[Fwd: Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2006 16:52:00 -0700
From:	Richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
To:	em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC:	MOE <higher@mail.moe.gov.tw>, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw>

Yang, Ming-Tzong

Secretary-General
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

19 May 2006

Dear Professor Yang,

    In view of my last email, there's something else I want to address here, since you're so confident about your "ad hoc" committees (see your quoted comments on the NCCU webpage). I already made clear in my last email that no committee can "review," "nullify," or even "approve" a legal Ministry ruling or the full legal benefits of that ruling, dated 8 January 2001. If the university continues to believe otherwise, the university must face the legal consequences. And when I write the "university" I mean all faculty and chairs involved in those committee hearings that show contempt for the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. You yourself have now come out publicly in support of the university's illegal actions and have therefore made yourself liable to legal claims in the future.
    Which brings me to the issue of the minutes of that last "hearing." I mean, of course, "simulated" hearing, since no committee is legally authorized to convene on issues decided in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. Nonetheless, I need the minutes of that hearing to take legal action. Let me stress that minutes of hearings should be circulated automatically. That's the law. Since when does a faculty member have to petition for minutes concerning decisions made about him and go through a byzantine process that lasts for days or weeks?
    Finally, since you seem to support "ad hoc" committees to decide law,
    1. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if a student named Chen An-chuen slandered or libeled me by writing unsupported accusations against a teacher in 1999?
    2. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if Chiou Yuan-guey and Rufus Cook, two FLLD professors, behaved unethically in supporting Chen An-chuen's undocumented and secret accusations against me eight years after failing her class?
    3. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if Liu Gi-zen, currently an Assistant Professor in my department, slandered or libeled me, or otherwise insulted a teacher by supporting, in court, Chen An-chuen's (initially secret) claim that she failed my class unfairly eight years before? Mr. Liu had no proof of this other than Ms. Chen's claim. Do you think an ad hoc committee should investigate the basis of Mr. Liu's support or why he was hired at our university despite this fact?    
    4. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to investigate why the current Dean of Student Affairs, Ko Huei-chen, has so far failed to respond to my requests to discipline Chen An-chuen for insulting a teacher with undocumented accusations, made in secret and in a malicious manner that went beyond merely contesting a grade eight years before?
    5. For that matter, why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to investigate why the president of our university, Kao Chiang, defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years and continues to impede enforcement of the full benefits of that ruling dated 8 January 2001?
    Or are "ad hoc" committees used at our university to impede justice rather than to enforce justice?
    Let me remind you yet again: no American professor will be deprived of legal rights or human dignity at National Cheng Kung University without full legal consequences to all parties involved.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Langugaes and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University
    Tainan, Taiwan

    PS: I doubt if it matters much, but your email address is mistyped on the university's webpage, omitting the "e" that belongs before "mail" after the at-sign (@).

[Fwd: Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2006 16:50:26 -0700
From:	Richard <invictus2002@yahoo.com>
To:	em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC:	letters@taipeitimes.com, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com, info@chinapost.com.tw, info@taipeitimes.com, letters@taipeitimes.com, louwei.chen@msa.hinet.net, hefpp@hef.org.tw, tahr@seed.net.tw, MOE <higher@mail.moe.gov.tw>, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw>

