Upholding the Republic Of China Constitution

聲請包含民國110年7月13日法庭聽證記錄中遺漏的陳述

_yuan0006 | dated 3 Aug 2021, by Rene Helmerichs

List of Yuan Pages: http://p22.rene.guru | Main Pages: http://p1.rene.guru

Motion PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyEkFhd-iLnfZsV73ZorWzW9GT01tv_o/view?usp=sharing

QR: http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/yuan0006.html

708台南市安平區健康路三段308號

受文者：臺灣臺南地方法院

發文日期：中華民國110年8月3日

中華民國 | Taiwan

南院武刑歲108年度易字第1170號

Tainan District Court case "108年度易字第1170號"

聲請核實民國110年7月13日

法庭聽證記錄中遺漏的陳述

Motion to verify missing statements from court hearing record of 13 July 2021

主旨| Subject

聲請依據《刑事訴訟法》第44-1條的規定作出。民國110年7月13日的庭審記錄中存在大量關鍵材料缺失，法院完全無視被告人有長期精神病史，故意剝奪被告人聘請律師的權利。具體來說（記錄中沒有這一點）被告解釋說“我患有嚴重的精神病。因為我有妄想症，我不知道我所感知的是真實的。我有九位醫生可以告訴你。所以我需要我的律師作為我的證人，以便我可以向我的證人詢問發生的事情，以了解它們是否真的發生了。”被告顯然希望得到律師的幫助，但正如記錄所顯示的那樣，法院完全無視了被告的幫助請求。

This motion (聲請) is made pursuant to Article 44-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 《刑事訴訟法》. There is a significant amount of crucial material missing from the court hearing record of 13 July 2021. The court completely ignored that the defendant has a long history of mental illness, and the court intentionally denied the defendant the right to a lawyer. Specifically (and this is missing from the record) the defendant explained "I'm severely mentally ill. Because I'm delusional, I don't know what I perceive is real. I have nine doctors that can tell you that. So I need my lawyer as my witness so that I can ask my witness about things that happened, to know if they really happened." The defendant clearly wanted the help from the lawyer, but, as the record indicates, the court completely ignored the defendant's request for help.

說明| Description

口譯員沒有翻譯被告所說的話。事實上，口譯員沒有翻譯的陳述的例子有很多。被告向法院提供了110年7月13日筆錄中虛假或遺漏陳述的三個具體例子。前兩個示例缺少語句。第三個例子是法庭聽證會記錄第2頁第11至12行的一個非常簡短的陳述，試圖總結超過10分鐘的對話，並且嚴重地錯過了關鍵點，以至於法庭記錄中的官方陳述是公然虛假的。

The interpreter didn't translate what the defendant said. In fact, there are a great many examples of statements which the interpreter didn't translate. The defendant offers the court three concrete examples of statements of false or missing statements from the 13 July 2021 transcript. The first two examples are missing statements. The third example is a very short statement from lines 11 to 12 on page 2 of the court hearing record which attempts to summarize over 10 minutes of dialogue, and which missed the key point to such a severe degree that the official statement in the court record is blatantly false.

一、上午10：08分56秒，被告說

First, at 10:08:56 AM, the defendant said

"The Psychiatrist denied me the mental assessment. It wasn't my request (It wasn't my fault. I didn't decline the assessment.). I was there (at 衛生福利部嘉南療養院 on 31 May 2021) for a mental assessment and he (Doctor 李俊宏) said I couldn't have it. So we need a new psychiatrist."

“精神科醫生拒絕了我的精神評估。這不是我的要求（這不是我的錯。我沒有拒絕評估。）我在那裡（110年5月31日，衛生福利部嘉南療養院）進行心理評估，他（李俊宏醫生）說我不能接受，所以我們需要一個新的精神科醫生。”

二。上午10：12分16秒，被告說：

Second, at 10:12:16 AM, the defendant said:

Now, there's another letter from a different psychiatrist, and he says:

"In my opinion, Mr. Helmerichs (that's me), requires ongoing psychiatric treatment. His mental status is unlikely to improve, and is likely to worsen in the absence of treatment."

