間，用原子筆心在塑膠籃翻過來當書桌的桌面上寫就的《台灣的十字架》，裡邊多次提到美國對建構台灣主體立場的抵制與施壓。其中他說：「美國的立場是不支持，甚至反對台灣獨立的，和平解決慢慢傾向和平統一，這是對台灣非常不利的」。以總統的身分能夠獲得外界所不能有的資訊，再加上特殊的臨場政治感應度，陳前總統對台灣的政治現象與未來，常常展現令人折服的精準判斷，閱讀《台灣的十字架》，會助成閱讀者在既有的知識基礎上具有更好的方向感與判斷的精準度，也增加自己在論述上的說服力。

一般而言，個人的政治資訊比多數民眾高出許多。為了對扁案的法律要件做更深入了解，個人耗了十個小時進入旁聽扁的再羈押庭攻防，中場休息時，曾經也參與美麗島事件軍法大審的鄭勝助律師告訴本人就扁案的綜合判斷是：「這個案子是陳水扁做為台灣人的原罪」。

事實正是如此：有原罪豈可不揹十字架。

（作者為台灣南社社長）
本文出處:
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jan/25/today-o5.htm

由 廖東慶 回應於 日期 : 2012 三月 25 時間: 10:34am

     廖東慶  專欄/  一國兩區到底是什麼「玩意」？

                               (慶祝中華民國「亡國」101年系列38)

國民黨榮譽主席吳伯雄在3月22日2012年，在「中國」北京和總書記胡錦濤在第5次會議上，提出首次出現的新新人類的新口語：「一國兩區」，吳伯雄明確向胡錦濤宣示國民黨堅持「一個中國」，很可惜吳伯雄並沒有說出下一句至關重要及關鍵的字句，就是馬英九常對台灣人民所說的，一個中國就是指「中華民國」！不是吳伯雄忘了說，而正確的說法應該是說，如果吳伯雄人在台灣的話，說一個中國就是「中華民國」，但是吳伯雄人在中國的話，一個中國就是指「中華人民共和國」！

          接著胡錦濤就接招並配合吳伯雄的「一個中國」原則接著說，兩岸雖然還沒有統一，但中國領土和主權沒有分裂，大陸和台灣同屬「一個中國」的事實沒有改變，確認這一事實，符合兩岸現行規定。國共兩黨的「中國人」實在是越來越會「演戲」了，尤其是你一言我一語的你來我往的對答，事先雙方不知道是演練了多少回了？「一國兩制」在香港特區實施了15年了，最後卻惹得香港人民怨聲載道，台灣人民更是無法認同及接受，「一國兩區」在3月22日之前，台灣人民聽都沒聽說過，也沒經過台灣人民的同不同意，就被國共兩黨拿到檯面上去做定奪，這就是「九二共識」的基本精神，「黨意永遠高過民意」！

           吳伯雄在「中國」提出「一國兩區」，當然是經過馬英九授權認可，這也是代表在台灣的「中華民國」馬英九流亡政府，向「中國」總書記胡錦濤「輸誠」，「中華民國」願意在一國兩制的另一個新名稱中，繼續朝著兩岸統一的方向進行！中國人可以說是在全世界中，最會咬文嚼字，也是最會玩文字遊戲的民族，大家可以從國共兩黨的「中國人」所說話語的每一個字，都非常十分的小心翼翼，模糊再模糊，這也是為了日後若是被人「抓包」的話，可以有轉寰及否認的空間，尤其是不敢也絕不會激惹到美國白宮任何的不快，否則(AIT)美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光，很快又會帶著美國白宮的「訓令」來向馬英九宣告。

        如果中國向美國或者是日本，還是歐盟，提出「一國兩區」或者是「一國兩制」建交建議的話，台灣人民可以想一想，有那些國家可以欣然接受？答案是一個都沒有！「中國國民黨」竟然會拿著「一國兩區」去向「中國」交涉，除了馬英九知道「中華民國」根本就不是一個主權獨立的國家之外，另外就是馬英九就是要出賣台灣給「中國」！這也是「中國國民黨」永遠總裁蔣介石的遺志！台灣人民對馬英九向「中國」所提出的「一國兩區」的做法，必需有所警覺，也必需站出來向馬英九政府抗議示威，台灣人民對此非常不滿的聲音，也更要讓全世界都知道。

        今天離520還有一段日子，馬英九的一國兩區是先拿來「投石問路」試探一下台灣人民及美國白宮的反應，520之後才會是馬英九大展身手「出賣台灣」的時機，不過美國白宮的反應才是國共兩黨，最迫切需要知道，他們想在美國的眼皮底下，偷偷摸摸及在「神不知鬼不覺」的情況之下，出賣台灣，國共兩黨的計謀到底會不會成功？美國白宮雖然在表面上沒有任何動靜，這是因為台灣的「主權」是屬於美國國防部五角大廈的，美軍現在把百分之70以上的海空軍的軍力，加速調往亞洲區域部署著，這將會是用來對付「習近平」和「金正恩」，還有「馬英九」，美國白宮還需要出面來斥責馬英九嗎？馬英九派土生土長的吳伯雄到中國去「出賣台灣」，若是日後有人指責馬英九賣台的話，馬英九可以推給吳伯雄，並說「出賣台灣」的是土生土長在台灣的吳伯雄而不是「中國人」！吳伯雄雖然是土生土長的台灣人，但是筆者早就把他當作是在台灣的「新中國人」，同樣的道理也只有是「新台灣人」的馬英九才會「出賣台灣」的道裡是完全一樣的！     (全文完)(廖東慶/北美政治評論家)

                (歡迎轉貼/轉寄/下載)  http://taiwan9.ning.com/group/chentangshan?commentId=2235551%3AComment%3A418908&xg_source=activity


Allen Kuo <alle...@timebyte.com> 於 2021年12月2日 週四 下午1:31寫道：
如要在網路上查看這項討論，請造訪 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bay-area-taiwanese-american/61a85a23.1c69fb81.2de27.315cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN%40gmr-mx.google.com。
As filed with corrected 89 and 89 1 Stein Declaration REPLY to opposition to motion re 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed (2).pdf
Declaration of Eric Stein US State Dept.pdf
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages