關於 better xin ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

大马值得Follow的 #知识型YouTuber👍！

✅ Better Leaf 好葉：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChjHWpmNm-3HbLFkQ3TPXaA
✅ 五件小事：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5TSUHDDGa8mQ1aS_S6EQnA
✅ Ryuuu TV / 學日文看日本：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCZS6YMggfiRV_U7NuiNNsg
✅ 锦堂生活空间：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8_o9aFpknEMck7D43E5Zww
✅ 为成年 HighSchool. my：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbAb4AkuZOY3OdgEB4IvRGg
✅ BBK Network：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0SJCeL0QG4BH_KQALjQE-Q
✅ 大包子：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8IYdBcs9QRoVGTwphBRjSg
✅ Anjoe Koh：https://www.youtube.com/user/anjoekoh
✅ Cheryl Lee Xin Yi：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgJebfVXMRvlnycOiTSc7eQ
✅ Fish阿鱼：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs1UhtdLJ2wFw_MVvJnhbXQ

[SUMMER FAVORITES] VitC serum, KCN yêu thích mới; son 3CE và Hera mới không dính ra khẩu trang 🎉🎉

Xin chào các bạn,
Mùa hè lại là mùa mà mình trồi lên để viết một cái gì đó cho page rồi lại lặn đi bơi lội trong sự lười biếng. Hôm nay, mình chia sẻ một số sản phẩm yêu thích gần đây khi trời chuyển nắng nóng ☀️

1/ KEM CHỐNG NẮNG NIVEA UV FACE SENSITIVE SUN ALLERGY PROTECTION (Bản cũ tên là Soothing Sensitive).
Sau khi phát hiện ra KCN hằng ngày ưa thích của mình là Shingmulnara Oxygen vừa thay bao bì, vừa (hình như) thay đổi chút công thức, mình muốn tìm kiếm 1 KCN hằng ngày khác để dùng, đề phòng em Shingmulnara có gì đó trục trặc. Và tada mình đã dùng thử Nivea Sensitive Sun Protection và rất rất ưng ý!!

- Chứa 6 màng lọc: Homosalate, Avobenzone, Octisalate, Univul T150, Tinosorb S, Ensulizole => chống nắng tốt toàn bộ UVB, UVA1, UVA2. Tuy nhiên, độ bền vững dưới nắng và an toàn cho da còn phải bàn luận thêm. Mình vẫn không dám dùng loại này khi phải ở trực tiếp dưới ánh nắng lâu, mình chỉ dùng hằng ngày với thời lượng tiếp xúc ánh nắng khoảng 20ph.

- Kết cấu: Chất kem dạng lotion không quá đặc cũng không chảy nên dễ bôi, dễ tán trên da. Tất nhiên nó không được mướt mịn như KCN Hàn Quốc nhưng chất kem thế này cũng quá tốt rồi. Sau khi bôi khoảng 10s, mình thấy chất kem có vẻ keo lại, bắt đầu cố định lên da, trở nên bám dính vào da tốt hơn, điều này khiến mình có kỳ vọng là nó sẽ bám tốt hơn mặt mình, ít bị dịch chuyển bởi khẩu trang :))

- Finish trên da: Em này sau khi bôi xong thì khô ráo khá nhanh trong môi trường điều hoà, tầm 5ph là mình đã thấy bớt ướt 70-80%, sau 10ph là thấy có thể tự tin makeup hoặc đeo khẩu trang được rồi, nhưng mình vẫn cẩn thận chờ 20ph sau khi bôi rồi mới chạm lên mặt. Hiệu ứng của nó khi khô ráo xong là căng bóng nhẹ, không phải kiểu bóng dầu mà bóng sương sương như có 1 filter mờ phủ lên mặt vậy, nhìn rất xinh luôn. Bạn nào da đẹp có thể thấy nó gần như 1 lớp kem lót trên da và giúp mình không cần phải makeup nữa. Da cứ kiểu glass skin mà không nhờn dính ấy, rất thích ❤️

- Độ lên tông: em này mình thấy lên tông nhẹ thôi, da bạn nào trắng sẽ thấy gần như không lên tông chút nào nha. Nó cũng không trắng đến nỗi da ngăm không dùng được. Bạn nào da ngăm thì có thể phủ nhẹ 1 lớp phần tối màu hơn ở viền khuôn mặt để trông da khoẻ mạnh hơn.

