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
·《郭国汀评论》第十四集:什么是我们为之奋斗的民主?
·《郭国汀评论》第十五集:为邓玉娇抗辩(上)
·《郭国汀评论》第十六集 我为邓玉娇抗辩(下)
·《郭国汀评论》第十七集:强烈谴责中共暴政迫害中国人权律师
·《郭國汀評論》第十八集:中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·《郭国汀评论》第二十二集:论法轮功精神运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权的非法性《郭国汀评论》第23集
·郭国汀评论:论中共专制暴政下的酷刑
·郭国汀评论第二十八集:中共极权专制暴政下不可能有任何新闻自由
·中共暴政在重演萨斯疫骗局?!
·让人权恶棍无处可逃----评西班牙国家法院受理江泽民群体灭绝罪反人类罪和酷刑罪案
·论反共与反专制暴政
·论反共与反专制暴政(下)
·颠覆及煽动颠覆国家政权罪抗辩要点?
·简评刘晓波煽动颠覆国家政权案一审判决
·论冯正虎精神
·简评刘晓波煽动颠覆国家政权案一审辩护词
·郭泉博士其人其事以及颠覆国家政权案抗辩要点
·论刘晓波与郭泉案的辩护
·郭国汀评论第四十七集胡锦涛向朝鲜学习什么政治?!
·郭国汀评论第四十八集 胡锦锦向古巴学习什么样的政治?
·郭国汀评论第四十九集共产党政权全部是流氓暴政:越南及老挝共产党政权的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第五十集共产党没有一个好东西 秘鲁共产党的罪恶
·郭国汀评论第五十一集尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪恶
·郭国汀评论第五十二集:共产党政权纯属流氓政权:安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的罪恶
·郭國汀評論第五十三集埃塞俄比亞共產黨政權的罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十四集阿富漢共產黨暴政的罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十五集虐殺成性的柬埔寨共產黨極權暴政罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十六集波蘭共產黨極權暴政的罪惡
·郭国汀评论第五十七集:东欧共产党政权的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第五十八集:人民為敵的蘇聯共產黨暴政的罪孽(一)
·郭国汀评论第六十二集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十三集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十四集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十五集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的滔天大罪
***(20)《陈泱潮文集选读》陈泱潮著/郭国汀编校
·大器晚成——《陈泱潮文集选读》序
·《造化故事》陈泱潮文选第一集
·铁幕惊雷《特权论》陈泱潮文选第二集
·《偃武修文重新建国纲领》陈泱潮文选第三集
·《时政评论》陈泱潮文选第四集
·《天命前定》陈泱潮文选第五集
·《上帝之道》陈泱潮文选第六集
***(21)《国际互联网自由》郭国汀译
·互联网自由至关重要:中国屈居全球互联网最不自由国家亚军
·互联网自由度的测定方法
·自由之家2008年中国互联网自由检测报告:不自由
·互联网自由日益增长的各种威胁
·国际互联网自由调查团队
·国际互联网自由评价词汇表
·国际互联网自由评价表格和图示
·国际互联网自由评价目录
·古巴互联网自由评价
·伊朗互联网自由评价
·突尼斯互联网自由评价
·俄国互联网自由评价
·马来西亚互联网自由评价
·土耳其互联网自由评定
·肯尼亚互联网自由评价
·埃及互联网自由评价
·印度互联网自由评价
·乔治亚互联网自由评价
·南非互联网自由评价
·巴西互联网自由评价
·英国互联网自由评定
·全球最自由的爱莎尼亚互联网自由评价
***(22)《仗剑走天涯》郭国汀著
·我的真实心声
·面对十八层地狱,我的真情告白 /南郭 网友评论
·《仗剑微言—我的四十自述>
·相信生命—郭国汀律师印象
·赵国君 做一名人权律师——访郭国汀律师
·申请任专兼职教授与评审一级律师的故事
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求/南郭
·我的知识结构与思想/南郭
·汝凭什么任教授?!/郭国汀
·我们决不再沉默! 郭国汀
·郭国汀:正义者永不孤单
·虽千万人,吾往矣!
·法律人的历史使命---郭国汀答《北大法律人》主编采访录
·法律人的历史使命 网友评论
·如何成为一名伟大的,优秀的法律人?
·如何成为一名伟大的律师?网友评论
·为当代中国人的幸福而努力奋斗
·我的告别书—再见中国律师网
·勇敢地参政议政吧 中国律师!
***(23)《郭国汀自传》郭国汀著
·《郭国汀自传》第一章:阴错际差(1)
·《郭国汀自传》第二章:灭顶之灾
·《郭国汀自传》第三章:奋力拚搏
·《郭国汀自传》第四章:东山再起
·《郭国汀自传》第五章:山重水复
·《郭国汀自传》第六章:永恒的中国心
·郭国汀致海内外全体中国网民的公开函
[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