關於 weak state ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#notarantbutaCONFESSION

Mummy said she’s on the verge of breaking down…
𝙎𝙡𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. Woke up every 2 hours to pump/ breastfeed is really crazy. By the time I’m done, I’m probably left with another 30 mins or so for the next session. I’m not sure how some mothers can sleep in between sessions 😔 I skipped 1-2 session so that I can sleep but usually end up with engorged breast. I don’t even need any alarm to wake me up 😵‍💫

𝙁𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙪𝙚. On daily pain killer 💊 is a must for me in order for bae to do my wound dressing. It is cleaned twice a day. It’s an open wound, cut vertically on my existing scar. 🩸Fresh pink/ red flesh can be seen on my lower abdomen but so far I had probably only seen it less than 5 times. I left the details to hubby 🙋🏻‍♂️and he’ll summarize for me whether my condition is improving or worsen bcs I have very weak heart seeing “bloody-gruesome” wound like this. But so far, thankfully, it’s healing well. 🙏🏻 It’s been 2 weeks since, doc told me I need a minimum 1 month for the wound to “close up”. Let’s hope for the best!💯

𝘽𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣. Despite staying indoor and ordered everything online, number of Covid cases is still on the high side. 😒 Hospitals are running out of bed, front liners are breaking down. Many committed suicide because of the continuous lockdown (failed gov). Rakyat are suffering. 💔 Me too, the need to socialize and to dine out on my fav food is so far-fetched (Impossible! Unrealistic!) with the current situation. But everyone in Malaysia has been like this since, what? last year? I even lost count of the time. 😢 But I know it has been like this for a very very very long time… Trapped at home for way too long felt like living in hell! Did we all just wasted our lives for the past 2 years waiting for our gov to make things better! Sigh… I only saw how things got worse! 😮‍💨

𝙋𝙤𝙤𝙧 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙚. One of the reason is due to my wound too. 🤕 And with weaker body, contributes to weaker state of mind too due to restricted movement etc. Confinement food is also not what I enjoy when I was having poor appetite 🤢. Still prefer food which offer balance meals and variety. 👩🏻‍⚕️Yes, doc said I have no food restriction after I clarified with them. I even showered daily bcs of my visit to NICU and hospital for the first two weeks🏥, followed by my admission in hosp due to my csec wound. Hygiene is very important 🛀, especially during the pandemic. ⚠️ I do not want to bring any viruses home to my family. 🦠 Not at all.

𝙂𝘿𝙈. Gestational diabetes is high blood sugar (glucose) 📝 that develops during pregnancy and usually disappears after giving birth. I was on controlled diet 🍛 throughout my pregnancy and I will have to take another test this August to confirm if GDM still exist. And because of this, I’m also a lil bit depressed 😪 bcs I can’t reward myself with some good dessert or ice creams!🍦 This is the real zero quality of life when you don’t get to enjoy life up to your liking/ preference 🖤! Not when you’re a foodie right! Sorry for the zero update on my food ig @𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙨_𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨 too! 🥵

I just hope all the bad and unhappy times will be over soon. 👎 This is not a rant, just a confession of what’s really going on in my pregnancy journey🤰🏻. Not all motherhood journey is a bed of roses. But comparing this to my cancer journey, this is definitely much better 🍀. Because out of the pain and misery, I have Isabelle with me 👶🏻. She’s healthy, sweet, adorable and quite manageable so far. Just a lil bit out of control when she’s hungry🍼! Hahaha! I’m mastering it soon on how to deal with her tantrum 😆 Just offer her the boobies🤱🏻!

𝘼𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙢𝙚! 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙢𝙥𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙪𝙥 𝙮𝙚𝙖! 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙖𝙩 𝙖 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧. 𝙒𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙟𝙤𝙗 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙬 𝙖 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣! 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙖𝙢𝙖𝙯𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩! 𝙉𝙤 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙝! 𝙒𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 ❤️ 𝙡𝙤𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙤𝙫𝙚 💋

🌈 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦! 💛

#babyisabelleNQY #fullybreastfeed

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”

(Scroll down for english version)

「歷史將宣判我們無罪！」
李卓人8.31案法庭陳情書

法官閣下，我在此認罪，但我在捍衛人民和平遊行和集會自由上，並沒有做錯任何事。我相信歷史將會宣判我們無罪。在此請讓我向你講述更多我的背景，那樣你就能更理解我為何要為了香港的未來，與人民共同走上街頭。

