The 2021 Plan Helping Taiwan

last updated: 12 Aug 2020

© Rene Helmerichs 2020


(x) This page is a draft.  To be updated in the coming days.

The 2021 Plan helping Taiwan

a. China and Taiwan: the basics

1. Reputation

b. Divided Perspective: Socialism and the APA

c. Taiwan Court Uses Nationalism To Allow Crime: a true story

(x)2. Ownership of Taiwan (references cited)

            d. USA owns the land

            e. China owns the government

(x)3. International Unity

            f. Start of the plan

g. Helping USA unite the world

            h. Helping China unite the world



a.               China and Taiwan: the basics


To Everyone,


Britain's 99-year lease on Hong Kong (Population 7 million) ended 1 July 1997.  China owns the land.  Therefore, China owns the government.  Giving back the land without the right of occupancy, forces China to accept foreign authority over its domestic government.  Contrary to popular opinion, the Chinese government was not obligated to retain a western-style government.  Is China to be treated as an equal adult at the world table, or not? 


China is becoming less tolerant of foreign attempts to subvert its national autonomy.  Taiwan is its next logical step.  The particular argument between the government of Taiwan (ROC), established in 1947, and the government of China, called the People's Republic Of China (PRC), established in 1949, is about ownership of an island which the USA legally owned outright on 2 Sept 1945.


Necessary questions to consider are:

  1. Did the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) help draft, and ratify, the current Constitution of Taiwan? and
  2. Was the CCP officially part of the ROC, as official opposition party to the ruling Kuomintang, KMT Chinese Nationalist Party, when the KMT relinquished control of their territory to the CCP in December 1949?


The short answer to both questions is Yes.  In fact, there wouldn't be an argument if the USA hadn't tried to manipulate the outcome of the internal Chinese Civil War at the end of the Second World War.  So, again, is China to be treated as an equal adult member of the worldwide political table, or not? 


Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan is an island home to 23 million people.  It's a decent size, about as big as Holland, with some mountains, a lot of farms, two growing seasons, and beautiful year-round beaches.  Only the highest mountain gets snow.  It enjoys an always-warm climate in the East China Sea on the west side of the North Pacific, straight north of Australia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, east of India, Myanmar, and China, and south of Korea and the eastern part of China. 


The government of Taiwan is officially called the Republic Of China (ROC).  And the ROC, just to be clear, is not ChinaChina might own the ROC, but the ROC is neither the land called China nor the PRC government in control of China.  The ROC and PRC are about as different as a cat in a hat.


China's religion is international pride, an outward process of expansion.  Taiwan religiously welcomes international businesses claiming to serve global sustainability, an inward process of reconciliation. 


The ROC is made up of Chinese people, but the current government is a third version of the first ROC established in 1912.  Each version had the same name.  This causes some confusion. 


Imagine reading a history book and finding three names: King Henry I, King Henry II, and King Henry III.  At first glance, a reader might think King Henry was just one person.  This is not incorrect (not wrong and not right).  The Roman numerals after the name mean that three different people were each called "King Henry". 


Unfortunately, there is no version number after the ROC to distinguish between different governments, which leads one to question whether Taiwan's current government was competent (of legal authority) when it fled to the island of Taiwan in December 1949.  A new government that keeps the former government's name certainly isn't celebrating change.


To confuse the situation even more, governments are always changing.  But there are signs of major government changes, for example: resetting the national calendar to year 1, using a new flag, starting a civil war (a war inside the country), ending a civil war, starting a new set of basic rules (called a Constitution), and organizing the remaining public after an authoritarian ruling party flees the territory.   


A new government always exists when the predominate type of governing practice changes. 


There are three basic types of governing practice that are mutually exclusive in their pure form.  In the extreme, "pure" and "true" are synonyms and yield the same singular state.  In the ever-changing landscape of politics, however, two or more practices usually govern a nation:

  1. An autocracy allows one person to change any law (e.g. dictatorship, monarch, empire).
  2. A democracy requires a public majority vote to change any law.  Many countries employ an autocratic-democratic system that allows one person, or office, to veto (cancel) changes, for example Canada, the USA, Britain.  An autocratic democracy is an oxymoron, not a democracy.
  3. Socialism, to use an analogy, means a finger is nothing without the hand and the hand cannot function without each different finger.  Socialism agrees that everyone shares the same ability of logic.  That is, each individual person can and should act in the best interest of all people (the surroundings) because "the best interest of the surroundings" IS "the best interest of the individual", and always with harm to none including self.


Whenever someone thinks "I wish I lived in a world without money, where people were just nice to each other", the person is thinking about socialism.  Perfect socialism is the ultimate goal of every consistent legal system, "Heaven", which always shares and distributes equally and evenly, without need of written laws or formal government.  In a true socialist society, all teachers naturally guide toward the same goal of calm, peaceful awareness and active equal consideration of all because consistency must same-apply to yield an underlying (unknown) state of constancy.