That means it's only going to get worse. So, on August 5th, 2015, the court actually declared me insane. The court took away my right to refuse medication, they brought me to a hospital, they locked me up, and they forcibly injected me because they wouldn't let me talk in court. And now I'm in court again, and you're expecting me to talk, without a mental assessment. You're funny. You're really funny.

現在，還有一封來自另一位精神病學家的信，他說：

“在我看來，Helmerichs先生（也就是我）需要持續的精神治療。他的精神狀態不太可能好轉，如果不進行治療，他的精神狀態可能會惡化。”

這意味著情況只會變得更糟。因此，在2015年8月5日，法院實際上宣布我精神失常。法庭剝奪了我拒絕服藥的權利，他們把我帶到醫院，把我關起來，還強行給我注射，因為他們不讓我在法庭上說話。現在我又出庭了，你期待我在沒有心理評估的情況下說話。你好有趣。你真有趣。

三、翻譯人員謊稱，在庭審筆錄第2頁第11至12行，中文文件稱被告稱「我有妄想症、精神分裂症，還有心理上的疾病，所以我需要林泓帆律師當證人，可以透過詰問來釐清一些事實。」，被告可不是這麼說的！具體來說，被告並不是要請律師來澄清事實，而是要確保被告沒有誤解現實！被告需要保障，因為被告有嚴重的精神疾病史，包括妄想症和加重（極端）精神病。丟失的記錄提供給法院，以便法院可以將口頭證詞與從錄音轉錄到本文件中的書面英語對話進行比較。

Third, the interpreter falsely claimed, at lines 11 to 12 on page 2 of the court hearing record, the Chinese document claims the defendant said "I have delusions, schizophrenia, and mental illness, so I need lawyer 林泓帆 as a witness, and I can clarify some facts through cross-examination." That is not what the defendant was saying! Specifically, the defendant wasn't intending to use a lawyer to clarify facts but to ensure that the defendant is not misperceiving reality! The defendant needed the safeguard because of the defendant's history with severe mental illness including Delusional Disorder and aggravated (extreme) psychosis. The missing record is provided to the court so that the court can compare the oral testimony with the written English dialog transcribed from the recording into this document.

關於第三項，法庭記錄中的虛假翻譯和額外遺漏的陳述，以證明儘管被告明確告訴法庭他需要律師，但法官很清楚她不允許被告有律師。：

Regarding the third item, the false translation in the court record and additional missing statements to evidence that the judge was well aware that she did not allow the defendant to have a lawyer despite the fact that the defendant specifically told the court that he wants a lawyer:

上午9：34分02秒，被告人告訴法庭，被告人“需要”林宏帆律師作為證人。英文單詞“need”的真正含義（與被告在法庭上使用的含義相同）是指義務而非選擇，「I need to call Lawyer Lin as a witness.」【“我必要打電話給林律師作證。”】。譯者問「So‧you‧are‧gong‧to,‧um,‧so‧you‧are‧going‧to‧terminate‧the‧lawyer‧and‧client‧relationship?」【“所以你要去，嗯，所以你要終止律師和客戶的關係？”】之後再次強調這一點。被告回答：「Well,‧I‧don't--You're‧not‧giving‧me‧a‧choice.」【“嗯，我沒有——你沒有給我選擇。”】。法庭口譯員沒有翻譯被告想要說的話。相反，法庭口譯員開始與被告爭論，「So,‧are‧you‧going‧to‧terminate‧the‧relationship‧as‧a‧lawyer-client,‧or‧not?"」【“那麼，您是否打算終止作為律師與客戶的關係？”】。

At 9:34:02 AM, the defendant told the court that the defendant "needs" Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) as a witness. The English word "need", in the true meaning (the same meaning which the defendant used in court) refers to an obligation and not a choice, "I need to call Lawyer Lin as a witness." This is again emphasized after the translator asked "So you are gong to, um, so you are going to terminate the lawyer and client relationship?" The defendant answered "Well, I don't--You're not giving me a choice." The court interpreter didn't translate what the defendant was trying to say. Instead, the court interpreter began arguing with the defendant, "So, are you going to terminate the relationship as a lawyer-client, or not?"

