最近在忙其他事情。今天被提醒了，还有某些问题大家等待进展报告。 与所谓 NN无关的事情（如我与某些企业的知识产权争议）我无意在此讨论。 其他事情没有进展我暂不做评论。只谈谈多伦多杨文彬。 总的来说，法律上的事情，既然已经启动法律程序，大家都应该依法办事，摆事实、讲道理，心平气和。没有必要吵吵闹闹。诉讼人如此，其他人也是如此。 多伦多杨文彬案的主审法官 是日裔 Dennis Hayashi 。 杨文彬诽谤案中根本不涉及日本的内容。我与杨文彬也从未就日本问题发生过争论 。 杨文彬在其法律文件中大力揭发我岳某抗日，加州 刘牧野跟进，在其法庭文件中大量揭发我写过多少关于日本罪恶的文章，大事揭发告密之状。当然，杨文彬不会准确把我揭露日本军国主义罪行的论文翻译附上，而是用他们自己的语言进行歪曲性描述。 之后，我向该日裔法官提出他应该退出。按规定，该法官应该将这个判断交给其他法官处理。但他自行裁决不退出，写了一份六页纸的文件。于是，我向法院递交了一封给 HAYASHI 法官的信件，指出 A judge's ruling on the merits of a motion for the judge's own disqualification is in contravention of the Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c))(5) (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 5, p.27.) 。同时给法官寄出一封 CHAMBERS COPY。结果，法官书记员把这封 CHAMBERS COPY退回，说这是 ex parte communications。我立刻递交了声明，这封信完全是公开递交在法院案卷，并发给诉讼各方，属于公开文件，根本不是 ex parte communication。 另一方面，向杨文彬送递传票的努力仍在继续。之前，我查出 杨文彬使用地址 只是 UPS信箱。上次案件管理会议，我去了趟法院，我对法官说，杨文彬地址是UPS信箱，海牙公约不适应；即使海牙公约适用，按该条约条款10（a）, 美国联邦国务院的网站，加拿大政府的解释以及加州上诉法院的判决，在海牙公约下给加拿大被告发传票是可以的。 HAYASHI 法官称那你递交个动议。于是我递交了动议。内容如附件。 几天前， HAYASHI 再次拒绝动议。 杨文彬在网上曾声称等着美国的传票、他好扬名美国司法界。但据送达传票的人报告，多次敲门没有人应答。 根据加州法律，传票应该在三年内完成送达。 附件：动议 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT YANG SERVED PROCESS (Code Civ. Proc. §§417.20; 415.40) (Article 10(a) Hague Service Convention) Hearing Date: September 14, 2016 Hearing Time: 2:30 PM Department: 303 Reservation Number: R-1764865 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT YANG SERVED PROCESS UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE CIV. PROC. §§ 417.20(d) AND 415.40 OR ARTICLE 10(a) OF THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 14, 2016, at 2:30 PM., in Department 303 of the above-entitled court, located at George E. McDonald Hall of Justice, 2233 Shoreline Drive, Alameda, California, Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order, to deem defendant Wenbin Yang ("Yang") served process under California Code of Civil Procedure §§417.20(d) and 415.40, or under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the Motion, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Dongxiao ("Yue Decl.") being filed concurrently, the pleadings and other papers on file in this case and any other information that may be offered. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION This is an internet defamation and bullying case, arose from Defendants' vicious, defamatory and intimidating web postings targeting Plaintiff and his family. Defendant Wenbin Yang is a resident of Canada. After numerous failed attempts of personal service at Yang's last known address, Plaintiff's process server sent the Summons and Complaint to Yang via international registered mail to an address that Yang provided to this Court. Yang acknowledged that he was properly served process in a recorded telephone conference with Plaintiff, at a Case Management Conference, and in papers Yang submitted to the Court. Plaintiff found that the address Yang provided to the Court was a UPS mailbox. Plaintiff now requests a Court Order to deem Yang served process. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As alleged in the Verified Complaint ("VC"), Plaintiff administers a Chinese language website at zhenzhubay.com ("ZZB"). Defendant Yang registered at the ZZB and engaged in wide ranging attacks on other persons on ZZB, often using sexually explicit, violent and insulting language. Yang's behavior was not limited to ZZB. Yang has been widely recognized as an online hooligan, banned or shunned by almost all the website he frequented. For instance, Yang had been permanently banned by XYS.ORG over 10 years ago. He was also banned by YEYECLUB.COM due to his abusive conduct towards women there. Yang's verbal assaults against women on YEYECLUB included statements that he would pull down their pants and that he would ride on their shoulder and ask them to count his public hair. As the "admin" of ZZB, Plaintiff repeatedly deleted Yang's offending posts and his accounts on ZZB. Eventually, Yang initiated vicious defamatory attacks on Plaintiff and others. Yang specifically challenged Plaintiff to sue him in California. Failing to dissuade Yang from his illegal conduct, Plaintiff commenced the instant action on June 10, 2015. (VC ¶¶ 6-36.) Despite Yang's previous online statement that he would be waiting for the American Summons, he played hide-and-seek and posted a message titled "Summons Dead Loop Theory" on