對美國聯邦法院林2訴訟案檢討(2)
對美國聯邦法院林2訴訟案檢討(2)
訴訟管轄權法院認為不足以證明成立，主要理由係基於法院認為：美國憲法第三章節裡，司法訴訟資格需要之一有關法院能給予有效救濟不成立。因此無法針對本案之訴訟題目享有憲法所稱司法管轄權，這是屬美國憲法解釋之一種。
另外認為台灣島領土地位屬政治問題，應移交政治機關處理，國會及總統進行處理島嶼地位與島民身份事項。。。或先移交政治機關處理島嶼領土地位，然後司法才能確立國籍現狀，及後續司法命令事項。。。此外，認為無法證明中華民國改變台灣人國籍行為，屬美國所直接、片面在美國境內所導致之原因，因此，訴訟法條依據不符合聯邦法典法規完整管轄必要之前提，也未符合聯邦民事程序需求有關因果關係條件。因此提議上訴至高等巡迴法院處理。
美國聯邦法官認為：或許1946年卻是存在者美華間代理關係無誤However, even if one were to accept, arguendo, that such an agency relationship existed in 1946
法官裁決：原告台灣民政府卻是與中華民國立場有實質衝突、矛盾、及法理不同之位置存在，因此屬司法得以審查之實質個人權益傷害情形無誤。
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged “factsshowing disadvantage to themselves as individuals,” so as to demonstrate that they have “such a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure [] concrete adverseness.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 205, 206.
法官認為台灣島屬美軍管轄，但美國國外管轄豁免辦法規定：定義美國並非包含所有美國管轄領土，顯然係認為台灣島或許為美軍佔領區無誤。
The FSIA﹀s term ‥United States〃 is narrowly construed to mean only ‥
the continental United States and those islands that are part of the United States and its
possessions,〃 Amerada Hess, 488 U.S. at 440, and does not include territories over which the United States might exercise some form of jurisdiction. See id. at 440-41; Persinger v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 729 F.2d 835, 839 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
法官裁決就算台灣島係美軍佔領區，侵權行為發生於南京發佈了國籍喪失命令，而非完全發生在美國台灣島以內。
even if Taiwan could have been considered ‥within the United States〃 in 1946 for the purposes of the FSIA﹀s tort exception
法院不審查中華民國主張其行為不構成非法侵權他人國籍，也就是法院認為原告主張或許成立，但法院認為中華民國取消台灣島島民日本國籍，並非在(外國政府豁免法案規範)美國以內完全發生，因此無管轄權。
the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve Defendant Republic of China﹀s contentions that the tort of ‥arbitrary denationalization〃is not a tort recognized under the exception or that the Republic of China﹀s decisions fall within the discretionary function exception under ” 1605(a)(5)(A).
林1案已裁決：美國不承認任何主權於台灣島之上。原告未舉證，證明聯合國會基於本案有利裁決，而解決台灣島島民無國籍問題，而給予國際上國籍承認。
Here, Plaintiffs allege no facts plausibly demonstrating how the sought declaration, if issued by this Court, would be used ‥within international bodies such as the United Nations [] to end their statelessness.〃 Pls.﹀ Opp﹀n to USA﹀s Mot. at 39. A
Judge Collyer also noted that the plaintiffs were asking the court to ‥catapult over〃 a decision by the political branches to ‥ obviously and intentionally not recognize[] any power as sovereign over Taiwan.〃 Id. at 179 (emphasis in original). G
法官裁決原告訴求無國籍解釋，非訴求享有日本國籍之解釋。因此，該解釋為司法救濟，係無效救濟，其訴求。。。解釋為無國籍，不會一定導致其他國家給予國籍，而解決無國籍現狀。因此，無美國憲法所要求之實質解決、救濟職權之司法審查管轄權成立之依據存在，因此拒絕審查
Plaintiffs assert that they do not claim to be Japanese nationals, but rather claim to be stateless persons, whose statelessness began with the illegal deprivation of their, and their descendants’, Japanese nationality.” Id. at 38-39.
Here, the relief sought by Plaintiffs—a declaration stating that the Republic of China’s nationality decrees are legally invalid—would not redress their alleged injury as “stateless persons” who lack an internationally recognized nationality. In fact, Plaintiffs do not even attempt to argue that the declaration that Plaintiffs are seeking would provide them with an internationally recognized nationality or directly affect their nationality status. See Pls.’ Opp’n to USA’s Mot. at 38-39. R
林2案美國聯邦法官再度裁決台灣島為美軍佔領區。最高法院有關美國軍政佔領古巴島，期間設立古巴民政府之案例NEELY V HENKE及其自美國非合併領土佔領區引渡嫌疑犯人，不算條約引渡，而是軍政總督轉移嫌疑犯人而已，是美國國內法，也證明了為何馬英九總統遲遲得不到引渡協議。因台灣島屬美軍佔領區，因此無須引渡，只要依法轉移嫌疑人。參照聯邦法典外國領土佔領區嫌疑犯人轉移規定﹕18章節3185條
如果美國聯邦法官同意轉移自美國佔領區來美國地區嫌疑犯人，其得以允許基於美國國務卿命令，得以把該嫌疑犯人轉移美軍佔領區軍政總督為之，以便公平審
查開庭審案。
If so held, such person shall be returned and surrendered to the authorities
in control of such foreign country or territory on the order of the Secretary
of State of the United States, and such authorities shall secure to such
a person a fair and impartial trial.
台灣民政府 秘書長 林 志昇
2016/04/16
