去年9月，我给彼岸网发去一份取证传票，希望其网站主人配合，我在邮件中写道： The Superior Court of California has issued a subpoena for the records (email and IP addresses) of several users who posted libelous statements against me on bian-wang.com . I am writing to see if you are willing to accept service of the subpoena by email. In the meantime, I request that you make a backup of all user and user posting records. 彼案网回应到：“ Bi'An will accept service of the subpoena by email without prejudice. ” 我本来以为他同意接受传票，也免去各自很多麻烦，结果我判断错误， 彼案网在其网站贴出传票 ，称因为这是加州传票，管不到他。当然从法律上这是对的，他是可以不予理睬，否则我当时也没有必要去跟他协商什么。但一般来说，网站都会合作。既然彼岸网不愿合作，那就把传票递到他手上。几个星期前，几经周转，传票终于送到了彼岸网手上。据送票人报告，当时他（缪春晖 ）连忙关上门，说是要打电话给律师。 过了些天，我收到了缪春晖其对证人传票的回应。见文末附件。接下来，我将向当地法院发出动议，要求缪春晖 交出相关证据。至于其 本人在 彼岸网参与纵容鼓励对我的攻击 ，我将根据情节依法追究责任。 经查 缪春晖 ，1994 年中科大物理学学士，1997年北京大学物理学硕士，1999年美国西北大学心理学硕士，2000年西北大学经济学硕士， 2006年普林斯顿经济学博士 。真可谓寒窗苦读20多载，虽然大学毕业10多年，才拿到学位，但也读了不少年的书了，竟然跟在网络流氓之后骂脏话。可叹！ bian-wang-motion-to-quash-redact.pdf
Mahita Gajanan in New York @mahitagajanan email Saturday 5 December 2015 00.10GMT Last modified on Saturday 5 December 2015 04.49GMT Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Save for later Mark Zuckerberg has defended the structure of his new philanthropic organisation after critics suggested he was avoiding paying tax on the sale of his shares. Facebook shares: what's behind Mark Zuckerberg's 'hacker philanthropy'? Read more Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan launched the organisation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, this week to honour the birth of their daughter , Max. The couple pledged to give away 99% of their Facebook shares in their lifetime, currently worth about $45bn (£30bn). However, the philanthropy is structured not as a charity but as a limited liability corporation (LLC) with charitable aims. According to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s Facebook page , the LLC seeks to “advance human potential and promote equality”. An LLC brings Zuckerberg certain tax exemptions. Critics have said the company structure could allow Zuckerberg to avoid paying tax on his sale of the shares. By donating stock, Zuckerberg gets a charitable contribution deduction based on the fair market value of the shares, according to Forbes. In a post penned on Facebook on Thursday, Zuckerberg said he and Chan would receive no tax benefit from transferring shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The share transfer instead yields “flexibility to execute our mission more effectively,” Zuckerberg wrote. “In fact, if we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation, then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not,” he wrote. “And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC.” Will Zuckerberg and Chan's $45bn pledge change philanthropy? Benjamin Soskis Read more According to Zuckerberg, the organisation is structured as an LLC rather than a traditional foundation so that it can make charitable investments. “This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organisations, making private investments and participating in policy debates – in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need,” he wrote. “Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission.”
你转帖一段视频，提什么互联网放大羞辱，里面提到UPS，唯一能让我联想的是你曾经让UPS数你的 public hair。If you repeat similar offenses at ZZWave, you will be castrated instantly (in the digital sense). That you committed such offense against a ZZWave member on another site has not been forgotten by the honorable people of ZZWave. Because of your continued verbal violations of human decency, you are subject to summary deletion upon any violation of the rules, even if you try to circumvent the rules by using innuendo. After you posted the demeaning and indecent message to UPS on another site, several people there voiced their strong protest, calling for your banishment. However, some of them subsequently became your passionate fans and admirers. We can only conclude that their protests were only ostentatious and their secret pleasures weremore sincere. Though you are devoid of intellect, you do have the sensibility for such open encouragement. I don't have to name your admirers, but I have no difficulty naming each and every one of them if I am challenged to do so. You are allowed here not because of your indecency nor the admiration of your fans, but the rules.
