News 2023：Richardson Reports（理查森報告）

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



—（January 11, 2023）Information Commissioner joins University of London branding many of 159 information requests as vexatious about Tsai Ing-wen thesis as public seeks verification of her PhD degree……The Information Commissioner's Office has issued a Determination Notice agreeing with the University of London that a Freedom of Information request is vexatious and need not be responded to. The UL has adopted two lines……The first ploy, unheld by the Information Review Tribunal, is a personal data exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. The second ploy, when personal data is not at issue, is the allegation of vexatiousness. ……The requester cited a UL public statement: “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.” ……“The University has made two public statements in which it sets out all information and understanding available in relation to the matter of Tsai Ing-Wen's PhD award and has highlighted that the information it has already disclosed is available though responses to requests made via the WhatDoTheyKnow website. ” ……Although the ICO accepted the UL's reliance on the WhatDoTheyKnow website, the ICO ignored the censorship of the website by its MySociety founders and the purge of dozens of Taiwanese researchers seeking information about President Tsai's thesis, thus reducing the website's credibility as a public information access portal. ……The ICO ruling, applying a blanket refusal based on vexatiousness signals a new round of litigation in the United Kingdom. ……Already one vexatious denial is before the Tribunal with several more cases on the horizon.
大意：倫敦大學除了聲明之外，還利用WhatDoTheyKnow網站揭露資訊，但是一方面以個人隱私為藉口，另一方面將許多公眾訴求視為無理取鬧，而ICO也決定採取相同的立場，因此接下來將會有數場訴訟。

 —（February 22, 2023）Last year MySociety purged dozens of Taiwanese researchers from the website for questions to the University of London and the London School of Economics and Political Science about Tsai's thesis. The purged citizen researchers were accused by MySociety of being Chinese disinformation agents to undermine President Tsai.……Now the crew at MySociety has renewed its assault on information by suspending more accounts and banning website users for offenses against “house rules.” A few recent examples of MySociety's censorship shows how authoritarian the cyber group has become to silence members of the public. ……The offending question could hardly be described as vexatious or burdensome: “Does University of London hold the physical copies of '1983-1984 Regulations for Internal Students and the General Regulations 1983-1984' or 'Regulations for Internal Students proceeding to the Degrees of M.Phil. and Ph.D. Session 1983-1984' for the research degrees of the University of London?”……“Are there both signatures of the Director of LSE and the Vice Chancellor of University of London on an LSE PhD certificate issued by University of London?”……“Can I get complete information about my PhD viva from University of London?
大意：由MySociety管理的WhatDoTheyKnow網站持續封鎖論文門提問者的帳號，拒絕回答倫大是否持有1983-84學生條例、早期的LSE證書上是否同時有院長和倫大副校長的簽名、以及是否人人都可以獲得就學時期完整資料等問題。

—（March 3, 2023）Information Commissioner John Edwards……has allowed the British Library to refuse to answer questions about Tsai's thesis.……“The Library has advised that since 2015, when it became apparent that Dr Tsai would become President of Taiwan, there has been a concerted campaign to call the validity of her PhD qualification into question. It goes on to say that whilst the LSE then published Dr Tsai's thesis (the thesis), and a copy was ingested into EThOS, information requests have continued to be received about the matter.”“The Library advised the complainant that since 2020, the LSE, and the University of London, have been refusing requests relating to Dr Tsai's PhD on the basis that they were vexatious; the Library also referred to a statement published by the ICO about its decision to apply section 14 to any requests received on the same subject where it was found that they were lacking 'valid purpose'. ”……“In the Commissioner's opinion, if the complainant’s request were to be considered in isolation, it could be seen to have some value and serious purpose; it relates to the academic record of an individual who has become the President of Taiwan. ”……“It is the Commissioner's view that the information that has been released, and statements and explanations that have been published, has allowed the public to have a full understanding about the records held relating to the relevant thesis and the award of a PhD to Dr Tsai.” ……Two cases are presently before the Information Review Tribunal over vexatious denials from the two schools over the thesis. Now, the British Library is poised to join the crowd in the Tribunal fishbowl as the information denial is expected to be appealed.
大意：ICO專員認同大英圖書館根據《信息自由法》第14條（無理取鬧或重複要求）而拒絕回答有關蔡英文的論文問題，預計大英圖書館將和倫敦大學、LSE一樣會被投訴到行政法庭。

—（March 30, 2023）However, the big news is not that the UL violated the FOI statute but rather its admission it did not control the examination, shifting the responsibility in President Tsai's case to the LSE. The LSE has already denied responsibility for the viva examination stating it does not even know who conducted the examination. Curiously, both schools have issued public statements confirming the validity of the degree award even though neither school claims responsibility for the examination process. A recent ICO decision tells the story.“Following an internal review the University wrote to the complainant on 10 May 2022. It enclosed the pages which had been missing from the regulations and stated that it did not hold any information within the scope of parts 1 and 2 of the request, i.e. information regarding the nomination of examiners for the time and the composition of examination boards.”The ICO decision goes on to quote the UL: “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.”……“The University informed that Commissioner that staff searched in the store-room in which the remaining copies of printed Regulations are kept to look for the Regulations 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. They looked within the incomplete record of printed Regulations available from the 1980s to see if information on the requirements for examiners and the composition of examination panels was contained within the Regulations for that time. They also looked in the store-room to see if there were any other separate volume(s) that might contain the information relating to examiners that wasn't contained within the Regulations.”……“The information relating to examiners appears to have never formed part of the Regulations. The University sent the Commissioner an image showing the contents page, which shows that no information about examiners was contained within the Regulations volume.”“The University stated that, as far as it was aware, no pages have been removed from the volume. It appears to be complete and the contents page shows that no information about examiners was ever contained within it….The University explained that it has not historically stored past copies of Regulations in any systematic way. There are no copies within its Library or Archives.”
大意：針對倫敦大學找不到任命博士口試委員的規定，ICO認同倫敦大學在1982-1984年間沒有制定相關書面規範、而是由學院各自負責的說法。至於LSE，先前已否認持有口試委員的資料。

—（April 6, 2023）The UL's obvious false statement about the selection of examiners reveals that no geniune seach for the missing viva regulations was conducted. The matter will now be sorted out by the Information Review Tribunal. The complaint to the court provides details. The ICO is the Respondent. “Respondent's determination that the University of London does not hold missing thesis examination regulations or guidances is based on a balance of probablity in large part because of false and erroneous unevidenced speculation tendered by the UL to Respondent.”“The University of London's false and erroneous speculation is contrary to the robust and tightly controlled thesis examination protocol that governed viva examiners in the early 1980s.” “The UL 1982-1983 Calendar contains the contemporaneous UL statutes governing Boards of Studies which state in part: “The Senate shall assign to each Board and each standing committee of a Board of Studies such powers and duties as in the opinion of the Senate are necessary to secure effective consideration of the provision for teaching, research and examinations for degrees and other awards of the University in the field of study with which the Board is concerned.”“The UL 1982-1983 Calendar contains the contemporaneous UL statutes governing Examinations which state in part: 'The Examiners for all prescribed examinations shall be appointed by the Senate.'” ……“The UL searched for the missing regulations in the Archives and an unnamed storeroom, however the UL has made no indication of a search of the files and records of the Boards of Studies which assigned thesis examiners.”
大意：針對ICO接受倫敦大學的說法，目前已向行政法庭提告。1982-1983的校方資料中曾嚴格規定所有考官應由倫敦大學任命，因此理當搜索相關委員會的文件記錄。

—（April 18, 2023）Few people know that Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen is a New York licensed attorney. ……Tsai's official bio statement does not mention she is an attorney nor does Wikipedia disclose her status as a suspended lawyer. The 3rd Appellate Division of the New York Unified Court System issued the suspension on March 3, 2014 for an unspecified reason. While the attorney being disciplined is informed of the reason, the public is not informed unless disclosure is ordered by the court. Curiously, although President Tsai was awarded a PhD from the University of London in 1984, Tsai, in 1987, listed Cornell University as her law school, where she earned a Masters degree, instead of the more recent and advanced degree in legal studies as is the customary practice. ……President Tsai's disciplinary period has almost run its course and she will be eligible for reinstatement in August 2023, according to the suspension notice. How serious is Tsai's suspension? ……although non-payment of the annual fee might be the cause. Perhaps, since President Tsai was seeking a New York license, she thought mentioning Cornell would be more suitable than the United Kingdom schools she attended and received her PhD from. Or, if there was a problem with the UL degree, like an unfinished thesis, it would not have been such a good idea to mention the PhD degree on her attorney application.
大意：蔡英文在紐約的律師執照在2014-2023年之間被長期吊銷，法院並未將原因公告周知。她在1987年登記的學歷是康乃爾大學，並未提到英國的博士學位，其中有各種可能性，包括沒有完成學業。

—（May 13, 2023）As the public controvery over Tsai Ing-wen's thesis has grown, additional information requests have continued to be made. Consequently the UL, the LSE, the ICO, and more recently the British Library, have adopted blanket refusals to answer questions or provide requested information. ……To support the blanket refusals Edwards and his crew adopted the “vexatious” strategy carte blanche blaming a “concerted campaign” to harass two governments, Tsai Ing-wen, and most recently the British Library. The new vexatious strategy worked, being adopted by the FOI website What Do They Know.……However, ICO determinations of vexatiousness started hitting the Information Review Tribunal forcing a judicial look at the new blanket refusal policy. The first case to reach the Tribunal upheld Edwards' determination. However, as two more vexatious cases were filed with the Information Review Tribunal from the public, the Upper Tribunal signaled the tide may be turning. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal citing a likelihood of prevailing by the appellant. ……Edwards tasked one of his senior subordinates, Roger Cawthorne, with the assignment of disposing of thesis information requests. ……Cawthorne and Edwards have found a new excuse when vexatiousness cannot be established. Now, information requests are being refused for being “frivolous” in nature and then treated as though they were vexatious. ……Under United Kingdom laws allowing appellants a fair hearing of their case, the opportunity to rebut a charge of frivolousness requires a fuller judicial review of the thesis controversy to advocates seeking the truth of the matter.
大意：針對ICO專員John Edwards與下屬Roger Cawthorne先後將有關蔡英文論文的提問加上「無理取鬧」、「輕浮」的標籤而同意各機構拒絕回答，行政法庭雖曾一度支持其決定，但目前已接受相關案件的上訴。

—（May 15, 2023）Taipei District Court Judge Lin Weihuan has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by talk show host Dennis Peng against Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team at the London School of Economics.……Peng had sued Haynes for aiding ROC prosecutors against him by making false statements about Tsai's PhD thesis examination.……The Taipei court noted Peng would have difficulty enforcing his judgment in Taiwan……“The defendant does not have a residence in Taiwan, making it difficult to directly assert that Taiwan's courts have international jurisdiction over the defendant in this private law dispute. Furthermore, if this case were to proceed in this court, the delivery of litigation documents to the defendant would have to be carried out through diplomatic channels, resulting in lengthy delays and an unpredictable duration for the litigation process, potentially causing procedural delays and a lack of procedural efficiency.”“Additionally, the defendant is not a Taiwanese citizen, does not speak Chinese, and is not familiar with the written Chinese language, making it difficult for him to understand or use the language of Taiwan's courts. Translation of relevant litigation documents would be required, which is highly inconvenient. The defendant has the right to appear in court to defend himself, but if he is required to respond to this lawsuit in Taiwan, he would have to deal with the inconvenience of cross-border communication, document delivery, and additional time, effort, and expense, which could significantly hinder his right to defend himself. Even if the defendant were to appear in court personally, he would have to bear additional high costs for travel to Taiwan, which would affect the fairness between the parties and infringe on their litigation rights.”……“In order to ensure procedural fairness for both parties, it is appropriate for the plaintiff to file the lawsuit in the defendant’s place of residence, balancing the interests of both parties.”“…… it would be difficult to enforce any judgments obtained by the plaintiff in Taiwan against the defendant, who does not reside in Taiwan and has no property in Taiwan.”……”As the relevant primary evidence is not located within Taiwan, the country's connection to and interest in the dispute are weak.……it would be more appropriate and efficient to proceed in a UK court……“
大意：彭文正因LSE法律團隊負責人海恩斯的偽證而向台北地院提告，法官認為此一涉外民事案件在台審理將缺乏效率，而且會侵害被告的訴訟權利，因此放棄行使管轄權。

—（May 23, 2023）（United Kingdom Information Commissioner John Edwards）has adopted the policies of the University of London, the London School of Economics, and the British Library to label FOI requests vexatious if they are linked to the long-standing controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's 1984 PhD award from the University of London. One member of the curious public, Gloria Gallegos, decided Edwards went too far refusing her information request as “frivolous” and has gone to the Information Review Tribunal for relief.……“The Univesity of London had a duty to provide advice and assistance to Appellant and failed to meet that statutory duty.”……“Respondent（Edwards）abused his administrative discretion by the abrogation of his evidentiary duty to What Do They Know website, stating, 'The fact that whatdotheyknow.com has suspended your account strongly indicates that this request has not been made to obtain information.'” “Appellant's account suspension at What Do They Know was made without adequate notice of cause or opportunity to appeal the suspension……”“Respondent's misconstruction of the FOIA request led to his erroneous conclusion about the Appellant's serious purpose. 'Given that you are already aware that the information is in the public domain, we consider that this complaint lacks any serious purpose. As the information is already available to you, the only possible purpose of submitting this complaint is to annoy, harass or otherwise burden the University.'”……“Appellant's serious purpose is to mitigate the potential of academic fraud caused by the personal data blind spot by identifying proper signature verification requirements for awarded diplomas.”“Appellant is conducting an independent study of the verification of advanced degree awards for the purpose of detecting academic fraud in United Kingdom universities.” Edwards has a month to respond……The Tribunals are getting busy with five pending cases related to the Tsai Ing-wen controversy. The University of London leads with three cases, while the LSE and the British Library each have a case.……Disclaimer: I am representing the Appellant before the Information Review Tribunal.……-Michael Richardson
大意：理查森代理受害者向行政法庭控訴：I CO專員John Edwards對《信息自由法》有所誤解，濫用行政自由裁量權，將WhatDoTheyKnow網站上詢問蔡英文學位真偽的民眾帳戶加以停止。

—（June 13, 2023）The LSE claimed it did not know who the thesis oral examination viva examiners were. Then Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team at the LSE, told the ROC Ministry of Justice the identity of two men. ……After the LSE was brought before the Information Review Tribunal, the Information Manager, Rachael Maguire, denied knowing for sure who the examiners were and said what information the school had was only accidentally acquired and not reliable. Maguire explained that Haynes, her supervisor, was in error because of a “hurried view.” Board Secretary Louise Nadal said simply that the LSE does not know who examined Tsai’s thesis and to ask the University of London. A complaint to the Information Commissioner of the United Kingdom elicited a similar answer. “The student record had been examined and no definitive record of the examiners had been found.”……First, the UL said it had received President Tsai’s thesis but was later lost by librarians sometime between the 1980s and 2010. After Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver found there was no evidence the Senate House Library had acquired the thesis, the UL changed its story and now the official version is the school does not know whether it was acquired or not. However, a 2015 email from a librarian indicates the old card catalog was searched for in a storeroom and a card for the thesis was found with the notation the dissertation never arrived. The second UL backward flip is over the thesis examiners themselves. Despite the LSE statements about the UL examination responsibilities and the UL’s own Calendar with its statutory requirements to appoint examiners, the school now incredulously claims they left the examinations to the LSE to administer and didn’t know anything about the appointment of examiners. “We do not believe the University of London ever had information on the nomination of examiners.” The Commissioner is the respondent. “……a false and erroneous submission from the University of London: '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.'”……“The UL’s 1982-1983 Calendar statutory requirement that the Senate House appoint examiners directly contradicts the UL’s submission to the Respondent, forcing a need for an enquiry into the veracity of the UL speculation about not holding information on examiners.” The Information Review Tribunal has been asked to seek answers for the discrepancies from the University of London over examinations. No date for a decision has been set.
大意：在LSE針對蔡英文口試委員官身分鬧了烏龍之後，現在也發現倫敦大學所謂考試是由LSE管理的說法有誤，因為1982-1983的資料顯示考官應由大學校本部任命。

—（July 9, 2023）Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley has found Information Review Tribunal Judge Alison McKenna abused her discretion in finding Professor Hwan Lin guilty of a vexatious Freedom of Information request and has set aside her decision against Lin. Judge Wikeley, in a sharp rebuke, has ordered Judge McKenna removed from the case and directed that a new judge be assigned to consider Lin's appeal of a London School of Economics refusal of his request for information about the controversial PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. ……After the LSE refused Lin's information request he appealed to the Information Commissioner's Office only to have the ICO parrot the LSE. When Lin appealed to the Information Review Tribunal for relief Judge McKenna defended the refusal without providing any explanation how the politely worded information request was vexatious.……During the past year the University of London and the London School of Economics quit answering FOI requests about President Tsai's PhD thesis and instead began claiming members of the public seeking information about the thesis were being vexatious. The ICO then adopted the blanket refusal policy and upheld the two schools in multiple information requests. Lin's case is the first one to reach the Upper Tribunal while other vexatious cases are still pending before the Information Review Tribunal. ……Lin's information request concerned the factual basis of the LSE public announcement. The Taiwanese public has responded with numerous FOI requests which have overwhelmed the two schools and the ICO. Instead of providing requested information the strategy has been to label the information requests as vexatious and refuse to answer them. The flood of requests has now reached the courts where at least four Tribunal cases are pending over allegations of vexatiousness. Judge Wikeley's ruling is binding on the pending cases and the days of blanket refusals to answer questions about President Tsai's thesis may be over. ……“'enough judicial time and resource has been taken up already by this plainly unmeritorious case'. I demur. Fact-finding is best regarded as the prerogative of the FTT.”
大意：針對林環牆的詢問被視為「無理取鬧」，英國高等行政法院推翻了一審行政法院（First-tier Tribunal）支持校方與ICO的立場，要求退回重審，並且更換承審法官。

—（July 14, 2023）In an abrupt decision, just four days after Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley removed Judge Alison McKenna over a vexatious ruling, Judge Sophie Buckley denied Information Commissioner John Edwards' attempt to deny a different appellant a full review of his case by a claim of vexatiousness.……Judge Buckley has ordered a full hearing for a requester that Edwards wanted to deprive of a hearing. The case, which now will be heard, involves the British Library and its online thesis registry called EThOS. The protocol at EThOS is to only enter thesis data into the system after harvesting the information from the schools' automated systems. President Tsai's thesis was entered into EThOS in 2015, however no school library had ever received the thesis by that date. The FOI request was for the basis of the Ethos entry since there had been no data to harvest. The British Library considered the request vexatious, a determination that will now be getting a judical ruling.……Judge Buckley provided the rationale for the ruling in her decision.:“The Commissioner applies for the appeal to be struck out on the basis that the notice of appeal fails to disclose a reasonable prospect of success. The Commissioner submits that the appellant has advanced no argument of substance which challenges his findings.”“The grounds of appeal, in essence, are that the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that the request was vexatious. The appellant argues that there is a legitimate public interest in the information requested and that his request is not part of a concerted campaign originating in China.”“I accept that the Commissioner was not persuaded in the Decision Notice that the complainant could be directly linked to any larger‘concerted campaign’. However, that is not the only basis for the appeal.”Although President Tsai's term ends in May 2024, her PhD award will likely still be clogging United Kingdom court schedules long after she leaves office. Until Tsai's viva report is released to the public the controversy simply will not go away.
大意：針對網友質疑大英圖書館EThOS系統的收錄問題卻被視為「無理取鬧」，英國行政法院接受上訴，駁回ICO阻止聽證會的請求。

—（August 8, 2023）UK Watchdog is an independent research team dedicated to uncovering the truth about Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's controversial 1984 PhD degree from the University of London. ……UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to release its findimgs which provide a candid and disturbing inside view of the British Library, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the University of London. The UK Watchdog Report will be presented weekly in chapter form detailing falsehoods, evasive statements, lax academic fraud safeguards, violated protocols, and political influence.……President Tsai submitted her PhD thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions to the LSE Library in June 2019, thirty-five years late.……(June 12, 2019, someone, name redacted but apparently in the public relations office at LSE / to Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Librarian at the LSE, and Marcus Cerny, Deputy Director of the PhD Academy, and Dan O'Connor, Public Relations Manager: )“Just sharing this news story from the pro Tsai media citing the British Library's e-theses online service and our news story on Tsai's presidency.”…… (June 14, 2019, O'Connor:)“As previously circulated, all PhDs from that period were awarded under the University of London banner and would have been sent first to the Senate House Library. They clearly received their copy because otherwise it would not have been processed and appear on their catalogue—and from there to appear on the British Library catalgue.……We have been in correspondence with the University of London about the thesis and extensive checks have been made but Senate House are presently unable to find their copy. ”…… (June 27, 2019, the British Library / to the London School of Economics Theses Online [LSETO] office:) “Please will you let me know if you wish us to remove the entire record from EThOS.”……(June 28, 2019, Wilson / to Marcus Cerney, Mark Thompson, Student Services Director, and others at the LSE:) “This makes it clear its a copy and was presented to us by her—so this gives some deniabilty on our part if necessary. By saying it was presented (again) and addressing her as President—it shows we are proud and still claiming brownie points for her as an LSE alumna. The date shows as 2019 because that is when the copy was made—so again not claiming it is the actual thesis.……To me, that sounds like a win-win for us and for her team.” ……(July 10, 2019, Wilson / to the British Library:) “……a copy of the thesis is being catalogued right now!! ……We don't have permission to digitze, we won't interlend, and it fact, as author permission was required for quoting or reproducing in 1984 we won't be allowing any digital copying either.” …… (July 10, 2019, the British Library / to Wilson:) “Great news! This should stop all the queries……I have added a note to our records to explain that the thesis will be available in your special collections reading room..” ……(August 6, 2019, between British Library personnel:) “Could you please provide some information which would allow me to answer the following FOI:….why has it been put on restricted access for so long?….From my understanding, PhD authors can request restricted access in exceptional situations, but only for two years at most.” ……“This is the instruction we received from LSE for this thesis, and as you know we always follow the advice of our participating institutions when managing the thesis data in EThOS.”…… (September 25, 2019, Wilson / to the British Library:) “Controversy over the thesis is still rumbling on in Taiwan and President Tsai has decided to make her thesis available online through Taiwan's National Library. I have asked if that means we can also make a copy available but a colleague posted me the following: [Catalog link] As it shows a DSC number, is it possible that you do have an original copy?”……“I figured if you had it we would have found it four years ago when we first looked……The President's office has promised us a digital copy so fingers crossed! ”……(October 2, 2019, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team at the LSE / to the academic honchos at the LSE:)“You will see below that the academic from Taipei who had approached me about President Tsai's thesis has suggested that the published versions in our and Taipei's library are not identical. Have you had any conversations in this regard?” (October 2, 2019, O'Connor / to Haynes:) “I don't know. This is a question for her office. We were clear that we had a facsimille of her copy of the thesis.…… (I think there were some missing pages from the copy we received from her office. Anyway, I don't think either copy is the final thesis submitted in 1984. It was always her personal copy from 2019.) ”……After the November 20, 2019 update to EThOS the date of award was changed to 1983 instead of 1984. The 1983 date is from the thesis title page. The 1984 date is the date of award according to the University of London. ……(June 11, 2020, Decision Notice by the ICO:) “The original copy held by the University library was lost or mis-shelved sometime between mid-1980s and 2010s over which period there were numerous structural changes to the library.” …… (April 26, 2022, the British Library:)“The Library believes there is no legitimate interest in firther exploring this matter.……the universities in question have already publicly demonstrated to the satisfaction of several information tribunals that President Tsai’s PhD was valid and properly awarded.” ……(July 12, 2022, Roly Keating, the Brtish Library CEO / to a FOI request:) “I note that in 1984 Dr. Tsai Ing-wen received a doctorate from LSE, but no copy of the thesis was published by that institution. From 2015 onwards, when it became apparent that she would become president of Taiwan, there has been a concerted campaign to call the validity of her qualification into question……In response, LSE published the thesis in 2015, and a copy was ingested into Ethos. ” ……Keating's claim that the LSE published the thesis in 2015 is false, and knowingly false if Wilson’s email about not finding the thesis in 2015 is true.
大意：理查森與英國的獨立調查團體合作，將逐週公布論文門的相關訊息，其中包括大英圖書館與LSE相關人士在2019年試圖替「有學位、無論文」的蔡英文提升印象分數而加以包庇時的通訊記錄。（編按：因資訊量過大，已將原文按照時間序重新排列；另可參考本部落格「2019年LSE、大英圖書館處理論文問題」一欄的中文簡述。）

