slideshow

Google Inc. made a binding agreement when Google to whom it was made accepts the condition to launch Google’s business in China and it had communicated Google’s acceptance. In a legal term, China can sue Google for damages as Google had breach of contract which Google failed, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which formed the whole or part of a contract or a binding agreement.

I have never heard Google complaint regarding condition set forth in binding agreement between Google and China, since Google has entered China for almost four years. I just wonder if it is any thing to do with Mr. Sergey Brin ethnic that directly related to Iranian issues as Google’s timing to pull the strings on China can not be so coincidental each time.

We are only supper power in the world. We must form our opinion about Iranian intentionally making nuclear bombs through careful weighing of evidence to support our claims. So far what we have read or heard is a war of words between Tehran and Washington and our claims or arguments fail to satisfy the conditions of valid evidence that Iran intend to produce nuclear bombs. I will assure you or Google that China will support more sanction against Iran in the United Nations if we are able to provide concrete evidence that Iran intend to make nuclear bombs, not hear and say. It will not be the best interest for the United States to push China too far. Chinese people may have interpreted that we try to bluster or to bully them.

I recommend that China does not waste any more time in talking to Google. From all Google’s China action so far, it seems to me that Google is playing a dangerous game of hidden political agenda.

Again, I do like Google yet Google must fulfill his binding agreement with China.

Jennie PC Chiang  03/13/10

slideshow

Subversion is Federal crimes under the United States of 18 U.S.C.A. { 2381 et seq. if subversive activities which the acts directed toward the overthrow of U.S. government. Subversion definition is the acts or process in connection with activities designed to undermine and overthrow the government.

The thing which concerns me is most Chinese legal professional, include Taiwan, not really up to par. In last Mr. Lu’s and Mr. Tan’s case,  the matters which had been brought up by either attorney was not in subject matter or directly to the case which both Mr. Lu or Mr. Tan had been charged during the trial. Then, both attorneys claimed human right violation. Chinese attorney must be very familiar with “CHINESE SUBVERSION LAW” to assert his client’s right if the criminal case which charges against his client is contradict with Chinese constitutional law.

“Gao Zhisheng, who had carved out an international reputation for taking on controversial legal cases, such as government land seizures” I will not make any comment as I have not read the Mr. Gao’s case, if Mr. Gao has been a act or process of destroying or corrupting with activities designed to undermine Chinese government.

I do realize that a Chinese lawyer may not be as a sophisticated skill as we have here, but some time, I am thinking if Chinese lawyer is familiar with Chinese substantive law or even Chinese procedural law as from the question and argument contested in a court of justice by Mr. Tan’s and Mr. Lu’s attorney.

Jennie PC Chiang  03/17/10

slideshow

中國外長楊潔篪 7 日 說，去年底、今年初，美國向台灣出售武器，美國領導人會見達賴，中美關係受到嚴重干擾，對雙方合作帶來困難，這不符合雙方的利益；他 強調，責任不在中方。

First let us discuss the arms sales to Taiwan, as a Taiwanese I will make a fair assumption or an examination of an argument. I do not necessarily like a communism ideology, especially, a person in extreme of Mr. Kari Marx’s ideology. It is not much different between Marx and other religions if Mr. Marx has been worshiped with its creed and ritual.

Again, I am native Taiwanese and all my family and relative live there, yes I am only person living here. Before one makes a further assertion to challenge Chinese right, Now, some one please tell me how far American will defend Taiwan and to support Taiwan if Taiwan declare independence, I am talking a rough estimate of 50,000 American body begs, if there is a war in Taiwan Strait. China will not attack Taiwan, I can assure you because is not the best interest of China to take over Taiwan by a force, as long as Taiwan will not make willful provocation. Arms sale just emboldens Taiwan to aggravate or to confront China as Taiwanese leaders may have assumed that the United States will support Taiwan 100% with any costs. China will not hesitate to attack Taiwan if Taiwan declares an independence.

Talk is cheap. Other then making accusation of others, some one please tells us what other idea you can share with us to prevent further conflict between China and the United States getting out of hand. It is nobody winning if there is a war broken out in Taiwan Strait.

ONE MORE THING we should understand before we make any move, we, American or Taiwan CAN NOT WIN THIS WAR, but it will devastate Taiwan and all Taiwanese will be endured death, pain and other unbearable sufferance, if said a war is broken out, even said we are unconditionally to support Taiwan independence and we do not care how many American body bags will be come back. So now we should understand that I, as a native Han Taiwanese, will not support Taiwan independence, but resolve a difference between Taiwan and China and I am sure that they are capable of resolving their difference without poking our nose to their business.

Second a meeting between President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama.

President Obama claimed to meet Dala Lama as Mr. Obama claimed a world religious leader and to fight for Tibetan’s right. Mr. President tells us what ethnic Han-Chinese right is. Mr. President, you are constitutional lawyer, if a person or people use a freedom of expression of First Amendment as a motive alleged in order to cloak real intention of inciting an ethnic riot if this person is still protected by our First Amendment under our constitution, of cause not. If an abettor or instigator intend to abet or to instigate another to commit forcible felony which aggravated violence cause the death of human life, such as Tibetan/Chinese terrorized the tranquility of Chinese society by burn other ethnic Chinese to death in their home as Tibetan-Chinese set a fire on their house or killed them on the Lhasa street or cut their ear etc. which obviously intended to terrorize other Chinese by Tibetan-Chinese.