#新時代由政治犯開創

作為一名基督徒，我在復活節期間聽讀經員閱讀聖經，提醒了我，耶穌為世人犧牲，被釘上十字架，使罪人與神和解。從被捕到被控到被彼拉多（Pilate）判死刑，祂也是一名政治犯，沒有犯罪，但因為服務窮人和傳福音，而威脅到猶太統治階層。

縱觀人類歷史文明，我們現在享有的權利，也是由一眾政治犯，諸如甘地、馬丁路德金和納爾遜·曼德拉所開創的。在80年代，我是「香港反種族隔離運動」的主席，我一直將納爾遜·曼德拉在1963年遭審判所言銘記於心。他說：「願意為我的理想而犧牲自己生命。」他的理想是爭取南非黑人的平權，然後就被判刑27年。我為他在1994年當選南非總統而感到興奮，他給予了全世界受壓逼的人民希望，讓他們知道透過堅持不懈的鬥爭，可以達致公義。

#曼德拉給我的啟發

我花了一些時間去講曼德拉帶給我的啟發，因為我是從1978年起投身到勞工權益和民主運動的。我畢生的理想，就是讓基層和被壓逼者勇於發聲和站起來爭取屬於他們的權利。每當那些被壓逼者起來捍衛他們的權利，為尊嚴而抗爭時，我也會受到鼓舞，並得到力量去繼續面對香港正面臨的艱苦奮鬥和挑戰。我曾問自己，沒有抗爭，我的人生將會是如何？這已是我第43年投身於民主運動，法官閣下，你必須明白當我目睹國家權力如何使用武力鎮壓人民，令香港人受傷、受牢獄之苦或是流亡，以及香港民主倒退，人民的權利遭剝奪之時，心裏的痛苦和折磨。我看到我的理想正在崩潰，但即使被黑暗籠罩，也無阻我繼續為理想奮鬥的決心。為了這一理想，我甘願承受任何懲罰。

法官閣下可能會說，法律就是法律，而我好像沒有就八三一案展露出絲毫悔意。我希望法官閣下明白，我是何等重視人民透過言論和集會所彰顯的自由。這是弱勢和受壓逼者尋求公義的唯一路徑。剝奪了這種權利，形同制度對人民施暴。我不願看見香港人活在建基於制度暴力的管治之中。因此，我會竭盡所能，伸張人們有尊嚴及和平遊行去發達意見的權利。

#最壞的尚未來臨
#法庭要睜開眼睛

我十分尊重法官閣下維護法治的熱誠。在此，我希望能引用已故法官Ruth Bader Ginsburg的話：

「法官們會不斷思考和改變，我希望倘若今日法庭有盲點，明日它將會睜開眼。」

我十分敬佩Ginsburg為了性別平權奮鬥一生，成就斐然。她告訴我們，法官應該與時並進，趕上不斷在變遷的時代。在香港，最壞的尚未來臨，我們需要法律界人士去睜開雙眼，觀看人民的苦難，並反思法律在這個時代的立足點，如何隨時代變遷而轉變，以捍衞人民的尊嚴與權利。

2021年4月7日

"History will absolve us"
Submission of Lee Cheuk Yan to the Court

Your Honour, I plead guilty but I’ve done no wrong in affirming the rights of people to peaceful procession and I believe history will absolve us. May I give you more on my background so as your honour can understand why I decided to march with the people for the future of Hong Kong.

As a Christian, during Easter when the scripture was read, I was reminded how Christ went to meet his fate on the cross, sacrificing for mankind to reconcile sinners with God. From His arrest to his prosecution to his death sentencing by Pilate, he was a political prisoner who committed no crime apart from seen to be a threat to the Jewish Hierarchy by serving the poor and oppressed and preaching the good news.

Throughout history of mankind, the rights that humankind now enjoyed were pioneered by political prisoners from Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela. I was the Chairman of Hong Kong anti apartheid movement back in the 80s and I always remember the determination of Nelson Mandela when he said during his trial back in 1963: “an ideal for which I am prepared to die for.”. His ideal was the equality for black South African and then he spent 27 years in jail. I was thrilled that in 1994, he was elected President of South Africa, giving hope to oppressed all over the world that justice can be achieve through the persistent struggle of the people.