以下是我在微信群中部分发言的汇编，大部分是针对其他网友观点的回应。微信讨论嘛，比较随意，就不要苛求前后连贯了，从我的文字就可以看出针对的观点是什么。比如说，有人说为何要拿出美国使用催泪瓦斯做例子。 The British Empire's policy towards colonial territories has been consistent over the centuries. They ruled HK much like they dominated India. The only difference was that PRC had a powerful military ready to impose the will of the Chinese nation. Tear gas is frequently used in the U.S. against protesters. HK people are not above the law. Check out the Occupy Wall Street videos. If America is the beacon of democracy and model of the rule of law, HK must learn from America. The New York police applied sanitation and public safety laws and forcefully removed the occupiers. There is no need for bloodshed. No one is talking about firing live ammunition like the Kent State Massacre, the American experience in dealing with the OWS movement is very valuable. You can enforce law without bloodshed. When citizens willfully violate the law, they must be held accountable in accordance of the law. HK is degenerating into a lawless society. No one is talking about using the PLA to quell the occupy movement. The U.S. is the first democracy since the Roman Republic. Every nation should learn from the US if they aspire for democracy . And we learned from the US that democracy comes hand in hand with strict enforcement of the law. Freedom does not equate lawlessness. Freedom requires social responsibility, including the respect for the law. When the dignity of the law is tainted by mob like movement, what you get is not freedom but chaos and disorder. There are a lot of human factors in a mass movement. The purpose is never simple, the motive never pure. In the end, someone is boundto lose cool when patience runs out and passions reign high. Rarely we see a mass movement produce positive results. For that you need either a revolution or a gradual reform.
昨天在北大群中讨论PRC建国初期的一些政策时我提到，一个政府自身安全受到威胁的时候，就会限制公民的基本权利，这是普遍规律。我举了个例子，以前美国骂总统可能是要坐牢的。结果不少同学表示不可置信。这再次说明，即使是北大毕业生对西方民主法治的理解也可能很薄弱，德先生什么含义还没搞透彻。 为什么要以美国为例子？ 人类历史长河中雅典是第一个民主国，然后是罗马共和国（至少是半民主吧），再过了1800多年才出现一个新的民主国家，这就是美国，美国之后的那都是多多少少效仿美国。所以，美国作为民主法治的范例是当之无愧的。以美国为例比以世界最大的民主国印度为例更有代表性。 言归正传，美国骂总统要坐牢的法律有链接为证：http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sedact.asp。我权且引用其中一段如下： 【if any person shall write, print, utter or publish ... writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent ... to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.】 简言之，谁发表意图引起对美国政府、国会或总统不敬的言论，可以判处两年以下有期徒刑并处以罚款。这一系列法案就是著名的Alien and Sedition Acts. 下面略举一例说明其运用。 有一漠视法律的先生Matthew Lyon 指责美国政府是 "ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice" --- 就是说政府可笑、愚蠢、自私贪婪，结果被判刑4个月，并罚款1000美金。那时1000美金还是可观的。四个月徒刑可能是小意思，但美国后来类似的法案把徒刑增加到了20年，见下文。 一个政权在自身安全受到威胁的时候，法律肯定要严格些，等它比较稳定之后，就无所谓了。 美国以前骂总统、国会坐牢，现在可能只管骂。以前中国内部敌人、外部敌人特别多，那时攻击政府，可能会坐牢，甚至当成敌特枪毙。现在在中国骂骂政府、歌颂国民党都没有人理你也就是这个道理。 假如美国哪天又感到受到威胁，风声可能又就紧起来。美国南北战争时期已经建国80多年了，比PRC还多10多岁，那时有人在北方说南方的好话就被判刑或者流放。1918年美国进入一战，又出台了新的法案，禁止对美国政府、美国国旗说脏话、不敬等等，违者可判处20年以下有期徒刑（全文参见附录）... 911之后，爱国者法案就出台了。2003年美国新墨西哥州有位中学生写了首反战诗，他老师拿去念了一下，被开除，学生家长抗议，美军催泪弹伺候，那场景就像是战场。这还是撞掉几栋楼。如果有更大的威胁，法律会更严格，有民主法制观念的美国人就会普遍自觉一些少惹麻烦，而不是像mob一样偏要挑战法律。 附：1918 法案 SEC. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall wilfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor... with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds... or the making of loans by or to the United States, or whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause... or incite... insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct... the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag... or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language intended to bring the form of government... or the Constitution... or the military or naval forces... or the flag... of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute ... or shall wilfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully... urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things... necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war... and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favour the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years , or both...."
