Roger C.S. Lin vs. U.S.A. Civil Action

TaiwanDNA.com Homepage

Excerpt from Wikipedia.org

On October 24, 2006, Dr. Roger C. S. Lin led a group of Taiwanese residents, including members of the Taiwan Nation Party, to file a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. According to their lawyer, Mr. Charles Camp, "[t]he Complaint asks the Court to declare whether the Taiwanese plaintiffs, including members of the Taiwan Nation Party, have certain rights under the United States Constitution". Their central argument is that, following Japanese renunciation of all rights and claims to Taiwan, Taiwan came under U.S. jurisdiction and remains so to this day. After an extension was granted, the United States government responded with a Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2007, mostly on the basis that the United States government has not waived its sovereign immunity, that this is a political question not suitable for a court to determine, and that the Plaintiffs failed to nominate a specific grievance for relief.

The Plaintiffs were scheduled to reply on or before January 29, but later also extended to February 16. The bulk of the rebuttal was concentrated on countering the defendants' 'non-justiciable political question' argument, citing the Baker/Goldwater standard. Plaintiffs next argued that they have suffered an injury-in-fact from being denied a recognized nationality, and cites several statues and the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SPFT) in which the court was given jurisdiction and the United States waived its sovereign immunity over the matter. In the last sections, the Plaintiffs argued that they have stated specific claims for relief and that the law does not require them to introduce all or any claims when filing the complaint initially.

The Government was scheduled to reply by March 9, 2007, but once again an extension of two weeks was granted. Nonetheless, on March 23, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the original complaint was denied "as moot [i]n light of the Amended Complaint filed" by the Plaintiffs on March 19. The Amended Complaint remains largely the same as the original, with minor structural changes, additional legal references, and, importantly, the inclusion of the Plaintiffs' failed attempts at applying for a U.S. passport on March 29, 2006, as a specific grievance.

The United States of America, however, again filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 5. The new motion specifies that America's legal relationship with Taiwan "derives solely and exclusively" from Executive Order 13014, and cites the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 which states that "'territories' shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores" as evidence that the United States then considered Taiwan part of the ROC. The Defendant asserted that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, mostly on the basis that sovereignty over a territory is a non-justiciable political question. The motion also argued that Plaintiffs' claim is not one for which relief may be granted, on the grounds that the U.S. does not hold de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, and that therefore the Plaintiffs are not U.S. nationals who, under the Immigration Nationality Act, may bring a declaratory judgement action.

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on April 19 to counter these arguments, stating that their complaint has been mischaracterized. The opening arguments are that the SFPT is the 'supreme law of the land' and overrides Executive Order 13014, and that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations specified no modification of the existing legal status of Taiwan by the Mutual Defense Treaty. Most of the motion was then devoted to arguing that this is a justiciable political case, as opposed to political questions non-justiciable under the Baker/Goldwater standard, and argued that the Court has power to determine the extent to which U.S. laws apply regardless of the Executive's position.

The Plaintiffs filed 31 pages of Discovery Requests on June 26, 2007.

On March 18, 2008, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted (see documents 24 and 25). On March 31, 2008. the Plaintiffs filed the Notice of Appeal in the District Court.