I went to length about his inspiration to me personally because I started my activism starting 1978 for labour rights and democracy. My lifetime ideal is the empowerment of the poor and oppressed to speak out, to rise up for their rights. Whenever the oppressed assert their rights to fight for their dignity, I feel myself also empowered and inspired to continue the difficult struggle and challenges facing Hong Kong. I asked myself, what is my life without the struggle. The struggle is my life, I cannot imagine my life without it. It had been forty three years of struggle for me and your Honour must understand my deep felt pain and sufferings to see how the State Power had been using brute force against the people and the sacrifices of so many Hongkongers who were injured, jailed or exiled, also to witness the deprivation of the basic rights of the people and the regression in democracy. I saw my ideal crumbling but I will continue the struggle even though darkness is surrounding us. It is an ideal for which I am prepared for any sanction.

Your Honour may say the law is the law, I seems not show any remorse in breaching law in this trial for August 31st. I hope Your Honour understand the utmost importance I put on the rights to freedom of expression through speech or assembly. This is the only avenue the weak and oppressed can have to right the wrongs on them. If deprived, I will call this systemic violence on the people and I do not want to see Hong Kong rule on the basis of such systemic violence. Therefore I would do my utmost to affirm the rights of people to a dignified and peaceful procession to express themselves.

Your Honour must be passionate about upholding the law and I respect your ideal. I hope I can quote from the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eye will be open tomorrow”

I was very impressed with her passion for gender equality and how she fought her whole life for gender equality and was able to achieve so much. Her message was time changes and judges should catch up with time. For Hong Kong, the worst may yet to come, and we need the legal profession to open their eyes to the suffering of the people and reflect on which side the law is with and how to changes with time for the advancement of the rights and dignity of the people.

I humbly submit myself to your sentencing and whatever your sentence, I have no regret for standing up for the rights of the people.

7th April, 2021

しっとり濃厚ながら、粉が多めの配合でふんわり軽めの凹まないタイプのガトーショコラです
よりずっしり濃厚な凹むタイプはまた今度やります


ガトーショコラが凹むのは↓あたりが要因

・へこむ配合である(ふくらみ、それを支える粉類が少ない)
・中心に火が入っていない
・焼き上がり時の蒸気が生地を巻き込んでしぼむ

なのでココアパウダーを多めの配合し、生地を温かい状態に保ち、しっかりツヤのあるきめ細かいメレンゲを作って、焼き上がりに打ち付け蒸気を抜いてなるべく焼き縮みしないように作ります


同じガトーショコラでも食感や味わいが全然違うので、気分によって作り分けられるといいですね


【材料】
15cm
・チョコレート　45g
・生クリーム　45g
・バター　35g
・卵黄　2個分
・薄力粉　13g
・ココアパウダー　27g
・卵白　2個分
・グラニュー糖　67g

18cm
・チョコレート　67g
・生クリーム　67g
・バター　53g
・卵黄　3個分
・薄力粉　20g
・ココアパウダー　40g
・卵白　3個分
・グラニュー糖　100g

【準備】
・湯煎用のお湯を用意する(70～80℃程度)
・湯煎焼き用のお湯を用意する(80°程度)
・デコ型(丸いケーキ型)に敷き紙を敷き、底取れならアルミホイルで底を覆う
・薄力粉、ココアパウダーはふるって使う
・天板ごとオーブンを140°に予熱する

【作り方】
1.　ボウルにチョコレート・生クリーム・バターを入れて湯煎で溶かし混ぜ乳化させ、卵黄を加えて手早く混ぜる
2.　別のボウルに卵白を入れてハンドミキサーで泡立て、軽く泡立ったらグラニュー糖を3回に分けて加え、その都度ツヤが出て溶け込むまで泡立てる
3.　角がお辞儀するくらいまで泡立てたら低速に切り替えてキメを整え、きめ細かくツヤがあるしっかりしたメレンゲにする
4.　チョコの生地にメレンゲの1/3を加えて泡立て器orヘラでさっくりと混ぜ、混ざりきらないマーブル状の状態で薄力粉・ココアパウダーをふるい入れる
5.　同様にさっくりと混ぜ合わせ、粉っぽさがなくなったら残りのメレンゲをさらに2回に分けて加えさっくりと混ぜ合わせる
6.　最後にヘラで切り混ぜ生地を均一に整え完全に混ざったら、型紙を敷いたデコ型に流し入れ、竹串で数周ぐるぐるして生地の状態を均一にする
7.　140℃に予熱したオーブンで40分湯煎焼きし、焼き上がりすぐに数回落として蒸気を抜いて冷ます