Yes, if there is convincing proof, beyond reasonable doubt that Dala Lama orchestrated Tibetan-Chinese riot. Dala Lama could be punishable by imprisonment due to instigate Tibetan-Chinese terroristic act against other ethnic Chinese, that cost many human lives, under US constitution of USCA {3077, act of domestic terrorism if said this would have occurred in the United States.

The violent attack on Chinese soil in March 2008 by Tibetan-Chinese is similarity in Mumbai, India, Terror attacks, Dala Lama, bases in India and organized from India wanted independence from China, even though, he claimed that he wanted autonomous Tibet and Chinese province surround Tibetan area. However, from the speech what he made so far, it seems to me that he would not tolerate that Tibetan- Chinese mixed with other ethnic Chinese and other ethnic Chinese can not live in Tibet and those provinces surrounded Tibetan area which, by the way, is 1/3 of Chinese Territory.

My argument here is a similar attack in India why we, American as well as Western European applause when Tibetan-Chinese Terrorized attack other ethnic Chinese with encouragement and incitement and called Chinese government suppressor. However we called Mumbai attack is a terror attack. It seems to me that we try very hard to create an enemy which will not be the best interest of the United States, but may be the best interest of some politicians.

The Terror act can occur any where. If a group of people try to terrorize against the general public in the United States, Europe, India or China. We can not classify one country as terror attacks and the other as suppressive country because of the regime of the country which we do not like or they do not do what we tell them to do.

I do not think so that we will not say or protest strongly if Chinese leaders invite and meet a leader of Afghan Taliban against whom we fight a war.

Jennie PC Chiang  03/07/10

slideshow

"美國民主人士19日仍在國會圖書館贈予達賴喇嘛「民主服務獎」的榮譽，表揚他致力促進民主，衛護民主為普世價值，深度關切全人類，給予被奴役的人們無限希望”。This is whole thing more like an act of sabotage against China than trying to help China that goes a democratic way.  Democracy is a fine line between chaotic society and freedom. Freedom must be reasonable regulations and prohibitions, by its constitution and legal system, imposed in the interests of the community. We can not just impose our values on other cultures in the name of democracy.

I do not necessarily like a communism ideology, especially, a person in extreme of Mr. Kari Marx’s ideology. It is not much different between Marx and other religions if Mr. Marx has been worshiped with its creed and ritual.

As size of China, more than 1 billion people, it can not be changed over night. Again, if I would have lived in China, I rather have stable and healthy growth with gradually evolve its society and legal system than poor and chaotic society, such as India, Pakistan, and Mexico, etc.  I can guarantee you China will gradually evolve its legal and social system to meet the needs of Chinese society and people.   

 “達賴表示，中國獨裁專制體制無法長久。他說「我認為，中國共產黨犯了許多過錯，但同時，他們也為更強大的中國作出不少貢獻。」”即致力西藏民主改革。達賴喇嘛1959年流亡後，流亡政府1960年即舉行第一次選舉，1963年即公布民主憲法. 共產黨該榮譽退休的時機已經來臨。SEE WHO IS TALKING?  If Dala Lama claimed that he is only religious leader, then, why he acted and spoke more like a politician than a religious leader???  Now 85% public opinion poll, which conducted by the United States of America pollster in 2008, claimed that China has gone in the right direction and are happy with their leaders.  

Following I have posted in Wall Street Journal of 02/18/10:

President Obama claimed to meet Dala Lama as Mr. Obama claimed a world religious leader and to fight for Tibetan’s right. Mr. President tells us what ethnic Han-Chinese right is. Mr. President, you are constitutional lawyer, if a person or people use a freedom of expression of First Amendment as a motive alleged in order to cloak real intention of inciting an ethnic riot if this person is still protected by our First Amendment under our constitution, of cause not. If an abettor or instigator intend to abet or to instigate another to commit forcible felony which aggravated violence cause the death of human life, such as Tibetan/Chinese terrorized the tranquility of Chinese society by burn other ethnic Chinese to death in their home as Tibetan-Chinese set a fire on their house or killed them on the Lhasa street or cut their ear etc. which obviously intended to terrorize other Chinese by Tibetan-Chinese. 

Yes, if there is convincing proof, beyond reasonable doubt that Dala Lama orchestrated Tibetan-Chinese riot. Dala Lama could be punishable by imprisonment due to instigate Tibetan-Chinese terroristic act against other ethnic Chinese under US constitution of USCA {3077, act of domestic terrorism if said this would have occurred in the United States.

