【Jane Huang VS Lodro RINCHEN LAWSUITS】
The lawsuit between Jane Huang and Lodro Rinchen was concluded on July 28, 2021. The content of the judgment mainly revolved around Jane Huang's mental state and two dummies posters. The judgment of the second instance was the same as that of the first instance. The content of the second-instance judgment has clearly stated that Lodro Rinchen can appeal, and he needs to apply within 20 days after receiving the judgment. (source: the last paragraph of the second-instance judgment). Lodro Rinchen chose not to appeal.
We have roughly sorted out the contents of the two judgments. Because they are court documents, we only give a general description. For details, please refer to the decisions published on the Judicial Yuan’s official website.
Huang vs. Lodro Rinchen's first-instance judgment website
Huang vs. Lodro Rinchen's second-instance judgment website
【Summary of the First Instance Judgment】
『When the plaintiff sued, the second item of the statement of the lawsuit was original: "The defendant should go to the personal page of Lodro Rinchen's Facebook website (@lodrorinchen) and the Facebook page of "Searching for the Truth about the Karmapa Incident" and the Facebook of Mirror Weekly. The special page will publish the apology notice as shown in Attachment 3 for three months.” On January 2, 2020, the plaintiff first changed her published statement in a written pleading to read: “The defendant should post on the personal page of Lodro Rinchen's Facebook website ( @lodrorinchen) and the community message board of "Guardian of the Guru Karmapa" on Facebook, and the message board of Mirror Weekly's Facebook website posted the apology notice as Annex 3 for three months." [Source: Part "one" of the judgment of the first instance]
Editor's Note: Huang asked Lodro to publish an apology notice on the Facebook page "Finding the Truth.” The purpose is to make people feel that the truth that Lodro investigated is untrustworthy. However, we posted the information of the Facebook page "Karmapa Incident-Truth Investigation Report" on the “Finding the Truth" at the end of 2019. Huang changed her demands on January 2, 2020, and did not ask Lodro to publish the apology notice on the "Finding the Truth." We think Huang was afraid that others would see the "Truth Investigation Report." )
『Annex 3 also involves contents not related to this case (including the authenticity of the contents stated by the plaintiff in the Mirror Weekly report and redundant statements that have nothing to do with restoring the plaintiff's reputation, etc.). The judgment of this court is also public, and the plaintiff is also answered. The effect of the reputation and all other circumstances, admitting the defendant to publish the apology notice as shown in Appendix 6 on the personal page of the "Lodro Richen" Facebook website for ten days is enough to restore the plaintiff's reputation. To the plaintiff's request beyond this scope, it is unnecessary and should not be granted.』
[Source: Part “six” of the judgment of the first instance]
The judge believes that Mirror Weekly reported that "this magazine has evidence and cannot confirm that the two have had sex." "This magazine does its best to verify that it can only prove to this stage and cannot indicate the relationship between them." It is enough for readers to make a reference and judgment. Lodro does not need to repeat the report of Mirror Weekly and claims that the plaintiff is "a patient suffering from her mental illness" [Source: Part “five” (8) of the judgment of the first instance]
【Summary of the Second Instance Judgment】
The second-instance judgment clearly states that「If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you should file an appeal pleading with this court within 20 days after receiving and serving it. If the reason for the appeal is not indicated, you should submit a supplementary pleading to this court within 20 days after filing the request—」 (source: the last paragraph of the second-instance judgment).
Lodro cited the content of the dialogue between Huang and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s assistant Lai Fanyun as evidence. Huang herself admitted to suffering from mental illness. The judge believes that the dialogue took place on September 6, 2017 and the weekly report on January 23, 2019. The time between the two was too long, so this dialogue is not sufficient to prove that Huang has a mental illness problem. (source: The “fourth”part (two) 3. tenth line of the second-instance judgment)
There is a paragraph in the second-instance judgment that the Karmapa answered the questions of Master Miaorong. (Source: The "fourth" part (two) 2. the middle part of the judgment of the second instance)
Master Miao Rong (the official Chinese translator of the Karmapa) asked the Karmapa on January 22, 2019, what should they call H when they speak to the public?
{ Karmapa replied: 『I don't think we can give an official reply; otherwise, it will help them.
She is mentally ill and needs medicine. The women she said have nothing to do with me, she fancied it.
You do not call her name casually. In case someone asks for her to fight, only use the last name "Huang" to make her feel at ease.
