Tsai's Thesis Gate（蔡英文論文門）

Author：Michael Richardson（美國獨立撰稿人）
※ Excerpt aus：https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/author/richardsonreports/

—（January 18, 2024）In the latest chapter（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPkUDT1914Q）, UK Watchdog explores state-sponsored misinformation and exposes three LSE executives as agents of misinformation（Danny O'Connor, Clive Wilson, Marcus Cerny）.……UK Watchdog asks the question, who provided state-sponsored disinformation? On June 4, 2019, Hwan Lin was able to pry a candid answer from a librarian at the LSE Library about Tsai Ing-wen's thesis. “LSE Library has never had a copy of this thesis.” Lin further learned two other libraries never had the thesis. “Senate House apparently never received a copy and the IALS are unable to find their copy.” Lin followed up with queries about why acquisition records and a thesis abstract were also missing. One week later, Danny O'Connor, Media Relations Manager, was assigned to help formulate the response to Lin's questions. O'Connor jumped in immediately and warned, “Agents of the PRC working in the University of North Carolina.”…… O'Connor's first day on the thesis assignment saw him busy drafting a media statement which he supplied on June 12 to the Taiwan People's Daily News to rebut a story questioning the validity of Tsai's thesis. After O'Connor sent out his media release to Taiwan, Shih Fang-long, Tsai's personal representative at the LSE, praised O'Connor……On June 13, 2019, O'Connor responded to Hwan Lin using the British Library's EThOS listing as proof the thesis had been properly examined by the University of London. “They clearly received their copy because otherwise it would not have been processed and appear on their catalogue—and from there on the British Library catalogue.”……Clive Wilson（Library Enquiry Services Manager） also knew from a chat with Shih Fang-long that the controversy was domestic and not originating in China. “Apparently the Taiwan press and the opposition party are trying to relate this to the incident over Saif gaddafi and the Libyan donation.” Wilson changed his tune four days later in an email to the British Library, suddenly there was a foreign influence to the story. “I don't know if you know it or not, but Ing-Wen Tsai is the current President of Taiwan so some Chinese journalists are making a big deal about her thesis being missing.” Christopher Hughes, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at LSE, chimed in that “it is certainly possible that someone or some organization with bad intentions has taken the thesis from the library.”……In response to Hwan Lin's query about why Tsai's thesis was not searchable in the UL library system, O'Connor drafted a reply and circulated it within the LSE for comments.……“Colleagues have made further enquiries and Senate House Library records do indicate that a copy was received. Senate House also confirmed they sent their copy of the thesis to the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) 35 years ago.” Marcus Cerny（PhD Academy Director） commented. “If I recall, the thesis was actually sent to IALS in 2011.”“I would keep the date out of it and just say that Senate House Library confirmed they sent it to IALS.”…… O'Connor who drafted a statement for Wilson refusing to allow his name to be cited in Lin's article. Then O'Connor grabbed at the idea of trying to get Lin in trouble at the University of North Carolina. “I might copy in his department head from his university, for information.” On July 2, 2019, O'Connor replied to Lin, and his department head, O'Connor used the statement he prepared for Wilson, although he followed Cerny's advice and left off the 2011 date, a material fact which leaves a reader with a false impression of the thesis history.……Two emails sent by the UL to the LSE in July 2015 and June 2019, respectively, did not confirm Tsai's PhD degree. Further, the What Do They Know response in January 2022 by the UL that the thesis was never received by Senate House Library contradicts O'Connor's incorrect response to Lin's FOI request.
大意：LSE的高層人士先後製造各種假訊息，例如利用大英圖書館2015年才登錄的書目來證明蔡英文的論文早在35年前就存在，並且閉口不談倫大總圖將論文移交給IALS的時間點是在2011年，甚至誣指林環牆是中共同路人。

—（January 24, 2024）UK Watchdog's latest chapter in its periodic online reports reveals that Tsai did not pay the fee for her PhD examination.（https://richardsonreport.com/report-integrity-of-lse-archives/）On July 12, 2015, Simeon Underwood, Academic Registrar at the LSE, was reviewing the history of Tsai Ing-wen's graduate studies. “There may be features of the process which reflect the academic habits of the mid-1980s and would be frowned upon today.”……Tsai's student registration form at the LSE……“10/11/82 WD from course—financial difficulties.” UK Watchdog wanted to compare Tsai's student registration form with other students at the time. ……V.V. was registered for three school years, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. V.V. had a supervisor assigned for each of the three school years. However, Tsai was only registered for two school years, 1980-81 and 1981-82. No registration for 1982-83 and no supervisor for that school year was recorded on her record. The remarks section for the two students, V.V. and Tsai, have very different entries. V.V.'s registration form states: “25/1/83 Transferred to CRS. 22/6/83 No re-reg 83/84 course complete.” Tsai's remarks section makes no mention of CRS which stands for Completing Research Status. Instead, there was the notation that Tsai withdrew from course. Tsai was terminated from her course of study two months before her thesis title was approved, seven months before she submitted her thesis, and eleven months before her viva examination in October 1983. A LSE response to a Freedom of Information request on What Do They Know website confirmed that Tsai was only registered until June 1982.……Nowhere in the（1982-1983 LSE）calendar did it state that fees were not required after completing two academic years of course of study. For students registered in the graduate school, as was Tsai, the “continuation fee is payable by research degree students who have completed their approved courses of study, but have been permitted to continue their registration.”…… To be re-registered for 1981-1982, V.V. had to inform the Secretary of the LSE Graduate School that she wished to re-register, and submit a completed Report Form showing her research work in 1980-1981 signed by her supervisor. This was followed by a Re-Registration Form. V.V. again had to submit a completed Report Form for her research work in 1981-82 signed by her supervisor and submit another Re-Registration Form for 1982-83. On January 25, 1983, V.V.'s registration was transferred to CRS, indicating that her thesis would be ready within 12 months.……The fees charged by LSE in the early 1980s were composition fees that covered registration, teaching, first entry to examinations, the use of the library, and membership of the Students' Union. Based on the LSE fees regulations, the sessional fee V.V. paid for 1982-1983 covered the first entry to the PhD viva examination.……（UK Watchdog:）“The regulations about the continuation fee confirm that receiving advice from supervising teachers was not free. In addition, Tsai did not pay the sessional fee for 1982-1983. As a result, her first entry to the PhD exam in mid-October 1983 was not covered.”…… According to Haynes, it was not uncommon at the time of Tsai's period of study for PhD candidates in UK universities to complete their thesis independently, and be permitted to enter for examination. The LSE is considered one of the United Kingdom's top ten colleges. If Haynes was correct that independent study without payment of fees was “not uncommon” then there should be other students with a similar academic history. UK Watchdog reviewed FOI requests to the other top ten schools. Each university's regulations in the early 1980s about minimum registration requirements and fees for PhD students were reviewed, including exceptions, for example, permitting a PhD student to terminate registration early due to financial difficulties but continue to receive advice from a supervisor, complete the doctoral thesis independently, be permitted to enter for examination without fee and be awarded a PhD degree without being registered. Imperial College refused to answer the FOI request calling it vexatious. University College London, one of the UL affiliated schools like the LSE, responded by citing the UL regulations which do not allow for exceptions like Tsai received.……（The University of St. Andrews, Bath, Durham, Warwick, Loughborough, Oxford, Cambridge）……Thus Kevin Haynes' claim it was common for no-fee independent study at United Kingdom colleges was not correct. Thus far to date, there is no other example of a student withdrawing from school and being permitted to be examined without payment of a fee other than Tsai Ing-wen.
大意：LSE曾表示上世紀80年代中期的學術習慣可能會引起今日人們的不滿、英國大學博士生獨立完成論文的情況並不少見，但是對照LSE同期生VV的資料、以及英國各大學當年的規定，確認並無類似蔡英文未註冊而能考試畢業的特例。

—（January 27, 2024）Fugitive internet talk show host Dennis Peng has complained that Google has banned his use of AdSense on YouTube reducing his revenue stream. ……According to Peng, Google determined he had delivered harmful digital content thus violating community standards. Peng said he believes the ROC is behind the Google ban.……Peng has turned the controversy into a money machine, publishing three books on the topic, broadcasting dozens of programs jammed up with advertising, promoting a “Justice” clothing line linked to an online shopping network, and soliciting donations for a long-announced future lawsuit against the LSE. Peng's third book Evil Officials Three is largely a reprint of a cache of LSE emails available for free to the public at RichardsonReport.com（https://richardsonreport.com/）. The emails were posted by UK Watchdog, an independent research team.……Peng says he still needs more money for litigation. “We don't have enough money to bring the lawsuit at this moment, hope will do soon.” “I am having more than 20 trials in Taiwan. it will be up to 50 trials next May.” “I will publish the income and expense when the whole things done, not at this timing.…I still need to sell my condos to compensate the deficit.”…… As of a year ago, Peng had raised over $10,000,000 NT for his war chest. On June 12, 2019, True Voice of Taiwan announced its early successful raising of $5,105,700 NT through the fundraising platform of FlyingV.……On October 15, 2022, True Voice of Taiwan announced its successful raising of $5,000,000 NT. In the announcement Peng claimed the funds would entirely be used for a lawsuit against the LSE. So far no lawsuit and no explanation where all the donated money has been spent.
大意：彭文正曾於2019年6月和2022年10月進行各約500萬的募款，尚未公布收支狀況，並且將已被釋出的論文門相關資訊整理出書，還經營著商品網購、節目廣告。目前《政經關不了》被YouTube停止營利功能，而再次募款的他懷疑政府是幕後黑手。（編按：《惡官》3以中英對照、附加導讀的方式介紹2019年的LSE相關電郵。彭文正目前的訴訟主要在於台灣法院的民事官司，其中包括提告LSE法律團隊負責人Kevin Haynes提供偽證的部分）