這是沒有出現在庭審記錄中的遺漏記錄，證明了法官故意無視法庭程序、法庭禮儀、被告人請求律師的合法權利以及所有常識。首先提供法庭上所說的原始英文單詞，然後是英文到中文的谷歌翻譯。這些是法庭上說的英文原文，翻譯人員似乎沒有翻譯，因為法庭記錄不包含被告陳述的基本含義，即被告是嚴重的精神病患者，有權接受心理健康評估。法院拒絕進行心理健康評估、在盤問期間使用律師、使用翻譯、傳喚必要的有利證人，並反對對檢察官證人撒謊的證據進行刑事調查。這只是缺失陳述的開始。被告沒有時間更仔細地查看記錄。根據第44-1條，向法院提交的期限為7天：

This is the missing record which doesn't appear in the court hearing record, and which proves that the judge intentionally ignored courtroom procedure, courtroom etiquette, the defendant's lawful right to request counsel, and all common sense. These are the original English words spoken in court which the interpreter does not appear to have translated because the courtroom record does not contain the essential meaning of the Defendant's statements, namely, the defendant is a severe mental patient and has a right to mental health assessment. The court is denying the mental health assessment, use of a lawyer during cross-examination, use of an interpreter, calling necessary favourable witnesses, and objects to a criminal investigation of proof that the prosecutor's witnesses are lying. This is just the start of the missing statements. The Defendant hasn't had time to look at the record more carefully. The time limit to submit this to the court is 7 days according to Article 44-1:

法庭聽證筆錄，丟失記錄的一部分

Court hearing transcript, part of the missing record

Date |日期：13 July 2021 | 民國110年7月13日

Time interval | 時間間隔：9:33 AM to 10:16 AM | 上午9：33至上午10：16

Courtroom number | 法庭號碼：11

Criminal court case number: 南院武刑歲108年度易字第1170號

Court address: 708台南市安平區健康路三段308號

9:33:23 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So, do you still need assistance from a lawyer or public defendant?

Defendant: I need to call Lawyer Lin as a witness.

Interpreter: Your lawyer cannot be a witness.

Defendant: Right, so--

9:34:16 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: But, that's why he's not my lawyer. Is she asking me questions? Can I talk? He's not my lawyer today. I need to call him as my witness.

9:34:44 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: so you don't want him to be your lawyer anymore?

Defendant: I want a lawyer but I need him as my witness and he's telling me (that) he can't be my lawyer and my witness. He can only be one.

9:35:00 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So, are you going to terminate the relationship as a lawyer-client, or not?

Defendant: Well, the court can terminate the relationship. I need him as my witness. I want him also as my lawyer, but I need him as my witness.

Interpreter: (The interpreter interrupts the defendant instead of translating what the defendant said) It's up to you.

Defendant: Great, then let him be my lawyer and my witness.

9:35:48 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: Do you need a lawyer to assist in the process of cross-examination?

Defendant: Well, I mean, I have no idea what's going on.

Defendant: Well, I don't--You're not giving me a choice.

Interpreter: So, are you going to terminate the relationship as a lawyer-client, or not?

Defendant: Well, the court can terminate the relationship. I need him as my witness. I want him also as my lawyer, but I need him as my witness.

Interpreter: [interrupting me] It's up to you.

Defendant: Great, then let him be my lawyer and my witness.

9:36:18 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: Do you need a lawyer to assist in the process of cross-examination?

Defendant: Well, I mean, I have no idea what's going on.

9:36:42 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So, later we will proceed with the cross-examination. Either you have your lawyer to proceed with that process for you, or ---

Defendant: or you didn't answer my question if the lawyer is going to be a witness today.

9:37:12 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: We are talking. He would be a lawyer and not be a witness.

Defendant: See? Then we have to talk about that first. The first problem.

9:37:29 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: She [the judge] is trying to trick me. It doesn't work that way.

Defendant: We can be here all day talking about this.

9:37:54 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: --can, can I... Can I let you in on a little secret?

9:38:23 AM (Judge stopped to listen, but ignored the question. Judge continues speaking in Chinese.)

Defendant: What did she (the judge) say?

