Submission of Second Supplementary Article for the Criminal Appeal

1. In contrast to what the judgment ascertained as factual statements (page 2, line 9 onward of the judgment), the last two paragraphs of the article To protect women in Taiwan, one must understand the fundamental doctrines of Lamaism does not contain the following passages:

“…the last two paragraphs read ‘Today, we bring the truth to light, which will undercut the stream of income of the Dalai Lama and Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhsim. Inevitably, those whose interests will be hurt will fight us back with extensive slandering and politicize our motives. In fact, Dawa Tsering of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama has already begun to…,’ ‘Dawa Tsering of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama also… When Typhoon Morakot struck southern Taiwan… the Dalai Lama could not wait to host Buddhist prayer session under the name of blessing for the victims, taking the opportunity to get a share of the hard-earned money of Taiwan’s charitable people…Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, raking in money from practitioners, focus on their own interests, and even politicize our Foundation, which does not amass offerings and purely engages in wholesome deeds; where is their conscience?’”(on page 2, line 10-17 of the judgment). The Court obviously overlooked the facts that the two aforesaid articles are different in terms of their content. Thus, the facts it held as being ascertained and recorded in this case, do not conform to the applied evidence. The judgment is thus contrary to evidence.

2. Again, the judgment held the same error and recorded accordingly in its statements of reasons section II (a) (on page 5, line 1 onward) as follows:

“…on behalf of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation, the defendant wrote the two articles entitled ‘The Highest Yoga Tantra practiced by lamas consists of having sex with female followers’ and ‘To protect women in Taiwan, one must understand the fundamental doctrines of Lamaism.’ The last two paragraphs of these two articles contain the following statements:

‘Today, we bring the truth to light, which will undercut the stream of income of Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism. Inevitably, those whose interests will be hurt will fight us back with extensive slandering and politicize our motives. In fact, Dawa Tsering of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama has already begun to… ’ and ‘Dawa Tsering of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama also… When Typhoon Morakot struck southern Taiwan… the Dalai Lama could not wait to host Buddhist prayer session under the name of blessing for the victims, taking the opportunity to get a share of the hard-earned money of Taiwan’s charitable people… Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, raking in money from practitioners, focus on their own interests, and even politicize our Foundation, which does not amass offerings and purely engages in wholesome deeds; where is their conscience?’” (on page 5, line 1-12). The judgment’s statements of reasons obviously do not conform to the application of evidence. Therefore, the judgment is also contrary to evidence.

3. Furthermore, as stated in the judgment (page 16, line 13 onward):

“… on behalf of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation, the defendant wrote … To protect women in Taiwan, one must understand the fundamental doctrines of Lamaism. The last two paragraphs of these two articles contain the following statements, ‘Today, we bring the truth to light …’” (page 16, line 13-23). Here again, the judgment held the same error, thus it is contrary to evidence.

4. Despite the aforesaid assertions the judgment held, a contradictory statement was found in page 17, line 6 onward of the same judgment:

“…Regarding the content of the aforesaid articles published by the defendant on the China Times, Apple News, and Express News from 24-26 January 2011, other than the additional passages concerning politicization, all other parts are the same as that of the other articles published on 19 January and 20 January 2011 (page 17, line 6-9).” This statement contradicts with the judgment’s findings in 1, 2, and 3, which means that the judgment contains self-contradictory reasoning. The judgment is thus contrary to law in that the facts it held contradict the reasons it put forth and the reasons it put forth in different sections are self-contradictory.

1. It should be brought to attention that the last two paragraphs of the Foundation publications themselves do not contain any statements that solely refer to the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama. Specifically, the Chinese word “de” always appears after the name of the said Foundation, which indicates to any persons who understand basic Chinese that the subjects in these two paragraphs are definitely not the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama. It is implausible that the Court, without prudent examination, has presumed and interpreted the said Foundation to be the subjects of the sentences in these two paragraphs. It is the Court’s discretion to decide whether it is necessary to obtain opinion on this matter from experts in Chinese language or the esteemed judge’s personal judgment will suffice.

