Taiwan Legal Aid Foundation lawyer Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) violates a client's right to a mental assessment, after the client told the lawyer the client previously (and recently) spent almost three years incarcerated in psychiatric prisons.

Taiwan Legal Aid Foundation lawyer Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) violates a client's right to a mental assessment, after the client told the lawyer the client previously (and recently) spent almost three years incarcerated in psychiatric prisons.

台灣法律援助基金會律師林宏帆律師侵犯了客戶的精神評估權，此前客戶告訴律師，客戶之前（和最近）在精神病監獄被關押了近三年。

_scot0001 | dated 26 July 2021, by Rene Helmerichs

PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBJn0UPacV8tiZpZzCZWh3bXHJJk9cyF/view?usp=sharing

Back to Scot List: http://p20.rene.guru

Lawyer Scott Lin (Chinese: 林泓帆)

中華民國 | Taiwan

708台南市安平區健康路三段308號

發文日期：中華民國110年7月23日

受文者：

臺灣臺南地方法院民事簡易庭__新訴訟

Taiwan Tainan District Court Civil__New Litigation

這是涉及兩起相關訴訟的訴訟集的第1部分。

This is part 1 of a Litigation set involving two related lawsuits.

 

解釋中文：聲請訴訟救助（瑞內是英文外籍人士）

Interpret Chinese: claiming assistance

 

原告：（一個）, Plaintiff:

1、是瑞內（Rene‧Helmerichs）

824高雄市燕巢區安正路60號

被告：（一個）, Defendant:

1、林泓帆（Scott‧Lin）

70147臺南市東區崇明路2號3樓

見證：（一個）, Witness:

1、羅郁棣（Yudi Luo）

臺灣臺南地方法院法官

708臺南市安平區健康路三段308號

 

主旨 | Purpose

這還不是人身損害索賠。這是對準備訴訟所需的金額的索賠，並支付個人損害索賠的法庭費用。本案索賠金額為29.9萬新台幣。

This is not a claim of personal damages yet.  This is a claim of the amount necessary to prepare the lawsuit and pay the court costs of a claim of personal damages.  The plaintiff claims the plaintiff had a right to mental assessment on 25 Jan 2018, necessary evidence is attached.  The defendant claims the plaintiff did not have a right to mental assessment on 25 Jan 2018.  The amount claimed in this lawsuit is 299,000 New Taiwan Dollars. 

 

說明 | Description

被告在民事訴訟案卷中代理原告：台南區民事法院107年勞訴字第60號。證人主持了此案。被告未將原告的精神疾病史（多次診斷為嚴重精神疾病，包括精神分裂症、分裂情感障礙、雙相情感障礙、妄想症、思維混亂、嚴重和長期精神病、躁狂症、極度抑鬱症、偏執狂，多重人格障礙），沒有告知法官根據《心理健康法》原告有權進行精神評估，也沒有告知法官現有的協議，即原告在進行精神評估之前休無薪假可以證明被告適合重返工作崗位。

The defendant represented the plaintiff in the Civil Lawsuit case file: 臺南區民事法院107年勞訴字第60號.  The witness presided over the case.  The defendant did not inform the witness (the judge) of the plaintiff's history of mental illness (multiple diagnoses of severe mental illness including Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Delusional Disorder, disorganized thinking, severe and prolonged psychosis, mania, extreme depression, paranoia, Multiple Personality Disorder), did not inform the judge of the plaintiff's right to a mental assessment according to the Mental Health Act, and did not inform the judge of an existing agreement that the plaintiff take an unpaid leave from work until a mental assessment can prove that the defendant is fit to return to work. 

107年的民事案件是一起勞資糾紛。原告指控補習班不公正終止勞動合同，但被告（在民事訴訟中代表原告）從未提出論點：補習班管理人員知道原告患有嚴重的精神疾病。

The Civil Case from 2018 was a labor dispute.  The plaintiff alleged a cram school of unjust termination of the work contract, however the defendant (who represented the plaintiff during the civil lawsuit) never raised the point of the argument: the cram school managers knew that the plaintiff suffered severe mental illness. 