—（August 10, 2023）Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy tossed out (Information Commissioner John) Edwards' attempt to protect the UL from disclosure of PhD examination standards. At issue are the 1983-84 regulations governing examination of PhD candidates. Although the UL academic regulations govern minute details of the degree award process, inexplicably the portion of the regulations that regulate the examination of PhD candidates are missing.……However, the judge was not so quick to believe in missing regulations and ordered Edwards' office to prepare for an oral hearing. Judge Kennedy also ordered the UL to be joined in the case as a co-respondent, which will now force the UL to answer about the missing viva regulations. ……At Paragraph 28 of this Response the Commissioner states; “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. This information was not provided by the Appellant to the Commissioner in support of his section 50 FOIA complaint. If the Tribunal would be assisted in its decisionmaking on this matter by input from the University in relation to this supporting evidence or the extent of searches conducted, the Commissioner would respectfully invite the Tribunal to consider requesting written submissions or requiring it to join proceedings.”“The Tribunal agree with the helpful suggestion that the University are joined as the Second Respondent as the Tribunal find it impossible to determine, with any definitive accuracy, or at all how all the material facts are to be established.”“I hereby join the Public Authority, herein, “The University of London”, as a Second Respondent and direct that an oral hearing will take place to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence and reasons, through such comprehensive submissions as are required, in order to properly determine the facts of what is said to be within scope of the request, the subject of this appeal and precisely what information is or is not held by the Public Authority.”
大意：在上訴人提出更多佐證資料後，行政法庭將倫敦大學列為共同被告，要求出席聽證會，說明為何無法提供1983－1984學年度的完整修業規定。

—（August 15, 2023）Chapters One and Two of the UK Watchdog Report on the British Library are available here（https://richardsonreport.com/report-british-library/）. ……（July 19, 2011, UL:）“……we were chasing the examiners and the candidates supervisor for return of the examination copies up to 1 ½ years after the award was issued, but there is no written entry to clarify whether or not they were ever received back. We still appear to have on file the green ‘record form’ and the ‘reproduction of thesis form’ that we would usually have sent to you with the theses. ……We can't shed any light on the whereabouts on the copy you appear to have had at some stage.”…… （June 24, 2015, the LSETO manager at the LSE, who maintains its online thesis collection:）“A thesis indexed in ProQuest…has been requested from us. We unfortunately do not have a record of this thesis in the library. I have also been looking in the Senate House catalogue, and have been unable to find a thesis by this author. ……This query is quite urgent. The author in question is the leader of a Taiwanese political party and is running in the upcoming elections.”……（June 24, 2015, a Senate House librarian:）“I have done a bit of research for you and can confirm that we have no record of the thesis on our online catalogue. However we do have an old card catalogue covering theses from the 1980s and there is a card for this one which indictates we were due to receive the thesis but it never arrived.”…… So, on the same day（June 24, 2015）……the British Library created a catalog entry for a thesis not in its collection, contrary to its own protocol. The EThOS FAQ page spells out the procedure for the listing of a thesis. “We always work with the UK universities rather than the PhD authors direct. That way we know the theses we hold are the final validated thesis awarded by the university—it offers reassurance to the universities, authors and users.”（August 10, 2015, IALS Library:）“I have checked with the [？] who has been in charge of IALS Library's collections for many years. She cannot find any information about the thesis.”…… (June 28, 2019, Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Librarian at the LSE / to British Library:) “……we never had a copy to begin with. ……we are hoping to get a copy from Taiwan. ……Ing-wen Tsai is the current president of Taiwan so some Chinese journalists are making a big deal about her thesis being missing.……Would you mind leaving it for now? ”（June 28, 2019, Wilson / to the LSE academic team）“……so again not claiming it is the actual thesis. ” ……（July 18, 2019, the British Library / to Professor Hwan Lin） “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.’” ……(September 25, 2019, the British Library / to Wilson:) “No, we don't hold a copy. The ‘DSC’ shelfmark is the EThOS ID. I know this looks confusing—it goes back to the days when DSC had a microfilm service—but we never made a microfilm copy of this thesis.”…… (October 2, 2019, Dan O'Connor, Public Relations Manager / to Kevin Haynes:) “ (It was always her personal copy from 2019.) ” The next day, on October 3, 2019, President Tsai authored a personal note for the online version of the thesis admitting it was missing from a library shelf. “As the thesis I submitted upon graduation from the LSE is missing from the Library, I am also providing the LSE with a copy.” ……An internal Brtish Library email on November 10, 2019, noted that President Tsai's thesis identification number was 652034 and that Tsai's thesis was loaded into EThOS on June 24, 2015.……(November 20, 2019, the British Library / to Wilson) “……we harvested your repository this afternoon and updated our record for this thesis on EThOS; it now links to the digital copy on the LSE repository.” ……The EThOS metadata harvest leaves unanswered Hwan Lin's question of how did EThOS create a catalog entry in 2015 before there was any metadata? Obviously the entry creation followed a “speculative request” but what exactly was that and who made the request? No one at the LSE nor no one at the UL, the only two sources EThOS was supposed to use, made the “speculative request.” Meanwhile, the UL regulations on theses specified that the British Library was to make a microfilm copy of the thesis for purposes of inter-library loan, which never happened for President Tsai's thesis. Hwan Lin's unanswered question has gone to court. The Information Commissioner accepted CEO Roly Keating's claim the question was vexatious but the Information Review Tribunal has now required the submission of evidence and argument on the matter with a decision expected in September.
大意：英國校方早在2011、2015年就已知曉蔡英文的學位論文是有問題的，卻在2015年6月協助她在大英圖書館建立書目。（編按：部分原文依時間序重新排列；U.K. Watchdog Report 1的中譯可見於 2023.08.09《政經關不了》，另請參考本部落格「2011、2015英國校方內部調查」一欄的中文簡述。）

—（August 22, 2023）UK Watchdog examined regulations, memorandums of understanding, institutional archives, official calendars, various correspondences, Tsai Ing-wen's student record, and a sample student file to learn what should have happened back in 1983 after Tsai completed her studies. The report findings are here (https://richardsonreport.com/report-1980-phd-program-student-record/). The research team learned the degree award was a two-step process with a study stage at the LSE and an examination stage by the UL and a clear transfer of responsibility for academic integrity. ……（The UL regulations for internal students）required her to be registered for a Masters degree first. President Tsai was required to have completed two years of full time study at the LSE ……There were provisions for transfer from the Masters program to the PhD program upon the recommendation of her Supervisor. The Supervisor at the LSE was also responsible for approval of the thesis title. All of these requirements had to occur before Tsai was permitted to advance to the UL examination phase. President Tsai's student record was compared to a sample student record identified as belonging to VV who was registered at the LSE contemporaneously. ……VV was awarded a PhD in October 1983……In VV's student file was a copy of a letter to the LSE Supervisor requesting recommendations and informal agreements for examiners. However, in Tsai Ing-wen's case the Information Commissioner's Office, on November 26, 2021, outlined a somewhat different procedure as explained by the LSE. “The University of London was responsible for invigilating any examinations.” “The LSE accepted that it did still retain President Tsai's student record, but that record only dealt with her activities at the LSE—and this did not include details of her final examination or viva.” …… “……the Commissioner has already established that these records are, as a matter of fact, held by the University of London.” Although the UL has missing examination regulations from the mid-1980s, the 1998-99 regulations specify: “The degree shall not be awarded until two copies of the successful thesis, bound in appropriate formats, have been lodged with the Academic Registrar.” ……On September 2, 2019, Clive Wilson, at the LSE Library, received an email from the Presidential office in Taiwan.“I am writing to again seek your kind assistance with regard to President Tsai's LSE doctoral degree. To rebut the defamatory libel, President Tsai decides to take legal actions against the people behind the malice. For the court proceeding, President Tsai will need her student record, including the beginning and ending dates of study, names of supervisor and viva examiners…etc.” On September 4, 2019, Clive Wilson got another email asking for help. “The President's Office has asked me to find out what the procedure was back in the 1980s for PhD students to submit their theses. Do you know what they would be required to do and how the University of London would process and catalogue the theses submitted at that time?” Twenty-five minutes later Marcus Cerny at the LSE sent an email to Wilson……“I think that is something for the UofL to clarify. My knowledge would go back to the late 1990's and that is not robust.”……“I am confident in my assumption as to what will have been even at that time (confirmation that the thesis had been passed by the examiners,hard bound copy to Senate House triggering confirmation of award by RDO and placing in the Library) ” ……On September 18, 2019, Wilson got some editorial help on a public statement he was working on. “As LSE is one of the leading academic institutions in the world, any statement issued by LSE certainly carries weight by itself. We would be truly grateful if you can kindly mention the following points in the statement.” “University of London and LSE records confirm that Tsai Ing-wen waas awarded a PhD in Law in 1984. ……A PhD degree is only awarded once a candidate has provided a copy of the successful thesis. While the original copy of Dr. Tsai's thesis cannot currently be located, it is not the only one missing and a hardbound copy of this thesis is currently available at the LSE Library.” The thesis copy now available to the public has four pages that were added post-viva, acknowlegements and an abstract. However, the 1983-84 UL regulations required the abstract to be submitted bound with the thesis plus one loose copy, which has never been located. Tsai Ing-wen's official UL date of award was March 14, 1984, although her LSE student file lists February 1984 instead.……The University of London responded to a Freedom of Information question on the What Do They Know website which addressed what information the UL keeps. “The University of London holds only minimal information relating to graduates of Member Institutions. We record the name of the graduate, the date of award, the name of the Member Institution and the title of the thesis. The remainder of the information is usually retained by the Member Institution (such as LSE)” On March 29, 2023, the ICO quoted the UL about examination records. “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.” UK Watchdog researchers looked closer and found the UL claim contradicted the LSE Graduate School Committee October 15, 1980 minutes outlining examination procedures which specified the duties of the UL Boards of Studies.
大意：根據同期生的學生檔案、可供參考的學位授予規定，皆顯示倫敦大學和LSE至今所述的權責分配、以及蔡英文的論文上繳和學位取得時間等說法充滿了矛盾。（編按：U.K. Watchdog Report 2的中譯可見於2023.08.19《政經關不了》，而VV的學生檔案可見於https://richardsonreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/V-V-file.pdf）

