這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
「大寶法王女友」的推薦目錄:
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 [新聞]擁全球千萬信眾大寶法王遭爆交女友- 看板Buddhism 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊封面故事》驚傳違反戒律大寶法王遭控交女友 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊鏡爆社會》【法王桃花劫】破戒交女友? 大寶法王開示 ... 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 第十七世大寶法王噶瑪巴事件—真相調查報告 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 大寶法王女友的八卦,PTT和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 [新聞] 大寶法王破戒交女友大弟子反批「中國妖女」挨告敗訴 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 Re: [新聞] 擁全球千萬信眾大寶法王遭爆交女友 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 大寶法王身體狀況2023-在Facebook/IG/Youtube上的焦點新聞 ... 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 大寶法王身體狀況2023-在Facebook/IG/Youtube上的焦點新聞 ... 的評價
- 關於大寶法王女友 在 Re: [新聞] 擁全球千萬信眾大寶法王遭爆交女友- 看板Buddhism 的評價
大寶法王女友 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的精選貼文
這是大寶法王桃色事件的另一位女事主的面子書,寫了很多事情的始末。
我和一些朋友談起最近這事件,覺得事情不會就此不了了之,反之會越來越多事情講會繼續負面。沒兩天,就看到這個FB 賬號。
這裡我只是選這一個文章來分享,是因為它是很典型的 Stockholm Syndrome 斯德哥爾摩症候群 —— 她被自己和大寶法王的關係混淆了。
到底她是大寶法王的情人?還是徒弟?還是明妃?
然後再在自己的矛盾中一再煎熬之下,還抱著要拯救大寶法王的心願,希望他能夠重新受戒守戒,雙雙改過自新,最後雙雙解脫成佛。(如果我是她的朋友,我會勸她不要妄想拯救大寶法王,而是先顧好自己。)
過去西方的心理學,雖被佛教界認為只是小兒科,都一直有探討過藏傳的活佛制度,會給不少被認證為活佛的小孩,帶來不健康的心理成長。現在是越來越多的證據支持西方心理學的論點。
我不否定佛家修行的心理學,有它很強的地方,但,不代表佛家的心理學上凌駕於世俗心理學之上,而是兩家不同的學說,用來對治不同的問題。
要修行的,單崇佛家心理學(佛家的內明),非常適合。
但,在世俗角度,若荒廢了健康的基礎,一樣會有心理上的陰影或鬱結。
我個人認為這兩套學說不是在一直線之上,而是個別獨立,所以極易可能一個人說有修行上的大成就,同時也有心理上的鬱結和扭曲。
金剛乘對師父的絕對信仰,不可以太認真。
就好像結婚認定自己伴侶是真命天子,是你人生的唯一,是個理想,也是個好的理想,值得嚮往和趨向。但,對這個理想越迷信,就會越不堪。
#當中的一些文章
#有透露其他女事主
#包括大寶法王的女兒
#用鬼佬說法
#這是DeadbeatBoyfriend
#和DeadbeatDad的寫照
2018年7月4日,本人勸諫其持戒所發的訊息又被噶瑪巴視為”囉嗦”。
On 4 July, 2018, my messages remonstrating him to uphold the discipline were again considered by Karmapa as “naggy”
#Metoo
#Metoointibetanbuddhism
#Thekarmapasexscandal
#大寶法王破戒交女友
#大寶法王性醜聞
大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊 Facebook 的最讚貼文
我沒有慧根,實在看不太懂⋯⋯ #大寶法王 #藏傳佛教
遭爆料破戒交女友的大寶法王正在閉關,21日晚間在官網發表特別開示,表示自己僅受過沙彌戒和敬事男戒,並未受過比丘戒。他強調,真正的出家戒不只是可不可做的約束和規範,最重要的是希求解脫、出離輪迴的心。
