Canadian Expat Targeted by Taiwan’s Legal System

After more than four years of litigation, business disruption, and profound personal hardship, I, Ross Cline (柯受恩)—a Canadian citizen and long-term former resident of Taiwan—am publicly sharing a key written document issued by the Taichung District Prosecutors Office in April 2025.

This document (linked below) is significant because it appears to acknowledge important context relevant to how my conduct has been characterized and how my case has continued to be treated.

Despite what is stated in this official correspondence, the outcome currently being maintained against me remains extremely severe (including custodial consequences or lengthy compelled alternatives). In my view, this raises serious concerns regarding proportionality and the integrity of the process.

I respectfully invite legal professionals, human rights advocates, journalists, and the public to review the attached pages and assess—based on the written record—whether the position expressed in Taiwan’s official correspondence appears consistent with the penalties that continue to be enforced.

A practical difficulty I faced throughout this process:
Key documents and procedures were conducted in Chinese, while I am not a Chinese reader. I repeatedly struggled to obtain clear and reliable translation and explanation at critical stages. This created a significant disadvantage and made it difficult for me to understand proceedings, respond effectively, and defend myself on equal footing.

For context or media inquiries:
📧 ross@rosscline.com
🌐 rosscline.com
📞 (506) 321-8659
🇨🇦 New Brunswick, Canada

---

Taiwan Media and Human Rights

Based on my experience, concerns relating to alleged judicial misconduct can be difficult to raise or pursue through ordinary domestic channels. Where review mechanisms are perceived as limited or inaccessible, individuals may feel compelled to seek independent or international scrutiny. This raises broader questions about the practical effectiveness of available safeguards.

---

Rights Concerns Raised for Public Review Under the ICCPR and Taiwan’s Constitution

Based on the official letter I received from the Taichung District Prosecutors Office (April 24, 2025), I outline the following concerns for public and professional review. I am not asking anyone to accept my conclusions; I ask only that the record be examined carefully and assessed objectively.

---

1. ICCPR Article 14 — Fair Trial Rights / Equality Before Courts

Article 14 protects the right to a fair hearing, equality before the courts, the ability to present a defense, and the opportunity to call and examine witnesses.

Concern: I contend that my defense was not fully heard, including difficulties in presenting witness testimony central to my account. I also believe language barriers were not sufficiently addressed to ensure meaningful participation and equality before the court.

2. ICCPR Article 9 — Protection From Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty

Article 9 protects individuals from arbitrary detention or punishment and requires that deprivation of liberty follow lawful and fair procedures.

Concern: Where procedural fairness is materially compromised, penalties may become arbitrary in effect. I believe the severity and persistence of the penalties in my case—considered alongside the context described in official correspondence—raise serious proportionality concerns.

3. Taiwan Constitution Article 16 — Right to Judicial Remedy

Article 16 guarantees access to judicial remedy when rights are infringed.

Concern: I believe I was not provided an effective remedy for the procedural and fairness issues I raised. Where alleged deficiencies receive no meaningful review, the constitutional guarantee may be weakened in practice.

4. Additional Process and Equality Concerns

• Equality before the law (ICCPR Article 14): I believe my status as a foreign resident and language limitations placed me at a significant disadvantage that was not effectively remedied.
• Fair evaluation of evidence: I maintain that relevant evidence supporting my account and context was not fully weighed and merits independent review.
• Proportionality: Even where a technical violation is alleged, penalties should remain proportionate. I believe the overall outcome remains excessive in effect and consequence.

---

Summary

I ask readers and observers to consider whether the record supports the following questions:

• Whether my defense and witnesses were meaningfully heard and considered.
• Whether language barriers were adequately addressed to ensure equality of participation.
• Whether evidence was evaluated fairly and comprehensively.
• Whether the penalty outcome is proportionate to the conduct and context described.
• Whether an effective remedy exists for alleged procedural unfairness.

These questions can be assessed through the documents, audio recordings, and procedural record made publicly available.

I respectfully invite journalists, legal experts, and human rights organizations to review the material and, where appropriate, raise these concerns through proper channels.

---

Additional Documentation: For further materials or inquiries, please contact me or consult the archive links below.