—（August 30, 2023）The latest installment of the UK Watchdog Report (https://richardsonreport.com/report-2011-and-2015-investigation/) begins with an Information Commissioner's Decision Notice dated September 3, 2021, which explains the University of London's position on two missing crucial pieces of information regarding the verification of President Tsai's PhD degree（diploma & viva notification letter Feb. 8, 1984 & hard copies of students' certificates）.……（email dated July 19, 2011 & June 24, 2015）This indicates that the UL has known for over a decade that it never had Tsai Ing-wen's thesis in its collection.……On June 11, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office accepted the University of London's new claim that Senate House had Tsai Ing-wen's thesis but that librarians lost the thesis.……However, the UL false allegation against the librarians made to the Information Commissioner was put rest by Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver on December 2, 2021. “We accept that the explanation originally provided that the thesis had been lost or mis-shelved may not have been correct, as there is no catalogue or microfilm record of the original thesis.” Subsequently, on January 11, 2022, UL Information Manager Suzie Meriwether removed all blame from the librarians and put it on the examiners.“The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.”…… But what about the LSE Library? The UK Watchdog team studied closely the email traffic of Marcus Cerny, of the Academic Academy at the LSE. Cerny was not surprised that no examination copies of President Tsai's theis could be found. “Examiners copies were sporadically returned to institutions post viva were probably simply left in an office, either centrally or in the department, unless specifically requested. I would not have expected examiner copies used in the viva to be lodged in a library or retained formally at LSE.”……Although it possessed no copy of Tsai's thesis, the UL awarded a PhD degree and over time the school issued four certification letters and reissued two diploma certificates. The first certification letter was July 5, 1984, to the Free Chinese Centre, the then ROC representative office in the United Kingdom. The letter stated in part that Tsai Ing-wen was an “internal student of the London School of Economics and Political Science.” However, UK Watchdog investigators found this letter conflicts with the LSE Calendar which specified to the contrary that LSE students “are registered by the School as internal students of the University.” Three years later, the Free Chinese Centre queried the UL Academic Registrar, asking again for confirmation Tsai Ing-wen earned a degree. The UL responded on September 30, 1987 to the Free Chinese Centre but got Tsai's gender wrong and made no mention of the thesis whereabouts. “It is not possible to issue detailed information of Mr. Tsai's PhD since it was awarded after a course of research and submission of a thesis title.” This time the UL reversed itself and declared Tsai was an internal student of UL, not the LSE as earlier alleged.……On April 9, 1990, the UL issued a third certification letter in a “To Whom It May Concern” format. ……In 2010, Tsai Ing-wen ran for the New Taipei City mayor’s office. Tsai was required to submit proof of education so she asked the UL to reissue her 1984 degree certificate. In 2015, in the run-up to the ROC presidential elections, Tsai Ing-wen again asked the UL to reissue her degree certificate. On September 22, 2015, the degree certificate was reissued once more. Accompanying the certificate was a fourth certification letter. However, the letter lacked an embossed seal which according to the letter itself was necessary for official confirmation. “This document is not official unless it contains the signature of the Chief Operating Officer and his embossed seal.” According to UK Watchdog investigators, Tsai Ing-wen's UL student file contains no record that Tsai had ever been asked for a copy of the approved thesis ……On June 29, 2015, someone, name redacted, from the UL sent a letter to LSE officials with an explanation about Tsai's then missing thesis. “The Research Degrees Examinations had chased both examiners (appointed for the PhD examination) and the supervisor (Mr M J Elliott) for the return of the copies of the thesis. Apparently, the internal examiner left his copy of the PhD thesis with Mr Elliott post-viva. Mr Elliot left both copies with the LSE asking the LSE to return these to Senate House. These were never received.” On June 24, 2019, Clive Wilson, at the LSE Library, sent an email explaining that Michael Elliott, Tsai's supervisor, was long gone. “Michael Elliott appears to have been away from LSE in the last year of her PhD (sabbatical?) and subsequently left LSE in 1984 to join the Economist having left instructions to pass them on. Clearly this never happened.” Tsai Ing-wen's LSE student record reveals that Elliott was not assigned as Tsai's supervisor in 1982-83 or 1983-84 because Tsai was not registered and had not paid her fee.
大意：倫敦大學的學生檔案中並無蔡英文的學位授予通知書和學位證書，而且四度發出的學位證明都有問題。至於論文不存在的問題，英國校方一再改變說詞，或是歸咎圖書館員、或是歸責於業已亡故的指導老師，但是從未向蔡英文追討！（編按：U.K. Watchdog Report 3的中譯可見於2023.09.02《政經關不了》。）

—（September 5, 2023）（British Library）CEO Roly Keating has now been corrected by a spokesman for the library over his false claims the London School of Economics and Political Science published Tsai's PhD thesis in 2015 and that the British Library has had a copy of the thesis in its EThOS collection of theses since 2015. Jonathan Fryer, head of the Corporate Management Information Unit at the British Library, walked back Keating's 2022 claims made during an Internal Review conducted as part of a Freedom of Information request. President Tsai's 1983 thesis had been missing from any library collection for 35 years until Tsai submitted a copy to the LSE Library in June 2019. Despite a phantom thesis, the British Library made a catalog entry for the thesis on June 24, 2015. The FOI request asked the library how it made a catalog entry without a thesis. Roly Keating refused to answer the question calling it vexatious and made the two false claims about Tsai's missing thesis to support his refusal. Fryer now states: “After investigation I can confirm that we made an error in asserting that the thesis in question was uploaded to our EThOS system in 2015.”……However, Judge Buckley found there was disputed facts that required a hearing and the matter is headed for a decision. ……Fryer's correction of Keating is not the first time a subordinate has corrected a supervisor during the ongoing thesis controversy. Rachael Maguire, Information Manager at the LSE, has contradicted her boss, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, over the identity of the thesis examiners.
大意：繼LSE法律團隊負責人海恩斯的說法被下屬糾正後，大英圖書館CEO指出蔡英文的論文於2015年由LSE發表、而且被大英圖書館收錄的這些表述亦被其下屬反駁。

—（September 22, 2023）The role of the Senate House Library at the UL in the controversy is explored using internal email correspondence in the latest report segment (https://richardsonreport.com/report-2011-and-2015-investigation/). UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to share its findings with the public and has added several translators to its team to produce reports in Chinese as well as English.……the LSE statement:“The Senate House Library records confirm that a copy was received and sent by them to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS).”……a July 13, 2011 email sent from Senate House Library to the LSE. “I looked at the national (formerly ASLIB) Index to Theses which indicates that we did have a SH copy once, but I still can't find a catalogue entry (it should be online catalogue, with a note added to indicate if it's been withdrawn to send to LSE, which should have happened.)” A follow-up email from Senate House to the LSE five days later also drew the attention of the Watchdog team. “I can add to the email below that I tracked down the 1984 card output from the computer system, so I know we once had a a copy on the shelf and on our online catalogue, and that we sent the College copy to IALS, but they don't have it either, so I'm wondering if the award was queried and the copies removed from the catalogue?” UK Watchdog declares the two emails as bogus facts and cites as proof a January 11, 2022 Freedom of Information response from UL Information Manager Suzie Meriweather which denied the UL ever had President Tsai's thesis. “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.”……However, the College copy should have been kept at the LSE Library and not sent to IALS.……The 1983-1984 UL regulations required students to submit three copies of the thesis, either typewritten or printed, with two hard-bound and one adequately bound to the Academic Registrar for examination. The spare third examination copy was the one to be adequately bound in the event a third examiner was assigned to the oral examination viva panel. UK Watchdog notes that all three copies of the thesis which should have been submitted for examination vanished after the October 1983 viva examination and have never been seen since. ……A Senate House email states: “Later records indicate that a third copy was sent to Senate House Library in 2011and this was then sent on to IALS. However, it would appear that since then IALS have confirmed that they no longer have this copy.”……Marcus Cerny, the Deputy Director of the LSE PhD Academy, confirmed the 2011 thesis submission in an internal LSE email. “If I recall, the thesis was actually sent to IALS in 2011. This makes sense to me because it will have been around the time that the Research Degrees office shut at UofL and remaining responsibilities were devolved to individual institutions.”“I would keep the date out of it and just say the Senate House Library confirmed they sent it to IALS.”.…UK Watchdog notes other speculations about the 2011 thesis copy. One suggests that President Tsai was the source of the 2011 thesis and on a June 8, 2011 visit to the LSE may have delivered the dissertation to persons unknown in London in a failed bid to enter it into a library thesis collection. However, there is no documented proof there actually was a 2011 thesis copy.……If the Senate House Library did actually send the thesis to the IALS Library in 2011 then both libraries should have records of the transaction, although neither do.……UK Watchdog returns to the LSE official statement and notes that the 2011 date for submission to IALS was deliberately left out of the statement creating confusion over what really happened and when. The missing thesis remains unlisted in the UL online catalogue in 2023. The UL can produce no record it ever had the thesis……No thesis in any library prior to 2019, misleading omissions in the LSE official statement, conflicting emails, and erroneous speculations by the UL do not provide a convincing paper trail that no academic fraud has occurred.
大意：UK Watchdog的影音報導增加了中文版！倫敦大學總圖在2011年7月的兩封電郵、以及2019年LSE聲明中都未說明蔡英文何時向IALS提交論文。事發於2011年的訊息，除了提供給林環牆，也出現在一封寫明要避談時間的LSE內部電郵中。而且按照規定，總圖應將論文發送給LSE才對。

—（September 26, 2023）The latest chapter of the UK Watchdog Report (https://richardsonreport.com/report-2019-investigation/) examines the 2019 LSE media statement about the thesis controversy. ……Librarians at the LSE Library had known since 2011 that the school library did not hold President Tsai's thesis in its collection.……Clive Wilson, a head librarian, drafted a standard response in 2016.……“We have been in correspondence with the University of London about it and extensive checks have been made. Unfortunately Senate House are unable to find their copy. I am sorry we cannot help further.”……（2019）The LSE panel was made up of Sue Donnelly at student records, Danny O'Connor at media relations, Clive Wilson from the library, Kevin Haynes with the legal team, Mark Thompson as academic registrar, and Marcus Cerny at the doctoral academy. Fiona Metcalfe with communications and Nancy Graham at the library were also involved in the inquiry. Fang-Long Shih, who acted as President Tsai's personal representative, also played a role in the inquiry panel. Shih put Wilson in the know about wishes from Taipei.……UK Watchdog notes that Cerny's email to Metcalfe showed the school was not treating the missing thesis as an academic issue but rather as a media issue.……（2015, Susan Underwood, academic registrar:）“There may be features of the process which reflect the academic habits of the mid-1980s and would be frowned upon today.……The main mystery is why the copies of the thesis cannot be found.……My understanding is that the position seems to be that two copies were left with the LSE from the supervisor and the internal examiner but that these were never passed on to SHL and that one copy went from Senate House Library to IALS but can no longer be found.”…… （In 2019）Cerny informed LSE publicist Dan O'Connor that the UL dealt with the problem in 2015.……A quick response from the UL confirmed the university was aware of the missing thesis. “As explained in 2015 we do not have a copy of the PhD thesis in the Senate House Library and so are unable to help. I can confirm that we would have a copy of the thesis at the examination stage however.”…… UK Watchdog concludes that it took three days from the time Hwan Lin asked about the existence of the missing thesis until the LSE administrators crafted a public response for the news media. Cerny explained to the LSE Library staff, “The examination went through the University of London procedures and we had the award confirmed from them with a March1984 award date.”The award confirmation was supposedly in a June 29, 2015 letter from the UL, however a close reading of the letter reveals there was no such confirmation. Instead, the letter addressed the UL's inability to acquire a copy of Tsai's missing thesis. Dan O'Connor joined in the June 11, 2019 email frenzy and suggested obtaining a scan of the LSE Calendar that named Tsai Ing-wen as a graduate. “Separately, we will also retrieve a scan of the relevant 1985/86 calendar page. It's not exactly a smoking gun but might be useful if we start getting more hassle for proof.” Clive Wilson heard from Taipei the next day. Alex Huang, of the ROC President's Office, followed up on Fang-Long Shih's overture to Wilson. Huang offered to provide both hardbound and electronic versions of Tsai's thesis to the LSE Library.……Dan O'Connor rushed to distribute the new media statement and sent the first copy to People News in Taiwan confirming the validity of President Tsai's degree, even though the UL was the degree awarding body and had not said anything about the matter to the media.……The LSE media statement in June 2019 jumped the University of London, the degree awarding body, and was made while members of the PhD Academy at the LSE were still asking verification questions. President Tsai's student file at the LSE lacks a copy of the oral examination viva report which purportedly approved the thesis leaving very little evidence of qualification while Tsai herself refuses to release the viva report for public inspection.
大意：LSE圖書館在2011年已知論文有問題，並於2016年起草回應的標準答案。在倫大僅表示沒有論文、尚未進一步確認學位的狀況下，LSE便於2019年6月向台灣媒體發出3 月授予蔡英文學位的公關聲明。