The violent attack on Chinese soil in March 2008 by Tibetan-Chinese is similarity in Mumbai, India, Terror attacks, Dala Lama, bases in India and organized from India wanted independence from China, even though, he claimed that he wanted autonomous Tibet and Chinese province surround Tibetan area. However, from the speech what he made so far, it seems to me that he would not tolerate that Tibetan- Chinese mixed with other ethnic Chinese and other ethnic Chinese can not live in Tibet and those provinces surrounded Tibetan area which, by the way, is 1/3 of Chinese Territory.

Mumbai terrorist, bases in Pakistan and organized as well as trained in Kashmir, Pakistan wanted independent Indian Kashmir from India and join with Pakistan.

However, reaction from the United States and western European media and some politician or those countries was very different.

When Chinese had been violently attacked by Tibetan-Chinese, American and western European media and those countries politicians applause with encouragement and incitement as Tibetan-Chinese killed other ethnic Chinese people on the street and set the fire on the building. Some American and western Europeans media and those countries politician called Chinese government suppressor. Yes, twenty two Chinese people ether killed on the Lhasa Street or burning to dead, not as many as Mumbai, India, terror attack but it is still terror act.

The Terror act can occur any where. If a group of people try to terrorize against the general public in the United States, Europe, India or China. We can not classify one country as terror attacks and the other as suppressive country because of the regime of the country which we do not like or they do not do what we tell them to do.

I do not think that Dala Lama will intend to work with Chinese leadership to resolve problem to the best interest of Tibetan-Chinese as my aforesaid Third paragraph which Dala Lama made a propose that Chinese leaders could not accept. Now the ball is in Dala Lama Side.

Jennie PC Chiang  02/20/10

slideshow

"譚作人的辯護律師浦志強表示，整個宣判過程不過十分鐘，宣判後，譚作人當庭表示不服，要求上訴，在被法警帶離時提高聲調說：「為家鄉人民坐牢是我的光榮。」浦志強說，當初檢方的起訴書以「紀念六四事件」及「地震後發表大量嚴重詆毀黨和政府形象的言論」為由控告譚作人，但法院昨天的定罪證據只提譚作人的「六四」文章，對律師的抗辯重點「地震豆腐渣工程」隻字不提，事件完全是以言入罪“.

I am not taking sides with or support to any one. I just try to apply a legal standpoint to Tan’s case. A legal right is based on sufficient evidence, Tan’s case here is both evidence and subject matter argument, by the law, not a hearsay or an assumption.

Tan’s charge is inciting subversion of state power for writing that commemorated the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown which Chinese court verdict for Tan’s offense. Tan’s attorney argument in Chinese court should have been an effort to establish belief to the subject matter by counterclaim, a claim presented by a defendant to diminish the plaintiff’s/government’s claim, the charge that should be directly related to the case.

Mr. Tan has not been charged an activity of his question regarding office accounts of school collapses in the massive Sichuan earthquake 2008. Thus, an activity of questioned school collapses in the mass earthquake is not relevant to the subject matter or to the case. I do not think that a defendant’s attorney knew what he was doing.

Tan’s attorney should not have attributed his legal incompetence, based on the information of the Wall Street Journal and the World Journal provided, to Chinese court system or a human right issue which would not and will not solve actual problem of Chinese legal system or a government’s accountability. Tan’s attorney should spend more time to defeat the subject matter of Chinese government’s claim instead of trying to divert the normal litigation to a human right issue and I do not think that the United States has any business to do with Chinese judicial system.

Jennie PC Chiang   02/11/10

This artical also posted in Wall Street Journal.

slideshow

I do understand Chinese legal system may not be as sophistical as we are here. But nonetheless, Google must have sufficient evidence to sustain Google’s claim that Chinese government is behind the attacks. I like Google. However, if Google pull out from Chinese market due to tough commercial competition, then, Google should not blame its unable to compete to Chinese censorship or the attacks.

Google’s attorney should be aware that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the public under our First Amendment Doctrine to U.S. constitution. Google has fought for a freedom of speech in China. Google must be aware that material, which Google put on Google’s site, is not inherently likely to provoke a violent response against a tranquil Chinese society. Therefore, I do agree Chinese regulation or to censor certain utterances or material from internet except Google can prove otherwise.  

One of Google’s complaints is pornography material censorship. An obscenity or child pornography may be not protected by freedom of speech under our First Amendment to U.S. constitution. 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court rule that our government is entitled to restrict children’s access to certain kinds of sexually explicitly material, even if said the material is not obscene or illegal for adults. However, it is hard to distinguish adults from children for purposes of restricting content in internet. Therefore, Chinese government has a right to censor the pornography material.

Mr. James Mulvenon, director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis at Defense Group Inc. claimed that the perpetrators launched the attacks from at least six Internet addresses located in Taiwan, which is a common strategy used by Chinese hackers to mask their origin. Taiwan and China is two different governments, Mr. Mulvenon, you can not accuse some one or a country wrong doing, as you claimed a common strategy used by Chinese, without providing sufficient evidence or previous offense by Chinese hackers to back up your claim. Please be aware that make an accusation without providing sufficient evidence for your claim that is not protected by our First Amendment.

Jennie PC Chiang  01/13/10

PS. Some of contents of my article above are posted in Wall Street Journal site.