百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词]
郭国汀律师专栏
·责令中共当局立即无条件释放兰州大学学生刘西峰!郭国汀
·加拿大著名人权律师ANSLEY支持声援全球绝食抗暴运动的声明
·郭国汀:中国律师应当向高智晟,浦志强律师学习!
***(45)人权研究
***中国人权律师基金会
·郭国汀推荐黄金秋竞选[第三届中国自由文化运动政论奖]推荐函
·郭国汀提名陈泱潮为2009中国自由文化奖之文化成就奖获奖候选人
·郭国汀提名张博树为2009中国自由文化奖之法学奖获奖候选人
·推荐郭国汀先生参选2009年台湾民主人权奖书
·letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award
·提名郭國汀律師作為[第三屆亞洲民主與人權獎]候選人的推薦函
·支持郭国汀律师负责组建中国人权律师基金会
·第二届《中国自由文化奖》评奖程序的修改建议
·郭国汀提名张鉴康律师作为第二届自由文化奖之人权奖候选人
·关于提名陈泱潮竞选[中国自由文化运动文化成就奖]推荐函
·推荐郭国汀先生参选第三届「亞洲民主人權獎」推荐书
·Letter of recommendation of Guoting Guo for 2008 The Third Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award
***(46)关注西藏新疆少数民族人权
·解决西藏问题的最佳方案--宪政联邦体制
·中共政权对藏民族所犯下的罪恶
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?--西藏与中国关系简史
·什么是西藏问题?
·达赖啦嘛论解决西藏问题的原则
·中共宗教灭绝政策的实质是从精神心灵上扼杀藏人
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?
·西藏问题的实质
·自由法治宪政民主联邦体制是解决西藏问题的最佳方案
·达赖啦嘛最常使用的词汇
·达赖啦嘛的使命与梦想
·达赖啦嘛论西藏问题的实质
·达赖啦嘛论西藏文明文化和历史
·达赖啦嘛论解决西问题的原则
·达赖啦嘛论爱同情怜悯与慈悲
·达赖啦嘛论藏传佛教的价值
·是中共暴政而非汉族奴役迫害藏民族!
·新疆暴亂是中共流氓暴政故意利用民族茅盾转嫁统治危机人为泡制的惨案
·坚决支持藏民维民争自由,平等,人权,民主的英勇抗暴运动
·从图片新闻看达赖喇嘛的国际影响力
·达赖喇嘛语录郭国汀译
·蜡烛与阳光争辉------从温家宝批达赖喇嘛说开去
·达赖喇嘛代表流亡政府及全体藏民与中国政府和平谈判理所当然----兼与王希哲兄商榷
·三一四西藏暴乱事件的真相
·布什总统再度敦促中国(中共)与达赖喇嘛对话
·达赖喇嘛抵美国西图参加为期五天的慈善的科学基础大会,据称150000门票全部售出
·布什总统出席奥运开幕式已不确定
·达赖喇嘛今天重申不抵制奥运会
·布什总统决意出席奥运开幕式并非仅由于他性格顽固
***(47)人权律师法律实务
·郭国汀:中国人没有基本人权——2008年加拿大国会中国人权研讨会专稿
·我为何从海事律师转向人权律师?
·盛雪专访郭国汀从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的思想根源
·郭国汀律师受中共政治迫害的直接原因
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·成为一名人权律师!---郭国汀律师专访
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·世界人权日感言/郭国汀
·人权漫谈/南郭
·人权佳话
·保障人权律师的基本人权刻不容缓
·不敢或不愿为法轮功作无罪辩护的律师,不是真正的人权律师!
·人权律师辩护律师必读之公正审判指南(英文)
·我为什么推崇中国人权律师浦志强?
·巴黎律师公会采访中国人权律师郭国汀
·
·人权律师的职责与使命----驳李建强关于严正学力虹案件的声明
·驳斥刘路有关六四屠城的荒唐谬论
·李建强律师与郭国汀律师的公开论战
·李建强与郭国汀律师的论战之二
·英雄多多益善!郭国汀
·英雄辈出的时代刘路千万别走错路 郭国汀
·答康平伙计关于郭律师与李建强之争
·揭穿刘荻的画皮----南郭与[三刘]之争不属刘家私事而是中国民主运动的公事
·刘荻的灵魂竟是如此[美丽] !