—（October 4, 2023）Using the Freedom of Information Act, the research team has penetrated the inner sanctum of the London School of Economics and Political Science and discovered a cache of internal emails that cast doubt on the academic integrity of the LSE. School administrators seemed less concerned about the validity of Tsai's degree award, or learning what happened to Tsai's thesis which was missing for thirty-five years, than protecting Tsai's reputation as she ran for the ROC presidency. ……The latest Watchdog report is also available on the Richardson Report website（https://richardsonreport.com/report-2019-investigation/）.……On July 2, 2015, Simeon Underwood, Academic Registrar at the LSE, sent an email to the University of London. “Whose issue is this? Given that the issues are around the examination and its aftermath, my instinct is that they come under your jurisdiction rather than our……” A vice-chancellor at the UL responded the next day. “As for the actual copies of the thesis itself I am sorry I am unable to shed any light on this. Both examiners' copies of the thesis were left at the LSE following examination. It seems the third copy of the thesis was sent to the IALS, and then the trail goes cold.”……UK Watchdog notes that Underwood did not have access to the UL student file which would be the only source of validating information and could only base his validation on Tsai's LSE student file which lacked examination information. A UL vice-chancellor had already examined the UL student file of Tsai four days earlier in June 2015 according to a UL email. After Underwood went out on a limb and validated Tsai's thesis on July 2nd the UL made an offer. “We have retrieved Dr Tsai's file from our Archives and I can send you through a scanned copy if that would be useful..” Underwood declined the offer and then retired on July 20, 2015, replaced by Mark Thompson. ……(Sue) Donnelly reviewed a scan of the LSE student file on President Tsai. “The relevant pages are I think 43-46 which includes a certificate from the University of London confirming the award of the PhD on 14 March 1984—it looks like there was a problem with some of the paperwork from her supervisor.” The LSE file contained several UL documents that had not been retained by the UL, including a copy of Tsai's diploma, of which she would have been the sole source.……However, Thompson was not done with the mystery of the missing thesis and sent an email to the retired Underwood.……Underwood replied the next day. “I got the student file from the archive, and then liaised with the Senate House. All the paperwork was in order—by contrast to some files I had seen, notably the senior New Zealand civil servant whose claim to have a PhD turned out to be unprovable and possibly fraudulent.” UK Watchdog notes that if Underwood had liaised with the UL as he claimed, the UL should have informed him that a copy of Tsai's viva notification letter had never been retained in the UL student file. No records of the LSE show that Underwood investigated further.……On September 16, 2019, President Tsai's office in Taiwan sent an email to Clive Wilson.……“I would like to recommend the LSE consider issuing statements reconfirming that President Tsai had been awarded a PhD, or filing a lawsuit against such smear tactics.” Wilson wrote back to Taipei the next day. “I'm told that LSE isn't really interested in filing a lawsuit. The Comms team seem to be happy to reissue a statement confirming the correct award of the degree but what channel do you think it should go through?” ……Hix replied to Nadal that he didn't think there was any ongoing LSE investigation and that the degree award was the business of the UL.……UK Watchdog observes that even though Tsai's degree came from the UL only, the LSE followed the request of President Tsai's office and released a public statement on the degree on the LSE websit.……UK Watchdog identifies three UL documents that support the PhD validity. First, a September 30, 1987 certification letter that says the award was based on the submission of a thesis title. Second, a February 8, 1984 viva notification letter not retained in Tsai's student file. Third, a copy of Tsai's March 14, 1984 diploma, also not retained in the UL student file of which Tsai was the sole source.
大意：並無跡象顯示，LSE曾在2015年調查過倫大的學生檔案。目前已知，倫大並未保留1984年2月學位授予通知書，而且在1987年僅證明蔡英文曾交出論文題目，證書影本則出自蔡英文之手！（編按：LSE學生檔案的頁42－43乃是1987年9月的駐英自由中國中心與倫敦大學有關學位認證的往來函件，其中的證書影本應是教育部當年提供的附件。）

—（October 15, 2023）In an unexpected development, UK Watchdog, an independent research team investigating Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's 1984 PhD award, has added a YouTube show to its monitoring list. True Voice of Taiwan, hosted by Dennis Peng, has had attorney Max Chiang as a repeat guest to discuss internal emails of the London School of Economics and Political Science about President's Tsai's PhD thesis. UK Watchdog reports that attorney Chiang's assertions and speculations about the emails released to the public by the investigative team are unreliable and many of the statements he has propounded are false. ……Not content with translating the internal correspondence of the LSE staff for Peng's viewers, Chiang has tried to piece the emails together into a narrative,……UK Watchdog prepared a slideshow illustrating how far from the truth Max Chiang had strayed and asked Peng to run the correction for his viewers. Peng refused citing journalistic freedom. “In the process of investigating the truth, it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. It should be said that it is impossible to be completely accurate.” “……I have never and ever drive anyone away from the discussion group, nor will I interfere with what others say in the media.”…… Chiang has made numerous errors and offered much misinformation to the public about President Tsai's thesis and degree award earning him the dubious status of a conspiracy theorist. The UK Watchdog correction slideshow refused by Peng focused on a singe fabrication. Some of the documents released to the public by the Watchdog team came from the student file of a deceased LSE alumna, identified as VV. The VV file was obtained from the LSE pursuant to a Freedom of Information request. VV's death removed privacy protection under the Data Protection Act and made the file available. Good detective work by the UK Watchdog sleuths who painstakingly waded through obituary notices uncovered the available file. The team obtained the VV file simply as a control file with which to compare documents from Tsai Ing-wen's LSE student file. Chiang, apparently not understanding what the VV file was, accused the LSE of releasing the VV file to allow Tsai a chance to make a counterfeit student file for herself. Because of Peng's refusal to run corrections of Chiang's erroneous commentary and the importance of accuracy and the truth, UK Watchdog is temporarily suspending their regular periodic reports on the Tsai thesis controversy in order to release corrections of Chiang's falsehoods instead.
大意：江建祥律師在《政經關不了》解讀UK Watchdog公布的LSE電郵內容，並揣測VV檔案是蔡英文偽造文書的樣本。UK Watchdog則利用影片公開澄清：他們費盡心力才得知蔡英文的同期生VV業已過世，讓校方基於資訊自由法釋出檔案，使之成為論文門一案的對照資料。然而節目主持人彭文正認為事涉新聞自由，不便干涉來賓言論。（編按：請參看https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9uOnKf7tRw）

—（October 17, 2023）One false story in the political news, offered by Tsai herself, was that Cornell University Professor John Barcelo was dead. Professor Barcelo was one of Tsai Ing-wen's teachers at Cornell University and she gave him honorable mention in the acknowledgments of her PhD thesis. Some of Tsai's supporters misconstrued the mention and assumed Barcelo was one of the examiners who approved the thesis.……Private sources report that Barcelo was not amused by the report of his death and could not understand why he was being brought into the controversy. Barcelo had no involvement whatsoever with Tsai's scholastic effort at the London School of Economics and Political Science and could not comment on Tsai's time in the United Kingdom if he wanted to. ……Chiang conjured up a false narrative for Barcelo as a mystery man with untold tales to tell. Chiang's evidence is an email on June 17, 2019, in which Barcelo's name was redacted to protect his privacy. The email indicated that Barcelo's name was found in the Acknowledgments page of Tsai's tardy thesis. Chiang somehow managed to understand the Acknowledgments page as a “preface.”……In the True Voice of Taiwan show on September 23, 2023, about Barcelo's redacted name, Chiang theatrically exclaimed: “Wow! Found a treasure trove! ”……However, Chaing lets his guard down from time to time and makes bold assertions without an underlying factual basis. A more serious error than inventing a mystery around Barcelo was the fabrication Chiang made about the VV file. ……Chiang's misinformation and erroneous conclusions are hampering the public search for truth according to UK Watchdog. The team created two slide-shows for Peng to air on his show correcting Chiang's mistakes. Peng refuses to run the corrections and defends Chiang's stories saying nobody really knows what the truth is. Max Chiang and his tall tales harm the public search for truth in another important way. The website What Do They Know, designed to help people utilize the Freedom of Information Act, has censored many researchers because of a purported conspiracy to embarrass Tsai Ing-wen. John Edwards, the Information Commissioner of the United Kingdom, has gone on a tirade against an alleged “concerted campaign” to discredit Tsai and refuses to process allegedly “vexatious” FOI requests.. Chiang's unfounded conspiracy theories on True Voice of Taiwan serve to encourage the ongoing censorship. Dennis Peng is quite willing to use UK Watchdog disclosures on his program although Peng is unwilling to air UK Watchdog corrections. Peng says it is a matter of journalistic standards, however it appears more like a double standard.
大意：被蔡英文感謝並誤傳死訊、目前仍受個資保護的John Barcelo教授身影出現在2019年6月17日的一封電郵中；名字雖然被遮蔽，但應非江建祥口中的特殊神秘人物。此種過度揣測會損害對真相的追求，而彭文正似乎是以雙重標準來處理問題。（編按：彭與江懷疑被塗黑的人名會不會是LSE前院長、上議院議員Anthony Giddens，請參看https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGu2oCCO3Q，以及本部落格「2019年LSE、蔡陣營統一口徑」一欄中編號U的電郵原文與相關中文解說。）

—（October 21, 2023）Max Chiang is a former prosecutor in San Bernardino County, California, and trial lawyer licensed to practice law in California. He has been a talking head on the True Voice of Taiwan talk show for the past month providing his legal analysis of internal London School of Economics emails. Those emails were obtained and made public by UK Watchdog, an independent research team, on August 8, 2023. Chiang downloaded the emails from richardsonreport.com some time in mid- September 2023 and shortly thereafter began his legal analysis on September 20, 2023.……Chiang clearly has not studied the emails he evaluates as carefully as he wants viewers to think.……An example is Chiang's confusion between the LSE and the UL roles in the viva oral examination of Tsai's thesis and the regulations that governed her examination. On October 11, 2023, Chiang told True Voice of Taiwan host Dennis Peng: “Let me tell you, we spent so much money and so much time in the UK to request examination regulations for PhD students and course requirements for PhD students. Right? LSE in the UK refused to provide them, period. When it subsequently provided the regulations, there were several pages missing, and the part about Ing-wen Tsai was removed. Right?”……Chiang claims the LSE “refused to provide them” apparently unaware that the LSE has never refused to provide its regulations. Chiang either missed, forgot, or hasn't yet read the June 11, 2019 email from Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library. “[T]he Calendar is a public document that anyone from outside LSE can request to view through our archives so there is no DP/GDPR [data protection] issue.”…… The LSE regulations are all available online from the LSE archives in the annual Calendars.……Chaing's comment about missing pages is no doubt a reference to my pending case against the University of London, not the LSE. I have been trying for several years now to obtain the UL's viva regulations. First there was a one-year wait, by me not Chiang, for the UL to process my FOIA request. Then nonsense from the Information Commissioner leading to a hard-fought battle before the Information Review Tribunal and finally an order naming the UL as a respondent party. Then dealing with the 135 page response of the UL, all in an attempt to find missing regulations. A hearing is still pending. Not once in all that time did Chiang offer any assistance or advice. Chiang has been absolutely no help at all in obtaining the UK Watchdog emails he has been misconstruing to the public. Dennis Peng has allowed Chiang to continue his misinformation of the public and has refused to air UK Watchdog corrections despite the daily use, and misuse, of UK Watchdog emails.……The UK Watchdog has assigned a Chinese translator to monitor Peng's show in the future to create an inventory of errors.
大意：針對倫敦大學（而非LSE！）提供的早年考試規定出現缺頁，目前仍在等待聽證會的舉行；至於LSE的規定，可以直接上網取得。UK Watchdog擔心其公開的電郵資料繼續被誤解，已指派中譯人員建立錯誤清單。（編按：請參看本部落格「1983/84倫敦大學修業規定」一欄〔原文頁數為1501－1513、1525－1530〕，而理查森取得的內文頁數只到1525，而且目錄中缺乏博士學位的相關規定。至於LSE的資料，請先選擇 https://lse-atom.arkivum.net/uklse-dl1pu010010010092-uklse-dl1-pu01-001-001-0092-0001-pdf 頁面上方的學年度，然後點選其隨附的pdf檔封面圖片，即可開啟檔案。）