【擁全球千萬信眾 大寶法王遭爆交台灣女友】
http://bit.ly/2sEbEFF
【「酸甜苦辣都有」的關係 法王與台灣女信徒對話錄音檔曝光】
http://bit.ly/2sIjiyS
☑ 鏡傳媒 iOS ➜ goo.gl/bWvmsn
☑ 鏡傳媒 Android ➜ goo.gl/2Ctu8A
大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊封面故事》驚傳違反戒律大寶法王遭控交女友 的推薦與評價
第17世大寶法王噶瑪巴在全球擁有千萬信徒, 自幼被視為「神」般存在,理應遵守嚴格戒律。本刊卻接獲信徒H女(化名)投訴,指大寶法王不但與她交往長 ... ... <看更多>
大寶法王女友 在 鏡週刊鏡爆社會》【法王桃花劫】破戒交女友? 大寶法王開示 ... 的推薦與評價
本刊為求證當事人,發e-mail給法王的聯絡信箱,至截稿前未收到回應。但在閉關的大寶法王,21日晚間在官網發表特別開示,表示自己僅受過沙彌戒和敬事男 ... ... <看更多>
大寶法王女友 在 [新聞]擁全球千萬信眾大寶法王遭爆交女友- 看板Buddhism 的推薦與評價
第17世大寶法王噶瑪巴在全球擁有千萬信徒,理應遵守嚴格戒律,他更不斷推崇吃素和遵
守戒律的教義,曾在前年舉辦比丘尼僧團傳戒會,邀請20名出家超過20年的尼師,從最基
礎的「三皈五戒」重新學起。
佛教經典中三皈五戒是出家人必守的戒律,五戒包括不殺生、不偷盜、不妄語、不飲酒、
不邪淫,其中不邪淫,指的是男女關係,也就是出家弟子要潔身自愛、清心寡欲,但讓人
難以想像的是,大寶法王竟被控帶頭破壞戒律。
本刊日前接獲信徒H女(化名)爆料,指大寶法王不但與她交往長達5年,2人還發生過3次
性關係,H女除提供自己與法王在飯店內的合照外,還有2人11段共長達18分21秒的對話錄
音,內容宛如情侶般的對談。
為求謹慎,本刊將這些錄音檔與法王演講影片送往美商瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室做聲紋比對,
經過軟體檢視,實驗室發現二者檔案在「自己」「就是」「台灣」等常用詞基本頻率和共
振峰型態皆大致吻合,語言特徵更是相同,做出錄音檔與樣本有99.9%符合,確認是同一
人的結論。
只是,一位宗教領袖怎麼會跟台灣女子有感情上的糾葛?時間回到去年12月15日上午,記
者與H女相約在本刊見面,在辦公室中,H女不時焦慮地撥弄一頭長髮,清秀的面容浮現不
安與忐忑,深吸數口氣後才緩緩開口,說出自己與大寶法王交往五年來的折磨和壓力。
H女透露,她能接觸到法王,都是因宗薩欽哲仁波切的安排。11年前她在國外念書,因仁
波切影響而被佛法感動,決定皈依佛門拜仁波切為師,跟著他學習密宗法門。在拜入宗薩
欽哲仁波切門下五年後,對方暗示她應該拜會大寶法王,第一次見面後,大寶法王就以工
作之名跟H女要了Skype。
H女回憶,她先是和大寶法王在Skype上視訊,H女將噶瑪巴視為尊貴上師,噶瑪巴則訴說
自己被監控、掌握行動的辛酸,進而將話鋒轉到H女有沒有交過男朋友的話題上,戀愛經
驗甚少的H女在驚魂未定中,結束了與大寶法王的通話。
接著,在2013年到2018年間,大寶法王多數時間都用Skype與H女維持上師與情人般的關係
,期間,H女也會用微信與宗薩欽哲仁波切討論自己與法王的相處模式。
據H女提供她與宗薩欽哲仁波切的微信對話紀錄,當宗薩欽哲知道H女與法王關係親密後,
便開始要H女幫忙向法王傳遞他的宗教理念,或轉貼對他有利的文章給大寶法王。
但H女後來發現,她越來越像是宗薩欽哲仁波切的工具,更嚴重的是,看來嚴肅莊重的仁
波切其實是不折不扣的「皮條客」,為了達到己身目的,不斷幫大寶法王「物色」女信徒
。
H女在與法王交往過程中承受龐大壓力,經歷過無數掙扎,多次幾乎迷失自我差點自殺時
,宗薩欽哲還不停要求她留在噶瑪巴身邊,當宗薩欽哲發現H女對法王的影響力消退時,
竟一反過去莊重嚴肅的態度,嘲笑H女是「手段不足」,H女才發現自己只是對方的一顆棋
子,最後下定決心結束與法王的關係。
在此之前,H女曾傳訊息罵宗薩欽哲是「pimp(皮條客)」,他竟直接回答「Yes」。之後
她質問宗薩欽哲是否仍在幫法王拉皮條,並認為這樣的舉動十分可恥,對方則回「ho ho
」。
本刊調查,噶瑪巴七歲時被認定為法王,此後便不斷展現神蹟,包括15歲時在青海湖中找
到失蹤近300年的三面馬頭冥王杵,更在邊防軍虎視眈眈下,帶著2名隨從順利穿過軍營逃
往印度,加上藏傳佛教講究轉世說,幼小的孩子一旦被認為是高僧或活佛轉世,便會被賦
予崇高的宗教地位。
H女因認為自己不是唯一,因此期盼說出自身的經歷,能讓曾受傷的女性即時清醒,並勇
敢站出來,促進藏傳佛教改革,別讓女信徒再成為上師們的玩物。
