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”
同時也有4部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過24萬的網紅暗網仔 2.0,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Nordvpn會有3折優惠再送一個月全免費service給你, 而為慶祝Nordvpn 8歲生日, 2月10號之前申請會機會得到免費禮品! 請使用以下連結: https://nordvpn.com/deepwebkid 優惠碼: deepwebkid 會員: https://www.youtube...
「documentary example」的推薦目錄:
- 關於documentary example 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於documentary example 在 IELTS Fighter - Chiến binh IELTS Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於documentary example 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於documentary example 在 暗網仔 2.0 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於documentary example 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於documentary example 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於documentary example 在 Documentary styles examples - Pinterest 的評價
- 關於documentary example 在 4 Easy Steps to Film a Short Documentary - YouTube 的評價
- 關於documentary example 在 Documentary Video Sample - Human Rights Consciouness ... 的評價
documentary example 在 IELTS Fighter - Chiến binh IELTS Facebook 的精選貼文
YÊU THƯƠNG NHAU QUA BAO TRĂNG RẰM
❤️ NẮM TAY CÙNG THĂNG CẤP IELTS 7.5 ❤️
🎀 Q: Xin chào hai Thủy Tiên và Ngọc Bảo, hai bạn có thể giới thiệu đôi chút về mình cho mọi người được không?
A: Chào mọi người tụi mình là Bảo và Tiên tụi mình vừa thi IELTS sau khi hoàn thành lớp B120 của thầy Thạch (cơ sở 3/2 IELTS Fighter) với mức điểm cũng khá ổn là 7.5 Overall.
Trước đây tụi mình cũng từng học qua IELTS nhưng kết quả không khả quan lắm, với mong muốn đi du học cùng nhau nên cả hai đã cùng đăng ký một khóa học tại trung tâm và thật vui vì giờ đây chúng mình đã có đủ điều kiện để thực hiện ước mơ đó.
🎀 Q: Có thể thấy band điểm của cả 2 rất ấn tượng, Thủy Tiên 8.0 Writing còn Bảo thì 8.5 Listening. Hai bạn có thể bật mí phương pháp học của bản thân được không?
A: Ngọc Bảo: Bảo thì cao điểm phần Listening và Reading còn Tiên thì giỏi phần writing vậy nên Bảo sẽ chia sẻ phần Listening và Reading còn Tiên sẽ chia sẻ phần Writing nha.
Đầu tiên là phần nghe đây là phần mình tự tin nhất (8.5), thì các bạn cố gắng tìm cho mình 1 nguồn động lực để mình cảm thấy việc nghe tiếng Anh là thoải mái, giải trí hơn là học, với mình thì ban đầu mình nghe nhạc, các bạn không cần phải viết lại lời hay học thuộc từng chữ mà chỉ cần nghe kĩ để quen dần thôi, vì theo mình thì khi hát người ta cũng không phát âm chuẩn đâu.
Cách tiếp theo là nghe YouTube, ban đầu mình tìm những channel YouTuber nổi tiếng về documentary như brightside, improvement pill, infographicshow, những channel này thường nói rất chậm và dễ nghe vì họ làm video dưới dạng documentary các bạn có thể tìm những chủ đề mình thích để cảm thấy việc nghe nó giải trí hơn là học.
Tiếp theo nữa để quen dần với cách nói chuyện của người bản xứ thì các bạn có thể theo dõi những youtuber đơn lẻ, như những bạn chơi game như captain souce, grind this game,... Họ sẽ nói kiểu gần gũi với ngôn ngữ đời thường hơn, mà cứ vậy sau thời gian việc nghe sẽ trở nên đơn gian hơn với các bạn, còn về phần nghe plural nouns thì lại khó hơn vì nó phụ thuộc vào ngữ cảnh và cấu trúc nữa chứ không đơn thuần là nghe mà ra được.
Còn về phần đọc thì các bạn có thể tìm sách best sellers để đọc chẳng hạn như mình vừa đọc xong cuốn boundaries when to say yes and how to say no, mình cũng ko phải là fan của việc đọc sách nhưng mình cố gắng đọc những cái mình cảm thấy giúp ích cho mình, hoặc nó làm mình thấy thú vị thì sẽ có động lực đọc hơn còn bình thường giở sách ra đọc được vài trang là mình ngủ gục òi 😃.
