Hartzell's COMMENTARIES on The Taiwan Question

[Traveller]

Let the voters decide!

Finally, we agree on something. Hartzell has just weighed in on the State Department's correspondence. Let's focus on the merits - the fact that Hartzell's claimed legal theory hinges on the fact that no announcement of the end of the U.S. military's occupation of Taiwan has been made, and thus, Taiwan is the property of the United States - and as you say "let the voters decide."

Ga-ma, are you really as stupid as you make out here, or just desperately trying to undermine the opinion of one man.

If the point you take were indeed a reality, then the voters that would be deciding if US Military occupation should cease would be the voters in the US, not the voters here, unless of course you feel that all occupying powers should heed 100% to the wishes of the people in the countries that they are occupying. If that were the case, then please explain why China does not heed to the wishes of Tibet for example.

All you have done so far is prove that you are incapable of actually raising any effective debate other than to snipe and attack the messenger personally, something which actually breaks the rules of this site.

Since you still contend that Hartzell is unqualified to hold an opinion on a legal matter as he is not a qualified legal professional, please provide your proof of legal qualification so that everyone here may actually believe you are talking from a point of honour, otherwise you are no better than you are trying to make him out to be. If you are not a qualified legal professional, then for pete's sake STFU.

[Traveller]

You know where I stand on Hartzell and his theory. Where do you stand? Do you believe in Hartzell's theory? I am getting very confused where you stand on this issue. It seems that you do believe in Hartzell's theory, as you want "a clear statement from the State Department that answers the question," but you "you suspect the outcome would [be] to painful to concede."

Ga-ma, looks like you have finally answered the unasked question, you are stupid and incapable of understanding pretty basic english. Hence your confusion.

As to what Sandman's stance on this issue is, then the answer is totally irrelevant, all he said in the beginning was that the State Department had not actually answered the question that had been asked.

Whether he is for or against the petition is meaningless, as are your posts.

BTW, have you now succeeded in your mission, after all this thread has now reached 7 pages in length and the orignal reason for the thread has now been lost. I will assume that your answer will be of an affirmative nature.

[Ga-ma]

Let the voters decide!

Finally, we agree on something. Hartzell has just weighed in on the State Department's correspondence. Let's focus on the merits - the fact that Hartzell's claimed legal theory hinges on the fact that no announcement of the end of the U.S. military's occupation of Taiwan has been made, and thus, Taiwan is the property of the United States - and as you say "let the voters decide."

Ga-ma, are you really as stupid as you make out here, or just desperately trying to undermine the opinion of one man.

If the point you take were indeed a reality, then the voters that would be deciding if US Military occupation should cease would be the voters in the US, not the voters here, unless of course you feel that all occupying powers should heed 100% to the wishes of the people in the countries that they are occupying. If that were the case, then please explain why China does not heed to the wishes of Tibet for example.

Let the voters decide is kind of a saying that infers that the public should have a say. In a democratic society, voters are allowed to voice their opinion. So, when I agree with Sandman to "let the voters decide," I am saying, let the people on and outside of this forum decide for themselves whether they believe Hartzell and his theory.

As for why China does not heed Tibet's wishes, I am not sure how much you get out, but public opinion criticial of the Chinese government is frowned upon in China. This is because China is a communist country - so democratic principles do not apply.

All you have done so far is prove that you are incapable of actually raising any effective debate other than to snipe and attack the messenger personally, something which actually breaks the rules of this site.

Actually, what I have done is raised public awareness of Hartell's theory in relation to the State Department's letter and forced each of you to take a position defending or attacking Hartzell's theory.

Since you still contend that Hartzell is unqualified to hold an opinion on a legal matter as he is not a qualified legal professional, please provide your proof of legal qualification so that everyone here may actually believe you are talking from a point of honour, otherwise you are no better than you are trying to make him out to be. If you are not a qualified legal professional, then for pete's sake STFU.

Like I asked a previous poster, if I were to tell you that I am a lawyer who practices U.S. Constitutional law or law relevant to Hartzell's claim, would that change your opinions of my prior postings? If so, tell me why. I will consider your request based on your response.

[Ga-ma]

You know where I stand on Hartzell and his theory. Where do you stand? Do you believe in Hartzell's theory? I am getting very confused where you stand on this issue. It seems that you do believe in Hartzell's theory, as you want "a clear statement from the State Department that answers the question," but you "you suspect the outcome would [be] to painful to concede."

Ga-ma, looks like you have finally answered the unasked question, you are stupid and incapable of understanding pretty basic English. Hence your confusion.

You and Sandman must have the same debate coach who taught you to accent each of your arguments with personal attacks to make your arguments more effective. Honestly, that debate style is not very effective.

As to what Sandman's stance on this issue is, then the answer is totally irrelevant, all he said in the beginning was that the State Department had not actually answered the question that had been asked.

Whether he is for or against the petition is meaningless, as are your posts.

So, your point is this - when making an argument, it is irrelevant what you believe the ultimate outcome of the argument should be. Wow. You should be a lawyer - you have the capacity to dispassionately argue whatever you like regardless of your beliefs.