在107年的庭審中，被告只是不斷重複「學校沒有在107年1月25日解除合同」。被告從未提供無可辯駁的證據。為此，法官做出了一個不可能的裁決：法律禁止補習班僱用患有嚴重精神疾病的人作為負責人。例如，106年8月14日，補習班要求原告在學校旅行期間在飯店過夜監督年輕學生。法律特別禁止補習班僱用“負責任的人”，這些人以前因性犯罪和虐待兒童而被指控和監禁，兩名精神病醫生對原告做了這件事。法官的裁決暗示，107年1月25日存在合法的教學合同。

During the 2018 trial, the defendant just kept repeating "the school didn't terminate the contract on 25 Jan 2018".  The defendant never offered irrefutable proof.  For that reason, the judge made an impossible ruling: the law forbids cram schools to hire people that suffer from severe mental illness as "responsible persons".  For example, on 14 Aug 2017 the cram school required the plaintiff to supervise young students overnight in a hotel during a school trip.  The law especially forbids cram schools to hire "responsible persons" who were previously accused and imprisoned of sexual crimes and child abuse, which two psychiatrists did to the plaintiff.  The judge's ruling implied that a legal teaching contract existed on 25 Jan 2018.

事實上，原告的教學合同有效的唯一條件是以加拿大精神病醫生的虛假指控為由的憲法例外。然而，由於學校選擇隱瞞原告被關押在精神病監獄的872天，學校以欺詐的名義經營。要求原告隱瞞原告的清白導致站不住腳。這反過來又導致原告經歷了嚴重的精神崩潰，台南地方法院和台南地方檢察院被原告數千頁多餘的（看似無關的文字和胡言亂語）淹沒。

In truth, the only condition by which the plaintiff's teaching contract was valid is a constitutional exception on grounds of false accusations from psychiatrists in Canada.  However, since the school elected to conceal the plaintiff's 872 days of incarcerations in psychiatric prisons, the school operated under a fraudulent pretence.  Requiring the plaintiff to conceal the plaintiff's innocence resulted in an untenable position.  This, in turn, caused the plaintiff to experience a severe mental breakdown which inundated the Tainan District Court and Tainan District Procuratorate with thousands of pages of superfluous (seemingly unrelated writings and ramblings) from the plaintiff.

被告知道原告患有嚴重的精神疾病。民事法庭案件的法官（本案的現任證人）特別安排了107年12月24日的法庭聽證會，以獲取原告向補習班管理人員告知原告精神疾病的證據。在107年11月26日的聽證會之後，原告向律師（現任被告）提供了要提交給法官（現任證人）的證據。

The defendant knew that the plaintiff suffered serious mental illness.  The judge of the Civil Court matter (the current witness in this case) specifically arranged the court hearing on 24 Dec 2018 to receive evidence that the plaintiff told the cram school managers about the plaintiff's mental illness.  The plaintiff provided the lawyer (current defendant) the evidence to submit to the judge (current witness) following the 26 Nov 2018 hearing.

原告和原告的妻子的蕭帆琇（Lindsay）在原告被聘請為教師之前，確保補習班管理人員知道並了解原告患有嚴重的精神疾病。總經理和教學部負責人兩位高級管理人員都知道原告在精神病監獄度過了大約3年。他們於106年5月20日承認了他們的理解。

The plaintiff and the plaintiff's wife Lindsay (蕭帆琇) made sure that the cram school managers knew and understood the plaintiff suffered from severe mental illness before they hired the plaintiff as a teacher.  Two senior managers, the general manager and the head of the teaching department, both knew that the plaintiff spent about 3 years in psychiatric prisons.  They acknowledged their understanding on 20 May 2017.