Tiếp theo là mẹo để làm bài thì các bạn có thể tìm hiểu thêm trên Youtube có khá nhiều YouTuber và kênh Youtube chia sẻ sinh nghiệp như ielts liz, IELTS Fighter, hana's lexis, Fast track IELTS. Họ sẽ chia set những kinh nghiệm đáng giá cho mọi người.
A: Thủy Tiên: Về writing, thật sự mình cũng không có nhiều tips lắm, nên chủ yếu là chia sẻ mình đã học writing như thế nào nhé. Khi mới bắt đầu viết, mình tập trung diễn đạt được chính xác ý mình muốn nói thay vì cố dùng các từ ngữ hay ngữ pháp cao siêu. Và mình đặc biệt chú trọng việc giải thích cụ thể cho ý mình muốn nói.
Ví dụ khi đưa ra 1 luận điểm (topic) gì, mình sẽ đưa thêm explanation (reason or why is it important), fact và nếu đươc example cụ thể. Điều này sẽ làm cho structure của bài viết được mạch lạc và rõ ràng hơn. Sau khi đã vững về diễn đạt ý, mình bắt đầu upgrade bài viết của mình bằng cách chọn upgrade 1 số từ ngữ (thường hay bị dùng lặp đi lặp lại). Bạn có thể search synonym của từ bằng Google, nhưng bắt buộc phải double check lại nghĩa (meaning) và cách sử dụng (usage) bằng từ điển uy tín (mình hay dùng Cambridge) để có thể đưa vào bài một cách chính xác nhất.
Tiếp đến, mình sẽ tập upgrade cả câu, bằng cách combine các câu đơn thành 1 câu ghép bằng relative clause chẳng hạn. Và để bài nghe high level hơn, mình thường cố gắng để thêm các trạng từ bổ nghĩa cho động từ trong bài. Ví dụ, strongly believe, dramatically increased, etc. Một mẹo nhỏ để tiết kiệm được thời gian và giúp bài văn trôi chảy hơn khi làm bài thi, là mình sẽ học thuộc 1 số cụm nhất định mà bài nào cũng có thể áp dụng, ví dụ mình hay mở bài bằng "It is debatable whether...." và hay kết thúc bằng "Therefore, it is reasonable that..."
🎀 Q: Wao, nghe các bạn chia sẻ về tips học thật tuyệt, vậy thì trong suốt quá trình học các bạn đã dùng những tài liệu gì?
A: Thủy Tiên: Thực tế thì bọn mình không dùng quá nhiều tài liệu bên ngoài đâu. Chủ yếu luôn Cam và sách mà trung tâm phát thôi. Nhưng chính từ việc học và cẩn thận ghi nhớ kiến thức ngay tại lớp sẽ khiến bản thân cảm thấy nhẹ nhàng hơn khi học rất nhiều. Giáo viên của bọn mình, Thầy Huy Thạch lại còn cho bọn mình kha khá tài liệu bổ ích để bọn mình luyện tập thêm nữa.
Ngọc Bảo: Vì không có nhiều thời gian lắm cho việc học nên mình cũng không dàn trải ôn đề quá nhiều, như có chia sẻ ban đầu một số kênh Youtube luyện nghe thì mình cũng có xem một vài bài giảng và tài liệu trên trang của IELTS Fighter, vì nó hoàn toàn miễn phí mà. Thêm 1 điều mình khá thích ở đây là học viên được học miễn phí lớp bổ trợ Speaking và Writing vào mỗi thứ 7 và chủ nhật hang tuần nữa đấy. Cũng chính việc tham gia những lớp này mà mình có thêm nhiều kiến thức bổ ích và rèn luyện tốt hơn cho kì thi.
🎀 Q: Chia sẻ về dự định tương lai, hai bạn dự tính như thế nào sau khi có bằng IELTS này?
Ngọc Bảo: Mình và Tiên từ đầu dự tính sẽ đi du học cùng nhau nên quyết tâm chinh phục IELTS, vì thế giờ chỉ cần tìm một cơ hội du học thật tốt nữa là được. Bản thân mình thấy việc học IELTS không quá áp lực và căng thẳng như mọi người vẫn thường nghĩ đâu, chỉ cần chúng ta có mục tiêu để tự tạo động lực cho bản thân cũng như có người đồng hành thật “xịn”, chỉ cần cố gắng các bạn cũng sẽ làm được như tụi mình thôi.
