關於 we are the world background ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

The Holy Spirit Will Never Leave You

“Now Yahweh’s Spirit departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him. Saul’s servants said to him, “See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you.” (1 Samuel‬ ‭16:14-15‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

When Saul kept sinning against God by disobeying His instructions through prophet Samuel, the Holy Spirit departed from Saul. In its place, an evil spirit was allowed to pester Saul. God had removed His hand of protection from Saul and he no longer had the anointing of a king.

“Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all of my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God. Renew a right spirit within me. Don’t throw me from your presence, and don’t take your holy Spirit from me.” (Psalms‬ ‭51:9-11‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

When David sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba and conspired to murder her husband Uriah, God rebuked him through the prophet Nathan, and David was sorrowful. He wrote the words in the psalm above. David was so afraid that God would remove the Holy Spirit from him, just like He did to Saul.

Under the Law, if someone sins, the Holy Spirit can depart from him. The Law is a covenant whereby God’s presence, anointing, and blessings depended on man’s obedience.

I watched a sermon video the other day of Katherine Kuhlman preaching a nonsensical message, with “take not Your Holy Spirit from me” as a focus. She also said that if we desired the power of the Holy Spirit and to see miracles, we have to ‘pay the price’.

“Be free from the love of money, content with such things as you have, for he has said, “I will in no way leave you, neither will I in any way forsake you.” So that with good courage we say, “The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What can man do to me?”” (Hebrews‬ ‭13:5-6‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

As far as I know, God has promised to never leave or forsake us in any way. He will never remove His Holy Spirit from us.

On top of that, the blood that Jesus shed at the cross is what paid the full price for us to have the Holy Spirit and the fullness of His power. We could not pay the price and that is why Abba God sent Jesus to pay it on our behalf.

“I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever,— the Spirit of truth, whom the world can’t receive; for it doesn’t see him, neither knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.” (John‬ ‭14:16-17‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Read Jesus’ words above. Under Grace, the Holy Spirit will “be with you forever”—not just until the next time you sin. It is not based on your obedience, but the obedience of Christ at the cross.

Do not let anyone bring you into the bondage of wrong believing, no matter how famous they are. We must know the Scriptures so that we will not be deceived.

Need help understanding the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John correctly through the lens of Grace? I know how intimidating reading the four gospels can be. When I was a new believer, some passages in there were just frightful and discouraging.

The reason was because I did not know how to rightly divide the Word based on the covenants. I thought everything in there was directed at me.

For example, Jesus said that if you eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, for it is better for you to enter Heaven without eyes than to have your entire being cast into the fire of Hell. Are we supposed to pluck our eyes out when we sin? Are we supposed to cut off our arms and legs like Jesus said? We need to understand the important reason why He said what He did. There is a purpose that you won’t understand if you have no context or background knowledge of the whole Bible.

If you are new to reading the four gospels for yourself, or you have some questions about difficult passages in there, I would like to recommend you read my four-ebook bundle called “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace”.

As you read it, many confusing pieces of Scripture will be unlocked to you, and things that used to scare you will be read in the right light. Get the bundle now to enjoy 20% off the usual price, and you can download and read it right away:
https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable

Pray this for me. More open doors for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to reach those who need it the most, especially during this time! We need boldness to preach the Gospel because if we are afraid of man’s opinion, we won’t even speak or write anything we think may offend others. The truth offends when people are clinging on to wrong beliefs.

“For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ.” (Galatians‬ ‭1:10‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

A people pleaser cannot be an effective minister of the Gospel because he will mince words and hold his tongue when God actually wants him to speak.

Pray that this illusionary fear of man would fall off, and that I, and all of us, will allow the Holy Spirit to lead us without any hindrances.

There is no time to waste, and there are many souls that need to be won.

“Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work. Don’t you say, ‘There are yet four months until the harvest?’ Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and look at the fields, that they are white for harvest already. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to eternal life; that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this the saying is true, ‘One sows, and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you haven’t labored. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”” (John‬ ‭4:34-38‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The harvest fields represent the nations of the world. The wheat are the souls.

We are reaping souls easily today by preaching, thanks to the labor put in by the prophets, the apostles, the saints, and of course God, throughout the ages. Through the faithfulness of these predecessors, we have the complete Bible today, and the full revelation of the Gospel to share to the whole world.

Never forget that the Gospel we have access to today was fought for with much blood, sweat, and tears. People faced heavy persecution and even died for the truth.

