Taiwan Civil Government political fraud trial finale stalled by Covid surge

Julian Lin and Taiwan Civil Government supporters in March 2021 for a Taoyaun District Court appearance where Lin and others face fraud charges from Republic of China in-exile prosecutors. (credit: Taiwan Civil Government)

The long-running trial of leaders of Taiwan Civil Government, an advocacy group, for allegedly defrauding its members with false claims about the benefits of the TCG identity card and support from the United States was to have concluded in late May. However, the recent Covid virus surge in Taiwan has led to yet one more continuance in the two-year long trial. There is no jury in the marathon proceeding as the Republic of China in-exile does not permit jury trials.

During the course of the lengthy trial the chief defendant Roger Lin died and the TCG headquarters was demolished under order for code violations. Group members have been repeatedly interrogated and TCG parades are closely monitored and filmed by police. The reason for the unfriendly attention TCG has brought to itself is the group goal of expelling the ROC from Taiwan with assistance from the United States. At the core of it all lies Taiwan’s unresolved sovereignty since the end of World War II.

The United States installed the Republic of China on Taiwan, then called Formosa, in October 1945 as an occupation government. Abuses by ROC against the Formosans resulted in the island’s sovereignty away from Japan to be put on hold at the San Francisco Peace Treaty which formally ended the war. The unresolved status has lasted seven decades and the ongoing “strategic ambiguity” has left everyone confused.

Roger and Julian Lin sued both the exiled Republic of China and the United States in the District of Columbia U. S. District Court to force the repeal of the ROC “Nationality Act” which stripped Formosans of their Japanese citizenship. The case was dismissed for not having been filed a half-century earlier and not including Japan as a defendant. However, Roger & Julian Lin vs. Republic of China & United States of America put the couple in the cross-hairs of the ROC Ministry of Justice.

The election of Donald Trump presented TCG with a new administration to lobby for American help to rid Taiwan of the ROC. The group began pouring millions of dollars into its campaign in an attempt to win over President Trump. TCG funded an inauguration party, hosted receptions, bought an expensive advertising campaign, courted think-tanks, underwrote a Heritage Foundation reception and event for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, picked up the bill for several POLITICO events, and dropped money on Roll Call Live. TCG members volunteered for delegation trips to Washington, New York, Zurich, and Japan. Much of the money was funneled through lobbyist Neil Hare and his company Global Vision Communications.

Julian Lin, wife of TCG founder Roger Lin, became the public face of the organization in America and led the junkets. Hare helped Lin score a private chat session with Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway. However, hours after announcements about the Heritage Foundation event were sent out ROC prosecutors decided to act. Quickly a raid was planned for TCG headquarters and homes of the leaders. The news media was alerted just prior to the May 10, 2018 raid. Roger and Julian Lin were paraded in handcuffs and held incommunicado without bail for five months.

The destruction of the TCG headquarters ended the group’s overnight training classes and was a severe morale blow to members. Interrogations and surveillance took its toll on membership, claimed by Hare to be 70,000. The trial itself, an endless series of hearings and continuances, has burdened the faithful.

The October 2019 death of Roger Lin, in the middle of the trial, unraveled TCG and factions formed. One faction led by Gavin Tsai had previously split and began calling itself Taiwan Government. Julian Lin, as the widow, picked up her husband’s mantle and claims her faction is the legitimate TCG. Tsai Tsai-yuan, a co-defendant, split with Julian and heads a reform faction called TCG 3.0 and keeps the trademark black suit as uniform. Tsai, a former political prisoner at the infamous Green Island Prison, now faults Julian for group woes. Both Tsai and Lin face prison if convicted.

The trial, which has brought in witnesses a few at a time, scheduled four days at the end of May to hear statements from over 1,000 purported victims. Allegedly there were over 1,300 victims, however many of them deny being victims and remain loyal supporters still donating money. Court records show statements were received from over five hundred witnesses. Some witnesses had purchased the identity card while others had attended TCG training classes held at headquarters.

Julian Lin maintains that witness statements were obtained by fear of prosecution as witnesses had first been interrogated as victims. “The judge hinted to the defense in advance, explaining that we are currently split into several different groups with different positions, and may arrange for riot police to be there.”

“The witnesses so far have not said I gave orders, got money from them, or ever cheated a member.”

Julian did concede some witnesses said she claimed TCG was authorized by the United States Military Government. Lin says the answer was given to a question fabricated by the prosecutor. “Usually the prosecutor asked the witness, “Did the TCG personnel tell you that they are authorized by the US military government?”

“Most witness don’t understand the question,but have to answer yes or no.”

Then prosecutors would ask, “What role does Julian hold in it?”

Witness: “Roger also listen to her, she made decision for everything.”

When the defense attorney would ask for an example, “All the witness answer, “It is said that….”

Julian concluded, “Some of victims think can get money from me and listen to investigators….but until now no one said I gave order.”

Two Roger Lin lawsuits have been filed in Washington with Julian being a co-plaintiff in the second case. The first Lin lawsuit against the United States sought American passports for Taiwan residents. A sympathetic court declined to rule stating it was a political issue not a legal matter as the court lacked authority over foreign policy. However, the court described Taiwan’s long unresolved history as “political purgatory” and the people as stateless. Julian Lin and Tsai Tai-yuan both can give personal testimony to what that purgatory feels like as they await their fate over claims that TCG founder Roger Lin made before his death.

Secretary of London School of Economics contradicts school head attorney over Tsai Ing-wen thesis in Freedom of Information case

Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial 1983 PhD thesis and London School of Economics and Political Science Secretary Louise Nadal. (credits: Hwan Lin/London School of Economics)

CORRECTION: KEVIN HAYNES IS INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS AN ATTORNEY IN THE HEADLINE. A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST HAS UNCOVERED THAT THE “HEAD OFLEGAL TEAM” CANNOT PRACTICE LAW IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. WHILE THE HEADLINE WAS INCORRECT, THE ARTICLE STANDS AS WRITTEN.

