대만 법률 시스템의 표적이 된 캐나다 교포

Thank you for the clarification regarding the April 24 date — I appreciate your attention to detail. That said, the precise date does not alter the substance of the letter, nor its legal implications.

As for the sentence you referenced — “It is shocking that Taiwan’s domestic human rights organizations shy away from cases involving judicial misconduct” — that was indeed my own editorial comment, and I stand by it.

Several rights organizations were contacted. Most declined involvement, citing “jurisdictional limits” or the case being “closed,” despite the fact that the court upheld a conviction after the state prosecutor officially stated that I acted without malicious intent and caused no harm. That contradiction lies at the heart of my claim — and it is a matter of objective record.

Let’s be clear: no person’s life, business, or reputation should be shattered for briefly sharing a rental contract online — especially when done without intent to harm, and in the interest of public awareness. That this happened four years ago, and I’m still living in forced exile because of it, is indefensible. Whether or not the law in Taiwan technically allows such punishment is beside the point. Laws that permit arbitrary destruction of a person’s livelihood and liberty are not just flawed — they are unjust. And defending them on technical grounds only proves how hollow such justice can be.

If even one court document contains a contradiction that reveals arbitrary punishment, the legal and moral duty is to correct it — not to rationalize it. Any person or institution that avoids that truth becomes part of the injustice.

感謝您指出是4月24日的信件日期，我也感謝您對細節的關注。不過，日期的正確與否並不改變該信函的本質內容，也無損其法律意涵。

至於您提到的這句話：「令人震驚的是，台灣本地的人權組織竟然迴避涉及司法不當行為的案件」，這確實是我個人的評論，而我依然堅持這句話的立場。

我曾聯繫數個人權組織，其中多數以「案件已結束」或「不屬於其職權範圍」為由拒絕處理，儘管檢察官已正式書面聲明本人「無惡意」且「未造成任何損害」，法院仍維持有罪判決。這份矛盾正是我所提出的核心問題，並已成為事實記錄的一部分。

我們必須誠實面對：一個人不該因為三天內短暫分享一份租賃契約，而被剝奪事業、名譽與自由 —— 尤其是在無惡意且出於公益意圖的情況下。這發生在四年多前，而我至今仍被迫流亡海外，這是無法辯解的。如果台灣法律竟允許如此懲罰，那問題已不只是技術上的錯誤，而是法律本身的正當性出了問題。那些僅從技術面為此辯護的人，只會凸顯這套體系的虛偽與失衡。

倘若一份法院文件中已明確呈現了司法懲罰的矛盾與任意性，那麼法律與道德上的義務，就是予以糾正，而不是選擇逃避或合理化。任何人或機構若漠視此點，便已成為這場不義的一部分。

I only asked you to read the prosecutors office letter dated April 24, 2025 again. Not May. I was not arguing.

All the words in Chinese in that post are from that letter, except this line from you: 令人震驚的是，台灣本地的人權組織竟然迴避涉及司法不當行為的案件. Didn’t those rights groups tell you why they decided to “ shy away” from your case?

Thank you for quoting from the May 2025 letter, but your interpretation relies entirely on a circular legal argument: that because the courts reviewed the case and followed domestic procedures, the outcome must be just. That is a fallacy. A process can be followed “legally” and still produce an unjust and unlawful result under international human rights standards.

Let me be clear: the final prosecutorial letter explicitly acknowledges that my actions caused no harm and were not done with any criminal intent. That should have ended the matter. Instead, the judiciary chose to uphold a sentence anyway. That is the essence of a human rights violation: when a state admits no crime was committed but punishes the individual regardless.

You repeat familiar lines — “three levels of trial,” “appeal process,” “no procedural violations” — as if legal ritual alone can cover over moral absurdity. You cite international conventions while defending a system that sentences a person to six months in jail despite conceding no criminal act occurred. That is not justice; that is institutionalized injustice.

Your comment suggests that the mere appearance of legality is enough. But human rights law is not satisfied by appearances. It requires fairness, proportionality, and respect for dignity. In this case, those principles were violated. The fact that you cannot — or will not — see that may suggest either willful blindness or direct complicity.

If a foreigner can be sentenced for an act acknowledged to be harmless and unintentional, simply because a process was followed on paper, then the system is not upholding law — it is manufacturing injustice under the guise of legality.

