Legal Injustice in Taiwan: My Struggle for Fairness and Dignity

Today was my day in court, in front of three judges, where I tried to explain that I have been punished enough and that this is absolutely unfair and ridiculous, and everyone knows it! We will know the punishment that awaits me on July 10. That is just one of the ways I am being sued; there are still two more cases looming, and it looks as though there is no end in sight. It is ridiculous and heartbreaking for me to see Taiwan disappoint me in such a stupid and humiliating way. This has taken a toll on me, my heart, and my feelings for the people and place I love and hold so close to my heart.

I am trying to have the following text published and visible in as many places as possible due to the level of terror and trauma I have experienced because of my former landlord. A tyrannical bully and horrible person like this should never be allowed to do what she has done to me and continues to do. I have no legal recourse whatsoever. It is a humiliating realization and a tough pill to swallow when I consider all the good I believed Taiwan to be. However, perhaps the sooner this gets publicized, the sooner it can be rectified.

I appreciate writing advice, but I am simply unable to accomplish much better than the following. I am hoping to have a professional write this for me because I am finding it impossible to take my emotions out of it. I hope you can appreciate this being very difficult, all things considered, and if you or anyone may be interested in helping me get my story out, or arranging an interview, online in my zoom room or other, please do not hesitate to contact me. Appointments can be made from rosscline.com/appointment and here is the text I have most recently used as a letter to the three judges I will meet this morning:

June 13, 2024

Honorable Judges,

I am writing to share my experience of legal injustice in Taiwan, hoping to find resolution and raise awareness.

In 2019, I posted my rental contract online because everyone wanted to see where my landlord had broken it. Despite removing it immediately and apologizing both publicly and personally, I was charged under Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act for exposing private information. This law, although well-intentioned, has been applied against me unjustly.

My landlord, who ignored basic safety measures like a proper locking door, used this situation to initiate a relentless legal battle against me. Despite my immediate apology and compliance, I have faced threats, fines, and a protracted ordeal that has severely impacted my mental health and drained my resources.

Important points:

Posted rental contract online; removed immediately.
Managed to pay NT$28,000 a month all tolled at the height of COVID-19.
Charged under the Personal Data Protection Act.
No lawyer or legal aid will help because it is past the 6-month statute of limitations, despite a plethora of video evidence.
I have endured endless court hearings and appeals, and have even been arrested and put in jail multiple times due to one police department not knowing what the other had done and disregard for the mental breakdown toll that this has had on me.
I have discovered two additional legal cases initiated by the landlord, prolonging the process and increasing emotional and financial strain. There is no end to this in sight.

The judicial system's handling of this case has been slow and biased, ignoring my contributions to Taiwan since 2009 and the lack of malicious intent in my actions. Ignoring what any logically thinking person would have expected. The landlord's aggressive behavior and the system's prolonged procedures have caused undue hardship extending to my family in Canada. My mother has particularly struggled as I have chosen to return to this country I love.

This situation calls for a review of how the Personal Data Protection Act is applied, ensuring it protects genuine privacy concerns without enabling malicious litigation. I appeal for empathy and understanding, hoping for a resolution that restores my peace and dignity. All things considered, I can not fathom any compensation being awarded to anyone but myself, because to say I have endured mental and emotional suffering would be an understatement and everyone knows this.

Sincerely,

Ross Cline 柯受恩
rosscline.com
+886-975-474-889
iLearn.tw
台灣台中市西屯區
大墩二十街118號5F-1

Text used for second document on June 18, 2024

Legal Argument: Defense Based on Article 311

To Whom It May Concern:

This document presents a legal defense based on the provisions of Article 311 of the Taiwanese Criminal Code, addressing the allegations of defamation and public insult made against Mr. Ross Cline. The context and specifics of this case highlight the applicability of Article 311, particularly the clauses regarding self-defense, self-justification, and the protection of legal interest.

Background and Context

In 2019, Mr. Ross Cline uploaded his rental contract to the internet. This action was taken in response to numerous requests for evidence of his landlord's breaches of contract. Despite the immediate removal of the document and public and private apologies, Mr. Cline was charged under the Personal Data Protection Act. His landlord, failing to maintain basic safety measures such as a proper locking door, initiated a prolonged legal battle against him. This situation has severely impacted Mr. Cline’s mental health and drained his resources.
Legal Grounds for Defense: Article 311

Article 311 of the Taiwanese Criminal Code stipulates that a person shall not be punished for making a statement under the following conditions:
1. Self-Defense
2. Self-Justification
3. Protection of Legal Interest
4. Public Official’s Report
5. Fair Comment on Public Criticism
6. Fair Report on Public Proceedings
Mr. Cline’s actions fall squarely within the scope of self-defense, self-justification, and the protection of legal interest:
- Self-Defense and Self-Justification: Mr. Cline posted the rental contract to defend himself against ongoing harassment and to justify his claims of the landlord's contractual violations. The publication was a direct response to public demands for transparency regarding the disputes with his landlord.
- Protection of Legal Interest: By posting the contract, Mr. Cline sought to protect his legal interests. The contract’s publication served as evidence to substantiate his claims and defend against the landlord’s unjust accusations. His intent was not to defame but to seek a fair resolution based on factual evidence.
Supporting Evidence
- Immediate Removal and Apology: Mr. Cline promptly removed the rental contract and issued both public and personal apologies, demonstrating his lack of malicious intent.
- Financial Strain and Legal Battles: Despite facing significant financial burdens, including paying NT$28,000 per month at the height of COVID-19, Mr. Cline has complied with legal processes and endured numerous court hearings.
- Lack of Legal Support: No lawyer or legal aid has been willing to assist Mr. Cline due to the statute of limitations, despite substantial video evidence supporting his claims.
Appeal for Resolution

The prolonged and biased handling of this case by the judicial system has ignored Mr. Cline’s contributions to Taiwan since 2009 and the lack of malicious intent in his actions. The landlord’s aggressive legal actions and the system’s delays have caused undue hardship, extending to Mr. Cline’s family in Canada.

This situation warrants a review of how the Personal Data Protection Act is applied, ensuring it protects genuine privacy concerns without enabling malicious litigation. Mr. Cline appeals for empathy and understanding, seeking a resolution that restores his peace and dignity. Given the circumstances, any compensation should logically be awarded to Mr. Cline, considering the severe mental and emotional suffering he has endured.
Conclusion

Based on the provisions of Article 311, Mr. Cline’s actions were justified as self-defense, self-justification, and protection of legal interest. The evidence supports that he acted without malice and in response to ongoing harassment and legal challenges. Therefore, Mr. Cline should not be punished under the charges of defamation or public insult.