The Christian year 2020 marks year 109 in the official courtroom calendars of both the PRC and ROC governments.  The years (and indicators) of ROC government changes were 1912 (type, flag, year to 1), 1925 (flag), 1927 (type), 1947 (Constitution) and 1949 (type and name change). 


China is predominantly socialist, which implies sustainability, while Taiwan's Constitution (1947), although it can't exclude socialism, primarily advocates democracy and nationalism.  A democratic nationalist Constitution cannot actually amalgamate a socialist government since true socialism absolves-to-cancel compartmental order (government authority).  So, while the ROC, or various parts of the ROC to varying degrees, claims that Taiwan seeks reunification with China, Trekkies might warn "Communism doesn't amalgamate.  Communism assimilates.  (Resistance is futile.)".


The Chinese Communist Party, CCP, became the official opposition to the ruling Kuomintang, KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party on 10 Oct 1945.  Together, the KMT and CCP ratified (approved) Taiwan's current Constitution on 25 Dec 1946.  The Constitution took effect a year later. 


A regression in governing practice earmarked a change in government from 1949 to 1987.  In 1949, the Taiwanese ROC government was an oligarchy, the opposite type of that declared in the 1947 Constitution.  It actually adopted autocratic-dictatorship tendencies as earlier as 1926, when the KMT declared war on CCP members of the KMT, starting the Chinese Civil War.  The Constitution claimed Taiwan to be under a democratic authority, but the KMT declared martial law and banned all other political parties after it fled from mainland China to Taiwan in December 1949.


For 37 years the Kuomintang and Republic Of China were synonymous in Taiwan.  However, the ROC neither began with the KMT, nor did the KMT legally establish the ROC Constitution without the CCP.  As a result, the CCP and not the KMT technically retains official authority over the government of Taiwan unless the USA stakes a definitive international claim to the land. 


In 1949, the CCP had won national leadership of Republic Of China by default election of abandonment.  Reminder: formal democratic voting is not necessary to transfer official control between government parties after the ruling party flees the territory.


China gave Taiwan, call Formosa at the time, to Japan in a peace treaty signed in 1895.  The only reason the KMT had anywhere to flee was domestic meddling from the USA.  President Truman ordered the Japanese to surrender the island of Taiwan to the non-communist people of China, possibly to sow the seeds of western capitalism.  Incidentally, a 1911 uprising over foreign bank's ownership of the Chinese railroad spawned the first ROC.  The people of China opposed western capitalism from the start.

If the ROC government legally owns the island of Taiwan then the PRC technically owns all rights and interests of the ROC.


One might ask why a government, claiming to adhere to a democratic constitution, which normally respects a public majority vote, can still claim to exist after the public majority adopts a new government name?  In the case of China, the leader of the official opposition party in the ROC declared the new name, the People's Republic Of China, on 1 Oct 1949.  The other political party, the KMT, was literally voted out of office.


Effectively, the PRC owns the ROC, and the ROC operates Taiwan's resources.  To use a North American example, think about USA currency, money.  The USA is the only country in the world which doesn't have a central bank.  The USA does not control the printing of its own money, and the USA does not own its own money.  A private company called The Federal Reserve prints all US currency.  Seven members of the board of directors control the decisions of The Federal Reserve, only two of those directors are appointed by the USA government.  Nobody questions if the USA government owns the money, because everyone accepts the money as USA currency.  But the USA doesn't retain final authority over the money: not the bank lending rates, not the value of its currency, and not the annual inflation rate.  In the same way, the USA once owned Taiwan, but now it doesn't appear that the USA controls any part of the Taiwanese government or the island.


The current ROC government began under the authority of a united China in 1947.  Then the ROC separated from China.  The ROC never changed its name or the Constitution.  Seventy-one years later in 2020, China continues to repair a western-government-promoted divide.


The 2021 Plan proposes a solution to heal the ROC and PRC, with only benefit to both and loss to neither, in the greater process of achieving global sustainability.  There is no logical reason, except subversive western dictatorship, why the ROC and PRC governments shouldn't both welcome unification.


Communism and Christianity originate from the same principle of sharing only one mind.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether anyone believes in oneness as sustainability, or that Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Muslims, and Atheists all share the same source of memory.  The color of one's skin doesn't determine one's potential any more than a history of bankruptcy guarantees future failure of the World Bank.  Life is continuous.  Trial and error are part of the process of sustainability.  Important are personal and social relationships, and the national drive to promote international stability.



1.         Reputation of Taiwan


Dear China and Taiwan,


A comedian had a dream:

A school in the wilderness, the man entered on contract, holding a video-recorder.  Inside, a female leader spoke pleasantly.  The man learned her system.  A bear entered and gave the man a hug.  The department leader encouraged the bear to squeeze harder.  She became squeezed between the man and a wall.  The man faced the bear.  Taiwan trapped itself.


Taiwan court judges endanger the credibility of the Republic Of China.  All statements adverse to Taiwan are publicly available in Taiwan High Court file (臺灣高等法院臺南分院民事庭108年度勞上易字第11).  No part of this letter is private.



b.               Divided Perspective: Socialism and the APA


Rene Helmerichs (中華民國:是瑞內) is a political refugee from Canada, in exile after three years of political imprisonment.  Briefly about Canada:

Hundreds of people, right now, in Canada are incarcerated on the pretence of being potentially harmful to society.  Police allege criminal activity before arresting these people.  They are held without a criminal trial, indefinitely, until they admit to their crimes.  It is, in effect, legalized torture on Canadian soil because the government contracts programmers of thought-reform, medical doctors, who institute only brute force.  It is not a solution to free-up courts when: doctors are allowed to declare criminals "mentally ill"; to allow a doctor to determine the length of incarceration of any "mentally ill" person; and, to teach the public segregate the "mentally ill".  The crux of the problem is three:

1) the lack of legal definition of the word "mind";

2) allowing individuals not trained in law to determine "moral" (legal) behaviour; and,

3) the belief that communism and democracy cannot coexist.

In support of item (3), to quote Lorraine Boissoneault of Smithsonian Magazine from her 22 May 2017 article "The True Story Of Brainwashing And How It Shaped America":

FBI director J. Edgar Hoover referred to thought-control repeatedly in his book "Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It".  By 1980 even the American Psychiatric [sic] Association had given it credence, including brainwashing under "dissociative [sic] disorders" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III.


A necessary note from a CIA agent who was in charge of thought-control programs in the USA during the Cold War with socialism (communism):

These points are taken directly from the book A Course In Miracles.  The word "spirit" is replaced with "oneness" since communist and democratic societies think differently about a universal spirit.  The book does not advocate religion, and in many ways directly opposes Christianity because it repeatedly states that God did not create the universe.  It uses the word "God" only to tie the concept of a universal purpose into practical social living.  The book was carefully crafted by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) master of thought-control Dr. William Thetford, who oversaw the formation (and typed all sentences) from the scribbled short-hand notes of Helen Schucman.  From the official, public, 1269-page, thought-reprogramming book:

  • Oneness is the idea of healing.
  • The separation is merely another term for a split mind.
  • There are two diametrically opposed ways of seeing your brother.
  • Perception derives meaning from relationships.
  • You cannot understand yourself alone.
  • The Voice of oneness is weak in you.  That is why you must share It. 
  • The idea of oneness shares the property of other ideas because it follows the laws of the universe of which it is a part.  It is strengthened by being given away.  It increases in you as you give it to your brother.
  • Be traitor to no one, or you will be treacherous to yourself.
  • You are the light of the world with me.... Rest does not come from sleeping but from waking.
  • God did not make the [your] body.... The world you see is an illusion of a world.  God did not create it [the world, the universe].
  • When I am healed I am not healed alone.  And I would share my healing with the world, that sickness may be banished from... my only Self.
  • I have forgotten what I really am, for I mistook my body for myself.  Sickness is a defense against the truth.  But I am not a body.  And my mind cannot attack.  So I can not be sick.
  • I would bless my brothers, for I would be healed with them, as they are healed with me.
  • Oneness is the decision I must make.  I make it now, and will not change my mind, because it is the only thing I want.


William Thetford was also a department head at Columbia University's Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City.  The American Psychological Association (APA), also called The American Psychiatric Association, publishes the worldwide reference book used by all licensed psychiatric medical doctors, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  However, this letter is not about the APA's plight to rid communist ideologies throughout the world, but about China's legal position with regards to Taiwan.


There is a very important distinction between "All citizens of the Republic of China shall be equal before the law" and "All people shall be equal before the law".  Article 7 of Taiwan's Constitution, retrieved 7 Aug 2020 from, states:

All citizens of the Republic of China, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before the law.

中華民國憲法 7 條:




c.               Taiwan Court Uses Nationalism To Allow Crime: a true story


This story demonstrates the Republic Of China (Taiwan) judicial observance of "Nationalism" in the face of Article 7 of its constitution.  Instead of admitting that a domestic business is committing criminal fraud, courts use a foreign whistleblower as scapegoat and overlook major domestic crime.


The story begins.


On 18 April 2017, a large private school in Tainan City, Taiwan, offered 是瑞 (Rene Helmerichs, "foreigner", "man") a teaching position.  The man inquired about the school.


The school was 芝麻街凱仕蘭 (Kidsland Sesame Street).  A 70-year-old 林義德(Yide_Lin was the owner.  He controlled 13 school branches, had over 330 employees, 2500 students, and annual revenue of more than 5 million USD in 2017.  He also owned a large private hospital and other businesses. 


It was a partnership opportunity.  The man had to ensure the General Manager understood the risk.  The man's goal is to build a university in Western Canada.


On 20 May 2017, the man, the man's wife (Lindsay), General Manager 江佩樺(Clare, and Teaching Department Manager 徐乙彤(Denise met at 台南市東區龍山街 (Longshan Street in Tainan City).  The man informed school managers that he will fail Taiwan's national criminal record check requirement.


台灣國家《補習及進修教育法》第9 (Article 9 of Taiwan's Supplementary Education Act) requires all teachers in Taiwan, foreign and domestic, to submit a criminal record check the first time any employee works at any school in any municipality.  Foreign teachers must supply both foreign and domestic verification.


On 20 May 2017, school managers confirmed understanding that the foreigner spent three years in Canadian 精神病監獄


On 26 May 2017, the school signed a two-year teaching contract with the man.  The teaching period, from 1 Aug 2017 to 31 July 2019, required one month of obligatory teacher training before employment as a teacher.  Manager 徐乙彤 told the foreigner not to submit the obligatory criminal record check, and not to worry about it.


The foreigner never imagined a local private school could be so politically connected. 


Ten Canadian 精神科醫生 (psychiatrists) declared the foreigner "severely mentally ill" between 3 Sept 2012 and 19 Oct 2015.  On paper, the man could have been a rapist, serial killer, or child molester. 


The Taiwan government never required the school, 凱仕蘭補習班(Kidsland cram school, to verify the convictions.  And, as of this writing on 8 Aug 2020, the Taiwan government skirts (intentionally avoids) penalizing school.  That's the same as saying that the Nationalist government allows school managers to deceive the general public, which is also a true statement.


On 14 Aug 2017, the school sent the man on an overnight school trip with approximately 80 young students.  School managers who knew the man spent years in psychiatric prisons.  Community Of Christ Church officials in Canada previously accused the man of child abuse and sexual harassment.  But the Taiwan school managers allowed the man to supervise children aged 5 to 7 alone in a hotel room. 


Certainly a school is not supposed to deceive its clients about teacher qualifications.  Legally, it's a violation of 《台灣刑法》第339-4 (Article 339-4 of Taiwan's Criminal Code), criminal fraud.


Managers refused to provide the obligatory teacher training stipulated in the contract.  Managers also threatened the teacher.  School managers demanded the foreigner not to share his story about Canadian political prisoners.  In effect, the school affirmed the APA's thought reform.  In Canada, ten doctors stood united that a correction of Christian supremacy is not "a freedom of speech" but evidence of "delusion" and "severe mental illness".  The doctors, and their Ontario College Of Physicians And Surgeons licence numbers are:

(CPSO#) Ali, Liaqat (63312), Chawla, Anjana (84905), Dickey, Robert Lee (32295), De Freitas, Karen Denise (71381), Komer, William Joseph (55555), Karagianis, James Leslie (80478), Wong, Leslie Kin Long (86592), Van Impe, Jeffrey John Howard (82520), and Lorberg, Gunter Wolfgang (72223), and Wozniak, Andrzej Eugeniusz (74339).  All doctors except Wozniak were 精神科醫生 (psychiatrists).  Wozniak was different.  The doctor told the man's mother that the man cannot live in the same house as the man's son, grandson of the man's mother.  At that point, the mother bought the man a plane ticket to Taiwan.  The man arrived in Taiwan on 30 Dec 2015.



The school incorporates proprietary Sesame Street software.  There may be copyright infringement--the school does steal copyrighted material, proved in a related criminal allegation against the man, but the issue of copyright infringement is unrelated to this story.  The written teaching contract required all teachers to pass obligatory teacher training from the Sesame Street main office in Kaohsiung City, before the start of employment, to learn to use the software. 


On 20 January 2018, the school required the foreign teacher (the man) to operate Sesame Street proprietary software at an open house teaching performance.  The man embarrassed the general manager 江佩樺(Clare because he could not operate the software.  The man decided enough was enough.  He requested help from school managers and the public to end the school's criminal fraud.


On Sunday 21 January 2018 at 23:00, 江佩樺(Clare telephoned the man's wife.  江佩樺 claimed that a client was a medical doctor and a 精神科醫生 (psychiatrist).  The doctor diagnosed the man with a severe mental illness.  The doctor managed to do this without meeting the man.  School managers did not allow the man to speak with the doctor about the vague diagnosis of mental disease.


A 精神科醫生 last met the foreigner, to make a formal mental health assessment, on 19 Oct 2015.  School managers allowed a client, claiming to be a 精神科醫生 (psychiatrist), to conduct a mental assessment without interviewing the man.  The school then allowed the doctor to promote a personal opinion (made in the context of being a client of the school, and not a professional doctor) to other clients of the school.  The school directly allowed its clients to negatively affect (criminally defame) the reputation of the man.


If the man was seriously mentally ill when the school hired the man, then the school contravened 《台灣刑法》第339-4 a total of three times:

  • First, the school hid the criminal record from the government at the time of hiring, on 26 May 2017
  • Second, to hire a severely mentally ill teacher and not inform clients of potential harm to the children during the overnight school trip on 14 August 2017, and
  • Third, when the school insisted that the teacher is qualified to teach despite the fact that Taiwan's national 《補習及進修教育法》第9  (Supplementary Education Act Article 9) prevents the qualification.


In the phone call on 21 Jan 2018, General Manager 江佩樺(Clare insisted that the man did a good job teaching.  She expressly told the man that the school will stand beside that opinion.


The following morning on Monday 22 Jan 2018, without any further communication from the man, school managers told the man he no longer works at the school.  Managers refused to allow the man to collect his belongings. 


On 25 Jan 2018, the school informed the government that the school fired the man on grounds of bad behaviour, and because the man did not submit a criminal record check.  What was the bad behaviour?  The man requested help from the public to bring his Taiwan-born son to Taiwan, knowing that any follow-up questions will expose major criminal fraud at the school.  The man had done this on his own time.


On 7 May 2018, the Taiwan government officially began assisting 芝麻街凱仕蘭 (Kidsland Sesame Street) general manager 江佩樺(Clare江佩樺 criminally accused the man of ruining 江佩樺's reputation.  江佩樺 is the General Manager of 13 school branches who ultimately deceived thousands of clients about teacher qualifications.


The employment dispute between the man and 芝麻街凱仕蘭 (Kidsland Sesame Street) entered the lower Civil Court in Tainan City.  At the same time, prosecutors began investing character defamation of the school against the man.


The Legal Aid Foundation at Tainan City initially provided a lawyer, 楊雅筑 (Elsa Yang), to help against the criminal accusations.  楊雅筑 wanted to submit a criminal defence on behalf of the man.  The man asked to read it.  The man could not read Chinese.  楊雅筑 insisted the man's wife should translate the document.  The man requested assistance from Legal Aid to translate the lawyer's document because the man's wife didn't feel confident translating legal documents.  楊雅筑 told the Legal Aid Foundation that the man was uncooperative and insulting (because he insisted to read Chinese statements written on his behalf).  The Legal Aid Foundation cancelled its support and denied the man's appeal of its decision.  In another instance, the man waited 3 hours at the Tainan Legal Aid Foundation to meet with a lawyer, but none of the lawyers felt comfortable speaking English so the Legal Aid Foundation let the man wait until they closed.


Prosecutors insisted the foreigner would need to hire a lawyer before the government will investigate allegations that managers intentionally deceived clients to obtain their trust (money).  Prosecutors knew the man had no ability to hire a lawyer.  The local Legal Aid Foundation excels at giving excuses. 


On 26 Nov 2018, Civil Court Judge 羅郁棣 (Luo Yuqi) allowed the general manager 江佩樺(Clareand teaching department manager 徐乙彤(Denise to commit perjury.  Both managers denied knowing that the foreigner had a criminal record in Canada.  One manager went so far as to say that 《勞動基準法》 (the Labor Standards Act) allows schools to violate 《補習及進修教育法》 (the Supplementary Education Act). 


Judge 羅郁棣 also ignored the fact that the school was not allowed to hire a convicted foreign criminal without verifying the nature of the convictions according to 《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》第81-1 (the Child Protection Act). 


Judge 羅郁棣 ruled in favour of the school on 18 Jan 2019.


The lower Civil Court verdict effectively stated:

The school legally hired the teacher.  The school is not under obligation to pay the outstanding amount of the teacher's salary, otherwise required according to Civil Code Article 153.


In Tainan City government sponsored a second mediation on 19 Feb 2019.  江佩樺 testified that the school did not need to provide obligatory teacher training after the man began teaching in August 2017.  However, the two-year teaching contract did specifically state that all teachers must successfully complete the training before employment as a teacher can begin.


On grounds of perjury, the case moved into the Tainan branch of Taiwan's High Court system. 


On 25 Sept 2019, Taiwan prosecutors back-dated allegations of uttering threats and extortion.  The school accused the man of extortion and threats over an incorrect translation of an English statement into Chinese.  The case is ongoing.


Another year passed.


The High Court judge requested 江佩樺(Clare to supply additional evidence of bad behaviour, since the evidence previously submitted occurred up to two months after the school dismissed the man on 22 Jan 2018. 


On 22 May 2020, General Manager 江佩樺 testified in High Court that she made a mistake: the original allegation of bad behaviour arose from writing which the teacher shared on his own time, not during working hours, and which did not directly reference the school.  The writing led readers to question the man's past, which is exactly what the school managers had wanted to avoid.


On 6 Aug 2020, the Taiwan's High Court dismissed the man's appeal. 


As explanation of the High Court decision is expected later this month.


There are grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court of Taiwan:

Civil Code Article 153 requires the school to accept responsibility, to pay the outstanding salary because the school knew the teacher was not qualified to teach.  Specifically, if the teaching contract is void, the pre-teaching agreement remains valid.  The man and school lawfully entered a Civil Code contract to use the school as advertising to help end the Taiwan-China dispute.  Since the school agreed to pay the teacher knowing that the teacher was not qualified, the agreement to pay the teacher is also still valid.  There is an additional Human Rights claim because the school also accepted responsibility to ensure that the foreigner becomes qualified in advance of performing any teaching duties.  The fact that the school fired the man who taught illegally has nothing to do with the agreement to pay the man because the school intentionally deceived clients about the man's teaching qualifications.


After working at 芝麻街凱仕蘭 (Kidsland Sesame Street), the man approached TV news companies to help advertise this story.  三立電視 (Set TV) accepted.  The man devised a plan to help support victims of the February 2018 Earthquake in Hualien, but 三立電視 (Set TV) completely changed the story and omitted the part about helping Hualien.


The man approached the Legal Aid Foundation to help, but there comes a time when one questions the point of asking a lawyer to help a National news company to follow the intention of the law, and help the Taiwan public.


The man got a job at a university in Tainan in 2018.  Would you believe the university sent a lawyer from Taipei into Civil Court in Tainan City to tell the judge that the university never hired the man?  The judge was again 羅郁棣 (Luo Yuqi).  The judge must have believed 康寧大學 (Kang Ning University) because he dismissed the man's case also on 6 Aug 2020.


Think about this: a university hires the man to teach, the man begins teaching, and when the university discovers that the man was in jail in Canada, they fire the man. 


康寧大學 (Kang Ning University) did not conduct the obligatory criminal record check.  The university asked the man to establish his curriculum before the 2018-2019 school year.  Students in all of the man's classes accepted the man's curriculum.  The university paid the man to teach.  But the lawyer is allowed to disavow that the University told all students that this man is their teacher?


The man told judge 羅郁棣 (Luo Yuqi) in court on 6 July 2020 that the University's lawyer is essentially saying that the man doesn't need the University's permission to teach or be paid by the university.  That is the same as saying that a rapist can use the excuse "I can always ask permission after we have sex, so I am never guilty of sex without consent."


Article 1 of The Constitution of The Republic Of China states:

The Republic of China, founded on the Three Principles of the People, shall be a democratic republic of the people, to be governed by the people and for the people.




This story demonstrates the Republic Of China (Taiwan) government's domestic legal obsession with "Nationalism" when "Internationalism" is clearly necessary.  While judges in courts of law continue to allow the citizens of Taiwan to commit crimes instead of advocating the equal rights of foreigners, the government of Taiwan is an international fraud.


The Republic Of China officially established its Constitution on 1 January 1947.  Reference the current Constitution at , retrieved 7 Aug 2020. 


In 1947, the Republic Of China officially included all people of mainland China.  No one disputes this.  The ongoing dispute concerns the ruling party of the mainland, and not the ruling party of Taiwan


Taiwan and China are actually two words to describe the same government.  They only exist as two separate nations because the USA intervened in the internal politics of China at the end of the Second World War.  The USA received legal ownership of the island of Taiwan when the Japanese surrendered. 


This is described in more detail in the next parts, Tracing Ownership Of The Island Taiwan and its government "The Republic Of China".  Briefly:

  • The Japanese owned the island of Taiwan during World War II, since 1895.
  • The USA expressly stated the Japanese were not to surrender to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the end of the Second World War.
  • The KMT led the Republic Of China (ROC) government according to a principle of democracy.  Democracy requires a ruling party to call a public election, and surrender itself to the public majority, or the democracy becomes a dictatorship.
  • If the founding principles of a democratic government change to become a dictatorship, the government changed even if the name of the government remains the same.
  • By overwhelming majority on 1 Oct 1949, the legal opposition party to the KMT (and therefore first in line to become the official ruling party after the KMT attempted to change a democratic government into a dictatorship) officially renamed the ROC the People's Republic Of China (PRC)
  • The remaining KMT fled to Taiwan on 10 Dec 1949
  • When the KMT fled to Taiwan, the KMT legally surrendered ownership of the phrase "The Republic Of China" to the CCP. 
  • If the USA did not give the island of Taiwan expressly only to the existing not-communist faction of the public majority on 2 Sept 1945, then the government of Taiwan might officially belong to the USA.
  • Since the KMT refused to relinquish their official Chinese status after violating their own 1947 Constitutional democratic principle, by international law of a democratic majority vote, the current government actually belongs to the People's Republic Of China.
  • That's going to be a tough pill to swallow.