In an unexpected development in the ongoing controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s1983 PhD thesis, two top officials of the London School of Economics and Political Science have made contradictory statements about the thesis. Tsai triggered an academic firestorm that took on political dimensions during her re-election campaign when she filed her PhD thesis with the LSE Library in June 2019, thirty-five years late.

The tardy thesis has the appearance of a draft document with pagination problems, footnote issues, and hand-written entries including a question mark. At the time of Tsai’s enrollment at LSE the school was unable to award its own PhD degrees and submitted a pass list to the University of London.

President Tsai has refused to name the thesis examiners that passed her for a degree from the University of London. Tsai has bragged about the examiners however, claiming they wanted to give her a double degree for the thesis entitled, “Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions.”

Two Freedom of Information requests, one in 2019 and the second in 2021, to LSE for the identities of the thesis examiners elicited the same answer from Rachael Maguire, Records Manager, that LSE did not have the examiner names. An Internal Review by LSE confirmed the school could not answer the request. School Secretary Louise Nadal stated on May 26, 2021, that “the School does not hold the information you have requested.”

However, what Nadal either did not know or was deceptive about, is that Kevin Haynes, “Head of Legal Team” at LSE, has compiled a 278 page file from President Tsai’s student days that is indexed and carefully numbered.

The revelation that Haynes could cite specific page numbers to a file that Secretary Nadal said did not exist has led to a complaint against LSE to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The language of the ICO complaint tells the rest of the story.

“That the Internal Review is contrary to 19 December 2020 email correspondence by Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, addressed to Kristen Chen at the Republic of China Ministry of Justice, which discloses information from Tsai Ing-wen’s 278 page student file, citing specific page numbers (pp. 74-75) of the record.”

“Exhibit A is a copy of an email exchange of Kristen Chen on 17 December 2020 to Kevin Haynes and his 19 December 2020 response. Exhibit A was received from Taiwan newsman Dennis Peng, who received it from Republic of China prosecutors acting on Tsai Ing-wen’s complaint against Peng, in the discovery phase of his criminal trial for alleged defamation of President Tsai.”

“Kevin Haynes aided a foreign government’s criminal prosecution by disclosure of information that the Internal Review denied LSE possessed. Further, Haynes’ disclosure to ROC prosecutors was done without written consent, warrant or court order.”

“Kevin Haynes’ job description on the LSE website is as follows: “Kevin’s background is in compliance, regulation, complaints and litigation. He is responsible for the School’s Legal Team, which deals with student complaints, litigation and misconduct cases, dispute resolution, contracts and other legal agreements, Data Protection and Freedom of Information, ethics, insurance, Intellectual Property, records management and the School’s relationship with external providers of legal services.”

“Kevin Haynes is Rachael Maguire’s immediate supervisor at the “Legal Team” and knew, or should have known, that both his subordinate Records Manager and the School Secretary, who conducted the Internal Review, were responding to a Freedom of Information request with deceptive and false information.”

“That the Internal Review false statement that LSE did not have the requested information is part of a larger, ongoing, pattern of willful violations of the Freedom of Information Act by school personnel.”

“That the fended off enquiries…ongoing information denials to the public, and the false statement of the Internal Review constitute a pattern of willful and intentional violations of the Freedom of Information Act of almost two years in duration.”

“That said pattern of FOIA violations heightens the legitimate interest of…the public in the verification of qualification of Tsai Ing-wen and makes necessary the disclosure of the examiners’ report for the 16 October 1983 thesis viva examination as the least intrusive method of achieving full transparency in this matter.”

“That said pattern of FOIA violations by LSE requires supervisory, corrective measures by the Information Commissioner beyond ordering the information request be processed.”

There is presently a pending motion to obtain the thesis viva examination report in a Freedom of Information case before the Information Review Tribunal. The ICO has petitioned the court to permit a “closed” submission of evidence delaying resolution of the motion.

The conflicting statements of Louise Nadal and Kevin Haynes, both London School of Economics top officials, now cast the shadow of doubt on the veracity of LSE pronouncements about Tsai Ing-wen, deepening the mystery of the 1983 thesis.

University of London intervention in Freedom of Information case by obfuscation of President Tsai Ing-wen’s commercial and employment use of PhD degree and speculation about her missing thesis raises question

The University of London has broken a long silence about Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial 1983 PhD thesis with obfuscation and speculation. (credit: University of London)

After a long silence about the controversial 1983 PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen, the University of London has intervened in a Freedom of Information case pending in the United Kingdom. The University has entered the FOI case brought by a Taiwanese-American to determine if President Tsai’s October 16, 1983 PhD viva examination was a full PhD exam or if it was instead a Masters to PhD transfer viva. However, instead of bringing clarity to the Information Review Tribunal hearing the case, the University brought obfuscation, ambiguity, and speculation with its formal entry into the case, giving the unavoidable appearance of a cover-up.

The litigation is an outgrowth of the academic firestorm ignited by President Tsai in June 2019 when she submitted her 1983 PhD thesis to the London School of Economics Library, thirty-five years late. Further, the tardy thesis appears to be a draft document with pagination problems, footnote issues, and hand-written notations, including a question mark. The thesis, entitled “Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions,” was also said to have been submitted to the University of London’s Senate House Library and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Library, neither of which received the thesis, according to library staff correspondence.

The international academic brouhaha is now two years old and shows no signs of going away anytime soon. President Tsai’s refusal to name her thesis examiners, who Tsai brags were so impressed with the thesis they wanted to award her a double degree, has added fuel to the fire. Tsai attended the London School of Economics and Political Science but accepted a PhD degree from the University of London because LSE was not then qualified to issue its own degree. Tsai’s adviser at LSE was Michael Elliott who lacked his own PhD degree making the thesis examination critical to a valid award.

The thesis viva examination was conducted on October 16, 1983, a Sunday, according to LSE which refers all other questions from the public to the University of London. For its part the University of London has stonewalled and refused to answer questions about the viva examination, including even the identity of the examiners. The University has cited President Tsai’s privacy as its reason for silence.

In its submission to the Information Review Tribunal, the University admits it has not asked President Tsai for her permission to discuss her student days. School officials pick and choose what they want to tell the public so the court submission was carefully vetted and worded making its obfuscation and ambiguity one of intent rather than sloppy wordsmiths. The University of London submission to the court, as told by Data Protection and Information Compliance Manager Kit Good, tells its own story.

