年度鉅團25折起‼️獨家套組‼️滿額禮‼️最強英文童書‼️
【三民中英文童書團】#今年唯一一團 #留言有好禮
✅優惠團購:https://ababa.tw/qiCRc/bf (9/24結團)
✅直播分享:https://ababa.tw/4AATJ/bf
✅超詳細心得文
0-2歲 幼兒啟蒙篇:https://ababa.tw/HZg4h/bf
2-4歲 幼童認知篇:https://ababa.tw/5CUQ5/bf
4-6歲 兒童知識篇:https://ababa.tw/Hzsjx/bf 請先看直播,從2:30:00開始看,文後補
►如果想用文字看,茜茜嚴選的全部書單,請點以下網址:
https://ababa.tw/KzS5C/bf
三民一向鮮少給大全套多系列,他們非常嚴選合作對象,是很珍稀的團啊!
茜茜真的很開心可以跟喜歡的三民書局合作,而且還爭取到好棒的禮物,還有大家幫忙熱血留言,三民點頭答應給了『茜茜獨家優惠套組』。
這次的好書好康真的很讚,迫不急待要跟你們分享,快點來看看:
💟 茜茜獨家優惠套組💟
🔸茜茜獨家~幼兒啟蒙獨家套組 👉🏻6折‼️再送滿額禮‼️
原價$10590,團購優惠$6254
🔸茜茜獨家~幼童認知獨家套組 👉🏻54折‼️再送滿額禮‼️
原價$12363,團購優惠$6670
🔸Bizzy Bear忙碌小熊大全套(23本)👉🏻43折‼️再送滿額禮‼️
原價$9162,團購優惠$3890
🔸茜茜獨家~Masiy獨家豪華大套組 👉🏻51折‼️再送滿額禮‼️
原價$8825,團購優惠$4432
🔸茜茜獨家~First Stories經典童話操作書大全套 👉🏻49折‼️再送滿額禮‼️
原價$9874,團購優惠$4820
以上的套組大多是全所未有,是茜茜特別為了爸鼻嗎咪爭取來的,讓你們省時省力買好書,又省最多摳摳,再拿最好的滿額禮唷!
【#分齡套組優惠】
0-2歲選書 👉🏻31折起‼️ 再送滿額禮‼️
2-4歲選書 👉🏻25折起‼️ 再送滿額禮‼️
4-6歲選書 👉🏻38折起‼️ 再送滿額禮‼️
#可買單本也可買套組
#套組一定是比買單本優惠更多喔
【#茜茜獨家滿額禮】(不累送)
►單筆滿$2999,就送Baby's Very First Play Book Farm Words (硬頁書) 價值$439 👉🏻已送完,改送Are You There Little Elephant? (硬頁書) 價值$329
►單筆滿$4999,就送The Gruffalo Sound Book (精裝音效書) 價值$824
►單筆滿$9999,就送Peppa Paperback and Audio Collection (13平裝+2CD) 價值$3849 👉🏻已送完,再加碼50套
非常建議買滿$9999,因為禮物價值$3849🎁
表示你已經享有團購優惠價x折,再打最高39折(以禮物價值來計算),茜茜最為大家著想,一心只想要你們拿到最好康!
茜茜除了愛買給寶寶,自己也很愛看書,平時最喜歡的事情就是去書店逛逛,疫情沒法出門,我就跟團or上網買,收集好書的腳步是無法被阻止、不會停下的~
你們有茜茜,可以省去很多花時間爬文、花錢買地雷書的時間,跟著茜茜買,就能把這些珍貴的時間花在孩子身上,在學齡前培養好閱讀與語言的興趣,之後上小學,爸媽會少掉很多煩惱的。
投資理財有賺有賠;
投資孩子,孩子本身穩賺不賠,因為他看過的接觸過的每一本書,都深耕在他的閱讀存摺,在成長過程中持續的幫助他。(至於爸媽覺得自己是賺是賠,要等到20歲以後才會知道了,這就不好說了 😆)
家中的藏書有數千本,茜茜深深地認為,童書的設計製作上都比大人書要用心得好多,不但好看也很值得收藏傳家,
我想這是這個世界的大人,給孩子的溫柔與愛吧 💕
/
((9/17晚上更新))
💜確定可開預購,12月出貨 #廠商已開預購
音效書、有聲書、音樂書們,國外已經沒有貨量了,但反應太熱烈,所以三民直接跟原廠確認安排新的生產量,需要時間製作,再從國外運到台灣,所以要等到12月出貨。
(能夠等的爸鼻媽咪再請下單,為加速出貨,請將現貨與預購分開成立訂單)
(今年只開這一團,12月是最快到貨日,所以很可以買唷)
💜釋出少量現貨
茜茜看大家很喜歡Nosy Crow和usbornek的書,加上太多我分享的現貨都賣完了,所以特別請三民在左邊設立兩個專區,放入品牌其他好書:
►Nosy Crow全書系(現貨)
►usbornek全書系(現貨)
裡面通通是“少量現貨”好書,大家可以去裡面挑挑唷!
