關於 2020 new words ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Happiest Season 求婚好意外（Clea DuVall，2020）
Country : USA
Score : 6.5/10
被媒體譽為第一部主流商業電影公司製作的同志佳節電影，導演Clea DuVall說這部電影多少反應了她的個人經驗，她曾經是那個被女友帶回家的「朋友」，她自己也曾帶「朋友」回家過節。講述一對女同志愛侶在聖誕節返鄉假期中，與家人之間所發生的一連串衝突與趣事，看似是部傳統的浪漫喜劇，實則增添不少當代文化的韻味，與性別議題的反思，也帶入了原生家庭無可避免的内化衝突主題。片中兩人的好友曾精準談論出櫃的感受：「My dad kicked me out of the house and didn't talk to me for 13 years after I told him. Everybody's story is different. There's your version and my version, and everything in between. But the one thing all of those stories have in common is that moment right before you say those words. When your heart is racing and you don't know what's coming next. That moment's really terrifying! And once you say those words, you can't un-say them. A chapter has ended, and a new one's begun. You have to be ready for that. You can't do it for anyone else. 」有點尖銳卻無比真實一針見血道出同志的内心糾結與渴望自由地愛與被愛，當今現下 自由平等博愛 不該只是口號, 而是普世價值了！

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”

That's my bff / first paying client since October 2020...I don't think I need to say much, this picture says a thousand words!

She ditched all commercial products, fully committed to a whole new #selfcare journey. She only uses my products and follows all the skincare routine I suggested religiously, always wears sunscreen and a hat when she goes out......she listens and she makes things happen!! I'm so very proud of her!!!

You want improvement like her? You can't rely on just the products, it's a commitment, and a whole lot of effort!!!

It's never too late to pick up the pieces and rebuild yourself!

#HealthyLifeStyle #Commitment #yoga #SkinTone #Improvement #WrinkleReduced #Effort #GuaSha #OatmealScrub #TurmericMask #EggwhiteMask @prudencebyprudence

#ホロライブ #apex 　＃デビメタ

vs　@Towa Ch. 常闇トワ
🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊「今、相手○○キルだよ！」とかいう鳩禁止🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊
今日は１４時からリスナー参加型で１００キル耐久🔥
チームで相手より早く合計１００キル達成したほうの勝ちだよ！
１００キル達成したらVC ONにして勝利を告げよう🌱
以下のルールを守って参加してね！

🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊 Dove ban 🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊 saying "I'm killing your opponent right now!"
Today from 14:00 with listener participation type 100 kill endurance 🔥
The winner is the one who achieved a total of 100 kills earlier than the opponent in the team!
If you achieve 100 kills, turn on VC and tell the victory 🌱
Please follow the rules below and participate!
サムネはトワぴがつくってくれたよ～❤


ルール：
1.「VT_robocosan」にフレンドを12時までに送ってね！
​[EN] General Rule: 1. To join Roboco-san's team, send friend request to "VT_robocosan" BEFORE 12:00(JST)(this is the right id base on what she said on twitter)

2．1回入れたら抜けてね！1人1試合まで！！
​[EN] Generral Rule: 2. One player can ONLY JOIN ONCE. for the smooth game play, please leave the team voluntarily after the each match.

3.味方に暴言を吐かないでね！
​[EN] General Rule: 3. NO BAD WORDS TOWARD THE TEAMMATE

4．「チーム」の合計キルだよ！
※チャンピオンとったら【＋10キル】
​[EN] General Rule: 4. We are competintg here the "Team's total Kill" ※ when becoming champion, +10 kill to the score

5.枠が空いたら参加してね！
※ロボ子だけボイスチャットついてます！
（みんなの声は聞こえないよ！注意してね！）
​[EN] General Rule: 5. When Team has the vacant, please join! ※Roboco-san will use Voice Chat (On stream, you can only hear Roboco-san's voice! please be informed!)