“In some cases, the University may weigh up the legitimate interests and confirm a qualification has been obtained….Recipients of PhD degrees in almost all cases have their thesis listed in the publicly searchable University library and therefore the confirmation of qualification can be determined via this route.”

“The copy held by the library was lost or mis-shelved sometime between the mid-1980s and 2010s over which period there were numerous structural changes to the library.”

The ambiguity of this speculation about the fate of President Tsai’s thesis goes to the phrase “structural changes” and whether it is referring to staff reorganizations or physical remodeling of the library facility. The difference, which cannot be parsed from the University’s choice of words, would put the blame for loss of Tsai’s thesis on either librarian negligence or on contractors who mistook the thesis for construction debris.

The University of London speculation that President Tsai’s thesis was lost sometime over a thirty year period is disingenuous as Senate House librarians have yet to establish with acquisition records that the University ever possessed the thesis in the first place. The thesis could not have been put on the wrong shelf or tossed out with the trash if the library never had it. The lack of an acquisition record for Tsai’s thesis makes the University’s submission to the Tribunal with its speculation of loss a classic example of the legal phrase “a fact not in evidence.”

The University of London also cites an October 2019 public relations statement by LSE as evidence of the validity of President Tsai’s PhD degree. The University does not explain to the Tribunal how an announcement, decades later, by a subordinate school unable to award its own degree, could verify the University decision to award a diploma.

The University does make an admission. “In some cases, there is a legitimate interest in confirming details of an individual’s degree qualification.” However, no need of confirmation details in President Tsai’s case. “The qualification has been confirmed. The thesis is available online.”

The University ambiguity and speculation are accompanied by obfuscation. The school’s submission to the Tribunal explains that no harm has been done because President Tsai did not need her degree to run for the ROC presidency. “The degree qualification is not essential for a political career in the same way that a medical degree would be for a physician.”

“A PhD thesis is not a professional requirement for a public career and is not analogous to a scenario such as surgeon and a medical degree. The graduate in question here was not elected to public office at the time they were a registered student.”

However, the University of London did not tell the Tribunal that President Tsai used her PhD to obtain teaching positions at Soochow University and National Chengchi University in Taiwan. If the PhD was not legitimate, Tsai would have violated ROC criminal fraud laws. Whether or not a statute of limitations would preclude prosecution does not diminish President Tsai’s culpability for academic fraud in the event the thesis was not legitimate and her University degree was improperly awarded.

The University of London’s submission to the Tribunal falls short of full disclosure and does not tell the court that President Tsai used her PhD for commercial purposes, founding and operating TaiMed Biologics, which continued to use Tsai’s degree from the University of London for commercial purposes after her election to public office.

Meanwhile, another FOI case before the Tribunal awaits decision on release of the thesis examiner identities. A decision is expected in June. The University of London did not intervene in that case.

Statehood activist David Chou says it is time to talk about Taiwan becoming 51st state

David Chou, founder of the Taiwan Statehood Movement, wants Taiwan to be the USA’s 51st state (credit: David Chou)

As Puerto Rico nears a statehood vote in Washington, the necessary votes do not seem to be there and agitation for a vote has been quiet. Statehood for the District of Columbia is a perpetual question that never seems to advance. Now, on the other side of the globe, there seems to be growing interest in statehood for Taiwan.

The unresolved fate of Formosa, now called Taiwan, caught up in a “strategic ambiguity” that the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals has declared a condition of “political purgatory” is increasingly in the news. For a long time many people have failed to realize or understand how and why the people of Taiwan are stateless, the result of decades of propaganda and false history fed to the public by the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and the exiled Republic of China.

Taiwan, banned from the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and even the Olympics unless it calls itself “Chinese Taipei” in the games, has been a colony of some foreign power for four centuries. Since World War II the island has been occupied by an exiled Chinese Nationalist government installed by the United States as a caretaker regime. Unfortunately, the Cold War followed World War II and Formosa fell into an abyss under four decades of harsh martial law, sternly administered by the Republic of China in-exile. The United States looked the other way, aware of the atrocities committed by the ROC against innocent Formosans, because the ROC was an ally against “Red China” and communism.

The sovereignty of the former Japanese colony was to be decided at the San Francisco Peace Treaty that ended World War II with Japan. However, the Korean War was raging and President Harry Truman decided it was not time to resolve the international status of the island, leaving dictator Chiang Kai-shek in charge. Over the long years of uncertainty, the name Formosa fell into disuse in favor of Taiwan as the history of it all dimmed with the passage of time.

Now, the People’s Republic of China wants to finish the civil war and conquer Taiwan which it claims is a rebellious province. The entrenched ROC has already brutally demonstrated the lengths it will go to remain in power. Taiwanese independence advocates have long had to battle opposition from China, opposition from the ROC, and even opposition from the United States. What to do?

Activist David Chou has an idea, give the Taiwanese people the option of statehood in the United States of America. Sound far-fetched? Maybe not.

Chou founded the Taiwan State Movement in 1994 and has consistently advocated since then that Taiwan be under the political custody of the United States. Chou wants the future determined through referendum and self-determination and seeks a phased but comprehensive integration with America.

The statehood activists point out that it is a non-military solution to China’s aggressive threats and in some manner is compensation to the Formosans who suffered under the ROC while the USA did nothing. The statehood proponents cite Hawaii’s progress as a state and argue statehood would boost both economies giving America a true doorway to Asian markets.

Former U.S. Secretary of State John Dulles once said, “As the main victorious country against Japan, the United States has interests in the ultimate future of Taiwan and that “the U.S. could have made
legal claims against Taiwan.”

David Chou seeks sovereignty of Taiwan as a territory of the United States as a prelude to incorporation and a statehood referendum and subsequent Congressional vote. If Chou had his way, there would already be contests to redesign the flag to accommodate a fifty-first state. Statehood for Taiwan? Perhaps it is an idea whose time has come.