Interpreter: So, for today's process, either you find Lawyer Lin Hongfan (Scott, 林泓帆) to be your lawyer, otherwise, you dis-assign (dismiss him). You just terminate the relationship.

Defendant: I'm delusional, and I'm Schizophrenic. I'm severely mentally ill. Because I'm delusional, I don't know what I perceive is real. I have nine doctors that can tell you that.

9:38:56 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So you're not--

Defendant: So I need my lawyer as my witness so that I can ask my witness about things that happened, to know if they really happened.

9:39:18 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: Otherwise I'm misperceiving things.

9:39:27 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

9:39:58 AM (林泓帆 and judge)

9:41:12 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: so, according to the record you have already applied to the Legal Aid Association that you want to change your lawyer. You want to terminate your relationship with Lawyer Lin. Is that correct?

Defendant: That's incorrect (not correct). I told Legal Aid that I need Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) as my witness today, and Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) told me that he can't be my witness and be my lawyer. So I said, "Well, we're going to figure it out. This is how we start." So, I submitted the document to court on July 5th to ask the court if Lawyer Scott (林泓帆) can be my witness. Then I told Legal Aid. I said "If lawyer Scott (林泓帆) can't be my lawyer and my witness, then please get me a new lawyer." And so Legal Aid has decided to get me a new lawyer. But, your Honour, this is your courtroom. You can say that he can be my lawyer and be my witness. It's completely within your power.

9:42:13 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: (begins speaking and abruptly stops)

Defendant: Conclusion: I didn't say what she said I said.

Defendant: It's not my choice.

Defendant: It's literally your choice.

9:43:00 AM (Judge conferring with the other two judges)

9:43:37 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: Ok, do you want Scott (林泓帆) to be here? During the process of cross-examination, or do you want him to be temporarily out of this court?

Defendant: Can he be my lawyer and my witness?

Interpreter: No, no, no. He can't be both.

Defendant: So you just made the choice. So why do you keep asking me?

9:44:14 AM (Judge, Interpreter, and 林泓帆 speaking in Chinese)

9:45:16 AM (Everyone is silent)

Defendant: So, what's going on?

Interpreter: We're going to proceed with the cross-examination.

9:45:21 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: Ok, the first issue--we have some procedural items.

Interpreter: No, no, no. It's not your turn to talk.

Defendant: Oh, ok. Let me know when it's my turn.

9:45:30 AM (a lot of Chinese, no one interpreted)

Interpreter: Ok, I'm going to read you your rights.

Number 1, you have the right to remain silent. You don't have to make any statements against your will. [How about not taking any of my statements out of context against my will?]

Number 2, you have the right to legal counsel. And if you are economically under-privileged, such as you have low income or also you are aboriginal or other social status, you have the right to request legal assistance.

And number 3, you have the right to ask for investigation of evidences that are favourable to you. Do you understand your rights? [Is this just something the court says, or do they actually mean what they say?]

Defendant: I would like a lawyer, and I would like a criminal investigation why I did not have a psychiatric assessment.

Interpreter: Uh, you want an investigation of what?

Defendant: Rene: The doctor is saying that I declined the mental assessment, that's not true. I want a criminal investigation.

Interpreter: The doctor said you declined the assessment?

Defendant: Scott (林泓帆) wrote me that the doctor said that I declined the assessment. I did not decline the mental assessment.

Interpreter: Ok, ok.

9:47:01 AM (Judge, Interpreter, and 林泓帆 speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: Well, since you insist to have a lawyer, would you like to have Scott Lin (林泓帆)?

Defendant: We can't have this unless he's going to be a witness because I'm Delusional.

Interpreter: Alright, regarding the facts of crime as stated in the indictment, do you have anything you need to add, or--

Defendant: Is the court going to accept that I have mental illnesses including Schizophrenia and Delusional Disorder?

Interpreter: I, I'm sorry?

Defendant: Is the court willing to accept that I have mental illnesses including Schizophrenia and Delusional Disorder?

Interpreter: So,

9:49:23 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So, do you plead guilty to all the charges?

Defendant: You're asking a Delusional person. I'm not qualified to plead anything.

Defendant: I appreciate that you just want me to go to jail. Thank you very much, fucking bitch.