6.先に100キルした方は配信終了してOK（100キルするまで終われない）
​[EN] And again, NO SPOILER AT TOWA'S CHAT. let's enjoy
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
＃ロボ子生放送 でツイートしてね💜
本ゲームは © 2020 Electronic Arts Inc. の
承諾を得た上で配信・収益化を行なっております
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

🎂誕生日記念グッズ販売中🎂
イコモチ先生書き下ろしの抱き枕カバー!!
合わせてKU100収録のいちゃあま彼女添い寝風30分ASMR!!
そして待望の涙眼鏡眼鏡が販売中✨
度ありが欲しい方は眼鏡を持ち込みしてレンズを交換してもらってね！
全部セットも単品も買えるのでぜひチェックしてね❤
▼販売ページはこちら▼
http://hololive.booth.pm/items/2976943

🎂Birthday memorial goods now on sale🎂
A new pillow cover written by Ikomochi!
This is the first time I've had a chance to show off my KU100 collection of 30 minute ASMRs!
And the long-awaited tear-glasses glasses are now on sale✨!
If you want glasses with lenses, bring in your glasses and have the lenses replaced!
You can buy the whole set or individual items, so please check it out❤.
▼海外からのご購入はこちら▼
Purchase from overseas is here
https://www.geekjack.net/robocosan/language/en https://shop.geekjack.net/collections/roboco-san (mirror)

从海外购买就在这里
https://www.geekjack.net/robocosan/language/zh
------------------


🦐NEW
3周年記念ASMRボイス＆ぶるー先生(https://twitter.com/bgfb0321)描きおろしグッズ...​
https://hololive.booth.pm/items/2788428​

ループBGM投稿したよ！
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3jig...
*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:
▼バレンタインボイス販売開始！Link
https://hololive.booth.pm/items/2722499

はろ～ぼ！ホロライブ0期生、バーチャルロボットのロボ子さんです！
ゲームと歌が好きです！
ほぼ毎日配信！よくゲリラハイシンもするので、チャンネル登録・通知ONにして遊びに来てね

・Twitter https://twitter.com/robocosan
・Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDqI2jOz0weumE8s7paEk6g

▪ボクのメンバーになりませんか？🌟
プランは2つあります！主な違いはASMR配信です。
かわいいスタンプも沢山使えたり、バッジが付くので気になる人はぜひ入ってみてね💛

There are two plans! The main difference is ASMR delivery.
You can use a lot of cute stamps and badges are attached, so if you are interested, please come in 💛

★登録/Registration→ https://t.co/hcjxHtMqOy?amp=1
★限定アーカイブリスト/Limited archive list
→ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF54qiUa9cTuOKngczTOAniEU0QbVge5h

*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:

🎄NEW!!クリスマスボイス販売中🎄
クリスマスにボクとの待ち合わせ…
甘酸っぱい空間をいたずらっ娘のボクと堪能しませんか？
配信より距離が近いです💓
是非きいてください♡
→https://hololive.booth.pm/items/2619576

*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:

⚡約束⚡
・伝書鳩をしない、他の配信者さんに迷惑はかけちゃいけません
・話題に出ていない配信者の名前を出さない
・新規さんが困るので内輪ネタは控える
・スパムや荒らし行為はしない。反応しないでブロック通報で無視してください

みんなが楽しく配信を見れるように協力お願いします！

⚡ Promise ⚡
・ Don't bother other distributors who don't play homing pigeons.
・ Do not give the name of the distributor who is not mentioned
・ Because new people are in trouble, refrain from inner ring material
・ Do not spam or vandalize. Please do not respond and ignore it in the block report

Please cooperate so that everyone can enjoy watching the distribution!

*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:

⚡スーパーチャット⚡
スーパーチャットは配信中に名前を呼ぶことができない場合もあります。
配信の最後にスパチャ読みをします！いつもありがとう💛


⚡ Super Chat ⚡
Super Chat may not be able to call your name during delivery.
At the end of the delivery, we will read the spacha! Thank you always 💛


*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:

～歌枠コピペ用～
~For Copy paste use, please use the following stamps to join rooting me singing!~
🤖🔌充電中　®〰©　®️❣️©️
⚡🔋⚡🔋⚡🔋⚡🔋⚡
📡🌸📡🌸📡🌸📡🌸

*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:
💓thank you💓
・お部屋仕立て
えがきぐりこ(GurikoEgaki)
・OP/ED
Music:　たらこ(@tarakofever) /たいよー(@Taiyo_c)
Movie: rar(@rar_gs) / 大麦(@oomugi839)
・配信画面
ナナメ(@7name_)
*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:*:;:

ホロライブ公式YouTubeチャンネルでもオリジナルコンテンツ配信中！
▷https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJFZ...
ホロライブ公式Twitter▷ https://twitter.com/hololivetv
ホロライブ公式サイト▷ https://www.hololive.tv/

＜目次＞
0:00 オープニング
1:24 デザイナーとブランドについての概要
4:59 謎に包まれていた人物像
7:42 ジェニー・メイレンスについて
10:12 カレンダータグについて

後編の動画はこちらから！
■ 【なぜ偉大？】Maison Margielaの過去を日本一分かりやすく解説します。
https://youtu.be/wj5iJr_b-5M