—（October 25, 2023）UK Watchdog picks up the story of Tsai Ing-wen's thesis on June 12, 2019, before it had been made public anywhere,……Alex Huang, Spokesperson of the President……offered “electronic and hardbound editions” of Tsai's then-missing PhD thesis. Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library, quickly offered to catalog……saying it would help end the “speculation” about the validity of Tsai's degree.……Shih Fang-long, acting as a representative for Tsai, cautioned Wilson his plan would “not end the speculation but invite many more “irrational” speculations from anti-Tsai camp.““As such, is it OK to only mention the arrival of the hardbound copy of the thesis.”“However, the Presidential Office is ok to send you the electronic copy now, but please only use it for the LSE internal check not for the public release.”…… However, Wilson's hopes were dashed when the Presidential Office only sent digital versions of the thesis title page and the acknowledgments page.…… Finally, two weeks after the offer to provide the thesis to the LSE was made by President Tsai's office two copies arrived in London. …… “One soft bound and one hard bound. But both photocopies.” “However, as Marcus said on Monday, we still can't really prove that this is what she actually submitted in 1983.”……In July 2019, Cerny was still talking about the thesis authenticity. “I think that the clarity we are showing in being open about the thesis being lost and the current copy being a recently submitted facsimile replacing the original demonstrates that there is no corruption or coverup.”…… In August 2019, Hwan Lin……noticed that all of the pages except for the first two, the title page and acknowledgments page, had dark shadows on the edges of the pages suggesting those two pages were photocopied separately from the rest of the thesis. Lin believed the acknowledgments page was a “retype” and not the original.……(Yungtai) Hsu added that the abstract and introduction page were also free of the dark shadows on the photocopied pages.……On November 30, 2022, the unbound manuscript was presented to the Taipei District Court to prove the document's existence. UK Watchdog suggests the shadow evidence shows Tsai possessed a bound copy of the thesis and questions why she did not submit it to either the Taipei District Court in 2022 or to the LSE in 2019.……The ROC Freedom of Information Act had been used to obtain Tsai's teaching application from the Ministry of Education. The application, dated September 28, 1984, revealed a different thesis title, Law of Subsidies, Dumping, and Market Safeguards. A spokesman for Tsai explained the alternative title was a subtitle of the thesis itself. UK Watchdog posits there was a different title page and abstract.……On September 27, 2019, Wilson noted the Taipei news conference in an email.……“You may also have seen that the President's office announced on Monday that she would put an electronic copy in Taiwan's theses depository. They have also offered us a copy (and a replacement printed copy that doesn't have the missing pages!)”…… On October 2, 2019, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, alerted other LSE administrators that the two thesis versions might have differences. ……O'Connor was not surprised by the warning.……“I don't think either copy is the final thesis submitted in 1984. It was always her personal copy from 2019.”…… Marcus Cerny told Kevin Haynes on October 3, 2019 that the LSE statement on the thesis was carefully drafted. “We were very careful to avoid wording that suggested this was the copy submitted for examination or for final award. Those copies are lost and we have acknowledged that. Beyond that there is not much to say.” The LSE then went to deny it was the publisher of the digital copy of Tsai's thesis. “The School's scanned copy was downloaded directly from the Taiwan National Library. As such, permission was not needed per se for the scan as the School did not do the scanning. The forward in the scanned copy covered the permission needed.”…… Thus far no one has been able to say why the thesis was missing in the first place. No one has been able to explain what happened to the examination copies of the thesis. No one has been able to explain what happened to the final approved thesis. No one has been able to explain why no microfilm copy of the thesis was made. No one has been able to explain why no library has any acquisition records for the thesis prior to 2019. In short, no one has been able to explain what exactly is going on and why there was no serious academic investigation of the missing thesis.
大意：LSE試圖利用2019年出現的個人版本來結束爭議，而希望盡量低調的蔡陣營也陸續將書名頁、感謝頁、以及其他內文分批提供；最後為了掩飾缺頁問題，LSE決定使用國圖電子版對外公開，卻沒有針對各項疑點進行認真的調查。根據教育部釋出的1984年文件，蔡英文的論文題目與2019年公布的截然不同！（編按：另請參看本部落格「2019年LSE、蔡陣營統一口徑」一欄。）

—（October 27, 2023）However, both schools have issued public statements defending the degree award despite the glaring gaps in the verification record. Both schools have been hit with numerous Freedom of Information requests from the public. The two schools have adopted a strategy of refusing information requests by declaring them vexatious, no matter how polite or simple they are. John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, is tasked with enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act but has sided with the schools rather than the public. Edwards has been parroting the allegations of vexatiousness and issuing blanket denials of FOIA requests, making his own public statement denouncing those seeking information as conspiracy theorists. After Edwards' denial of complaints, people began appealing to the Information Review Tribunal Edwards came up with a new strategy to prevent Tribunal review of his decisions. Edwards began refusing FOIA requests without issuing a formal “decision notice” in an attempt to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction. There presently are pending at least four cases of purported vexatiousness that are threatened with lack of Tribunal oversight. One of the cases is further along than the other three and is poised to present the jurisdiction question to the Upper Tribunal. Ali Hajimi sought verification information from the University of London and was refused by the UL for alleged vexatiousness. The Information Commissioner's Office upheld the UL but did not issue a standard decision which has a right of appeal. Instead, the ICO sent a refusal letter in an attempt to keep Ali from going to the Tribunal. Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley, already a veteran of Tsai thesis litigation, bought Edward's argument that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear Ali's appeal. When Ali asked for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal he was quickly denied by Judge Buckley who claimed he raised no question of law.……“Without a Decision and, more specifically, without a decision notice, there is no appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (section 57 FOIA).”……“The appellant has not identified any arguable error of law in the decision or the reasons.”…… Lu, like Ali, had been seeking degree award verification information and was refused for supposed vexatiousness. In an earlier case, Oliver previously decided that the Data Protection Act shielded Tsai Ing-wen from the FOIA on the issue of examiner identity. Judge Oliver: “……the Appellant's complaint was dismissed under section 50(2)(c) on the grounds it was frivolous or vexatious. This is not a “decision notice” under section 50(3)(b).……Judge Oliver then set aside her decision after Lu pointed out a procedural irregularity. Lu's further submission will be considered by Oliver before making her final decision.……Meanwhile, two other complainants, both represented by myself pro bono, are waiting on the same jurisdiction question for the wheels of justice to turn. I made a request to consolidate the “decision notice” cases since it is the same jurisdictional question but was denied, thus ultimately four different judges will weigh in on the legal question of when a “decision” is a “decision notice.” The outcome of the cases will determine whether or not the ICO can abuse its discretion without Tribunal review.
大意：ICO支持倫大、LSE將論文門的提問視為「無理取鬧」，如今甚至藉口法庭管轄權的問題來阻止上訴。理查森代理的四個案子合併被拒，最終將由不同的法官來決定 ICO 能否濫用其自由裁量權。

—（November 2, 2023）In March, an Oxford educated PhD, Yungtai Hsu, sent a registered letter to Princess Anne in her capacity as Chancellor of the University of London, a post she has held since 1981.……“I am writing to express my concern on the academic honesty that has been maintained by University of London for the last centuries, but it is now in jeopardy.” “Ms. Tsai claimed she was a London School of Economics(LSE) student in London in 1981-1982 and in 1984 awarded a Law PhD in International Economics, through London School of Economics, a member of UoL colleges. Based on this qualification, she had become a professor in Taiwanese universities and through which she climbed the political ladder to assume many government positions.”…… “Many scholars, including myself, have investigated the existence of the claimed and passed thesis, titled Unfair trade practices and safeguard actions, and failed to find it in any thesis related libraries. I have obtained my PhD in UK academia and know that a PhD thesis is the most necessary requirement for being awarded the degree. A PhD thesis, if successfully passed, should have been assigned a serial identification number for the future academic research and references.”…… “In this matter, UoL has not responded clearly to any inquiries from the public. UoL is selectively replying that Ms. Tsai was properly awarded a PhD degree, quoting a statement made by London School of Economics, which was not even the degree awarding body in 1984. Before LSE awarded its own degree in 1990's, UoL was the degree awarding body for LSE in 1984. UoL should be the direct responsible party to answer the inquiry of the degree verification.” “The most intriguing part is that in 2015, Mr. Craig O'Callaghan, Deputy Director of UoL's Worldwide Program (distant learning) endorsed Tsai's alleged thesis and recommended UoL for a PhD degree. (Please see attached letter). The public inquiries were focused on the PhD degree claimed by Ms. Tsai to have received in 1984, not 2015. UoL has never cleared this matter in its reply. Mr. Craig O'Callaghan was in no capacity to endorse a PhD degree candidate, who registered with LSE and UoL as an Internal student in 1983-1984. This is the most direct question that only UoL Registrar and PhD programme director would have the answer, as a most conflicting story has been formed here.” “Your majesty, I am writing to plea for a thorough investigation in this matter. Whether UoL has selected a way to protect Ms. Tsai intentionally for her alleged PhD degree. If so, UoL has risked its integrity and your reputation.”In September, after patiently waiting a full half-year for a reply, Dr. Hsu again sent the regent another registered letter.……Anne does not take her role as Chancellor as one of importance to the academic integrity of the institution.
大意：徐永泰博士向1981年以來一直擔任倫敦大學校長的安妮公主發信，陳述校方在蔡英文論文門案中只會引用LSE的說法，甚至曾在2015年由負責遠距教學的人士出面回應，因此希望倫大能徹底調查，然而迄今未聞回音。