Yang, Ming-Tzong

Secretary-General
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

19 May 2006

Dear Professor Yang,

    In view of my last email, there's something else I want to address here, since you're so confident about your "ad hoc" committees (see your quoted comments on the NCCU webpage). I already made clear in my last email that no committee can "review," "nullify," or even "approve" a legal Ministry ruling or the full legal benefits of that ruling, dated 8 January 2001. If the university continues to believe otherwise, the university must face the legal consequences. And when I write the "university" I mean all faculty and chairs involved in those committee hearings that show contempt for the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. You yourself have now come out publicly in support of the university's illegal actions and have therefore made yourself liable to legal claims in the future.
    Which brings me to the issue of the minutes of that last "hearing." I mean, of course, "simulated" hearing, since no committee is legally authorized to convene on issues decided in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. Nonetheless, I need the minutes of that hearing to take legal action. Let me stress that minutes of hearings should be circulated automatically. That's the law. Since when does a faculty member have to petition for minutes concerning decisions made about him and go through a byzantine process that lasts for days or weeks?
    Finally, since you seem to support "ad hoc" committees to decide law,
    1. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if a student named Chen An-chuen slandered or libeled me by writing unsupported accusations against a teacher in 1999?
    2. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if Chiou Yuan-guey and Rufus Cook, two FLLD professors, behaved unethically in supporting Chen An-chuen's undocumented and secret accusations against me eight years after failing her class?
    3. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to determine if Liu Gi-zen, currently an Assistant Professor in my department, slandered or libeled me, or otherwise insulted a teacher by supporting, in court, Chen An-chuen's (initially secret) claim that she failed my class unfairly eight years before? Mr. Liu had no proof of this other than Ms. Chen's claim. Do you think an ad hoc committee should investigate the basis of Mr. Liu's support or why he was hired at our university despite this fact?    
    4. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to investigate why the current Dean of Student Affairs, Ko Huei-chen, has so far failed to respond to my requests to discipline Chen An-chuen for insulting a teacher with undocumented accusations, made in secret and in a malicious manner that went beyond merely contesting a grade eight years before?
    5. For that matter, why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to investigate why the president of our university, Kao Chiang, defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years and continues to impede enforcement of the full benefits of that ruling dated 8 January 2001?
    Or are "ad hoc" committees used at our university to impede justice rather than to enforce justice?
    Let me remind you yet again: no American professor will be deprived of legal rights or human dignity at National Cheng Kung University without full legal consequences to all parties involved.

    Sincerely,

    Richard de Canio
    Department of Foreign Langugaes and Literature
    National Cheng Kung University
    Tainan, Taiwan

    PS: I doubt if it matters much, but your email address is mistyped on the university's webpage, omitting the "e" that belongs before "mail" after the at-sign (@).

Regarding your comments to the NCCU student newspaper

Subject:
Regarding your comments to the NCCU student newspaper
From:
Richard
Date:
Fri, 19 May 2006 10:22:16 -0700
To:
em50030@email.ncku.edu.tw
CC:
MOE , MOE , Control Yuan , Prime Minister , Prime Minister

Yang, Ming-Tzong
Secretary-General
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

19 May 2006

Dear Professor Yang,

I am puzzled by remarks you were quoted as saying to an NCCU (student) newspaper, to the effect that (English translation) the university was following Ministry of Education directions in the handling of my case. That comment was made despite the fact that Mr. Kao Chiang, president of our university, delayed enforcing a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. Moreover, his administration has delayed the full benefits of that ruling up to now.
Do you consider this acceptable? If so, why have a Ministry appeal process at all? Is it because our university wishes to pretend to a democratic process that it doesn't really believe in?
Apart from the legal Ministry ruling in my favor, dated 8 January 2006, the Ministry of Education has issued numerous warnings in the form of letters to Mr. Kao requesting that he follow regulations.
Is this your idea of following laws? Do you think the Ministry of Education issues letters to the president of a university because it has nothing better to do?
Why do you think warning letters for compliance are issued if the university was in compliance to begin with? Why do you think the university was forced to finally comply with the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 two years later?
The university must have been in the wrong to begin with. Are you proud of the fact that it took National Cheng Kung University two years to comply with the law? That's not something I would be proud of or boast of to a student newspaper. After all, educated people read newspapers and they will make up their minds based on the moral principles that, presumably, were part of their education. Moreover, the fact that no official has yet been punished for this official misconduct should embarrass you, not encourage or embolden you.
You're not supposed to rationalize decisions made by your superiors when those superiors are clearly in the wrong. You're not supposed to defend the actions of your superior; you're supposed to defend the law. And if a legal Ministry ruling is not the law then I'd like to know what is the law in Taiwan? No "ad hoc" committee (a phrase you're quoted as using in the NCCU article) can replace the law of a country. No lawyer can replace the law of a country. No official, regardless what his official title is, can replace the law of a country. It's precisely because many officials at our university do not understand these basic principles that our university has been dragged through this mess.
Your quoted words to the NCCU newspaper continue (in English translation): "De Canio's numerous petitions let the Ministry of Education continuously ask investigation, which provoked the university. [He thought that] if the Ministry of Education did think this is improper, they could investigate themselves. The University will cooperate completely."
What do you mean by "provoking" the university (though I admit that's only an English translation of the word you used; still I assume it's close to the word you used). Who provoked whom? The university held secret meetings; the university circulated a secret letter; the university presumably solicited a student to write a malicious letter (why else would a student complain of a grade eight years later, the day before a scheduled dismissal meeting?); the university violated numerous basic legal principles, boldfaced by the Ministry Appeal ruling; the university delayed enforcing that ruling for more than two years; the university contested an American citizen's right to appeal even after the appeal process was completed and the university fully participated in that appeal process; the university continues to simulate meetings in my case as if those meetings were legally authorized.
Who provoked whom? Since when does a university have the right to "review," "contest," or even "approve" a superior ruling of the Minsitry of Education? That's not the law, Mr. Yang. That's against the law, unless the law has no meaning at all.
Once again I urge you to consider the consequences of defying the law. Whatever benefits a few officials get in the short run will not benefit our university in the long run.
One thing I assure you: this case will not be over until I receive the full benefits of the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2006. That includes a formal apology and complete compensation. No "ad hoc" committee will deprive me of my rights or even "approve" those rights. My rights in a democracy are insured by the law and, specifically, by the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2006.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan.

Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling

From:
Richard
Date:
Fri, 19 May 2006 16:58:50 -0700
To:
raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw


http://eyemail.gio.gov.tw:9100/cgi-bin/show_re_mail?msgid=362104&check=invictus2002



????: "Richard"
????: FRI, 19 MAY 2006 16:47:49
??: Regarding the minutes of that last "hearing," in defiance of the Ministry ruling
????: 1 ???


Yang, Ming-Tzong

Secretary-General
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

19 May 2006

Dear Professor Yang,

In view of my last email, there's something else I want to address
here, since you're so confident about your "ad hoc" committees (see your
quoted comments on the NCCU webpage
). I
already made clear in my last email that no committee can "review,"
"nullify," or even "approve" a legal Ministry ruling or the full legal
benefits of that ruling, dated 8 January 2001. If the university
continues to believe otherwise, the university must face the legal
consequences. And when I write the "university" I mean all faculty and
chairs involved in those committee hearings that show contempt for the
legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. You yourself have now come out
publicly in support of the university's illegal actions and have
therefore made yourself liable to legal claims in the future.
Which brings me to the issue of the minutes of that last "hearing."
I mean, of course, "simulated" hearing, since no committee is legally
authorized to convene on issues decided in the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001. Nonetheless, I need the minutes of that hearing to take
legal action. Let me stress that minutes of hearings should be
circulated automatically. That's the law. Since when does a faculty
member have to petition for minutes concerning decisions made about him
and go through a byzantine process that lasts for days or weeks?
Finally, since you seem to support "ad hoc" committees to decide law,
1. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to
determine if a student named Chen An-chuen slandered or libeled me by
writing unsupported accusations against a teacher in 1999?
2. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to
determine if Chiou Yuan-guey and Rufus Cook, two FLLD professors,
behaved unethically in supporting Chen An-chuen's undocumented and
secret accusations against me eight years after failing her class?
3. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to
determine if Liu Gi-zen, currently an Assistant Professor in my
department, slandered or libeled me, or otherwise insulted a teacher by
supporting, in court, Chen An-chuen's (initially secret) claim that she
failed my class unfairly eight years before? Mr. Liu had no proof of
this other than Ms. Chen's claim. Do you think an ad hoc committee
should investigate the basis of Mr. Liu's support or why he was hired at
our university despite this fact?
4. Why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc committee to
investigate why the current Dean of Student Affairs, Ko Huei-chen, has
so far failed to respond to my requests to discipline Chen An-chuen for
insulting a teacher with undocumented accusations, made in secret and in
a malicious manner that went beyond merely contesting a grade eight
years before?
5. For that matter, why doesn't the university authorize an ad hoc
committee to investigate why the president of our university, Kao
Chiang, defied a Ministry ruling for more than two years and continues
to impede enforcement of the full benefits of that ruling dated 8
January 2001?
Or are "ad hoc" committees used at our university to impede justice
rather than to enforce justice?
Let me remind you yet again: no American professor will be deprived
of legal rights or human dignity at National Cheng Kung University
without full legal consequences to all parties involved.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Langugaes and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

PS: I doubt if it matters much, but your email address is mistyped
on the university's webpage, omitting the "e" that belongs before "mail"
after the at-sign (@).

