倍可亲

岳东晓 (已有 1,098,393 人访问过博主空间)

http://www.backchina.com//u/293539

再论为什么桑兰案撤诉是自残

作者:岳东晓  于 2011-5-24 23:34 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村 作者分类:桑兰案评论|通用分类:法律相关|已有80评论

法律是科学也是艺术。律师这活其实是需要理工科思维的--需要严谨的逻辑,文科思维根本搞不了。不幸的是,很多文科思维当律师,所以律师行当浑水摸鱼、发生错误是常事。但在同级律师之间,反正都是糊涂账,互相将错就错经常发生。就像两个街头杂耍比武,也能打个几十回合,打得兴高采烈,高手一看,随便一招就能将其中任何一方击倒。我曾与一名校毕业的资深律师谈起这个情况,他说,你还只是看文件,要是多经历几次jury trial,就知道诉讼中发生错乱的事情多了。

我在《桑兰案已部分撤诉》一文中指出,联邦民事诉讼程序明文规定在对方没有回应自己原告自主撤诉应该是without prejudice,也就是没有输赢的撤诉。但海明律师却选择了with prejudice,也就是相当于这个案子审过,而且判决TURNER没有任何责任,桑兰输了,TURNER胜 (A voluntary dismissal with prejudice renders the opposing party a `prevailing party' within the meaning of Rule 54)。这个理解就是理科思维逻辑运用的结果,关键在于对于with prejudice的概念的理解。

我当时还在猜测是否TURNER给桑兰施加了巨大的压力,后来才知道,其实没有。

这样看来,这个voluntary dismissal with prejudice撤销对TURNER的起诉纯属不必要的自残行为。而且这个dismissal可能会影响到针对AOL TIMER WARNER的控告,因为对后者的控告与对TURNER的控告有类似之处。

昨天,有网友在质疑我的上述分析,于是我查了一下案例,发现类似的错误很早以前也有律师犯过。在一个案子中原告把多名被告中的一名dismiss with prejudice,而且特意申明保留对其他被告的控告,但由于这些被告是关联的,其他被告因此要求总结评判(summary judgment),这个撤诉导致他对其他所有被告的指控全部崩溃。对此,上诉法院不无怜悯地调侃道:“自主撤诉with prejudice是一个彻底的adjudication on the merits....原告犯了一个把其中一个被告dismiss with prejudice的无心之错,当他试图把他自己给自己炒的鸡蛋恢复原状时,法庭爱莫能助。

我指出这点来,海明应该感谢我,因为下次他要撤诉,就知道应该是without prejudice。很多东西属于正确理解条文的阅读理解能力,法学院是学不到的。




  博主二维码,光标右键点图片可下载

高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持
20

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (20 人)

发表评论 评论 (80 个评论)

回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 00:15
erbaiwu: 岳博士,你把你看的case citation 给我,我马上看一下,海明这个没有牵涉ajudication of mertis,不会出现res judicata,你看到的case,肯定是法院已经go into tr ...
我准确翻译判例如下:“自主撤诉with prejudice是一个彻底的adjudication on the merits.“ 自己去查嘛。这种20亿美金的生意,我免费普法还要用勺子喂?又:你的评论太长,能否简化点方便其他读者看?
回复 Helenzhao1959 2011-5-25 00:30
打官司逻辑严谨者胜数大,长于抒情者可投身娱乐界。
回复 ala 2011-5-25 00:31
海明律师现在不仅仅在自废武功,而且还想自残其身等着让人去势。想想也可怜,一只小猴子骑在虎背上是什么滋味,他现如今进退两难了。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 00:35
岳东晓: 我准确翻译判例如下:“自主撤诉with prejudice是一个彻底的adjudication on the merits.“ 自己去查嘛。这种20亿美金的生意,我免费普法还要用勺子喂?又:你的 ...
岳博士,你太为读者考虑了,直接就把的帖子删除了,好像跟你意见有些不一样,虽然我的opinion 是bona fide and reasoned,你也赶紧删,有意思啊,你的思维有意思。

你太伟大了,谢谢大家免费普法。大家写的东西,还是给读者自己看看,让他们自己判断为准。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 00:39
erbaiwu: 岳博士,你太为读者考虑了,直接就把的帖子删除了,好像跟你意见有些不一样,虽然我的opinion 是bona fide and reasoned,你也赶紧删,有意思啊,你的思维有意思 ...
你的东西占了太多篇幅。而且重复你在另一处贴的内容,你本来可以一个链接就可以了(http://my.backchina.com/chineseblog/201105/user-293539-message-112295-page-1.html )。我建议你简化,去掉那些多余的东西。其实你的观点归结于一点:voluntary dismissal with prejudice 不是adjudication on the merits。我已经告诉你那是错误解读,案例我就不cite了。
回复 flushing911 2011-5-25 00:48
多谢岳博士普法,但海明等犯的这种错误似乎和文科思维没什么关系,纯粹是法律常识不过关
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 00:49
岳东晓: 你的东西占了太多篇幅。而且重复你在另一处贴的内容,你本来可以一个链接就可以了(http://my.backchina.com/chineseblog/201105/user-293539-message-112295-pa ...
谢谢给个链接啊。我说实话,如果懂frcp 和 res judicta doctrine的人,他们看了应该能看出我判断海明这个dismissal 不是ajudication on merits的理由。你真的对读statue 和看cases的ratio decidenti没怎么搞清楚啊。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 00:50
erbaiwu: 谢谢给个链接啊。我说实话,如果懂frcp 和 res judicta doctrine的人,他们看了应该能看出我判断海明这个dismissal 不是ajudication on merits的理由。你真的对读 ...
你的分析缺乏基本逻辑。我只能这么说。
回复 ala 2011-5-25 01:16
岳博士在法庭上示弱是不是一种打赢官司的手段。再这样发展下去,桑兰的律师有可能会让大家认同为一个有智商问题的残疾人,那时两个残疾人同时出现在法庭,这样能引起法官和倍审们的同情而赢的官司。
回复 怕不辣 2011-5-25 01:28
flushing911: 多谢岳博士普法,但海明等犯的这种错误似乎和文科思维没什么关系,纯粹是法律常识不过关
同意。
不能以偏概全。
回复 陈营 2011-5-25 01:39
erbaiwu: 岳博士,你太为读者考虑了,直接就把的帖子删除了,好像跟你意见有些不一样,虽然我的opinion 是bona fide and reasoned,你也赶紧删,有意思啊,你的思维有意思 ...
也罢,另开一题或许好些。
回复 陈营 2011-5-25 01:41
感谢岳博士,再学一点
回复 Cannaa 2011-5-25 01:41
岳东晓: 我准确翻译判例如下:“自主撤诉with prejudice是一个彻底的adjudication on the merits.“ 自己去查嘛。这种20亿美金的生意,我免费普法还要用勺子喂?又:你的 ...
这问题我也和他(二百五)讨论过,结果他当我是海明吗甲。