■ We Margiela マルジェラと私たち(字幕版)の映画はこちらから！
https://www.amazon.co.jp/We-Margiela-%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%83%A9%E3%81%A8%E7%A7%81%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A1-%E5%AD%97%E5%B9%95%E7%89%88-%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%83%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9/dp/B07VQ8Z5KB

＜着用アイテム＞
Outer
■ LIDNM - coming soon…
最新情報はこちらから！情報解禁お楽しみに！
https://www.instagram.com/lidnm_official_/

T-shirt
■ WYM LIDNM - HEAVY WEIGHT BASIC BIG-TEE
¥2,200 WHITE Mサイズ着用
https://zozo.jp/shop/mono-mart/goods/52454290/


ーーーーーーーーーーーーー

LIDNMの公式サイトはこちらから!!
https://lidnm-store.com/?utm_source=youtube.com&utm_medium=youtube.com&utm_campaign=YouTubedefaulttop

ZOZO限定プチプラブランドWYM(ウィム)はこちらから!!
https://zozo.jp/brand/wymlidnm/

ーーーーーーーーーーーーー

《Instagram》
https://www.instagram.com/genji_official_/

《げんじのコーデはこちら！》
https://lidnm-store.com/contents/coordinate_list.php?utm_source=youtube.com&utm_medium=youtube.com&utm_campaign=YouTubegenjicode

《お世話になってる美容師さんはこちら！》
https://www.instagram.com/signal8756/?hl=ja

動画内の画像は以下を引用しました。

Maison Margielaの麗しき世界観　 | Switch INTERNATIONAL
https://www.switch-int.com/blog/27103/

「サカイ」はなぜ100億円ブランドになれたのか | WWDJAPAN
https://www.wwdjapan.com/articles/4287

マルジェラ 92SS~95AW デザイナー『Martin Margiela』の歴史 | 369blog
https://369blog.work/maisonmartinmargielacollection2/

ディーゼルから約250ページに及ぶ“回顧録” - ブランドの歴史からアーカイブのデニム写真まで - ファッションプレス
https://www.fashion-press.net/news/55623

マルジェラの素顔に迫るドキュメンタリー『We Margiela マルジェラと私たち』 - i-D
https://i-d.vice.com/jp/article/9k4j3e/we-margiela-documentary-movie-on-martin-margiela

Fashion World Studies Margiela’s Looks and His Next Move - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/fashion/shows/02MARGIELA.html

【まとめ】HYKEのヘリテージと進化、ノースなど歴代コラボを振り返る (FASHIONSNAP.COM)
https://news.line.me/issue/oa-fashionsnap/105eda60d8db

前編：ファッション史に最も影響を与えたブランド「Maison Margiela(メゾン マルジェラ)」の誕生から1999年を遡る。 | GXOMENS Blog｜大人のいい男を目指すメンズファッションマガジン
https://blog.gxomens.com/maison-martin-margiela-history/

Martin Margiela/マルタンマルジェラ 90s 白タグ カーコート | DonDonDown YOKOHAMA
https://ddd4524.buyshop.jp/items/32075211

さようなら、モード界の帝王　有名デザイナーのラガーフェルド氏が死去 - Sputnik 日本
https://jp.sputniknews.com/photo/201902205940911/

ジル サンダー - 2020/21年 秋冬コレクション｜Fashion｜madame FIGARO.jp（フィガロジャポン）
https://madamefigaro.jp/fashion/collection/202021aw/milan/jilsander/

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Greatest Fashion Collective of All Time, the Antwerp Six | Grailed
https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/master-class-antwerp-six

不遇の死から20年…ヴェルサーチの創設者にまつわる8つの真実
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/jp/entertainment/celebrity/gallery/g1532/gianni-versace-facts-american-crime-story-180112-hns/

Maison Margiela |脱構築で世界に影響を与えたブランド - メンズファッションブランドサイト「gensuru.com」
http://mensfashion-brand.com/maison-margiela

世界のアート＆デザイン大学１８：アントワープ王立芸術アカデミー
https://vantan-vip.jp/blog/detail.php?id=6764

アントワープ王立芸術アカデミーとは？【解説】Antwerp Royal Academy | 369blog
https://369blog.work/antwerproyalacademyoffinearts/

アントワープ・シックス | VISITFLANDERS
https://www.visitflanders.com/ja/themes/belgian-fashion/belgian-fashion-history/the-antwerp-six/