Indicted newsman Dennis Peng forces discovery from prosecutor of President Tsai Ing-wen’s secret that there was no external PhD thesis examination

Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen and True Voice of Taiwan host Professor Dennis Peng are at odds over her PhD degree. (credits: Voice of America/Central News Agency)

What began as a blatant attempt by Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen to silence her most vocal critic, backfired, with a stunning reversal and release of a secret she has long kept from the public. President Tsai made a criminal defamation complaint against Professor Dennis Peng, host of the popular internet news program “True Voice of Taiwan.” Peng has raised questions about the validity of the University of London PhD degree that Tsai received in 1984 after studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Professor Peng has has fought back against President Tsai’s attempt to imprison him for remarks about her LSE thesis. Peng has obtained from his prosecutor, through a pre-trial discovery order, a series of email exchanges between Kristen Chen, a “Liaison Officer” at the Investigation Bureau of the ROC Ministry of Justice, and Kevin Haynes of the “LSE Legal Team.” The go-between was Nicole Lee, the “Education Division Director” of the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom.

Tsai set off an academic firestorm in Taiwan in June 2019 when she filed with the LSE Library, thirty-five years late, her tardy dissertation entitled “Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions.” The unbound thesis appears to be a draft document with pagination problems, footnote issues, and handwritten notations, including a question mark. Peng has been relentless in his drive to uncover the truth about events in London thirty-seven years ago.

Nicole Lee made the opening move by emailing Kevin Haynes, with whom Lee was obviously familiar. “I have been contacted by the Taiwanese judiciary institution, which is carrying out investigations into the case of President Tsai’s PhD qualification and thesis submission, and have been asked to obtain answers to ten questions.”

“I realize we have covered some of this ground before and am sorry to trouble you, but we would be extremely grateful if you to provide as much detail as possible and include an supporting documents that may be available.”

Growing impatient with Haynes’ slow response, Kristen Chen entered the conversation. “Thank you for dedicating your time and effort to help us sort things out.”

“It would be very appreciated if you could share with us the information you have already researched at your earliest convenience….I feel terribly sorry every time we put this burden on you.”

The back and forth email exchange between Chen, Lee, and Haynes, at the height of President Tsai’s reelection campaign, discusses what could be released without Tsai’s consent from her 278 page LSE student file with Haynes acknowledging he could answer some questions without Tsai’s consent. “If nothing else, it is difficult to deny her registration at LSE.”

While LSE was busy fending off questions from the public about President Tsai’s thesis, Haynes was busy answering Chen’s questions, although Chen had no warrant, court order, or written consent. Chen’s standing under the Freedom of Information Act was no different from the members of the public with information requests similar to Chen which were routinely denied. Unknown to Haynes, because the request had come from Lee at the “Taiwan Embassy” and Chen in Taiwan, was that the questions had been posed by Dennis Peng through his attorney. One of the questions Haynes did not need consent for was the identity of Tsai’s thesis examiners, despite the University of London’s repeated assertions that disclosure would breach Tsai’s privacy right.

According to Haynes, “It appears from her student file that MJE [Michael Elliott] and Professor Leonard H Leigh examined President’s Tsai’s thesis in October 1983.”

Michael Elliott was Tsai’s faculty advisor before she withdrew from LSE in November 1982. Elliot, who lacked a PhD himself, was briefly listed by the LSE Library as co-author of Tsai’s thesis when the phantom thesis emerged in 2019. Elliott could not have officially served as an external examiner of Tsai’s thesis and any role as internal examiner raises questions about his impartiality.

Professor Leigh, who taught criminal law at LSE, was eligible to have served as an internal examiner but not as an external examiner. The principle, to prevent academic fraud, is for at least one member of a doctoral examination viva panel to be from an external educational institution. However, the time-bound practice of external examiners was apparently not followed in Tsai’s case. The lack of an external thesis examiner and the tardy submission of what appears to be a draft dissertation suggest that ROC prosecutors may be knowingly pursing Professor Peng for criminal defamation without foundation for their case, which would be a political prosecution.

Peng will not get the benefit of a jury trial. The exiled Chinese government, headed by Tsai, has an antiquated justice system that does not allow juries in Taiwan. Peng can hope his case does not go the way of former ROC President Chen Shui-bian who was subjected to courtroom heckling, midnight court sessions, a substitute judge, and perjured testimony when he was convicted for alleged corruption. Peng can also hope that he does not end up like the Taiwan Civil Government political fraud defendants, caught up in a never-ending trial with multiple hearing adjournments stretching the criminal trial into a two-year long ordeal.

The disclosure to Chen of the identity of the thesis examiners occurred on December 17, 2020, along with other admissions by Haynes. To the question whether Tsai was enrolled at LSE when she submitted her thesis for consideration in June 1983, Haynes answered, “It appears not from her student file.” But, not to worry. “We understand it was not uncommon at the time of President Tsai’s period of study for PhD candidates in the UK universities to complete their thesis independently and be permitted to enter for examination.”

Meanwhile, the University of London stubbornly refuses to name the thesis examiners citing Tsai’s privacy, a view shared by Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham. A Freedom of Information appeal is pending before the Information Review Tribunal of the United Kingdom. A decision from the Tribunal is expected in June.

The revelation that there was no external examiner at Tsai Ing-wen’s viva examination of her thesis renews concerns about academic fraud. Tsai attended a school, the London School of Economics and Political Science, that could not issue its own doctoral degrees. Tsai was not enrolled in LSE at the time she submitted her thesis for review. Tsai’s advisor, Michael Elliott lacked a PhD degree. Now comes the admission by the LSE Legal Team that Tsai’s thesis examination lacked an external examiner. Throw in the tardy thesis to the mix and one is forced to wonder if the reason the University of London refuses to confirm the examiners’ identities has less to do with Tsai Ing-wen’s privacy and more to do with a cover-up by the academic gatekeeper of an unearned doctoral degree.

