Subject: Revised Translation of Court Testimony (deposition) regarding the Lily Chen case. The following may interest readers interested in the Lily Chen case. Lily Chen wrote a secret accusation against me and I filed a lawsuit against her. The following is, I believe, an English transcript of one court session (ROC year 89 December 7) covering most issues related to the case. I'm not sure if this is complete because it seems to be cut off in the middle, but this is a fairly comprehensive purview, based on court testimony (though in probably rough English translation) of this case. In the transcript, I am the "plaintiff" (the person who complains). Perhaps I shall find a complete transcript in my files. Or those interested might be able to obtain a complete Chinese transcript from the court:
The following are the questions raised by the plaintiff concerning the
replies of the defendant and the testimony of the witnesses during the
second court session (ROC year 89 Dec. 7). The purpose is to show how Miss
Chen and the testimony of the witnesses are against the law and against
common sense.
1. The official reason given by NCKU concerning the "nonrenewal of
contract" is "plagiarism" and "spreading rumors against colleagues¨ (exhibit
1). Yet the university never investigated the charges made against DeCanio
in a manner that fulfills the legal proceedings in order to protect the
rights of DeCanio. These proceedings include informing DeCanio about the
details of the accusation and giving DeCanio a chance to defend himself
(exhibit 2).
The NCKU FLLD also realizes that its actions are illegal. Hence, the FLLD,
upon hearing that the NCKU College Appeal Committee was sending the case
back to the department, it decided to find "concrete proof" against
DeCanio’s teaching and character weaknesses and faults. The purpose is to
make the college appeal committee members, and later the college and
university review committee members, have a bad impression of DeCanio and
ignore the official reasoning of the FLLD review committee for the
nonrenewal of his contract.
As the illegality of the first review committee meeting is the key problem
of DeCanio’s case, the appeal committee members (since both college and
university review committee members are laymen in the law) naturally fell
into the trap. They even forgot that it is important first to investigate
the validity of Lily Chen’s letter and immediately conclude that they are
facts.
This can be proven by a letter sent by Dean Tu of the College of Liberal
Arts to the NCKU Teachers Union stating that "someone" (i.e. Miss Chen) "had
formally said that she would testify if necessary. Hence on 9 June when the
college appeal committee met, the committee members stated that after
DeCanio files an appeal they couldd make a reasonable judgment according to
information gathered."
DeCanio had already pointed out the legal irregularities of Lily Chen’s
letter in a letter to the NCKU Appeal Committee on 28 July ROC Year 89
(exhibit 4) and another letter to the Acting President Yung Hsiang Shane
(exhibit 5). It is because neither the university appeal committee nor the
acting president acted on the letter that DeCanio was forced to take the
case to court. It is not, as Miss Chen claimed, that the case is a "waste
of legal resources and suing people at will." Chen falsified the cause and
made it the result.
2. Miss Chen did admit that the letter was composed on the night of 8 June
during the previous court proceedings; and that the letter was given to
Chairman Lee of the FLLD on 8 June. Chairman Lee then took the letter at 12
noon to the second college appeal committee (exhibit 6).
This "coincidence," or rather this time and cause connection, shows that the
letter was written not with the purpose of complaining against the poor
quality of teaching or the teacher’s moral behavior towards a student
(although 10 years later). It is for the purpose of helping to contribute
to establish the non-renewal contract proceedings of DeCanio’s case.
As DeCanio’s official first court statement shows that the non-renewal
contract hearing of the FLLD Review Committee is supposed to be
confidentially held, how can Miss Chen hear of the existence of such a
meeting? This shows that the Chairman of the FLLD review committee,
Chairman Lee, revealed the contents of the meeting. Chairman Lee, by so
doing, damaged the reputation of DeCanio because he revealed the contents of
the FLLD Review Committee in things that affect the reputation of DeCanio.
3. Miss Chen claimed "she did complain to Chairman Ren but nothing came out
of it." These are only Miss Chen’s words. DeCanio requests Miss Chen and
Mr. Ren to produce concrete facts to substantiate such claims. Otherwise,
since they have a mutual interest, it is natural that they testify for each
other. DeCanio also has given proof that Mr.Ren is not fit to be a witness
in the first court statement, reason four.