/
💟 4-6歲爸鼻媽咪看這邊 💟
很抱歉,茜茜的心得文都數萬字,以至於4-6歲心得文來不及開團前給(哭哭),我還是會努力寫完的!
很多人問我2-4歲、4-6歲必買什麼❓
這裡先快速給大家我的必買書單~
【2-4歲茜茜大推】
#邊玩邊學認知
🔸The Story Orchestra 2 絕美精裝音效書
🔸Usborne Peep Inside a Fairy Tale 雕花童話硬頁翻翻書
🔸Little Pop-Ups 童話認知立體硬頁書
🔸Usborne Peep Inside 知識百科硬頁巨型翻翻書
🔸Magnetology 磁鐵遊戲書(內附收納)
🔸哪兒來系列繪本
#生活品格認知
🔸Elephant and Piggie|全系列25本|可另加購玩偶
🔸Mr Panda
🔸皮皮與波西歡樂時光套書| 附書盒。中英雙語版
🔸Pip and Posy Book and Blocks Set|1硬頁小書+9個厚紙方塊
🔸不可思議的吃書男孩
🔸我的阿嬤媽媽
🔸神奇咒語咕哩咚
#食育養成認知
🔸香蕉爺爺香蕉奶奶
🔸男爵薯國王和五月皇后
🔸吐司忍者
🔸天婦羅奧運會(てんぷらりんぴっく)
🔸番茄是蔬菜還是水果?
🔸好吃的服裝店
🔸好吃的服裝店:甜蜜歡樂舞會
【4-6歲茜茜大推】
✔人體透視書+人體模型套組|中文版。英文版
✔The Ultimate Book of 巨型精裝立體知識百科|8本
✔Very First Questions and Answers|7本
✔First Questions and Answers|14本
✔Disney Pixar Read|附CD
也可以點到團購單的分頁,上面的年齡推薦是茜茜選的,都貼心幫大家分好了:)
#通通都可以收進書單中
#是茜茜從數萬本書中嚴選的唷
/
💟 團購流程相關問題 💟 #下單前必看
💜 重要提醒
🎄限量商品,售完即不再接受下單,請優先下單以免錯過;為加快出貨速度,強烈建議不要與其他書種併單。
🛒商品頁顯示「無庫存,下單後立即進貨」或購物車內庫存狀態顯示「無」即為預購商品,只要購物車未上鎖,就能結帳下預購單。
💜 團購頁面怎麼看
點進去以後,主要分為:獨家大套組、0-2歲選書、2-4歲選書、4-6歲選書
以上分頁都是為了要讓大家下單方便,所以顯示的是整套整套的優惠組合,如果想要買單本,請點more,或是左邊的選書列。
這個『選書列』有點像去錢櫃點歌,可以用ㄅㄆㄇ點歌、男歌手點歌、女歌手點歌...通通可以,就看你想要看哪個分類唷!