Nhân tiện đây mình xin gửi lời cảm ơn đến trung tâm IELTS Fighter cũng như thầy Huy Thạch vì đã đồng hành và giúp đỡ cho tụi mình trong suốt thời gian qua. Các bạn hãy cứ tin mình đi, IELTS Fighter có những giáo viên thật xịn và có kinh nghiệm nhiều năm trong việc luyện thi IELTS, chỉ cần các bạn có niềm tin ở bản thân cũng như ở trung tâm, các bạn sẽ thành công.
Cám ơn Thủy Tiên và Ngọc Bảo về những chia sẻ của mình dành cho mọi người, thay mặt trung tâm xin chúc hai bạn sẽ sớm cất cánh du học nhé, và đừng quên vun đắp cho tình yêu với ngôn ngữ tiếng Anh nữa nhé!
----
Ai mong muốn bứt phá điểm số như cặp đôi của chúng ta không? Cmt hoặc inbox liền cho cô ngay nha!
documentary example 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
[First #hkprotesters, then teachers & lawmakers, now reporters, who's next?]
1 4months under #nationalsecuritylaw, #hkpolice just arrested a reporter #ChoyYukLing for using car records to identify assailants of #YuenLongMobAttack on #HKers in documentary
2. That's another example of arbitrary law enforcement. While reporters can quickly identify pro-#Beijing assailants w/ car license records, #hkpolice took no action against the targets identified, more than one year after the attack broke out. Instead, they arrested the reporter
3. While investigative reporters have been using car license records for years, Choy is the first one who is targeted. In fact, even #Beijing's state-mouthpieces did use the same license plates records in their stories. But police only arrest those who challenge authority.
4. After denying visas for foreign reporters, axing satirical show #Headliner & barring reporters from police's press conferences, the new arrest creates a chilling effect and hangs the sword of Damocles over the city's critical voices.
5. While #Hkgov claims the new law only affects a small group of people, the reality is clearly the exact opposite. Under #CCP's tightening red line and its #wolfwarriordiplomacy, it becomes clear that the regime will stifle dissents with all weapons in its toolkits.
P.S. This is the cover banner of Choy's social media account. It is doubtful whether our city still has #pressfreedom, and whether #Hongkongers still have the rights to seek truth.
https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1323576047422590976
documentary example 在 暗網仔 2.0 Youtube 的最讚貼文
Nordvpn會有3折優惠再送一個月全免費service給你, 而為慶祝Nordvpn 8歲生日, 2月10號之前申請會機會得到免費禮品!
請使用以下連結: https://nordvpn.com/deepwebkid
優惠碼: deepwebkid
會員: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8vabPSRIBpwSJEMAPCnzVQ/join
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dw_kid12/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour
訂閱: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8vabPSRIBpwSJEMAPCnzVQ?sub_confirmation=1
鬼故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rmkFI1ik0&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF
我最高觀看次數的影片 (我為何不再拍暗網? 只說一次): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbihKaqEEQw&t=127s
曼德拉效應: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMutzRIE_uE&list=PLglqLngY6gv5BCwaoP-q6DOwUmw1lIusF&index=17&t=5s
我的100K成長故事: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdhtp6A6YJE
破解Kate yup事件是假的! 不是綁架! 不要被騙! (Facebook上的證據): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJVt56ORWo&t=2s
日本最殘酷的直播節目: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E81OKVX7wc
網上最可怕的一個字 (Ft. HenHen TV): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLedkSHc7Os&t=145s
[恐怖影片] 5個Netflix上最恐怖的glitch | 消失的童年卡通片
(今天的五個題目)
黑白電視機的60年代, 每部靈異恐怖劇也是被經典節目Twilight Zone所影響. 原著編劇深度開埸白, 恐怖情節對社會與政治的irony.
black mirror的靈異畫面
Twilight zone新世代版Black Mirror誇大表現一個被social media扭曲的平行時空. 恐怖的是Black Mirror警告會發生的未來, 已有傳在播放他的平台Netflix可見到一些Glitch.
今日影片sponsor是Nordvpn. 會按這條影片的你, 證明你對網上世界可能也感到憂慮, 驚自己電話電腦有黑客盜用個人資料. Black mirror第三季第一集每個人身份地位財富都被監視. 如果戲中主角有下載Nordvpn她在這個機場, 咖啡室: 5500個超快servers, 60個國家 (中國大陸也行!!!)
windows, mac或android全部都能使用.
我作為一個Youtuber, 常常用iphone上Nordvpn由加拿大觀chak香港, 台灣, 馬來西亞等地方影片大方向及潮流. 我要感謝NordVPN讓我知道上一條影片在香港登上 ‘熱門影片’ 19的位置.