4. Miss Chen claimed that "her letter was not discussed within the
university." The second college appeal committee, the college review
committee, and the university review committee minutes all showed that her
letter was indeed discussed. Hence Miss Chen’s words do not stand.
5. Miss Chen claimed that "Prof. Ray falsified things and is under the
suspicion of perjury." Ray is a director of the NCKU Teachers Union. Ray
did not claim that he represented the NCKU Teacher’s Union, but rather that
he is helping DeCanio as a director of the NCKU Teacher’s Union.
Ray did not testify that "DeCanio invited all the class and the parents of
the students to come." The court can easily check its own recording.
Miss Chen challenged the validity of the woman witness. That woman’s
testimony was enclosed in the first court statement. It is up to the court
to see if the testimony of that witness is valid or not.
6. Miss Chen claimed that in DeCanio’s letter of 10 October 1995, he "spoke
things that are not true and falsified things, thus trying to blacken the
character of Miss Chen and that the paper was all wild imagination."
DeCanio requests that the judge read the translation of that letter or ask
anyone competent to read English to judge if the tone of the letter does
contain the charges made about Miss Chen.
7. Miss Chen claimed that DeCanio’s description of the invitation in the
letter is "all false" and that "since the university had taken notice of
DeCanio’s wild behavior, he (DeCanio) had to behave properly." DeCanio’s
original letter stated this was what he remembered to the best of his
memory.
DeCanio wishes to point out the main issue of this litigation is that MS
Chen used a letter that stated that DeCanio "failed her in a course (British
Literature) because she refused to go out with him, an untrue statement that
was sent to the college appeal committee and that such a letter caused a
negative impression to be made of DeCanio and thus affected the rights of
DeCanio.
Yet as the incident took place so many years ago, it is natural for DeCanio
not to be able to remember all the details This also shows that the
invitation (if it did take place) was a natural and normal invitation. If
DeCanio cannot remember every detail, it is quite natural. Not to mention
the ridiculous story of failing a student for not going out with him.
Ms. Chen has no proof to say that the university is taking notice of
DeCanio’s behavior. Ms. Chen also stated that Mr. Ren, the former chairman,
contacted DeCanio over the Chen case. DeCanio wishes to state again that
Chairman Ren never came to him to discuss why he failed Ms. Chen. In ROC
year 79, Ms Chen called up DeCanio and asked about the grades. DeCanio
answered that he failed her because Chen did not answer the question. She
thought that it was not necessary to retrieve the exam paper. In a 1994
letter from DeCanio to Chen, he informed her that Chen’s examination paper
was still in his hands; Ms Chen could check it. However, Ms. Chen did not
respond. This shows that Ms Chen knew that she had no case and therefore
her complaint (if ever made) to then chairman Ren could not stand.
8. Ms. Chen challenged the fact that someone sent an email to inform
DeCanio about the plot to fire him. That email’s translation was presented
to the court during the first session. That act of sending a warning email
was an act of kindness to warn DeCanio of the action of the FLLD. Ms. Chen
called it as "the proof to have done something wrong." This is an example of
direct reflex action of Ms. Chen because this is her sickness. DeCanio
wants the court to know that such a friendly man does exist and he is
prepared to leave that person’s telephone and telephone number so that the
court can make a secret validation.
9. Ms. Chen said that she could produce three foreign faculty members of the
FLLD to testify for her. This is an exaggeration as DeCanio has made
contact with one of Ms. Chen’s so-called witnesses and he said that he
strongly refused to testify on Ms. Chen’s behalf. The court can easily
verify this.
10. Ms. Chen stated that she did not know how the grades were produced. The
fact is very simple and can be verified. The final grade is the sum of the
midterm and the final exam grade. The final exam grade carries more
weight. The total is one. If one adds up the two (midterm and final exam
grades) and multiply them according to their special ratio, then one gets
the final grade. Yet since one wants to limit the students who fail to an
acceptable level, one also does a grade curve so that one’s meridian grades
will fall at a level and area that is fair.