如果法官dismiss with prejudice (e.g., for a pending action in another court, 但是随后这个another court declined the pending action), 那么这个dismiss with prejudice就是adjudication NOT on the merits,因此这个案件以后还有机会开庭。

但是现在是海明自己voluntary dismissal with prejudice撤销对Warner的指控,我看这一条以后是没有机会告了。
回复 match99 2011-5-25 01:48
“我当时还在猜测是否TURNER给桑兰施加了巨大的压力,后来才知道,其实没有。”
海明撤案是在莫虎的压力下进行的。应该是莫虎在电话里分析了各被告情况,特纳应该是莫虎指出的案子中比较薄弱的项目。海明一心虚就撤诉了。
原海明博客(现已删)
网络上有人猜测,我们撤掉了对特纳(Ted Turner)的起诉项目是因为受到了特纳律师的威胁? 没有。自从立案以来,唯一威胁过我的就是某些华人和华人律师莫虎。其他被告毕竟是美国人,基本遵守法律程序,淡定处理民事诉讼。莫虎多次讲对所有被告的18项诉讼他都能“打掉”,并且企图利用案子中比较薄弱的项目,(我也多次公开诚实承认过案子中的众多项目有强有弱),例如针对特纳的项目,来申请法庭对我们的处罚。 为了保护桑兰和自保,我跟桑兰,黄健商定后,放弃追究特纳的个人责任。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 02:34
Cannaa: 这问题我也和他(二百五)讨论过,结果他当我是海明吗甲。

如果法官dismiss with prejudice (e.g., for a pending action in another court, 但是随后这个anothe ...
他的错误理解在于:他以为一个官司必须双方都出庭打过才可能达成adjudication on the merits。这属于基本概念不清。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 02:43
岳东晓: 你的分析缺乏基本逻辑。我只能这么说。
这个问题,有点意思,我就简单给你illustrate 一下,不实际考虑很多fedealism 在litigation中因素,要严肃论证这个问题,要考虑type of court and location等。“缺乏基本逻辑”,你可以把这个comment 直接给judges。岳博士,能否把你判断依据的cases,免费送给我,给我上堂课啊,先谢过了。

Sterling v. Rockford Mass Transit Dist., 336 Ill. App. 3d 840

Issue: Whether voluntary dismissial with prejudice operated as an ajudication on the meirts

the parties only dispute whether the voluntary dismissal of Carter with prejudice operated as an adjudication on the merits. ....the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of an employee, entered after the close of evidence, constitutes an adjudication on the merits such that a suit against the employer is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

RMTD claims that the voluntary dismissal of Carter with prejudice constituted an adjudication on the merits. RMTD relies on case law that provides that a "dismissal with prejudice" is tantamount to an adjudication on the merits (see Van Slambrouck v. Marshall Field & Co., 98 Ill. App. 3d 485, 487, 53 Ill. Dec. 888, 424 N.E.2d 679 (1981);

The viability of such holdings is in doubt, however, in light of the supreme court's decision in Downing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 162 Ill. 2d 70, 204 Ill. Dec. 755, 642 N.E.2d 456 (1994). There, HN4our supreme court rejected the proposition that a summary judgment "by definition" means a judgment on the merits. Downing, 162 Ill. 2d at 77. The court cautioned that what constitutes an adjudication on the merits should be based on the context in which a ruling is made.The holding in Downing has been extended to involuntary dismissals. See, e.g., Brady v. Joos, 273 Ill. App. 3d 793, 797-98, 207 Ill. Dec. 357, 647 N.E.2d 588 (1995) ...

Accordingly, we reject RMTD's request that we [***13]  automatically equate Carter's dismissal with prejudice as an adjudication on the merits.
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 02:45
Cannaa: 这问题我也和他(二百五)讨论过,结果他当我是海明吗甲。

如果法官dismiss with prejudice (e.g., for a pending action in another court, 但是随后这个anothe ...
你跟我意见不一样,查看我前面回复,阿明,你自己玩啊。不要跟我玩了,我没事情,马上到你博客搞条爆料分析了。
回复 Cannaa 2011-5-25 02:52
岳东晓: 他的错误理解在于:他以为一个官司必须双方都出庭打过才可能达成adjudication on the merits。这属于基本概念不清。
他把dismiss by judge 和 voluntary dismissal 搞混了。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 03:04
erbaiwu: 这个问题,有点意思,我就简单给你illustrate 一下,不实际考虑很多fedealism 在litigation中因素,要严肃论证这个问题,要考虑type of court and location等。“ ...
你这是州法,不靠谱。我们现在是讨论联邦法,具体是FRCP第41条的解释,甚至可能不属于federal common law,而是对statute的解释。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 03:07
岳东晓: 你这是州法,不靠谱。我们现在是讨论联邦法,具体是FRCP第41条的解释,甚至可能不属于federal common law,而是对statute的解释。
我已经preface 这个disclaimer 了个问题“不实际考虑很多fedealism 在litigation中因素,要严肃论证这个问题,要考虑type of court and location等。”

Perry v. Tarry, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23837

你可以细读一下的,如果是court 后面invovled了,voluntary dismissal with prejudice,和without court order是有区别的, 你看一下你自己找的cases,是哪种类型

The more difficult question in this case is whether the court's order granting Perry's motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of No. 94 C 6438 is a final judgment on the merits. Defendants argue that  [*8] Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) controls. That rule provides as follows:

(a) Voluntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof.