I'm fine. Times have changed; let’s learn from those stars!}
『It should be appropriate for the appellant to publish an apology notice for ten days if the disputed apology is posted on Lodro Rinchen's Facebook page, sufficient to restore the appellant's reputation. Although the appellee maintains that the content of the apology notice should contain the specific details of the incident (page 113 of the first volume of this court), this part has exceeded the necessary level of restoring his reputation and should not be allowed. 』[Source: Part "four" (four) 2 of the second instance judgment, the last few lines]
We have roughly sorted out the contents of the two judgments. Because they are court documents, we only give a general description. For details, please refer to the decisions published on the Judicial Yuan’s official website.
Huang vs. Lodro Rinchen's first-instance judgment website
Huang vs. Lodro Rinchen's second-instance judgment website
【Summary of the First Instance Judgment】
『When the plaintiff sued, the second item of the statement of the lawsuit was original: "The defendant should go to the personal page of Lodro Rinchen's Facebook website (@lodrorinchen) and the Facebook page of "Searching for the Truth about the Karmapa Incident" and the Facebook of Mirror Weekly. The special page will publish the apology notice as shown in Attachment 3 for three months.” On January 2, 2020, the plaintiff first changed her published statement in a written pleading to read: “The defendant should post on the personal page of Lodro Rinchen's Facebook website ( @lodrorinchen) and the community message board of "Guardian of the Guru Karmapa" on Facebook, and the message board of Mirror Weekly's Facebook website posted the apology notice as Annex 3 for three months." [Source: Part "one" of the judgment of the first instance]
Editor's Note: Huang asked Lodro to publish an apology notice on the Facebook page "Finding the Truth.” The purpose is to make people feel that the truth that Lodro investigated is untrustworthy. However, we posted the information of the Facebook page "Karmapa Incident-Truth Investigation Report" on the “Finding the Truth" at the end of 2019. Huang changed her demands on January 2, 2020, and did not ask Lodro to publish the apology notice on the "Finding the Truth." We think Huang was afraid that others would see the "Truth Investigation Report." )
『Annex 3 also involves contents not related to this case (including the authenticity of the contents stated by the plaintiff in the Mirror Weekly report and redundant statements that have nothing to do with restoring the plaintiff's reputation, etc.). The judgment of this court is also public, and the plaintiff is also answered. The effect of the reputation and all other circumstances, admitting the defendant to publish the apology notice as shown in Appendix 6 on the personal page of the "Lodro Richen" Facebook website for ten days is enough to restore the plaintiff's reputation. To the plaintiff's request beyond this scope, it is unnecessary and should not be granted.』
[Source: Part “six” of the judgment of the first instance]
The judge believes that Mirror Weekly reported that "this magazine has evidence and cannot confirm that the two have had sex." "This magazine does its best to verify that it can only prove to this stage and cannot indicate the relationship between them." It is enough for readers to make a reference and judgment. Lodro does not need to repeat the report of Mirror Weekly and claims that the plaintiff is "a patient suffering from her mental illness" [Source: Part “five” (8) of the judgment of the first instance]
【Summary of the Second Instance Judgment】
The second-instance judgment clearly states that「If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you should file an appeal pleading with this court within 20 days after receiving and serving it. If the reason for the appeal is not indicated, you should submit a supplementary pleading to this court within 20 days after filing the request—」 (source: the last paragraph of the second-instance judgment).
Lodro cited the content of the dialogue between Huang and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s assistant Lai Fanyun as evidence. Huang herself admitted to suffering from mental illness. The judge believes that the dialogue took place on September 6, 2017 and the weekly report on January 23, 2019. The time between the two was too long, so this dialogue is not sufficient to prove that Huang has a mental illness problem. (source: The “fourth”part (two) 3. tenth line of the second-instance judgment)
There is a paragraph in the second-instance judgment that the Karmapa answered the questions of Master Miaorong. (Source: The "fourth" part (two) 2. the middle part of the judgment of the second instance)
Master Miao Rong (the official Chinese translator of the Karmapa) asked the Karmapa on January 22, 2019, what should they call H when they speak to the public?
{ Karmapa replied: 『I don't think we can give an official reply; otherwise, it will help them.
She is mentally ill and needs medicine. The women she said have nothing to do with me, she fancied it.
You do not call her name casually. In case someone asks for her to fight, only use the last name "Huang" to make her feel at ease.
I'm fine. Times have changed; let’s learn from those stars!}
『It should be appropriate for the appellant to publish an apology notice for ten days if the disputed apology is posted on Lodro Rinchen's Facebook page, sufficient to restore the appellant's reputation. Although the appellee maintains that the content of the apology notice should contain the specific details of the incident (page 113 of the first volume of this court), this part has exceeded the necessary level of restoring his reputation and should not be allowed. 』[Source: Part "four" (four) 2 of the second instance judgment, the last few lines]