Treasure the Gospel and never take the words of the Scriptures for granted!

Need help understanding the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John correctly through the lens of Grace? I know how intimidating reading the four gospels can be. When I was a new believer, some passages in there were just frightful and discouraging.

The reason was because I did not know how to rightly divide the Word based on the covenants. I thought everything in there was directed at me.

For example, Jesus said that if you eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, for it is better for you to enter Heaven without eyes than to have your entire being cast into the fire of Hell. Are we supposed to pluck our eyes out when we sin? Are we supposed to cut off our arms and legs like Jesus said? We need to understand the important reason why He said what He did. There is a purpose that you won’t understand if you have no context or background knowledge of the whole Bible.

If you are new to reading the four gospels for yourself, or you have some questions about difficult passages in there, I would like to recommend you read my four-ebook bundle called “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace”.

As you read it, many confusing pieces of Scripture will be unlocked to you, and things that used to scare you will be read in the right light. Get the bundle now to enjoy 20% off the usual price, and you can download and read it right away:
https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable

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”

《Walpurgis》
wonderland / 僅屬兩人的仙境
作詞 / Lyricist：梶浦由記
作曲 / Composer：梶浦由記
編曲 / Arranger：梶浦由記
歌 / Singer：Aimer
翻譯：CH（CH Music Channel）
意譯：CH（CH Music Channel）
English Translation: thisisars

背景 / Background - ひとば - 標本:
https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/82963977

上傳你的字幕吧！/ Submit your subtitles here!
https://forms.gle/MSsAM2WHpT31UuUh8

版權聲明:
本頻道不握有任何音樂所有權，亦無任何營利，一切僅為推廣用途。音樂所有權歸原始創作者所有。請支持正版。

Copyright Info:
Be aware this channel is for promotion purposes only without any illegal profit. All music's ownership belongs to the original creators.
Please support the original creator.

すべての権利は正当な所有者/作成者に帰属します。あなたがこの音楽（または画像）の作成者で、この動画に使用されたくない場合はメッセージまたはこのYoutubeチャンネルの概要のメールアドレスにご連絡ください。私はすぐに削除します。

如果你喜歡我的影片，不妨按下喜歡和訂閱，你的支持就是我創作的最大原動力！
If you like my videos, please click like and subscribe! Thx :)

粉絲團隨時獲得最新訊息！
Check my Facebook page for more information!
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

中文翻譯 / Chinese Translation :
https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=5269021

英文翻譯 / English Translation :
https://genius.com/Genius-english-translations-aimer-wonderland-english-translation-lyrics

日文歌詞 / Japanese Lyrics :
迷いの森にあるほんとう　探しに行く月のひかり
羊歯を踏んで足を濡らして　ひたりほとり夏の小道

よく笑って泣いて見つめあって　おそるおそる恋に堕ちた
ふたり歩き出した違う方へ　呼び合う声だけもどかしく
find me in the wonderland

そろそろ手を汚して　自分の欲しいものを　追いかけてみる
みつあみをほどいて　同じ星を齧る　ふたりになる

寂しがって夜になって　まだ明るい夢のほとり
食べかけで残した心だって　ここから始まるうたになる

世界は君のものさ、どこへ行こうか、貴方は笑う
踏み外してみようか、後ろめたさが私を誘う
find me in the wonderland

どうしたって　生まれ変わるほどの　強い意志が必要だわ
慎重ないのちだった　私だけじゃ道は見つからない

星を数え繋ぎ合わせ　まだ知らない夏の星座
見つめあって泣いて朝になって　ここから始まる物語

もう一人じゃないのよ、夢のようでしょ、私は歌う
寂しさはひるがえり旗の元へと二人は集う
何も思い通りにならないことが始まったから
踏み外してみようか、目隠し鬼の手の鳴る方へ
in your wonderland

あなたが迷う場所に　あかりを灯すために
花束一つ抱いて　りりしく笑いましょう

もう一人じゃないのよ、とても怖いね、幸せなんて
寂しさはひるがえり旗の元へと二人は集う
世界は君のものさ、手が届いてあなたがいて
踏み外してみようか、愛するひとが私を誘う
find me in the wonderland
in your wonderland

