贺梅案中有个关键事实,1999年贺家在少儿法院签了一份将女儿监护权交给贝克的文件。监护权移交文件上没有写期限,但是在场的华人翻译YAU牧师以及法庭的工作人员沙拉-克劳德 (Sara Cloud) 都作证说,当时说好这个监护权移交 是 temporary (临时)的。克劳德女士还作证说,这个 temporary一词贺家重复了多次, 她的理解就是贺家以后是要把小孩要回来的。 而贝克作证说,他们的理解是由他们抚养到18岁。 2004年3月,媒体一五一十地实时报道了贺梅案庭审记录,但关于YAU牧师部分几乎是一笔带过:【A Chinese interpreter took the stand on Saturday. Dr. Kenny Yau was the interpreter when the Hes originally set up a foster home for their daughter. Most of his testimony was spent on defining the word ' temporary ' and whether or not the Hes understood what they were signing.】 ( 中文翻译Kenny Yau博士在星期六作证。他是贺家为女儿找寄养家庭时的翻译。他的大部分作证是定义“ 临时 ”一词,以及贺家是否清楚他们签署的是什么文件)。 媒体当然不明白这个 “ 临时 ”一词 的关键性,但贝克律师知道。 YAU牧师以及克劳德女士都被审判庭裘得斯(CHILDERS)法官确定为完全可信的证人。因此,这个监护权移交为 temporary(临时)的事实是贺家、贝克家以及法庭100%确定,从来就不是争议。 监护权移交是 temporary没错, b ut, so what? temporary 这个词是什么含义? 美国打官司是双方事实与法律智慧的较量,是一个adversarial process。贝克一方的律师帕里斯(Parrish) 是当地的法律精英,曾经是联邦检察官,智力、经验资历一流,思维敏捷,富有进攻性;而贺家的律师则只打过一些很小的案子,非常温和,在法庭上谨小慎微。且看, 帕里斯 律师如何通过对YAO牧师的当庭质询破解这个 temporary 并设置圈套。 YAU牧师是同情贺家的,是贺家的证人,而且他有博士学位。 贝克律师在 temporary 一词上对YAU牧师进行了长时间的盘问,追究YAU牧师对“临时”一词的理解 (由于YAU牧师是贺方证人,贝克方可以进行诱导性盘问 )。 且看下面一段贝克律师问话与YAU牧师的证词: Q: So when you say it was assumed to be a short period of time, that is something that you just gleaned from the totality of the circumstances. Is that correct? A: No. I was born and raised and grew up in the Chinese community. So I know the language of the Chinese, and I’ve been learning English for the past 30 years. The word “temporary” could not be meant indefinite. Temporary – to the best of my understanding of the English word, temporary means it is a short period or - - it is indefinite, but it is a short period of indefinite time …. (Pastor Kenny Yau, p. 2020). 以上的证词实际对贺家是悲剧性的。YAU牧师认为“临时”就是一段短时间 (a short period of time)。YAU牧师是贺家的证人,当然知道贝克方会诱导他说出对贺家不利的话,但 在贝克律师的盘问下, YAU牧师 最终还是不得不承认:临时, it is indefinite , 是 一段不确定的短时间。 什么叫一段不确定的短时间? 长、短这种词属于相对比较的词汇,如果没有尺度,其实是完全不确定的。 因为没有时间尺度 (time scale),短时就是无限期。 考虑到贺梅在贝克家已经住了几年,按照这个“临时”=“短时”的定义,贺梅完全可以再在贝克家住几年。因此,按这个理解,贺家无法证明贺梅应该什么时候回家。 更为不幸的是,贺家的律师最初没有意识到贝克律师在这个“临时”问题上的圈套,而是认为己方证人YAU牧师这个作证有力,采取了与贝克方对“临时”相同的理解,也就是 临时=短时, temporary = lasting a short period of time 。这就像下棋的时候茫然不知对方已经布下必杀之阵。 田纳西 上诉法院维持庭审判决的判决书长达110页,作者HIGHERS法官是全美家庭法方面的专家,是给美国其他法官办学习班的法律权威。其判决面面俱到,参见 http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/upload/site/1/98/BakerJerryLOPN.pdf 上诉法院正是针对双方认可的对“临时”="短时”的理解,驳斥了贺家律师的辩解: 【按贺梅母亲(律师)建议的把最高法院在BLAIR案中的“临时”一词理解成指”监护时间的长度”,将使这个州的法院陷入一种无休止的为监护权案定义“临时”的含义的状态。事实上,贺家律师在他们的上诉文书中承认了这一结果的荒谬。。。。因此,我们认为母亲在这个问题上的论辩毫无道理。】据此,法院 认为当时签订的监护权文件有效。而监护权一旦依有效文件给出,根据判例法,几乎是无法再要回来的。 (注一) 但是请注意, temporary 这词签文件时被多次提到这是事实,怎么解释这个词属于法律。