感謝您引用2025年5月的檢察官函文，但您的詮釋完全依賴一種循環邏輯：僅因法院經過審查並遵循國內程序，就推論判決必定公正。這是邏輯謬誤。一個程序可以看似「合法」，卻仍然導致違反國際人權標準的不公與不法結果。

讓我說明清楚：該檢察官函文明確承認本人行為並無惡意，亦未造成任何實際損害。照理說，此案應至此結束。然而，司法機關卻仍決定執行刑罰。這正是人權侵害的典型例子：國家承認行為無罪，卻仍懲罰當事人。

您反覆強調「三審程序」、「審級救濟」、「無程序違失」，彷彿法律形式可以掩蓋道德荒謬。您引述國際公約，卻辯護一個在承認行為無罪的情況下，仍判處當事人六個月徒刑的制度。這不是司法正義，而是制度化的不義。

您的評論暗示只要程序外觀合法，就足以證明其正當性。但人權法不滿足於表面工夫。它要求的是實質正義、比例原則與對基本人性的尊重。而本案的審理，明顯違反了這些原則。您無法（或不願）承認這一點，令人質疑您是否選擇視而不見，甚至可能與不公體制有所牽連。

如果一名外國人，僅因「形式上的程序」被判刑，即使國家也承認其行為無害且無惡意，那麼這個司法系統就不是在維護法律，而是在用「合法外觀」製造不義。

One can’t help but question why anyone would defend such an indefensible position. It’s hard to imagine a genuinely neutral party reviewing these documents and concluding that this outcome is just or legally sound. Which raises a possibility: perhaps those continuing to deny the human rights implications here are not neutral at all. Perhaps the only people who could still justify this are those with something to lose — individuals involved in the system that enabled it, or those fearing exposure of misconduct. That possibility grows more plausible with every attempt to distort what’s written plainly in black and white.

不禁令人懷疑，究竟是什麼樣的人，會在面對如此顯而易見的不公正時，仍然選擇替其辯護？一位真正中立的旁觀者，在仔細閱讀這些文件後，實在難以合理得出「司法合理」這種結論。因此，也許可以合理推論：會如此堅持否認此案人權違規本質的，並非中立之人，而是那些一旦真相曝光便有可能蒙受損失的人──或許是與此案有關的司法從業人員，又或者是擔心自己失職行為被揭露者。隨著越來越多的扭曲言論出現，這樣的推測也越來越難以忽視。

Read it again if you’re basing your claims in this post on just one letter. I’m not questioning what you went through — I just want you to take another look. Maybe ask someone else to help with the translation. What you’re saying doesn’t really match what the letter is about.

What you found shocking — 令人震驚的是，台灣本地的人權組織竟然迴避涉及司法不當行為的案件 — makes sense if those human rights groups read this letter.

⼆、陳情意旨略以：台端（中⽂姓名：柯受恩，加拿⼤籍）為本署113年執字 第15358號案件受刑⼈ . . .

三、經查：
台端倘確係為尋求他⼈協助處理其與間之租賃糾紛，可將相關租賃糾紛資料等，以⾯對⾯或通訊軟體私訊⽅式，提供予他⼈閱覽 ，且縱使有將租約資料等張貼於 網站或網⾴，亦無⼀併公開個⼈資料之必要性存在，

⽽卷內其他有利於台端之證據，如何皆不⾜作為有利之證明，亦於判決理由內予以說明、指駁甚詳，

並無認定事實未憑證據之情形，亦無台端所指採證違法、證據調查職責未盡、違反無罪推定、適⽤補強、經驗、論理等證據法則不當或判決理由⽋備，⽭盾等違誤。

⾜認台端上開罪刑，係經檢察官證據調查後提起公訴，歷經三個審級、不同法官所為之公正裁判審理，並予以審級救濟機會，審理過程與我國刑事訴訟法、⼤法官解釋意旨規定無違，

且合於前揭世界⼈權宣⾔、公⺠與政治權利國際公約之規定，

台端空⾔指摘判決違法不當 ，應屬無據。

四、綜上，本署檢察官依合法確定判決據以執⾏，本件查無違法失當之處 。

To the Commenter,

Your latest remarks, while exhaustively long, do little more than confirm a fundamental misreading of the legal and human rights principles at stake. I will address each of your insinuations precisely — and in terms that any impartial legal observer would find compelling.