(1) By Plaintiff; by Stipulation. HN4Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(e), of Rule 66, and of any statute of the United States, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.

however. The court's order in No. 94 C 6438 dismissed Perry's complaint "with prejudice." The court concludes that such HN5a dismissal constitutes a final judgment on the merits. This conclusion is based on several considerations. The term "with prejudice" is a term of art that is meant to refer to the merits of the claim being dismissed
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 03:18
岳博士,你在博文里面坚持说ted turner是个prevailing party,我今天正好有空,把case citation 和ruling 都给你找出来。我在前面评论里面已经有提到,这是个term of art, which entails bundles of right.

BAORONG LUM, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES BENZ, USA, L.L.C., et. al., Defendants.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 governs voluntary dismissals. A plaintiff's voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not render Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) applicable as the non-moving litigant is not a prevailing party.

The United States Supreme Court has explained that a prevailing party is one who has been awarded some relief by the court, by virtue of a judgment on the merits or court-ordered consent decree, effecting a material alteration of the relationship of the parties. A defendant's voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. United States Supreme Court precedents thus counsel against holding that the term "prevailing party" authorizes an award of attorney's fees without a corresponding alteration in the legal relationship of the parties. Accordingly, the appropriate focus is on the nature and judicial involvement in the outcome, rather than its practical effects.
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 03:54
Heard of Buckhannon tests? See Circuit courts on this issue.

【We note that our holding is consistent with the treatment of similar cases within other circuits. For example, the **** Circuit has held that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice meets the Buckhannon test, reasoning that such disposition "effects a material alteration of [the] legal relationship with the other parties, because it terminates any claims [the plaintiff] may have had against [the defendants] arising out of this set of operative facts." CITATIONS OMMITTED ("[A] voluntary dismissal with prejudice renders the opposing party a `prevailing party' within the meaning of Rule 54.").】
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 03:57
岳东晓: Heard of Buckhannon tests? See Circuit courts on this issue.

【We note that our holding is consistent with the treatment of similar cases within othe ...
haha 有意思的,你整个case 看完了吗? 我当然知道你cite这个case,根海明情况完全不一样,你把我的case ,和你自己刚才找出来比较一些,把case 看完再来反驳我。建议你把你cite 的case 的名字和citation 也给出来,大家可以自己判断。
回复 Cannaa 2011-5-25 03:58
erbaiwu: 岳博士,你在博文里面坚持说ted turner是个prevailing party,我今天正好有空,把case citation 和ruling 都给你找出来。我在前面评论里面已经有提到,这是个ter ...
你说的有两点,一是voluntary dismissal with prejudice是否是adjudication on
the merits,二是AOL是否是prevailing party。我认为海明的voluntary dismissal with prejudice是adjudication on the merits,因为他自己做了分析,他说Warner做的缺德但是不犯法。我也认为AOL Times Warner不是prevailing party,因为这案件还没有开审。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:01
Cannaa: 你说的有两点,一是voluntary dismissal with prejudice是否是adjudication on
the merits,二是AOL是否是prevailing party。我认为海明的voluntary dismissal  ...
啊明,不要捣局。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:04
erbaiwu: haha 有意思的,你整个case 看完了吗? 我当然知道你cite这个case,根海明情况完全不一样,你把我的case ,和你自己刚才找出来比较一些,把case 看完再来反驳我。 ...
你逻辑不对啊。我找了一个published巡回法院运用最高法院判例的例子,你的案例是下级法院的没有published的,现在是你来distinguish的时候。
回复 Cannaa 2011-5-25 04:04
erbaiwu: 啊明,不要捣局。
看来是个网络信手,认不出谁是马甲。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:06
岳东晓: 你逻辑不对啊。我找了一个published巡回法院运用最高法院判例的例子,你的案例是下级法院的没有published的,现在是你来distinguish的时候。
又是逻辑问题啊,你把case citation 给大家看,这样以后好公正判断.你在看一边,我的帖子,这个case 是based US supreme court的case ,根你cite foundation 是一样的,但是你你把手上case ,没有认真看。
回复 善极恶绝 2011-5-25 04:10
密切关注中
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:11
Cannaa: 你说的有两点,一是voluntary dismissal with prejudice是否是adjudication on
the merits,二是AOL是否是prevailing party。我认为海明的voluntary dismissal  ...
他又概念错误,judicial imprimatur 是什么没搞清,以为必须法官发一道判决才算judicial imprimatur。海明的自残如果放在家里当然不算,但交给法庭批准,就是judicial imprimatur
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:14
erbaiwu: 又是逻辑问题啊,你把case citation 给大家看,这样以后好公正判断.你在看一边,我的帖子,这个case 是based US supreme court的case ,根你cite foundation 是一 ...
我引用了published 上诉法院判决,你用没有published区法院判决,你却叫我去distinguish,不是可笑吗?打官司,如果你不distinguish,你就输了。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:16
岳东晓: Heard of Buckhannon tests? See Circuit courts on this issue.