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

【動画でよく使ってる調理器具】
フライパン(20cm)：https://amzn.to/2QyY1ny
フライパン(24cm)：https://amzn.to/2UtNvz5
フライパン(24cm深型)：https://amzn.to/3dj5DEp
鉄フライパン(22cm)：https://amzn.to/3a8hqmR
アルミフライパン(24cm)：https://amzn.to/3dj6tRz
片手浅型鍋(18cm)：https://amzn.to/2QzGXha
片手浅型鍋(21cm)：https://amzn.to/2U7ta3o
片手鍋(16cm)：https://amzn.to/2QzCj2x
片手鍋(20cm)：https://amzn.to/3bd0lZa
ソースパン：https://amzn.to/2U9keuI
まな板：https://amzn.to/2J1fQHI
ガスコンロ：https://amzn.to/3bdtvYa
牛刀：https://www.jikko.jp/fs/jikko/54803
ペティ：https://www.jikko.jp/fs/jikko/54800

撮影機材
カメラボディ：https://amzn.to/2xSXZAd
動画レンズ：https://amzn.to/2UteU3V
写真レンズ：https://amzn.to/2U7HcCb
録音：https://amzn.to/2U9cGYT

※製品のURLはAmazonアソシエイトのリンクを使用しています


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

▼サブチャンネル(料理実験チャンネル)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqIW0OHh8k2np5ZNz3wz8sg
▼ブログ
http://www.ikashiya.com/
▼Twitter
https://twitter.com/sakihirocl
▼Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/sakiyamahiroshi/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

↓using translation software.

[Ingredients]
15 cm
・Chocolate 45 g
・45 g fresh cream
・35 g butter
・2 egg yolks
・13 g cake flour
・Cocoa powder 27 g
・2 egg whites
・67 g granulated sugar

18 cm
・Chocolate 67 g
・67 g fresh cream
・53 g butter
・3 egg yolks
・20 g cake flour
・Cocoa powder 40 g
・3 egg whites
・100 g granulated sugar

[Preparation]
・Prepare hot water for warming in hot water (about 70 ~ 80 ° C).
・Prepare hot water for warming in hot water (about 80 °).
・Cover a decorative mold (round cake mold) with baking paper. Cover the bottom with aluminum foil if you can remove the bottom.
・Sift weak flour and cocoa powder.
・Preheat the oven together with the baking sheet to 140 ° C.

[How to make]
1. Add chocolate, whipping cream and butter in a bowl and melt it over hot water. Let it emulsify then add egg yolk and quickly mix it.
2. Put the egg white in another bowl and whip it with a hand mixer. Add granulated sugar in 3 steps when it lightly bubbles. Whip it until it becomes glossy and melts each time you add it.
3. Whip it until the corners bow then switch it to low-speed to adjust the texture and make it into a fine and glossy firm meringue.
4. Add 1/3 of the meringue to the chocolate mixture and lightly mix it with a whisk or spatula. Sift in weak flour and cocoa powder while it is in a marble-like state that doesn't mix.
5. Mix it lightly in the same way. Add the rest of the meringue in 2 more steps when the powdery feel is gone and mix it lightly.
6. Finally, cut and mix it with a spatula. After it is mixed completely, pour it into a decoration mold covered with pattern paper. Use a bamboo skewer to turn it around several times to make the state of the dough even.
7.Bake it in the oven preheated to 140 ° C for 40 minutes over hot water. Drop it several times right after it finishes baking to release the steam then let it cool.

中國的崛起​​和西方的衰落....
我相信英國將成為第一個淪陷的歐洲國家
歐洲地區成為第三世界國家時將會使世界大跌眼鏡
警察將不再管用、通貨膨脹和暴動是日常
中國要做的就是等待，並撿拾殘局
不幸的是，這些中國的作品之一將是台灣
在超高福利的國家發起大規模移民政策的政客們，他們不了解人民
這些都將導致街頭流血事件不斷發生
就算大家想看中國失敗，但中國依然屹立不搖
只要一有機會，中國便會採取迅速行動
台灣無疑是中國第一個要拿下的

如果你問文化大革命發生在西方是什麼樣子？看英國就知道了
在黑暗時代的平均壽命越來越短、創新和創造力下降
西方即將進入另一個黑暗時代
沒有人知道會持續多久
關於英國人民的下一個全面的綜合歷史將會被用中文書寫
這就是英國的離奇之死