2. Also, in the sentence “Today, we bring the truth to light, ‘which’ will undercut the stream of income of Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism” found in the Foundation publications, the word “which” refers to the article To protect women in Taiwan, one must understand the fundamental doctrines of Lamaism published on 19-20 January 2011 on page A1 of the Liberty Times and page A6 of the United Daily News (Private Persecutor Exhibit 2 & 3 named in I. A.). The clause “which will undercut the stream of income of Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism” refers to neither the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama nor Dawa Tsering. To suit its finding, the Court has cropped out the original texts in the two paragraphs and forged different parts together and thereby altering the meaning; its interpretation of these two paragraphs is therefore highly disputable and questionable.

3. In particular, the judgment of the Court must have mistaken the content of the two articles - namely To protect women in Taiwan, one must understand the fundamental doctrines of Lamaism and The Highest Yoga Tantra practiced by lamas consists of having sex with female followers - to be exactly identical; otherwise, how could it assert that the subjects of the aforesaid two paragraphs to be the two private prosecutors?

4. The subjects of the two paragraphs quoted in the judgment, were actually “Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism,” which referred back to the Lamaists mentioned in the articles published on 19-20 January 2011 on page A1 of the Liberty Times and page A16 of the United Daily News. As for the subsequent mentioning of Dawa Tsering, it was added in response to the news articles posted by Taiwan Friends of Tibet on 19 January 2011 as well as the article posted on the official website of The Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama on 20 January 2011, which refuted the Foundation publications as untrue. While the defendant believed that these articles were most likely put together by some backstage mastermind other than Dawa Tsering himself, since Dawa Tsering is the representative of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama, the defendant therefore named Dawa Tsering as the one politicizing the Foundation’s motives and supported these statements with specifics. The defendant has never stated anywhere that the Tibet Religious Foundation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the counterfeit Buddhism - Lamaism, or Dawa Tsering is one of the Lamaists whose interests would be hurt. The judgment’s finding (page 2, line 17; page 3, lines 16-18; and page 6, line 11 to 9 counted from the bottom) that the Foundation publications insinuate that the private prosecutors belong to those Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, raking in money from practitioners, is unsupported by evidence. Thus the judgment is contrary to evidence.

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure has adopted the doctrine of strict proof. In reference to J. Y. Interpretation No. 582, under the doctrine of strict proof, “No defendant shall be pronounced guilty until a court of law has legally investigated admissible evidence and achieved firm belief that such evidence is sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt.” However, given the lack of affirmative evidence, the Court’s statement of reasons based upon distorting the contexts of the aforesaid articles and making out-of-context and strained interpretations and thereby altering the meaning. By doing so, the judgment has obviously abused its authority of free judgment. It has not only violated the Principle of Evidentiary Adjudication but also conflicted with empirical rule and logic reasoning.

2. Moreover, the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama is neither the subject term of that particular paragraph nor the target party of the Foundation publications. Since the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama is a foundation, it possesses no consciousness and therefore is unable to perform the actions of writing or reproaching others. Nor can it be considered to have any conscience. It, therefore, is apparently not the target party of the Foundation publications. The Court’s findings obviously violate empirical rule and logical reasoning by holding that the said Foundation is the victim in this case and that the Foundation publications insinuate that Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, equal the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama. The judgment is clearly contrary to law in that it is unsupported by evidence.

3. In particular, the defendant was unaware of the identity of the party that posted the two articles - namely, the news article from Taiwan Friends of Tibet, that was posted on The Dalai Lama Foundation website on 19 January 2011, as well as an article entitled Refuting the untrue advertising of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation posted on the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama on 20 January 2011. These two articles politicize the Foundation’s motive and also contain passages that defend the prominent figures of Lamaism, such as the Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa and their publications. References are as follows:

(A) News release posted on Taiwan Friends of Tibet, 19 January 2011

“Today, an organization named ‘Zheng Jue’ (including the True Enlightenment Practitioners Association and the True Enlightenment Education Foundation) has placed an advertisement that occupies half of the front page of a newspaper, which recklessly attacks the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism. Taiwan Friends of Tibet believes that the action of this organization is politically motivated and that it actually engages in political defamation under the guise of religion. We are calling upon the public to condemn its action… Its intention is extremely questionable. We cannot help but suspect that this organization has been supported by funding from particular sources and that it aims to vilify the Dalai Lama as well as Tibetan Buddhism… This organization has been visiting China in recent years. It has been publishing books that besmirch Tibetan Buddhism and has been affiliating itself with State Administration for Religious Affairs of P.R.C. Whether these incidents have anything to do with the action of this organization today deserves to be questioned.”