因此,贺家仍然有机会在这个地方翻盘。 怎么翻盘? 怎么正确解释 temporary 并证明贺梅应该回家? 这是我在贺梅案中解决的一个问题。 大家可以先自己试着思考一下,权且当做一道动脑筋的练习 。 注一:上诉法院在维持原判时在“临时”问题上对贺家律师的 驳斥甚至不留情面的呵斥如下 (注意,法庭称贺家律师自己也开始意识到自己立场荒谬) ( To hold, as Mother suggests, that the supreme court intended the word “temporary” in Blair to refer to “the length of the custody arrangement” would relegate the courts of this state into a perpetual state of defining the meaning of “temporary” as it pertains to custody decisions . In fact, the Hes acknowledge the absurdity of such a result in their brief filed on appeal. In their brief, the Hes assert that “there is no evidence that the parties understood the technical definition of ‘temporary,’ in the same manner that a lawyer would understand that term.” The Hes go on to conclude that the concept of “permanent” custody orders is,in reality, a misnomer since permanent orders of custody actually take the form of adoption proceedings. Thus, if we were to adopt Mother’s logic, we would need to engage in an evaluation of the biological parent’s subjective understanding of the concept of “temporary” custody each and every time we were asked to evaluate whether the natural parent intended to cede “only temporary and informal custody ” to the non-parent. See Blair, 77 S.W.3d at 143. ...Accordingly , we find that Mother’s argument in this regard is without merit.) PS: 田纳西上诉法院维持剥夺贺家父母权的庭审判决的判决书长达110页,作者HIGHERS法官是全美家庭法方面的专家,他是给美国其他法官办学习班的法律权威。其判决面面俱到,几乎无懈可击(注意是“几乎”)。HIGHERS撰写的判决书参见 http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/upload/site/1/98/BakerJerryLOPN.pdf 不仅是几个华人律师泼凉水, 当时连支持贺家的洋人法律专家都认为已经没有希望了,某支持贺家,怒斥裘得斯的名牌大学法学教授都不得不承认HIGHERS是 expert。支持贺家的团体也都基本退出了。
刚给了李晓洁的教友之一赵女士打电话,搞得我也没脾气。赵女士说法庭听证时她们几个本来是作为证人等着传呼,可是李晓洁的律师让她们在挺外等着,根本没有被传呼。等到李晓洁被定罪拒捕,但是缓刑三年,她们好像都认为判的不错。我听了气不打一处来,我说定罪就是定罪,不管有没有惩罚。我说那个律师把李晓洁买了。赵女士说那有什么办法,美国法庭就是这样。我说为什么苹果员工作证李晓洁能说英语,比如“leave me alone, let me go”,赵说那是撒谎。我认为岂止撒谎,那是做伪证。我见过李晓洁,她只能迸出英文单词,说不成句子。赵女士说法庭上也有苹果员工说李晓洁不懂英语,但是新州媒体只挑说她懂英语的证人证词。 赵女士当时虽然没有进入法庭,但是侨报记者李强在里面。 法庭上,根据新州新闻报道(WMUR)报道法官看了【苹果】店录像认为李晓洁懂英文。我认为,这个录像是关键证据,最好把它公布,看看是不是法官撒谎。 http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/woman-found-guilty-of-resisting-arrest-in-mall-incident/-/9857858/20102278/-/g4htpx/-/index.html#ixzz2T6SNZrfS 我也对赵女士说,不是看不起教会,那就是。。。。。 我把新州报道的录像给美国友人看,美国人看了认为理所当然定罪,说您看 “leave me alone, let me go ”,能不懂英语吗?我说那是撒谎,老美说“就你们中国人说真话,别人都撒慌?” 我说我见过这人,她就是说不成句子“。老美干脆气我”有罪!有罪!有罪!(guilty)...“ 我干脆气老美”波士顿爆炸,该炸!该炸!该炸!(deserve)“, ... 最后搞的不欢而散。
