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
·文字狱与极权专制体制
·暴政与人种的优劣/新南郭
·虚伪是极权专制的必然付产品
·极权专制政体与思想家
·最暴虐无道的政府!/南郭
·郭国汀:歌功颂德或批评批判?
·判断一个政权合法性的公认标准
·判断政府合法性的普世公认标准 郭国汀
·中国律师理所应当关心政治 郭国汀
·政治体制的根本问题
·中国的前途在于专制改良还是政治民主革命?
·西方现代政治民主的基本要件
·郭国汀: 政府无权杀人!
·政府绝对无权武力镇压(屠杀)和平集会示威游行或罢工的公民
·国民有权推翻暴力镇压(屠杀)和平抗议民众的任何政府
·中国历史上不存在极权
·民主政治的终极目标是自由——答尼采黄昏君的质疑/南郭
·极权专制独裁者与知识分子
·与网友谈论民主政治与政权合法性
·政府不得滥杀和平请愿公民的最新国际公约
·中共极权专制暴政祸国殃民绝对乏善可陈
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
***(40)宪政研究
·什么是宪政?
·什么是共和?
·宪政的实质
·分權制衡理論的历史淵源
·中国自由文化运动与宪政研究
·The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
·Freedom is not free but it is costly
·宪法改革的设想 南郭提要
·联邦共和民主宪政体制是美国经久强盛不衰的原因
·党化党控教育是中共祸国殃民的一大罪恶
·立宪时代的法政哲学思考提要
·有限政府与法治宪政
·联邦主义要旨
·It’s Not Patriotic to Violate the Constitution
·An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand
·US Constitution revolution for real democracy
·One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
·Beyond the Constitution
·Philosophy Constitutionalism
·USA Constitution is in grave danger
·Constitutional Interpretation
·The Bill of Rights
***(41)民主研究
·美国宪政民主的基本要素
· 政治民主机制的最新发展--监督民主
· 序《民主导论》
·民主的真实含义
·自由宪政民主政治的七项实质要件
·民主的实质
·谁是真正的人类政治民主之父?
·民主就是[山头林立]?!
·共和比民主更为根本
·共和民主宪政要旨
·什么是联邦主义民主宪政?
·我的民主朝圣之旅
·民主的灯塔永放光茫
·古希腊雅典民主政体
·伯拉图亚里士多德论古希腊民主体制
·伯拉图论共产主义
***(39)法治研究
·法治论/郭国汀
·自然法原理
·法律的定义
·法律的本质与精神
·什么是法治?
·法治的基本原则
·法治的目的
·法治与民主的前提与条件
·法治的起源与历史
·开明专制与法治--极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地
·法治的基石和实质
·法治的精神
·法治余论
·一篇值得推介的法治论文杰作/郭国汀
·Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges
***(37)自由研究
***表达自由新闻与出版自由
·当代自由主义的基本特征
·只有新闻自由能治官员腐败之顽症
·郭国汀 唯有思想言论舆论新闻出版结社教育讲学演讲的真正自由才能救中国!
·中国争人权、言论表达自由权的先驱者与英雄名录
·中国政治言论自由的真实现状-我的亲身经历(英文)
·郭国汀论政治言论自由:限制与煽动罪(英文)
·郭国汀论出版自由——声援支持《民间》及主编翟明磊
·郭国汀 美國言論自由发展簡史 [1]
·美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!新年祝福
·向中国良知记者致敬!
·丹麥主流社會召開中國言論自由研討會
·中共倒行逆施,严控国际媒体报导中国新闻
·关于思想自由与中律网友的对话 /南郭
·性、言论自由、自由战士
·性、言论自由,自由战士与中律网友们的讨论/南郭
·自由之我见
·不自由勿宁死!
·自由万岁!----我为“新青年学会四君子”及“不锈钢老鼠”辩护
·真正的民主自由政体是中国唯一的选择
·自由万岁!新年好!
[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