—（February 2, 2024）Now the UK Watchdog has found a smoking gun, President Tsai was not approved for the PhD program by the Graduate School Committee as claimed and required. UK Watchdog has verified its finding with school regulations and student files. The latest UK Watchdog （https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWH8rTP89U）report chapter details the story. The University of London 1983-1984 regulations state, “A candidate for a research degree will be registered initially for the M.Phil. Degree.” Further, “A student registered for the M.Phil. degree would be permitted to transfer to registration for the PhD, and the School or Institute might permit such transfer on the recommendation of the Supervisor and should so inform the University.”The London School of Economics had similar regulations.“Should the supervisor(s) of a student registered for the MPhil consider that the student's work is of doctoral standard, the student may, on their recommendation and with the permission of the School, be transferred to registration for the PhD degree.”Based on these provisions, the registration transfer from MPhil to PhD in the early 1980s was an activity at the LSE, and the LSE had the authority to permit the transfer independent of the UL. It was a three-step procedure. A registration transfer was recommended by the supervisor, the registration transfer was approved by the Graduate School Committee, and notification of the approval by the LSE Graduate School followed. UK Watchdog compared the LSE student file of a deceased student, designated VV……The research team then dug into the LSE Calendar records and learned the Graduate School Committee met twice, on January 20, 1982 and February 17, 1982, during the semester when Tsai transferred to PhD candidate status.……（December 18, 2020）Haynes confirmed that Michael John Elliott, Tsai's supervisor, recommended Tsai's registration transfer on February 9, 1982, and Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, confirmed to Tsai the approval on February 11, 1982.……However, the Graduate School Committee did not meet.……The Graduate School Committee met twenty days before Elliott's recommendation and again six days after Stephenson's letter, but not in between. Based on these records, Tsai's registration transfer from MPhil to PhD did not follow the three-step procedure required by the academic regulations.……In response to the Prosecutors Office's request, on July 23, 2020, Haynes found Stephenson's letter dated February 11, 1982, on page 120 of Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives and verified it as authentic. On March 31, 2021, based on the documents authenticated by Kevin Haynes, the ROC Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted talk show host Dennis Peng for criminal defamation. UK Watchdog, aware that Stephenson's letter was unsigned, asks who wrote Stephenson's notification letter about the approval of Tsai's registration transfer? UK Watchdog also asks how and when did Stephenson's letter find its way into Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives?
大意：根據修業規定中碩轉博的過程、以及LSE公開的行事曆，研究委員會只在1982年1月20日和2月17日召開過相關會議，因此不可能發生Michael Elliot在2月9日建議讓蔡英文碩轉博、2月11日就發出准許通知書的情事。（編按：VV檔案中的時間序為：1982年10月11日得到推薦，13日召開會議，18日寄出通知）

—（February 9, 2024）UK Watchdog begins the latest chapter in its ongoing report with the UL regulations governing theses.（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-mmHxjktA）The 1983-1984 UL regulations provided that a candidate must have the final thesis title approved by his or her supervisor and the approval must be notified to the UL. According to the LSE's regulations, the final thesis title should be submitted, with the supervisor's recommendation, to the Graduate School Committee through the LSE Graduate School Office. The Committee approval must then be forwarded to the UL under the LSE rules.……According to VV's LSE student record, VV's thesis title was approved on December 14, 1982. A Thesis Title Approval Form is found in the VV file. VV's supervisor signed the form to recommend VV's final thesis title to the Graduate School Committee for approval on November 26, 1982. According to the 1982-1983 LSE Calendar, the LSE Graduate School Committee met on December 8, 1982, when VV's final thesis title would have been approved. On December 14, 1982, Ian Stephenson, Committee secretary, sent a thesis title approval notification letter, the completion of a three-step process. President Tsai's LSE student record indicates that Tsai's final thesis title was approved on January 19, 1983. The approval was more than two months after Tsai withdrew from the LSE on November 10, 1982. Tsai was not registered at the time and no supervisor was assigned for 1982-1983. Tsai had no supervisor to sign the Thesis Title Approval Form for recommending the approval of Tsai's final thesis title to the Graduate School Committee. On September 23, 2019, Dun-Han Chang, one of Tsai's spokespersons, asserted that the LSE began reviewing Tsai's thesis title in November 1982. Chang evidently did not know the three-step procedure for approving the final thesis title in the early 1980s. Had LSE begun reviewing Tsai's thesis title in November 1982, Tsai's final thesis title would have been approved by the Graduate School Committee either on November 3 or December 8, 1982.……But Stephenson's letter was sent on the same day the Graduate School Committee met on January 19, 1983 at 4:30 p.m. UK Watchdog considers it extremely unlikely that the Graduate School office had the time or worked overtime after the Committee meeting ended to type up and send Stephenson's notification letter to Tsai on the same day.……The LSE refuses to answer questions about Tsai citing the Personal Data Protection Act so the overtime speculation remains unproven.……Problems with President Tsai's thesis title do not stop with the mysterious Ian Stephenson letter. Based on information in the public domain, Tsai has offered up six different titles for her thesis. The first title, purportedly approved after Tsai dropped out, was Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions. Two months later, March 11, 1983, Tsai completed an Overseas Student Job Application Form and translated the title into Chinese with Unfair Competition and Safeguarding Domestic Markets. On September 28, 1984, Tsai filled out a Teacher Qualification Review for her teaching position as an associate professor at the National Chengchi University, the title of her doctoral thesis was Law of Subsidies, Dumping, and Market Safeguards.……Tsai filled out another Chengchi University Teacher Qualification Review in August 1990. The thesis title changed again. According to this Teacher Qualification Review, Tsai's doctoral thesis title was International Unfair Competition and Market Emergency Safeguards. In 2012, Tsai ran for the presidency for the first time. On an island-wide university campus tour between March and June 2011, Tsai told her story about how her final thesis title was approved on almost every campus. “My thesis title was 'safeguarding domestic markets'. ……but I added one more phrase after that, 'in a changing world'. ……The Committee members told me to delete the phrase.”……Four months later, on October 25, 2011, Tsai published her autobiography. According to her autobiography, her proposed thesis title was Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard for Domestic Market in a Changing World, and her approved thesis title was Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard for Domestic Market. UK Watchdog notes President Tsai has offered up six titles and asks which one was approved by the Graduate School Committee and when? UK Watchdog also asks when was Ian Stephenson's unsigned letter sent and by whom?……Many have suggested that Tsai's missing thesis slipped through the cracks between the LSE and the UL, however, a bogus letter would support allegations of academic fraud.……The list of questions is adding up. A missing thesis, no supervisor, no examination fee, questionable Graduate School Committee approval, false statements by the London School of Economics, false statements by the University of London, false statements by the British Library, six different thesis titles, and refusals to release examiner names and their viva report do not build public confidence in Tsai Ing-wen's PhD award.
大意：蔡英文先後說出六個不同的論文題目。根據LSE行事曆，並對照VV檔案（1982年11月26日報請核准，12月8日召開會議，14日寄出通知），可推導出所謂從1982年11月開始審核蔡英文的論文題目、次年1月19日研究委員會會議當天加班寄出通知的過程不合常理，涉嫌學術欺詐。

—（March 1, 2024）The latest UK Watchdog report chapter （https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqTV5rN02lo） looks closely at President Tsai's LSE student record and finds it is in violation of University of London examination regulations.……According to Tsai's Office, “Date of Entry” printed on Tsai's LSE student record was the time when the doctoral thesis was submitted.……Tsai's office also disclosed school official Ian Stephenson's To-Whom-It-May-Concern letter dated January 23, 1984, as further evidence of Tsai's thesis submission date and PhD viva exam date. The letter certified that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis in June 1983, and her PhD exam was held four months later in mid-October 1983. On February 23, 2022, the UL disclosed an email chain on What Do They Know website. One of the emails in the email chain was sent from the UL, stating that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis to the Research Degree Examination Office at the UL on June 15, 1983. On October 21, 2019, Rachel Maguire, Information and Records Manager at the LSE, confirmed that Tsai's PhD viva exam was held on Sunday, October 16, 1983.……The 1983-1984 UL Regulations provided that to present for examination, a PhD student must apply to the LSE for an examination entry form; then the form must be completed and submitted to the Academic Registrar at the UL.……On March 22, 1983, the LSE Graduate School Office sent VV's examination entry form to the Academic Department at the UL on behalf of VV. The Date of Entry noted on VV's LSE student record was March 1983……UK Watchdog asks if President Tsai could have submitted both the examination entry form and the thesis at the same time on the Date of Entry. The research team then answers its own question with the answer, a big fat No! The 1983-1984 UL Regulations provided that the examination entry form should be submitted four months before the PhD thesis could be submitted. The 1982-1983 LSE Calendar had similar regulations stating examination entry forms were available from the Graduate School office and should be returned about three or four months before the proposed date of submission. Two FOIA requests for old examination entry forms were respectively submitted to, but refused by both the UL and the LSE. According to LSE's 2023-2024 examination entry form for MPhil/PhD examination available online, the form was designed to trigger the viva examiner appointment process. This is very important as the examiner nomination process can take some time.……The Committee that appointed examiners met only twice per term.……the examiners would need at least six to eight weeks to read the thesis before the PhD exam could be held.……If Tsai's LSE student record is authentic,……then the earliest time for Tsai to submit her doctoral thesis was October 1983.……Tsai's entry form was submitted in June 1983, shortly before the Summer Session ended on July 1, 1983. The Committee responsible for appointing examiners did not meet during the summer vacation and could only appoint Tsai's viva examiners when the Committee met during the fall term from September 29 to December 9, 1983. UK Watchdog concludes that either Tsai's student record is not authentic or alternatively if the thesis was submitted on the Date of Entry rather than the examination entry form, then the exam application should have been made in February 1983 to allow the four month waiting period. UK Watchdog raises the question of forgery on Tsai's Date of Entry or clerical error.……Tsai began applying for a teaching position in Taiwan shortly after she withdrew from the LSE on November 10, 1982.……Tsai was scheduled to return to Taiwan after receiving a PhD in May.……Michael Elliott, on February 17, 1983, in response to Tsai's request for a certificate indicating that Tsai was about to complete her PhD work. The letter certified that Tsai would shortly submit her thesis for a PhD degree, and her examination would be held not in October but in the Spring. With a PhD exam in the Spring of 1983, the examination entry form had to be submitted before Tsai withdrew from the LSE on November 10, 1982.……The LSE repeatedly reminded PhD students to submit the entry form in time to avoid administrative difficulties.……Failing to re-register for 1982-1983 at the LSE in June 1982, Tsai was not required to estimate her thesis submission date and she was not reminded that the examination entry form must be submitted about three or four months before the intended thesis submission.……UK Watchdog states that June 83 was most likely purposely handwritten in the blank box under Date of Entry to prove Tsai’s thesis submission date by someone unfamiliar with the LSE student record after Tsai declared her PhD thesis submission date.
大意：蔡英文學籍卡上的Date of Entry：June 83理當是指提交考試報名表的時間，而提交論文之前還必須先任命口試委員（大約需時三、四個月），加上暑假期間無法開會決定，而後審查論文也需要六週左右，那麼10月口試基本上是不可能的。同理，如果蔡英文在withdrew之前沒有提交報名表，那麼她告訴Elliott春季口試的計畫就是無中生有。