9:50:07 AM (Judge keeps talking)

Defendant: So, question number 1: Do you accept that I'm delusional and schizophrenic?

9:50:42 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: It's not a matter of acceptance. Well, today's process includes calling the following wit--

Defendant: Today's process is not valid if I am delusional. And I'm telling you (that) nine doctors told me that I'm delusional.

9:51:02 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: Well, today's focus is on the legal matters instead of, you know, the psychiatric mattes.

Defendant: If you are asking me to answer any question, then you have to respect that I am Delusional, and that my answer is invalid.

9:51:49 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: [interrupting but ignored] I can prove that I'm innocence, I have the material.

9:52:13 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: We're going to have the first witness to step forward

Defendant: The first witness is my wife.

9:52:40 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Defendant: The first witness is my wife.

Interpreter: No, no, no. No, according to.

9:52:59 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: No, you have to accept that you have three witnesses today. It's going to be your ex-colleagues. Otherwise, the process won't be able to move on. [An error should be stopped and not allowed to continue!]

9:53:04 AM (silence)

Defendant: (referencing the police officer standing like a gorilla with clenched fists, visually fixated on a spot on the floor three paces ahead of him, standing with his back to main door) He looks like he's ready to jump on somebody.

Interpreter: Nope.

Defendant: You're not going to let me have my wife and my lawyer as my witnesses?

Interpreter: Well, according to the last hearing, we have--both parties have decided not to. We are going to have three witnesses today, who are going to be Clare and the other two, as you can see here. As for your wife and your lawyer Lin, well, they may be your witnesses but not today.

Defendant: Was I allowed to talk at the last hearing? [Reference to the actual contract termination date of 28 Dec 2017].

Interpreter: Well, that's for the last hearing. Let's focus on today's process.

Defendant: Great, let's focus on today's process. I'm delusional and you're not allowing me to verify my reality.

9:54:21 AM (Judge speaking in Chinese)

Interpreter: So, are you going to [give] responses to those three witnesses, or not?

Defendant: Am I allowed to verify my reality?

Interpreter: What do you mean about your reality?

Defendant: I'm delusional. I don't know what's real and what's not real.

Interpreter: So what's your point?

Defendant: [Shouting] My point is, first of all, we have a mental assessment. The doctor said I wasn't allowed to have a mental assessment because I wouldn't submit my brain to a brain scan. But my thinking doesn't come from my brain, it comes from Spirit. And then the lawyer over there (Scott, 林泓帆) says that I'm the one who declined the mental assessment. I'm the one who's sitting talking to a judge who's trying to get me to answer questions knowing that I'm delusional.

Defendant: What's my point?

9:55:55 AM (The interpreter abruptly stops talking. Silence follows.)

Interpreter: Um

Defendant: Where'd we stop?

Defendant: Listen, the doctor wanted me to have a brain scan but I'm telling you that thinking doesn't come from my body. I know that none of this is real.

Interpreter: Ah, ok. Just stop for a moment. Let me finish that.

9:56:45 AM Defendant: If none of it is real, it's all equally not real. And if it's equally unreal, then anything I say is not real. So I can't answer any questions. I can ask the witnesses some questions, but it would be a lot better for me if I actually understood where I am.

【未翻譯。110年7月13日上午9:56:45。】

[Not translated. At 9:56:45 AM on 13 July 2021.]

9:57:00 AM (judge)

Interpreter: So, aside from whole delusional matters, are you going to ask questions?

Defendant: ASIDE from? That is the WHOLE point why we're here. We are here specifically because nine doctors declared me Delusional in Canada, and I told that school that nine doctors declared me delusional in Canada, and they knew that I was delusional before they hired me, and now they're saying that I'm ruining their reputation.

Defendant: So we're here because of my Delusion!

Interpreter: Alright, let me finish that.

9:58:16 AM Interpreter: So, so that doesn't matter. What matters today is whether or not we're going to proceed--

【在上午9：58：16，口譯員說一個人是否患有嚴重的精神病並不重要！真的發生了嗎？】

[At 9:58:16 AM the Interpreter said it doesn't matter if a person is severely mentally ill! Did that really happen?]

