Public record + personal experience (names removed where possible) 
Documents hub: rosscline.com/scam
Overview
I lived legally in Taiwan for more than fifteen years. I built a business, a community, and a life I expected to keep. After a safety incident and a dispute I tried to resolve responsibly, I ended up facing severe consequences that forced me out of the country.
This post is not a “hate” post. It’s a record of what happened, what it cost, and what I believe Canadians should understand about vulnerability abroad when things go wrong — especially when evidence is missing, procedures feel uneven, or the process escalates far beyond what seems proportionate.
My core request: not interference in another country’s courts — but meaningful Canadian engagement when a Canadian presents credible human-rights concerns with documentation.
Knocking on Ottawa’s Door — Again and Again
This was my second trip to Ottawa, trying to get meaningful review of a situation that has already dismantled my life. Back home, my local elected representative has done real due diligence — letters sent, follow-ups made, files advanced. But this is the third (or possibly fourth) time the same door has been knocked on, only to hear the same refusal: “We don’t get involved in foreign legal matters.”
I went in person because I believed a face-to-face conversation — with documentation in hand — might break through the script. Instead, I got the same result: no engagement beyond procedural explanation, and no pathway that resembles human-rights advocacy.
Letter (included exactly as written)
Dear Canadian Government Official in Ottawa,
I am not a lawyer. I am not a political figure. I am simply a Canadian whose life has been dismantled by a system I once trusted.
I first went to Taiwan at eighteen years old. I did not go there as a tourist. I went there to live. Fifteen years later, Taiwan was still my home. I built a business there. I built a community. I built relationships that mattered to me deeply. I believed in Taiwan as a place governed by fairness and the rule of law, and I made it my life.
What eventually destroyed that life did not begin as a legal dispute. It began as a frightening safety incident.
A heavy rolling metal gate at my residence failed shortly after I was told it had been repaired. It collapsed in a way that could easily have killed someone. Taiwanese national television covered the incident, and a doctor interviewed on air stated that gates of this type can weigh over a ton and can be fatal to anyone beneath them.
After this happened, I was left for weeks without a secure street-level door. My belongings were exposed. I did not feel safe in my own home.
Because I cannot read Chinese, I shared my rental agreement publicly in an attempt to demonstrate that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the gate. My intention was not to expose personal information. My intention was to restore basic safety.
When I was told to remove the document, I apologized immediately and took it down.
Four years later, I now find myself effectively exiled from Taiwan and facing a six-month jail sentence for “sharing personal information.”
At no point did the system meaningfully engage with the context: that I was trying to prevent a life-threatening hazard.
Throughout this ordeal I continued to believe that reason would prevail. Instead, I experienced a legal process where my explanation was treated with suspicion and where the power imbalance between a foreign resident and the local system became overwhelming.
I want Canadians to understand something that is very difficult to explain unless you have lived it.
There are more than 50,000 Canadians currently residing in Taiwan. Many of them believe they are protected by the same assumptions they would carry at home: that evidence is handled fairly, that safety concerns are treated seriously, and that foreigners are not systemically disadvantaged.
But when something goes wrong — a traffic accident, a rental dispute, a misunderstanding — the experience can be profoundly different for a foreigner. Situations that would normally be straightforward can become opaque, adversarial, and deeply destabilizing.
What happened to me was not a theoretical injustice. It was the slow dismantling of my life.
I have a godson in Taiwan. I helped raise him from birth. He is seven now, and I have already lost a full year of his life. I watch him grow through a screen. I was there for homework, birthdays, bedtime routines — the small daily acts that make a child feel safe. Now I am a voice on a phone in another time zone.
I also recently said goodbye to my partner of eight years as I drove him to the airport. Our life was built around Taiwan. Canada was never the plan.
I am not asking anyone to solve the impossible. I am asking for something far simpler:
That someone in Canada understands what this has done to a person.
That the experiences of Canadians abroad are not quietly dismissed when they are inconvenient or uncomfortable.
That the thousands of Canadians currently living in Taiwan are made aware that disputes involving safety, housing, or accidents can escalate into life-altering consequences.
My suffering is now measured in years. It should not be invisible.
More information and documentation can be found here:
https://rosscline.com/scam
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Ross Cline 柯受恩
rosscline.com
New Brunswick, Canada
+1 (506) 321-8659
iLearn.tw
Taichung, Taiwan
Patterns of vulnerability: traffic, evidence, and escalation
In Taichung, I repeatedly encountered a pattern that locals even joked about: when a foreigner is involved in a traffic incident, camera footage is often suddenly “unavailable.” Whether it’s coincidence, poor systems, or selective outcomes, the effect is the same: the foreigner becomes uniquely vulnerable at the exact moment objective evidence matters most.
I’m not claiming every dispute is the same. I’m describing how it feels when the “normal” protections people assume exist — clear evidence, consistent procedure, neutral enforcement — become uncertain right when you need them.
Important note on tone: I’m keeping the writing here focused on events and consequences, not generalized judgments about entire groups of people. If you want to persuade readers, this approach holds credibility far better.
Exclusion: “Filipinos only” as “policy”
One of the clearest examples of blanket exclusion I personally encountered involved a popular daytime venue. After one incident involving a non-member of the group, the response became: exclude everyone “outside” the group. The justification I was given was simple: one “problem” becomes everyone’s problem — if you’re not “one of us.”
This matters because it’s not just social. It reflects a mentality that can follow you into administrative decisions, enforcement decisions, and eventually legal disputes — where an outsider can feel like they start every process already behind.
Video evidence vault (organized so it informs, without overwhelming)
I’m placing the rawest material in dropdowns so readers can choose how deep to go. The main narrative stays readable and credible — and the evidence stays accessible.
Core case overview videos
These are the “big picture” entries that help a new reader understand context.
Work / school / environment videos
Examples of workplace conditions and cultural friction. (Placed here to avoid derailing the main narrative.)
Traffic / “missing evidence” cluster
This section is where we place the “green light / lawsuit / missing GoPro evidence” story and supporting clips, without letting the tone overwhelm the main post.
What this cluster shows: a traffic incident where I proceeded on a green light, a collision occurred, and the dispute escalated into legal pressure — but objective evidence repeatedly went missing.
The only reason this didn’t become another “foreigner loses by default” story was sheer luck: a bystander behind me happened to have a camera recording at exactly the right moment. That recording was provided to police — and later, when the day in court came, the footage was nowhere to be found.
In court, I ended up contacting the person who recorded it, and the judge treated the matter as effectively “square.” In Taiwan traffic disputes, that outcome can count as a win — and that’s the point. If this is how fragile fairness can be in something as ordinary as a traffic collision, imagine how quickly a larger dispute can spiral.
TV coverage (news clips)
Press appearances and broadcast segments.
“Noise sabotage” archive (multiple clips)
This is intentionally collapsed because it’s a lot. A reader who wants depth can open it; a reader who just wants the core story won’t get buried.
