The "centralization secret order" was further infiltration

the court of Hong Kong

May.06, 2004

Former Chinese leader not only to pass through the mean of "centralization secret order" to conceal invention of cure the SARS which to put into practice to save SARS patient after May.15, 2003. The "centralization secret order" was further infiltration the court of Hong Kong to interfere sentenceThe judge of HK and judge of China were no two shapes now!

 

Under this law case to show, the human nature of judges was humiliation by despotic power from the "centralization secret order", which soul had been taken out and depraved to change into a pitiful pug!  According to a report on 2003 April, which had total 58 university principal and professor to jointly signed to asking change the mean of principles of teaching could by money to bought the credit and an academic degree etc., which mean not only will be poison the young people so with the seed of rotten to throwing to entire society further.  Look from this matter, the former Chinese leader was illegal against Lin Zhen Man that was merely a pretext, he was a purpose to conspire contaminate the society of Hong Kong and cultivated the dictatorship foundation

 

     Theto burn the books and bury the scholars aliveis the crime means of Chinese emperor defend power of ancient times, but this and give up rule by law with administration by money-supreme to poison Chinese nation was to be very similar. The infantile Hong Kong officer, to suppose who was tolerate former Chinese leader to aim at harm of lawless, it was " individual incident " only and can to barter for the guarantee ofone nation two systems?

 

       The "centralization secret order" was further infiltration the court of Hong Kong, the sober truth surely you startling

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

 CACV355/2002 / Apr.06, 2004

 

This law case is very simple, so you do not need to spend too much unnecessary expenditure and time to investigate the details of this legal case. Under the exposition of less than 1000 words, you will be stupefied by the judiciary in Hong Kong! The way the three Hong Kong judges ruled was to add farce on this case.  The rotten to the core trick of the test case must be recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records!

 

The case number is LDBM 61/2002 in the LANDS TRIBUNAL of Hong Kong; Lin Zhen Man represented a total of seven neighboring factory owners to indict the owner committee member of their industrial mansion and under the judicial process to get two conclusive judgments by the LANDS TRIBUNAL of Hong Kong.  Furthermore, under the section 11A of Chapter 17 of Hong Kong Laws, which two conclusive judgments exceeded the 30 days of time restriction of review and which could not be overthrew. 

 

The Hon. Wong J. of LANDS TRIBUNAL was unable to search for any shortcomings in the two conclusive judgments, but he still overthrew them painstakingly, the Hon. Wong J. can only to plant stolen goods inUnder the Rules of High Court 4A Order from39of for short of two conclusive judgments. The disgusting adjudication-trick is as such

 

The lawyer of defendant was to slander:dear judge, theRules of High Courtdoes not have the Order number 4A! Obviously, the lawyer added the two words “theand numberto 4A, so the Hon. Wong J. was absurd to overthrow the irrevocable conclusive judgments:

 

First, I agree that theRules of High Courtdoes not have the Order of the number 4A.  Mr. Lin might have taken the supposed chapter of 4A to be the order of 4A. But, quoting the Order of the 4A number was a wrong evident.

 

    The Hon. Yuen J.A and Hon. Yam J. of Appeal Court was to hear on July.18, 2003 and to announce a verdict on Apr.06, 2004.  The written judgment of Appeal Court was to agree fully that the judgments were misled and to keep the original judgments!  The 17 section of written judgment of Appeal Court was to ignore the4Aand orderofUnder the Rules of High Court 4A Order from39had a blank space, The 17 section of written judgment is below:

 

Moreover, the two verdicts of court were wrong to base it on 4A order ofThe rule of high court, because theThe rule of high courthave no order of 4A.  This probably points at the outset of the A1page of The Rules of the High Courtof the chapter of 4th

 

Under the Rules of High Court 4A Order from39was the brief-state for the from39 of verdict (order) of court only, for instance, theCap 4A order 3 TIME was put on display on the www.justice.gov.hk as everyone knows!  All Rules of Order were ranks to call the chapter 4A! The brief-state was an express of basic-grammar! Because a blank space between 4A Order, and 4A and Order do not mean the same! This is the basic of grammar that even a primary student should know! Not only was the brief-state unimportant for an Order or Verdict of court, if it was a clerical mistake in judgments or orders it can be amended under the Rules 11 ofCap 4A order 20of Hong Kong law!

 

Obviously, as shown in the 17 section of written judgment of Appeal Court, the Hon. Yuen J.A and Hon. Yam J. did not know that the law of Hong Kong comprises of the chapter of 4A!  When passing down their judgement, the two Judges of Appeal Court showed illiteracy and legal ignorance!  ( written judgment : http://www.ycec.com/CACV355-02-060404.htm)

 

With reference to the 14 sections of written judgment again, it will surprise you even further:

 

14.   Although the Section 10 ofLANDS TRIBUNAL ORDINANCEwas stated also:

 

(1)   The Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction in respect of the following matters-

i)…[the making of orders in default of any action by a party, ]

 and, so far as it thinks fit, may follow the practice and procedure of the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction.

 

* But, the so-called it thinks fitwas denoted that have been no stated procedure of LANDS TRIBUNAL RULES

 

Very obviously, the two judges of Appeal Court were trying to hide behind the stipulation of law of square brackets then the next paragraph to write down their personal and subjective opinion! The judges only have the power to interpret the law, but to tamper with the law is a taboo of the judges’s discipline! The trick of verdict was outrageous!

 

Section 14 and 17 were the focal point in the written judgment of Appeal Court in its verdict to overthrow the two conclusive judgments, but the condemnation out of one’s own mouth by the two judges of Appeal Court is enough to make people disgusted!

 

Is the rottenness of the administration of justice in Hong Kong a common sight already? In this case, the judge could pretend to be illiterate and not know that such legal stipulation exists, the judge could also falsify the law further, in such a manner, what use is there for a strict legislation?

 

Do you emphasize human rightsDo you emphasize to rule by law Can you endure such perverse ways the scandalous judges do things! Maybe, you can say is Hong Kong not practicingone nation two systems?

 

But, whether this case is related to thecentralization secret orderof former Chinese leader for intervening into the fairness of the judiciary Hong Kong to be directed against Lin Zhen Man of litigant?  Because theone nation two systemswas a promise from the China and England Government to serve as a record in the United Nations, therefore, any organization of human rights in any country have the power and duty to ask the government of Hong Kong why

 

 

Appellant

 

Lin Zhen Man  HK ID D188015 (3)

May. 06. 2004

Yet Chong Electric Company                         

The Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong

Blk. C-4, 13/F., Wing Hing Ind. Bldg.,

14 Hing Yip St., Kwun Tong Kln. HK.

Tel: 852 23440137  Fax: 852 23419016

www.ycec.com   lhj@ycec.com   lzmyc@singnet.com.sg