綺麗な吐息になって
あなたの歌をうたって

中文歌詞 / Chinese Lyrics :
皎潔的月光為我照亮此行、於迷幻之森捕獵真心
踩踏著草蕨、潤濕了雙足，行於令人陶醉的夏日小徑岸邊

曾互相歡笑、哭泣、注視彼此，才使得我們惶恐地墜入愛戀
卻漸漸步入相異路途，竟連呼喊之聲都令人無比焦躁
請步入仙境尋覓迷失的我吧

雙手漸漸開始沾染污穢，試著放縱自身索求慾望
解開扎起的髮辮，成為共食星斗的戀人，相濡以沫

寂寞的心、鋪張的夜色，仍遊走於璀璨的夢的畔邊
早已被啃咬殘缺的心，將自此幻化為歌謠

「你已擁有了全世界，我們要去哪呢？」你莞爾而笑
「要不試著背離正道呢？」罪惡感正如此略誘著我
請步入仙境尋覓孤單的我吧

尚須一份不論如何都欲潰爛重生的強烈意志
曾嚴謹拘束的生命，卻僅自身無法尋見方向

細數繁星、相相連繫，嘗試探尋尚不知悉的夏季星座
彼此相視而泣直至天明，兩人的故事自此展開

「我已不再孤身一人，就彷彿夢一般對吧？」我唱著
寂寥的心隨風飄揚，使彼此相遇於同面旗下
乃因不如己意才使得兩人的生命交織展開
不妨背離正道、作個矇眼鬼循向掌鳴之處
步向有你所處的仙境

僅為了在你迷失之地，綻亮一絲光芒
我將為此獻上花束，兩人一同凜然而笑吧

「我已不再孤身一人，但這份幸福仍會讓人感到恐懼吧？」
寂寥的心隨風飄揚，使彼此相遇於同面旗下
「你已擁有了全世界。」向著觸手可及的你說著
「要不試著背離正道呢？」心愛之人如此略誘著我
請步入仙境尋覓重生的我吧
在那僅有兩人的仙境

化作絢麗的吐息
唱著屬於你的歌謠

英文歌詞 / English Lyrics :
Within a forest of delusion, I search for truth
The light of the moon illuminating my hunt
I step over ferns, my feet becoming wet
The water puddling on the edge of a summer path

Having shared laughter, tears, and gazes between us
Warily, cautiously, I fell in love
Along the separate paths the two of us walked
Is vexingly, only the sound of our voices calling to each other
Find me in the wonderland

Before long, my hands grow dirty
As I chase after that which my self desirеs
My braid becoming undone
We bitе down into the same star, and become a pair

A lonesome, solitary night arrives
The shore of dreams still brightly lit
A heart is left half-eaten and tossed aside
From here forth begins a transformation into song

This world is your plaything, and wherever I go
You are there, laughing
Should I try and step off the path, the unease shall beckon to me
Find me in the wonderland

Even if I must be reborn anew
I cannot go on without a strong, unshakeable will
My life has been a cautious, prudent one
And thus, only I am unable to find a path

Counting the stars, connecting them together
Into an as-yet-unknown summer constellation
Gazing at each other, I cry, and morning comes
From here forth begins a story

I'm no longer on my own, aren't I? Isn't this like a dream? I sing
Desolation flutters in the wind, and we meet at the base of its flag
Since nothing is beginning to go as I had expected
I shall try and step off the path, to the source of the hunter's clap
In your wonderland

For the sake of kindling a light in the place you wander, lost
You held a bouquet in your arms, chivalrously, let's have a laugh

I'm no longer on my own
It is incredibly frightening, about happiness
Desolation flutters in the wind, and we meet at the base of its flag
This world belongs to you, I reach out my hand and you are there
As I step off of the path, my beloved beckons to me
Find me in the wonderland
In your wonderland

Becoming a beautiful breath
Singing a song about you

《夜の国》
トリル / Trill / 顫音
作詞 / Lyricist：aimerrhythm
作曲 / Composer：飛内将大
編曲 / Arranger：飛内将大、 玉井健二
歌 / Singer：Aimer
翻譯：CH（CH Music Channel）
意譯：CH（CH Music Channel）
English Translation: Genius Lyrics

背景 / Background - "Yuru no Kuni" scene :
https://i.imgur.com/qOHDm0q.png

上傳你的字幕吧！/ Submit your subtitles here!
https://forms.gle/MSsAM2WHpT31UuUh8

版權聲明:
本頻道不握有任何音樂所有權，亦無任何營利，一切僅為推廣用途。音樂所有權歸原始創作者所有。請支持正版。

Copyright Info:
Be aware this channel is for promotion purposes only without any illegal profit. All music's ownership belongs to the original creators.
Please support the original creator.