—（March 2, 2024）（Kevin）Haynes maintains that Tsai's degree is legitimate and told investigators that her thesis examiners were Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh, both from the LSE. However, the LSE now says that the school does not know who examined Tsai and lacks examination records. Haynes' subordinate, Rachael Maguire, defends Haynes explaining his answers were the result of a “hurried view” of Tsai's student file.……Peng sued Haynes in Taiwan but had his case dismissed with instructions to bring the action in the United Kingdom.……The High Court ruling now allows Peng to resume his lawsuit against Haynes in Taiwan. A three-judge panel……ordered the case back to Taipei District Court for proceedings to commence.……“The appellant argued in the original trial that the appellee, who was employed as the manager of the legal department of the London School of Economics and Political Science, colluded with the President of the Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen, and her team to provide false documents (hereinafter referred to as the disputed documents) to the Representative Office of the Republic of China in the United Kingdom,……”……“The gist of the appeal is that the original court held that the courts of the Republic of China did not have international jurisdiction, but then held that even if they did have international jurisdiction, they should refuse to exercise jurisdiction. The reasoning is contradictory. Moreover, the applicable law and jurisdiction of this case are two separate matters. The original court held that the applicable law of this case should be British law, and that it would be more appropriate for the British courts to hear the case. This clearly confuses the application of substantive law and procedural law. The original ruling dismissed his lawsuit on the grounds of lack of international jurisdiction, which is erroneous.”……“However, there is no express provision in the Law Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Applicable in the Relations Between the People of the Republic of China and Those of Foreign Countries regarding the jurisdiction of international torts.”……“Although the appellee is a British citizen, he has no difficulty in receiving court documents in the Republic of China and he can decide to come to Taiwan to defend himself in person or appoint a lawyer in the Republic of China to represent him in the litigation.”……“If it is necessary to investigate evidence in the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China can be entrusted to assist with the process.” “Moreover, the High Court of England has clearly acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Republic of China and can enforce judgments of the courts of the Republic of China (refer to the letter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated July 15, 2013, No. 10201088030).”
大意：在彭文正提告海恩斯的訴訟中，雖然一審遭到駁回，法官認為不應在台審理，但是高等法院的合議庭認定我國具有管轄權，而且外國人士可以委任律師在台訴訟，並由外館協助證據調查，加上英國亦能執行台灣法院的判決，裁定發回更審。（編按：可利用司法院「裁判書查詢」系統查閱「臺灣臺北地方法院112年度重訴字第177號民事裁定」和「臺灣高等法院113 年度抗字第18號民事裁定」）

—（March 6, 2024）UK Watchdog begins its latest report （https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guIGTSuF7qQ） on November 10, 1982, when Tsai withdrew from course at the London School of Economics and Political Science.……However, according to the cover story authored by Emily Rauhala, TIME's Beijing correspondent, on June 29, 2015,……“She earned her PhD also in law, in less than three years.”…… UK Watchdos says Rauhala's report is inconsistent with the timeline of Tsai's PhD journey disclosed on September 23, 2019, which was prepared based on the records found in Tsai's LSE student file sent to Tsai's Presidential Office. Tsai was registered with the LSE in October 1980. Tsai's viva exam was held in October 1983, and the UL sent her viva result notification letter in February 1984. Based on the timeline, it took 41 months for Tsai to earn her PhD, more than three years.……In order to apply for a teaching position in Taiwan, Tsai managed to obtain an official transcript of her LLM from Cornell University on December 10, 1982, only one month after she withdrew from course at the LSE on November 10, 1982. In Tsai's Overseas Student Job Application Registration Form（March 11, 1983）, Tsai wrote that her PhD program spanned from October 1980 to May 1983, and she planned to return to Taiwan in May 1983. Tsai managed to obtain a letter from her supervisor Michael Elliott in February（17,）1983, certifying that Tsai was about to complete her PhD work and Tsai's PhD exam would be held in the Spring of 1983, not October 1983. The official letter sent from the National Youth Commission to Chengchi University on May 23, 1983, stated that Tsai was scheduled to return to Taiwan after receiving her PhD in May 1983. These documents show that Tsai followed the game plan earning a PhD degree in less than three years, as reported by Rauhala in the TIME magazine article.……President Tsai's PhD journey at LSE was a unique one. She earned a PhD degree after withdrawing from her course at LSE due to financial difficulties and after submitting a thesis title. On August 10, 2021, the National Immigration Agency released Tsai's Entry and Exit Record, certifying that Tsai returned to Taiwan on June 30, 1983.……The National Chengchi University Law Review published Tsai's first journal article in June 1983, Volume 27, entitled “Safeguarding Domestic Markets in International Trade.” According to （Winifred） Tung's research, it was a duplicate of Tsai's personal copy of her doctoral thesis from pages 252 to 298. According to the timeline of Tsai's PhD journey in the United Kingdom, it was published in Taiwan in the same month that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis for her PhD exam to the Univerity of London. This journal article was Tsai's debut as a legal scholar supposedly having a PhD in International Economic Law from the LSE.……A Soochow University Faculty Employment certificate indicates that Tsai landed at Soochow University and began her teaching career on September 1, 1983.……On October 20, 1983, the United Daily News in Taipei published on op-ed and the author was Tsai who had a PhD degree in international economic law from LSE. The article was published four days after her purported PhD viva oral examination in London.……UK Watchdog says based on these documents, a new timeline can be established.……The new timeline shows Tsai's activities after she withdrew from her course at the LSE on November 10, 1982, and it is significantly different from the timeline disclosed on September 23, 2019.
大意：在2019年總統府記者會之後，新的證據顯示蔡英文在1982年12月申請了美國的成績單，次年2月私下請Elliott開出春季將口試的證明，3月求職時說自己計畫5月回國，甚至6月與10月以博士頭銜發表文章，並於9月進入東吳任教，這些皆與6月提交論文、10月口試的說法有出入。

—（March 12, 2024）UK Watchdog begins its latest report chapter（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSD4UJSYsU8）on September 23, 2019, when Dun-Han Chang, one of President Tsai's spokespersons, responded to the controversy arising from Tsai's LSE student record which disclosed that Tsai was not re-registered for 1982-1983 and withdrew from course on November 10, 1982, due to financial difficulties. Tsai had already met the PhD requirement, so no registration was required for any courses.……In response to a Freedom of Information request, the UK Home Office provided the “Immigration Rules of 1982 and 1983 promulgated under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.” The Rules, when Tsai was a student, prohibited international students from extending student visas without formal registration. Immigration Rule 107 states an extension for an appropriate period might be granted if the student produced evidence that he was enrolled for a full-time course of daytime study which meets the requirements for admission as a student, and was able to maintain and accommodate himself without working and without recourse to public funds.……Thus, according to these rules, for Tsai to extend her student visa, she had to be registered for a full-time course of daytime study with the LSE and be able to support herself financially.……The LSE issued two certificates to Tsai. The first was on November 22, 1982, less than two weeks after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10, 1982. It was not reproduced from the template confirming the registration or expected re-registration. On the contrary, it certified that Tsai was only registered with the LSE from October 1980 until September 1982.……The term “minimum period of registration” or something to that effect cannot be found in the LSE Calendars in the early 1980s. PhD students were required to be registered all the time; the difference was the required fees, a sessional fee for the first three years, or a continuation fee thereafter if continued registration was permitted.……Furthermore, it（a letter on 22 November 1982）stated that Tsai wishes to continue to prepare her thesis for examination on a full-time basis without further formal registration at the School, as it is permitted by the Regulations of the University of London. However, there were no such provisions in the UL Regulations. Even if there were, the Immigration Rules promulgated under the United Kingdom Immigration Act trumped the Regulations of the UL, not vice versa.……The second certificate was issued on June 10, 1983, five days before Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis. This time around, Tsai's registration was from October 1980 to November 1982. It certified that Tsai was about to submit her thesis for examination and needed to be in the UK for her PhD exam in about early October for the oral viva examination to be completed.……Based on the LSE application form found in the VV file, it was unlikely that the LSE disregarded the UK Immigration Act 1971 and issued those two certificates tailored to Tsai's special condition. UK Watchdog concludes that since Tsai was required to support herself financially in order to extend her student visa it was unlikely that the LSE issued these two certificates knowing that Tsai terminated her registration early due to financial difficulties.……According to her memoir, in addition to applying for a teaching position in Taiwan, Tsai was traveling around and thinking about teaching at the University of Singapore before she returned to Taiwan on June 30, 1983.……She flew with China Airlines not from London, but from San Francisco on June 30, 1983.……These records show that between November 10, 1982, and June 30, 1983, Tsai was too busy to prepare her thesis for examination on a full-time basis as certified by the first certificate for extending her student visa.……Tsai began teaching at Soochow University on September 1, 1983. ……“After for one month, the moment you turned your thesis in, the feeling was you never wanted to take an exam again, and you wanted to burn your thesis. But my father said: “After all, you major in law and should get a license.” I began my exam career again. I sat the New York bar exam and got my license. After that, I felt that something was unaccomplished. So, I took an exam to get my license in Taiwan. Those two licenses are hung on the wall in my house. My exam career was finally put to an end, and my teaching career began.”……The timeline as told by Tsai doesn't match up with the facts. Tsai began her teaching career years before obtaining a New York law license (since suspended). According to the New York State Unified Court System, Tsai was admitted to the New York Bar four years later on July 28, 1987. After thorough research, Winifred Tung reported that Tsai never took a bar exam in Taiwan. Tsai's law license in Taiwan was received through a special route in reliance on her teaching experiences at Chengchi University and Soochow University and reported to the Examination Yuan on June 1996.
大意：移民法規定外國學生只有在不工作且不依賴公共福利的情形下有能力支付學費和生活費、才准許延長簽證期限，校方不可能替經濟困難的學生提供無需註冊的證明，而且也無兩年最低註冊年限的規定。蔡英文似乎在1983上半年四處找工作，應該沒時間準備口試；而她所說的國內外律師考試時間點也與實情不符。