【We note that our holding is consistent with the treatment of similar cases within othe ...
岳博士,你不是幽默跟我开玩笑把? 我上面那个帖子supreme court 这部分就是buckhannon tests,你还没有认出来啊?哈哈哈哈,我看,我还是不要继续玩了。你先把我cited 这几个cases 简单看看。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:18
岳东晓: 他又概念错误,judicial imprimatur 是什么没搞清,以为必须法官发一道判决才算judicial imprimatur。海明的自残如果放在家里当然不算,但交给法庭批准,就是jud ...
你认真再研究一下把,你在批评buckhannon tests。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:20
岳东晓: 我引用了published 上诉法院判决,你用没有published区法院判决,你却叫我去distinguish,不是可笑吗?打官司,如果你不distinguish,你就输了。
我这个cited case是followed supreme court binding precedent。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:22
erbaiwu: 岳博士,你不是幽默跟我开玩笑把? 我上面那个帖子supreme court 这部分就是buckhannon tests,你还没有认出来啊?哈哈哈哈,我看,我还是不要继续玩了。你先把我 ...
我当然知道Buckhannon。在实战中cite过多次。你不要回避基本问题:distinguish 你引用的那个区法院case和我的上诉法院case(两个case的holding正好相反)。不要像以前贺邵强似的,老用少儿法院法官的话来对付上级法院的话。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:23
岳东晓: 我当然知道Buckhannon。在实战中cite过多次。你不要回避基本问题:distinguish 你引用的那个区法院case和我的上诉法院case(两个case的holding正好相反)。不要像 ...
贺梅案,你就先放一边吧。你自己看看自己的回帖,和我的回帖把。我不玩了,我自己是业余的,我懂就是懂,不懂的,我自己马上会告知的,可以学了后再评论,不能误导人家的,这是我的原则。你把你的case citation 亮出来把,给大家看看。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:26
erbaiwu: 贺梅案,你就先放一边吧。你自己看看自己的回帖,和我的回帖把。我不玩了,我自己是业余的,我懂就是懂,不懂的,我自己马上会告知的,可以学了后再评论,不能误 ...
你既然有兴趣,我就利用你作为一个普法的例子。在美国打官司,调用案例时,是有顺序的,巡回法院的案例高于下级法院的案例,这是基本规则。我引用巡回法院案例,你的案例就无效,你不distinguish,如果是打官司,就输了。而且像你,知道有那个巡回法院案例,却故意不引用,属于ethical violation, lack candor towards the court.
回复 艾艾杨 2011-5-25 04:27
岳博士,按照海明律师的新博文,你犯法了。真的假的?晕死
”非律师同法律咨询在美国是违法的,叫做“unauthorized practice a profession without a license”, 是触犯刑事法的,初犯是misdemeanor A, A 级轻罪,再犯更严重。有些人以翻译的名义帮助一些新移民,但是,法律严禁这类人提供法律意见。

Read more: 不要自作聪明,起诉书中从来没有要求过特纳为桑兰受伤负责 - 纽约海明律师的日志 - 贝壳村 -“
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:29
艾艾杨: 岳博士,按照海明律师的新博文,你犯法了。真的假的?晕死
”非律师同法律咨询在美国是违法的,叫做“unauthorized practice a profession without a license”, ...
又是基本概念不清的。以前贺的律师也这么讲。海明没打这桑兰官司,我们还不知深浅。打了之后,哈哈。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:30
岳东晓: 你既然有兴趣,我就利用你作为一个普法的例子。在美国打官司,调用案例时,是有顺序的,巡回法院的案例高于下级法院的案例,这是基本规则。我引用巡回法院案例, ...
legal system 101?哈哈,我再等你在贴上cited judgment的citation and case name 啊。你为什么不贴出来啊?你说的这么权威一样,你肯定知道联邦法院中上级法院要看区域才决定他们的case 的binding effect情况。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:33
岳东晓: 又是基本概念不清的。海明没打这桑兰官司,我们还不知深浅。打了之后,贻笑大方。
这个我跟你意见一样,难得啊,我去海明那边先玩玩
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:36
erbaiwu: legal system 101?哈哈,我再等你在贴上cited judgment的citation and case name 啊。你为什么不贴出来啊?你说的这么权威一样,你肯定知道联邦法院中上级法院要 ...
但有一条规则,不同联邦巡回法院之间应该尽量寻求一致。所以,其他联邦巡回法院对不同区的法院也有很强的约束力(如果区所在巡回法院没有案例)。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:39
岳东晓: 但有一条规则,不同联邦巡回法院之间应该尽量寻求一致。所以,其他联邦巡回法院对不同区的法院也有很强的约束力(如果区所在巡回法院没有案例)。
哈哈哈,如果纯theory,他们没有义务去做comity 去defer to 其他地区的判决,你看theory and practice 的gap有多大,这是为什么最后这些积累起来conflicting judgments去最高院解决了。 岳博士,我最后一次建议你,把你刚才来反驳我的案例的case name and citation 给大家看看。你不贴出来算了,不玩了,搞其他事了。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:43
erbaiwu: 哈哈哈,如果纯theory,他们没有义务去做comity 去defer to 其他地区的判决,你看theory and practice 的gap有多大,这是为什么最后这些积累起来conflicting jud ...
我经历过相当多的联邦法院诉讼,在本巡回法院没有案例的情况下,法官都是优先采用其他巡回法院的案例。至于你拒绝区分我引用的巡回法院案例,案规则已经输了。就不必再提。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:45
岳东晓: 我经历过相当多的联邦法院诉讼,在本巡回法院没有案例的情况下,法官都是优先采用其他巡回法院的案例。至于你拒绝区分我引用的巡回法院案例,案规则已经输了。就 ...
岳博士,我没有任何恶意,非常尊敬的奉劝一句,真的不要太把自己当回事了。不要生活在自己的小世界。如果可以,请求把我们这几个贴,你都不要删,如果有匆匆过客懂,看一下,我相信大家心里有个判断,我不是个好胜人,不需要做prevailing party。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:48
erbaiwu: 岳博士,我没有任何恶意,非常尊敬的奉劝一句,真的不要太把自己当回事了。不要生活在自己的小世界。如果可以,请求把我们这几个贴,你都不要删,如果有匆匆过客 ...
别这么敏感。Learn focus on the issue, not the person. 没有人知道你是谁,学会客观对待问题对你有好处。像你这样拒绝面对问题,真遇到什么事根本不行的。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:49
岳东晓: 别这么敏感。Learn focus on the issue, not the person. 没有人知道你是谁,学会客观对待问题对你有好处。
你连个case name and citation 都不肯拿出来啊, judgment and reasonings took out of context 你应该不是不懂。花时间在阐述sources of law, hierarchy of courts and judgment's horizontal and vertical effects。如果真的是focus on issues,你要把cases 给出来,大家有这样平台才能探讨出个结果啊。还有我们debate时候,大家都要引 open sources ,给大家可以查,去判断,不能给这样的source"我自己的打过无数官司中,自己引用了这个tests 多次/自己亲生经历了云云。。。最能说服人家的办法,就是把你的case names and citations,马上给出来,如果是你自己的更好,让大家看看,法院有接受吗,你引对了吗,理解对了吗? btw, 你的所谓参与制定了贺梅法案,到现在有成为州的法了吗?
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:52
erbaiwu: 你连个case name and citation 都不肯拿出来啊, judgment and reasonings took out of context 你应该不是不懂。花时间在阐述sources of law, hierarchy of cou ...
我们再兜圈子没有意义。你说你知道那个case,却没有先区分,本身已经属于lacking candor。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 04:56
岳东晓: 我们再兜圈子没有意义。你说你知道那个case,却没有先区分,本身已经属于lacking candor。
我让你把case name and citation 公开贴出来,我才会给你答案,你太自信了
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 04:57
erbaiwu: 我让你把case name and citation 公开贴出来,我才会给你答案,你太自信了
Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338 F. 3d 704 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003。学会focus on the issue,这与我自信也好,看不看得起你也好,毫无关系,you are just a 250  fellow commenting on my blog, just follow the rules if you like to have an intelligent discussion. Don't waste time on meaningless sentiments. I am quite busy, in fact, I am trying to debug some code now. You seem to be quite knowledgeable, more so than that guy. So be straight to the point.
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 05:08
岳东晓: Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338 F. 3d 704 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003。学会focus on the issue,这与我自信也好,看不看得起你也好,毫无关系, ...
我找了, 我会马上写好答案给你的。MOTHER and FATHER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMES CASSIDY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 01-2832