💜已先放購物車看這邊
已經預先放入購物車的人,請務必來點此篇文的『 茜茜專屬團購連結』,這樣做購物車裡的商品價格才會跳轉成“團購優惠價”。只要是付款的時候,有看到一欄灰底的“茜茜育兒粉絲團折扣”,就表示是正確的團購優惠價喔。
如果開團時有點『 茜茜專屬團購連結』進去,但價格沒有跳轉,不用擔心,只要登出再登入會員,就會是正確的價格。(購物車會保留30天,所以不會登出登入就消失喔)
💜 運費說明
a) 便利商店取貨(結帳金額350元免運費,每筆訂單上限2000元,拆單出貨門檻700元)
b) 本島一般包裹宅配(結帳金額1000元免運費,拆單出貨門檻2000元;「宅配付現」每筆訂單需支付120元處理費,且不適用拆單);外島亦可寄送
c) 三民書局實體門市取貨(免運費,每筆訂單上限3000元)
d) 香港OK便利商店取貨
※不提供快速到貨服務
※原文書國外到貨時大多沒有封膜,為加快出貨速度,收到的書若無封膜是正常的,但三民出貨時會做好保護措施,以免書在運送過程中受損。
💜 免運門檻
三民宅配免運門檻為1000元,但是訂單中如果有預購商品要拆單出貨的話,訂單金額必須超過2000元,才能享有拆單免運費(也就是會分成兩次宅配,現貨先出貨一次,預購商品到齊後再出貨一次)。
如果有任何拆單&出貨問題,請詢問三民客服專線 (02)25006600轉130~131,每日8:00~20:00。E-mail: ec@sanmin.com.tw。
💜 付款方式
a) 信用卡線上刷卡(📣請備妥手機接收刷卡的動態密碼,並於30分鐘內完成刷卡付款)
b) 便利商店取貨付款(每筆訂單上限2000元)
c) 轉帳/郵政劃撥/宅配付現
d) 三民書局實體門市取貨付款(每筆訂單上限3000元)
e) 可使用三民圖書禮券(需輸入禮券序號)
💜 海外爸媽看過來
三民書團可以寄送海外,結帳時系統會自動試算(空運)運費;若欲以海運寄送,請先以空運結帳成立訂單,並在訂單備註"要以海運寄送"。三民會在收單後與您聯絡,告知海運運費,並在出貨後,刷退運費差價。因疫情限制,有些地區無法寄送,若有任何問題,可直接聯繫小幫手或三民客服。
三民客服專線(02)25006600轉130~131,每日8:00~20:00。E-mail: ec@sanmin.com.tw。
💜 常見問題
1. 收不到新會員或忘記密碼的認證信→請找客服,客服專線 (02)25006600轉130~131,每日8:00~20:00。E-mail: ec@sanmin.com.tw。
2. 無法點選取貨方式→購物車內有非團購商品或是紅利積點兌換的商品,請移除。
3. 折扣不對→優惠名稱需有「茜茜育兒好好玩粉絲優惠」才為團購價。請確認有否經過專屬入口。
4. 無法使用折價券→團購已享特殊優惠,不再適用折價券等活動。
5. 商品無法下單→限量商品已售完
/
📍團購時間:即日起~9/24(五) 23:59止
📍出貨時間:
【現貨】團購後48小時開始出貨,整張都是現貨的訂單將於下單後兩週內出貨完畢。
【預購】預購商品若未特別註明到貨日,中文童書等待期為一週,原文書因新冠肺炎疫情關係,平均等待期為45~60個工作天,將依訂單順序出貨。如遇國外出版社缺書延遲,三民客服將另行email通知,請確定願意等待再跟團。
同時也有121部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過139萬的網紅Jessica Vu,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Girly when I tell you this took forever to edit...? Finally, here is the video of me reacting to (and very poorly "animating") a fanfic about me and @...
「c# read email」的推薦目錄:
c# read email 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
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”
c# read email 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最讚貼文
[English Club HEC] PHƯƠNG PHÁP TỰ HỌC IELTS (ĐẶC BIỆT DÀNH CHO NGƯỜI ĐANG MÔNG LUNG)
Chắc ai cũng biết, học IELTS cần đi qua các bước: kiến thức nền (ngữ pháp, từ vựng, phát âm) -> kiến thức về các dạng bài -> luyện đề. Thế thì phải học thế nào? Cùng đọc bài chia sẻ kinh nghiệm sau của bạn Lưu Tiến Dương nha.
Cùng join English Club HEC free để học hỏi thêm những bài chia sẻ kinh nghiệm học và tài liệu chọn lọc để đạt band điểm IELTS mong muốn nha ;)
1. Kiến thức nền:
a. Ngữ pháp:
- Mình tự học từ bộ Grammar In Use, bộ này quá kinh điển rồi. Hồi mới học thực sự rất nản làm sao ngốn hết quyển này, nhưng thực sự khi học hết rồi mình mới thấy thật ra mình chỉ cần vượt qua được cái mốc bắt đầu thôi, rồi cái sự nản nó sẽ ở phía sau, và những quyển sách sau của mình cũng vậy.