—（November 6, 2023）The latest installment of periodic reports from UK Watchdog is available here (https://richardsonreport.com/report-2019-investigation/). The most recent chapter in the UK Watchdog report on the Tsai Ing-wen thesis controversy begins on June 11, 2019, when the London School of Economics adopted a media statement about Tsai's PhD award. The next day, Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library, informed President Tsai's representatives that the LSE was “holding back” the media statement hoping first to get an electronic copy of the thesis. The request for a digital copy of Tsai's thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions, was quickly turned down the same day. Wilson was told “unfortunately, to make the electronic copy available…with other LSE theses will not end the speculation but invite many more ‘irrational’ speculations from anti-Tsai camp.” On June 17, 2019, Wilson recieved the thesis title page and acknowledgements page but not the thesis itself. Rather than ask questions about why no thesis was provided, Wilson speculated on an excuse for the missing examiner thesis copies. “Mr. Elliott [Tsai's last adviser] left both copies with LSE asking LSE to return them to Senate House. It's only circumstantial evidence but one could easily see them being left in his office and that being cleaned out….”……On June 28, 2019, two copies of the long awaited thesis arrived in London, one soft bound and one hard bound, both photocopies.……concerns raised about proving the validity of the thesis by Marcus Cerny at the LSE PhD Academy……Dan O'Connor, head of public relations at the LSE, raised concerns……When the catalog entry was made the next day on July 10, 2019, the publisher was “producer not identified” and the city of origin was “Taipei?” The creation date was 2019. A secondary title was “Reproduction of (manifestation): Tsai Ing-wen. Unfair trade practices and safeguard actions. London, 1983.”……According to UK Watchdog the LSE Library decided to store the thesis with the approved theses despite Cerrny's admonition that Tsai's thesis should not be stored as a record of an examined or awarded thesis.……(July 19, 2019) a “Taiwanese embassy delegation” visited the LSE Library to view security arrangements at the library. ……Curiously, Wilson announced the day of the visit that there would be no “fair use” of the thesis by researchers. “[A]lthough fair use copying is normally permitted, given the current interest in this thesis, we have therefore taken the decision to restrict copying.” The LSE Library decision to restrict fair use coping was contrary to the University of London regulations governing theses which required PhD candidates to make their thesis “available for public reference, inter-library loan and copying.” The LSE's restriction of fair use is also contrary to United Kingdom copyright law which permits “limited use of coyright works withut permission of the copyright owner.”……On October 7, 2019, President Tsai's office finally gave permission to LSE to link to the digital copy of her thesis at the Taiwan National Library. The next day the LSE listed the thesis on LSE Theses Online along with all the approved theses rendering Marcus Cerny's reservations as empty words.……On January 11, 2022, ……the University of London at last admitted it never had the thesis in its possession. “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University.”
大意：蔡陣營一度拒絕公開電子版，LSE若干內部人士也對論文的有效性表示疑慮；最後，紙本卻違反大學規定和英國版權法而限制了合理的使用，電子版也混入學位論文之中。2022年初，倫敦大學終於公開承認從未發表過蔡英文的論文。

—（November 10, 2023）A two person panel of the Information Review Tribunal has upheld the Information Commissioner's decision that a Freedom of Information request was vexatious and has shielded the British Library from explaining how it was able to create a catalog entry for a non-existent thesis.……The refused information request concerned the EThOS protocol requiring catalog entries to only come directly from colleges and universities.……The information request was denied by British Library CEO Roly Keating, who falsely claimed that the LSE had published the thesis in 2015. The British Library has since admitted Keating was in error,……Judge Stephen Cragg and panelist Kerry Pepperell……admitted the request was of considerable public interest, polite, and not part of a purported “concerted campaign” against President Tsai.……“The Commissioner concluded by saying that it is his view that the information that has been released, and statements and explanations that have been published, have allowed the public to have a full understanding about the records held relating to the relevant thesis and the award of a PhD to Dr Tsai. On that basis, the Commissioner had difficulty ascertaining what value would be attained from the disclosure of the information that has been requested in this particular case, and how this would be in the public interest.”……“The Appellant challenged this decision in an appeal notice dated 14 March 2023. He stated that ‘there is legitimate public interest in the information request and denies his information request is vexatious or that it is part of a concerted campaign originating in China’. ”“ The Appellant advanced further arguments to the effect that the thesis is not to be found in British libraries and that ‘in fact, that thesis did not exist and no metadata about that thesis was available to the British Library’. He expands on these points in what he calls his ‘Argument of Substance’, in which he says, in summary, that as LSE, Senate House Library and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) do not have a copy of the thesis then the Library should not have recorded the thesis as being in existence. He says, in conclusion that ‘the British Library has created an EThOS record for the thesis that contradicts and violates its own data collection policy and the September 2013 Memorandum of Understanding entered between the LSE and the British Library.” ……“However, from the Hsu case we accept Dr Tsai did write a thesis, that she was tested on it in a viva and that the award of the PhD is recorded in the University records. We also accept that the most likely explanation for an inability to locate the thesis is a filing error in 1984 (at a time when there would not have been computerisation of PhD theses). For the purposes of this appeal, we have seen email correspondence from 2015 between University institutions in which it is confirmed that copies of the thesis were provided to examiners in 1984, but that (for reasons not now known) the thesis was not catalogued.”……“In our view there is unreasonable persistence from the Appellant as he is aware that other institutions have confirmed the award of the PhD to Dr Tsai and yet he has continued to pursue the matter. This could also be portrayed as intransigence in the face of this information. It also seems to us that the Appellant has made unfounded allegations that the thesis does not exist, when the evidence is clear that there have been copies originally available which have been misplaced.”“Taking an holistic view of this request, this request comes in the context of many other requests to the Library and other institutions (even if the Appellant is not part of a concerted campaign), and where the records show that there was a grant of a PhD to Dr Tsai for which she was properly examined. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Appellant has a misconceived belief that Dr Tsai has not been awarded a PhD despite clear evidence to the contrary.”Roly Keating never informed the Tribunal he was in error about the LSE publishing President Tsai's thesis in 2015. Still, the Tribunal's “holistic” conclusion that politely asking how a thesis could be listed in the British Library catalog four years before it was submitted to the LSE is vexatious is hard to understand. Cragg and Pepperell seem to be the ones with misconceived beliefs. The appellant is expected to seek permission to appeal.
大意：在大英圖書館案中，上訴人認為收錄不存在的論文違反了與LSE的合作備忘錄，ICO則認為現有訊息業已足夠證明論文曾經存在，如今行政法院認同後者，其中一項理由是2015年內部電郵中有人推測1984年的問題在於歸檔錯誤。（編按：另請參看本部落格「2011、2015英國校方內部調查」和「2019年LSE、大英圖書館處理論文問題」。）

—（November 27, 2023）In a series of emails released by UK Watchdog, an independent research group investigating the Tsai Ing-wen thesis controversy, admininstrators at the London School of Economics and Political Science took turns insulting me despite never having read my Richardson Reports blog. The LSE honchos were looking for a scapegoat when they received my Freedom of Information request seeking the identity of thesis examiners.……I made my FOI request in September 2019. It took a couple of weeks to get to Danny O'Connor, the Media Relations Manager at the LSE, who promptly alerted his colleagues with information he apparently obtained from Alex Huang, President Tsai's spokesman in Taipei. “This individual is one of the main characters stirring up this story. His blog is effectively the main English-language outlet for the conspiracy theory.”…… Jess Winterstein, a subordinate of O'Connor, who received my FOI request,……O'Connor wrote back to Winterstein. “This is the individual stirring up a lot of the nonsense. His blog is basically a conspiracy theory website.”……Clive Wilson, the Enqueries Service Manager at the LSE Library, ……who earlier in the year told Alex Huang that he had been busy “fending off enquires” about Tsai's thesis suddenly became an expert on my blog. “The existing blog posts are full of shocking inaccuracies that he should be embarrassed about.” Hmmm. Conspiracy theory outlet? Shocking inaccuracies? It is obvious these guys didn't read what I have written on the matter and merely parroted what Alex Huang had told them. Being a good sport, I am giving O'Connor and Wilson a fair opportunity at rebuttal. Either man, or both, is free to respond and I will print their full reply. I only ask that O'Connor explain what is “the conspiracy theory” and that Wilson detail what are the “shocking inaccuracies” for which I should be embarrassed.……I know from other UK Watchdog disclosures that O'Connor has a media alert subscription service and regularly gets Google Alerts on LSE in the news. So, confident they will see this article, for the benefit of O'Connor, Wilson, and Winterstein, I say, “Shame on you!”
大意：透過UK Watchdog公布的LSE電郵，理查森發現有些人似乎沒有親自看過他的部落格，就接受黃重諺單方面的說法，因此要求Danny O'Connor和Clive Wilson說明：為何把他說成是在煽動陰謀論？為何認為他的文章中充滿令人震驚的錯誤？

—（December 11, 2023）The latest UK Watchdog report chapter（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUOauSGrR4）reviews contradictory statements made by the two schools further raising the spectre of academic fraud.……Alex Huang, President Tsai's spokesperson, had earlier in the day granted consent to release personal data on behalf of Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai's personal representative, Shih Fang-long, added a caveat that the names of the thesis examiners were to be made public.……Despite the written consent from Huang, the LSE responses to media inquiries did not include the examiners' names.……on June 4, 2019, the LSE replied to Hwan Lin's request under the Freedom of Information Act for verification of Tsai's thesis In the response to Lin the LSE admitted there was no thesis to be found.……However, the LSE changed its story a week later in its response to People News and claimed Senate House Library had a copy but couldn't find it.……The LSE team……scheduled a Monday morning meeting for June 24, 2019. On the day of the meeting the Senate House sent the LSE an email informing that an entry in the old 1980s card catalog revealed the thesis never was received.……After the meeting Cerny took command of the missing thesis problem. An email draft of the proposed revised statement was circulated. “It is clear Senate Houe received a copy of the thesis as it appears on their catalogue—and from there the British Library catalogue.” However, the British Library EThOS entry four years earlier, June 24, 2015, was made on the basis of a “speculative enquiry” and not from a harvest of any library database.……Dan O'Connor cited the EThOS entry as his proof the Senate House had received the thesis despite its denial that it had. “They clearly received their copy because otherwise it would not have been processed and appear on their catalogue—and from there to appear on the British Library catalogue.”……Meanwhile, Wilson made another revision to the proposed statement.……It is clear Senate House received a copy of the thesis as a PhD could not be awarded without it.”Dan O'Connor then suggested deleting the “could not be awarded” portion of the statement. Marcus Cerny also favored the cut……Several days later, after thinking it over, Cerny wanted to change his own proposal. “I would keep the date out of it and just say the Senate House confirmed they sent it to IALS.”……However, the LSE statement included a characterization of the thesis copy provided to the LSE Library as a facsimile and not a photocopy as indicated in the LSE catalog entry for the thesis. On July 1, 2019, Shih Fang-long offered two more changes. Shih wanted to say the thesis came from Tsai Ing-wen and not her presidential office, as it had. Shih also wanted to add the word “currently” to the sentence the Senate House Library could not find its copy. The media statement was again amended to reflect Shih's requests on behalf of Tsai.……On July 10, 2019, Cerny was asked why the Vice Chancellor's name was the same on the original diploma and one a reissued one many years later. The same question had been asked by Hwan Lin to the UL a month earlier. The UL response seemed straighforward.“Replacement certificates are only issued in cases of proven loss or accidental destruction, and they will of course still be identical to the original document—same wording, same signatures etc.” Tsai Ing-wen obtained two replacement diplomas, one in 2010, and one in 2015, but the two have different vice-chancellor signatures. Tsai's second reissued diploma was not because of loss but rather was Tsai's attempt to quell malicious rumors about her in 2015, during the presidential campaign.
大意：蔡英文曾授權公開口試委員姓名等信息，但是LSE團隊並未揭露，甚至避談倫大當年未收到論文的事實，直接用大英圖書館2015年的新增書目來證明其存在，也不指出向IALS發送論文的時間點是2011年。

