Байки из Иностранные жилья или "Доколе?!"
>> Продолжение этого
В апреле 2005г. в Сеульском Вестнике номер 95, на 7й странице выходит мое развернутое интервью данное по телефону из убежища.
28 апреля 2005г. в The Korea Times выходит статья Андрея Ланькова “Absurd Immigration Policy”, написанная под влиянием происходящего вокруг меня технологии П.
Видимо под влиянием культурного шока от всего происходящего, от имени инспектора Джонг Сангджина, 3 апреля подается в Верховный Суд апелляцию состоящую из 75 страниц(!):
Exhibit №65 или "Доколе?!"
(страница 9, подписи Сангджина нет)
Цитаты (выделено мной):
The appellee was taken to Hwaseong Foreigner Custody Center HFCC) for a long-term custody, but he lied on the floor to refuse to еnter into HFCC and interfered with just enforcement.
(тогда не знали, что есть запись - почему бы не соврать?)
The appellee was placed to our custody center again as the action of FCC to reject problematic foreigner entry onto the center, and we notified him that he was taken to the custody for his arrest on the illegal employment site when the initial custodial action was taken, but he appealed strongly for not committing any illegal employment, and although the attorney notified him that the decision of suspending the validity of deportation does not effect the custody order, but he made unjust demand that the release from the custody was not made even hen the decision for suspending the validity of deportation was rendered. He frequently kicked the door of the custody facilities and shaking the bars from time to time to disrupt the order of the custody facilities, and did not comply with the just instruction of assembly for personal checks by the employees and he interfered with the works of custody facilities in many ways.
On or around 12:30, April 27, 2004, he intentionally caused the lectric short-circuit to in turn caused power failure and telephone alfunctions in the custody facilities (for the statement of the person in charge of electricity, it could lead a fire), and about 10 minutes later, he took advantage of the crowded situation after the lunch, he tried to scape from the custody facilities, and, while the staffs try to place the situation under control, the said person used abusive language and physically resisted against the employees, and when an employee tried o take the situation with a video camera, he snatched the camera and hrew it hard on the floor to completely destroy it.
The appellee filed complaint against a staff of the Review Division ho undertook the decision of deportation against the appellant for illegal imprisonment to Seoul Southern District Office around November 2004 and the District Office disposed matter without cause of action on February 2, 2005.
When the above complaint was disposed without cause of action, the appellee filed complaint against 3 staffs on Management Division who undertook the deportation works against the appellee on February 2, 2005.
The appellee petitioned on the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRC) against our Office for the false facts of manipulating the documents belonged to him and receiving bribe money from the foreigners in the custody facilities around April 25, 2005, and the NHRC rendered the decision without any basis on April 25, 2005, but the appellee again petitioned to the NHRC for similar reasons
Although the illegal employment was discovered and was taken to custody under the appropriate process, the appellee objected on the custody order and deportation order after the custodial action, and instigate other foreigners to file petitions to the NHRC for no legitimate reasons or file objections on the dispositions that he has interfered the affairs of our Office.
There was no precedent case in Korea, but the highest tribunal in Japan had the adjudication that 'Article 22 (1) of the Constitution only has the provision to guarantee the freedom of residence in the territory of Japan, but se precedent without any provision on the entry of foreign persons, and this point does not impose obligation to the state to accept foreigners under the international custom law, but unless there is a special treaty otherwise, in the event of whether a foreigner is accepted to the country, or if accepted, what conditions shall be imposed would be freely determine by the applicable country. (Decision of the highest tribunal, October 4, 1978), and, furthermore, the highest tribunal adjudicated that if the foreigner subject for deportation does not lose the right to appeal and adjudicated in Japan because of it. However, if the foreign person subject for deportation is deported and not stayed in Japan, carrying out the litigation alone would be difficult, but the litigation by the representative is possible, and in the event of needing to appear to the court is present, it does not mean that he/she may not come to Japan. Therefore, even of the order of the subject matter is enforced, and the foreigner subject for deportation is deported, it does not deny the right to be adjudicated. (Highest tribunal, March 10, 1977), and the highest court had the similar decisions on May 30, 1980, October 24, 1974, January 1, 1974.
It does not seem to have irreparable damage even if the appellee were deported, and if the respondent is kept in custody, he, the specialist in electricity technology, may have the possibility of committing attempted arson or more serious nature of crime that it may clearly harm the public order, social order and other public benefits.