Hồi mới học ngữ pháp thì mình rất tỉ mẩn, muốn phải biết hết, đúng hết tất cả mọi thứ, nhưng sau này mình mới nhận ra, thật ra để đạt band 6-7 thì trong mốc điểm đó bạn vẫn sẽ sai ngữ pháp nên mình nghĩ các bạn đừng tự đặt áp lực quá về chuyện ngữ pháp, biết những chủ điểm ngữ pháp cơ bản và cần thiết cho IELTS là được rồi, đừng cố học mấy cấu trúc phức tạp làm gì và quan trọng là người bản xứ đôi khi vẫn sai mà.
Các bạn có thể đọc thêm quyển Giải thích ngữ pháp Mai Lan Hương, mình thấy quyển này dễ học hơn và cho mình nhiều từ vựng hơn, tiếc là mình biết đến quyển này sau nên chỉ đọc tham khảo thôi.
b. Phát âm
Mình bắt đầu tự học phát âm từ khá sớm, từ hồi y2, bước đầu mình học từ phần hướng dẫn phát âm của bộ phần mềm Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, có video hướng dẫn đầy đủ, rất hay nhé. Các bạn lên YouTube xem hướng dẫn cài đặt từ điển này rồi cài về máy, nó là từ điển Anh-Anh, thời gian đầu mình dùng nó khá nhiều nhưng sau này ít dùng hơn vì mình phát hiện ra 1 siêu từ điển khác (đối với mình).
Sau đó mình học theo bộ video 42 ngày phát âm của Dan Hauer và bộ Pronunciation Workshop. Ngoài ra mình rất thích giọng anh Mỹ nên mình xem phim và video nói giọng này rồi nhại theo, tự nhiên mình có accent anh Mỹ thôi chứ cũng chẳng biết tại sao.
c. Từ vựng
Đây là cái mất thời gian nhất và mình xem là quyết định để đạt điểm cao IELTS. Có 2 loại từ vựng là từ vựng thường dùng và từ vựng cho IELTS.
Mình bắt đầu tự học từ vựng thường gặp từ bộ English Vocabulary In Use, có 3 phần elementary, intermidiate và advanced, mình chỉ học 2 quyển đầu thôi vì quyển 3 khó quá. Mãi sau mình mới biết đến ứng dụng anki, cực kì hay để học từ vựng nhé, bạn nên học bộ deck 4000 essential words chia làm 6 phần, cực kì hay và cần thiết trước khi bắt đầu học IELTS.
Nhiều cao nhân thì khuyên là nên học bộ B1, B2 là đủ để bắt đầu học IELTS, vì nó đủ hết từ vựng, ngữ pháp căn bản, mãi sau đến mấy tháng cuối khi gần thi rồi mình mới biết nên mình đọc lướt 2 quyển đó trong 2 ngày, cũng khá hay, các bạn có thể bắt đầu từ nó.
Về từ vựng IELTS, mình học từ 2 quyển Cambridge vocabulary for IELTS, quyển thường và quyển Advanced, nếu bạn học IELTS thì 2 quyển này cực kì hay và quan trọng vì nó chia thành các chủ đề học thuật thường gặp trong ielts. Mình chỉ học gần hết quển advanced thôi vì lười và nản. Hình như có bộ anki 2 quyển này đó, bạn có thể dùng, mình thì mãi sau mới biết. Ngoài ra khi làm test, mình đánh dấu lại từ nào mình ko biết, mới đầu thì chi chít từ nào cũng bôi, nhưng từ vựng IELTS và học thuật lặp lại rất nhiều nên đừng nản. Mình đọc thêm bộ Boost your vocabulary for ielts của anh Đinh Thắng nữa, rất hay nhé.
Có 1 bộ 570 từ vựng học thuật thường gặp cực kì hay, bài học thuật nào cũng sẽ dùng đến, nắm hết được mấy từ này là hiểu 70% bài viết rồi, chưa cần biết đến từ chuyên ngành. Mãi sau mình mới biết bộ này, mình đọc trong 1 buổi tối thì thấy toàn từ hay gặp nên chắc chắn các bạn nên xem nó nhé. Google có hết.