·废除或修改煽动颠覆国家政权罪思想监狱中国律师集体第一议案的诞生
·团结起来共同对敌 答刘路先生的公开信
·敦促刘路公开辩污的公开函
·敦促刘路公开辩污的最后通牒
·我为法轮功抗辩——答刘路质询函
***自由人权宪政共和民主之路争论
·中国人缺少宽容精神么?
·郭国汀评价刘晓波诺奖
·关于刘晓波是否合格人选答阮杰函
·郭国汀评刘晓波之伪无敌论
·中共怪异重判刘晓波的意图旨在克意扶持默契能控的民运‘领袖’
·质疑刘晓波先生盛赞俞可平民主论 郭国汀
·我愿意出任刘晓波2006/guoguoting/68
·郭国汀与刘晓波先生关于人民起义权利的对话
·刘晓波案之我见
·郭国汀预言刘晓波与中共之间的默契
·刘晓波虚伪有余而真诚不足
·强烈谴责中共专制暴政公然践踏法律枉法刑拘刘晓波先生!
·为什么应当支持刘晓波?
·郭国汀邀请刘晓波公开论战的函
·告别自由中国论坛网友公开函
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词

南郭注:去年九月,应加拿大人权大律师之邀,我为赖昌星案作了宣誓证词。据称国内有些人士对此不解,以为郭律师收受了赖昌星的大量金钱以致于为“坏人”说话。其实赖早已破产,他的加拿大律师早在去年初开始便纯属义务继续提供法律帮助,我为之作证也是分文未取,并非我不需要或拒绝收费,而是赖早已无能为力。盛雪女士的《远华案黑幕》有助于人们了解赖昌星的真实面目,他其实既是中共专制极权独裁体制的受益人,也是该罪恶体制的受害者。赖的行为是否构成犯罪并非律师在此遗返案中要考虑的问题,关健在于其是否罪行该死。客观地说,在中国从商或从事任何职业要想赢利,不犯罪几乎毫无可能。因此中共专制独裁体制本身是一个制造大量罪犯,且逼良为娼的体制!本证词重点在于证明若赖被强行遗返,他究竟会遇到何种后果?我根据自已在大陆执业21年的亲身经历提供了客观公正的证词。近日据称日内赖仍将被遗返,看来加政府有其难言之隐。兹公开发表我的宣誓证词,作为历史的见证。
   AFFIDAVIT
   This is the Affidavit of Guo Guoting (Thomas Guo), declared the 24, September, 2005, at the City of Courtenay, in the Province of British Columbia, Canada.
   I, GUO Guoting of 211C – 750 Comox Road, in the City of Courtenay, in the Province of British Columbia, Canada, Chinese lawyer, knowing that this Affidavit shall have the same force and effect as if given as evidence in a Court of Law, hereby AFFIRM AS FOLLOWS:
   1) I am a native and citizen of China.
   2) I am 47 years old.
   3) I obtained an LL.B. degree in 1984 from Jilin University law school , majoring in International Law.
   4) Beginning in 1984 I practised at all levels of the Chinese Court System, from the District Courts to the Supreme Court, until March of 2005, when my licence to practise law was suspended by the Justice Bureau of Shanghai.
   5) Before the revocation of my licence to practise law, I had been a Chinese lawyer for twenty years.
   6) I was named by the international publication, Legal 500 (2001-2002), as the number one maritime lawyer in China. I was a commercial lawyer for eighteen years and maritime law was my speciality, but I also practised as a defence lawyer in so-called “sensitive” criminal cases.
   7) For the last two years of my practice in China, although I continued to take a few Maritime Law cases, I specialised in Criminal Law as it pertained to human rights.
   8) I have served as a law professor at Wuhan University and at the Shanghai Maritime University.
   9) I have been an arbitrator on the panels of both the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and the Maritime Arbitration Commission.
   10) I have translated the following English textbooks into Chinese and my translations are used as textbooks in Chinese universities:
   a) James E. Bond, The Art of Judgment;
   b) Morden on Bills of Lading;
   c) Sassoon on CIF & FOB Contracts(4th ed);
   d) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading(20th ed);
   e) O’May on Marine Insurance Law and Policy;
   f) The Institute Clauses(3rd ed)
   11) In addition, I am the author of the following textbooks:
   a) International Economic and Trade-Law and Practice: 1994, Politics and Law University Press, Beijing;
   b) Law and Lawyer’s Practice in International Maritime Trade: 1996, Dalian Maritime University Press, Dalian;
   c) Study of Current China Foreign Economic and Trade Cases: Politics and Law University Press, Beijing
   12) I have also published approximately sixty major articles in professional legal journals.