The rise of China and the fall of the West.  My belief is that Britain will be the first European country to fall.  There will be shock and awe as the world watches parts of Europe become third world countries.  Police overwhelmed.  High levels of inflation, and daily riots.  All China will have to do is to wait and pick up the pieces.  Unfortunately one of those pieces will be Taiwan.  The overblown welfare state, mass immigration from countries and of peoples not understood by the politicians that initiated the immigration policies.  The resentment of the indigenous Brits and the weak police force will lead to bloodbaths in the streets.  China despite all the wishes for it to collapse will not.  There will be swift moves to take advantage of the gap in power.  Taiwan will be the Suez canal of the United States of America.  If Britain has a cultural revolution this is it.  The dark ages saw a decline in life expectancy, innovation, creativity.  The west is about to enter another dark ages. There is no telling how long it will last.  The next proper comprehensive history written about the peoples of Britain will be written in Chinese.  This is the strange death of Britain.  

▶ Patreon：https://www.patreon.com/dr34mlucid
▶ Paypal是一次性的，連結在此：https://www.paypal.me/dr34mlucid
▶ FB: https://www.facebook.com/dr34mlucid
▶ IG: dr34mlucid

▶ LINE貼圖連結：
https://store.line.me/stickershop/product/11377412/en?ref=lsh_stickerDetail
（也可以直接到LINE貼圖商城的創作者欄位搜尋：清醒夢 或 dr34mlucid ）

#dr34mlucid #China #thedeathofbritain

基本のタルト生地の作り方と敷き方

通常製法とフードプロセッサーを使う方法、波々のタルト型とセルクルの両方動画にしてます(めん棒を使わない方法も)


18cmタルト型(底取れ)
https://amzn.to/2zQRyPj


【材料】
卵1個使い切り、18～21cmタルト3台分
・薄力粉　300g
・アーモンドプードル　60g(なければ薄力粉でOK)
・バター　180g
・粉糖　100g
・卵　1個
卵黄1個使い切り、18～21cmタルト1台分
・薄力粉　100g
・アーモンドプードル　20g(なければ薄力粉でOK)
・バター　60g
・粉糖　33g
・卵黄　1個

【準備】
・バターと卵を室温に戻す
・粉糖、薄力粉・アーモンドプードルはふるって使う
・オーブンを180℃に予熱する

【作り方】
1. 【生地】ボウルに柔らかくしたバターを入れ、ヘラでクリーム状になるまで混ぜる
2.　粉糖をふるいいれてしっかりとすり混ぜ、よく溶いた卵を少しずつ加え、しっかり乳化するようにその都度よく混ぜる(卵黄なら1個そのまま入れて混ぜればOK)
3.　薄力粉・アーモンドプードルをふるい入れ、練らないようにさっくり切り混ぜる
4.　そぼろ状になって粉っぽさがなくなったら、手で練らないように押し付けるようにしてひとまとめにする
5.　後でのばしやすいように少し平らにして、ラップに包んで2時間～寝かせる(この状態で冷凍可能)
6. 【のばす】台に打ち粉をしてめん棒で3mmくらいの厚さにのばす(ラップやオーブン用シートで挟むと楽)
7.　波々の型なら円形で型よりひとまわり大きくなるように、セルクルの型なら適当でOK
8.【波々の型の場合】中心がたわむように型にかぶせ、側面にぴったりそわせ下に押し込むようにして敷き込んでいく(動画参照)
9.　はみ出た部分をめん棒や手で擦り切って外し、厚い部分や不格好な部分を調整する
10. 【セルクルの場合】セルクルで底になる部分を抜き、側面になる部分をカードやナイフでカットする
11.　オーブン用シートにセルクルを置いて底の生地をセットし側面をよく貼り付け、はみ出た部分をナイフで外側に向けてカットする(動画参照)
12. 【共通】型に敷いたらフォークでピケ(穴あけ)をする(セルクルの場合、シルパンというメッシュ生地のシリコン製オーブン用シートを使うと不要)
11.　そのまま焼いても大丈夫だし、ラップをかけて冷蔵庫で1時間ほど寝かすと安定する
12. 【焼成】180℃に予熱したオーブンで、生チョコタルトなどさらに加熱しない場合は20～25分で色づくまで、アーモンドクリームなどを流しさらに焼く場合は10～12分で軽く乾くまで焼く

～フードプロセッサーを使う作り方～
1.　フードプロセッサーに薄力粉・アーモンドパウダー・粉砂糖を加えてさっとまわす
2.　冷たい状態のバターを細かめにして加え、バターが細かくなって全体的に黄色くなるまでまわす
3.　卵or卵黄を入れ、断続的にまわしひとまとまりになったら取り出して、ラップに包んで冷蔵庫で2時間～寝かせる(あとは同じ)