Mình dùng từ điển gì? Mới đầu học bạn nên dùng từ điển Anh Việt, vì đã biết gì mà vập vào Anh Anh, T Flat như mọi người thôi. Từ điển Anh Anh mình dùng là Oxford, Cambride advanced learner’s dictionary, sau này mình mới biết thêm 1 phần mềm “siêu từ điển” nữa là Lingoes, muốn biết tại sao nó là siêu từ điển thì tự tìm hiểu nhé.
2. Các kĩ năng mình học thế nào?
a. Reading
Mình xác định Lis và Read kéo điểm nên mình dành nhiều tg cho nó hơn, hơi tiếc vì sau này nhận ra là 2 kĩ năng còn lại cũng ko khó.
Read thì quan trọng nhất là từ vựng và khả năng đọc hiểu tiếng anh, mình hay đọc báo tiếng anh từ 4English và eVnExpress.
Lúc luyện đề thì tg đầu mình làm theo tips nhưng mình thấy làm mẹo, tips ko thể đạt điểm cao đâu nên mình quyết định đọc hết cả bài. Ở nhà mình làm vẫn 8.5 9.0 đều đều nhưng đi thi bị tụt, tiếc quá.
b. Listening
Bình thường mình hay nghe postcast ở app 4English để học từ vựng luôn, và mình nghe bất kì chủ đề gì về tiếng anh trên youtube, ko quan trọng phải nghe Ted đâu nhé, nó cứ là tiếng anh là được rồi
Sau thì mình làm bộ Cam, thời gian đầu mình cũng học nghe chép nhưng lười quá được vài bài rồi bỏ. Mình làm lúc đầu lẹt đẹt lắm, 6.0 6.5 thôi. Sau đó mình lên youtube thì thấy mấy phương pháp và lời khuyên của Đặng Trần Tùng và kênh youtube Khoa Ielts đã thay đổi listening của mình. Các bạn search sẽ ra phương pháp của mình. Sau đó thì mình làm lên đến mức 8.0 rồi xong bỏ bẫng 1 thời gian đến tật lúc sát thì mới làm lại thì bị tụt thê thảm nên khuyên các bạn nên đá qua listening thường xuyên, đừng chủ quan.
c. Writing
Mình học trong 3 tuần. Chủ yếu đầu tiên cần nắm các dạng bài và cách giải. Sau đó mình đọc theo các bài mẫu, tips của Simon và Ngọc Bách, tiếc là mình dành cho nó ít thời gian quá, mình chưa từng viết được hoàn chỉnh một đề writing task 1+ task 2 nào trong 60p nên lúc sát đi thi hoang mang tột độ. May quá chém bừa vẫn được 6.5 hehe.
Một điều cực kì quan trọng là đừng cố nhét tràn lan từ vựng khủng, ngữ pháp khủng vào bài, quan trọng là dễ đọc, dễ hiểu, trả lời được câu hỏi của đề, ngữ pháp thì quan trọng là bạn ko sai chứ ko phải là bạn nhét được bao nhiêu cấu trúc khủng, nên là cứ bình thường thôi đừng cầu kì.
Nếu tự học bạn nên dùng thêm phần mềm Grammarly, nó giúp chữa lỗi ngữ pháp cho mình rất hay.
d. Speaking
Mình chủ quan ko ôn speaking vì mình chỉ đặt mục tiêu là giao tiếp để người ta hiểu thôi và 3 ngày cuối mình mới xem bộ dự đoán và các video phòng thi trên youtube. Tiếc là mình ko trúng bộ dự đoán. Vào thi thì dám thị hỏi gì mình trả lời nấy thôi như là trò chuyện tâm sự thôi, nhưng mình run quá mà cũng ko trúng đề nữa, điểm mình thấp nên mình chỉ khuyên là nếu muốn điểm cao hơn thì đừng học như mình kaka.
3. Cuối cùng, với mình IELTS là gì?
Theo mình tấm bằng IELTS không quyết định tương lai bạn là ai, cũng ko đánh giá hết được khả năng tiếng anh của bạn, nhưng nó như là cái thang giúp bạn bám vào để học tiếng anh, học nó đống nghĩa tiếng anh của bạn sẽ tốt lên. Nó cũng là sự ghi nhận cho quá trình bạn đã cố gắng nữa, mình cũng xác định là sau này mình sẽ phải thi và phải thi lại nên mình học ngay từ thời sinh viên, lúc này là lúc rảnh nhất rồi, lên sau đại học như các anh chị bận túi bụi ko có thời gian để mà ầm ừ bắt đầu học đâu hehe. Chúc các bạn học tốt.