アントワープの6人:the Antwerp Six 意味・用語解説 - ファッションプレス
https://www.fashion-press.net/words/1904

代官山で1館まるごと「ジャンポール・ゴルチエ」。めったに出回らないオートクチュールを目にするチャンス！
https://www.pen-online.jp/news/fashion/gaultier/1

ジャンポール・ゴルチエが語る現代ファッションの明暗 | WWDJAPAN
https://www.wwdjapan.com/articles/944143

「ジャンポール・ゴルチエ」2020年春夏オートクチュール・コレクション | WWDJAPAN
https://www.wwdjapan.com/articles/1018319

映画『We Margiela マルジェラと私たち』公式サイト
https://wemargiela.espace-sarou.com/?site=818

《マルジェラ》を支えた功労者、ジェニー・メイレンス | Them magazine
https://themmagazine.net/editors_voice/2017/6523/

マルタン・マルジェラの影の立役者 ジェニー・メイレンスとは (1/6) - T JAPAN:The New York Times Style Magazine 公式サイト
https://www.tjapan.jp/fashion/17198507

メゾンマルジェラの共同創設者、ジェニーメイレンスの訃報-WELT
https://www.welt.de/icon/mode/article166614522/Abschied-von-der-grossen-Unbekannten-der-Mode.html

Martin Margiela（マルタン マルジェラ）のアーティザナル作品
http://dollar.jp.net/blog/20161127

マルジェラのカレンダータグについてご紹介！
https://www.kind.co.jp/chayamachi/archives/13934

JENNY MEIRENS, DE VROUW ACHTER MARTIN MARGIELA - Knack-magazines op pc - Knack Weekend
https://weekend.knack.be/lifestyle/magazine/jenny-meirens-de-vrouw-achter-martin-margiela/article-normal-817947.html?cookie_check=1626421102

Jenny Meirens - 1 Granary
https://1granary.com/interviews/business-insiders/jenny-meirens/

Martin Margiela: el diseñador al que nadie ha visto desde 1997
https://elle.mx/moda/2018/06/06/martin-margiela-disenador-anonimo

歴史的デザイナー交代劇も！ 2018年ファッション業界の衝撃トピック40
https://www.elle.com/jp/fashion/g25697473/2018-fashion-most-impactive-topics-181228-hns/

DRIES VAN NOTEN |エスニックでフォークロアなデザイン - メンズファッションブランドサイト「gensuru.com」
http://mensfashion-brand.com/dries-van-noten

効果音：OtoLogic

お問い合わせはこちらまで
d.ogawa1111@gmail.com

じゃあʕ•ᴥ•ʔ

#ファッション #fashion #メンズ #服 #プチプラ #UNIQLO #GU #ブランド #コーデ #お洒落

Official Music Video 04/13/2021
https://youtu.be/7oXGX4mx2KM

Listen Now https://venice.lnk.to/Faith
Spotify http://spoti.fi/3aVj3XV
Apple Music http://apple.co/37RESG6
QQ Music http://bit.ly/3aWjHEQ
Netease Music http://bit.ly/2NJSnR7
More http://www.alrocco.com/music

"All I gotta have is Faith, all I gotta believe is me."

Faith, a force beyond the physical. Believing in the intangibles of hope, believing in the unlocked powers within. Having the acceptance, the patience, the grit to be aware, honest, to overcome, and to learn to truly trust the core energy of our truest selves, by letting everything else go.

The 2020 pandemic has taken a big part from all of us, yet it has also given us the gift of awareness and the time to better ourselves. Produced by Yung DZA, Al Rocco speaks on his recent spiritual transformation in his newest 2021 single “Faith”, to support and encourage those feeling lost or presently struggling a new perspective to trust everything thatʼs happening right now is exactly where we need to be and everything we need for us to make the changes we desire comes from the power within us. Take your leap of Faith.

@alrocco
http://instagram.com/alrocco
http://weibo.com/alrocco
http://facebook.com/alrocco
http://twitter.com/alrocco_
http://tiktok.com/@a1rocco

“我要拥有的就是信仰，我要相信的就是我⾃己。”

信仰是⼀种超越物质的⼒量。相信希望的无形，相信内在还未发掘的能量。 去除⼼心中杂念，变得包容、耐⼼心、真诚，拥有自我意识觉醒的勇气，去克 服，去学会真正信任来⾃自内在真我的核⼼能量。