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

338 F.3d 704; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 15051; 56 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 542
回复 曼哈顿 2011-5-25 05:34
erbaiwu: 我让你把case name and citation 公开贴出来,我才会给你答案,你太自信了
我们村里的读者期待的是岳博士对桑兰案的跟踪实时点评,先生是否另开一帖或和博士通过纸条交流会好一些?
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 05:43
曼哈顿: 我们村里的读者期待的是岳博士对桑兰案的跟踪实时点评,先生是否另开一帖或和博士通过纸条交流会好一些?
哈哈,大部分读者是来寻找entertainment的,对枯燥的深入讨论没有兴趣。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 05:43
岳东晓: Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338 F. 3d 704 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003。学会focus on the issue,这与我自信也好,看不看得起你也好,毫无关系, ...
谢谢花时间教导我这个erbaiwu/250 fellow啊。岳博士,我说了,你要好好认真看cases,要去dissect 他们,crystallise rules, then determine which rule will apply to specific factual matrix.

你说的情况的voluntary dismissal with prejudice是prevailing party,这个情况跟海明这次完全不一样,你引的“妈妈和爸爸” case,facts 很清楚啊。我自己分析,你会说我没有逻辑,思维混乱,我找法官跟你讨论一下。你不会说的这个帖子太长,为了你的博客尊贵读者考虑,删除处理了吧?

Bryant v. MV Transportation, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 480

HRT cites two cases that have found a litigant to be a prevailing party following a voluntary dismissal. Deft. Mem. in Supp. of Bill of Costs at 1 (citing Mother and Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003你引用的case); Cantrell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (10th Cir. 1995)). However, these cases involved actions voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)(这些都是有court's involvment后面的 voluntary dismissal with prejudice,是court order的,法条附在后面。Rule 41(a)(2) operates in a way that is significantly different from Rule 41(a)(1)(ii). (erbaidu comment: by necessary implication, this line of reasoning shall likewise apply to Rule 41(a)(1)(i), by virtue of which, Hai Ming relied to dismiss the case against Ted, see the logical nexus and reasoning below) While a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) is effective with little to no court involvement(you should apply this logic to (i), the essence of argument is lack of court's involvment). see 8 MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL § 41.34, the court plays a significant role in resolving a case that is dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2), see id. at § 41.40.

A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is not valid unless the parties obtain a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The plaintiff must move the court, in writing, to dismiss the action. 8 MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE - CIVIL § 41.40(4)(a). The court has the discretion to approve [**8]  or disapprove of the motion, id. at § 41.40(2), and hence constitutes the determining factor as to whether the case is dismissed. The court also has the authority to impose conditions on the moving party, id. at § 41.40(10)(a), thereby shaping the terms of the dismissal. In fact, the court can specifically impose a condition requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of litigation. Id. at § 41.40(10)(d)(I). Thus, a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal has the "judicial imprimatur" and "judicially sanctioned" relief lacking in a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal. Consequently, these cases are not on point to the instant matter. 7