Defendant: And before we proceed, I need to know if the court is willing to accept the fact that I'm apparently Delusional and Schizophrenic.

9:58:29 AM (Interpreter and Judge speaking in Chinese for a long time)

10:00:34 AM Defendant [talking about the Chinese on the monitor]: I have no idea what that says.

Interpreter: Alright, the, uh, the later process, the process of questioning mentions later, we're going to do later is, we're going to determine whether all uh, whether just body um, effect of crimes, are valued or not in the indictment, and so whether, whether you are um, um, um, uh, Schizophrenia or D-Delusional, ah, what, uh, matter--we're going to have another, maybe we're going to have another assessment or in-in-investigation later after this hearing. But that's not agreement according to what we're going to do today. So, the point is, um, whether we're going to proceed with the cross-examinations and continue with the psychiatric assessment later, in another day.

Defendant: Is that a "maybe", or will you give me a psychiatric assessment?

Interpreter: Well the Honour is going to have discussion with the other judges and get them to make a decision.

Defendant: [Hysterical laugh] Well, let's investigate the first guy because the first guy said that he could do--that that hospital can do--a mental assessment on that day. I have a transcript from that day. He [the psychiatrist] said that a psychologist will do the mental assessment. But his policy in the hospital says that if I don't do a brain scan, he doesn't let me have the mental assessment with the psychologist. So then he said "Please go back to the court, and the court should be able to send you somewhere else." I have a transcript of that with me, if you would like a copy.

Interpreter: You have a transcript of that?

Defendant: I do. I (audio) recorded everything.

Defendant: It's right here.

Interpreter: So, yeah, they are going to, um--

Interpreter: This is something that, I don't think, I think we do the cross examination or not?

Defendant: I can do the cross-examination. I am requesting that I have two witnesses. It will help you.

Interpreter: Well, we're going to have only--focus on those three witnesses today. As for the other two, for your wife and--

10:04:20 AM Defendant: Then make another court date for the other two.

Interpreter: Alright, as for your request of the other two witnesses, your wife and Lawyer Lin, which is determined by the prosecutor. It's not the judge's decision, alright?

Defendant: Ok.

Interpreter: And for today's cross examinations, without these two witnesses, are you going to proceed or not, it's up to you. [It's up to the Defendant to proceed, but he can't correct errors, only proceed along the course they set?]

Defendant: Well, let's ask the prosecutor if I can have the two witnesses.

Defendant: Is there a confirmation on here [the monitor] that I gave a transcript of the hospital stuff?

Interpreter: Well, she accepted it. It's going to be confirmed.

Defendant: Where is it written? Is it in there? Do you see it?

Interpreter: Yes, here.

Defendant: It says that I gave the transcript?

Interpreter: Yes.

Defendant: Ok, tell them to write down how many pages. I don't see a page number.

Interpreter: [The translator points to the page number at the bottom of a page.] You see a page number here.

Defendant: Tell them how many pages I gave the court, please. Tell them to write down how many pages I gave the court.

Defendant: [the monitor displayed the number "13"] two-sided

Interpreter: It's two-sided.

Defendant: Thank you.

Interpreter: Well, according to the, uh, the prosecutors, she doesn't feel there's a need for you to have your wife be a witness.

Defendant: Ok, then please tell the prosecutor we need to evaluate my mental state before we can continue.

10:08:56 AM Defendant: The Psychiatrist denied me the mental assessment. It wasn't my request (It wasn't my fault. I didn't decline the assessment.). I was there for a mental assessment and he said I couldn't have it. So we need a new psychiatrist.

【未翻譯。110年7月13日上午10:08:56。】

[Not translated. At 10:08:56 AM on 13 July 2021.]

Interpreter: Um, or, um, it's not, it's not um, it's against the uh, uh, uh the process of litigation if you want to have, uh, Scott Lin, your lawyer, to be, to be your witness, to, uh, testify against the uh facts to be proved in this court. And it is not, uh, it is against the process of litigation, so, and, and, and, and the witnesses are not here to prove all these, all these things and, and, and, according to law the, your witnesses have to, uh, personally involved boyya--

【有10個“嗯”和“呃”和8個“和”。講話聽不懂。】

[There are 10 "um"s and "uh"s and 8 "and"s. The speech was unintelligible.]