Regarding your comments to the NCCU student newspaper

http://eyemail.gio.gov.tw:9100/cgi-bin/show_re_mail?msgid=361993&check=invictus2002



????: "Richard"
????: FRI, 19 MAY 2006 10:37:03
??: Regarding your comments to the NCCU student newspaper
????: 1 ???


Yang, Ming-Tzong

Secretary-General
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

19 May 2006

Dear Professor Yang,

I am puzzled by remarks you were quoted as saying to an NCCU
(student)
newspaper, to the effect that (English translation) the university was
following Ministry of Education directions in the handling of my case.
That comment was made despite the fact that Mr. Kao Chiang, president of
our university, delayed enforcing a legal Ministry ruling for more than
two years. Moreover, his administration has delayed the full benefits of
that ruling up to now.
Do you consider this acceptable? If so, why have a Ministry appeal
process at all? Is it because our university wishes to pretend to a
democratic process that it doesn't really believe in?
Apart from the legal Ministry ruling in my favor, dated 8 January
2001, the Ministry of Education has issued numerous warnings in the form
of letters to Mr. Kao requesting that he follow regulations.
Is this your idea of following laws? Do you think the Ministry of
Education issues letters to the president of a university because it has
nothing better to do?
Why do you think warning letters for compliance are issued if the
university was in compliance to begin with? Why do you think the
university was forced to finally comply with the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001 two years later?
The university must have been in the wrong to begin with. Are you
proud of the fact that it took National Cheng Kung University two years
to comply with the law? That's not something I would be proud of or
boast of to a student newspaper. After all, educated people read
newspapers and they will make up their minds based on the moral
principles that, presumably, were part of their education. Moreover, the
fact that no official has yet been punished for this official misconduct
should embarrass you, not encourage or embolden you.
You're not supposed to rationalize decisions made by your superiors
when those superiors are clearly in the wrong. You're not supposed to
defend the actions of your superior; you're supposed to defend the law.
And if a legal Ministry ruling is not the law then I'd like to know what
is the law in Taiwan? No "ad hoc" committee (a phrase you're quoted as
using in the NCCU article) can replace the law of a country. No lawyer
can replace the law of a country. No official, regardless what his
official title is, can replace the law of a country. It's precisely
because many officials at our university do not understand these basic
principles that our university has been dragged through this mess.
Your quoted words to the NCCU newspaper continue (in English
translation): "De Canio's numerous petitions let the Ministry of
Education continuously ask investigation, which provoked the university.
[He thought that] if the Ministry of Education did think this is
improper, they could investigate themselves. The University will
cooperate completely."
What do you mean by "provoking" the university (though I admit
that's only an English translation of the word you used; still I assume
it's close to the word you used). Who provoked whom? The university held
secret meetings; the university circulated a secret letter; the
university presumably solicited a student to write a malicious letter
(why else would a student complain of a grade eight years later, the day
before a scheduled dismissal meeting?); the university violated numerous
basic legal principles, boldfaced by the Ministry Appeal ruling; the
university delayed enforcing that ruling for more than two years; the
university contested an American citizen's right to appeal even after
the appeal process was completed and the university fully participated
in that appeal process; the university continues to simulate meetings in
my case as if those meetings were legally authorized.
Who provoked whom? Since when does a university have the right to
"review," "contest," or even "approve" a superior ruling of the Minsitry
of Education? That's not the law, Mr. Yang. That's against the law,
unless the law has no meaning at all.
Once again I urge you to consider the consequences of defying the
law. Whatever benefits a few officials get in the short run will not
benefit our university in the long run.
One thing I assure you: this case will not be over until I receive
the full benefits of the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2006. That
includes a formal apology and complete compensation. No "ad hoc"
committee will deprive me of my rights or even "approve" those rights.
My rights in a democracy are insured by the law and, specifically, by
the legal Ministry ruling of 8 January 2006.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan.