蔡英文論文門英高等行政法院裁示換法官重審 (第2頁)

sun2323dw
個人積分：3003分
文章編號：87826330

3003分

11樓

2023-07-10 19:23

ura0414 wrote:
倫敦政經學院（LSE）替蔡英文的學位背書，發出一則聲明，
旅美學者林環牆依照英國資訊自由法（FOIA）訊問LSE那則聲明的出處，
被校方認為是「無理取鬧（vexatious）」，
一審行政法院也認同校方說法。近日英國高等行政法院最新判決出爐，
除了重話批一審行政法院的裁決是「法律上的錯誤（An error of law）」，
並裁示該案退回一審行政法院且應換法官。

這個訴訟，
緣起英國政經學院發了個聲明，
是林環牆要求學校揭露是哪個單位，哪個人發出的 ?
英國學校不願意，
林環牆認為英國學校依法應揭露，......( 我個人認為應該是要如此揭露，敢做敢當。)

林環牆對英國學校提起行政訴訟，要求揭露該聲明，來自何單位，何人 ?
英國一審行政法院判決，不需揭露，
上訴二審，
二審法院發回一審法院重新審理，也沒說是否要揭露。

最佳狀況，
未來的判決，
英國學校需揭露，該篇聲明，係出自何單位，何人撰述。

但是，
並沒有看到，
這個案件的英國法院要審理，論文是否存在，

哪.....
我們關切的論文真相，
到底要等英國的哪一個訴訟，才能明瞭 ?
這個英美法，對我們好複雜.......

giamarij

giamarij
個人積分：118分
文章編號：87826663

118分

12樓

2023-07-10 20:34

LSE這個學校也很妙，用學校的網址發了恭賀蔡英文博士當選總統的賀文，結果竟不敢承認是那個單位、那個人發的！連學校吃了官司還是不敢公布是誰發佈的訊息。這篇賀文被拿來台灣當成是學校承認真博士的關鍵訊息。

我真心覺得如果蔡真有博士，就把「證書與成績單」一併公布，如果不見了就請外交部特派員去再請一份，不過是幾天的事而已，弄得神神秘密，都幾年了。

另外台灣整個司法都為了大小姐一個人為之蒙羞。

eheart

eheart
個人積分：1511分
文章編號：87826765

1511分

13樓

2023-07-10 20:53

Itaman wrote:
很佩服林環牆教授不屈不撓追查的毅力他的教授頭銜絕對是真材實料

蔡婆最近印堂發暗，氣色灰敗，看來是提早得到消息?

埋冤國有35%低智失憶並集體罹患重度"失德哥爾摩症候群"的選民，投票率87%

buzzbee

[嚇到吃手手]

2023-07-11 8:20

super bandage

super bandage
個人積分：3409分
文章編號：87826841

3409分

14樓

2023-07-10 21:05

ura0414 wrote:
怎麼還沒來上班呢....

等中央廚房出菜中

dohan8850

dohan8850
個人積分：11252分
文章編號：87826891

11252分

15樓

2023-07-10 21:14

英國LSE不敢說話
教育部封存30年
大家都在躲
不敢讓資料公開

Buzz_Cookie

Buzz_Cookie
個人積分：5741分
文章編號：87826923

5741分

16樓

2023-07-10 21:19

tdbigman wrote:
有人看到這則所謂的英國高等行政法院的判決了嗎？

我只看到一部分，Richardson 的網站上他的評論文中有部分內容。

Unlike Judge McKenna who would not explain her decision, Judge Wikeley spelled out his rationale:

“The Appellant’s grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, although not overly long, are nonetheless written in a somewhat discursive style. Certainly he has not highlighted and enumerated specific grounds of appeal. Be that as it may, it is tolerably clear that the FTT’s strike out decision is challenged on the basis that it involves an “abuse of discretion constituting procedural error”. In support of this proposition, it is further argued that, as the strike out power is an extraordinary and draconian power, it follows that the rationale for its exercise must be explained. However, it is submitted that the FTT’s decision in this case involves “the unexplained conclusionary statement ‘not fit for a full hearing’ as explanation [and] is effectively unreviewable thus undermining appellate review”. Furthermore, it is argued that an allegation of vexatiousness sets a high bar and “an appeal cannot be struck for vexatiousness without an articulated rationale”.

“The Commissioner, in his Response, opposes the appeal, identifying the central issue as being whether the FTT was correct to strike out the Appellant’s case. His submission, in short, is that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be dismissed. In the first instance the Commissioner argues that the FTT was correct to strike out the case for the reasons it gave. Alternatively, if the FTT were to be found to have erred in law, the Commissioner contends that the Upper Tribunal should remake the FTT’s decision and strike out Dr Lin’s case for itself. These submissions are considered in more detail below.”

“The Appellant’s Reply reiterates several themes from the Notice of Appeal, but also takes issue with the “Respondent’s characterisation of the main issue in the appeal. Dr Lin asserts that the “sole issue” now is rather the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons for the FTT’s decision. He states that he “has not sought permission to appeal the strike out itself” and has “not put the merits of the strike out Decision before this Court”. He proposes, by way of remedy, that the matter is “remanded” back to the same FTT judge for the reasoning for the strike out decision to be explained.”

“I need to address the points in the previous paragraph first. The Appellant in this case is understandably more familiar with both the language and the conventions of US courts and tribunals than the courts and tribunals of England and Wales. This greater familiarity is reflected in the submissions he makes. However, the Commissioner is correct to identify the central issue on the instant appeal as being whether the FTT was right to strike out the Appellant’s case. This is an inquisitorial and not an adversarial jurisdiction and one which does not turn on narrow points of pleading and procedure. The effect of the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission to appeal was to allow an error of law challenge to the FTT’s decision on the Commissioner’s strike out application.”

“The FTT found the Appellant’s appeal had no reasonable prospects of success as his grounds of appeal did not engage its statutory jurisdiction. His appeal may, or may not, have had reasonable prospects of success but the grounds of appeal were sufficiently particularised to engage the FTT’s jurisdiction. The FTT’s decision on the Commissioner’s application accordingly involved an error of law and is set aside.”

“In those circumstances the Commissioner’s submission is that the Upper Tribunal should re-make the FTT’s decision and strike out the case. This is on the basis that…“enough judicial time and resource has been taken up already by this plainly unmeritorious case”. I demur. Fact-finding is best regarded as the prerogative of the FTT. I remit the case, and so the Commissioner’s application for a strike out, to the FTT for reconsideration before a different judge.”

“I conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal…involves an error of law. I therefore allow the Appellant’s appeal and set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. I remit the case for reconsideration by the First-tier Tribunal.”