—（December 12, 2023）After Tsai made her criminal complaint against Peng, Professor Hwan Lin, and attorney Ho De-fen, the ROC prosecutors began an investigation. Eventually the prosecutors dropped charges against Lin and Ho and zeroed in on Peng who commented: “Because we tried all kinds of methods to investigate this academic scandal, all the evidence was sealed on the grounds of state secrets until December 31, 2049, so I hope that by being prosecuted, the whole case can be transferred to the court for public trial. There is no personal interest in investigating this case. It is purely based on academic conscience and value. If I lose the case because of the justice under the control of the president, I will go to jail with honor.” When ROC prosecutors asked the LSE for information about the matter, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team at the LSE, offered up two names of examiners which the school later retracted saying tht Haynes had made a “hasty view” of Tsai's student file. The flip-flop of the LSE on the identity of the thesis examiners was enough to rile a man on the run and Peng vowed to sue the LSE.……Peng did bring an action against Kevin Haynes in a Taipei court but it was dismissed before Peng was even able to obtain service on Haynes. Taipei District Court Judge Lin Weihuan dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Peng against Haynes.……The Taipei court noted Peng would have difficulty enforcing his judgment in Taiwan if he won his case and cited an undue burden on Haynes to defend himself because of international travel costs. The decision explained the court's reasoning.（Please refer to: https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/2023/12/12/uk-watchdog-emails-reveal-london-school-of-economics-on-lookout-for-lawsuit-from-denny-peng-over-tsai-ing-wen-thesis/）……Danny O'Connor's email warning of a Peng lawsuit against the LSE was four years ago and no action other than the failed defamation case against Haynes in Taiwan has been brought.……（Peng:）“Our attorney in UK approached LSE and UoL since Oct. of 2019. Our investigation is ongoing. 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.”……On June 12, 2019, True Voice of Taiwan announced its early successful raising of $5,105,700 NT through the fundraising platform of FlyingV. The announcement did not disclose which lawsuit the money was to be used for. On October 15, 2022, True Voice of Taiwan announced its successful raising of NT$5,000,000. In the announcement, True Voice said that the raised funds will entirely be used for its lawsuit against the LSE.
大意：LSE法律團隊負責人海恩斯並未確實查找蔡英文的論文口委身分，就向司法人員提供名單。彭文正以偽證罪向台灣法院提告後，法官基於在台審理將侵害被告訴訟權利等理由，直接駁回。（編按：請利用司法院「裁判書查詢」系統查閱「台灣台北地方法院112年度重訴字第177號民事裁定」、以及後來決定發回更審的「臺灣高等法院113年度抗字第18號民事裁定」。）

—（December 18, 2023）In one of her very first cases as an appellate judge of the Upper Tribunal, Holly Stout has slammed the Tribunal courtroom door shut against a Freedom of Information complainant.……Stout's decision opens with the declaration in bold print that the appeal was “totally without merit.”……The appellant, Ali Hajimi, had politely asked for degree verification information from the University of London. Despite a limited information request and a polite tone Ali's request was deemed by the school to be vexatious.……(Information Commissioner John Edwards) not only refuses to help complainants but has used a vague statutory loophole to deny those who seek his assistance any recourse to the Information Review Tribunal.……Stout's view is that if an ICO decision is not explicitly labeled as a decision notice the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Stout conveniently overlooks statutory language in Section 50 of the FOI equating decisions with decision notices and sacrifices substance for form.……the refusal decisions inform of appeal rights, as do decision notices. The two types of decisions are substantively the same, with slight differences in form only. Judge Stout intentionally used her aggressive language to stop Ali from further proceedings. “In this case I am satisfied that the appeal is not just unarguable but that it is bound to fail…….No purpose whatsoever would be served by allowing the appellant to renew the application to an oral hearing.” Stout and Edwards would have so-called vexatious requests go directly to the High Court for review instead of the Information Review Tribunal. The change of courts would impose litigation complexities, hefty filing fees, and further delays for FOI appellants. Ali Hajimi sums it up: “I think that we nearly have no chance to win any cases in the Tribunal and the design of the UK FOIA actually allows ICO to help the public authorities to cover up information in the UK The design of the UK FOIA uses ICO as the firewall to block the right to appeal against the public authorities directly. It also gives ICO the right to evade Tribunal review.”“The government can manipulate the Tribunal or Administrative Court by their own judges if appellants have to apply for permission to appeal. They can refuse permission to appeal by a template reason that there is no arguable error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and directly ignore the pleadings.
大意：針對倫大以「無理取鬧」拒絕信息自由請求而引發的上訴案，行政法院的法官與ICO專員利用程序問題阻斷上訴的可能。（編按：上訴人Ali Hajimi曾在「WhatDoTheyKnow」網站上詢問證書補發是否會有原始簽名，請見https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/id_like_to_know_the_difference_b_2#incoming-2247882）

—（December 23, 2023）A truth-seeking independent researcher found missing University of London 1983 thesis examination regulations. （Please refer to: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=hwanclin&set=a.907444344718023）When asked for the examination regulations under the Freedom of Information Act, the school waited a full year before admitting they had lost the thesis exam rules. The Information Review Tribunal ordered the UL into court to explain what happened to the regulations causing an intense search of school records in preparation for an upcoming Tribunal hearing. During the course of the search the UL changed its story from lost to never had, a now obvious false statement. The UL has refused to retract its false statement to the Tribunal, insisting on the strength of a speculation that the UL did not assign examiners in 1983 for subordinate affiliated schools.……However, after first identifying two examiners, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh; the London School of Economics, where Tsai attended school, retracted its identification and now says it does not know who the examiners were, thus voiding its verification announcement. The University of London, which issued President Tsai's degree award, has its own public announcement on the tardy thesis, however without benefit of the thesis examination regulations. The UL announcement confirms Tsai's degree award and also says there were two examiners.……After the one-year delay in responding to a FOI request for the 1983 examination regulations, the UL admitted the rules were missing without explanation. However, during the course of a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office the UL asserted the examination responsibility in 1983 was with the member schools which contradicted what the LSE was saying about President Tsai's viva examination. The UL has persisted in this falsehood to the Information Review Tribunal and refuses to retract its claim that the LSE was responsible for the viva exam as its explanation for the lack of UL regulations. An ICO Decision Notice quoted the UL's falsehood: “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.” Making false statements to the ICO is nothing new to the UL. The thesis itself was the source of a real whopper.……Kit Good, the UL Data Protection and Information Compliance Manager, authored the falsity.“The original copy held by the University library was lost or mis-shelved sometime between mid‐1980s and 2010s over which period there were numerous structural changes to the library.”…… In a January 11, 2022 email, Data Protection Officer Suzie Mereweather contradicted her predecessor and stated, “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.” Blaming the Senate House Library librarians for losing President Tsai's thesis didn't work and the truth came out. Making up a story putting the examination burden on the LSE has also failed now that the missing regulations have been found. If Kevin Haynes was correct that Elliott and Leigh were the examiners the viva panel lacks an external examiner. Although Haynes was corrected by his subordinate team member, Haynes himself has not retracted his claim. The time has come to name President Tsai's thesis examiners. Continued secrecy about their identity will only further damage the credibility of the University of London. Finally, the question of when did the missing regulations go missing may never be answered. They could have gotten lost somehow years ago by archival error. Or, they could have disappeared after the Tsai Ing-wen thesis controversy emerged and Kit Good began fabricating a false history of the thesis. Were the missing regulations lost through negligence a long time ago or more recently as a cover-up for an invalid degree award?
大意：倫敦大學曾表示找不到、或是早年並無博士論文考試規則，甚至否認替所屬的學院任命考官，但是目前已被找出1983年的相關資料。除了LSE所謂兩名內部口委的名單查無實據，而且這與至少要有一名外部口委的規定不符。（編按：請參看本部落格「1983年倫敦大學修業規定、考官任命規則」一欄、以及「理查森報告2019－2022」〔October 31, 2019〕LSE資訊與紀錄經理的說明）

—（December 30, 2023）The latest chapter（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcsgCF4IyXU）in the ongoing UK Watchdog report begins in Taipei on August 29, 2019, when Professor Hwan Lin released a fifty-page study of the Tsai thesis.……Lin had earlier asked in a Freedom of Information request, “Was President Tsai's thesis the only one not to be included in the transfer list from the University of London to LSE Library……?”（Clive）Wilson promptly clued in Dan O'Connor, Head of Media Relations and Communications at the LSE, with an email message about Lin's FOI request.……“I am not aware of any other thesis ‘missing’ from the transfer list, but we did take over 600 theses that we did not already have a copy of.”……Rachael Maguire, Information Manager, later would explain that President Tsai's thesis was not in the transfer group.“The process started in 2009 and approximately 600 theses were identified as being at Senate House that we did not already have. (The Tsai thesis was not identified as such, presumably because Senate House did not have it either).”On September 16, 2019, Wilson got another email from the President's Office in Taipei.……“I would like to recommend the LSE consider issuing statements reconfirming that President Tsai had been awarded a PhD, or filing lawsuit against such smear tactics.” O'Connor replied to Wilson the next day about the recommendation from Taipei. “I don't think there would be much appetite to initiate a lawsuit.”…… The Presidential Office then requested the LSE issue a statement stating it was“in possession of all relevant information pertaining to Dr. Tsai's degree.”The LSE was also requested to say that Tsai “successfully passed the viva examination in October 1983.”UK Watchdog notes that Tsai's staff knew what records the LSE possessed because her student file had already been sent to Taiwan to prepare for the criminal defamation complaint brought against Dennis Peng, Hwan Lin, and Ho De-fen.……The Information Commissioner summed up the file contents in a Decision Notice which stated “that record only dealt with her activities at the LSE—and this did not include details of her final examination or viva.”……The University of London kept up the fiction of possessing the thesis even to the point of accusing the librarians of losing the thesis during restructuring. Finally, on January 11, 2022, the UL admitted not having the thesis in a response to a Freedom of Information request.…… In an October 2, 2019 email, O'Connor explained……“We were clear that we had a facsimile of her copy of the thesis. (I think there were some missing pages from the copy we received from her office. Anyway, I don't think either copy is the final thesis submitted in 1984. It was always her personal copy from 2019).” O'Connor made other changes to the catch-all statement. The first version stated the two schools “categorically confirm” that Tsai“completed her thesis.”The second version stated the two schools “confirm categorically”that Tsai“completed and submitted her thesis.”The third version, after the email to Haynes, stated the two schools “confirm the Dr Ing-wen was correctly awarded a PhD.” O'Connor relied on a mention of the thesis in a 1985 IALS listing entitled Legal Research in the United Kingdom to prove the existence of Tsai's thesis. O'Connor ignored the thesis absence from the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies catalog and checkmark index, two more definitive sources.……O'Connor sent a separate apology to Shih Fang-long, Tsai's personal representative at the LSE, for not issuing a statement drafted in Taipei. “It doesn't go into all the details being requested but provides an overview.……”Almost immediately, on the same day, that the catch-all statement went live on the LSE website, the University of London objected. O'Connor sent an email to the LSE team for advice. “Binda Rai, Comms Director at the University of London is quite concerned by the statement, specifically this part 'However, it has recently been discovered that the University of London Senate House Library are unable to find the hard copy of the thesis. '” “Would colleagues object if this sentence was just deleted? On reflection, it doesn't seem to impact the overall message.” Marcus Cerny, Director of the PhD Academy, supported the deletion.……Shih Fang-long accepted the changes but wanted more. “It is believed if one can locate the catalogue number assigned to the original thesis, it's the exact proof that President Tsai completed the process.”…… O'Connor followed up on Shih's request asking Clive Wilson for help.……Wilson was reluctant to ask the UL about the matter again.……“The question of that initial cataloguing of the thesis just seems to go in circles.” Meanwhile, Rachael Maguire, who had been fielding Freedom of Information requests, asked for an addition to the catch-all statement.“A common thread to the questions are names and dates. Can we add these to the statement please?”UK Watchdog credits Richardson Reports with prompting Maguire's ignored disclosure request for examiner identification.…………The thesis problem then shifted from O'Connor, who handled the media, to to Maguire, who dealt with the FOI requests. Ultimately, Louise Nadal, the LSE Board Secretary would step in with an internal review, only to be later chastised by a Tribunal judge for her false answer about examiner identities.
大意：總統府曾建議由LSE確認蔡英文通過口試、或是針對抹黑而提起訴訟，甚至協助草擬校方聲明。最後，缺乏口試相關資料的LSE並未在聲明中點出倫大總圖無法找到當年論文的事實，憑藉的主要是缺乏實證的一份索引。（編按：根據蔡英文簽署的信件，2019年9月3日曾向LSE索取包含論文口試、考試結果通知、授予學位、申請補發證書等日期的學生記錄！）