杨文斌quash 动议 相关文件，我已经递交。目前不想做具体评论。但有人贴出一个案子，O'Connell v. Jacobs, 181 A.D.2d 1064。他老人家看了是喜是忧呢？ 案子是O'Connell v. Jacobs, 181 A.D.2d 1064 。根据附上的判决书，案情如下。原告在某人家里被人打成重伤，但她没有任何记忆是谁干的。警察也没有找到任何证据说是谁干的，唯一的说法是那家人的儿子有能力下手。原告起诉那儿子。经过陪审团审判之后，赔偿80万。但上诉法院说没有证据，赔偿不能成立（两名法官反对）。 Opinion Amended judgment reversed on the law without costs and complaint dismissed. On March 20, 1980, plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries when she was allegedly beaten in her bed on the third floor of the residence of Max and Helen Jacobs. Plaintiff had no independent recollection of the circumstances that led to her injuries and was unable to identify her attacker. Plaintiff commenced this action against the Jacobs' son, Seth, who was 15 years of age at the time of the incident, for assault and battery and negligence, and against the Jacobs for negligent supervision of Seth. Following the close of proof at the jury trial, the court dismissed the negligence cause of action asserted against Seth. The jury returned a special verdict in favor of plaintiff against Seth on the assault and battery cause of action and awarded plaintiff damages in the total sum of $ 800,000. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Max Jacobs and Helen Jacobs on the cause of action asserted againstthem. Although it is tragic that plaintiff suffered such injuries and is deserving of compensation, we reluctantly conclude that the jury verdict against Seth for assault and battery cannot be sustained because there is no evidence to support the finding that defendant Seth battered the plaintiff.The only possible basis for such a finding is Officer Donovan's testimony, in response to a question whether at the time of the investigation he had any suspects, that he felt that Max or Seth was "capable" of the attack. No basis for his suspicion, however, is contained in the record. In fact, all of the police officers, including Officer Donovan, testified that they were aware of no evidence to connect Seth with the crime. Officer Donovan's suspicions that Seth may have been the perpetrator are probative of nothing and that testimony was improperly admitted. Because there is no evidence to support a finding that Seth battered the plaintiff, his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. Furthermore, it is undisputed that there were six people besides the victim sleeping at the Jacobs' house on the night plaintiff was attacked. Two young children could reasonablyhave been excluded as possible perpetrators. There is some evidence with respect to the parents, but the record is silent regarding a brother of Seth who was one year younger. HN1 "A jury verdict must be based on more than mere speculation or guesswork" ( Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020, 1021) . If "there are several possible causes of injury, for one or more of which defendant is not responsible, plaintiff cannot recover without proving the injury was sustained wholly or in part by a cause for which the defendant was responsible" ( Digelormo v Weil, 260 NY 192, 200) . Accordingly, the jury verdict against Seth cannot be sustained and the amended judgment is reversed and the complaint dismissed. Even if, as concluded by the dissent, the evidence is sufficient, the verdict still cannot be sustained because Seth was denied a fair trial by numerous erroneous evidentiary admissions and by unsupported statements of plaintiff's counsel, all designed to prejudice the jury's mind against him. Plaintiff's attorney, despite a pretrial ruling that subsequent hypnotic revelations regarding Seth would not be admissible, asserted in her opening statement that plaintiffsubsequently suffered from nightmares and reenactments or reliving of the attack and that she had begun to link up those flashbacks with Seth. Because plaintiff's testimony never linked Seth to the assault, there was no basis for plaintiff's counsel to make that damaging statement (see, Estes v Town of Big Flats, 41 AD2d 681 ; see also, Cohn v Meyers, 125 AD2d 524, 527) . Supreme Court also improperly admitted testimony by Dr. Ewing that, based upon his analysis of Seth's writings, Seth possessed personality traits of "sadism, narcissism and self-centeredness" and that he was capable of committing the assault. Clearly that was error because "it is the generally accepted rule that HN2 the character of a party may not be shown in a civil case to raise an inference that he acted in conformity therewith on the occasion in question" (Richardson, Evidence § 158 ). That testimony was very damaging to Seth and should