～めん棒を使わない敷き込み方～
1.　(冷蔵庫で寝かせたところから)生地を常温に置いてすこし柔らかくしておく
2.　手で軽く揉んで薄めにのばし、型の中心に置いて外に外に押し出しながらのばしていく
3.　なるべく均一になるように敷き込み、外にはみ出た部分をすり切り、薄い部分を補強する(あとは同様)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

【動画でよく使ってる調理器具】
フライパン(20cm)：https://amzn.to/2QyY1ny
フライパン(24cm)：https://amzn.to/2UtNvz5
フライパン(24cm深型)：https://amzn.to/3dj5DEp
鉄フライパン(22cm)：https://amzn.to/3a8hqmR
アルミフライパン(24cm)：https://amzn.to/3dj6tRz
片手浅型鍋(18cm)：https://amzn.to/2QzGXha
片手浅型鍋(21cm)：https://amzn.to/2U7ta3o
片手鍋(16cm)：https://amzn.to/2QzCj2x
片手鍋(20cm)：https://amzn.to/3bd0lZa
ソースパン：https://amzn.to/2U9keuI
まな板：https://amzn.to/2J1fQHI
ガスコンロ：https://amzn.to/3bdtvYa
牛刀：https://www.jikko.jp/fs/jikko/54803
ペティ：https://www.jikko.jp/fs/jikko/54800

撮影機材
カメラボディ：https://amzn.to/2xSXZAd
動画レンズ：https://amzn.to/2UteU3V
写真レンズ：https://amzn.to/2U7HcCb
録音：https://amzn.to/2U9cGYT

※製品のURLはAmazonアソシエイトのリンクを使用しています


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

▼サブチャンネル(料理実験チャンネル)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqIW0OHh8k2np5ZNz3wz8sg
▼ブログ
http://www.ikashiya.com/
▼Twitter
https://twitter.com/sakihirocl
▼Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/sakiyamahiroshi/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

↓using translation software.

[Material]
Use up 1 egg yolk, for 1 18 ~ 21 cm tart.
・Cake flour 100 g
・Almond flour 20 g (If you don't have any, you can use weak flour.)
・Butter 60 g
・Powdered sugar 33 g
・1 egg yolk

[preparation]
・Bring the butter and egg to room temperature.
・Sift the powdered sugar, weak flour and almond powder.
・Preheat the oven to 180 ° C.

[How to make]
1.[fabric] Add softened butter in a bowl and mix it with a spatula until it becomes creamy.
2.Sift in the powdered sugar and mix well. Add the well beaten egg little by little and mix well each time it is emulsified (If it is an egg yolk, put it in as it is and mix it.).
3.Sift in weak flour and almond powder. Mix lightly without kneading.
4.When it becomes like a minced meat and the powdery feel is gone, press it together without kneading it with your hands.
5.Flatten it a bit so it can be spread out easily later. Wrap it in plastic wrap and let it rest for 2 hours (It can be frozen in this state.).
6.[stretch] Dust the surface with flour and roll it out to a thickness of around 3mm with a rolling pin (It will be easier if you wrap it with cling film or baking paper.).
7.If it is a wavy mold, make it round so that it becomes one size larger than the mold. If it is a cercle mold, it is OK.
8.[In the case of wave patterns] Cover the mold so that the center deflects, and press it down so that it fits the side (Refer to the video).
9.Remove the protruding part by scraping it with a rolling pin or hand, and adjust the thick part or the ugly part.
10.[In the case of cercle] Remove the bottom part with a cercle and cut the side part with a card or knife.
11.Place the cercle on a baking sheet, set the dough on the bottom and stick the sides well. Cut the excess part with a knife to the outside (Refer to the video).
12.[Common] Use a fork to pick it up (drilling) when you spread it on the mold (In the case of a cercle, it is unnecessary if you use a silicone oven sheet made of mesh dough called a silpan.).
11.You can bake it as it is or cover it with plastic wrap and let it rest in the fridge for around 1 hour to make it stable.
12.[baking] Preheat an oven at the temperature of 180 degrees Celsius. If you don't heat a raw chocolate tart, etc., bake it for 20 to 25 minutes until it browns. If you bake it further, pour almond cream, etc., and bake it for 10 to 12 minutes until it dries lightly.