本刊致電宗薩欽哲仁波切的翻譯Stephanie,對方回應,H女對仁波切的指控皆為子虛烏有
,微信的對話紀錄也有可能造假,他手中有所有對談內容可供證明,仁波切對於法王的私
生活不瞭解,沒有法王私底下聯絡方式,更不清楚法王與H女的關係。
本刊另發e-mail給法王的聯絡信箱,至截稿前未收到回應。但在閉關的大寶法王,21日晚
間在官網發表特別開示,表示自己僅受過沙彌戒和敬事男戒,並未受過比丘戒。他強調,
真正的出家戒不只是可不可做的約束和規範,最重要的是希求解脫、出離輪迴的心。法王
另外提及最近沒有他的官方消息,外界便有各種流言蜚語誣賴指責,但他認為最重要的是
,自己要誠實對待自己、相信自己,他也會為教法和眾生繼續努力。
https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20190122soc004/
--
雙樹間所有鬼神篤信佛者,以非時花布散于地。
爾時,世尊告阿難曰:「此雙樹神以非時華供養於我,此非供養如來。」
阿難白言:「云何名為供養如來?」
佛語阿難:「人能受法,能行法者,斯乃名曰供養如來。」
長阿含經-遊行經
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.177.151.205
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Buddhism/M.1548218677.A.A3A.html
以下為datoguo版友提供,貼於文章下方,因字數眾多,恐影響閱讀
故委託貼文如下「美商瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室聲明」:
https://www.voice-forensics.com/-announcement/0125
美商瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室聲明 [第十七世大寶法王噶瑪巴聲紋比對鑑識案]
美商瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室針對委託人提交之Skype通話側錄聲音檔案,就男性對
話方之身分是否為 第十七世大寶法王噶瑪巴鄔金欽列多傑 做科學性的鑑定,
特以此聲明為鑑定工作項目所包含內容作一釐清。
委託人交付之錄音檔案內容為一連貫之兩方網路對話,經初判此聲音記錄遭到變
造或是經合成手續贋製而成的可能性不高,因而此次未建議委託方做完整的剪接
變造鑑定。
本次的鑑定過程是根據 第十七世大寶法王噶瑪巴鄔金欽列多傑的多次公開演說內
容作為已知語者的樣本,經分析、比對其語言學特徵、基頻位置、共振峰型態、
語詞連接和轉折特性、語速、口音、音域動態等參數,並將之與送鑑樣本做比對鑑
定。比對之結果為完全吻合,送鑑之疑似樣本與第十七世大寶法王噶瑪巴之聲紋基
頻、共振峰型態、口音、語言學特徵等跡證均完全相符,因而下此結論。
為保障鑑識結果之公正性,確保鑑識實驗室與鑑識人員能夠獨立作業,不受威脅、
利誘等情事干擾,故瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室的接待處所、收件、成果展示與說明均統
一由商業部 (瓦器錄音室)對外做處理 ; 委託方(鏡週刊)無法實質接觸第一線鑑識
人員、實驗室主持人(韓肇中 博士),亦無法針對我們鑑識結果之陳述方式做任何
的建議、修改或是刪減。
美商瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室有著豐富的鑑識經驗與音頻技術,並參與了不少的跨國調
查、委託案,舉凡國內著名的陸正案、台灣企銀交易紀錄變造鑑定、
香港匯豐銀行交易紀錄變造鑑識案、法院委託販毒監聽聲紋比對委託案、台灣高等
法院、台南地方法院、桃園地院、屏東調查站筆錄錄音變造鑑定、2016年某立委賄
選案聲紋比對、2018年某直轄市市長當選人賄選案聲紋比對、2018年某知名上市櫃
軟體科技企業會議內容剪接變造鑑定等等。
我們本於企業社會責任,與民間司法改革基金會、冤獄平反協會深度合作,共同為
司法改革與公正審判來努力。
瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室另外亦投入鑑識軟體的開發、航空器黑盒子訊號判讀、船舶識
別與情報偵蒐解析的領域,期望能透過堅實的聲音技術與科技來保障人權、確保真
相。
瓦器聲紋鑑識實驗室官方網站 : www.voice-forensics.com
聯絡我們 : www.voice-forensics.com/contact
※ 編輯: TBOC (180.177.151.205), 01/25/2019 21:15:49
... <看更多>