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS: ( a) SCA 5 has NOT been stopped yet. Let's all focus on Assemblyman Paul Fong . Phone 916 319-2028 or email Assemblymember.fong@assembly.ca.gov, ask him to vote NO on SCA 5. If he agrees, SCA 5 will be dead. (b) Good News: Ted Lieu, 1 of the 3 senators who voted for SCA 5, PROMISED in writing to 80-20 President S.B. Woo that "I will vote against SCA 5 if and when it comes back to the Senate and any amendment in any form that continues to seek race conscious admissions." A good solid promises. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Norm Of American Democracy: US senators and congresspersons are almost all for abolishing obsolete military bases. They almost all have one EXCEPTION not the ones in their own states or districts! 80-20 Is Extremely Alarmed Elected officials, especially those whose terms are 2 instead of 4 or 6 years, are to mostly serve the interests of those who elect them*, even when such interests are against those of the state or nation. 80-20 is extremelyalarmed when so many AsAm/ChAm officials go out of their ways to ACT against our interests! Here are examples. Elaine Chao, Republican Secretary of Labor under President Bush, set a shameful example . As the Labor Secretary, she is explicitly charged by Executive Order 11246 to make sure that ALL Americans enjoy equal opportunity to be employed and to rise as high as their ability and ambition will take them. However, she did NOT apply the law for AsAms to help break the glass ceiling against us! True, the earlier labor secretaries didn't do that either. But time was ripe under Elaine Chao's tenure. To illustrate, Obama's DOL promised 80-20 in writing to enforce it, though action was still rare. We hope Chris Lu , Dep. Sec. of Labor if confirmed by the Senate, will do much much better, Judy Chu, a Democratic Congresswoman from Monterey Park, whose district has ample AsAm voters, wasn't much better. When she was invited by New York Times to write an op-ed on how Danny Chen, a soldier, was racially hazed to death by his superior officers, she pretended that it was just ordinary hazing. The word "race" never appeared in her entire article. Howdisappointing! If one doesn't have the guts to speak up for us, then don't run for an office. Paul Fong, a Dem. an Assemblyman from CA's 29th District with 28% AsAm voters, did an unconscionable thing. He proposed banning shark fin in CA in 2011, without giving the AsAms in CA adequate time to adjust to such a ban. For what? Saving sharks' lives? Note that the US senators from tobacco-producing states, gave their constituents decades to adjust, even when smoking caused human lives. . Ted Lieu, Carol Liu and Leland Yee, all Dems, all CA ChAm senators, all votedfor SCA 5, a constitutional amendment aiming to turn CA back to "race- conscious" college admissions. It aims to reduce the number of AsAm students in favor of less qualified applicants of other races. True, the % of black and Hispanic student are below their population %. However, a quota system based on population is ILLEGAL in the USA. Why Do AsAm/ChAm Politicians Vote Against Us? We, OURSELVES, are mostly at fault. Here are 2 examples: (1) A huge % of AsAms/ChAms worship officials, implicitly assume that officials must be scholars of the highest quality and should be listened to and respected like our parents. We've been spoiling our officials. I personally experienced the spoiling nationwide, when I was a lowly Lt. Governor of Delaware. Our degree of worship is decided by the ranks of the officials. The higher the ranks, the more we worship. No wonder, the AsAm/ChAm officials try so hard to seek higher offices, at the expense of serving our rightful interests. (2) We are inexplicably fearful of standing up to elected officials. We also please flatter them hoping to get some personal favors back. A picture with them and their presence in our children's weddings perhaps? We live in America, STUPID! The Proper Way to Deal with All Officials Officials are our public SERVANTS. So treat them that way. When they serve us well in PUBLIC matters, REWARD them with our donations and votes. When otherwise, PUNISH them! 80-20 aims to EMPOWER YOU ! Respectfully, S.B. Woo, a volunteer President, 80-20 National Asian Am. Political Action Committee *Former President John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer-winning book, entitled "Profiles of Courage" praising those statesmen, who during the period leading to US Civil War, were willing to sacrifice their political careers, to vote against their constituents' interest in order to save the Union. The above should illustrate to us, how elected officials in the US are normally expected to act. PS: Click here to see a video tape here about a demonstration in LA against SCA 5. However, Ed Chau had ALREADY announced that he would not vote for SCA 5 BEFORE the demonstration. As misguided as the demo was, 80-20 is glad to see it. (Please be patient with an annoying 15 sec. ad at the beginning.)
标签: against