- Độ kiềm dầu: với người da dầu như mình thì nó không kiềm dầu mạnh đâu, gọi là da khô ráo hơn so với bình thường được 30ph hehe

- Độ bám: cái này thì thực sự khó nói, nhưng trộm vía mình thấy dùng nó ở dưới, lớp makeup bên trên bám dính lấy mặt có vẻ tốt hơn 1 chút?

- KCN không có hương liệu, ngoại trừ mùi cồn vì nó có alcohol denat, nhưng mùi này bay nhanh thôi.

Tóm lại, mình cho sản phẩm này 9/10. Rất thích hợp cho việc dùng hằng ngày, ngồi điều hoà. Nếu bảng màng lọc chống nắng bền vững hơn thì sẽ là 10/10 :))

===

2/ MISHA ASCORBIC ACID SPOT CORRECTING CONCENTRATE AMPOULE:

Dùng VitC serum vào buổi sáng là thói quen của mình, vì VitC là chất chống oxi hoá mạnh mẽ, dùng ban ngày trước KCN sẽ giúp trung hoà bớt một số tổn thương gây lên da từ các tác nhân môi trường, chưa kể VitC dạng Ascorbic Acid còn có thể trị thâm, làm sáng da và kích thích sản sinh collagen nữa ❤️

- Serum chứa 10% Vitamin C ở dạng Ascorbic Acid được nghiên cứu và chứng minh hiệu quả nhiều nhất. VitC của em này ban đầu là dạng bột, nằm 1 khoang riêng trong ống ampoule. Khi dùng, các bạn ấn mạnh vào vòi bơm 1 phát là phần bột VitC này được nhả vào dung dịch, rồi bạn lắc lọ ampoule vài cái để phần bột hoà tan vào với dung dịch. Bột VitC của Missha có vẻ rất mịn nên mình thấy dễ tan vào dung dịch. Trong dung dịch này có kha khá chất bổ béo cho da như: Niacinamide, Tranexamic Acid, Arbutin, Licorice Root Extract, Ceramide, Allantoin, Adenosine, Vitamin E... nói chung nhiều thành phần tập trung vào việc làm sáng, mờ thâm nhưng vẫn làm dịu da, không “tổng tấn công” mạnh quá dẫn đến làm da nhạy cảm đi.

- Kết cấu: Chất serum này lỏng như toner vậy đó các bạn ạ, rất dễ thấm và khô ráo nhanh, hợp mọi loại da, đặc biệt là da dầu.

- Khi bôi lên, mình không thấy da bị châm chích gì cả, có thể do da mình đã quen dùng retinoids, VitC rồi các loại tẩy da chết hoá học. Bạn nào da nhạy cảm vẫn cần patch test sản phẩm này trước ở 1 vùng da nhất định, chờ mấy hôm thấy ổn hẵng bôi toàn mặt nhé.

- Hiệu quả: trộm vía sau khi dùng khoảng gần 2 tuần, mình thấy da có vẻ trắng và đều màu hơn chút xíu. Hoặc đây có thể là hiệu quả còn sót lại từ em Missha VitC Ampoule bản Firming lọ to mà mình khen lần trước chăng? :)) Mình không chắc nữa vì các vấn đề về màu sắc da khá là khó để xác định hiệu quả, nhưng thực sự là mình có thấy da dạo này sáng sủa hơn.

- Serum này có làm mặt bị tối sầm đi không? Trải nghiệm của mình thì là không vì mình thấy khả năng thấm của nó tốt. Bạn nào thấy dùng VitC serum mà tự dưng 1 lúc sau mặt cứ xuống tông tối sầm vì nó không thấm được vào da thì có thể thử mẹo như: dùng một sản phẩm BHA/AHA có độ pH thấp trước làm bước đệm; dùng 1 layer toner Hyaluronic Acid lỏng nhẹ trước; hoặc đơn giản là đổi VitC serum 😅

- Điểm trừ lớn nhất của em này là vẫn chứa kha khá tinh dầu thiên nhiên tạo mùi. Dù mùi của nó trong sản phẩm thì không nồng nặc, không làm mũi mình khó chịu, nhưng cũng đủ tạo nên những nguy cơ da bị nhạy cảm đi, dần dần hình thành phản ứng kích ứng hoặc dị ứng. Nói chung là mong các hãng Hàn Quốc tem tém khoản hương liệu lại!