—（March 23, 2024）The latest UK Watchdog report（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxVfzA4BJzs）can be found at my website（https://richardsonreport.com/）. ……On October 2, 2019, I submitted my first Freedom of Information request to the LSE. One of my four questions was the date of Tsai's PhD oral viva examination. My request went to Rachael Maguire, the LSE Information and Records Manager.……Maguire sent me off to the University of London for the examiners' names, but did answer my question about the viva date as October 16, 1983, a Sunday.……The description of the certificate provided by Tsai's attorneys to the Prosecutors Office was: “The Complainant completed and submitted the doctoral thesis in June 1983 and waited for the oral exam; the LSE issued a certificate on June 10 for the Complainant to apply for a visa extension so as to stay until October to complete the oral exam.” According to Tsai's lawyers, she submitted her thesis on June 15, 1983……At an educational forum of high school students on June 21, 2020, President Tsai, four months before her ROC Entry and Exit Record was disclosed, told a similar story. “After I finished my PhD program and submitted my doctoral thesis, there was a period of time when I was waiting for my viva. A British fellow student of mine was also writing her thesis. I did one thing for her. I proofread her thesis and corrected her English. Think about this. A student from Taiwan helped a British student correct her English. What had happened? Her verbal English was good, better than mine. She could express herself well, but my grammar was better than hers.”UK Watchdog says that according to Tsai's story on that day, she never left London after submitting her thesis in June and before her viva examination in October.……When disclosing Tsai's return date, the National Immigration Agency also disclosed that Tsai again left Taiwan on October 15, 1983, and returned to Taiwan on October 30, 1983. ……October 15, 1983, only one day before her viva exam. In a public speech on March 11, 2011, Tsai told the audience that her sister was with her for the viva examination.……To corroborate her story, Tsai included one photo of her and the sister taken outside a cathedral. The picture caption stated: “PhD examination; my sister flew to the UK so as to be with me.”…… However, the cathedral was not in London. The photo of the two sisters and the examination caption was actually taken in Boston. The Cathedral Church of St. Paul is the setting in downtown Boston. Both women are wearing light, summer clothing rather than the heavier garments required of an October afternoon in London. Somewhat confusing things was an OpEd article in the United Daily News in Taipei written by Tsai and published on October 20, 1983, suggesting her presence in Taiwan during October.……（Dennis）Peng fought back and suggested that Tsai could not have made the trip and also taken the test in such a short span of time. Peng's criticism of the travel schedule yielded yet one more timeline change. Peng produced a court document showing Tsai's lawyers changed the viva date to October 17, 1983.……In the VV file, the viva date is never identified. The viva examiners were appointed by the UL and the LSE was out of the loop. So where, asks UK Watchdog, did Rachael Maguire get the October 16, 1983 date that she gave to me? What document contained the date? When and how did that document get into Tsai's student file?
大意：LSE告知的口試日期是1983年10月16日，星期天；另外據稱，蔡英文在6月間取得延簽文件和提交論文，還幫英國人修改文章，後來在考試前一天才從台灣趕赴英國。但是除了姊姊陪考的圖說有問題，律師也把日期改成17日。VV檔案中並未出現口試日期，不知LSE的資訊是從何而來？

—（March 29, 2024）UK Watchdog's latest report（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvqXIgL9sw）on the controversy opens with my FOI inquiry. On October 3, 2019, Rachel Maguire, LSE Information Manager, forwarded my information request to several LSE administrators with her opinion on how to respond. “We normally do not release examiner names under any circumstances. However, considering the situation, its whether there would be any harm to the examiners from releasing this information. If they are deceased, its the same situation as for the supervisor. If they are retired, there is unlikely to be any harm to their careers, but intense media interest could come their way. If they are still working, there could be potential harm to their careers due to intense media interest.” UK Watchdog says Maguire was wrong and records of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the public record contradict her assertion. IALS routinely discloses thesis examiner identities on its website.……Maguire responded to my FOI request for examiner names on October 21, 2019. “The School believes that this information is held in full by the University of London.” A week after Maguire's reply, I made a request to the UL for the names of President Tsai's examiners. Ignoring IALS's routine practice, on December 2, 2019, the UL refused to disclose the names of Tsai's viva examiners invoking the Data Protection Act. UK Watchdog notes that while I was fighting for the names, on December 18, 2020, Kevin Haynes, Head of the LSE Legal Team, disclosed the names of Tsai's viva examiners to the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom at the request of ROC prosecutors investigating a defamation complaint made by Tsai against internet talk show host Dennis Peng. According to Haynes, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh examined Tsai's thesis in October 1983.……Unable to obtain the examiner identities from the UL, on May 2, 2021, I filed second FOI request to the LSE for the names of Tsai's viva examiners. The LSE refused the request, claiming that it did not hold the information. I unsuccessfully complained to the Information Commissioner and was unsatisfied with the decision to uphold the LSE denial so I appealed to the Information Review Tribunal. The Decision Notice stated: “The Commissioner's decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the LSE does not hold the requested information.” To convince the Tribunal that the LSE did not hold Tsai's viva examiners' names, the LSE admitted that “the information we hold on file is only there accidentally…we cannot be certain that this information is accurate”.……The March 31, 2021 email mentions three possible examiners. “……I see (YY) is mentioned in the file but couldn't find him named specifically as an examiner.” Based on Haynes' confirmation on December 18, 2020, XX was Michael Elliott, and YY was Leonard Leigh. According to the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, Z.Z. was Richard Dale. Though the internal email questioned the accuracy of the information about Tsai's three viva examiners, the questioned information is consistent with Tsai's description of her viva examiners.……Tsai's thesis was about international trade law or international economic law, but Leigh was a criminal law professor at LSE in the early 1980s. UK Watchdog concludes Leigh “was not qualified as an internal examiner.”…… In response to Peng's challenge, in 2022, Tsai's attorneys reported to the Taipei Court that the external viva examiner was Richard Dale, a scholar and attorney specializing in antidumping laws. The evidence was Tsai's memory, not Tsai's letter to the Secretary of the Graduate School at the LSE on December 5, 1983, mentioned in the internal email dated March 31, 2021.……In February 2022, the UL released a public statement……The confirmation of two viva examiners in the UL's statement is inconsistent with Tsai's own account.……The first accidental document found in Tsai's LSE student file was a letter written by Tsai to Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, on December 5, 1983.……The LSE failed to provide and the Tribunal failed to ask the reason why Tsai wrote the letter to Stephenson, informing him the identity of Tsai's external examiner. UK Watchdog says there are good reasons to question the Elliott memo.……When the memo was written on January 16, 1983, the LSE had not approved Tsai's thesis title. Tsai was not permitted to submit an examination entry form, and no viva examiners were appointed by the UL. Elliott could not possibly refer himself as one of Tsai's viva examiners on January 16, 1983.……UK Watchdog says the three documents were not the only ones that accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file or raise significant questions.……Tsai's LSE student record……It contains information after Tsai withdrew from course……and a Date of Entry for which no viva examiners could be appointed for Tsai's PhD exam to be held in October 1983. Ian Stephenson's letter dated February 11, 1982, on page 120 of Tsai's LSE student file, indicates that Tsai's registration transfer was not approved by the LSE Graduate School Committee. Stephenson's letter dated January 19, 1983, on page 95 of Tsai's LSE student file indicates that the LSE informed Tsai about her approved final thesis title on the same date the LSE Graduate School Committee met to approve her final thesis title. Stephenson's letters on page 89 and page 101 of Tsai's LSE student file were issued for Tsai to extend her student visas but these two letters were inconsistent with the United Kingdom Immigration Act.
大意：IALS通常會公開披露論文審查者，而倫大只說蔡英文有兩位口委，LSE則承認檔案中意外發現的三人資訊不一定正確。其中Elliott不可能在論文題目批准之前就自稱考官，Leigh不但專業不符、也不知是否具有口委身分，而且不清楚蔡英文為何在口試後寫信給LSE的Ian Stephenson時提到Dale。目前已知這位秘書發出的幾份文件都有問題。

—（April 4, 2024）Professor Hwan Lin was the first to realize the role of the British Library in the Tsai thesis controversy. Lin noted the British Library had a catalog entry for the thesis in its online theses collection called EThOS but no copy of the thesis.……On the same day of the LSE internal investigation, June 24, 2015, the UL made a search for the missing thesis. When Senate House librarians at the UL could not find Tsai's thesis they made a trip to the storage room and examined the old card catalog where they found a notation that the thesis was never received. The same day, June 24, 2015, that both schools came up empty-handed, the British Library entered Tsai's thesis into its online data base, despite lacking a copy of the thesis. Curiously, the catalog entry was in violation of the EThOS protocol against academic fraud that required the British Library to limit its data harvest only from official library channels. On June 24, 2015, neither the LSE nor the UL libraries had anything to harvest, no thesis and no metadata to share with the British Library. A member of the public requested information from the British Library on April 4, 2022, about how the British Library was able to catalog a thesis in 2015 when no library had a copy. The library, following the LSE, the UL, and the ICO strategy turned down the FOI request as vexatious.……British Library CEO Roly Keating……explained the LSE published the thesis in 2015 and that the British Library had a copy from then.……When I learned of Keating's falsehoods, I pressed the British Library for proof of Keating's claims. Instead, I got an explanation that Keating made a mistake. I offered my letter of explanation for submission to the Information Review Tribunal. However, Judge Stephen Cragg ignored the false internal review claims and branded the FOI requester as vexatious and intransigent.……I volunteered my services for an Upper Tribunal hearing. Judge （Edward）Jacobs sets out the British Library story in his decision starting with the FOI request:……“[REDACTED] complained to the Information Commissioner under section 50 of the Act, but the Commissioner decided that the Library had been correct to rely on section 14(1).”“[REDACTED]” appealed against the Commissioner's decision to the First-tier Tribunal. The Commissioner applied for the appeal to be struck out, but the tribunal refused and proceeded to hear the case. After considering the papers, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.”“[REDACTED] applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. I directed a hearing, which took place by CVP on 20 March 2024. [REDACTED] attended, as did his representative Mr. Richardson, who is acting pro bono. I am grateful to him for his arguments. The Information Commissioner was not required to attend and did not do so.”……“Mr Richardson's first ground referred to exhibits AA and BB.……they are from the British Library to Mr Richardson and admit that the records were inaccurate. They referred to actions relating to a copy of the thesis in 2015, when it was not available physically until 2019.”……“Mr Richardson's second ground was that the tribunal had not relied on the burden on the Library without quantifying it. ”……“Mr Richardson's third ground was that the purpose of the request related to the Library's records, not to the thesis itself. ”……“Mr Richardson's fourth ground was that the tribunal had shown bias.……include: (a) assuming that [REDACTED] knew what had been in other requests relating to the thesis; (b) misconstruing the request, which was not about whether the PhD had been properly awarded – a matter for the University of London, not the Library; and (c) finding persistence and intransigence without evidence.……Judge Jacobs ordered the Information Commissioner to respond within one month. If Jacobs is not satisfied with the ICO response he signaled his intention to either return the case to the Information Review Tribunal for a new hearing or conduct a second hearing himself.
大意：2022年，有民眾向大英圖書館詢問是如何在沒有論文的情況下進行編目，卻被視為無理取鬧。其CEO謊稱論文已於2015年發表，ICO也阻止提告。雖然一審行政法庭完全無視控方的證據，二審法官則接納理查森提出的理由，要求ICO限期回應，而且不排除重開聽證會。（編按：被隱去的[REDACTED]應為接受理查森協助的上訴者姓名。）