🌍📚Những #Schofan quyết tâm và muốn chuẩn bị kĩ cho nhiều học bổng từ giờ thì mau mau đăng kí lớp tìm và apply học bổng #HannahEd đã có lịch các lớp tháng 10,11 và chương trình Mentor, Review hồ sơ, Tập phỏng vấn.
Link này để nhận thêm thông tin:
http://tiny.cc/HannahEdClassInfo nhé.
Inbox page, email [email protected] hoặc điền link này để đăng ký luôn:http://tiny.cc/HannahEdClass
https://hannahed.co/lop-tim-va-nop-hoc-bong/
❤️Like và share nếu các em thấy thông tin có ích nhé ❤️
#HannahEd #duhoc #hocbong #sanhocbong #scholarshipforVietnamesestudents
c# read email 在 Jessica Vu Youtube 的最讚貼文
Girly when I tell you this took forever to edit...? Finally, here is the video of me reacting to (and very poorly "animating") a fanfic about me and @Corpse Husband and a bunch of other canceled people! ??♀️ Let me know who you're shipping in the comments ?
FOLLOW ME!
✧ IG: https://www.instagram.com/jessyluxe
✧ PODCAST: https://anchor.fm/volumeup
✧ TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@jessyluxe
✧ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/luxejessy
✧ SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/jessyluxe
﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍
*SPOILER ALERT* [ Don't read this mini note until you finish the video ]
I know I said I was going to film this months ago but I was in the middle of moving so I forgot about it until now ? It took forever to edit this one bc my sister said we should add visuals which was actually quite fun ?
I'm currently working on subtitles, I know it's hard to hear my sister bc she didn't have a mic ??♀️ @YouTube please bring back community contributions :(
I know this is a longer video which I don't really do that often anymore, but I still hope you enjoy! And yes I included Pewdiepie instead of David Dobrik in the thumbnail because I have a theory that David actually said those things about Valentine to get back into her life because he saw everyone was shipping Vorpse ?
'til next time!
♡ xo
﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍
I N T H I S V I D E O :
FANFIC INFO ⁺
˖ ????? ??? by grizibling https://w.tt/3wW0r2w
WEARING ⁺
˖ Blue Wig (out of stock, similar: https://bit.ly/3gQTVor)
˖ Hair Roller / Curler https://bit.ly/2UoIueE
˖ Me, Mine Brand Daisy Top https://bit.ly/3zVri0u
˖ @ur mom ashley x HoneyLock Triple A Necklace (sold out but the matching bracelet is in stock!) https://bit.ly/3gZ8CVc
˖ Me, Mine Brand Logo Necklace https://bit.ly/3d9hUNg
︾
T E C H
˖ CAMERA
Canon EOS Rebel T6i DSLR
https://amzn.to/2PcG1Mk
˖ LENS
EF-S 18-55mm IS STM Kit Lens
https://amzn.to/2P7wAxx
˖ EDITING PROGRAM
Final Cut Pro X 10.5
︾
M U S I C
˖ Cassette Tapes - Messed Up https://youtu.be/RyLltzYDP90
˖ BGM President - Bright Daylight https://youtu.be/aVWGStSO5D4
˖ BGM President - Spring Step https://youtu.be/PvvaZaaHAm8
˖ A'ST1 - Yearning Heart https://youtu.be/x0PnbIsdoHs
˖ BGM President - Sometimes Love https://youtu.be/TW55L_ZJBXk
˖ BGM President - Garden in May https://youtu.be/Q6yVJaEBd6M
˖ BGM President - That I Have Grown Up https://youtu.be/ui-gF5s8vbE
﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍﹍
? BUSINESS EMAIL: jessica@rare.global
FTC: Not sponsored ? Some links listed are affiliate links which help out the channel if you make a purchase through them ? and some products used I received in PR („• ֊ •„)
c# read email 在 Zermatt Neo Youtube 的最讚貼文
For this episode, we headed back to Neo’s Kitchen to attempt a LEVEL 99 SPICY MALA WONTON CHALLENGE! EB Food is organising a timed wonton challenge with the launch of their new product, EB Shrimp Wonton with Mala Sauce. Eating the greatest number of EB wontons in 5 minutes will net you a cash prize of $2000, with further cash prizes for 2nd and 3rd place. Full details listed below:
The EB Shrimp Wonton with Mala Sauce came neatly packed in a pleasantly-enough designed box that really undersold the potency of the Mala sauce. They were simple to cook - boil the 12 wontons for 5 minutes, warm up the Mala sauce in hot water and mix them all together. The Mala sauce was a menacing shade of red glistening with Mala oil radiating that signature Mala aroma. The wontons themselves respectably plumped up considerably during cooking. Each had a whole shrimp in them. When mixed together, each wonton ended up adopting an even shade of red with small clumps of Mala sauce noticeable throughout.