すべての権利は正当な所有者/作成者に帰属します。あなたがこの音楽（または画像）の作成者で、この動画に使用されたくない場合はメッセージまたはこのYoutubeチャンネルの概要のメールアドレスにご連絡ください。私はすぐに削除します。

如果你喜歡我的影片，不妨按下喜歡和訂閱，你的支持就是我創作的最大原動力！
If you like my videos, please click like and subscribe! Thx :)

粉絲團隨時獲得最新訊息！
Check my Facebook page for more information!
https://www.facebook.com/chschannel/

中文翻譯 / Chinese Translation :
https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=5264734

英文翻譯 / English Translation :
https://genius.com/Genius-english-translations-aimer-trill-english-translation-lyrics

日文歌詞 / Japanese Lyrics :
かすれた声のまま　消えた君は帰らないから
冷たい夜空のよう　闇の中　滲んでゆくこと
散らかったおもちゃや　吐き捨てたどろんこさえも
美しく輝く星屑を探してたんだね？

ミッドナイトにカスタネットを　どうかするくらい鳴らして
It’s all rightとか　いっそcryとか　どうかしてるから言わないで
10日前から　こんな毎日　過ごした程度で怖がって
Only oneのLonely night　眠れないまま

揺れるトレモロのように囁く言葉が
失くした記憶の灯火を　そっと胸の奥で揺らめかせて
平気なんて嘘ばかりで
君は幻の翼で空に浮かんで　得意げな顔でおどける
ふいにふりしぼる　その笑顔が　さよならの合図なんだと　わかっていた

明日になれば　また　この空は違って見えるかな？
大人になれば　ただ　目を閉じて眠ってしまうかな？
繋がれた鎖や　せわしない時計の針が
美しく輝く星屑を連れて行くんだね

交差点から高架線まで　いっそライトは消し去って
It’s all rightとか　いっそcryとか　どうかしてるから言わないで
通り過ぎてく　こんな毎日　過ごしてばっかじゃ　ダメだって
Only oneのLonely night　聞こえてるかな？

君は瞬きと共に過ぎてく時間も　遠くから見てると微笑んで
夜がつきつける　その明日を　あの日見た絵本のように　愛していて

揺れるトレモロの夜にきらめく雫が　集めた奇跡を音にして
ずっと憧れてた　夢見ていた　おやすみの合図のように
そして　思い出は二人の音を結んで　途切れないトリル奏でる
夜がつきつける　その明日を　あの日見た絵本のように
君を打ちつける　その涙も　朝を待つ世界のように　愛していて

愛していて

中文歌詞 / Chinese Lyrics :
就算用嘶啞的聲音叫喊，但早已離去的你也回不來了啊
猶如冰冷刺骨的夜晚，漸漸滲入黑夜的死寂
但不論是四處散落的玩具，亦或被吐出口的泥濘
也曾探尋著美麗又璀璨生輝的星塵吧？

午夜時分的響板們啊，請盡你們所能地響徹鳴奏吧
「已經沒事了」、「盡情哭泣吧」，讓人難受就請別再說了
自十天前開始，每日都如此虛度光陰令我感到膽怯
在這孤單的無法入睡的夜晚，徹夜未眠

夜裡紛飛著，彷彿震音般的喃喃細語
幾時曾遺落的記憶燈火，靜靜地在這內心深處搖曳渲染
你總是撒下和煦平靜的謊言安撫此心
你展著虛幻的羽翼在空中翱翔，一臉得意地作伴嬉戲
不經意地竭盡哭喊，但我知道的啊，你那強顏歡笑，正是象徵離別的信號

倘若到了明天，還能看見這片不同的天空嗎？
倘若成了大人，閉上雙眼就能夠入眠了嗎？
但緊緊相繫的鎖鏈，亦或急忙奔走的時針
仍會帶著絢麗耀眼的繁星離去吧

自十字路口到高架鐵道，索性將所有光芒都抹去吧
「已經沒事了」、「盡情哭泣吧」，讓人難受就請別再說了
總是如此虛度光陰地度過每一日可不行啊
在這孤單的形單影隻的夜晚，你能聽見嗎？