—（April 12, 2024）The latest chapter （https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L26zlxQ_h-Y）concerns the viva result notification sent to Tsai to inform her of the outcome of her viva examination. The（U.K. Watchdog） report begins with the issuance of the letter.……According to Chang Dun-han, one of Tsai's spokespersons, Tsai's thesis passed the examination on the day of her viva exam without content correction. Only misspellings and missing words were required to be corrected. Despite such minor corrections, Tsai's viva result notification letter was not issued until February 8, 1984, almost four months after Tsai's viva exam. Was it extraordinarily long? To answer the question about Tsai's long wait, UK Watchdog turned to the VV file to learn what the practice was in 1983.……VV's viva result notification letter from the UL was issued on October 5, 1983. The exact date of VV's viva is unknown as the LSE files do not have examination records. However, when submitting the examination entry form, VV planned to submit the doctoral thesis in July 1983. In the early 1980s, the examiners needed at least six to eight weeks to read the thesis before the exam could take place.……Compared to VV's PhD journey, it was extraordinarily long for the Academic Registrar at the UL to issue Tsai's viva result notification letter almost four months after the viva exam.……Tsai began her tenure at Soochow University on September 1, 1983, before she took her viva examination.……Tsai was promoted to Adjunct Associate Professor on February 16, 1984, only eight days after Tsai's viva result notification letter was issued in London.……UK Watchdog notes that there are two versions of the viva result notification letter. The version disclosed by Tsai's Presidential Office on September 4, 2019, was not signed, and Tsai's address in Taipei was provided in the lower left-hand corner. The version subpoenaed from Soochow University by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office was signed by the Academic Registrar at the UL, G. F. Roberts. Tsai's Taipei mailing address in the lower left-hand corner was erased. UK Watchdog says it is worth noting that Tsai's viva result notification letter is a document of the UL not the LSE. The LSE has no power to authenticate either version of Tsai's viva result notification letters. However, on March 10, 2020, Tsai's attorneys requested the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office to send Tsai's viva result notification to the LSE for authentication. It was the one not signed by Roberts and had Tsai's Taipei address in the lower left-hand corner.……UK Watchdog asks was the viva result notification letter not signed by Roberts, another document that accidentally landed in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives?……the letter had not been retained in the UL student file.……Even if Tsai received her viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University at her Taipei address on February 16, 1984, and delivered it to Soochow University on the same day, and Soochow University completed the administrative procedure also on the same day, there is still a potential problem with mail time from the UL in London to Tsai's address in Taipei. In 2023, it would at least 5 to 7 working days for Royal Mail, the British postal service and courier……Forty years ago, in 1984, how long did it take for Royal Mail to deliver it to Tsai's address in Taipei? Possibly longer than now.……How long did it take for Soochow University to complete the administrative procedure for promoting Tsai to Adjunct Associate Professor?……It is easy to believe the LSE copy may not have been signed which would explain how Tsai came to possess an unsigned letter addressed to her. That still leaves a question about the missing Taipei address on the Soochow version of the viva letter.
大意：據稱蔡英文口試後僅修改錯字、無需修改論文內容，但是倫大數月之後才在1984年2月8日發出學位授予通知書，然後以不可思議的郵寄速度趕上東吳在2月16日的升等日期。這份倫大沒有留底的通知書出現了不同版本，東吳版缺乏地址資訊，由LSE勘驗的版本則無人簽名。

—（April 16, 2024）Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy has dismissed an appeal against the University of London over missing examination regulations despite a false assertion by the UL to the Information Commissioner's Office that subordinate affiliated schools made the exam rules. Judge Kennedy said he had no authority over the truth or falsity of statements made by public bodies.……Now, since the discovery of the missing viva regulations in a 1983 bound PhD thesis, the UL persists in its false speculation that the LSE, not the UL, was responsible for the viva examination rules.……Judge Kennedy opens his decision quoting a principle of law. “The issue for the Tribunal is not what should have been recorded and retained but what was recorded and retained.”Judge Kennedy tells the story of the case:“On 10 June 2021 the Appellant submitted a revised request to the University…”……“On 1 April 2022 the Appellant requested an internal review of the University's response stating that he had not received the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request.”……“Following an internal review the University wrote to the Appellant on 10 May 2022. It enclosed the pages which had been missing from the regulations and stated that it did not hold any further information regarding the nomination of examiners for the time and the composition of examination boards.”……“On 12 July 2022 the Appellant complained to the Commissioner about the way the request for information had been handled as he considered he had not been provided with the information he had requested.”“The Commissioner accepted that, in the circumstances of this case, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the University.”“The Appellant submits that the Commissioner's decision in this case is based upon speculation. He asserts that this speculation is contrary to the robust and tightly controlled thesis examination protocol that governed viva examiners in the early 1980s and he considers the requested information should be held by the University.”“The Appellant submits that whilst the University searched for the missing regulations in the Archives and an unnamed storeroom, it has made no indication of a search of the files and records of the Boards of Studies which assigned thesis examiners.”……“The Appellant has provided various procedures, minutes and documents dating back to the 1980s to explain why the regulations he has requested would have existed.……the Commissioner respectfully invited the Tribunal to consider requesting written submissions or requiring the University to join proceedings. This was done by the Tribunal with appropriate Case Management Directions in a decision dated 8 August 2023 resulting in the comprehensive witness statements produced by the Second Respondent and now before the Tribunal.”“……the University has said that regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by individual colleges. As such it would be unlikely the University would have had a business purpose to have held this information even at the time. ”……“The Appellant argued that the University's statement to the First Respondent [ICO] upon which the balance of probabilities was based is contrary to the University of London 1982-1983 Calendar statutes governing Boards of Studies.”……“The Appellant further suggested that the University of London statement to the Commissioner also conflicted with the 1982-1983 Calendar's statutes governing Examinations which state in part: 'The Examiners for all prescribed examinations shall be appointed by the Senate.'”……“The Appellant noted that the missing viva examination regulations for the 1983-84 school year prevent the University from being able to now verify with certainty that individual viva panels were properly constituted.”……“He（the Appellant）stated…that he had now received copies of the requested information from another source,…However, he insists that the Second Respondent, were guilty of misrepresentation and bad faith. The Tribunal are not in a position to take evidence from abroad in such circumstances as have occurred at this hearing and as we have already established there is no credible evidence before us to consider such allegations. If the Appellant wishes to pursue any such allegations, then this Tribunal is not the forum for that investigation.”
大意：倫大聲稱未掌握當年提名口委和組織考試委員會的規定，並把責任推給個別學院：而根據後來發現的相關資料可知，倫大必然會制訂相關規範。倫大的不實說法恐是出於惡意，但是行政法庭卻基於無權判定其陳述真偽而駁回原告之訴。

—（April 23, 2024）A complaint has been made to the University of London Academic Board seeking correction of a UL false speculation to the Information Commissioner's Office about missing viva examination regulations.……Since there are questions about President Tsai's viva panel, interest in the viva regulations came to a head when the UL reported the viva rules were missing. Unable to explain what happened to the viva regulations, the UL concocted a false statement, one that Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy has called a “paradoxical speculation.” The UL told the ICO that subordinate affiliated schools, like the LSE, were most likely to have promulgated viva regulations instead. The false claim arose from a speculation of the Transcripts and Student Records office at the UL and then was adopted by Information Manager Suzie Mereweather and Director of Compliance Matthew Grigson and passed on to the ICO which accepted the speculation as fact. Both Mereweather and Grigson have refused to correct the erroneous statement to the ICO, leaving the regulatory agency misinformed about whose responsibility it was to test PhD candidates in the 1980s. The UL Academic Board is tasked with oversight of the UL responses to regulatory agencies and is chaired by Vice-Chancellor Wendy Thomson, who actually is in charge of the UL.……However, the “paradoxical speculation” misinformed the ICO and contradicts a considerable body of evidence that the UL, and not schools like the LSE, conducted the thesis viva exams in the 1980s. The false speculation that the University did not develop viva regulations has been definitively disproved by the discovery I reported of the missing viva regulations found in a 1983 bound PhD thesis. I provided the University with the missing viva regulations on December 22, 2023. The false speculation is also contradicted by the LSE minutes of the Graduate School Committee in October 1980, an undated LSE publication entitled Thesis Titles and University Boards of Study from that era, and LSE Graduate School correspondence of February 1983. The false speculation contradicts the UL 1982-83 Calendar “Boards of Studies” section and the “Examinations” section.……the UL General Instructions for Appointment of Examiners, dated January 1982, and the UL General Regulations concerning PhD examination fee schedules and provisions for examinations.……UL Examination Division correspondence to the Board of Studies in Law, dated May 1983.……UL Academic Registrar correspondence to an examiner, dated June 1983.……“Therefore, I hereby complain to the Academic Board seeking a remedial communication to the ICO informing the regulatory agency of the falsity of the University speculation about the missing viva regulations and accepting responsibility for the conduct of PhD viva examinations, rather than individual colleges as was asserted.”……In an ICO case involving President Tsai's missing PhD thesis, the UL made an incorrect statement blaming Senate House librarians for losing the thesis during library reconstruction. Information Manager Suzie Mereweather finally corrected that falsehood on the What Do They Know website explaining the library never received Tsai's thesis, however the UL did not bother to correct their error with the ICO, keeping the false lost-by-librarian claim part of the official ICO record. If the University of London is interested in keeping its credibility intact, the Academic Board should tell the ICO that both stories, one about the missing thesis and the other about missing regulations, were false.
大意：倫敦大學曾聲稱蔡英文的論文丟失是圖書館的問題，後來確定從未收到過，校方卻沒有向ICO承認錯誤。目前已向倫敦大學學術委員會提出投訴，因為校方曾告知ICO，當年的口試規範應是由個別學院制定，然而許多證據皆表明是由倫敦大學負責，因此理當向ICO澄清這些事實。