have been stricken. The issue before the jury was not whether Seth was capable of committing the assault, but rather whether he did commit the assault. Likewise, Supreme Court's improper admission of the inadmissible hearsay testimony of Susan Wolf,that Pamela Prince told her that Seth entered her room while she was sleeping at his home and stood over the bed holding a flashlight in his upraised arm, was extremely damaging. Additionally, the hearsay testimony of Cynthia Russell that Seth's mother stated that assaults and even murders occur in the best of families, and that Seth would go to Bellevue Hospital for testing, was clearly inadmissible as against Seth and most damaging to him. It is no small wonder that the jury, presented with such damaging testimony, all admitted over objection, concluded that Seth, amongst all of the members of the household, must have been the one who assaulted plaintiff. All concur, except Green , J. P., and Davis, J., who dissent and vote to modify in the following Memorandum. Dissent by: Green , J. P., and Davis, J. Dissent (Dissenting). We respectfully dissent. We conclude, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and recognizing that plaintiff, who suffered amnesia, " 'is not held to the high degree of proof required in a case where the injured person may take the stand and give version of the happening of the accident' " ( Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80 ; see also, Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228, 232-233 ; Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885 ), that the jury verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499) . Contrary to the suggestion of the majority, plaintiff had no burden to exclude other members of the Jacobs' household of culpability in this incident. Plaintiff's burden of proof was to establish by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that Seth was her attacker. In our view, plaintiff satisfied that burden of proof requirement. It is sufficient that plaintiff " 'shows facts and conditions from which the and the causation of may be reasonably inferred' " ( Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Center, 67 NY2d 743, 744 , quoting Ingersoll v Liberty Bank, 278 NY 1, 7) . Plaintiff's proof need not "positively exclude … every other possible cause" of her injuries but defendant's assault and battery ( Rosenberg v Schwartz, 260 NY 162, 166 ; see also, Johnson v New York City Tr. Auth., 129 AD2d 424, 425-426 , lv denied 70NY2d 605 ). A plaintiff may prevail where the inference of defendant's culpability is more probable or more reasonable than the inference of his nonculpability (see, Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Center, supra ). "Her proof must render those other causes sufficiently 'remote' or 'technical' to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence" ( Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Center, supra, at 744 ; see also, Spett v President Monroe Bldg. Mfg. Corp., 19 NY2d 203, 205) . It is well settled that where the credibility of witnesses is involved "great deference is accorded to the fact- finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" ( People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) . Furthermore, we conclude that Seth's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain comments and evidentiary rulings of the trial court lacks merit. A review of the record reveals that the trial court conducted the trial in a fair, unbiased and impartial manner. Additionally, any prejudice to Seth caused by the improper reference to certain "nightmare" testimonyby plaintiff's counsel in her opening statement was dissipated by the trial court's prompt curative instructions. Finally, in our view, the amended judgment in favor of plaintiff against Seth, should be modified by deleting the award for future medical services in the sum of $ 97,800. The evidence does not support a need for future medical services and no evidence was adduced regarding the nature of those services or what would be the reasonable cost of such services if provided (see, Pavia v Rosato, 154 AD2d 519 ; Beyer v Murray, 33 AD2d 246, 249) . In all other respects, we conclude that the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 ). Accordingly, we would modify the amended judgment in plaintiff's favor against Seth by deleting the award for future medical services in the sum of $ 97,800, and otherwise would affirm. (Appeal from Amended Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.--Personal Injuries.)