與你共度的時光轉瞬即逝，但你仍會自遙遠的彼方面帶微笑守望
「哪怕漫漫長夜迎面而來、待至明日，仍將如那一天的繪本所描繪般，深愛著你。」

夜裡搖曳著，滴滴晶瑩剔透、熠熠生輝的震音，猶如匯聚而成的奇蹟樂章
我一直憧憬著、日夜夢著那聲響，聽來彷彿告別夜晚的信號
彼此的回憶令二人的聲音緊緊相繫，響徹永不停歇的顫音合奏
「哪怕漫漫長夜迎面而來、待至明日，仍將如那一天的繪本所描繪般——」
「那簌簌滴落你面頰的淚水，仍將如靜待黎明的世界般——深愛著你。」

「深愛著你。」

英文歌詞 / English Lyrics :
My voice is still hoarse since you disappeared, never to return
Inside darkness resembling a cold night sky, tears blur my eyes
As even within scattered toys and spilled mud, I'm searching
For beautiful, shining pieces of stardust

Somehow I'm able to ring the castanets at midnight
Whether it's all right or whether I'd rather cry, I'll manage somehow, so don't tell me
Ten days ago, the thought of spending, every day like this terrified me
Only one lonely night, I'm still unable to sleep

Like a wavering tremolo, the whispered words
Make forgotten memories, as torches, gently flicker in the depths of my chest
The seeming composure is just a lie
Lifted by wings of fantasy, you float in the sky, joking with an elated expression on your face
That smile in which you put forth your entire heart, somehow, I understood it was a sign of farewell

If tomorrow comes, will this sky look different then, too?
If I grow up, will I be able to fall asleep just by closing my eyes?
The chains linking us together, and the rushing hand of the clock
Are taking away with them the beautifully shining stardust

From the intersection to the overhead train, I'd rather the light wipe it all away
Whether it's all right or whether I'd rather cry, I'll manage somehow, so don't tell me
Though day after day passes, I can't just spend each one like this
Only one lonely night, will you be able to hear me?

You're in the twinkling of the stars as well as the past we shared, watching over me from afar and smiling
"When night confronts you in the coming days, like in those picture books we read back then, I'll always love you"

In the night with a wavering tremolo, the sparkling droplets. Cause the gathered miracles to let out a sound
Forever full of longing, I fell into dreams, as if it were a sign of farewell

Then, our memories tie our sounds together, playing a trill that will never come to an end
"When night confronts you in the coming days, like in the picture books we read back then"
"Even those tears which drip heavily from you now. just like a world waiting for morning, I'll always love all of you"
"I'll always love all of you"

00:00 消化不良 (Bad Digestion)
03:51 白飯 (Baifun)
07:14 都有體會 (Experienced That)
11:15 鏡子 (Mirror)

Bad Digestion, a four-song EP from Taiwanese hip-hop innovator/songwriter Leo Wang, is a snapshot of life in Taiwan -- or anywhere, for that matter -- in 2021.

Let's start with a familiar everyday scene: you're sitting at a table, chopsticks in one hand, phone in the other. You're shoveling down food with one hand, swiping through emotion and drama with the other.

All this grease and gripe, day in, day out, will eventually get to you. This idea inspired the reggae-driven title track, on which Leo sings: "It's emotion, it's hunger, it's fate, all pulling on me / All these mundane things in the world -- I just want to break free."

Time for a digestif, then. The Taiwanese don't agree on everything, but they agree a meal is always good with white rice, or "Baifun." This cut is Leo's ode to Taiwan's great uniter, and his backing band feeds us a generous serving, dripping with funk.

When the world's hard to swallow, one can medicate, but one can also meditate, as Leo does on the last two songs. The space jazz-rock-infused "Experienced That" reminds us of our cosmic selves, as we are constantly pushed and pulled between positive and negative forces. "Mirror" closes the EP with a morsel of common wisdom worth remembering: when we look at other people, what we actually see is a reflection of ourselves.

-----
Bad Digestion is a release from KAO!INC., and was produced by Jerry Li, who also contributes on electric guitar, and features Adriano Moreira on drums, Eugene Yu (UG) on bass, Tseng-Yi Tseng on keyboard, and Minyen Hsieh on saxophones.

released June 24, 2021

-

1. 消化不良 (Bad Digestion)