On the use of the term “malicious intent”:
The April 2025 letter from the Taichung District Prosecutors Office, issued after escalation to the Presidential Office, includes the line: “查無不法” — meaning no unlawful conduct found. While it may not use the exact phrase “malicious intent,” in legal and prosecutorial language, the absence of unlawfulness in a finalized statement reflects both the lack of criminal intent and absence of harm. Your obsession with semantic phrasing only underscores your willful blindness to context.
On civil versus criminal court jurisdiction:
You confuse two domains of law: the criminal ruling, which imposed a penalty despite the prosecution’s later finding of no unlawful act, and the civil case, which awarded damages based on emotional harm. However, as any legal scholar will confirm, a civil ruling based on reputational harm cannot and does not override the international legal obligations Taiwan is bound to under the ICCPR — especially when due process and equality under the law have been demonstrably violated in the criminal court.
On finality of rulings and “三審定讞” (three-tier system):
You parrot Taiwan’s “three levels of trial” system as if repetition equals legitimacy. But international legal standards — including Article 14 of the ICCPR — make it explicitly clear: a multi-tier process that ignores witnesses, denies interpreters, and cherry-picks evidence is not due process; it’s institutional failure masquerading as procedure. No number of appeals legitimizes injustice when the structure itself is discriminatory and biased.
On your curiously intense interest in this case:
Your persistent, detailed focus on the intricacies of a four-year legal saga involving a foreign national, paired with your conspicuous defensiveness, raises the unavoidable question: What exactly is your stake in suppressing this case? Are you a party to the system that failed — or perhaps acting as a proxy for interests that fear accountability?
Let me be clear: this is not a personal matter. This is a textbook case of prosecutorial and judicial overreach, complete with contradictory state documents, disproportionate punishment, and racialized disadvantage in court. The record is public. The contradictions are documented. And your continued efforts to deny them only underscore how deeply uncomfortable this truth must be for those who benefit from systemic silence.

If you believe you’ve uncovered some triumph in legal logic, I assure you — international law and human rights jurisprudence will find otherwise.

— Ross Cline (柯受恩)

繁體中文

致評論者：

您的評論篇幅雖長，卻不過再次證明您對本案核心法律與人權原則的嚴重誤解。我將就您的論點一一回應，並以任何公正法律觀察者皆無法忽視的方式闡明事實。

關於「惡意」一詞的使用：
2025年4月，臺中地檢署於總統府轉交後所發布之正式函文明確載明：「查無不法」。雖未直接使用「惡意」一詞，然在檢察機關語境中，「查無不法」即表示行為無違法性，亦即無犯罪意圖與實質損害。您對文字措辭的苛責，不過是故意忽略語境之詭辯技巧。
關於民事與刑事之混淆：
您混淆了兩種法律程序。刑事判決為執行刑罰，而後檢方文件認定無不法行為。民事部分所謂精神損害賠償，並無推翻刑事判決與國際公約之效力。尤其在我未獲適當翻譯、證人未被傳喚、關鍵證據被忽略的前提下，刑事訴訟已違反《公民與政治權利國際公約》所保障之正當程序與平等審判權。
關於「三審定讞」之誤用：
您重複強調「三審制度」，彷彿制度形式等於正義實現。然而根據《ICCPR》第14條之明文規定：若法院拒絕證人出庭、未提供翻譯協助、選擇性採信不利證據，則無論審級如何，其程序皆無法被視為公平審判。形式程序絕不能掩飾制度性偏差。
關於您異常關注本案的動機：
您對一名外籍人士長達四年的法律糾紛細節掌握得如此透徹，且不斷為台灣司法系統辯護，不禁令人質疑您究竟為何如此焦慮？是既得利益者、相關體制的代言人，抑或更深層政治勢力的發聲管道？
我要強調：此案非個人恩怨，而是標準的國際人權侵害案例。檢察署認定無違法行為，法院卻仍堅持執行刑罰；五名證人無人被傳喚；翻譯權利被剝奪；有利影片證據遭忽視。這些事實經得起國際審查，而您越是否認，只會更突顯這個制度的荒謬與失格。

若您真認為自己所持立場在法律上站得住腳，我誠摯歡迎您將此案送交國際人權專家評析。但別妄想透過偷換概念與程序合理化，掩蓋制度的深層錯誤。

— 羅士克林（Ross Cline）