Defendant: Can you, can you, can you stop talking? I actually--what she said, is bullshit. I'm the one who's being accused. It's my right to defend against accusations, and she's denying me a defense. So, allow me to provide the court with evidence that I have a severe mental illness from a court transcript dated August 5th, 2015, psychiatrist William Komer. He says that I have Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Delusional Disorder, Psychosis, and Psychosis not otherwise specified, with a bunch of other differential diagnoses.

10:12:16 AM Defendant: Now, there's another letter from a different psychiatrist, and he says:

"In my opinion, Mr. Helmerichs (that's me, the defendant), requires ongoing psychiatric treatment. His mental status is unlikely to improve, and is likely to worsen in the absence of treatment."

【未翻譯。110年7月13日上午10:12:16。】

[Not translated. At 10:12:16 AM on 13 July 2021.]

Defendant: Two witnesses can verify my delusion for me. If you won't give me that--

Interpreter: Uh, the prosecutor is going to request witness to Clare Jung, that's about the facts to be proved will be the main focus of today.

10:15:14 AM Defendant: Ok, so how about my witnesses? Am I allowed to have my witnesses?

被告在法庭結束時告訴法官“離開帶著你的他媽的指責”，因為法官和律師以及其他所有人一樣，都錯誤地指控了被告。他們堅持認為他在110年5月31日拒絕了精神評估，而實際上醫生拒絕將精神評估與身體評估分開，法院隨後拒絕調查原因！110年5月31日，被告人沒有拒絕精神評估。法官簡直是在逼著被告人再次精神崩潰！這與法院應該做的相反！請準確翻譯「FUCK‧OFF‧WITH‧YOUR‧ACCUSATIONS」（包括使用攻擊性語言的情緒表達）或直接在110年7月13日修訂的法庭聽證會記錄中註明英文。如果包含英語，請記住使用所有大寫字母來充分錶達法官故意煽動精神崩潰的程度，尤其是在剝奪被告就此進行刑事調查的權利之後。

The defendant told the judge "Fuck off with your accusations!" at the end of court because the judge, like the lawyer, and everyone else, is wrongly accusing the Defendant. They insist that he refused the mental assessment on 31 May 2021 when in fact the doctor declined to separate the mental assessment from a physical assessment, and the court subsequently refuses to investigate why! The defendant did not decline the mental assessment on 31 May 2021. The judge literally drove the defendant to have another mental breakdown! This is the opposite of what a court is supposed to do! Please accurately translate "Fuck off with your accusations!" (including emotional expression in using offensive language) or directly state the English in the revised court hearing record of 13 July 2021. If the English is incorporated, remember to use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS to adequately express the extent to which the judge intentionally instigated the mental breakdown, especially after denying the defendant the right to a criminal investigation about it.

此外，法官還指控被告在109年10月13日拒絕接受精神評估。中國的記錄中可能也沒有這一指控。被告希望傲慢的法官明白，刑事訴訟法不允許精神科醫生在法院確定犯罪發生之前評估被告可能的妄想。由於法院沒有調查被告人於109年4月29日提交的任何答辯書，法院也沒有對補習班管理人員聲稱勒索的虛假中文翻譯作出第二意見，因此，刑事訴訟程序要求被告人推遲第一次心理評估。

Furthermore, the judge also accused the defendant of refusing the mental assessment on 13 Oct 2020. That accusation is probably also missing from the Chinese record. The defendant would like to arrogant judge to understand that Criminal Procedural Law does not allow a psychiatrist to assess the defendant about possible delusions until the court establishes that a crime occurred. Since the court did not investigate any of the defendant's defence submission dated 29 April 2020, and the court did not order a second opinion about the false Chinese translation which the cram school managers allege to be extortion, therefore, Criminal Procedure required the Defendant to postpone the first mental assessment.

