If the Canadian and U.S. governments kidnapped Huawei’s CFO Ms. Meng as a bargaining chip for President Trumps trade war?

I do not agree with Canadian prosecutor John Gibb-Carsley claimed Meng Wanzou and Hwawei misled American banks.

1,  The Canadian prosecutor John Gibb-Carsley, hereafter called John, did not present or establish the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. At Ms. Meng Wanzous court hearing, the Canadian prosecutor did not provide rigorous standard to meet clear and convincing evidence. Ms. Meng, John claimed, had misled US banks about its business dealings in Iran. For me, Huawei and Skycom are classified as independent legal entities by all modern systems of US laws as such Huawei did not mislead American banks. In order to constitute a misleading bank, Mr. Gibb-Carsley must provide factual evidence  that Skycom is Huawei and Ms. Meng are both is deputy chairwoman of the board and chief financial officer of Huawei and Skycom, or she hold the  titles of Huawei and Skycom. In addition, Mr. Gibb-Carsley must establish evidence that Ms. Meng personally and directly participated in the transaction with US banks and misled the banks. The proving the defendant’s guilt is on a Canadian prosecutor. Mr. Gibb-Carsley should understand that Huawei is a corporation that is considered as a single entity and is recognized as such in law in US.

 2,  The Canadian prosecutor John Gibb-Carsley claimed that she covered up her company’s links to a firm that tried to sell equipment to Iran despite U.S. sanctions. Mr. Gibb-Carsley arrested Ms. Meng under the arrest warrant of the US federal Court. A U.S. court of law, US prosecutors need probable cause and at least two pieces of evidence to present to the judge before requesting an arrest warrant. Since Canadian prosecutor prosecutes Ms. Meng under the US arrest warrant, then, Canadian prosecutor should apply the standard of US criminal law, procedural and substantive laws.  However, in the US criminal trials, the burden of proof required of the prosecutor is to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," or in other words, Canadian prosecutor must provide substantial evidence of a vital fact at the trial. It is a matter of law.

 A)     The Canadian prosecutor John must provide evidentiary facts. Mr. Gibb-Carsley must prove that Ms. Meng knew the sale of equipment to Iran and covered up, it is not based on speculation that Ms. Meng should have known because of her position at Hwawei.

B)      If the US Long Arm jurisdiction is applicable? Under US criminal venue rules, the suit can only brought where the tort occurred or the cause of action arose or the contract in issue was entered into. If the Huawei so-called misled American banks about its business dealings in Iran occurred in Hong Kong and the contract with US banks was also in Hong Kong and there are no victims. Canadian prosecutor John did not provide any evidence that US banks, claimed misled by Huawei, has been harmed or financial lost as a result of Huawei’s action. Mr. Gibb-Carsley should know that it may be violation of US sanctions as US claimed but if it did not violate United Nation’s sanction or Chinese laws, as such US Federal Courts does not have the subject-matter jurisdiction and US Long Arm Jurisdictions can not be applied here.

I do not think that Ms. Meng will have a fair and impartial trial in US. Many judges or Americans as jurors may have prejudice attitude toward Chinese citizens.  For an example, a federal judge Urbina adjudicated his ruling based on the claims of Chinese Uighurs, who were trained by Al-Qaeda. Uyhgurs claimed that the United States is not their enemy. Uyghurs said that they sought out the training in order to go back to China to fight China, or, in my words, terrorize Chinese society. Judge Urbina’s conclusion is that Uighurs had never fought the United States and were not a security threat. There was not a shred of evidence that [the Uighur prisoners] were disliked by anyone – anyone but the Chinese government.”  My suggestion to Chinese leaders is to use whatever means if it is necessary. I do not think that Ms. Meng arrest is justified.  

 Following, I translated, 

 It is reaction from people in Taiwan about the  arrest of Ms. Meng,

 “The United States is trying to maintain its own advantages in the information industry, and it is hard(any mean) to arrest (Chinese executives) people. It is actually an extension of the US strategy in the Sino-US trade war. Whether or not it is illegal(, it) is not important.”

 Jennie PC Chiang/江佩珍, 美國