homas F.. had
1.0.Box 1296
Church Stre Station New York, N..10007
The Honorable Attorney-General ngkong. The british Colony.
Dear Sir:
R?
HKK 380/
2
October 19th, 1977
со
No
As i am a huren being. I believe that I am entitled to a lawful trial before I could be declared "guilty
888 NFA
Hongkong Government is made of Government Officers, by the Government Officers and for the Government Officers. Your letter to me says that your job is rendering service to Hongkong Govern ment and not for the people. It just accidentally happens that I am an education officer. Although I am Education Officer of the lowest echelon, nevertheless, I am part of the Hongkong Gove rnment. Without the government officers, Hongkong Government would be an empty house. As a Hongkong Government officer, I Ι therefore believe sincerely that i am entitled to your service in the performanence of your duties to protect and preserve the justice and human rights which have been savagely violated by the unethical and the injudicious conduct of a greedy and corrupt magistrate who has willfully and disgracefully abuse i the sacred power and authority-- in conspiracy with the prosecution witness to make the Hongkong Magistrate Court as his private family court which has become his most beautiful instrument to make money. This is not a case of ordinary human error. It is a case of seriouslly moral turpitude of the magistrate himself in blatant violation of the most important human rights, while the victim has no fault of his ow!1. As part of the Hongkong Government itself, 1 respec tfully beg you to ask the District Court of Victoria to declare this illegal judgrent null and void with a lawful trial on the grounds of your esteemed advice:
(1) Your March 19th, 1976 letter advises me: "A nige should dis qualify himself from trying a case where he has had previous contact with any of the parties to the proceelings, whereas Magistrate o Hing-shing has clandestingly soliciter to try my case as a stalking horse for conspiracy and extortion. (2) Your same letter advises me: "It is illegal for any witness to demand mony from any party to any court proceedings whereas ha istrate lo Hing-shing ordered me in the open court to go out with the prosecution witness Tam Hung to Kongso (bargain for hribe).
·
H
11
(3) Your same leter alvises me: "It would be improper for a judge
to suggest in a riminal case that the defendant should speak to the witness.. whereas agistrate o ing-ching ordered me to follow he witness outside the courtroom to hongso. (4) Your 20th December, 1971 letter advises me: I can assure you
that it would be entirely wrong for a judge to convict and sent ence a defendant without giving him an opportunity of putting forward his defence" Your May Ist. 1972 letter advises me: If the complainant demands money from the defendant alleging that he can intercede with the trial judge, the defendant should report the matter to the court" but Magistrate Lo forbade me to put up my defence and suddenly declared an illegal judgment of guilty gainst me without trial. Your advice does not agree with Nagistrate Lo Hing-shing, This is why respectfully beg you to make good your advice in your deed as well as in your word. Yours most respectfully,
Thomas F.M.PUNG
Arluny
993
Page 105Page 106