Jo Anne Interview, and an Apathetic Judiciary...
Documented timeline, context, and impact
Updated November 3, 2025 • Presented for documentary review and public-interest discussion
Important note: This post summarizes my personal account and my interpretation of a documented dispute and related proceedings. It is shared for journalistic review and public-interest discussion, not as a campaign against Taiwan or its people. Where I describe events as “threatening,” “hostile,” “unclear,” or “unfair,” I am describing my experience and perspective. If any party believes a statement is inaccurate, I welcome a right of reply and correction based on verifiable documentation.
Video interview
Documents hub: iLearn.tw/scam
Clarification about document wording
On November 3, 2025, I confirmed that there was no document stating that I “caused no harm and had no ill intent.” Earlier, I had relied on informal interpretations of a letter from April 2025. After re-checking the language using multiple tools, I realized the wording did not support that summary. This reinforced a practical issue I have faced throughout the process: official documents can be difficult to interpret accurately without clear, authoritative translation and context.
What I am asking for
- Independent, evidence-based review of the record and timeline.
- A clear, publicly defensible explanation of how context and evidence were evaluated (or why they were deemed irrelevant).
- Lawful remedy where appropriate, consistent with procedural fairness and proportionality principles.
Why this matters (human impact)
Beyond interpretation issues, I ask readers to consider the human consequences of prolonged proceedings. I left Taiwan, where I built my life, after legal risks became unreasonable to continue . Over several years, the case affected my home, my work, my community ties, and my ability to remain in the country.
A central concern has been whether key context and evidence were meaningfully considered. I have repeatedly stated that witnesses were willing to testify and that supporting material exists (including recordings). If that material was deemed irrelevant, I believe the rationale should be clearly stated and publicly defensible.
I am not asking anyone to adopt a predetermined conclusion. I am asking for careful review grounded in the underlying record. If the decisions are sound, they should stand up to transparent scrutiny. If not, a lawful remedy should exist.
Control Yuan correspondence
This is my second/third petition to the Control Yuan (監察院). They have previously replied, and I mailed the following complaint package again. The PDF is embedded for review, followed by a concise excerpt.
Show a concise HTML excerpt of the petition
To: Control Yuan (監察院) | CC: Judicial Yuan — Judges Evaluation / Disciplinary Review
Date: November 5, 2025 | Complainant: Ross Cline (柯受恩)
Executive Summary
I request (1) a formal investigation into procedural concerns, evidence handling, and proportionality in my case; and (2) rectification consistent with Taiwan’s ICCPR framework and general principles of fair procedure. I left Taiwan after legal proceedings that, in my view, did not adequately address context relevant to necessity/duress and proportionality. Multiple witnesses and supporting context were not meaningfully considered.
Requested Actions & Remedies
- Open a formal investigation into Taichung District Court 111訴607 and High Court 113上4256.
- Recommend review on consideration of necessity/duress, witness testimony, language-access issues, and proportionality.
- Provide rectification / extraordinary remedy where legally available.
- Pursue accountability where misconduct is confirmed; and consider reforms for language access and proportionality checks.
中文摘要
本案涉及程序正義與量刑比例等問題，並已對當事人之生活與權益造成重大影響。請監察院依法啟動調查及相應機制，並建議司法院就法官評鑑／懲戒及可得之救濟途徑採取行動，使案件處理符合公平審判與比例原則等基本要求。
Gratitude to the Taipei Times
For supporting public-interest discussion through publication.
My sincere gratitude to the Taipei Times for publishing two editorials referencing my case. In an environment where public discussion of judicial process can be sensitive, that decision contributes to transparency and informed debate.
A brief note on current status
My in-person programs are temporarily on hold due to ongoing legal and human-rights related concerns that have disrupted my life and work in Taiwan. I am pursuing review and remedy through appropriate channels, and I am presenting the underlying record for evaluation on its merits.
For more information, please visit iLearn.tw/LandlordScam.
3 comments
I erased it because such comments from you to me show an ugly betrayal like the one you seemingly had for your daughter earning-brownie-points-from-a-wizard-style.
To be fair I suggest you don’t take down comments that contradict your narrative