—（April 29, 2024）UK Watchdog……has issued an interim report of its findings on the award certificates.（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDP1UiEOjLc）……September 2, 2019……The ROC Presidential Office emailed Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library, requesting Tsai's student records, including the beginning and ending dates of Tsai's study and the names of Tsai's supervisor and viva examiners. Wilson promised to provide a copy and sent the request to Sue Donnelly, LSE Archivist at the time. The Presidential Office also expected to receive the records of Tsai's viva exam date, the viva result notification date, the date of PhD award, and the dates of Tsai's applications for two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015.……On September 3, 2019, Donnelly emailed a copy of Tsai's LSE student file to Tsai's Presidential Office. Less than an hour later, Wilson reminded Tsai's office that they should also contact the UL for Tsai's student records.……Tsai's attorneys knew they could not rely on them to prove Tsai's PhD degree. They submitted two UL documents not in Tsai's LSE student file to the Prosecutors Office to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD. One UL document was Tsai's PhD diploma, reissued in 2015……The other was a letter certifying the re-issuance of the PhD diploma dated September 22, 2015, and issued by Craig O'Callaghan, Chief Operating Officer According to the fine print at the bottom, O'Callaghan's letter is not official because it does not bear his embossed seal. One email on September 11, 2019, indicates that Tsai's Office contacted the UL, but the school did not respond. In other words, the UL did not provide the dates of Tsai's applications for those two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015……On September 19, 2019, Tsai's attorneys began submitting the records found in Tsai's LSE student file to the Prosecutors Office as evidence to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD degree, including Tsai's viva result notification letter issued on February 8, 1984, and Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984. On March 10, 2020, Tsai's attorneys prepared a list of twelve documents to be sent to the LSE for the UL authentication. According to Tsai's attorneys, these 12 documents were copied from Tsai's LSE student file……it is worth noting that Tsai's attorneys never submitted Tsai's PhD diploma, reissued in 2010 by the UL, to the Prosecutors Office. Furthermore, the documents issued by the UL, including Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2015, O'Callaghan's letter, and Tsai's original PhD diploma, were not on the list of those twelve documents sent to the LSE for authentication.……Tsai's attorney submitted one UL document to support Tsai's 1984 PhD degree,……consisted of three records: a letter from the Free Chinese Centre on September 23, 1987, a letter from P. C. Kennedy at the UL on September 30, 1987, and a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984.……in the last paragraph, Kennedy stated:”I have passed your letter to the London School of Economics and Political Science in the hope they may be able to help you further.”……On June 24, 2020, Haynes received a list of thirteen documents and scanned copies……Document 1 was added to the list of twelve documents……consisted of two records. One was Tsai's original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984, and the other was Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2015.……On July 7, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office followed up, and Haynes responded. For Documents 1, 3, and 5, Haynes suspected the ULwas best placed to verify them. The next day, on July 8, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK contacted Binda Rai, Head of Communications at the UL to authenticate Documents 1, 3, and 5.……but never responded.……On July 28, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK forwarded the request to Craig O'Callaghan to authenticate Tsai's PhD diploma reissued in 2015. O'Callaghan never responded. Instead, Jackson Mbilinyi, Head of Transcripts and Student Records, responded the next day. He declined to authenticate the documents without Tsai's written consent, invoking the Data Protection Act.……Tsai's attorneys requested that the evidence be authenticated to prove Tsai's 1984 PhD degree. It is in Tsai's best interest, but the UL refused to authenticate the evidence without Tsai's consent.……Haynes was and still is Head of the LSE Legal Team. He verified not only LSE documents but also UL documents as authentic simply because he was able to find them in Tsai's LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives. Haynes' unique way of authenticating evidence was consistent with Tsai's attorneys' request to authenticate the evidence.……The Information Commissioner's Office has noted that the UL did not retain copies of degree award certificates.……Haynes described it as an albeit poor-quality copy……On June 3, 2021, the Ministry of Education provided a copy of Tsai's original PhD diploma submitted to the Ministry of Education in 1984. It was also blurry and barely legible.……September 4, 2019, Tsai's office disclosed Tsai's original PhD diploma on Facebook. It was clear and legible.……Michael Richardson submitted a FOI request to verify Haynes' qualifications. Haynes is not licensed to practice law in the UK.”Thus Haynes is not bound by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct nor the Bar Standards Board Handbook Code of Conduct for barrister……Tsai had three PhD diplomas. The UL did not authenticate any of them.
大意：倫大從未配合勘驗蔡英文的學位證書！至於來自LSE檔案室、後來蔡英文又主動申請交由LSE認證的文件中，缺乏2010、2015的補發證書和證明書，僅有夾在1987年學歷認證往來函件中的1984證書影本，因為當年倫大曾轉交給LSE。此外，教育部和LSE的證書存檔品質極差，總統府第一時間公布的則相當清晰。

—（May 6, 2024）In a perplexing move that Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy called a “paradoxical speculation” the University of London continues to stick to its erroneous speculation that the London School of Economics and Political Science developed its own PhD viva examination rules in the 1980s rather than the UL.……When a researcher later found the missing UL viva examination regulations in a bound 1983 PhD thesis, proving authenticity, the UL refused to correct its statement to the ICO and took matters a step further. Matthew Grigson, Director of Governance, Policy & Compliance,……refuses to admit a mistake was made, fueling an ongoing thesis controversy. Grigson headed off a complaint made to the Academic Board and doesn't want to hear anymore about the matter. With the Academic Board sidelined, the University's senior professors will not be grinding away on the glaring falsehood.“I am writing both to acknowledge receipt of your complaint to the Vice-Chancellor who is also the Chair of Academic Board and to respond to it on her behalf.”……“Having reviewed your complaint, we note: The conclusions of the Information Tribunal are clear and there is no further requirement for us to provide any further information to the ICO as they will be aware of that judgement. There is also no regulatory or other requirement or obligation that requires us to provide any further statement.”…… Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where Tsai actually attended school, told ROC representatives that Tsai's examiners were Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh, both internal examiners only.……The lost-and-found UL viva regulations now reveal that an external examiner had to sit on the panel.……Tsai Ing-wen says she had three examiners. The University of London says she had only two examiners. The LSE now says it doesn't know who the examiners were. The UL says it knows but will not tell citing an academic fraud loophole in the Freedom of Information Act that permits secret academic award qualifications.……Grigson's refusal to correct the ICO record about the viva examinations leaves Commissioner John Edwards misinformed. Edwards, who up to this point has sided with the University, has adopted a blanket policy of refusing thesis FOI complaints as vexatious, based in part on the misinformation provided to him by the University.
大意：倫大學術委員會主席（即倫大副校長）派人表示，校方自認沒有義務提供進一步的說明，因此拒絕就當年由誰制定考試規則的問題向ICO提出更正。根據目前找出來的1983年倫大資料，LSE所謂的兩位內部考官之說是違反規定的。知曉內情的倫大不願透露名單，而此種法律漏洞將助長學術詐欺。

—（May 17, 2024）The research team issues periodic reports on its findings and the latest chapter focuses on a LSE certification letter（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGCs_KN3x8）that raises unanswered questions. UK Watchdog notes that after dropping out of the LSE, Tsai used correspondence from the school, instead of a diploma, in her job search in Taiwan. Shortly after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10, 1982, Tsai decided to complete an Overseas Students Job Application Registration Form and apply for a teaching position in Taiwan. According to the form, Tsai's PhD degree was to be awarded in May 1983, and she planned to return to Taiwan after receiving her PhD degree in May 1983.……Tsai relied on a letter of certification she requested from Michael Elliott, her former advisor, on February 17, 1983. Elliott's letter certified Tsai was shortly to submit her doctoral thesis soon, and her viva exam would be held in the spring of 1983.……In June 1983, the National Chengchi University Law Review published a journal article written by Tsai. The publication presented Tsai as a legal scholar with a PhD degree in international economic law from LSE. On June 30, 1983, Tsai returned from San Francisco to Taiwan. Two months later, on September 1, 1983, Tsai began to teach at Soochow University. Her teaching position was as an adjunct lecturer, indicating that Soochow University did not accept Tsai's PhD degree awarded in May 1983. On February 16, 1984, Tsai was promoted from adjunct lecturer to adjunct associate professor at Soochow University. Tsai's original PhD diploma was issued on March 14, 1984, twenty-seven days after Tsai's promotion. Instead of waiting for about a month, Tsai relied on her viva result notification letter issued on February 8, 1984, to prove her PhD degree. President Tsai had another letter of certification issued on January 23, 1984. It was issued only 16 days before Tsai's viva result notification letter was issued on February 8, 1984. Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, issued the letter of certification certifying that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis in June 1983, and her viva exam was held in mid-October 1983. The letter also certified that the examiners had been satisfied with Tsai's thesis and Tsai's performance in the oral exam and had recommended to the UL that the degree of PhD be awarded.……Based on a Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner dated November 26, 2020, Tsai's LSE student file did not include details of her viva exam. Based on Tsai's LSE student file, Stephenson had no way of knowing when Tsai's thesis submission date and viva exam date were.……Curiously, regarding Tsai's viva exam result, when Stephenson wrote the letter, the UL had not yet issued the viva result notification letter. In the early 1980s, the UL was the degree-awarding body. Only the UL could certify Tsai's thesis submission date, viva exam date, and viva exam result.……On December 5, 1983, about a month and a half before Stephenson issued the letter of certification, Tsai contacted Stephenson, informing Stephenson about the identity of her external viva examiner. UK Watchdog concludes that it was more likely than not that Tsai was the source of the information about her viva exam. The designation “Two copies to Taipei” on the top margin indicates that Stephenson's letter was most likely issued in response to Tsai's letter.……In the letter, Stephenson identified Tsai's viva result notification letter as an official letter of award and certified that it would be available in February 1984. It appears that Tsai had no intention of using her original PhD diploma to prove her PhD degree. In the summer of 1984, Tsai re-applied for a teaching position at the Chengchi University. The PhD diploma submitted by Tsai to prove her 1984 PhD degree was blurry and barely legible.……In September 2019, in order to make the National Central Library accept her thesis as a PhD thesis, Tsai proved her PhD not with any of her PhD diplomas, but a viva result notification letter issued by Stephenson and an official letter of award.
大意：蔡英文成為東吳講師之後，是利用1984年初的兩份證明文件而升為兼任副教授，並未出示學位證書。她曾於1983年12月5日寫信到LSE，主動告知自己的外部考官姓名，而次年1月23日的口試通過證明可能就是依其所請；不過，根據蔡英文的學生檔案，LSE並未掌握函件中所述的論文提交和考試日期，也許蔡英文就是資訊的提供者。