发条Rule 41(a)(2) provides for dismissal of actions by order of the court, stating that "except as provided [in Rule 41(a)(1)] an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 05:58
erbaiwu: 谢谢花时间教导我这个erbaiwu/250 fellow啊。岳博士,我说了,你要好好认真看cases,要去dissect 他们,crystallise rules, then determine which rule will app ...
我觉得这个区别不成立。不错,41(a)(2) dismissal 需要法院批准。但court involvement的多少却并非Buckhannon 的test之一。【The Defendants, having obtained from Mathews a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, are considered prevailing parties. See also Sequa Corp. v. Cooper, 245 F.3d 1036, 1037-38 (8th Cir.2001) (noting that voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i) does not deprive a district court of authority to award costs) (citing Cantrell v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 2021, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc)】
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 06:00
岳东晓: 我经历过相当多的联邦法院诉讼,在本巡回法院没有案例的情况下,法官都是优先采用其他巡回法院的案例。至于你拒绝区分我引用的巡回法院案例,案规则已经输了。就 ...
“我经历过相当多的联邦法院诉讼,在本巡回法院没有案例的情况下,法官都是优先采用其他巡回法院的案例。至于你拒绝区分我引用的巡回法院案例,案规则已经输了。就不必再提。”

岳博士,我思维很糟糕,我自己不会辩论,我找几个美国法官和学者跟你玩玩。我说过,你的assertions should preferrably be supproted by facts and related information。

我们刚才谈上面问题,我给你我说过话的facts and related information见下,如果有时间,可以看看人家写的,没有时间,abstract 扫一下就可以了。

http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_dobbins/1/

“While the application of these rules of precedent can be difficult in practice, we rarely struggle with whether a given decision of a court within a particular hierarchy is potentially binding at all. A Ninth Circuit opinion, for instance, is binding on district courts within the Ninth Circuit and on subsequent Ninth Circuit panels; it is not binding on Second Circuit panels...”
回复 天理昭昭 2011-5-25 06:03
海明公布的海明黄健对话:
谁说我们是“白眼狼“?谁说我们“忘恩负义”?谁说我们“吝啬无情”? 人间真情是无价的。走进桑兰的心灵世界,你会发现里面其实是如此美好,令你感动。

以下是今天黄健和我互通email 的一部分。讲道桑兰妹妹一定要付钱给我。

黄健:“ 学长,我们这次到纽约先拿2万美金到纽约给您,因为这个案子,耗时费力,您又受到莫虎的影响。我和你弟妹商量,您就不要推脱了。这是我们能做的,不用推脱。”

海明:“说了不收钱,就是不收。”

黄健: “ 你妹妹说了,你不要这一点钱,她就撤诉。这是她说的,除非您等到我们去纽约的时候您说服她,我在家里地位不高,我无法说服她。因为我尊重我的老婆。

学长,你妹妹说的话,我真的不敢说什么,因为在家里她是一家之主,更是我的希望,毕竟她是女人,掌管着一家。您要给我留点面子。

哪怕咱们给她留着,您知道她这么多年其实很压抑,您不明白,但我懂。

我觉得桑兰真的成熟了,成长了,我挺高兴的。我们真的在国内不缺这个,她不希望学长你付出太多。

她可能把您当哥哥,但我作为她的老公,我不这么认为,你不让她这么做,她会很难接受,您也知道刘谢这么多年都是这么压制她的,她其实很高兴今天知道了这一切,她,特别开心。

学长,您就听听您妹妹的观点,哪怕您假一点,假装收下,也好!

哪怕我们赢了几个官司为大家建立个基金。

你妹,我老婆,是个很真实的女孩,哪怕谁都不信都可以” .

桑兰,真情无价,友谊无价。 我很感动了。我不缺钱。这钱我就不收了。也给我一次做个好人的机会吧。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 06:06
erbaiwu: “我经历过相当多的联邦法院诉讼,在本巡回法院没有案例的情况下,法官都是优先采用其他巡回法院的案例。至于你拒绝区分我引用的巡回法院案例,案规则已经输了。 ...
你这说的,跟我说的并无矛盾啊。没有人说第二巡回法院的案例对第九binding。但在第九没有类似的案例情况下,第二巡回法院就比一个区级法院更有力。否则,就形成circuit split了。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 06:08
岳东晓: 我觉得这个区别不成立。不错,41(a)(2) dismissal 需要法院批准。但court involvement的多少却并非Buckhannon 的test之一。【The Defendants, having obtained f ...
BUCKHANNON TEST,我已经把具体都quote在前面帖子里面了,你可以参考的。

你引用的case 是Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265  No. 05-12515, 他主要cited cases有Sequa 等,这个情况跟阿海也不一样,要跟我上面的notion of court's involvment read together:

同时参考2008年cases

Quick v. EMCO Enters., 251 F.R.D. 371  
Sequa is distinguishable because the plaintiff gave notice of dismissal without prejudice, "after discovery battles and other skirmishes," and thus HN9the Eighth Circuit found the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting costs because "defendants incurred costs in defending the action before [the plaintiff] took its voluntary dismissal." Sequa, 245 F.3d at 1037-38. In Rouse, this Court held voluntary dismissal of counterclaims had to be dismissed with prejudice, because "Defendants could potentially bring these same claims at some point in time down the line, despite the other parties having already spent time, energy, and money in the present action defending the claims." Rouse, 242 F.R.D. at 524. Rouse is distinguishable because here Defendants have not spent a lot of time and expense defending the FMLA claim.

Criner v. White, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71993  
In regard to whether there is a prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs when a matter is voluntarily dismissed, the Eighth Circuit held in Sequa Corp. v. Cooper that:
Though we disagree with the court's conclusion that [the plaintiff's] voluntary dismissal of the action made defendants prevailing parties, we note that Rule 54(d)(1) simply provides that ordinarily costs shall be allowed "as of course" to the prevailing party "unless the court otherwise directs." We do not read Rule 54(d)(1) as impairing the inherent authority of a trial court to award costs incurred in defending an action prior to its voluntary dismissal  [*3] by the plaintiff, even though a voluntary dismissal without prejudice means that neither party can be said to have prevailed. See Cantrell v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 2021, 69 F.3d 456, 458 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc) (holding that district courts have the discretion to award costs when a party dismisses an action, with or without prejudice). Here, defendants incurred costs in defending the action before [the plaintiff] took its voluntary dismissal. We are satisfied the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendants to recover their costs.