Fifty years ago, April 28, 1971: COINTELPRO was terminated by FBI for fear of discovery making Ed Poindexter its final victim

FBI memorandum terminating COINTELPRO and Edward Poindexter the clandestine program’s last victim. (credits: Federal Bureau of Investigation/Omaha Police Department)

Fifty years ago, April 28, 1971, a clandestine, counterintelligence program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, code-named COINTELPRO, in secret operation from 1956 until 1971, was abruptly terminated. Assistant FBI Director Charles Brennan, head of the Domestic Intelligence Division, realized that release of stolen FBI memoranda from the Media, PA office would compromise the illegal undercover program.

Ten days after the COINTELPRO-corrupted murder trial of Edward Poindexter and David Rice in Omaha, Nebraska, ended, Brennan wrote a memorandum urging immediate termination of the secret operations.

“To afford additional security to our sensitive techniques and operations, it is recommended the COINTELPROS operated by the Domestic Intelligence Division be discontinued.”

“These programs involve a variety of sensitive intelligence techniques and disruptive activities which are afforded close supervision at the Seat of Government. They have been carefully supervised with all actions being afforded prior Bureau approval and an effort has been made to avoid engaging in harassment. Although successful over the years, it is felt they should now be discontinued for security reasons because of their sensitivity.”

“In exceptional instances where counterintelligence is warranted, it will be considered on a highly selective individual basis with tight procedures to insure absolute security.”

The next day, J. Edgar Hoover sent out a short directive to FBI field offices. “Effective immediately, all COINTELPROs operated by this Bureau are discontinued.”

One of Brennan’s priority duties as head of the Domestic Intelligence Division, which he aggressively pursued, was directing counterintelligence operations under COINTELPRO. Brennan was determined to break the Black Panther Party which J. Edgar Hoover had declared was the number one threat to domestic security. Brennan no doubt hated having to pull the plug on his primary weapon, COINTELPRO.

The summer before, just two weeks after Brennan had been promoted to head Domestic Intelligence, he was ramrodding COINTELPRO operations. Brennan would later testify to a Senate committee. The Church Committee, with ten Senators present, convened to question Charles Brennan about illegal FBI activities. Brennan said he became chief of the Domestic Intelligence Division in August 1970. Brennan did not tell the Senators he was part of a conspiracy to withhold a report on the identity of Omaha Patrolman Larry Minard’s killer that same month in order to make a case against Poindexter and Rice.

Brennan was asked if there was “a program of intensification” of investigations beginning August 1970. Brennan admitted Domestic Intelligence did intensify counterintelligence operations.

Brennan was asked if the intensification concerned J. Edgar Hoover over abridgment of individual liberties. Brennan replied, “He hadn’t demonstrated a previous concern of this nature in the past.”

During Brennan’s intensification campaign, on August 17, 1970, at 2:07 a.m., Omaha police received a 911 emergency telephone call from a male who spoke in a deep gravely voice that a woman was screaming at 2867 Ohio Street, a vacant house. Eight policemen responded. While officers searched a tremendous, blinding flash and deafening blast shook the silent neighborhood and ripped through the walls of the vacant house killing Patrolman Larry Minard.

Two men, Edward Poindexter and David Rice (later Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa), leaders of the Black Panther affiliate National Committee to Combat Fascism were COINTELPRO targets at the time of the murder and were blamed for the crime. A call was made to FBI headquarters in Washington from the Omaha office at 6:45 a.m. Charles Brennan, Assistant Directer, was informed by memorandum about the call concerning the death of Minard.

“Omaha Office offered assistance in covering out-of-state leads and FBI Laboratory facilities offered. Omaha advised it had notified military and Secret Service, was following closely, and alerted its racial informants in pursuit of investigation.”

Brennan was also assured, “Pertinent parts will be included in teletype summary to the White House, Vice President, Attorney General, military and Secret Service.”

Brennan stayed in the loop with letters and calls from Special Agent in Charge Paul Young to FBI headquarters keeping Brennan updated on the case. Two internal memorandums from William Bradley, a supervisor, detailed a plan to withhold a laboratory report on the 911 recording of the anonymous caller’s voice.

“Omaha Office has advised that the Omaha Police Department has requested laboratory assistance in connection with a bombing which took place in Omaha 8/17/70. This bombing resulted in the death of one police officer and the injuring of six other officers and is apparently directly connected with a series of racial bombings which the Omaha Police have experienced. The Police were lured to the bomb site by a telephonic distress call from an unknown male.”

“If approved, the results of any examinations will be orally furnished the Police on an informal basis through the SAC, Omaha.”

Poindexter and Rice were convicted by a jury that never heard the 911 recording and were sentenced to life at hard labor. Rice, who changed his name to Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa, died at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in March 2016. Poindexter remains imprisoned at the maximum-security prison where he continues to proclaim his innocence. Poindexter has a pending commutation of sentence request with the Nebraska Board of Pardons but the Board has refused to set a hearing date for him ignoring a prayer vigil, a march, a demonstration at the home of Governor Pete Ricketts, and a billboard campaign.

Although the runaway train that COINTELPRO had become continued to barrel down the tracks and returned in partial form in different guises over the years, the formal counterintelligence tactics developed to combat foreign spy rings were terminated a half-century ago. Sitting in a tiny prison cell for that half-century is Ed Poindexter, COINTELPRO’s last victim.

This article is excerpted from FRAMED: J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO & the Omaha Two story, in print edition at Amazon and available in ebook. Portions of the book may be read free online at NorthOmahaHistory.com. The book is also available to patrons of the Omaha Public Library.

Puerto Rico nears statehood after decades of colonialism but public outcry is missing in action

Puerto Rico, a possession of the United States since the Spanish-American War, is posed for a statehood vote in Congress. (credit: Public Domain)

So near, yet so far. That is the status of Puerto Rico statehood. Closer to statehood than it has ever been in over a century from its status as a territory of the United States. Called a commonwealth, full rights as American citizens do not exist for Puerto Ricans, who are barred from voting for President and electing Members of Congress. Statehood, however, seems to lack enough political support on what is a bi-partisan issue for both sides of the debate. Actually, it is a three-way matter not only involving continued territorial status or statehood but also includes independence, which has had a difficult history on the island.