杨文彬先生已经正式上阵了。 。 查看法 院的案卷，他已经递交了MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ，听证日期9月24日。我当然也会及时予以反对。相信一场以法律为依据的，文明、理性的辩论将给网上的种种攻击性言论画上一个休止符。这是NN走向法治文明的一个开端。该案目前有五位豇豆，到时他们会闪亮登场，共襄法治教育之盛举。欢迎对网上的非法行为检举揭发。 下面是我之前递交的请求法院确认EMAIL传票的动议，相关案例就隐去了。
杨文彬在他的动议to quash service 中写道：“because of his limited English proficiency, he has difficulties in participating telephone court hearing." 根据这一条他要求以书面形式参见法庭的听证。对此声称英语不行不能参见交互听证的说法，我当然会加以反对。 另外，针对杨文彬说加州法院对他不方便，我会指出他再三要求上加州法院”灭了”我，还可以顺便到加州玩的种种说法。 在贺梅案中，贺绍强是以相当流利的英文作证，罗秦说自己英语不好，需要翻译。在一处，对方律师问了一个问题，罗秦用英语回答：“Mr. Parrish filed a legal motion." 法官裘得斯在判决中说罗秦在演戏。法官写道： 【 Although Mrs. He does not speak the English language fluently, she appears to speak and understand English better than she professes. For example, Mrs. He spoke English during some of the Hes’ visits with AMH at the Bakers’ home and when Mrs. He took the Hes’ other children for medical treatment. She also spoke English during the incident when she was holding a sign outside of the Bakers’ home, and the Bakers’ neighbor, Rebecca Smith, asked Mrs. He to move her car, and she spoke English during the December 2003, incident at the Wal-Mart store. During the trial, in response to a question from attorney Linda Holmes, Mrs. He responded to the question by speaking in English, before the interpreter had begun interpreting Ms. Holmes’ question to Mrs. He. Mrs. He said, “Mr. Parrish filed legal motion,” then she stopped speaking English and began responding to the question in Chinese.】 法官的意思似乎是罗秦其实能说更多英语，假装不会，这样有时间可以思考对答。 最后，法官裁决罗秦完全没有可信度。 一般来说，只有刑事被告法庭才会给翻译，须知这种翻译是需要花纳税人很多钱的。为什么罗秦有翻译呢？这是因为剥夺父母权涉及剥夺基本权利，需要更高程度的 due process. 根据加州最高法院案例，” No statutory basis exists for appointment of an interpreter at public expense to assist non-English speaking litigants. “
杨文斌诽谤案进展，动议电邮发送传票并确认被告杨文彬已被正式送达。 MOTION TO SERVICE DEFENDANTS BY EMAIL AND DEEM SERVICE EFFECTUATED AS TO DEFENDANT WENBIN WILLIAM YANG DEFENDANT YANG HAS BEEN SERVED THE MOTION AND SUPPORTING PAPERS AT HIS EMAIL ADDRESS 听证日期： 9月30日，下午2:30 主要论点 1） 被告在案发前就有意逃避美国传票（扬言可能将美国传票扔入垃圾），案发后更是如此； 2）被告教唆翰山蔑视加州法院传票：案发后，原告传讯了新语丝与翰山网，并将传票通过电子邮件发给方是民博士与翰山，方博士在三天内就回应传票，并交出 iMan 信息；原告宣布传票发给翰山后，被告杨文彬多次 教唆 翰山对加州人民发出的传票置之不理，被告的文字表现了对美国法律的极端蔑视；在被告的 教唆 之后，翰山拒绝执行加州传票； 3）Process server 五次前往，晚上屋内有灯，白天外面有车，均无人应答；给发挂号信无人领取；最后只好将传票用大信封装着放在被告信箱中；从照片看，信箱内空空如也，说明之前邮局留的挂号信通知已经被取走； 4）通过EMAIL发送传票不违背 Hague Convention，且是向被告传递传票的有效手段。案例显示， courts have deemed effective of service by email made prior to authorization by the court. 动议法院确认电子传票有效，或者给六个月延期，继续传统传票送达尝试。 附带评论下，NN 应该向马力学习，他有头脑，达到了珍珠湾水平。
