Updated at 2025-05-21, AM 00:51(GMT+8) post history
Ko Wen-Je stated in court: I am the target, but don't hurt the innocent
Ko Wen-Je speech - Hearing notes
There are two reasons for the need to be detained and not seen, one is to flee, and the other is to collude confessions.
I will definitely not flee, and it is the DPP that wants me to flee the most. Because if I fled, the Taiwan People’s Party would be finished, Taiwan’s third political force would also bubble, and Taiwan would return to the whirlpool of blue-green polar confrontation, and there would be no hope for the future. And at present, the KMT seems to be dying, if the blue-green confrontation situation, it is obvious that the DPP will be in power for a long time, so it is the DPP that hopes that I will flee, but I will definitely not flee, this is not because of the restrictions of the law, this is my moral responsibility to the Taiwan People’s Party.
As for collusion of confessions, I have to ask the court to make it clear that I have been detained and banned for nine months, and I have used the state apparatus to devote the power of the whole country to prosecution and investigation.
I know that this case is aimed at me, but I hope not to hurt the innocent, Li Wen-Zong is really wrongfully imprisoned, he has nothing to do with the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case, so far, all the people related to Core Pacific City (Living Mall), which witness has alleged that Li Wen-Zong was involved in the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case? Nor is there any physical evidence to point to his involvement in Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case. Chu Ya-Hu sent the same text message and the attached file of the list of donors to Li Wen-Zong, Tsai Pi-Ru, and Zhang Zheyang, and Tsai Pi-Ru also passed it on twice. Li Wen-Zong just replied to a text message because of his politeness, and for this text message, he has been detained and banned from seeing him for 9 months, and he has also been sentenced to 10 years in prison, deprived of public power for 5 years, and fined 10 million yuan. Taiwan has been democratized for 30 years, and this kind of unjust prison still occurs!
Chu Ya-Hu text message and Li Wen-Zong polite reply turned out to be the only evidence of his crime, and the prosecutor falsified the indictment in order to fabricate the charges, saying that Chu Ya-Hu only sent a list of donors to Li Wen-Zong, in fact, it is very clear from this information that the text message sent by Chu Ya-Hu to the three people is exactly the same as the attached file, and the additional file is under the text message, and it is impossible for the prosecution to make a mistake This is a deliberate fraud, and the prosecutor deliberately misled and fabricated charges, because it is necessary to confirm that he is a core member of the TPP and is in charge of finances, so that he can be involved, he can be detained, and Ke Ko Wen-Je can be detained by the way.
Let me say it again, in March 2020, Li Wen-Zong had left the Taipei City Government for more than a year, he went to become the chairman of the North Jet, he did not touch the official affairs of the Taipei City Government at all, more than a year, and no one alleged that he had touched this case, in March 2020, Li Wen-Zong did not manage the finances of the Taiwan People’s Party at all, you put the TPPWhen the people from the finance department came to ask about it, it was very clear that this was really an unjust prison.
Personally, during my detention, my father passed away, in fact, it was only after his death that the lawyer told me the news during the legal meeting in the detention center, I could only see my father for the last time during the farewell ceremony, (choked) before closing the coffin, after cremation, I still don’t know where to put the ashes (choked), as the eldest son, I still have to deal with some aftermath, I listened to the lawyer relay, my mother’s dementia symptoms suddenly became serious, I have to deal with this, so I can’t escape.
Then this morning, the presiding judge was saying: The trial is about to begin, and my heart is cold. Before the indictment, I was detained twice and I did not protest, I was very naïve at that time, I wanted to say that I would be cleared after the investigation, but I was really shocked when I saw the indictment, where it looked like an indictment, it was like a novel, it was all speculation and speculation, and there was no substantive evidence. Later, the prosecutor said that after the witnesses were cross-examined, they could be released on bail, but I felt that I had finished my last few court appearances, and at the speed of this kind of questioning, 15 months would not be enough to complete the case, so I didn’t know what to do. Anyway, after a long time, the truth will come out, and everyone will know what happened.
In terms of litigation strategy, I just need to say that I have nothing to do with this case at all, because who has pointed out so far: “Ko Wen-Je has instructed Core Pacific City (Living Mall) what the plot ratio is”? No, but as the chief executive, I still have to defend the administrative team’s procedures. This case, which went through the procedure, was said to be a fraud case two years later, and oh my God, not all of our entire administrative system is finished, and today I can’t get over this place in my heart. I don’t want to talk about anything else, I still say the same thing, after a long time, the truth will come out, but I still have to say that Li Wen-Zong is really wronged, it shouldn’t be like this.