Although the Senate will cast the final determining vote on statehood, eyes are on two Representatives from New York, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) Both women of Puerto Rican descent are opposed to statehood and instead support a binding convention on the issue. The two Representatives issued a statement explaining their stance. “For true, legitimate change, Puerto Rico’s status must be resolved from the ground up. Plans for altering the Island’s relationship with the U.S. should not just garner the consent of the Puerto Rican people; they should originate with them. In fact, many in Puerto Rico would view Congress pushing statehood not as an end to colonization, but the culmination of it.”

There have been a half-dozen referendums with varying outcomes, although they were all of an advisory nature and not binding.

Former Puerto Rico Governor Carlos Romero Barcelo has said, “The people know that we do not want the colony anymore, we want equality, especially political equality, because in a democracy what matters is the right to vote and the right to participate on equal terms in the bodies that govern the nation.”

Puerto Ricans voted on ballot measures addressing statehood in 1967, 1993, 1998, 2012, and 2017 with various results.

On July 23, 1967, Puerto Ricans were given three options at the ballot box on the island’s political status; commonwealth, statehood, or independence. Commonwealth won with 60 percent of the vote. Independence received less than one percent.

On November 14, 1993, another vote was held. Former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald R. Ford participated in the campaign for statehood. President Bill Clinton remained neutral on the referendum. The results were much closer than before, 48.9 percent favored remaining as a commonwealth, while statehood received 46.6 percent of the vote. The vote for independence grew to 4.5 percent.

On December 13, 1998, voters were given five options: commonwealth, free association, statehood, independence, and none of the above. None of the above won with a majority of the vote at 50.5 percent. Statehood received the next highest share of votes at 46.6 percent. Independence dropped to 2.6 percent, with free association receiving 0.3 percent. Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth finished last with 0.1 percent of the vote. The None of the above category received so many votes because of controversy over the wording of the referendum.

On November 6, 2012, Puerto Rico held another vote on the island’s territorial status. The referendum was structured into two questions. The first question asked was, “Do you agree that Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of territorial status?” A majority, 54.3 percent, voted no. The second question asked voters about their preferred status: statehood, free association, or independence. Statehood received a majority of the vote, 61.2 percent. The option of free association received 33.3 percent, and independence climbed to 5.5 percent. Curiously, one-fourth of the voters declined to answer the second question. 1,798,987 people voted on the first question, while only 1,363,854 people voted on the second question.

On June 11, 2017, Puerto Ricans voted again in a referendum which gave voters three options: commonwealth, statehood, and free association. Statehood received 97.2 percent of the vote. The Popular Democratic Party boycotted the election. Turnout was a paltry 22.9 percent, undermining a mandate for statehood.

On November 3, 2020, Puerto Rico held its most recent vote on status. The ballot question simply asked “Should Puerto Rico be immediately admitted into the Union as a state?” A majority of voters, 52 percent, said yes.

The three elected parties fall into different views on statehood. The Popular Democratic Party traditionally has been pro-commonwealth. The New Progressive Party is associated with statehood. The Puerto Rico Independence Party advocates becoming its own nation.

Legal experts debate whether Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth has a specific legal meaning apart from territory, or is just stylistic. Under free association status Puerto Rico would become a sovereign nation independent of the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the island would maintain a free and voluntary association with the United States. An agreement of free association would delegate certain powers, typically those regarding military, trade, and currency, to the United States. Free association would put Puerto Rico on the same status as three Pacific nations. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, all former jurisdictions of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, are sovereign nations in free association with the United States.

If Puerto Rico became an independent sovereign nation, the country would develop its own government and economy. Puerto Ricans who are residents of the island would lose United States citizenship.

Governor Pedro Pierluisi has called statehood a matter of “democracy, equality and doing what is right.” However, one thing that is lacking is a public outcry for statehood. If the statehood movement wants to achieve its goal, it needs to connect its struggle to the broader fight for racial and social justice. Many of the injustices we see today in the United States are the direct legacy of colonialism and imperialism. Another significant reason statehood efforts have stalled has been a lack of engagement with Puerto Ricans who oppose the idea, both on the island and in the diaspora. Statehood has divided the populace and has not been a unifying factor.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced his opposition to statehood for Puerto Rico. However, Schumer’s opposition is not the kiss of death as statehood has bi-partisan support in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives Nydia Velázquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been busy. On March 26 they, and others, introduced House Resolution 279 condemning the Insular Cases. The resolution keeps the Puerto Rico statehood question on the stovetop while the kitchen heats.

“The United States Supreme Court’s decisions in the Insular Cases and the “territorial incorporation doctrine” are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation’s most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.”

“Today the United States has 5 populated territories, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States, which together have a population of over 3,500,000 residents, equal to the population of the 5 smallest States combined, more than 95 percent of whom are racial or ethnic minorities.”

“Until the Insular Cases were decided in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court long recognized that Congress’ powers over the territories, while broad, were “not absolute and unlimited”, but rather subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decisions in the Insular Cases broke from its prior precedent to establish a doctrine of territorial incorporation, creating for the first time a distinction between so-called “incorporated” territories, where the United States Constitution applies “in full”, and “unincorporated” territories, where the Constitution applies “only in part”.

Downes v. Bidwell, the most prominent of the Insular Cases, was delivered by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the author of Plessy v. Ferguson’s doctrine of “separate but equal”, who wrote that America’s newly acquired overseas territories were “inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, … and modes of thought”, making it impossible to govern “according to Anglo-Saxon principles.”

“Justice Edward White, who in a separate 3-Justice plurality developed the territorial incorporation doctrine in Downes, expressed concerns over the “evils” of admitting “millions of inhabitants” of “unknown islands, peopled with an uncivilized race”, who he believed would be “absolutely unfit” for citizenship.”

“Justice Harlan, who penned the lone dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson, also wrote a series of powerful dissents to the Insular Cases, declaring in Downes that “[t]he idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces—the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them—is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.”

“Judge Juan Torruella, who served on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1984 until his death in 2020, labeled the territorial incorporation doctrine a “doctrine of separate and unequal”, writing that “the Insular Cases represent classic Plessy v. Ferguson legal doctrine and thought that should be eradicated from present-day constitutional reasoning” because they run contrary to “the most basic precept for which this nation stands: the equality before the law of all its citizens.”