同时可以参考早一点case:

Normexsteel, Inc. v. Flynn, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85547  
See Dattner v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 458 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating Defendant was not a "prevailing party" after obtaining a forum non conveniens dismissal because Plaintiff could still sue him elsewhere and there had been no trial on merits); Sequa v. Cooper, 245 F.3d 1036, 1037 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding cost award under Court's inherent authority but disagreeing with conclusion that Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice made Defendant a "prevailing party"); Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1076-1077 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not the equivalent to victory on the merits and Defendant thus could not be a "prevailing party" because he remained at risk to further litigation on the claim).
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 06:35
岳东晓: 你这说的,跟我说的并无矛盾啊。没有人说第二巡回法院的案例对第九binding。但在第九没有类似的案例情况下,第二巡回法院就比一个区级法院更有力。否则,就形成c ...
US Supreme Courts 很多cases 就是circuit split,然后到他们那边了定夺,我相信你应该读过些的,读这些cases,就发现这个stare decisis doctrine运用的问题,最后由supreme court handled a definite ruling去解决binding effect问题.判断依据:最高院决定是否要接受一个case,根据Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 10,第一条(下面(a)部分)你就能判断出来,circuit split是个非常classic problem:

..Part III. Jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari


Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

•(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 06:42
曼哈顿: 我们村里的读者期待的是岳博士对桑兰案的跟踪实时点评,先生是否另开一帖或和博士通过纸条交流会好一些?
向你们这些村民道歉,搞了很多枯燥的讨论,我是个erbaiwu和半桶水,就是着2天贪玩罢了,我滚蛋了。
回复 erbaiwu 2011-5-25 06:44
好像阿明把我删了,我滚蛋前,要向阿明打个招呼的。岳博士,不好意思,借宝地一用。

阿明啊,我再仔细看了一下你的律所网页,有发现你糊弄大家的铁证啊。

你网站介绍你们所的兼职律所 RUFF,你这样写“RUFF 律师(OFCOUNSEL)前高院庭审官”,你不是想利用我们大陆新来忽悠我们吧。

人家自我介绍多靠铺!
http://www.gersteinlawfirm.com/profile.htm

Ralph M. Gerstein is a seasoned practitioner who has worked in both private practice and governmental settings. As a former Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, he represented the City and the Department of Education in the defense of personal injury and property damage cases. Moreover, he is a former court attorney at the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, where he assisted judges with drafting of decisions, acted as a referee on pre-trial matters, and acted as a mediator on commercial, real estate and employment matters。

他自己说的很清楚啊, 跟法院关系是court appointed attorney。你把人家描述成是法官一样。阿明啊,回头是岸啊。对了人家去跟我确认了, 他可一点都不知道桑兰的案子,他也不是什么律师团成员。

桑兰对监护人这些问题,我不做任何评论,的确一点不知道,大家要给桑兰benefit of doubt.
回复 海明粉丝 2011-5-25 06:50
ala: 岳博士在法庭上示弱是不是一种打赢官司的手段。再这样发展下去,桑兰的律师有可能会让大家认同为一个有智商问题的残疾人,那时两个残疾人同时出现在法庭,这样能 ...
哈哈!顶!
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 07:03
erbaiwu: 好像阿明把我删了,我滚蛋前,要向阿明打个招呼的。岳博士,不好意思,借宝地一用。

阿明啊,我再仔细看了一下你的律所网页,有发现你糊弄大家的铁证啊。

你网 ...
海明至今没回应他那个NYU教授的说法。
回复 match99 2011-5-25 08:09
erbaiwu: 好像阿明把我删了,我滚蛋前,要向阿明打个招呼的。岳博士,不好意思,借宝地一用。

阿明啊,我再仔细看了一下你的律所网页,有发现你糊弄大家的铁证啊。

你网 ...
刚去海明那看了看,还在呀。但是他还没有回答。
回复 曼哈顿 2011-5-25 08:14
在岳博士,海明和美人蕉三个人有关桑兰案的博文中,岳博士这里是每一篇都鲜花灿烂,美人蕉和海明那里给乱砖拍的稀里哗啦,真格是公理人间在。不过美人蕉和海明就像那些打不死的小强(蟑螂),就看莫虎怎么在庭上跟他们过招吧。
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 08:27
erbaiwu: 向你们这些村民道歉,搞了很多枯燥的讨论,我是个erbaiwu和半桶水,就是着2天贪玩罢了,我滚蛋了。
刚发现桑兰案法庭特意把海明的dismissal with prejudice交给法官,法官签字批准了这个dismissal.
回复 Matney 2011-5-25 08:40
曼哈顿: 在岳博士,海明和美人蕉三个人有关桑兰案的博文中,岳博士这里是每一篇都鲜花灿烂,美人蕉和海明那里给乱砖拍的稀里哗啦,真格是公理人间在。不过美人蕉和海明就 ...
狂顶
回复 abcxyz66 2011-5-25 08:50
海明和岳东晓:不要再吵了! 海明很明显没有太多经验,牛特大,岳有经验,但太不给海明面子了(可能不是故意的)。  既蓝是免费为桑兰,为何不联手?
回复 曼哈顿 2011-5-25 08:55
abcxyz66: 海明和岳东晓:不要再吵了! 海明很明显没有太多经验,牛特大,岳有经验,但太不给海明面子了(可能不是故意的)。  既蓝是免费为桑兰,为何不联手?
你开啥玩笑?不要惹海明大教授不高兴,你没有看见海明教授已经说了嘛:

