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
Start here (2–3 minutes)
This page is structured for fast review by journalists, legal professionals, and public-interest reviewers. The full archive is large; the items below provide the quickest route to the core issues.
- 1) Download the full record (optional): a folder containing 345+ files (official correspondence and court documentation).
- 2) Core issue to review: whether the process and outcome reflect procedural clarity, proportionality, and fair consideration of safety context.
- 3) What I’m asking for: an independent review of the record for procedural fairness and proportionality, with attention to how context was evaluated.
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 notice that I understood as communicating a conclusion while also implying that additional procedural steps might still exist. This combination of apparent finality and continued process raised concerns about procedural clarity. I was also left uncertain how additional evidence would be evaluated when previously submitted material had not, to my understanding, been substantively addressed.
The mediation event video
provides contextual information relevant to my state of fear and urgency at the time of the underlying dispute. In my archive, I reference witnesses and audio/video materials that I believe corroborate the safety context. I also document that some contextual material was treated as not directly relevant. These circumstances raise questions about how context is evaluated within the decision-making process.
That same period, I received a 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 to me at the time. For any individual — particularly a foreign resident — uncertainty regarding legal obligations and international travel consequences can create significant hardship.
What I am requesting: I respectfully invite independent review of the full record to assess whether the process and outcome reflect (a) procedural fairness, (b) proportionality, and (c) appropriate consideration of context and corroborating evidence.
When do repeated official 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 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, intent, and proportionality may be relevant. Legal systems internationally evaluate these questions through fact-specific judicial analysis.
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.
Public-Interest Consideration
Over time, I experienced significant difficulty obtaining substantive engagement with concerns relating to context, 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 institution acts uniformly. I document my experience as a foreign resident navigating complex procedures under limited language access and limited resources.
The Case Archive
The contents of my archive include over 345+ files, primarily official correspondence and court documentation. These materials are provided for independent examination of whether the process and outcome were 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.
October 20 Mail — Document Reference:
I include this reference document to help readers understand why I perceived procedural ambiguity. I am not providing legal advice or deadline estimates here. My request is that the document and the surrounding record be reviewed for clarity, fairness, and proportionality.
- Document: Court notice / correspondence (as shown above)
- Issue raised: The notice appears to communicate a conclusion while also implying further procedure may exist.
- Why I’m including it: To support my request for independent review of procedural clarity and proportionality.
...and on November 1, 2024,
I received this mail:
Illustration of Procedural Opacity
Why I’m including this: The documents I received were often difficult to interpret even with the help of local people and translation tools. To illustrate this, I asked an AI language model to summarize what the notice appeared to require. This is not offered as legal advice, and it may be incomplete. I include it to show how easily a recipient can remain uncertain about meaning, obligations, and consequences.
- The notice appears to be an official court communication connected to an existing matter.
- It appears to request a response or action by a specified time, but the exact requirement can be unclear without full context.
- Deadlines and procedures vary; an official clarification from the issuing office is necessary to confirm obligations.
- Without clear plain-language guidance, a recipient may reasonably remain uncertain about what must be done and by when.
Core concern: When an official system repeatedly delivers notices that are hard to interpret — especially to a foreign resident facing language barriers and limited access to counsel — the result can be unnecessary psychological strain and practical hardship. A fair process should make obligations understandable, accessible, and clearly actionable.
This section is included to support my request for independent review of procedural clarity, proportionality, and whether safeguards operated as intended.
