How long should it take for a justice system to address credible evidence of fear, imbalance, and procedural uncertainty?

An
Evidence-Based Request
for Independent Review

                                

At what point does the documented record become too clear to ignore?

---

On October 20, 2024,

after months of anxious waiting and hoping the Supreme Court would substantively address my appeal, I received a document that raised more questions than it answered. When I called the number provided, I was told a decision had been reached and that there were still steps that could be taken. That combination—finality paired with an alleged path forward—was difficult for me to reconcile. I was also told that “new evidence” could be relevant at the High Court level. But what constitutes “new” evidence when key evidence already submitted has not been meaningfully addressed? In my view, multiple grounds of appeal were left unanswered.

The mediation event video underscores why I describe my actions as driven by fear and urgency and why I believe the full context matters. I have described (and documented) the existence of multiple witnesses and extensive video/audio material that I believe corroborate my state of fear and the safety context. I also document that some of this material has been characterized as irrelevant to the case. At what point does repeated refusal to engage with material context become a sign of procedural imbalance?

That same week, I received another notice referencing a court appearance date (November 18, 2024). I called seeking basic clarification as to whether it related to my complaint or whether it reflected a separate proceeding. I was not provided clear information. It is not unreasonable to want to know whether international travel can proceed, or whether plans should be canceled to avoid avoidable loss.

The uncertainty became its own form of pressure: repeated notices, difficult-to-interpret formatting, and limited practical guidance—especially for a foreign resident with limited language access. I present this as my description of how the process unfolded, and I invite independent review of the record.

When does the issuance of repeated judicial notices—cryptic, bewildering, and difficult to interpret even with local help—cross the line into unnecessary escalation and psychological pressure?

I was without resources, unable to afford counsel, and increasingly dependent on unsustainable help from friends. The cumulative effect was devastating.

---

Taiwan law recognizes context…

I am not arguing that the law is meaningless. I am arguing that the law’s own principles require careful attention to context—especially when fear, necessity, and proportionality are central to what occurred. In many legal systems (including Taiwan’s), doctrines relating to necessity, compulsion, or proportionality can be relevant to how liability and punishment are assessed. The precise application depends on facts, evidence, and judicial interpretation.

I pursued multiple avenues for assistance and received repeated refusals from legal aid. This case—while it may appear narrow on paper—has had life-altering consequences in practice.

I am writing with the hope that competent legal support can review the record and help ensure the case is assessed proportionately and fairly.

---

What would you do?

It is difficult to describe the strain of repeatedly asking decision-makers to consider corroborated fear, urgency, and proportionality—and receiving little or no engagement with those points. Over time, I came to believe that something beyond ordinary legal reasoning was obstructing a fair assessment.

I also observed a broader cultural pattern that can be hard for outsiders to navigate: impressive test performance does not always translate into transparent communication, practical problem-solving, or humane discretion under pressure. If you want context on my “passing tests and failing life” phrase, it’s explained here: passing tests and failing life

I do not claim that every judge or official behaves the same way. I am documenting my experience and the practical consequences of opaque procedure when a foreign resident has limited language access and limited resources.

---

The Landlord Scam Folder

The contents of my Landlord Scam Folder include over 345+ files, mostly scanned mail I received from the court. The cumulative impact on mental health, stability, and livelihood has been severe. It is difficult not to ask whether the system’s response has been proportionate to the facts.

---

From October 14, 2020 to November 1, 2024

345+ Files and Documents

The Landlord Scam Folder

My experience makes the headline below easier to understand emotionally—without suggesting that any one case is identical: American Man Kills Himself in Taiwan Courtroom After Drug Sentence

The judicial process, in my case, has made it painfully clear that:

• My need for privacy and security at home was not treated as urgent or meaningful.
  
• Having a sliding glass door that did not reliably lock was treated as insignificant.
• My stated fear for my safety was treated as irrelevant.
• Alleged breach-of-contract issues were not treated with the seriousness I expected, given the documented facts.
• The process did not meaningfully weigh the hardship placed on my life (including financial loss and emotional distress), despite supporting statements.
• I was left without clear confirmation about international travel until late in the process, increasing risk of avoidable loss and disruption.
• I was told the disclosure of a PDF (briefly, years earlier) outweighed the safety context in which it occurred, and I later faced additional monetary consequences framed as “emotional damages.”
• Losing flight costs and associated expenses was treated as inconsequential.
• I could not reliably confirm whether a summons involved a new claim until the appearance date.
• Administrative interactions sometimes felt punitive rather than service-oriented, particularly given language barriers and the seriousness of the stakes.
• My penalty increased from 2 to 6 months in part due to perceived lack of remorse, without adequate recognition of the cumulative psychological and financial harm the process itself caused.

A lack of humane discretion — and, paradoxically, a measure of how deeply I once trusted Taiwan as home.

---