寻找陈青医生,王立山案的关键证人 。 有信息者请与王医生联系:Dr. Lishan Wang, #375805, Ellis Macdougall, Correctional Institution, 1153 East Street, South, Suffield, CT 06080 ===========LZ翻译============== 来自:陈青 ( 音译 ) 标题:我的信 发给: 日期: 2008 年 7 月 3 日(星期四) 6:15AM 王医生: 我很同情您的遭遇,这都是 Vajinder 医生造成的。请不要难过 , 我认为还是有希望的。 下面是我的信。 陈青 (MD) ========= 日期: 2008 年, 7 月 3 日 来自:陈青医生。 PGY-2 , KJMC 关于: Vajinder 医生 兹有关单位和人员: 我目前是 KJMC 医院第二年实习医生。 (PGY-2 , KJMC) Vajinder 医生目前是第三年实习医生,他也是兼职实习主管之一,曾多次欺负华人实习医生。他在 2008 年 4 月经曾羞辱我和另一名中国实习医生朱医生。他挑出一个我给病人写的出院总结,也挑出朱医生的一个医疗笔记,在上午会议时张贴在所有实习医疗面前。他指责我们的懒惰,写的记录不合格。他还说,他要惩罚我们。其实,曾有一个实习医生主管告诉我们,出院总结也可以简明扼要。我们认为,我们是按规定写的医疗记录。 有其他国家来的实习医生写了不完整的医疗记录,可 Vajinder 医生就不管 。此外,当天上午,我试图和 Vajinder 医生 解释,但他没有给我解释的机会。 Vajinder 医生给我们 造成无端的压力和伤害,但是,由于担心他的权力和盛气凌人的个性,我们必须保持沉默。 Vajinder 医生利用他是实习医生主管的地位,欺辱 我们中国来的医 生 ,给我们的工作造成困难。 非常感谢您的关注。 敬上 陈青医生 =========陈医生的英文稿======= From Qing Chen Subject: letter To: Date: Thursday, July 3, 2008. 6:15 AM Dr. Wang: I feel sympathy to your situation caused by Dr. Vajinder. Please do not be depressed. I think there is hope. Here is my letter. Qing Date: July 3, 2008 From: Dr. Qing Chen. PGY-2, KJMC RE: Dr. Vajinder To Whom It May Concern. I am a current PGY-2 medical resident in KJMC. Dr. Vajinder, the former PGY-3 and Chief Resident in our program, had repeatedly bullied Chinese residents in general, and had humiliated me and another Chinese resident Dr. Zhu in April 2008. He had singled out one of my discharge notes and one of Dr. Zhu’s notes, and posted them in front of all medical residents in a morning conference, accusing us of being lazy and not writing the proper notes. He also said he wanted to give us penalty. Actually, one of the chief residents told us that the Discharge Note could be brief. We believed we had written the notes as what we were told. There were residents from other countries had written incomplete notes, and Dr. Vajinder had never pointed those out. In addition, that morning, I wanted to explain to Dr. Vajinder, but he did not gave me chance to explain. Dr. Vajinder had caused unnecessary stress and harm to us. Fearing of his power and aggressive personality, we have to keep silent, Dr. Vajinder with advantage of being a Chief Resident, humiliated and gave hard time to our Chinese medical residents. Thank you very much for your attention. Respectfully. Qing Chen, MD ========= Lishan who is a victim of workplace bullying. The hospital is responsible for tolerating such bullying and handled the conflict inproperly,which eventually lead to the tragedy. I found one person by the name you requested, but not sure if this is the right one. You can call to find out. Qing Chen, MD Internist, Nephrologist Female - 25 years experience 12855 N 40th Dr Ste 200 Saint Louis, MO 63141 (314) 720-0900