Taiwan has no legal international authority to use the word "China" without the permission of the People's Republic Of China (mainland government).


While Taiwan insists that its government is the "Republic Of China" government, the People's Republic Of China retains an international legal ability (and moral obligation) to order the unconditional surrender of the Taiwan government. 


Since the Republic Of China (ROC) retains the original 1947 Constitution in Taiwan, approved by the KMT and CCP parties, Taiwan legally requires permission of the PRC to adopt a new Constitution.  Therefore, Taiwan is not actually independent and cannot legally alter its Constitution if the PRC were to launch a petition in international court.


This letter exemplifies corruption within the government of Taiwan.  The nature of the case is a human rights issue.  Firstly, Taiwan cannot justify being an advocate of international human rights if the government allows local businesses to defraud the public.  Secondly, to prove this point, the man attended the International Human Rights Federation (FIDH) 40th international congress at the Grand Hotel in Taipei on 21 October 2019. 


On 21 Oct 2019, the previous Canadian college teacher, now political refugee in Taiwan, was allowed to attend 3 hours worth of excellent lectures.  Then senior delegates of the Taiwan Association Of Human Rights (TAHR) informed the man that the congress was not open to the public.  In a follow-up email dated 13 Nov 2019, 邱伊翎 (Eeling chiu), Secretary General, writes:

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:33 PM <> wrote:

Dear Rene,

According to the definition of "Refugee" , which means someone face the danger and life threat under war, prosecution due to the reason of race, political, religious, nationality, social group by his/her home country. So your case is more like a labor dispute between you and your employer. It's better for you to find a lawyer or a labor NGO to help. Your case does NOT fit the definition of "Refugee" or "asylum".

Thank you so much.


Secretary General, Taiwan Association for Human Rights

Tel: +886-2-25969525



According to 邱伊翎 (Eeling chiu), Secretary General of 台灣人權促進會 (Taiwan Association Of Human Rights) on 13 Nov 2019, these cases are "like a labor dispute between you and your employer". 


On 4 Dec 2019, the man replied "You are directly allowing this story to endanger the international reputation of Taiwan."


Perhaps a brief history about Rene Helmerichs (中華民國:是瑞內) will help the Taiwan government and 台灣人權促進會 (Taiwan Association Of Human Rights) understand this situation.



2.         Ownership of Taiwan (references cited)


d.               USA owns the land



The Chinese Qing Empire gave Japan the island in a peace treaty signed on 17 April 1895 in Shimonoseki, Japan.

(Takekoshi, Yosaburō (1907).  Japanese rule in Formosa. London, New York, Bombay and Calcutta: Longmans, Green, and co. OCLC 753129. OL 6986981M.).  


Japan officially signed the surrender documents to the USA on the deck of the American battleship USS Missouri at Tokyo Bay on 2 Sept 1945.

(Beevor, Antony (2012). The Second World War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-84497-6. p.776.)


USA President Truman tried to ensure the pro-democratic Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would win over the CPC in a Chinese Civil War that began after the precursor to both the KMT and the CPC abdicated the last Emperor on 12 Feb 1912:

It was perfectly clear to us that if we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the Communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison until we could airlift Chinese National troops to South China and send Marines to guard the seaports.

(Harry S.Truman, Memoirs, Vol. Two: Years of Trial and Hope, 1946–1953 (Great Britain 1956), p.66)


Retrieved 8 Aug 2020 from

Under the terms of the Japanese unconditional surrender dictated by the United States, Japanese troops were ordered to surrender to KMT troops and not to the CPC, which was present in some of the occupied areas.[34] In Manchuria, however, where the KMT had no forces, the Japanese surrendered to the Soviet Union. Chiang Kai-shek ordered the Japanese troops to remain at their post to receive the Kuomintang and not surrender their arms to the Communists.[34]

34: Zarrow, Peter Gue. (2005). China in War and Revolution, 1895–1949. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-36447-7. p. 338.


