THE COURT: You’re in trouble. _二月五日上訴庭文件

有興趣的人可以去看看這篇控美案2月5日辯論庭完整的對話記錄，網址如下:

http://www.taiwanus.net/roger/laws_20090205_oral_argu.htm

個人覺得最有趣的是法官訊問被告律師有關舊金山和約中"美國是主要佔領權國"，這句話究竟意何所指？…
最後法官對帕特森說You’re in trouble. 似乎是對這段對話下了結論。
摘錄如下:

法院：那句話究竟意何所指？我意思是它代表某種含意。
THE COURT: What does that language mean though? I mean it means something.

帕特森：主要佔領國？
MS. PATTERSON: The principal occupying power?

法院：對，沒錯。
THE COURT: Yes, right.

帕特森：我認為，是指在當時美國簽署該條約，它是日本的主要佔領權國。我有些猶豫，來提供一個明確的，美國的最終確立該條約，因為再次，我們就是不認為這 是與此有關。原告聲稱他們的權利，追循的不是單純地根據該條約，而是從一個事實，即該條約使美國成為台灣法理上的主權者。而美國已經非常，非常清楚地表 明，無論誰是台灣法理上的主權者，它不會是美國。此外，所有原告訴求的依據-
MS. PATTERSON: I believe that refers to the fact that at the time the United States signed that treaty, it was the principal occupying power of Japan. I’m a little hesitant to offer a definitive, the United States definitive construction of that treaty because again, we just don’t think it’s relevant here. Plaintiffs are claiming that they have rights that stem not simply under that treaty, but from the fact that that treaty makes the United States the de jure sovereign over Taiwan. And the United States has made it very, very clear that whoever the de jure sovereign of Taiwan is, it is not the United States. Moreover, all of plaintiffs’ claims are based -

法院：如果，事實上，該條約，條約的用語，創造了美國是法理上的主權者，美國有退路來退出這一條約嗎？我不認為他們可以。
THE COURT: If, in fact, the treaty, that language of treaty creates the United States as the de jure sovereign, can the United States walk away from that treaty? I don’t think they can.

帕特森：當然，庭上，我認為任何爭論，誰是一個領土的法理主權者，是完全在由的政治部門來定奪。
MS. PATTERSON: Certainly, Your Honor, I think that any questions about who the de jure sovereign is over a territory are entirely within the province of the political branches.

法院：如果一項條約規定，美國是法理上的主權-
THE COURT: If a treaty is established that the United States is the de jure sovereign -

帕特森：我認為-
MS. PATTERSON: I believe that -

法院： -行政部門可以單方面改變嗎？
THE COURT: --would the Executive unilaterally change that?

帕特森：我有點動搖。我在思考高華德訴卡特案，但我認為總統可以-
MS. PATTERSON: I’m a little shaky. In my reflection of Goldwater v. Carter, but I believe that the president can -

法院：讓我來幫你，答案是否定的。
THE COURT: Let me help you, the answer is no.

帕特森：好吧，但我不相信該條約有什麼，可以確立美國是法理主權者，我認為，要構成這個境界，需要看該條約在這裡，法院的聲明是如何來審視政治議題。而這個法院在Vanquil （拼音藻。 ）的明確判決和引用貝克說，你需要-

MS. PATTERSON: Okay, but so I don’t believe there’s anything in that treaty that would establish the United States as the de jure sovereign, and I think that the extent to which you need to look at that treaty here is somewhat informed by this Court’s statements about how you go about examining a political question. And this Court in the Vanquil (phonetic sp.) decision clearly and quoting Baker said you need to -

法院：這裡所不同的是，該條約的語言是否支持律師妳所說。如果，事實上，主要佔領權國的用語言是指，美國是在法理上的主權國，妳就麻煩了。
THE COURT: What’s different here is if the language of the treaty supports what counsel said. If, in fact, the language principal occupying power means that the United States is the de jure sovereign, you’re in trouble.

帕特森：嗯-
MS. PATTERSON: Well -

法院：妳遇到麻煩了。
THE COURT: You’re in trouble.