Anon helpfully pointed us to these links for the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in Chen Shui-Bian v. United States, Petition, Exhibits 1 and 2.  If one questions the seriousness of these arguments, you need only Google the counsel for the former Taiwanese President that signed the petition.  Dr. Levy is apparently a member of the CAAF Bar.  And, it was interesting that the attorney listed as Of Counsel gave a California Bar number, but an Oregon address.  I’ll let you know my thoughts on substance next week.

5 Responses to “Ex Writ of Taiwan’s Convicted President”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Formosa Betrayed:The Movie

    Lt George Kerr, USN, Civil Affairs Officer

    Formosa Betrayed by Geoge Kerr

    The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is a “lost treaty” ratified by the US Senate on April 28, 1952, but Japan never surrendered its sovereignty of Taiwan to China, neither PRC or ROC, under SFPT, Art 4(b). This limbo treaty status is also found in case law since the 1950s.

    In 1943, Operation Torch saw the Free French Government-in-exile conducting their civil affair administration of French overseas territory under the US Military Government in North Africa. General DeGaulle was under the subordinate command of General Eisenhower. The Free French exiled government was under USMG, not vice versa, as usually in the case of civil affairs agreements with most other real nations. The Navy’s Operation Causeway was never executed in 1945 but then the ROC gov’t-in-exile on Taiwan, led by Generalissmo Chiang Kai-shek, was kept under US General MacArther, and our USMG was the principle occupational authority of Japan and her territorial dependencies under SFPT Art 23.

  2. Anonymous says:

    There is a Naval history of civil affairs behind the mystery of Chen’s petition. Lt Geoge Kerr, USNR, was head of Formosa studies for US Military Government during WWII and planning for Operation Causeway.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Reading the Court’s Rules may have helped them …. and as CAAFlog readers know, the All Writs Act isn’t jurisdictional.

  4. Anonymous says:

    This is cited in a 1943 case by a Japanese immigrant in the US but the US court noted the HR clause was only applicable to occupied territory. This clause is restated in Johnson v Eisentrager, 1950, with respect the 1943 case.

    FM 27-10 Par 372. Prohibition as to Rights and Rights of Action
    It is especially forbidden * * * to declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. (HR, art. 23, par. (h).)

  5. Truth_be_told says:

    Can American Empire swallow Taiwan? You even cannot handle a Chen shui-bian !