Retrieved 8 Aug 2020 from

The Double Tenth Agreement, formally known as the Summary of Conversations Between the Representatives of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China, was an agreement between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) that was concluded on 10 October 1945 (the Double Ten Day of the Republic of China) after 43 days of negotiations.[1][2] Mao Zedong and United States Ambassador to China Patrick J. Hurley flew together to Chungking on 27 August 1945 to begin the negotiations. The outcome was that the CPC acknowledged the KMT as the legitimate government, while the KMT in return recognised the CPC as a legitimate opposition party. The Shangdang Campaign, which began on 10 September, came to an end on 12 October as a result of the announcement of the agreement.[3] The agreement was signed at what is now the Red Rock Village Museum in Chongqing.

1: Liu, Shaoqi (1991). Selected Works of Liu Shaoqi, Vol. I. Foreign Languages Press. p. 456. ISBN 0835111806.

 2: "中国共产党大事记 1945 (Record of major events of the Communist Party of China)" (in Chinese). The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. 2007-08-30. Retrieved 2008-01-09.

3: Yang, Benjamin (1997). Deng: A Political Biography. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 98–99. ISBN 1563247216.


On 23 April 1949 Mao, leader of the CPC, captured the KMT's capital, Nanjing.

(Zhang, Chunhou. Vaughan, C. Edwin. (2002). Mao Zedong as Poet and Revolutionary Leader: Social and Historical Perspectives. Lexington books. ISBN 0-7391-0406-3. pp. 58, 65.)


The KMT government retreated to Canton (Guangzhou) until October 15, Chongqing until November 25, and then Chengdu before retreating to Taiwan on December 10, 1949.


The PRC officially began on October 1, 1949, when Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China (PRC) in Tiananmen Square.

(Ben Westcott; Lily Lee (30 September 2019). "They were born at the start of Communist China. 70 years later, their country is unrecognizable". CNN.)


The official Taiwan government "History" page at, retrieved 5 Aug 2020, states:

The ROC government relocated to Taiwan in 1949 while fighting a civil war with the Chinese Communist Party. Since then, the ROC has continued to exercise effective jurisdiction over the main island of Taiwan and a number of outlying islands, leaving Taiwan and China each under the rule of a different government.


Taiwan as "a province of China", retrieved 6 Aug 2020 from


The ROC, U.K. and U.S. jointly issue the Potsdam Declaration, calling for Japan’s unconditional surrender and the carrying-out of the Cairo Declaration.

After World War II, ROC government representatives accept the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan. The Chief Executive of Taiwan Province Chen Yi sends a memorandum to the Japanese governor-general of Taiwan, stating that “As the Chief Executive of Taiwan Province of the ROC, …I restore all legal territory, people, administration, political, economic, and cultural facilities and assets of Taiwan [including the Penghu Islands].”


The ROC Constitution is promulgated Jan. 1 and is scheduled to take effect Dec. 25. In March and the following months, ROC troops dispatched from China suppress a large-scale uprising of Taiwan residents sparked by the February 28 Incident.


As full-scale civil war rages in China between the Kuomintang-led ROC government and CCP, the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion are enacted, overriding the ROC Constitution and greatly expanding presidential powers.


The ROC government relocates to Taiwan, followed by 1.2 million people from China.

Oct. 25 sees the Battle of Kuningtou on Kinmen, in which the ROC armed forces defeat the communists on the northwestern coast of the island.

Martial law is declared in Taiwan and continues to be in force until 1987.


The Treaty of Peace is signed between the ROC and Japan at Taipei Guest House, formally ending the state of war between the two parties. It is recognized that under Article 2 of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, Japan has renounced all rights, titles and claims to Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores [the Penghu Islands] as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. All treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before Dec. 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.



e.               China owns the government



3.         International Unity


f.                Start of the plan


g.               Helping USA unite the world


h.               Helping China unite the world


  • China controls the government of Hong Kong because China owns the land.
  • The PRC never owned the island of Taiwan.  The PRC governs the island through its legal authority over the ROC.
  • The ROC is not unlike the democratic Hong Kong government was during Chinese 99-year lease of Hong Kong to Britain.  Except in this case, there is no official lease.
  • There is a solid case that the USA legally abandoned its authority over the control of its island of Taiwan when it gave the island to the Chinese Nationalist (KMT) party
  • China can put forward a peaceful legal claim in the appendix of a bleeding-heart legal case:

A single international appeal of a current Taiwan Supreme Court decision can serve this purpose.  The case must explain an unjust judicial decision, unjust according to international (and not merely PRC) accepted norms, preferably of a foreigner who is not a Chinese national.  That would give the PRC the credence to say, internationally and publicly, "Yes, we claim authority over Taiwan, and we must in good conscious because the judicial system of Taiwan is morally corrupt.  The international standard of law is the single moral standard of basic right and wrong that each person everywhere ought to know and respect as an infallible rule if we are to promote a semblance of worldwide sustainability amid countries each operating according to different domestic rules."


Popular posts from this blog

A legal argument against psychiatry in Canada