作詞 Lyrics：王之佑 Leo Wang
作曲 Compose：王之佑 Leo Wang、高飛 Adriano Moreira
製作人 Producer：李權哲 Jerry Li
編曲 Arranger：高飛 Adriano Moreira、李權哲 Jerry Li
爵士鼓 Drums：高飛 Adriano Moreira
電貝斯 Bass：俞友楨 UG
主奏吉他 Lead Guitar：李權哲 Jerry Li
節奏吉他 Rhythm Guitar：高飛 Adriano Moreira
鋼琴/風琴 Piano/B3 Organ：曾增譯 Mike Tseng
合成器 Synth：李權哲 Jerry Li
打擊樂 Percussion：李權哲 Jerry Li
和聲 Background Vocals：王之佑 Leo Wang、李權哲 Jerry Li、王彥博 NOTBADYB
O.P.：顏社企業有限公司 KAO!INC.
S.P.：Sony Music Publishing（Pte）Ltd, Taiwan Branch
ISRC：TWI452100044


2. 白飯 (Baifun)

作詞 Lyrics：王之佑 Leo Wang
作曲 Compose：王之佑 Leo Wang、高飛 Adriano Moreira、俞友楨 UG
製作人 Producer：李權哲 Jerry Li
編曲 Arranger：高飛 Adriano Moreira、俞友楨 UG、李權哲 Jerry Li 、王昱辰 Yuchain Wang
爵士鼓 Drums：高飛 Adriano Moreira
電貝斯 Bass：俞友楨 UG
電吉他 Guitar：李權哲 Jerry Li
電鋼琴 Wurlitzer：曾增譯 Mike Tseng
電鋼琴 Fender Rhodes：李權哲 Jerry Li
打擊樂 Percussion：李權哲 Jerry Li
高音薩克斯風/次中音薩克斯風 Soprano/Tenor Saxophones：謝明諺 Minyen Hsieh
長號 Trombone：林庭揚 Brandon Lin
和聲 Background Vocals：王之佑 Leo Wang、李權哲 Jerry Li
O.P.：顏社企業有限公司 KAO!INC.
S.P.：Sony Music Publishing（Pte）Ltd, Taiwan Branch
ISRC：TWI452100045


3. 都有體會 (Experienced That)

作詞 Lyrics：王之佑 Leo Wang
作曲 Compose：王之佑 Leo Wang、高飛 Adriano Moreira、俞友楨 UG
製作人 Producer：李權哲 Jerry Li
編曲 Arranger：高飛 Adriano Moreira、俞友楨 UG、李權哲 Jerry Li
爵士鼓 Drums：高飛 Adriano Moreira
電貝斯 Bass：俞友楨 UG
電吉他/古典吉他 Electric/Nylon Guitars：李權哲 Jerry Li
電鋼琴/合成器 Electric Piano/Synthesizer：曾增譯 Mike Tseng
高音薩克斯風 Soprano Saxophone：謝明諺 Minyen Hsieh
O.P.：顏社企業有限公司 KAO!INC.
S.P.：Sony Music Publishing（Pte）Ltd, Taiwan Branch
ISRC：TWI452100046


4. 鏡子 (Mirror)

作詞 Lyrics：王之佑 Leo Wang
作曲 Compose：王之佑 Leo Wang、高飛 Adriano Moreira、俞友楨 UG、曾增譯 Mike Tseng
製作人 Producer：李權哲 Jerry Li
編曲 Arranger：俞友楨 UG、李權哲 Jerry Li
爵士鼓 Drums：高飛 Adriano Moreira
電貝斯 Bass：俞友楨 UG
電吉他 Guitar：李權哲 Jerry Li
鋼琴 Piano：曾增譯 Mike Tseng
高音薩克斯風/次中音薩克斯風 Soprano/Tenor Saxophones：謝明諺 Minyen Hsieh
長號 Trombone：林庭揚 Brandon Lin
和聲 Background Vocals：李權哲 Jerry Li、王彥博 NOTBADYB
O.P.：顏社企業有限公司 KAO!INC.
S.P.：Sony Music Publishing（Pte）Ltd, Taiwan Branch
ISRC：TWI452100047


拍攝/影像合成 Video Production：呂儀婷 51

-

Leo王《消化不良》已全面上架：https://rock-mobile.lnk.to/leobd

｜數位平台｜
iTunes & Apple Music
YouTube Music
Spotify
KKBOX
MyMusic
friDay音樂
LINE Music
JOOX
QQ音樂
酷狗
酷我
bandcamp

-

｜實體通路｜
顏社官方商店
https://kao-inc.com/product/baddigestion
博客來
誠品
五大唱片
佳佳唱片(中華、漢口）
奮死唱片
小白兔唱片
元氣唱片行
M@M Records
海肯零七 Jr. 黑卡雜誌工作室
TCRC Records
鼓樓唱片
老頭唱片


#Leo王 #消化不良