>> Дальше см. тут
В апреле 2005г. в Сеульском Вестнике номер 95, на 7й странице выходит мое развернутое интервью данное по телефону из убежища.
28 апреля 2005г. в The Korea Times выходит статья Андрея Ланькова “Absurd Immigration Policy”, написанная под влиянием происходящего вокруг меня технологии П.
Видимо под влиянием культурного шока от всего происходящего, от имени инспектора Джонг Сангджина, 3 апреля подается в Верховный Суд апелляцию состоящую из 75 страниц(!):
Exhibit №65 или "Доколе?!"
(страница 9, подписи Сангджина нет)
Цитаты (выделено мной):
The appellee was taken to Hwaseong Foreigner Custody Center HFCC) for a long-term custody, but he lied on the floor to refuse to еnter into HFCC and interfered with just enforcement.
(тогда не знали, что есть запись - почему бы не соврать?)
The appellee was placed to our custody center again as the action of FCC to reject problematic foreigner entry onto the center, and we notified him that he was taken to the custody for his arrest on the illegal employment site when the initial custodial action was taken, but he appealed strongly for not committing any illegal employment, and although the attorney notified him that the decision of suspending the validity of deportation does not effect the custody order, but he made unjust demand that the release from the custody was not made even hen the decision for suspending the validity of deportation was rendered. He frequently kicked the door of the custody facilities and shaking the bars from time to time to disrupt the order of the custody facilities, and did not comply with the just instruction of assembly for personal checks by the employees and he interfered with the works of custody facilities in many ways.
On or around 12:30, April 27, 2004, he intentionally caused the lectric short-circuit to in turn caused power failure and telephone alfunctions in the custody facilities (for the statement of the person in charge of electricity, it could lead a fire), and about 10 minutes later, he took advantage of the crowded situation after the lunch, he tried to scape from the custody facilities, and, while the staffs try to place the situation under control, the said person used abusive language and physically resisted against the employees, and when an employee tried o take the situation with a video camera, he snatched the camera and hrew it hard on the floor to completely destroy it.
The appellee filed complaint against a staff of the Review Division ho undertook the decision of deportation against the appellant for illegal imprisonment to Seoul Southern District Office around November 2004 and the District Office disposed matter without cause of action on February 2, 2005.
When the above complaint was disposed without cause of action, the appellee filed complaint against 3 staffs on Management Division who undertook the deportation works against the appellee on February 2, 2005.
The appellee petitioned on the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRC) against our Office for the false facts of manipulating the documents belonged to him and receiving bribe money from the foreigners in the custody facilities around April 25, 2005, and the NHRC rendered the decision without any basis on April 25, 2005, but the appellee again petitioned to the NHRC for similar reasons
Although the illegal employment was discovered and was taken to custody under the appropriate process, the appellee objected on the custody order and deportation order after the custodial action, and instigate other foreigners to file petitions to the NHRC for no legitimate reasons or file objections on the dispositions that he has interfered the affairs of our Office.
There was no precedent case in Korea, but the highest tribunal in Japan had the adjudication that 'Article 22 (1) of the Constitution only has the provision to guarantee the freedom of residence in the territory of Japan, but se precedent without any provision on the entry of foreign persons, and this point does not impose obligation to the state to accept foreigners under the international custom law, but unless there is a special treaty otherwise, in the event of whether a foreigner is accepted to the country, or if accepted, what conditions shall be imposed would be freely determine by the applicable country. (Decision of the highest tribunal, October 4, 1978), and, furthermore, the highest tribunal adjudicated that if the foreigner subject for deportation does not lose the right to appeal and adjudicated in Japan because of it. However, if the foreign person subject for deportation is deported and not stayed in Japan, carrying out the litigation alone would be difficult, but the litigation by the representative is possible, and in the event of needing to appear to the court is present, it does not mean that he/she may not come to Japan. Therefore, even of the order of the subject matter is enforced, and the foreigner subject for deportation is deported, it does not deny the right to be adjudicated. (Highest tribunal, March 10, 1977), and the highest court had the similar decisions on May 30, 1980, October 24, 1974, January 1, 1974.
It does not seem to have irreparable damage even if the appellee were deported, and if the respondent is kept in custody, he, the specialist in electricity technology, may have the possibility of committing attempted arson or more serious nature of crime that it may clearly harm the public order, social order and other public benefits.
>> Дальше см. тут