(B) The article published on 20 January 2011 entitled Refuting the untrue advertisement of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation (Private Prosecutor Exhibit 4 of the trial).

The third paragraph in this article reads, “…The dharma teachings of the Venerable Dalai Lama and Tsongkhapa laid out in this untrue article are literal, superficial and out-of-context misinterpretations that intend to mislead the public. One cannot pass out judgment simply based on conventional traditions or ethical standards of a particular time and place. When great masters such as Tsongkhapa and the Dalai Lama taught the supreme Tantras, they had to elaborate on the treatises of Bodhisattva Nagarjuna, Bodhisattva Aryadeva or Bodhisattva Candrakirti in accordance with the tantras in order to ensure the proper legacy. Their teachings and explanations were not derived from their personal interpretations and certainly did not violate any monastic precepts.”

The fourth paragraph continues, “…Actually, apart from a small portion of the content that was rejected by the Confucian ethics, all these tantras were shared among all Buddhist schools rather than solely propagated by Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, in contrast to the slanderous remarks and insinuations found in the untrue advertisement, the said behavior does not represent all Tibetan Buddhist monks.”

In the sixth paragraph, it states “…In the past fifty or so years, the Chinese Communists have made unsparing effort to slander and vilify Tibetan Buddhism, especially the international development that Tibetan Buddhism has achieved.…be prepared for both eventualities, either to take control of them internally for specific purpose, or at least sever their control from the Dalai’s group,” (Private Prosecutor Exhibit 4, page 1, line 8 onward). These statements clearly speak for themselves.

(C) Quotations (A) and (B) prove that there are definitely backstage masterminds, such as Taiwan Friends of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, or the adherents of Tsongkhapa or the Lamaists, etc., who published these articles through the official website of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama to slander the publications of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation. Their contents apparently directed at the Foundation publications published on page A1 of the Liberty Times and page A16 of the United Daily News on 19-20 January 2011. However, what the defendant referred to in the Foundation publications as the Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, are directed at the Dalai Lama and adherents of Tsongkhapa who promote the couple practice tantra. The defendant never held that Dawa Tsering or the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama as the Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism. The defendant did not insinuate that the private prosecutors were the ones who exploited dharma events to rake in money for their own profit. This fact can be verified by examining the citations of the Court judgment found in the Foundation publications: “…the Dalai Lama could not wait to host Buddhist prayer session under the name of blessing for the victims, taking the opportunity to get a share of the hard-earned money of Taiwan’s charitable people.”

(D) The Court has failed to comprehend the exact meaning as well as the connotations of the Foundation publications and did not tentatively examine the press release of Taiwan Friends of Tibet on 19 January 2011, as well as the article entitled Refuting the untrue advertisement of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation. Instead, based on sheer speculation, the judgment directly associated the parts about “Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism” and “raking in money from practitioners” in the Foundation publications with the words “Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama” and “Dawa Tsering” and asserted that the defendant was insinuating to the two private prosecutors. The facts in this case as ascertained in the judgment were not based upon evidences and are therefore extremely contestable!

1. The prayer sessions hosted by the Dalai Lama are claimed to be able to summon ghosts and deities as well as heavenly troops and therefore are supposed to effectively remove bad luck. These prayer sessions could also entail the empowerment of sexual Couple-Practice of Kalachakra Tantra to the disciples, the instruction of Couple-Practice Tantra to lamas and female disciples (known as Buddha-mother or female consort) in private, as well as the Dalai Lama actually engages in political activities around the world.