Giá em này không rẻ, 15ml nhỏ xíu nhưng mà cũng tầm 400K trở lên ở các shop, nên mình nghĩ bạn nào muốn tiết kiệm thì có thể dùng nó dạng spot treatment, chỉ bôi vào vùng da bị thâm, vùng da không đều màu chẳng hạn. Mình cho nó 8/10 điểm, trừ điểm vì giá và hương liệu :))

===

3/ SON HERA ROUGE HOLIC MATTE - màu 477 Red Tobacco

- Dòng son thỏi lì này của Hera vừa được trang bị thiết kế mới nhìn giông giống... cái búa mà các thẩm phán dùng ý 😆 Xin lỗi các bạn nhưng mình không thể miêu tả nó một cách tinh tế được vì nhìn nó hơi hài hước :)) Cầm trên tay cũng không phải là nặng tay hẳn nhưng cũng không nhẹ hều, bao bì chắc chắn, có nam châm chứ không lủng lẳng nên cũng thấy đáng tiền (khoảng hơn 500k)

- Chất son: chất son thỏi lì rất mướt, mịn môi, mỏng chứ không dày cộp, nhưng không mỏng quá đến mức khó lên màu. Son lên môi rất êm ái, không bị lợn cợn, dễ đánh nhiều lớp mà vẫn nhẹ tênh trên môi. Son này tuy không phải là nhiều dưỡng nhưng mình thấy không khô môi, mình có thể dùng nó thoải mái mà không cần phải dưỡng môi trước.

- Son lì nhưng không làm lộ rãnh môi nhé. Tất nhiên nó không làm rãnh môi biến mất nhưng cũng không làm chúng rõ hơn.

- Son có mùi rất nhẹ thôi nhưng bay nhanh trên môi và nó không có vị gì cả, rất hợp với người ghét son nồng mùi nước hoa như mình.

- Son ít dây dính ra thành cốc, khẩu trang và đồ ăn, nên phù hợp cho mùa COVID-19 :3

- Độ bám của nó thì như mọi son thỏi lì khác mà có kết cấu mềm mượt, đó là ăn nhẹ thì hết khoảng 20-30%, ăn dầu mỡ thì bay khoảng 95%, còn 1 chút xíu stain màu trên môi tuỳ màu bạn chọn.

- Màu Red Tobacco mình chọn tuy có tên là red nhưng mình thấy nó không đỏ gì cả. Nó là màu đào đất đậm thì đúng hơn :)) Đánh phớt phớt thì ra màu đào nhẹ rất xinh (trông hơi giống Dolce Vita của NARS), đánh đậm thì nhìn sẽ thanh lịch. Nói chung đây là màu mình thấy ai cũng có thể hợp, vì nó không tươi rực rỡ, nhưng không trầm hoặc già, không hồng mà cũng không quá ấm.

Đánh giá tổng thể thì dòng son này của Hera dù không có chất son đỉnh cao hay nổi trội giữa rừng son lì hiện nay, nhưng cũng thực sự là không có điểm gì để chê, mình cho 9.5/10 chăng?

===

4/ 3CE WATER BLUR TINT - màu Laydown và Casual Affair

Theo mình được biết thì đây là dòng son mới nhất từ 3CE (??). Và sau bao nhiêu dòng son với chất son mình thấy là rất tàm tạm, đến dòng son này mình mới thực sự là yêu thích chất son của 3CE.

- Chất son: chất son em này khá giống dòng son tint nước truyền thống của Hàn Quốc ngày xưa. Son lỏng, mỏng nhẹ, như thoa nước lên môi và sẽ thấm vào môi rất nhanh, để lại cảm giác như chưa đánh son gì mà môi mình vốn đã màu như vậy rồi. Các bạn có thể đánh thêm nhiều lớp mà son vẫn không cho cảm giác nặng môi hay căng khô khó chịu.