你現在按下面Description優惠連結入我promocode: Deepwebkid, Nordvpn會有3折優惠再送一個月全免費service給你, 而為慶祝Nordvpn 8歲生日, 2月10號之前申請會機會得到免費禮品!
還有...全球地區的Netflix也看得到.
(Show black mirror glitch) 但有些畫面, 你可能不會想見到.
2019年中多名Netflix用戶據稱看Netflix時畫面閃出一格該畫面. (Show clip) 而是在跟black mirror沒有任何關係的節目出現. Netflix出來交待此事件只是system Glitch. 但陰謀論表示是一種名subliminal message的大腦控制手法. 政府, 迪士尼已被發現內容常有這種奇怪信息. 一些地區, 廣告用這手法是列為犯法. 其實這種名supraliminal message非Subliminal messages, subliminal是控制我們潛意識, 而好像這個(image) 我們意識上見到的是supraliminal message.
但這畫面真的是 ‘意外’ 嗎?
Netflix上的兒童色情
2018年6月這個電影開場導致Netflix被彙報到美國FBI部門National Centre for missing and exploited children. 戲中一起演出發現初次 ‘自摸’ 的兩位小女孩真實年齡只有7歲和9歲.
這部名 ‘Desire’ 的2017年阿根廷電影之後導演Diego Kaplan出來解釋拍攝時兩名小演員也不知道拍攝實質內容意義. “...they were just copying what they were seeing on the screen. No adults interacted with the girls... Everything was done under the careful surveillance of the girl’s mother”
但根據美國Department of justice ‘任何描述未成年人士做出性行的媒介也是非法的’
最後勝利? 如果現在上Netflix找desire該電影還在.
消失的童年卡通片
我自己英文頻道Horrorstudio1其實早於2015年已經有講關Creepypasta (網上都市傳說) Candle cove. 在討論區上曾有多名用戶聲稱小時候70年代常常在58台看一tou關於海盜的卡通片candle cove. 其中整一集節目30分鐘, 是一個女孩對著鏡頭痛哭. candle cove沒找到任何官方資料. 一名網友問到自己家長對這卡通有沒有印象時, 網友母親說他小時候會每天同一時間, 開電視對著電視機的雪花看, 然後笑.
這都市傳聞之後被破解是網上漫畫家Kris straub一個創作. 但根據一些資料Netflix曾有24小時是可以看到candle cove. 當然現在找就沒有啦.
曾經Netflix也試過Glitch整個節目庫只有black mirror一部被你選擇. 這又是不是真的呢?
武漢肺炎
2020年1月8號New York Times報導中國鑒定出武漢肺炎. 同一天Netflix推出一部名Pandemic的電視節目. “Is Netflix owned by China?...when I checked Netflix, pandemic and doomsday preppers were the top 2 trending series” 陰謀論是Netflix背後一早知道肺炎會爆發, 所以該事件絕對是人為! 但其實病毒12月中已經已被發現到. ‘Pandemic’ 本身亦不是一個針對武漢事件的一個節目. 題材其實只是講對抗病毒的前線醫護人員.
並且netflix因病毒事件推出自己相關節目又不是什麼預知未來的能力. 這樣講我 ‘武漢事件’ 期間推出相關Youtube片難道我又是知道內情的背後人物嗎?
我相信netflix這麼大的娛樂公司一定有節在. 等有討論ga jik時自然就推出.
甚至Kobe Bryant的死也被説是為jeh koy這件事. 我覺得不是.
Netflix上不該搜尋的字
有討論區表示, 如果你在Netflix搜尋打 ‘exam’ 這個字, 顯示出來會是一些挺不安的節目編目. 這個字是我們不該去搜尋的嗎? 有人指出是政府一大堆洗腦控制人類的電影. 其實這個只不過是Netflix內部測試影片能否成功傳遞給用戶的裝置. 聽說打 ‘Example short 23.976’ 特別恐怖.
Tou中找到Netflix關於Flat Earth(地平說) 紀錄片. 該紀錄片支持我們身處的地球不是一個圓形的星體, 而是一peen有盡頭的陸地. 除此之外, 有Marilyn monroe的死跟外星人有關之類一大堆的所謂 ‘陰謀’ documentary. 在美國文化當中Youtube, whatsapp已對這些未經科學證實的資訊不會lup loon廣傳. 可能netflix未掌握到這點, 因為他的影響力真的很大.
