Injustice and Intimidation: The Dark Truth Behind My Legal Fight in Taiwan
How long should a justice system take to address credible evidence concerning safety, proportionality, and procedural fairness?
An
Evidence-Based Request
for Independent Legal and Public-Interest Review
At what point does a documented record warrant independent review under principles of due process and proportionality?
On October 20, 2024,
after months of waiting for substantive review of my appeal, I received a document that appeared to confirm a final decision while also suggesting that further procedural steps remained available. This combination of finality and continued process raised questions regarding procedural clarity. I was informed that additional evidence might be considered at the High Court level, yet it remained unclear how such evidence would be assessed when previously submitted material had not, in my understanding, been fully addressed.
The mediation event video provides contextual information relevant to my state of fear and urgency at the time of the underlying dispute. I have documented the existence of witnesses and extensive audio and video material that I believe corroborate the safety concerns present at the time. I also document that some of this material was characterized as not directly relevant. These circumstances raise questions regarding how contextual evidence is evaluated within the decision-making process.
That same week, I received notice referencing a court appearance date (November 18, 2024). I sought clarification regarding the nature of the proceeding and whether it related to an existing matter or a separate action. Clear guidance was not available. For any individual — particularly a foreign resident — uncertainty regarding legal obligations and international travel can create significant hardship.
The cumulative experience involved repeated notices, difficult-to-interpret documentation, and limited procedural guidance, particularly in the context of language barriers and limited access to legal resources. I present this as my account of the process and respectfully invite independent review of the full record. 
When do repeated judicial notices that remain unclear in meaning or consequence risk creating unnecessary procedural burden or psychological pressure?
During this period I lacked the financial resources necessary to secure private legal counsel and relied on limited assistance from others. The cumulative impact on my stability and livelihood was substantial.
Taiwan law recognizes the importance of context
My position is not that the law lacks authority, but that its principles require careful consideration of context, particularly where fear, necessity, and proportionality may be relevant. Legal systems internationally — including Taiwan’s — recognize doctrines related to necessity, intent, and proportionality when evaluating responsibility and sanction. The precise application of these principles depends on judicial interpretation and factual assessment.
Request for legal review: I respectfully request independent evaluation of whether the documented record demonstrates (a) genuine safety concerns and urgency, (b) corroborating evidence, and (c) whether the resulting process and outcome were proportionate and procedurally fair under applicable legal standards and internationally recognized human rights principles.
Despite pursuing multiple avenues for assistance, I received repeated refusals from legal aid services. While the underlying dispute may appear limited in scope, its practical consequences have been life-altering. 
My objective is that qualified legal review may help ensure the case is assessed with full consideration of context, evidence, and proportionality.
Public-Interest Consideration
Over time, I experienced significant difficulty obtaining substantive engagement with concerns relating to fear, necessity, and proportionality. I present this account not as a definitive conclusion, but as a request for careful review of whether procedural safeguards operated as intended.
I do not claim that any individual or institution acts uniformly. I document my experience as a foreign resident navigating complex procedures under conditions of limited language access and limited resources.
The Landlord Scam Folder 
The contents of my Landlord Scam Folder include over 345+ files, primarily official correspondence and court documentation. The cumulative impact on mental health, stability, and livelihood has been significant. These materials are provided for independent examination of whether the system’s response was proportionate to the circumstances.
From October 14, 2020 to November 1, 2024
345+ Files and Documents
The judicial process, in my case, raised the following concerns:
- Safety and privacy concerns at my residence were not treated as urgent in my experience.
- Security issues relating to property access were assessed as minor.
- My stated fear for personal safety was not treated as legally relevant.
- Contractual disputes were resolved in a manner I perceived as inconsistent with documented circumstances.
- The hardship imposed on my livelihood and stability was not given significant weight.
- Clarity regarding international travel restrictions was not consistently available.
- A brief disclosure of a document was treated as outweighing the surrounding safety context.
- Financial losses resulting from the process were not treated as significant.
- Procedural obligations were sometimes unclear until late in the process.
- Administrative interactions at times appeared formalistic rather than facilitative.
- The severity of penalty increased based on perceived lack of remorse despite documented hardship.
These concerns relate to proportionality, procedural fairness, and the application of humane discretion within judicial decision-making.