You’re dealing with me, so why hurt innocent people?
Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16VzCgJsJw/
After nine months of detention, what evidence are you waiting for?
The unconvicted person has been detained for nine months, and the “criminal facts” in the ultra-thick indictment of the Beijing Procuratorate have been slapped in the face and have been proven to be speculation, forgery, and speculation.
Detention is the most compulsory punishment for seriously depriving a defendant of his or her personal liberty, and is the most severe coercive means of restraining a criminal defendant’s liberty and interfering with his personal liberty, and should conform to the principle of proportionality.
The review of detention is different from the trial of the case, the former is to protect the defendant so that he can be interrogated, and the latter is to discover the truth, which should be handled decoupled according to the law, but the prosecution uses “the witness has not been cross-examined as a reason to consider whether to continue to detain the defendant”. Our judicial reform is only for the detainees?
The continued detention of Ko Wen-Je has no basis in law, and the evidence alleged by the prosecution is not only from “speculation”, but also falsified, and the Beijing Procuratorate has violated the law at all.
According to the indictment, Chu Ya-Hu testified that when Ko Wen-Je and Sheen Ching-Jing met, Ko Wen-Je promised Sheen Ching-Jing to increase the floor area ratio, but after cross-examination on May 8 and May 13, Chu Ya-Hu admitted that these were his speculations.
The indictment found that Chu Ya-Hu remitted 2.1 million yuan to the TPP in the name of Hong Xiufeng and seven others to bribe Ko Wen-Je, saying that Chu Ya-Hu “only” passed the list of seven remittances to Li Wen-Zong, which is also false.
Finally, the lawyer also mentioned that the court’s previous ruling that the detention was based on “respect for the trial level system”, but now that more evidence has surfaced, it is impossible for the higher court to know more about the case than the collegial court, and the number and complexity of the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case file are so large and extensive that it is impossible for the higher court to complete the case file in just a few days.Ko Wen-JeReally, enough is enough!
Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Lp7n5hrf1/
Non-urban planning major, but insisted that the mayor could overturn the case?
Miao Po-ya likes to talk about citizen deliberation and citizen participation, but he advocates that a mayor can only rely on his own will and preferences to overturn the collective decisions of the metropolitan committee.
The prosecution did not show evidence in court, and began to do political offense and defense, and the prosecutor opened a plug-in to find “Ke Hei” Congressman Miao Po-ya, and Congressman Miao issued a document the day before that he was summoned to testify because Ko Wen-Je named him, which is of course a change of concept, because Ko Wen-Je defender raised an objection on the spot: The summoning of this person is a waste of everyone’s precious time, but the prosecutor is very persistent, because what the prosecution really wants to fight is a political war, a public opinion war, not a legal war.
The court first inspected the video of Miao Po-ya questioning the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case by the North City Council in 2021 and 2022, in which Ko Wen-Je was asked about the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case from time to time scratching his head, looking confused, and answering: I don’t know, in this video, the prosecutor can actually interpret Ko Wen-Je actions, which means “holding the skull and burning” and “shirking responsibility”.
Miao Po-ya said that he had worked in a law firm, but the lawyer confirmed through cross-examination that he had not handled the metropolitan planning case and was not a major in urban planning, but he pretended to know more about the relevant laws and regulations than the director of the metropolitan development bureau and the senior civil servants of the metropolitan committee.
According to the CD examined in court, when Miao Po-ya was questioned, Huang Yi-Ping, then director of the Metropolitan Development Bureau, and Liu Xiu-Ling, executive secretary of the Metropolitan Committee, both said: “The Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case is based on Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law, and the applicant shall draw up the urban plan on his own, and the metropolitan committee will deliberate and approve it”, but Miao Po-ya insisted that the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case “has no legal basis”, Sheen Ching-JingThe lawyer then put forward Article 25 of the “Taipei City Urban Planning Implementation Autonomy Ordinance”, and asked Miao Po-ya to utter the following words in court: “In the urban planning area, if the city government deems it necessary for the reasonable use of the land, it may draw up a detailed plan to stipulate the use of land and buildings in the area, the area of the base or the ratio of vacant land to be reserved in the base, and the floor area ratio.” Miao Po-ya knew that the city government had to comply with the regulations on the implementation of autonomy in the city plan passed by the third reading, but he still used counter-evidence to say, “Yes! Even if there is such an autonomous ordinance, other ordinances must be followed, and the city government may not create a large area.”
I would like to ask Hon Miao:
“In the urban planning area, if the municipal government considers that the land is necessary for reasonable use, it may draw up a detailed plan to stipulate the use of land and buildings in the area, the area of the base or the ratio of vacant land to be reserved in the base, and the floor area ratio…”, which sentence do you not understand?