(Netflix附加Glitch)
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v1ECBi-Eyrs/hqdefault.jpg)
documentary example 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳解答
Chinese Tank Shells and Grenades that contain Alcohol?
Baijiu (Chinese: 白酒; pinyin: báijiǔ), also known as shaojiu or archaically as sorghum wine, is a Chinese alcoholic beverage made from grain. Báijiǔ literally means "white (clear) alcohol" or liquor, and is a strong distilled spirit, generally between 40 and 60% alcohol by volume (ABV).
Báijiǔ is a clear liquid usually distilled from fermented sorghum, although other grains may be used; southern China versions may employ glutinous rice, while northern Chinese varieties may use wheat, barley, millet, or even Job's tears instead of sorghum. The jiuqu starter culture used in the production of baijiu mash is usually made of pulverized wheat grains.
Because of its clarity, baijiu can appear similar to several other East Asian liquors, but it generally has a significantly higher alcohol content than, for example, Japanese shōchū (25%) or Korean soju (20–45%). It is closer to vodka in strength and mouth-feel.
二锅头, èrguōtóu, lit. "head of the second pot" is a strong, clear distilled liquor. It is often inexpensive and thus particularly popular among blue-collar workers across northern and northeastern China. It is probably the most commonly-drunk baijiu in Beijing and is frequently associated with that city. Red Star 红星, Hóngxīng is a popular brand.
⚫ Watch Conquering Southern China (my documentary) and see China like no one outside of China has ever seen it before: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina
⚫ Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
My other channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/advchina
Music used: Virtual Vice - Black Rose
Artist's bandcamp: https://virtual-vice.bandcamp.com/releases
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B7gkgiAK2V4/hqdefault.jpg)
documentary example 在 serpentza Youtube 的最佳貼文
My friend Gary, a Chinese American who was born and grew up in America is in Mainland China, tracing his roots and for the first time is getting to experience Southern China all on his own, completely uncensored and so I had to meet up and ask him what he thinks of the drastic differences between living in China and America from the point of view as an Asian American, does he feel he fits in? Is his Chinese ability good enough? How are people treating him and what does he think about the crowds, noises, food, culture and his experiences so far...
Only since the 1940s when the United States and China became allies during World War II, did the situation for Chinese Americans begin to improve, as restrictions on entry into the country, naturalization and mixed marriage were being lessened. In 1943, Chinese immigration to the United States was once again permitted—by way of the Magnuson Act—thereby repealing 61 years of official racial discrimination against the Chinese. Large-scale Chinese immigration did not occur until 1965 when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 lifted national origin quotas. After World War II, anti-Asian prejudice began to decrease, and Chinese immigrants, along with other Asians (such as Japanese, Koreans, Indians and Vietnamese), have adapted and advanced. Currently, the Chinese constitute the largest ethnic group of Asian Americans (about 22%), and have confounded earlier expectations that they would form an indigestible mass in American society. For example, many Chinese Americans of American birth may know little or nothing about traditional Chinese culture, just as European Americans and African Americans may know little or nothing about the original cultures of their ancestors.
As of the 2010 United States Census, there are more than 3.3 million Chinese in the United States, about 1% of the total population. The influx continues, where each year ethnic Chinese people from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and to a lesser extent Southeast Asia move to the United States, surpassing Hispanic and Latino immigration by 2012.
⚫Music used: Valence - Infinite
⚫ Watch Conquering Southern China (my documentary) and see China like no one outside of China has ever seen it before: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina
⚫ Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
My other channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/advchina
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9h1M8jxCfN8/hqdefault.jpg)
documentary example 在 4 Easy Steps to Film a Short Documentary - YouTube 的推薦與評價
![影片讀取中](/images/youtube.png)
What are the essentials to a documentary, and how are they achieved? Today, Griffin shares his experience making documentaries and breaks ... ... <看更多>
documentary example 在 Documentary Video Sample - Human Rights Consciouness ... 的推薦與評價
![影片讀取中](/images/youtube.png)
Another project for Don Bosco - Human Rights ConsciounessScope: Story Board, Original Script, Shooting, Post Production, ScoringMore Awesome ... ... <看更多>
documentary example 在 Documentary styles examples - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
Jan 30, 2014 - Documentary Styles Examples Bill Nichols distinguishes 6 different types of documentaries: poetic, expository, observational, participatory, ... ... <看更多>