关于杨文彬诽谤案，据 PROCESS SERVER 称，确认“新语丝”之前公布的北约克 119 Mintwood Drv 确为其住址。Google 搜索其地址，得出电话为 (416) 229-0188。Canada 411 网站实际数据显示，其电话已在近期更改 , 参见 http://www.canada411.ca/res/4165193688/W-Yang/220128300.html 。Google 显示旧号概因尚未更新数据。 PROCESS SERVER 向加州法院宣誓称，五次前往被告住址，包括早上7点多，及晚上9点多前往，晚上屋内有灯， 早上Drive Way 有车，但均无人应答。又通过邮局发送挂号信，加拿大挂号 RN082491710CA，邮局多次通知，均无人领取。 加国邮局查询地址： https://www.canadapost.ca/cpotools/apps/track/personal/findByTrackNumber?execution=e1s1 。 最终，process server 将传票及起诉书留在其信箱。参见文末照片。 又据 PROCESS SERVER报告，目前被告已经窜逃，其女儿暂时看管其住所。 该被告最近出现于翰山酷网，如果查其IP，应该不在 North York。 鉴于此，原告作出了艰苦的努力，而被告刻意逃避 service 证据明显，相关证据依据递交加州法院。电子传票理由充分，我将在近日动议7月8日电子送递传票有效。 须知，法网恢恢，疏而不漏。 附图：加拿大process sever 向法院宣誓作证的附件 History Email Notifications: Sign up | Remove Date Time Location Description Retail Location Signatory Name 2015/07/20 17:43 WILLOWDALE, ON Final Notice; Item will be returned to sender if not collected within 10 days CUMMER PO 2015/07/02 09:48 WILLOWDALE, ON Item available for pickup at Post Office 2015/06/30 13:55 WILLOWDALE, ON Item in transit to Post Office 10:44 WILLOWDALE, ON Attempted delivery. Notice card left indicating where item can be picked up. 09:31 WILLOWDALE, ON Item out for delivery 06:29 WILLOWDALE, ON Item processed 2015/06/29 20:12 MISSISSAUGA, ON Item processed 2015/06/28 16:20 MISSISSAUGA, ON Item accepted at the Post Office Shipping Options and Features for this Item Signature Required
起诉 翰山酷网侵权、诽谤的状纸 中有一个部分 “JURISDICTION”（管辖权），论述联邦法院的管辖权，其中SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ("争议管辖权”）部分写道： This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a), as this action arises out of the laws of the United States of America, specifically, the claims for copyright infringement founded upon the Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq ., and the claims of false designation of origin and false advertisement founded upon the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq . This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation and state unfair competition claims as they arise out of and relate directly to Defendants' conduct in violation of federal law, as alleged herein. 大家如果仔细读读 美国宪法第三章关于司法分支的条款 ，里面列举了美国联邦法院能管的争议的各种情况，包括当案件涉及美国宪法或者美国联邦法律，以及不同州的公民之间的纠纷，等等。如果相关争议不是宪法里列举的情况，那么对不起，联邦法院没有争议管辖权，你只能去别的法院，比如说州法院。 那么美国联邦法律能管些什么事情呢？这个又被美国宪法给限制了。 读美国宪法要像读计算机手册一样 。只有那些明确写在宪法里属于联邦政府的权力，才是美国联邦政府能够施行的，其余的权力归于各州及人民。宪法第一章第八节规定美国国会有权提倡科学、艺术、鼓励创作、发明，给作者、发明家们专有权 （“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”） 。聪明的读者马上知道了，这是指版权（copyright）与专利。版权与专利这两种知识产权不是自然存在，而是法律的产物。我曾经论证到，西方文明的一个重大优势就是这个知识产权的概念，促进了发明、创造与科学的发展。因为知识产权如此重要，美国的创始人们把他们写入了宪法，由美国联邦政府统一管理。任何州法与联邦版权或者专利法冲突都是不行的。 知识产权除了版权、专利之外，还包括商标权。