107年1月21日，補習班總經理致電原告配偶，確認原告有嚴重精神疾病的跡象（總經理稱學校的一位客戶是精神科醫生，精神科醫生認出了原告的症狀）。電話錄音已於106年12月24日提交

On 21 Jan 2018, the general manager of the cram school telephoned the plaintiff's wife to confirm that the plaintiff exhibit signs of severe mental illness (the general manager claimed that a client of the school was a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist recognized the plaintiff's symptoms).  An audio-recording of the phone was submitted on 24 Dec 2017

此後，在107年1月23日，補習班和原告同意原告將從107年1月25日開始休無薪假，直到完成心理評估。心理評估完成後，原告和補習班經理將討論下一步該怎麼做。附上電子郵件。

Thereafter, on 23 Jan 2018, the cram school and plaintiff agreed that the plaintiff will take an unpaid leave beginning on 25 Jan 2018 until a mental assessment is completed.  Once the mental assessment is completed, the plaintiff and cram school managers will discuss what to do next.  The emails are attached.

儘管這起訴訟看起來很荒謬，但法律要求我們尊重原告患有嚴重精神病的可能性。並且，鑑於有嚴重的精神疾病史，患者在解除工作合同之前確實有權進行精神評估，因為：1、學校管理人員在僱用原告之前就知道原告患有精神病，2、學校的行為導致精神崩潰，3、學校同意原告必須在學校之前進行心理評估，與原告討論下一步該怎麼做，4、精神病人通常無法做出理性決定，這意味著原告在107年1月25日開始的無薪假期期間無法執行除了精神評估之外的任何協議。

As absurd as this lawsuit may appear, the law requires us to respect the possibility that the plaintiff is seriously mentally ill.  And, given a history of severe mental illness, the patient did lawfully have a right to a mental assessment prior to termination from the work contract because: 1. school managers knew the plaintiff was mentally ill before they hired him, 2. the school's actions caused the mental breakdown, 3. the school agreed that the plaintiff must seek a mental assessment before the school and plaintiff discuss what to do next, 4. a mentally ill person is generally not capable of making a rational decision, meaning, plaintiff was unable to execute any agreement apart from the mental assessment during the unpaid vacation starting on 25 Jan 2018.

在107年的民事訴訟中，補習班聲稱於107年1月25日終止合同，因為原告沒有提供犯罪記錄檢查。然而，正如107年1月23日17:58的電子郵件清楚地顯示，補習班給原告不到兩天的時間來獲得犯罪記錄檢查，該檢查必須至少提前3天從警察局預訂！原告聲稱補習班的終止理由不合法，但被告（現任被告）沒有在法庭上爭論這一點。然而，在這種情況下的問題是心理評估。學校剝奪了原告進行心理評估的合法權利，因為學校於107年1月25日終止了健康保險。

In the 2018 Civil Lawsuit, the cram school alleges terminating the contract on 25 Jan 2018 because the plaintiff didn't provide a criminal record check.  However, as the email from 23 Jan 2018 at 17:58 clearly shows, the cram school gave the plaintiff less than two days to obtain a criminal record check which must be pre-ordered from the police station at least 3 days in advance!  The plaintiff asserts the cram school's termination ground was not lawful, and yet the defendant (current defendant) didn't argue the point in court.  However, the issue in this case is the mental assessment.  The school denied the plaintiff his lawful right to a mental assessment because the school terminated the health insurance on 25 Jan 2018.

 

頁附卷 | Attached pages

=8，共提交13頁。在QR下載所有內容：

=8, total 13 pages submitted.  Download all at the QR:

L-QR Web: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/tlaw0002.html

R-QR PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBJn0UPacV8tiZpZzCZWh3bXHJJk9cyF/view?usp=sharing

 

謹狀 | Sincerely

我的名字的意思是「把你自己放在我的鞋子裡，做我」，

它是英語的直接翻譯，就像「瑞內」是直接翻譯一樣。

My name means "Put yourself in my shoes, BE me.". 

It is a direct translation from English, just as "Rene" is a direct translation.

中華民國110年07月23日

Republic of China, July 23, 2021

原告：Rene Helmerichs（中華民國：是瑞內）

 

"Are you ready yet to help Me save the world?"

====

#rene.guru

End of page.  Comment on the Main Page:

http://p1.rene.guru

Journal Of A Schizophrenic, with a twist of absolute order.