ZZB, hinting that he will never be served summons . A Canadian process server made at least five attempts to serve Yang at his last known address: 119 Mintwood Drive, North York, Ontario, Canada, at around 7:05 AM on June 20th, 2015, at 9:30 PM on June 23rd, 2015, at 7:40 PM on July 10, 2015, and at 9:10 AM and 7:20 PM on July 11, 2015. But no one came to answer the door. Mouthon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6 .The process server also sent the Summons and Complaint via registered mail to Yang on June 28, 2015, Mouthon Decl. ¶4, with track number RN082491710CA. According to its online tracking service, the Canadian Post Office left two notices for Yang about the registered mail. The registered mail had not been picked up and had been returned to the sender. On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem service on Yang complete by email, citing various federal district and appellate court precedents. Under the threat of default, Yang filed a motion to quash on August 10, 2015. Yang provided the Court with the address of "123 - 5863 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8". On September 24, 2015, the Court noted that Yang could be easily served under CCP §415.40. Plaintiff, through another process server, Alysa Demetre, sent the Summons and Complaint to Yang on September 25, 2015 via registered mail with return receipt requested. The USPS tracking record showed that this mail was delivered on October 1, 2015. (Yue Decl. ¶7.) On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff conferred with Yang via telephone regarding the upcoming Case Management Conference ("CMC") scheduled for October 27, 2015. During the meet-and-confer, which was recorded upon Yang's request, Yang acknowledged that he had been served by the registered mail of September 25 and he had no objections to the service of process.(Yue Decl. ¶3.) In the case management statement Plaintiff filed on October 12, 2015, Plaintiff noted that the parties agreed that "Defendant Yang had been properly served in accordance of CCP 415.40". O n October 13, 2015 , Yang served Plaintiff a set of discovery requests (Yue Decl. ¶ 4 .). Yang stated these discovery requests in the case management statement that he filed. On October 27, 2015, Yang appeared in the CMC by telephone and through an interpreter, and Plaintiff appeared in person. During the CMC, the presiding Judge asked Yang about the status of service, and Yang confirmed that he had been served process with effective date of October 5th. (Yue Decl. ¶5.) On October 29, 2015, Yang filed his second motion to quash on the ground that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. In Yang's reply brief, he admitted that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). On December 17, 2015, the Court granted in part Yang's motion, on the ground that " Plaintiff has not filed a sufficient Proof of Service of the Summons. " The Court noted that because Yang was a Canadian resident, the Hague Service Convention applied. On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed with the Court additional evidence about the delivery of the Summons and Complaint by registered mail. (Yue Decl. ¶7.) In 2016, Plaintiff found that Yang's address provided to the Court was a UPS mailbox. (Yue Decl. ¶¶9-11.) Plaintiff now moves to deem Yang properly served. ARGUMENT A. YANG HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER CCP § 417.20(d) Under CCP § 417.20, "Proof that a summons was served on a person outside this state shall be made ... or (d) By the written admission of the party." The word "or" indicates that subsection (d) is disjunctive of other subsections, including subsection (c). In his court filings, Yang admitted that " Defendant has been served easily when Plainti ff followed the instruction of the Court by using a new address. " (Def. Reply, Mot. to Quash, p.7:13-14 (December 14, 2015)). Yang further admitted that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). Since Yang has made written admissions to the Court that he has been properly served, his admissions serve as proof that he was served. CCP § 417.20(d). B. YANG HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER CCP § 415.40 1. The Hague Service Convention Does Not Apply Because Yang's Address is Unknown Article 1 of the Hague Service Convention states that " his Convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known." In Buchanan v. Soto , 241 Cal. App. 4th 1353, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2015), the defendant did not provide a current address in Mexico and attempted to "keep his exact whereabouts secret", the court held that "the Convention does not apply to situations in which the whereabouts of the defendant cannot be ascertained despite reasonable diligence." ( Id . at 1366.) Plaintiff's process server attempted five times to personally serve Yang at 119 Mintwood Drive, North York , Ontario , Canada without success. No one came to answer the door. In his paper, Yang admitted the place to be a property he owned, but effectively denied it to be his residential address. Yang provided a new address that he currently uses for Court communications. But it turns out that Yang's new address was only a mailbox at "The UPS Store #188", with website at http://theupsstore.ca/188/. Plaintiff telephoned the store and confirmed that its address is "5863 Leslie St, Toronto Ontario, M2H 1J8" and the number before this address is just the mailbox number. (Yue Decl. ¶¶9-11.) Thus, despite Plaintiff's best efforts, Yang's whereabouts cannot be ascertained, accordingly, the Hague Service Convention does not apply. ( Buchanan at 1366.) 2. Yang has been served under CCP § 415.40 On September 24, 2015, in the Court's order granting Yang's motion to quash, Judge Hayashi noted that Defendant was a resident of Canada, and "Defendant can be served relative easily" under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.40. Since the Hague Service Convention does not apply, Yang may be served under California rules, including CCP § 415.40. After receiving the Summons and Complaint from Plaintiff's process server, in Yang's submissions to the Court, Yang admitted that " Defendant has been served easily when Plainti ff followed the instruction of the Court by using a new address. " (Def. Reply, Mot. to Quash, p.7:13-14 (December 14, 2015)). Yang further stated that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). Under CCP 417.20(a), " i f service is made by mail pursuant to Section 415.40, proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence." Since CCP 415.40 is applicable and Yang admitted that he received the Summons and Complaint, he has been properly served. C. EVEN IF THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION APPLIES, YANG HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED UNDER THE CONVENTION 1. Service Of Canadian Defendants By Mail Is Authorized By the Hague Service Convention As argued above, the Hague Service Convention does not apply because the whereabouts of Yang cannot be ascertained despite reasonable diligence . Even if the Hague Convention applies, Yang has been served under Article 10(a) of the Convention, which states that " rovided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with ... the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad." Judicial interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention hinged on whether the word "send" includes "service". In Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 808 , the First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of California held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of process by mail in a signatory country which does not object to service by postal channels. The Court found that the language of Article 10(a) would be rendered "superfluous unless it was related to the sending of such documents for the purpose of service." ( Id . at 821-22). The Shoei Kako decision was relied upon by the federal second circuit in Ackermann v. Levine (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, holding that service of a German judgment on a New York defendant by mail was authorized by the Hague Service Convention "since the United States has made no objection to the use of 'postal channels' under Article 10(a)." Ackermann at 839. In the more recent case of Denlinger v. Chinadotcom Corp. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1396, 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 530, the Sixth Appellate District made a thorough analysis of Article 10(a) and reached the same conclusion as Shoei Kako . In so doing, the Denlinger court (1) applied the rules in interpreting treaties following U.S. Supreme Court precedent; (2) consulted the "Practical Handbook" on the Hague Service Convention authored by a special commission comprised of experts chosen by signatory governments; (3) referenced the treaty interpretations made by the Executive Branch (the U.S. State Department); (4) considered the understanding of the signatory countries. Id . at 1404-1404. Denlinger rejected Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043 in this regard, as " Honda did not have the benefit of considering the state department declaration, the Special Commission Reports, the understanding of the signatories, or the Handbook on the Convention." Id . at 1404. The Denlinger court specifically noted that "Canada does not object to service by postal channels" in its declaration. Id. at 1403 . The "Service of Process" web page of the U.S. Department of State, in a section titled "Service by International Registered Mail", states that " ervice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested is an option in many countries in the world." On the country specific page for Canada , the U.S. State Department states that "In its Declarations and Reservations on the Hague Service Convention, Canada did not object to the methods of service under Article 10, and does permit service via postal channels ." (boldface added.) In summary, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that service of process by mail on a Canadian defendant is authorized by Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. 2. Yang Has Been Properly Served Process Under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention. As shown above, the U.S. State Department declaration, the understanding of the signatories, and the Handbook on the Convention, and the California appellate court decisions based on them ( Shoei Kako, Denlinger , supra .) all concluded that service by mail is authorized under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention if the signatory does not object to service via postal channels. Canada does not object to service by postal channels. Denlinger at 1403 . The State Department unambiguously states that "Canada... does permit service via postal channels." Service of process on Yang by mail is proper under the Convention. Since service by mail on a Canadian defendant was authorized by Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention and the evidence established the actual delivery of the Summons and Complaint on Yang by mail, Yang has been properly served process under the Convention. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Yang has been properly served process, by written admissions in his court filings (CCP §417.20(d)), by actual delivery of the Summons with Yang's acknowledgement of receipt (CCP §415.40). Also, Yang has been served under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention if the Court found the Convention applicable. Plaintiff respectfully requests a Court Order to deem Yang served process. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=17 http://travel.state.gov/content/travell / en/legal - considerations/judicial/service-of-process.html http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/judicial/country/canada.html
《波茨坦公告》第十一条明确称：【Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. 】 （“日本将被允许保留维持其经济并作出赔偿的工业，但不包括能使她重新为战争而武装的工业”）。日本无条件投降时表示完全接受《波茨坦公告》。 如今日本已经通过 所谓新安保法，其关键内容是日军可以先发制人，在日本没有受到攻击时，抢先对他国发动攻击。 这一概念意味着日本已经撕毁其投降书，悍然向战胜国挑战。未来中国将险象环生。 最大的威胁当然是日本的核武化。一旦日本军国主义掌握大规模杀伤武器，以其凶残与冒险，对文明世界构成的生存威胁极大。中国必须严密监视日本在这方面的一举一动。在日本达到临界点之前及时予以制止。 在常规武力方面，日本在未来数年可能将大规模扩军备战。 中国应该在钓鱼岛附近采取更为强有力的维权措施，争取在日本军国主义完成全面武装之前彻底解决相关问题。
山本 五十六 曾经说过：”光是占领夏威夷与旧金山是不够的。要确保胜利，日军必须进入华盛顿首府，在白宫让美国人屈膝求和”。珍珠湾港一战，美太平洋舰队主力损失殆尽，整个太平洋成为日军横行的舞台。 下面ＹＯＵＴＵＢＥ上找到的这个时序地图显示了日军势力范围随时间的变化，红色表示日本及其盟国控制范围，蓝色表示盟军控制范围。图中清楚可见，日军的刀锋已经直指澳大利亚，而中国战场进行了相当的对日反攻。 那些曾经参与南京大屠杀的日军部分被派往南洋战场。当英美军节节败退之际，英美降兵大量被日军杀戮之际，中国却取得了长沙大捷的胜利。 如果不是中国坚持对日抗战，那么日军至少可以向菲律宾、新几内亚等战场增兵20万以上。日军解决菲律宾的时间可能提前两个月，这将使日本能够在美国尚未加强澳大利亚之际，对澳大利亚发起进攻并征服该地。如此一来，美国将完全丧失从海上反攻日本的起始基地。 中国同时也给美军提供了机场。没有这些机场，美国就不可能对日本本土及其海上力量维持持续的轰炸，正是这些轰炸大规模的中和日本工业产能并大大缩减日本的原材料运输能力。没有从这些中国机场起飞的轰炸，日本工业可以源源不断地为日军提供战争机器。 有美国人说，让日本投降的是两颗原子弹。他们按这个逻辑认为就算其他事情都不做，总之最后原子弹能造出来，所以日本最后总会投降。但这个分析忽略了非常重要的一点，那就是当时美国飞机的航程根本不足以从美国(包括夏威夷）起飞轰炸日本， 更没有能够提供如此远程护航的战斗机。如果美国没有将日本置于航程之内的机场，就必须设计、制造更大航程的飞机才可能对日本进行战略打击，而在这段时间，日本已经完成其国民的转移（如移民到亚洲大陆或者澳洲），甚至可能制造出自己的核武与美国抗衡。 World War II in the Pacific Every Day - YouTube.mp4
标签: 军国主义