2020年我们的生活被疫情所占据，但同时也给了我们更多时间去思考，去成为更好的自己。由Yung DZA制作伴奏，Al Rocco在他2021年最新单曲 “Faith” 中讲述了了他近期精神世界的转变，以⽀持和鼓励那些迷失方向或是正处于自我挣扎的人们—帮助他们以一种新的角度去思考，去相信目前发生的一切正是我们所需要的，去相信是我们内在的力量使得我们作出改变。让信仰带领你⻜跃。

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
All I gotta believe is me
我要相信的就是我⾃己

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
Now watch me push this weight
现在看我突破极限

Give it everything
付出⼀一切
Feel it everything
感受一切
Feel it in the pain
感受痛苦
When the pain gains
当痛苦加剧
Let the motherfucker ache
就让它痛吧
Let the motherfucker break
让它破碎吧
Give it up
放弃⼀切
Fuck it up
去它们的吧
Got no love
不需要爱
Push it till you motherfuckin' great
不断努⼒直到做⼤
Till there’s no more pain
直到再也没有痛
No more hate no more fake
没有恨 没有虚假
Till there’s no more lies
直到再也没有谎言
No more cries no more ache
没有眼泪 没有痛苦
Man I'm tired of the devil
我早已厌倦了那些恶魔
And I'm tired being a rebel
也厌倦了做一个反叛者
Man I'm tired and I've cried
我厌倦了 我哭泣过
And I've died to a level
我已死过一次 现在重生了
Super Saiyan God flexing yah
像超级赛亚人⼀样
I got my God blessings yah
我有上帝的庇佑
Thankful for the hard lessons yah
感谢曾经的磨难
Giving me what I've been asking for
让我得到现在的所有
What’s the main game mane aim for the change
重头戏是什么? 兄弟 是为了改变
What’s the main game ain’t the money or the fame
重头戏是什么? 不是金钱也不是名誉
But the growth from the pain and the chill from the rain
疼痛让人成长 ⻛雨让人冷静
From the dirt of the grain to the skies of the great-ness
始于尘埃 终⾄天际
If you wanna be the best you gotta beat the best at fighting yourself
战胜自己 你才可以成为最好的那个
Look yourself in the mirror
看镜子里的人
You your own competition ain't nobody else
最大的对手不是别人 正是⾃己
And I know I will win when all my sins and my ego are no longer felt
当感受不到罪恶和自负的时候 我就知道我赢了
I pray to God every night to give me strength
每晚我向上帝祈祷 给我⼒量
I couldn’t have done it without his help Faith
如果没有信仰 我做不到这⼀切

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
All I gotta believe is me
我要相信的就是我⾃己

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
Now watch me push this weight
现在看我突破极限

I ain't gonna be that motherfucker found floating on the lake
我不会成为那些随波逐流的人
Gotta keep on moving gotta keep on moving weight
不断向前 永不停止 突破⾃己
Time is money gotta stay alive stay awake
时间就是⾦钱 保持活⼒保持清醒
Look out for snakes they come in different races different faces
当⼼小人 他们有着各种嘴脸
Different places all around the world they come for you and your girl and your fam and your pearls
他们存在于世上的各个地⽅ 企图接近你、你的爱人、你的家人
以及你的财富
Nothing penetrates whenever I generate
但没有什么能影响到我
Meditate to a higher level while I medicate
通过冥想达到另一个境界
Gotta do my best with my time while the heaven waits
在我所拥有的时间里 尽力做到最好 即便终有⼀天我将去天堂
Only God can judge me waiting at the heaven gates like
只有上帝可以站在天堂门前审判我
Huh huh huh huh
Gotta do my best before the day I gotta rest like
在那一天到来前 必须做到最好的⾃己
Huh huh huh huh
Gotta put the past in the past and the rest don’t matter
让过去留在过去 其他的都不重要
Those who mind don’t matter
不在乎其他⼈的看法
Those who matter don’t mind
只在乎身边支持我的人
Everybody got the same time same day same night same air same light same life
每个人都曾经历过某个同样的时刻，同样的一天，同样的晚上，
呼吸同样的空气，看同样的光，过着同样的生活
And I'm just talking the truth
我只是在陈述事实罢了
Nobody be wanting to hear all that truth
即使没有人想要听到这些实话
Hidden in the pain
他们逃避痛苦
Confusion in the game
迷失在游戏
Fear for the future
对未来充满恐惧
They loot
他们掠夺着
Motherfucker think
好好想清楚
Before you gonna shoot
在你开枪之前

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
All I gotta believe is me
我要相信的就是我⾃己

Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
Faith
信仰
All I gotta have is faith
我要拥有的就是信仰
Now watch me push this weight
现在看我突破极限