2. On the other hand, the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama is only responsible for arranging the Dalai Lama’s schedules, venues, accommodations, as well as ensuring public order and security, etc. The organization itself cannot be deemed the equivalent of the prayer sessions presided over by the Dalai Lama, since what most people refer to as the prayer sessions hosted by the Dalai Lama certainly pertains to the content described in 1.

3. For only the Dalai Lama himself is believed to possess the aforementioned supernatural powers. The Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama or Dawa Tsering are definitely not regarded to have these abilities. How could they treat themselves as the equals to the Dalai Lama and regard themselves as “the Dalai Lama, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, raking in money from practitioners” alleged by the defendant?

4. Despite lacking of thorough and prudent investigation, the Court held that “After reading these two paragraphs, the public will naturally correlate the two private prosecutors with the statements that ‘the Dalai Lama visited Taiwan to host Buddhist prayer session, taking the opportunity to get a share of the hard-earned money of Taiwan’s charitable people’ and will comprehend the meaning of the last two paragraphs of the aforesaid articles as saying that the two private prosecutors were the ones ‘taking the opportunity to get a share of the hard-earned money of Taiwan’s charitable people during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Taiwan to host Buddhist prayer session’ and that they are obviously the Lamaists, whose religion counterfeits Buddhism, raking in money from practitioners,” (page 6, lines 15 to 20 of the judgment). The logic applied in the above assertion of the judgment is not supported by laws or the principles of jurisprudence, nor is the above assertion consistent with the filing evidence submitted. The judgment clearly violates the logic of reasoning as well as the empirical rule.

① The judgment cited Dawa Tsering’s witness statement and held the 26 pieces of receipts as evidences (Private Prosecutor Exhibit 3) at the trial to support its assertion in this case that the Dalai Lama’s schedule and expenditures in Taiwan were indeed arranged and covered by the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama, (page 6, the last line to page 7, line 1). This assertion is questionable for the following reasons:

② Moreover, in order to mislead the Court, the private prosecutor deliberately presented in the trial part of the website (see Attachment 1) to prove that the cost of the Dalai Lama’s Taiwan visit was completely covered by the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama. Even Dawa Tsering’s testimony held that "... we did not receive a penny of donations," (page 10, line 13 counted from the bottom of the electronic record of the trial on 27 July 2012).

However, this website (5683) the private prosecutor submitted as evidence to prove that the said Foundation has covered all of Dalai’s expenditures in Taiwan actually contains a same day (2 September 2009) news report by Cti-TV entitled Adherents snatching up the bills to make offerings to the Dalai Lama (Appellant Exhibit 8) as well as the news of Nita Ing contributing both money and personal efforts to Dalai’s trip (Appellant Exhibit 7). Yet the private prosecutor blurred out part of this website and submitted a piece of tampered evidence. Clearly, the private prosecutor submitted a tampered website as evidence to mislead the judge to believe that the said Foundation has covered all costs of Dalai’s Taiwan visit. Additionally, the witness, Dawa Tsering, gave false testimony in Court to mislead the untainted, inexperienced judge that the said Foundation “did not receive a penny of donations,” bringing the Court to ascertain in its judgment that “the witness Dawa Tsering has made clear in his testimony that... no donation boxes or counters were set up at the site of the prayer session, and we did not appeal to believers to make donations, nor did we receive a penny of donations,” (page 11, line 12 to 3 counted from the bottom). Alas, the extent to which Dawa Tsering, the representative of the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama, distorted the facts in court could have amounted to an act of perjury.

③ In particular, the Dalai Lama makes a living by dharma propagation while the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama focuses on the preaching of Buddhist doctrines, organizing international events in religious education, academic and cultural exchanges, as well as philanthropic and charitable undertakings (page 9, line 3 counted from the bottom and onward). Since both parties are non-profit entities, how could they sustain their operations without accepting adherents' donations and offerings? Who would believe their claim that they “did not receive a penny of donations”? How is it possible for anyone with a common sense to take their claim as the truth?