I attempted this challenge with Mervin (there is a buddy requirement). From the number of wontons we prepared versus the number consumed, it was clear that we underestimated this challenge. We thought it would be a speed challenge, but it ended up being a spice challenge due to our low spice tolerance and the unexpected heat of the Mala sauce. Out of the 100+ wontons we cooked, we only ate 48 between us within the 5 minutes limit.
Note that our attempt does not count for the official challenge, so please do find a buddy (preferably someone who loves Mala) and win yourself $2000! The wontons are also Halal, so Muslim viewers can join as well!
Follow these easy steps to qualify for the challenge:
1. Like and follow @ebfood.sg on both their Facebook and Instagram accounts
2. Complete the T&C Google form before joining the challenge: https://forms.gle/phDZn6q3RZ77gaYS6
3. Film and upload your challenge video on both your Instagram accounts:
- Tag @ebfood.sg and your buddy's account
- Hashtag #EBFrozenFood #BeatMAloveforLA #malasg
- Indicate the total amount of Mala Wonton consumed
- Set both accounts public
4. Send the original video with 5 minutes duration to: marketing@ebfood.sg
*Your full video should include the process of pouring and mixing all the Mala sauce given in the packaging.*
Cash Prizes:
1st Prize: $2000
2nd Prize: $1000
3rd Prize: $500
Winners will be contacted by email on 23 June 2021.
Reminder: In order to qualify for the challenge, do read through all T&Cs and rules carefully from the Google form.
Connect with us!
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/zermattneofls
Instagram - http://instagram.com/zermattneo
http://instagram.com/teegongborpi
Use code ZERMATT for 58% off ALL Myprotein products.
For those that are interested in doing ZenyumClear™️ Aligners:
https://bit.ly/zermattneo-yt
Use code ZERMATT100 for special discount!
Hair Sponsor - Toliv Salon
5 Purvis Street, #01-03, Singapore
https://www.facebook.com/tolivboutique
c# read email 在 Rachell Tan Youtube 的最佳解答
This is not financial advice, but these are things we wish we knew before we bought our house, and we hope they're helpful to you as well!
This is Part 2, where we read some of the comments and direct messages which we found very helpful and gave us different options to consider.
Things we wish we knew: Before buying our house (Part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OVIPX47Us
It's good to do your own research and come to your own decisions too.
You can check out the CPF website as there are a lot of helpful information there too.
It's just that previously Sean and I were very clueless so we only learned some things AFTER we bought our home haha!
To check how much CPF you need to return to your CPF Ordinary Account – and Special Account/Retirement Account and Medisave Account, if applicable – you can log in to the CPF website with your SingPass and click on My Statement - Section C: Property - My Public or Private Housing Withdrawal Details.
Other links you can read up:
Bank Loan vs HDB Loan:
https://www.singsaver.com.sg/blog/hdb-loan-vs-bank-loan
CPF interest rates:
https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Members/AboutUs/about-us-info/cpf-interest-rates
Lease Buyback Scheme:
https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/living-in-an-hdb-flat/for-our-seniors/monetising-your-flat-for-retirement/lease-buyback-scheme
HDB Sales Proceeds Calculator:
https://homes.hdb.gov.sg/home/calculator/sale-proceeds
How to get $1 Million at 65 years old by CPF:
https://blog.seedly.sg/1m65-1-million-by-65-cpf/
________________________
Feel free to leave us any questions at the comment section.
Thank you for watching!
For sponsorship, product reviews, and collaboration, you can email us here:
pxdkitty@gmail.com
Follow us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/pxdkitty
Our online store:
https://www.pixiepax.sg/