“The Insular Cases are relics of the racial views of an earlier era that have no place in our Nation today.”

Constitutional Law Professor Sanford Levinson has called the Insular Cases “central documents in the history of American racism.”

Puerto Rico statehood is about more than adding a star to the flag, it speaks to the heart of American democracy about equal rights for all.

Taiwanese patriot Chilly Chen gives Chiang Kai-shek statue a makeover in Taipei

Activist Chilly Chen spray-painted a statue of Chiang Kai-shek naming the dictator a murderer before Taipei police could arrest him for his artwork. (credit:TVBS screenshot)

Nothing in Taiwan brings into focus the fact that the island is under the control of an exiled Chinese regime more than the many statues of dictator Chiang Kai-shek which litter the landscape. Hundreds of statues of Chiang still disgrace public spaces throughout Taiwan. Officials of the Republic of China in-exile from President Tsai Ing-wen on down have been slow to remove the Chinese hero worship statues despite the atrocities Chiang ordered against innocent Formosans after his installation by the United States after World War II.

One patriotic Taiwanese activist, Chen Jun-han, better known as Chilly Chen, has made it a personal crusade to correct the Chinese propaganda icons with non-violent actions. Chilly’s most recent effort was to spray paint a Chiang statue in Taipei with the words “slayer of the century” and “devil murderer.” Chilly was quickly hauled off to a police station but not before he made a public statement explaining covering up authoritarian propaganda messages with black plastic while leaving the statue of Chiang in place was wrong.

Chilly was taken into police custody for “mutilation” of the statue and then transferred to a ROC prosecutor’s office for interrogation where he continued to give them an earful. Chilly was finally released after ten hours in custody after police were able to clean the red paint off the statue base.

The veteran activist is Taipei director of Taiwan National Volunteer Team and has participated or led six non-violent paint balloon assaults and protests at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall where a giant statue of the dictator is protected by a ROC honor guard. Untold thousands of Formosans were murdered, tortured, and imprisoned under orders from Chiang beginning with the 228 Massacre in 1947 and continuing under the White Terror period during four decades of harsh martial law as Chiang, and later his son Chiang Ching-kuo, tightened their grip on the island following Chiang’s 1949 defeat in the Chinese civil war.

“There are still 94 bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek in Taipei that Mayor Ko Wen-je refuses to remove. Covering up authoritarian words with an acrylic board does not cover up the fact Chiang was an incredible butcher known worldwide. Covering up words like “national Savior” and other sickening slogans cannot cover from the hearts of the Taiwanese people the evil Chiang has done.”

“Mayor Ko has sprinkled salt into the wounds of 228 victims and families by inviting Ma Ying-jeou to participate in 228 memorial activities. Ko should follow the example of Keelung Mayor Lin Yu-chang to dismantle Chiang statues.”

Chilly’s artistic statements over the years have resulted in multiple arrests and $12,000 NTD in fines which he has not paid. Chilly prefers to save his money for more paint.

Chilly Chen, though passionate in his patriotism, is modest and calls himself a nobody. However, Chilly’s modesty hides the fact that few dare to follow his example and that his determination to speak the truth about Chiang Kai-shek and his government makes Chilly a role model for truth, justice and courage.

Fifty years ago, April 17, 1971: Omaha Two sentenced to life in prison at COINTELPRO corrupted trial

Edward Poindexter and David Rice (later Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa) were convicted of murder in a COINTELPRO corrupted trial. (credits: Omaha Police Department)

Fifty years ago, April 17, 1971, Edward Poindexter and David Rice (later Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa) were convicted of murdering Omaha Patrolman Larry Minard and sentenced to life in prison. No one on the jury knew that the two week trial had been manipulated by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents working under a clandestine counterintelligence operation code-named COINTELPRO.

The jurors, who had deliberated for nearly twenty-five hours over a three day period, took their seats in the jury box. Judge Donald Hamilton asked the jury if a verdict had been reached. The court clerk read the decision of guilty with life sentences, first for Poindexter then for Mondo. Hamilton ordered the two defendants taken to the Nebraska State Penitentiary to serve their sentences “at hard labor.”

Mondo said in a short interview following the verdict that he “did not get a fair trial” calling the case against him a “maze of conjectures.” Mondo criticized the Omaha World Herald and local radio and television stations for slanting “towards the prosecution” in news broadcasts.

“I’m not going down to the state pen and say everything is beautiful. going to fight it and I’m going to go back onto the streets and do the same things, speaking out against the evils of the system which got me convicted.”

Ed Poindexter cursed when asked if he wished to be interviewed and he was led away without making a statement.

Within an hour after the jury found them guilty, Mondo and Poindexter where taken from the Douglas County Jail where they had been held since August 1970 and transported to prison in Lincoln to begin serving life sentences at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. The two men were shackled and each taken in separate cars.

Following the trial, the jury foreman whom Poindexter accused of sleeping during the trial, Myron Widger, Jr., was asked what took the jury so long to reach a verdict. “There were a lot of little things.”

Widger said the jury agreed they would not discuss details of the deliberations.

If Poindexter had given a statement about his trial, it is likely he would have complained about his defense attorneys. In letters from prison, Poindexter outlined some of the mistakes made by his lawyers. “There was ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial by failure to interview six potential witnesses with exculpatory information.

“George McCline said he had knowledge of who committed the crime and where the dynamite used was stored. Tyrone Stearns said he knew the source of the dynamite used in the crime.”

“Richard Gibson had information regarding who killed the policeman. Anthony Sanders had knowledge of two white men holding bomb making classes in the community.”

“Patrick Jones had information regarding who sold the dynamite to the individual who planted the bomb that killed the policeman. Finally, an “unnamed informant” tipped police that a black male was selling dynamite.”

“The attorneys failed to vigorously pursue Donald Peak’s testimony concerning the contents of Duane’s suitcase.”

“There was the failure to vigorously pursue a valuable lead in a Social Security card found at the crime scene belonging to Johnny Lee Bussby.”