—（June 6, 2024）On June 24, 2015, the British Library made a catalog entry for a PhD thesis that had never been submitted to any library,……Tsai finally submitted the thesis to the library at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where she attended school, in June 2019, thirty-five years late and four years after the British Library made the catalog entry against its own protocol to guard against academic fraud. Professor Hwan Lin, a Taiwanese-American scholar, was the first to question the British Library over the unusual catalog entry. EThOS protocol prohibits accepting information from thesis authors and instead only relies on official university library databases.……Lin made two Freedom of Information requests to try and pin down an answer. The British Library responded to Lin that the EThOS protocol was overridden to answer a “speculative request” and that the LSE now had a copy of the thesis so there was nothing more to be said about the matter.……Eventually, someone picked up Hwan Lin's question and requested copies of the British Library email traffic about the EThOS anomaly.……Unwilling to disclose the thesis emails, the British Library refused the FOI request as vexatious, despite its polite format and limited burden. An appeal of the refusal landed on the desk of British Library CEO Roly Keating. Keating picked up the vexatious chant in his “internal review” of the matter. As evidence of vexatiousness, Keating claimed that the LSE published Tsai's thesis in 2015, and furthermore the British Library ingested a copy of the thesis into its collection. Both statements were untrue. John Edwards, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner, accepted Keating's falsehoods and agreed the FOI request was vexatious and said the requested emails did not need to be disclosed. The matter went to the Information Review Tribunal where Judge Stephen Craig also accepted Keating's falsehoods as true and upheld a finding of vexatiousness. The case is presently before the Upper Tribunal……However, the British Library admission of error in Keatings internal review was not made to the appellant, the Information Commissioner, or Judge Craig, but only to me which I have offered to the court. The emails, kept from the appellant and the court, raises the question of bad faith on the part of the British Library. Judge Edward Jacobs……requested a response from the Information Commissioner which he is now reviewing before issuing a final decision. Meanwhile, watching the progress of the FOI inquiry, Hwan Lin, dug into his files and reread the letters he received from the British Library. The letters reveal that at the time of Keating's internal review the British Library already know it didn't have the thesis in its collection and that the LSE had not published the thesis as Keating claimed. On July 19, 2019, James Courthold, the Information Compliance Manager at the British Library, wrote to Lin and stated: “We have considered your request, and can confirm that we hold a record in EThOS of the thesis but not the full file. The record was added in June 2015 by a member of staff in response to a user's speculative request for the thesis. We have a note on the EThOS record stating that the item is ‘missing from university’. When an item is not held but a request for it is made the EThOS Admin Team will contact the institution to request a copy for digitisation and it is likely the institution who advised the copy was missing which has resulted in the note being placed on the record. The Admin Team also usually verifies requests to check they are valid thesis titles at the time of the request, however, the Library holds no documentary records of what checks were carried out in 2015.”……Roly Keating's internal review reveals one of two things. One, a shocking degree of gross negligence in his conduct of the internal review—a complete absence of due diligence. Two, deception to ward off answering the FOI request.
大意：林環牆早在2019年7月就得知大英圖書館是在沒有實體書的狀況下建立書目，後來其CEO卻聲稱蔡英文的論文於2015年由LSE發表、而且被大英圖書館收錄，導致ICO和法院認定相關詢問是無理取鬧；後來館方雖承認錯誤，卻沒有告知ICO。目前英國高等行政法庭正在徹查。

—（June 10, 2024）UK Watchdog periodically releases mini-reports as its investigation continues with the latest on Michael Elliott, Tsai's purported thesis advisor.（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5rFvhQcVOE）UK Watchdog relies heavily on the LSE student file of a deceased LSE classmate of Tsai's which is no longer exempted from the FOIA. The investigative team obtained the student record to use as a control file in the evaluation of the Tsai controversy.……The VV file only concerns the LSE role. According to the VV file, before VV was officially registered with LSE in October 1980, on September 30, 1980, the Department of International Relations at the LSE appointed two supervisors to supervise VV. A supervisor appointment form was returned to the LSE Graduate School Office and kept in the VV file.……Tsai's LSE student file was different than the VV file. The LSE's response to a FOIA request on August 7, 2020, indicated that the LSE had no records about the appointment of Tsai's supervisor.……Since the supervisor played an important role at the LSE stage, the VV file is peppered with VV's supervisors' names.……Each session, VV's supervisor was required to sign a report on VV's research work and recommend re-registration for the next session.……On October 11, 1982, VV's supervisor recommended VV's registration transfer from MPhil to PhD degree. On October 18, 1982. VV's supervisor was notified about the approval of VV's registration transfer. On November 26, 1982, VV's supervisor signed the Thesis Title Approval Form. On March 7, 1983, the Graduate School office sent VV's Examination Entry Form to VV's supervisor for signature and recommendation of viva examiners. On March 18, 1983, VV's supervisor returned the Examination Entry Form to the Graduate School office and promised to propose external viva examiners in April.……Unlike the VV file, in Tsai's LSE student file, only two reports indicated who Tsai's supervisor was.……The Department of Law at the LSE began chasing up Tsai's supervisor on November 13, 2015. No records, thus far revealed, show that the LSE was able to confirm the identity of Tsai's supervisor in 2015. Almost four years later, on June 11, 2019,……Marcus Cerny, Deputy Director of the LSE PhD Academy, emailed the Department of Law, asking the Department to confirm who Tsai's supervisor was.……Then, the Department of Law responded, “I believed the supervisor was [REDACTED]” indicating uncertainty of the supervisor's identity at the LSE. On June 17, 2019, Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library, received an electronic copy of the title page and the Acknowledgments page of Tsai's personal copy of the doctoral thesis. In the Acknowledgments page, Tsai thanked her supervisor, Michael Elliott. Wilson then informed his colleagues, including Cerny, that the Acknowledgments page sent by Tsai's office confirmed that Michael Elliott was Tsai's supervisor. Cerny wrote to the Department of Law, informing them that the supervisor was Michael Elliott rather than [REDACTED]. UK Watchdog notes that for almost four years, from November 13, 2015, to June 17, 2019, the LSE could not identify Tsai's thesis supervisor based on Tsai's LSE student file. The LSE finally relied on Tsai's Acknowledgments page to ascertain who Tsai's thesis supervisor was. Elliott, who passed away in 2016, could no longer say yea or nay.……The emerging picture, as UK Watchdog connects the dots, is not that Tsai was the hapless victim of bureaucratic blunders and omissions during her days in London, but rather that Tsai had an active role in constructing a narrative that supports her claim of unregistered independent study and a degree without a library thesis submission.
大意：LSE在2020年曾經承認沒有蔡英文的supervisor任命記錄，而且僅在兩份報告中有提及，這與VV檔案一再出現的情形不同。另外根據2019年6月間的LSE內部電郵，法律系只能猜測蔡英文的supervisor是某人。（編按：被隱去的[REDACTED] 並非是論文感謝頁中提到的Michael Elliott。）

—（August 22, 2024）A complaint has been made to the University of London Board of Trustees seeking correction of a UL false speculation to the Information Commissioner's Office about missing thesis examination regulations. The complaint, addressed to Board Chair Mark Lowcock, arises out of an academic fraud investigation concerning former Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen over her 1984 UL award of a PhD degree.……Tsai has refused to release her oral examination viva report which purportedly passed her thesis, while the UL refuses to even name the thesis examiners. The LSE, where Tsai attended school, says it does not know who the viva examiners were. The combination of secrecy and a tardy thesis raised significant public interest in Tsai's viva examination, said to have been held on Sunday, October 16, 1983.……Unable, or unwilling, to explain what happened to the viva regulations, the UL concocted a false statement, one that Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy has called a “paradoxical speculation.” In his decision Judge Kennedy explained the Freedom of Information Act did not give him authority to investigate the false statement and suggested pursuit of other avenues for a correction.……The false claim arose from a speculation of the Transcripts and Student Records office at the UL and then was adopted by Information Manager Suzie Mereweather and Director of Compliance Matthew Grigson and passed on to the ICO which accepted the speculation as fact.……The complaint explains the UL told the ICO: “We can find no evidence that the University of London produced guidance relating to the nomination of examiners 1982-1984. We now believe that the individual colleges may have been responsible for assigning the examiners and so any Regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by those individual colleges.” However, the “paradoxical speculation” misinformed the ICO and contradicts a considerable body of evidence that the UL, and not schools like the LSE, conducted the thesis viva exams in the 1980s. The false speculation that the University did not develop viva regulations has been definitively disproved by the discovery of the missing viva regulations found in a 1983 bound PhD thesis. The false speculation is also contradicted by the LSE minutes of the Graduate School Committee in October 1980, an undated LSE publication entitled Thesis Titles and University Boards of Study from that era, and LSE Graduate School correspondence of February 1983. The false speculation also contradicts the UL 1982-83 Calendar “Boards of Studies” section and the “Examinations” section. The false speculation contradicts the UL General Instructions for Appointment of Examiners, dated January 1982, and the UL General Regulations concerning PhD examination fee schedules and provisions for examinations. The false speculation contradicts UL Examination Division correspondence to the Board of Studies in Law, dated May 1983. Moreover, the false speculation contradicts UL Academic Registrar correspondence to an examiner, dated June 1983. The “paradoxical speculation” is not the first time the UL has made a false statement to the ICO. ……however the UL did not bother to correct their error with the ICO, keeping the false lost-by-librarians claim part of the official ICO record. The UL Academic Board was earlier asked to correct the false statement submitted to the ICO about the missing thesis exam regulations but dodged the request as outside its responsibilities. The Board of Trustees, however, has a larger role and is tasked with protection of the UL's reputation and compliance with regulatory bodies. Mark Lowcock, Chair of the Board of Trustees, is well situated to address the false ICO statement. Lowcock assumed his position in May 2024 and was not involved in any of the obfuscation and delay that has surrounded the controversy of Tsai Ing-wen's PhD degree and its attendant false statements. Further, Lowcock is a Lecturer at the LSE,……he is able to correct the false notion that it was the LSE responsibility instead of the UL, which actually issued her diploma and enforced the examination regulations.
大意：倫大曾向ICO表示找不到當年的考試規則，並且推說口試規範應是由個別學院制定，然而種種相關證據業已陸續出土。由於行政法庭表示無權判定真偽，倫大學術委員會又迴避請求，目前已向董事會進行投訴，要求糾正對於當年倫大/LSE權責分工的虛假陳述。（編按：由於文章標題通常力求簡潔、不以符合文法為尚，加上翻譯軟體又提供了錯誤的內文資訊，造成《政經關不了》在報導時有所誤判，隨後已更正澄清。）