BTW, have you now succeeded in your mission, after all this thread has now reached 7 pages in length and the orignal reason for the thread has now been lost. I will assume that your answer will be of an affirmative nature.

I beg to differ. The original reason for this thread has not been lost. Each time you and others try to attack me, I try and steer the topic back to the fact that U.S. State Department has weighed in on the issue presented in Hartzell's lawsuit.

[Jack Burton]

I should add my comments at this point.

From our point of view, of course, there has never been any announcement of the end of that jurisdiction, and hence Taiwan remains as an overseas territory of the USA under military government.

Oh, I see. Hartzell's deep legal theory turns on the fact that there has been no "announcement of the end of that jurisdiction." Forget that Hartzell has never proven that such an announcement needs to even take place. Forget the fact that Hartzell has never proved that such an announcement might have taken place. Forget that all the actions of the United States and Taiwan have been inconsistent with U.S. military control of Taiwan. Just ignore those minor points and you are good to go.

There probably needed to be some formal declaration, or perhaps, a formal/de facto withdrawal is all that is needed. Again, one would have to look at international law (of war) or some other document. So again, the words technicality and/or moot may be appropriate. But again, without knowing the law, I don't see how anyone can make a statement either way.

[rousseau]

I should add my comments at this point.

From our point of view, of course, there has never been any announcement of the end of that jurisdiction, and hence Taiwan remains as an overseas territory of the USA under military government.

Oh, I see. Hartzell's deep legal theory turns on the fact that there has been no "announcement of the end of that jurisdiction." Forget that Hartzell has never proven that such an announcement needs to even take place. Forget the fact that Hartzell has never proved that such an announcement might have taken place. Forget that all the actions of the United States and Taiwan have been inconsistent with U.S. military control of Taiwan. Just ignore those minor points and you are good to go.

Moving on from all the pre-menopausal-like snippiness, these seem to be key points worth discussing. I for one would like to hear more on these points.

How would Mr. Hartzell respond?

[Taffy]

I'm going to ask one more time, in the vain hope of getting an answer.

How does the State Department letter constitute a refutation of Hartzell's case?

You have dodged and ducked, prevaricated and blustered, but you still haven't answered the question which is at the root of this thread. Many of the posters here (myself included) believe the State Department's letter is a non-answer. You believe otherwise. So, demonstrate why we're wrong. Answer the question.

[mkegruber]

Hi,

I have bought and sold a number of investment properties. These properties have been purchased in a trust. The trustee was a company.

Now consider this, at the time the property was in possession of the trust, who owned the property?

a) Me
b) The company (trustee)
c) none of the above

The answer is (c), the company, holds the property "in trust" of the beneficiaries, but does not own the asset, that is the point of putting things in trust, for asset property - you cannot be sued for that which you do not own.

Now have a look at the following phrase from the US State Department's letter...

The United States has never claimed to have acquired title to Taiwan by law, treaty or conquest.

They aren't claiming to "own" or have acquired Taiwan's title, the better question would be, "Does the US or the US military hold Taiwan's sovereignty in trust, on behalf of the people of Taiwan".

In my view the answer would be yes.

So what is required for the benecificaries to claim Taiwan's sovereignty from the US trustee?

The people of Taiwan would need to declare independence and ask the trustee for their sovereignty. I assume this would require a referendum.

At the moment, with the havoc the KMT is causing in the government, a referendum would be difficult, in addition, President Chen made a promise not to formally push for independence.

And added to that, is the issue of how China reacts.

But the way I see it, Taiwan's "statehood" is being held in trust by the US, until such time as Taiwan claims it.

And the question is, while Taiwan's title is in trust, what is Taiwan's legal position?

Perhaps, if Taiwan's title can be clarified as being in trust, then it can be determined to be separate from China, and if that's the case, then that at least could be an argument for abolishing all of China's claims - how can Taiwan be China, is Taiwan is held away from China? - unless China can prove that it's held in trust for China - then all China would need to do is ask for the US to hand over Taiwan.

FYI - you don't need to be a solicitor/lawyer to know how a trust works.

Regards
Michael G

[Poagao]

Perhaps, if Taiwan's title can be clarified as being in trust, then it can be determined to be separate from China, and if that's the case, then that at least could be an argument for abolishing all of China's claims - how can Taiwan be China, is Taiwan is held away from China? - unless China can prove that it's held in trust for China - then all China would need to do is ask for the US to hand over Taiwan.

FYI - you don't need to be a solicitor/lawyer to know how a trust works.

And it's where this little fantasy intrudes upon the real world you get the most hilarious postifications. Yes, all those Chinese missiles are just a dodge! They're actually going to send their lawyer over to a US court. Watch out!

[mkegruber]

And it's where this little fantasy intrudes upon the real world you get the most hilarious postifications. Yes, all those Chinese missiles are just a dodge! They're actually going to send their lawyer over to a US court. Watch out!

True, that was a little off-topic, but my point was that the US State Dept's wording was still correct without admitting anything, which appeared to be the main topic of discussion for most of this thread.

Regards
Michael G