“Counsel called Robert Cecil to the stand, asked a few questions and excused him without asking him how he got dynamite particles all over his hands.”

“There was failure to at least enter an objection into the record for allowing a sleeping juror to remain on the jury, but wearing a pair of sunglasses.”

“The jury foreman slept all throughout the trial, I complained to the lawyers, they took a short recess, then returned with the man wearing sunglasses for the rest of the trial as he continued sleeping.”

“Raleigh House was implicated by Duane Peak, but the state did not pursue it because they were after only Mondo and myself, the so-called ringleaders. Selective prosecution is the term for that. Robert Cecil was found to have had dynamite particles all over his hands, but the state never pursued him.”

“Also note that he was not even asked any questions related to the dynamite particles found on his hands during his testimony at the trial, not by the prosecution or defense.”

“The state also always knew Duane did not make that 911 call, but did not care who really made it because they were only after Mondo and myself.”

Mondo had more criticism of the trial. “Regarding the testimony of Duane Peak, from the time he was arrested to the time of the trial, Duane Peak gave a minimum of six different versions of the plan to “off a pig”. Of all these versions, only one, which he gave at the trial, implicated me as having anything to do with the death of Minard.”

“How can a witness tell even two different stories and one of them not be a lie? Duane Peak told a minimum of six. Duane Peak is a perjurer.”

“All of Duane Peak’s testimony linking me to the blowing up of Minard was negated by witnesses for the defense, two of them his own cousins.”

“I don’t believe he acted on his own. But I did not use him. I did not put his life in jeopardy.”

“The prosecution claimed a piece of copper wire was found at the “scene of the bombing,” that markings on this wire were compared in a lab to markings left on a piece of lead cut by pliers found in my house. The wire wasn’t actually found at the scene of the bombing but in the basement of the house next door, about three feet from a tool bench.”

“The only copper wire testified to as being used in the bombing was that from the blasting caps. That wire was a half to two-thirds smaller in diameter than the wire found at the house next door to the bombing.”

“There are all kinds of things about the case that are really pretty basic and pretty outrageous that are part of the record that people don’t know about.”

Mondo died in March 2016 at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. Poindexter remains imprisoned at the maximum security prison, a half-century later, where he continues to maintain his innocence. Poindexter, in poor health and at risk from the Covid virus, has a pending commutation of sentence request with the Nebraska Pardon Board but the Board refuses to set a hearing date.

The FBI Laboratory withheld a report on the identity of the anonymous 911 caller that lured Larry Minard to his bombing death in a vacant house in order to obtain a conviction of Poindexter and Mondo who were leaders of Omaha’s Black Panther Party affiliate chapter. Operation COINTELPRO was terminated by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a week after the Omaha Two were convicted.

Justice remains undone.

This article is excerpted from FRAMED: J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO & the Omaha Two story, in print edition at Amazon and available in ebook. Portions of the book may be read free online at NorthOmahaHistory.com. The book is also available to patrons of the Omaha Public Library.

China sentences Belize citizen Henley Lee to 11 years in prison for aiding pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong

Henley Lee Huxiang, a Belize citizen, sentenced to 11 years in prison for pro-democracy activity in Hong Kong, was forced to make a televised “confession” of his crime. (credit: CCTV-13 screenshots)

Henley Lee Huxiang, a Belize citizen, is the first individual to be prosecuted since the People’s Republic of China amended its criminal code to outlaw support for activities that would endanger national security. Henley Lee was sentenced to eleven years in prison and made to “confess” on Chinese television. The United Kingdom and Australia have suspended the television station that broadcast forced confessions.

Lee, 66, was arrested November 26, 2019, after massive pro-democracy street protests in Hong Kong. Recently, Chinese authorities have cracked down on democracy activists arresting dozens of people for organizing peaceful protests.

Lee was charged with endangering national security in April 2020 and then disappeared from sight until his forced appearance on state-run CCTV-13 television channel. Lee appeared on a show called Focus Report that has also featured “confessions” from four Taiwanese activists arrested in Hong Kong.

In the video, Lee was wearing a vest indicating he was under national security custody and was filmed wearing handcuffs. Lee was accused of funneling money to imprisoned Hong Kong activists Alex Chow, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, and Sunny Cheung. Chow and Law have denied knowing Lee and said they never took money from him.

Lee, who was born in Shanghai, is accused of being a traitor to China. Until his arrest in 2019 Lee was vice-president of a United States consulting company in China called Eastern America.

Safeguard Defenders, a human rights watchdog group which monitors televised “confessions” on Chinese state media, issued a statement on Lee’s case.

“This is a dangerous precedent that cannot be understated and reflects the brand new provisions in China’s Criminal Law, echoing the extraterritorial aspects of the Hong Kong National Security Law.”

Although Lee is a Belize citizen, it is not clear he ever lived in Belize and may have purchased his citizenship, as a number of Chinese have done in the past. According to the state-run Global Times Lee acquired his Belize citizenship with the assistance of his family in Hong Kong.

Following his 2019 arrest Lee was portrayed in the Chinese newspaper articles as corrupt and involved in the sex trade. Lee was purportedly linked to fallen politician Bo Xilai although none of the allegations have been proven.

After Lee’s arrest, the state-owned newspaper Guangzhou Daily reported:“Investigations by the national security agency [MSS] confirmed that the suspect provided a large amount of funds to hostile elements in the US, colluded with foreign anti-China forces to intervene in Hong Kong affairs, and funded the implementation of criminal activities that endangered our national security.”

Even though Lee’s connection to Belize is tenuous, his prison sentence for supporting democracy in Hong Kong will have a chilling effect on the PRC’s efforts to woo Belize away from recognizing the Republic of China in-exile’s sovereignty over Taiwan. A year ago, Parliament member Kareem Musa made a trip to China. The United Democratic Party made a big deal out of Musa’s junket, condemning the trip. A UDP news release said Musa was “diplomatically irresponsible” and lied about the nature of his visit which he said was personal and at the invitation of the Belize Chinese Association. The president of the Association accompanied Musa and acted as translator but denied extending an invitation. The Association has been silent about Lee’s arrest and lengthy prison sentence.