***提交給法庭的文件包含110年7月13日

起的28頁中文法庭聽證會記錄，就在此處***

***The submission to court contained the 28-page Chinese-language

court hearing record from 13 July 2021 right here ***

R-QR PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyEkFhd-iLnfZsV73ZorWzW9GT01tv_o/view?usp=sharing

根據《刑事司法法》第44-1條的規定，被告有權為更正其內容提出要求播放錄音錄像的動議。被告主張：

According to 《刑事訴訟法》第44-1條, the defendant has a right to make a motion to request the playing of the audio or video records for the purpose of correcting the contents thereof. The Defendant claims:

1、法院剝奪了被告聘請律師的權利。

2、法院剝奪被告人就該醫生未完成法院要求的110年5月31日精神評估的原因進行調查的權利。

3、法院否認被告有權調查為什麼公訴人的證人向被告發送了多封電子郵件，稱他將從107年1月25日開始休無薪假，直到他接受精神評估，但公訴人的證人卻錯誤地告訴法庭他們解雇了被告於107年1月25日。

1. The court denied the defendant the right to a lawyer.

2. The court denied the defendant the right to an investigation why the doctor did not complete the court-requested mental assessment of 31 May 2021.

3. The court denied the defendant the right to an investigation why the prosecutor's witnesses sent the defendant multiple emails that he will take an unpaid vacation beginning on 25 Jan 2018 until he receives a mental assessment, but the prosecutor's witnesses falsely told the court they fire the defendant on 25 Jan 2018.

4、法院駁回了林宏帆律師關於公訴人證人為掩蓋芝麻街凱仕蘭學校（Kidsland）發生的重大犯罪欺詐行為而捏造107年1月25日終止日期的證據。例如，106年8月14日，在被告告訴經理，被告也被指控在加拿大進行性跟踪和虐待兒童之後，經理允許一名患有嚴重精神病的被告在學校旅行期間過夜監督年輕學生。（被告的妻子可以驗證前一句是準確的，但法院不允許她作證。）

5、法院沒有確保翻譯員將審判內容翻譯給被告（因為除了整個起訴書之外，還有很多檢察官和法官的陳述沒有翻譯員翻譯）

6、法庭沒有確保口譯員翻譯被告對法庭所說的話

4. The court denied evidence from lawyer Scott (林泓帆) that the prosecutor's witnesses fabricated the 25 Jan 2018 termination date in order to conceal major criminal fraud occurring at Kidsland school (芝麻街凱仕蘭). For example, the managers allowed a severely mentally ill Defendant to supervise young students overnight during a school trip on 14 Aug 2017, after the Defendant told the managers that the defendant is also accused of sexual stalking and child abuse in Canada. (The defendant's wife can verify the previous sentence is accurate, but the court didn't allow her to be a witness.)

5. The court did not ensure that the interpreter translated the trial to the defendant (because there are a lot more missing statements from prosecutors and judges which the interpreter did not translate, in addition to the entire indictment).

6. The court did not ensure that the interpreter translated what the defendant said to the court.

7、法院不允許被告人向法院表明被告人患有嚴重的妄想症，需要絕對核實其環境中的事件確實正在發生，例如，法院是否真的剝奪了被告人獲得法律顧問的權利知道被告有嚴重的精神疾病史？

8、刑事訴訟法允許被告傳喚對其辯護有利和不利的證人。只使用不利的證人而不允許被告有有利的證人是不正當的程序。

9、法院根本沒有遵循適當的程序。我們可以在下一個預定的開庭日期，即110年8月11日開始翻譯起訴書。

7. The court did not allow the defendant to impress upon the court that the defendant suffers from severe Delusional Disorder and needs absolute verification that events in his environment are actually occurring, for example, did the court really denied a defendant the right of legal counsel knowing that the defendant has a history of severe mental illness?

8. Criminal Procedural law allows the defendant to call witnesses both favourable and not favourable to his defence. It's not proper procedure to only use adverse witnesses and not allow the defendant to have beneficial witnesses.

9. The court did not follow proper procedure, at all. We can please begin with a translation of the indictment at the next scheduled court date, 11 Aug 2021.

謹狀 | End argument

在QR下載所有內容（包括110年7月13日的庭審中文副本）：

Download all at the QR (including the 13 July 2021 Chinese copy of the court hearing):