Three Insular Cases and the Taiwan Status

p. 4 of 1, 2, 3, 4 pages

Important Conclusions for the Taiwan status issue:

(1) Appointment of a civilian High Commissioner

The right to this legal position is originated under the DOD jurisdiction by SFPT, regulations, customary laws of war, and rights "enhancement" authority of TRA. The judicial branch has a doctrine of reviewing any executive actions with the highest priority on civil rights of the constitution. Jus feciale of SFPT culminates into such a constitutional position of the High Commissioner of civilians acquiring administrative authority. Jus feciale literally means a guardian of the Laws of War and Issues of Treaties. Jus means laws and Feciale means guardian, priesthood, protector, and so on. It seems that the very last legal holder of jus feciale was the US Supreme Commander of the US Military Government over Japan. It is time for the civilian control by the High Commissioner and self-governing dominion powers of insular law:

The feciale or protector of SFPT has the constitutional executive powers for the supreme exercise of treaty powers of administrative authority. He is foremostly responsible for officially convening the US Court of Taiwan under Article 2 of the US Constitution. That military commission (or war court) is technically an executive court of the SFPT administrative authority and with federal judicial procedures for US citizens. It is a jus feciale and fundamental Bill of Rights protections under the doctrine of civis romanus sum.

How does this analysis relate to the American Institute in Taiwan? Clearly, the AIT Chairman is an agent of the Dept. of State and their agency of administrative authority is reminiscent of the US v. Tiede (US Court of Berlin) situation. But then, there was a traceable paper trail for such a transfer by the US Military Government to the US Ambassador to West Germany. He still had two separate job titles: US Ambassador and US High Commissioner.

The only other equivalent of High Commissioner is the Dept. of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs. By default, they will have administrative authority for US possessions, and there is a legal paper trail, even if they don't have all these powers in such cases as Wake Island.

The civilian Office of High Commissioner for the Taiwan cession is under the US Military Government. It is not currently filled nor is it so governed by the Senior Commanding Officer of the Civil Affairs Airborne Brigade Headquarters, USACAPOC in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.

This High Commissioner position exists as a standard operating procedure of administrative authority US Military Government and was commonplace in any US Trust Territory and in West Berlin.

(2) Investigation of the Dept. of State

There is going to be some very serious explaining to do for their gross negligence at the Asia Desk at DOS. None of the key individuals have used proper caution but have engaged in reckless political expediency at the expense of the civil rights of the unincorporated territory of Taiwan. It is not even going to be possible to realistically ever claim ignorance or incompetence in any of these issues of SFPT. These officials are truly too professionally competent and have a traceable pattern of political agendas including some DOI Inspector-General investigations linking the Dept. of Interior and the Asia Desk at the Dept. of State. This is why if writs of mandamus are to be sought, they should be directed to the DOD jurisdiction of SFPT. The Inspector-General at DOD has recent history of investigating some Pro-China military officials in Hawaii. It is believed that there are links to the DOS and DOI. Since the Taiwan cession is TRA qualified as unincorporated territory under USMG, federal investigations by proper authorities (DIA) will be a national security issue.

For Taiwan, there has been no administrative authority transfer other than that delegated to the ROC and reaffirmed by TRA. However, to the extent that this delegated administrative authority is blocking the Taiwanese people's enjoyment of "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution, it is void.

p. 4 of 1, 2, 3, 4 pages

Home | Insular Research | Top