”在桑兰案件上,我们不会理睬任何非律师的意见,法律也坚决禁止律师征求非律师又非当事人的意见。我已经把那位喜欢对法律指手画脚的非律师放到我的黑名单里去了。“

Read more: 不要自作聪明,起诉书中从来没有要求过特纳为桑兰受伤负责 - 纽约海明律师的日志 - 贝壳村 -
回复 岳东晓 2011-5-25 09:02
我只是给大家提供一点信息,既然桑兰案在媒体上打,社会就有权了解情况,发表看法。很多人认为有人在利用桑兰进行炒作,如果是那样,是极为不道德的。而对不道德的行为,甚至欺骗公众的行为,任何人都是可以质疑的。在桑兰案具体案情上我没有任何立场。
回复 艾艾杨 2011-5-25 09:14
岳东晓: 刚发现桑兰案法庭特意把海明的dismissal with prejudice交给法官,法官签字批准了这个dismissal.
这个处理跟一般的程序有什么不一样?有什么意味吗?
回复 piaoping 2011-5-25 09:41
岳东晓: 我只是给大家提供一点信息,既然桑兰案在媒体上打,社会就有权了解情况,发表看法。很多人认为有人在利用桑兰进行炒作,如果是那样,是极为不道德的。而对不道德 ...
桑兰本来就是公众人物,当年出事就闹到媒体上,现在怎么可能悄悄不为人知地打官司。
回复 人間的盒子 2011-5-25 09:45
  
回复 light12 2011-5-25 10:25
岳东晓: 我只是给大家提供一点信息,既然桑兰案在媒体上打,社会就有权了解情况,发表看法。很多人认为有人在利用桑兰进行炒作,如果是那样,是极为不道德的。而对不道德 ...
很好
回复 abcxyz66 2011-5-25 10:43
前一阵看到媒体上桑兰和经记人报料,我搞不懂为何海明不阻止 (可能是海明的idea都不一定)。  如果真是这样,我就哲能叹气了! 可怜的桑兰!!!海明如果太忙,是否考虑雇多一些人,就不要再去割草了,毕竟桑兰事重要。。。。。
回复 Siliconvalley 2011-5-25 13:21
天理昭昭: 海明公布的海明黄健对话:
谁说我们是“白眼狼“?谁说我们“忘恩负义”?谁说我们“吝啬无情”? 人间真情是无价的。走进桑兰的心灵世界,你会发现里面其实是如 ...
呕吐,谢谢让我减肥了。
回复 Cannaa 2011-5-25 20:36
abcxyz66: 海明和岳东晓:不要再吵了! 海明很明显没有太多经验,牛特大,岳有经验,但太不给海明面子了(可能不是故意的)。  既蓝是免费为桑兰,为何不联手?
说的就是,海明和岳东晓联合起来才能对付莫虎。谁知一开场就搞得鸡飞狗跳匪夷所思,乱了套。

还有那个二百五,极力凑热闹凸显其专业“智慧”,还要声称是“业余”。其实他就是利益网上案例数据库查寻技巧,抓住一个牛角尖猛扎下去,不管扎到哪,不管偏不偏离风向。
回复 Laile 2011-5-25 23:07
谢谢岳大师,说的俺们听的懂。
回复 luyisa1220 2011-5-26 07:41
天理昭昭: 海明公布的海明黄健对话:
谁说我们是“白眼狼“?谁说我们“忘恩负义”?谁说我们“吝啬无情”? 人间真情是无价的。走进桑兰的心灵世界,你会发现里面其实是如 ...
看明白了:
健:钱,您就先收下吧,不收我们不安心啊,这20亿和我们后半辈的名誉都要靠您努力了。
明:不行不行,这钱那能收,该撒手时就撒手,本来就是炒炒人气和练练兵,玩过火了。。。。
123... 4下一页

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

岳东晓最受欢迎的博文
  1. 目前所见最壮观的海啸视频 [2011/03]
  2. 建议旅日华人尽早逃命--日本核反应堆氢爆分析 [2011/03]
  3. 日本核堆再次起火,落砂机时报质疑为何日本不如中国 [2011/03]
  4. 贺梅姐弟妹三人平安回到中国(图、真相) [2011/08]
  5. 美国人7年前就已预见日本将成为核废墟 [2011/03]
  6. 日军暴露出战斗力低下 [2011/03]
  7. 为什么8.9级地震日本房子没倒 [2011/03]
  8. 桑兰案律师已经势成骑虎 [2011/05]
  9. 与贺梅父母的通话(2011/07/02) [2011/07]
  10. 海明应坦诚回应公众对他履历的怀疑 [2011/06]
  11. 贺梅将于近日返回中国 [2011/08]
  12. 桑兰案海明服软,承认错误、向被告道歉并作出赔偿 [2012/03]
  13. 技术歧视-拉登被击杀竟然是现场直播 [2011/05]
  14. 桑兰案状纸被法院拒收--搞路不清就上联邦法院 [2011/05]
  15. 日本核反应堆会发生核爆吗? [2011/03]
  16. 桑兰律师不长进,两个动议均被扔出法院 [2011/06]
  17. 网友呼叫海明 [2011/06]
  18. 贺梅母亲解答有关贺梅子妹三人来美国费用的问题 [2011/08]
  19. 群众游行导致大规模军事镇压其实是法制建设不完善的后果 [2011/06]
  20. 给贝克捐款的人应该至少替他把用于剥夺罗秦父母权的律师费交了 [2011/08]
  21. 贺梅来美的思维定式看劣等洋奴的弱智 [2011/08]
  22. 罗秦严正警告使用贺梅名义与形象骗捐的个人与团体 [2011/09]
  23. 为贝克募捐的人应该向贝克、罗秦道歉 [2011/08]
  24. 探讨贺梅案中可能存在的种族问题 [2011/09]
  25. 天安门挡坦克的青年证明解放军是人民的军队 [2012/06]

关于本站 | 隐私权政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 |手机版

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站时间采用京港台时间 最新更新:GMT+8, 2014-12-28 04:09

返回顶部