—（September 22, 2024）The London School of Economics and Political Science, where Tsai attended school, now says it does not know who approved Tsai's thesis in the oral examination viva in October 1983. However, the lack of knowledge of the identity of the viva examiners did not stop Kevin Haynes, head of the LSE legal team, from telling ROC prosecutors that two LSE teachers, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh, approved Tsai's thesis.……However, an appeal allowed Peng to bring suit against Haynes in Taiwan and the court battle was on. After difficulty obtaining service on Haynes, the case proceeded with the LSE honcho hiring two Taiwanese attorneys. With no trial date set, the pair have now resigned from the case giving no reason for their departure.……In the United Kingdom, two judges are currently grappling with Freedom of Information lawsuits arising from the PhD thesis controversy. At the Information Review Tribunal, a judge is considering an information case involving the London School of Economics, which awarded Tsai her PhD degree. The LSE had refused to answer the FOI request citing it as “vexatious” in a lengthy court battle. An initial ruling, favoring the LSE, was tossed out by the Upper Tribunal which also removed the lower court judge from the case. It is unknown when a decision will be issued. The British Library is in the middle of the second United Kingdom case, now before the appellate Upper Tribunal. The British Library, taking a page from the LSE playbook, refused a FOI request citing vexatiousness.……In the course of the British Library case it was learned that Roly Keating, the British Library CEO, falsely told the FOI requester that the LSE had published the thesis in 2015 and that the library possessed a copy. Keating's false Internal Review statement was a major factor in the Upper Tribunal decision to grant an appeal hearing.……Finally, the University of London Board of Trustees currently has pending a formal complaint that the school gave erroneous information about missing viva regulations to the Information Commissioner. The complaint was first made to the Academic Board of the school which dodged the complaint. Now the matter has been sent the Board of Trustees for consideration.
大意：涉及虛假陳述、以及利用「無理取鬧」之藉口阻撓查詢的三個案件（彭文正告海恩斯、林環牆告LSE、理查森告大英圖書館）還在法院審理中，倫敦大學董事會也正在審議口試規範錯誤資訊的相關投訴。目前海恩斯在台灣聘請的兩位律師已解除委任，原因不明。

—（October 22, 2024）Information Review Tribunal Judge Stephen Roper has reversed the decision of United Kingdom Information Commissioner John Edwards that Professor Hwan Lin was vexatious and ordered the London School of Economics and Political Science to answer Lin's information request. Lin had to litigate the case for three years and was the subject of blanket refusals by the LSE and the Information Commissioner to answer questions about a LSE October 8, 2019 public announcement on the validity of Republic of China in-exile former President Tsai Ing-wen's PhD degree.……Edwards who called Lin obsessive and vexatious and a conspiracy theorist. Lin's long battle was to learn how the LSE could verify the PhD degree of Tsai Ing-wen when it did not issue the degree and didn's even know the identity of the thesis examiners who purportedly approved her ,1983 thesis.……Two years later, in December 2021, Lin tried again to get some answers. As before, the LSE ignored Lin's FOI request. Lin then turned to the Information Commissioner's Office for assistance. At the ICO, the determined professor was rebuffed in September 2022, and refused assistance for being obsessive and vexatious. Lin then filed a complaint against the ICO with the Information Review Tribunal which was dismissed by Judge Alison McKenna without due consideration of the case. Lin then appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Judge Nicolas Wikeley, who agreed with Lin's carefully crafted legal arguments, remanded the matter for a new hearing, and removed Judge McKenna from further consideration of Lin's case. Now, Judge Stephen Roper and two associate panel members, Raz Edwards and Miriam Scott, have issued a fourteen page decision clearing Lin's name and reversing the ICO decision.……“……the Previous Notice was essentially treating all future requests as vexatious if they related in any way to President Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis. In doing so, it was inexorably discounting the content of those future requests, even if it pertained to different information than was previously requested.”……“……almost two years had passed between the date of the Previous Request and the Request itself.”……“The Request was not asking for information regarding President Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis. It was asking for information in respect of the Statement. Accordingly, we find that this sufficiently distinguishes it from the Previous Request – not only in considering the question of the vexatiousness of the Request but also in the context of whether it was reasonable for the Authority to refuse to issue a Refusal Notice in respect of the Request.”“Although the Commissioner submitted that there was an 'extremely limited' serious purpose and value in seeking to determine from whom the Statement came, it appeared to us that there is at least an arguable case regarding a wider public interest, particularly for the people of Taiwan. In addition, we find that the Request was straightforward in terms of the information it was seeking (essentially, where the Statement came from and, if applicable, who or which unit from the LSE issued it) and we consider that it would not have been difficult for the Authority to respond to it.” …… “However, evidence of people having a shared interest in the same subject matter, and even corresponding in respect of it, is not necessarily evidence of them acting in concert for the purposes of assessing whether a request under FOIA is vexatious……”“……we reiterate our finding that there was insufficient evidence for the Commissioner to draw the conclusion, in the Decision Notice, that the Request was vexatious. That conclusion appears to have been based largely on the Commissioner's own assumptions.”……Judge Roper conducted a thorough review of the evidence and noted in a footnote of his decision that an ICO web page was missing from the agency's website. The missing page contained a blanket policy announcement by Edwards that he would be refusing FOI requests that dealt with Tsai Ing-wen's thesis. The ad hoc policy announcement was never formally promulgated as a regulation and has now disappeared.……UK Watchdog, an independent research team, investigated the LSE public announcement and discovered the core of the October 2019 announcement was based on a June 2019 media statement crafted after Hwan Lin made inquiry about the existence of Tsai's thesis. Using email correspondence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act the research team learned that the two statements were the result of a flurry of emails over a period of time between top LSE officials primarily concerned with the reputation of the school and not the possibility of academic fraud.
大意：曾在2019年向LSE詢問論文門疑點而一度碰壁的林環牆於2021年重新提問：誰是官網聲明的發布者？校方依舊拒絕回答，ICO也視之為「無理取鬧」。英國行政法院的更一審則裁定，ICO的種種立論並無足夠的實質依據，而且應考慮台灣人民的公共利益，故而判ICO敗訴。

—（November 27, 2024）A complaint was made in August 2024 to the University of London Board of Trustees seeking correction of a UL false speculation to the Information Commissioner's Office about missing thesis examination regulations.……After three months of silence, Matthew Grigson, Director of Compliance, has provided a current update on the complaint about the university's false statement to the ICO. “We have been inducting a new Chair of the Board of Trustees and several new independent members.……I can confirm that your complaint has been provided to the Chair of the Board for consideration……”……When asked for a copy of the examination regulations the UL balked and declared it had no copies of the regulations and speculated that such rules were never published by the UL. The UL has persisted with its incorrect assertion to the ICO, even after a copy of the exam regulations was discovered, bound in a 1983 PhD thesis.……The false claim about the missing regulations arose from a speculation of the Transcripts and Student Records office at the UL and then was adopted by Information Manager Suzie Mereweather and Grigson before being passed on to the ICO, which accepted the false presumption as fact.……the false statement is the second time the UL has misinformed the ICO during the thesis controversy. Earlier, then Information Manager Kit Good informed the ICO that librarians at the Senate House Library had lost Tsai's thesis during restructuring. Good's replacement, Mereweather, corrected the false statement blaming librarians by admitting the UL never received Tsai's thesis in the first place. However, Mereweather only corrected the falsity on the What Do They Know website and failed to correct the ICO about the missing thesis. The ICO reliance on the UL false statements culminated in a blanket refusal to process Freedom of Information requests about the thesis related information, branding them vexatious.……Tsai Ing-wen survived the controversy and is now out of office. Taiwanese media attention, which once was fierce, has died down. However, the thesis controversy still echoes in the United Kingdom where litigation at both the Information Review Tribunal and the appellate Upper Tribunal is ongoing. Professor Hwan Lin is attempting to get a response from the London School of Economics and Political Science, where Tsai actually attended school, about the LSE public statement that Tsai was properly awarded her UL degree. Lin was initially refused information after the ICO determined he was vexatious. Lin fought a protracted legal battle for three years before being cleared of the vexatious label by a Tribunal ruling. The matter is pending. Meanwhile, the Upper Tribunal is considering another vexatious refusal by the ICO involving the British Library. The library refused to provide information about how it was able to enter Tsai's missing thesis in 2015 into the online thesis catalog, EThOS. The case was marred by false statements by British Library CEO Roly Keating, who falsely claimed in an internal review that the LSE published Tsai's thesis in 2015 and that the library had a copy. The library has corrected its false statements without explanation how Keating was in error. The case is pending and a decision is expected soon.
大意：新的倫大董事會將要開始審理有關考試規則的投訴。倫大曾向ICO提供錯誤訊息：先是將論文問題歸因於圖書館的遺失或錯置，而後僅在WhatDoTheyKnow網站上承認當年並未發表；原本聲稱考試規則不是由倫大制定，等到資料被確認後仍持續誤導ICO，導致眾多詢問者被貼上「無理取鬧」的標籤。

—

（to be continued）

Tsai's Thesis Gate（蔡英文論文門）

31/01/2024

Contents and References（目錄及參考資料）

News 2024：Richardson Reports（理查森報告）

Contents and References（目錄及參考資料）