DeCanio has been doing that for many years and such a grading method and
tabulation have never been challenged by the students or the university that
such a method is not sound. If Ms Chen challengers such a way of grading,
she should do it with reason. Yet she accused the teacher of failing her
because she refused to go out with him. By so doing she participated in the
non-renewal of contract issue, which is not her business. Her business is
that of a student. If she is not happy with her grade, she should go to the
university and challenge the teacher’s grading system and not accuse the
teacher of misconduct or unprofessional work.
She said that she would face the law. DeCanio did not believe that the lie
detector could be the judge of her integrity alone. (DeCanio is willing to
be tested by alie detector.)
Concerning the testimony of Ms Chen’s witness of 7 December:
1. DeCanio challenges the testimony of Chen’s witness, Storey, during the
court session. DeCanio wants to point out that the calling of Storey to
witness something that took place 11years ago is similar to Ms Chen
resurrecting a case that happened 10 years ago. Storey’s testimony cannot be
established by his own authority. Otherwise everyone can say what he wants
to say in court without the fear of being charged withthe crime of perjury.
DeCanio requests the court to ask Storey to show concrete proof to
substantiate his allegation.
2. Ms Chen’s witness, Ren, stated that Ms Chen had told him about DeCanio’s
invitation and the failing grade. He also said that DeCanio told him that
Chen’s examination paper was destroyed when he asked DeCanio for it.
DeCanio has previously stated that Ren is not fit to serve as witness in
reason four of his first statement to the court. Yet DeCanio wishes once
more to challenge Ren’s statement. It is a fact that Ren never spoke to
DeCanio and asked him about Ms. Chen’s grade. This is stated in item seven
of the first court statement from DeCanio.
If Ren had spoken to DeCanio, he would have kept records. For this is a
grievous accusation against DeCanio. There should be a record of an
investigation of DeCanio's misconduct and unprofessional and unethical act.
There should be minutes of meetings held to investigate such matters. If
Ren cannot produce such records, then his testimony during the second court
session cannot be accepted as proof.
Ren also stated that the first college appeal committee’s decision to send
the case back to the FLLD review committee was to add more information
concerning DeCanio’s plagiarism and not to reject the decision of the FLLD
review committee decision. Then the FLLD should find facts to substantiate
the charge of DeCanio’s act of plagiarism and to remedy the legal mistakes
in the proceeding of the review committee meeting. Yet the FLLD review
committee did nothing of that kind and instead produced Chen’s letter, which
has no relationship with the formal accusation of plagiarism by DeCanio.
This shows that the purpose of Chen’s letter was to condemn DeCanio. What
the FLLD did was first to sentence and pass the verdict and then find the
proofs. This is an act of bureaucracy and the disrespect of human rights.
3. Chen in the former court session claimed that one day before 10 October
1994 (the date of DeCanio’s letter [exhibit 3 of DeCanio’s first court
statement]), DeCanio used the reason that certain teachers in the FLLD were
spreading rumors to call up Ms. Chen and threaten her. Chen said that she
had spoken to friends in the district attorney’s office about it. These are
only Chen’s statements. Since at that time DeCanio had no proof that Chen
did spread these rumors, the phone conversation was made hoping that Chen
would clarify the rumors.
Ordinarily, if one wants someone’s help, one does not threaten. As a matter
of fact, it a was friendly conversation asking for help. This can be
verified by the tone of my letter sent to Chen after the phone call. The
original phone call went like this:
DeCanio: Lily, I am calling because I heard a rumor. I want to clarify
certain things from you. Someone said that you failed a course given by me
because you refused to go out with me.
Chen: It couldn’t be me. I would not say such stupid things.
DeCanio: I didn’t believe that it came from you. This is because the rumor
comes from an American professor. Before I take action, I want to be
certain that it wasn’t you. So you never heard of such rumors?
No comments:
Post a Comment