What is even more outrageous is that when the prosecutor asked, “Can the mayor overturn the results of the Metropolitan Committee’s deliberations in accordance with the law”?
Miao Po-ya, who advocates openness, transparency and citizen deliberation the most, actually said loudly: Yes!
Miao Po-ya said: The resolution of the metropolitan committee is not equivalent to an administrative sanction, and the mayor can not approve or announce it.
Prosecutor: But after you questioned the volume of Core Pacific City (Living Mall), how can you remedy it? Can it be annulled or revoked?
Miao Po-ya: The mayor can repeal or revoke it, and Core Pacific City (Living Mall) has just announced it at that time, so it is difficult for the applicant (referring to Core Pacific City (Living Mall)) to assert the principle of trust protection
A Taipei City Councilor, who claims to attach the most importance to social participation and fair deliberation, went so far as to ask Ko Wen-Je to reject the consensus resolution of more than a dozen legally appointed members of the Metropolitan Committee based on his personal opinion alone? What we are curious about is that if this incident really happens, will Miao Po-ya deduct Ke Ko Wen-Je again, act arbitrarily, treat himself as an emperor, and be a dictator?
Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AkBD5M1Az/
Core Pacific City (Living Mall) is not the only one? Professional evidence of political slap in the face?
Miao Po-ya said that Core Pacific City (Living Mall) was the first case sent by the city government for discussion, but was slapped in the face by many lawyers, and Core Pacific City (Living Mall) was not the first case, and of the 41 cases raised by Miao Po-ya himself, 1/3 of them were filed by Taipei City Metropolitan Government, and the backers were all private landlords. It is also impossible for the mayor to veto the resolution of the metropolitan committee based on the mayor’s personal opinion, as Miao Witness said.
A parliamentarian doesn’t even understand this? Could it be that the resolutions of the civil servants and the metropolitan committee should be trampled on by such public representatives who do not have the expertise of urban planning?
Zheng Shen-yuan opinion:
1. Miao Po-ya is not an expert witness, has no background in urban planning, and is not qualified.
2. It is impossible for Ko Wen-Je to veto the entire professional committee and further return the case because he believes that a member of the council who does not have the expertise of the metropolitan government will question him. In practice, the heads of the organs respect the expert opinions of the metropolitan committee, and there has never been a single mayor in the past who has rejected the expert opinions of the collective members of the metropolitan committee, and this case has to go through the procedures of the metropolitan committee in the future.
3. Miao Po-ya said that “there is only Core Pacific City (Living Mall)” for discussion, but in fact, in addition to the 3rd and 9th cases of more than 40 cases proposed by Miao Po-ya, there are also tobacco and alcohol companies, which are private enterprises, and there are 13 other cases that have been put forward, and those are all private landlords. The discussion is not illegal, and the research proposals during Ko Wen-Je tenure have meeting minutes, which are more open and transparent than those of the central government.
Huang Jing-mao opinion:
The witness Miao Po-ya did not actually participate in the Core Pacific City (Living Mall) case, the facts were not known to the witnesses, and they were all checked after the fact, and this confession was like a “seminar”, the witness’s speech could not corroborate anything, and the witness did not have the relevant laws and experience.
The witness said that the city government could overturn it, but he could not mention an actual case, saying only that he had heard from an official that the testimony of the witness was crude in many places, and that the testimony was inadmissible.
The witnesses did not even know the restoration of 120,000 square meters as stated in the Supervisory Yuan’s corrective letter.
Although it is not the most common, it is not illegal.
The re-appointment of the members of the Metropolitan Committee has nothing to do with the Metropolitan Development Bureau, but through selection, and the SMS mentioned that the replacement of the members was in April, and there was no proposal at that time.
Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HEsdEcWnH/
Editor's picture card
More audio-visual information
It's been nine months! Concealment of evidence by the Beijing Procuratorate,
Video source: People’s Voice
“Miao Shi Law”, we will investigate the Miao inquiry together
Video source: Xiao Li under the overpass
Qi Kai spoke, the signs were wrong, and the Beijing Inspection overturned again
Video source: Foxtail
0520 Beijing Inspection supports Ko Wen-Je and is innocent
Video source: Xin Yu and White Daddy_ Brother Rice Crackers
Related Articles:
Updated history
Add a new movie
New Video of Member Zhang Qikai's Speech The latest trial of Ko Wen-Je case (2), the judge will consider bail and suspension 2025/5/20
May 21, 2025 AM 00:51 (GTM+8)