   13) I lived my entire life in China until coming to Canada in May of 2005.
   14) I am familiar with the accusations the Chinese Government of China has made against Lai Changxing and I have followed the Chinese press coverage of this case from its inception until now. I have long known Lai Changxing by reputation because until about six years ago I lived in Fuzhou, the capital city of the province where he located his business activities and where he had a very high public profile.
   15) I have been asked to provide my opinion, based on my twenty years experience as a trial lawyer in the courts of China and my political understanding of this case, on whether Lai Changxing will be at risk if he is sent back to China. I have been asked specifically to comment upon the following issues:
   a) If Lai Changxing is returned to China, will he receive a fair trial on the accusations which the Chinese government has made against him?;
   b) If Lai Changxing is returned to China, is he likely to be subjected to torture?; and
   c) If Lai Changxing is returned to China, is he likely to be killed?
   16) I shall address the three questions in Paragraph 15 ante, in the same order in which they are set out in that paragraph.
   If Lai Changxing is returned to China, will he receive a fair trial on the accusations which the Chinese government has made against him?
   17) I have no hesitation in saying that there is no possibility that Lai Changxing could receive a fair trial in China.
   18) This is a case in which the Chinese government has put itself in a position to suffer an enormous loss of face and credibility with the Chinese people. After they have printed blaring headlines about the “biggest criminal”, who should be executed ten times over, an acquittal is simply not an option for a Chinese court. An acquittal, indeed anything less than conviction on all counts and imposition of the maximum sentence would be a huge loss of face for the Chinese government. The Chinese government (more correctly the Communist Party, which in reality is the Chinese Government) exercises total control over the Chinese courts at all levels.
   19) As Jerome Cohen of New York University has testified in the subject case, “The Chinese courts have an absolutely impeccable record of carrying out the instructions of the Chinese Government”. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone in China familiar with the legal system that the Chinese Government has long ago determined the verdict and the sentence to be imposed in the event of Lai’s return. The only role of the Chinese court will be to affix the court seal on the pre-ordained judgement.
   20) Quite aside from the special circumstances of the Lai case, there is in reality no such thing as a fair trial for any accused on trial in a Chinese criminal court. This is because the Chinese court system lacks all the most basic prerequisites of a fair trial by any recognizable international standards:
   a) There is no presumption of innocence. It is often claimed that Article 12 of the 1996 Code of Criminal Procedure( “No person shall be found guilty without being judged as such by a People's Court according to law.”) enshrines the presumption of evidence, but that is clearly not the case. This article does not in any way affect the burden of proof in a trial. In practice, there is an absolute presumption of guilt in all Chinese criminal court proceedings.
   b) There is a conviction rate in Chinese criminal courts of almost 100%. The possibility of any defendant being found “Not Guilty” is so remote as to be meaningless.
   c) Appeals are also meaningless because in the ordinary course of events, the appeal court has already given prior approval to the lower court’s decision before the lower court’s judgement has even been handed down. The trial of an appeal is almost always a paper trial only. There is no hearing.
   d) Lawyers are not permitted to see their clients until after the entire police and prosecutorial investigation has been included, including interrogation of the accused. In many cases the lawyer is never allowed to meet his client, notwithstanding his clear right to do so as provided by the 1996 Code of Criminal Procedure.
   e) When a defence lawyer is allowed to meet with his client, a police officer must always be present, except for those meetings which occur in an interrogation room which is equipped with a video camera, allowing the police and prosecutors to monitor the conversation from a remote location.
   f) The lawyer is not allowed to discuss with his client the circumstances of the events with which he is charged or how/why the client was arrested. In the event that the interview goes beyond a description of the charge facing the accused and what it means, the attending police officer will terminate the interview.
   g) Lawyers are never provided with copies of the prosecutor’s file, notwithstanding their right to the documents therein under the 1996 Code of Criminal Procedure.
   h) Defence lawyers are routinely intimidated and often physically abused by police and prosecutors. Torture is routinely used in virtually all criminal investigations. In fact, the use of torture has been described by many who have investigated it as “endemic” and “systemic”. One of my clients was tortured to death by prison guards, and another was tortured to death by policemen.
   i) Lawyers who plead their clients “Not Guilty” or introduce a statement from the accused which contradicts the statement given by the accused to the police (usually under torture) are often sent to prison under the notorious Article 306 of the Chinese Criminal Code.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场