④ If Dawa Tsering's statement were true, then it would be unimaginable how his organization could afford such enormous amount of expenditures without receiving even a penny of donations, especially when they possess a mentality of that “One would not do a loss-making business, but would seek profits at all costs," (page 4, line 3 counted from the bottom and page 5, line 14-15 of the trial transcript, on 27 July 2012). Given that they could boldly put forth such statements in court, anyone with the least bit of common sense would not believe any words of their testimony. Nonetheless, the presiding judge of the Court credulously accepted with faith all the false evidences and even the fabricated testimony offered by Dawa Tsering. Hence, the judgment has violated the principles of both logical reasoning and empirical rule. The judgment is also contrary to law in that it holds evidence improperly.

1. Cti-TV reported on 1 September 2009: During the Dalai Lama’s visit in Taiwan, Nita Ing, Chairman of Taiwan High Speed Rail, not only unprecedentedly provided him with personal high speed rail service, but also dispatched a troop of veteran military policemen, commonly known as the “nightjars,” to escort the Dharma King and to serve as his “personal protectors.” Nita Ing contributed both money and energy toward Dalai’s visit (Appellant Exhibit 7).

2. Cti-TV news reported on 2 September 2009 that there were "Adherents snatching up the bills to make offerings to the Dalai Lama" (Appellant Exhibit 8). These reports prove that either the Dalai Lama himself or the Tibet Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama Dalai had received substantial financial offerings from followers during Dalai’s visit to Taiwan after Typhoon Morakot. Thus, Dawa Tsering’s statement during the trial that “we did not receive a penny of donations” is an utterly false statement that constitutes perjury.

3. Moreover, during his past visits to Taiwan, had the Dalai Lama ever voluntarily disclosed whether his expenses was paid out of his own pockets or covered by the said Foundation? And had he ever disclosed the total amount of his expenditures? In fact, the reason for announcing the source of funding is that, prior to and after his Taiwan visit, individuals from groups such as the Chinese Unification Party and the Concentric Patriotism Association of ROC protested against the government’s invitation to the Dalai Lama and against the funding of Dalai’s trips with taxpayers’ money (Appellant Exhibit 9). However, to play along with the show put up by the DPP, Dalai voluntarily announced, as a formality, that his expenditures during the Taiwan visit were funded by The Tibetan Religious Foundation of H. H. the Dalai Lama. In reality, he has accepted in private many offerings and donations from his followers. Otherwise, Cti-TV would not have reported the aforementioned news. While Dawa Tsering sounded righteously when he testified in court, it is needless to say where the facts actually stand.

4. Therefore, the Dalai Lama actually did take the opportunity of presiding over Buddhist prayer session as a means to collect contributions from the general public or to accept the public’s contributions to pay for his expenditures in Taiwan. Since the aforementioned statements in the Foundation publications are indeed in accord with the truth, they do not constitute the offense of defamation.

1. The Epoch Times reported, “According to ETTV’s news report…he remarked that with respect to fundraising for the Dalai Lama, Mr. Lee, the ex-President, appealed to the business community with his personal charisma and the chairman of a certain giant enterprise donated a sum of seven figures right away as a start. Other corporate leaders followed suit because of this display of generosity. At the end of his trip in Taiwan, the Dalai Lama had pocketed over ten millions of donations,” (Appellant Exhibit 10).

2. On 11 April 2008, World News Journal reported, “…Taiwan authority is another major donor of the Dalai group. When Dalai first visited Taiwan in 1997, Taiwan authority offered him 17.81 million NT dollars; when he visited Taiwan again in 2001, it offered him 15 million NT dollars,” (Appellant Exhibit 11).

3. On June 19, 2009, Global Times reported that the Dalai Lama is the cash cow of the Dalai group and that “…while monastics supposedly regard the ‘four great elements as void and empty,’ the Dalai Lama maintains an intense interest in money wherever he goes. According to traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, the convening of the Puja (dharma assembly) by a Living Buddha is an extremely solemn event that should only take place once in several years or even a decade. Yet, the Dalai Lama often convenes Puja once or even several times a year. Each and every time he claimed that it will be the last Puja by the Dalai Lama, which turned out to be a gimmick to encourage his followers to pour in donations,” (Appellant Exhibit 12).