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 an AI translation of a letter from April 2025, and I corrected the record after the Control Yuan clarified the letter's wording in writing. 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. 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.