美国国会最初根据上面提到的宪法中赋予的管理版权的权力制订了一部商标法。结果，美国最高法院裁决该法律无效（1879年）：“A trademark is neither an invention, a discovery, nor a writing within the meaning of the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution... That legislation is void for want of constitutional authority... ” （商标既不是发明，也不是发现，也不是宪法 I.8.8 节所说的作品，国会根据改节授权制订商标法无效）。后来，美国国会根据宪法中的"Commerce Clause"重新制订了商标法。所谓 "Commerce Clause"写道：“ To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." 换言之，联邦政府有权管理美国与外国、不同州之间以及与印第安人部落之间的商务--- 但不包括完全是一个州内部的商务。以这条为依据制订的商标法就符合了美国宪法。 具体到翰山酷网案，它涉及两部联邦法律，一是 Copyright Act, 而是 Lanham Act，联邦法院就有了管辖权。而本来由州法管辖的诽谤、不公平竞争等作为附带诉求就一并加上去了。 新移民不远万里来到法治的美国，应该积极学习法律，做守法公民才是正道。 U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-03463-JCS Yue v. Han et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue representedby Dongxiao Yue 2777 Alvarado Street., Suite C San Leandro, CA 94577 PRO SE V. Defendant Gaogao Han Defendant Hanshan.Co Defendant Hanshan.Info Date Filed # Docket Text 07/28/2015 1 COMPLAINT with Demand for Jury Trial against Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info (Filing fee $ 400., Receipt Number 44611012617). Filed by Dongxiao Yue. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dongxiao Yue (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 3 Summons Issued as to Gaogao Han, Hanshan.Co, Hanshan.Info. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/28/2015 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 10/23/2015. Case Management Conference set for 10/30/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015) 07/29/2015 5 REPORT on the filing of an action regarding Copyrights Infringement. (cc: form mailed to register). (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
北美中国移民往往带着中国传统封建时代的印记，不明白中西司法系统的区别，往往拿中国的衙门去往美国的法院上套。这就出问题了。 有次有一个人给我看一法庭的命令，说这个命令的全部内容就是对方律师写的，法官只在上面签了个字。这人气愤地说道： （美国）法院又不是对方家开的，他们说了不算。 其实，法官这么做完全可能是对的。美国法院是对抗性的。也就是诉讼双方根据法律与规则对抗，法官基本是一个被动的裁判角色，不会主动去做什么事情。基本的程序是，一方说A，令一方B，法官的任务是判断（1）谁符合程序；（2）谁更有道理。假如对方提出个什么说法，你没有反应，对方自然就赢了。 美国法官的主动性远远低于足球裁判。足球比赛中谁犯了规，裁判会主动吹哨子。但美国法院，对方如果违规，你必须自己去指出来。否则的话，你这个反对权可能就永久放弃了。 中国人思维不是这样，他们脑子里政府、法院应该是皇帝、包青天的角色，会主动去进行调查、分析，自己只要击鼓鸣冤即可。 杨文彬在彼岸网向人提问到，是否可以不理睬加州法院的传唤，到时再在加拿大安大略法院抗拒加州法院的管辖权？ 如果是这样，杨就处于相当被动的地步了。 对我的提醒，杨文彬可能会说，你真是个活雷锋啊。 这又是中国式思维，总是试图对一件事情进行道德性的揣测，而不是从客观角度来分析。 我也许有好为人师的缺点，但是这个讲解却是为了证明我给了杨文彬公平的通知 (fair notice），堂堂正正，而不是试图打伏击，企图 ambush 。在美国法庭上企图伏击对方是 highly prejudicial 的事情，对方会嚷嚷，法官也会认为你做法不公平。珍珠港式偷袭是美国人反感的。 有了给杨文彬的提醒，到了法庭上，我可以告诉法官，你看，我把后果都写得这么清楚，杨文彬也多次声明要来加州法院应诉与反诉，现在他不来，明显是畏惧正义，对他作出不利的裁决非常正当，其情节恶劣，应与严惩，也算 set an example for the society。同理，这个论证拿到加拿大法院也很有说服力。杨文彬都无法装天真，说草民无知请求原谅了。
标签: 网教