- Điểm tiến bộ của nó so với son tint nước ngày xưa là độ bám màu đều vào môi hơn, không bị tình trạng chỉ lên màu tốt ở lòng môi. Các bạn nào dùng mà thấy màu lên không đều thì cố gắng đánh theo kiểu từng môi 1 và không nên bặm môi nhé. Càng bặm càng khiến nó khó bám đều vào môi đấy. Đánh đến đâu để kệ nó khô đến đó.

- Son không có độ lên màu cao đâu nha, nên sẽ không hợp với bạn nào thích đánh son đậm và nét hẳn. Bạn nào thích son kiểu nomakeup makeup, siêu tự nhiên môi tôi vốn ửng màu như thế thì chắc sẽ thích dòng son này.

- Sau khi son khô ráo lại thì mình thấy nó không dính ra tay hay giấy hay khẩu trang. Nói chung là thoải mái dùng khi ăn uống mà không sợ bị nhoe nhoét khắp nơi.

- Độ bám của nó cũng rất ổn vì nó để lại lớp stain tương ứng với màu son ban đầu. Ăn uống dầu mỡ xong thì mình thấy môi vẫn còn khoảng 50% màu ở lại.

- Son có mùi kiểu ngọt ngọt và vị thì hơi đắng giống như nhiều son tint nước khác :)) Bạn nào dùng son tint bám lâu nào mà không có vị gì thì giới thiệu mình với ạ :((

- Màu Laydown mình chọn là màu nâu hồng kiểu My Lips But Better rất tự nhiên và tây tây, đánh lên nhìn xinh cực, đặc biệt với bạn nào thích makeup tây. Còn màu Casual Affair thì chắc là một trong những màu cũng bán chạy vì sắc đỏ hồng đất thanh lịch, dịu dàng, dễ đánh, chỉ chống chỉ định những người ghét hồng :)) (swatch cụ thể ở dưới ảnh nha). Dòng son này 3CE lại phát huy thế mạnh là mix màu lạ, đẹp và dễ dùng.

Nhìn chung, mình rất hài lòng với dòng son mới này của 3CE. 9/10 chăng? Trừ điểm khoản vị hơi đăng đắng nhé :))

...

Một trong những niềm vui trong cuộc sống phù phiếm là tìm ra được sản phẩm yêu thích đúng không các bạn? Dạo này sức khoẻ mình yếu nên lại chẳng test được nhiều skincare hay makeup mới, thế mà vô tình mua được đồ mình ưng ý lại khiến mình vui hơn, có động lực up bài. Các bạn muốn sắp tới mình viết về những chủ đề nào thì hãy comment cho mình biết. Và đừng quên tham gia Giveaway sản phẩm của Emmié ở bài đăng mình đã ghim đầu page nha!
XOXO@[1358239864223264:11809:]

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”

Cảm ơn các bạn đã xem clip của tôi. Hãy chia sẻ video để ủng hộ Gia Huy Vlogs nhé !
-#NguyễnGiaHuy Xin cám ơn..!
- Tôi Yêu Các Bạn Rất Nhiều...

helu mọi người huhu xin lỗi mng không phải một chiếc vid BEST BOOKS 2020 những sẽ là một chiếc clip tâm huyết k kém ạ ...
Mong mng có thể chọn đc một chiếc sách xinh xinh để cuộn mình trong chăn ấm và enjoy nhé

Thank you and love you all so muchhh :xoxo
* Bấm Đăng ký/Subscrie để theo dõi mình nha các chế !
☆ ĐĂNG KÝ/SUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/HaKhuat
Một vài câu hỏi mọi người có hỏi mình:
1. Mình quay clip bằng máy gì? Canon EOS M100 nha
2. Mình edit bằng phần mềm Adobe Premiere
3. Son mình dùng là 05 Hot as fire của Lemone nhé
4. Mình hay mua sách ở đâu? Online thì Tiki Fahasa, offline thì là nhà sách Lâm ở Đinh Lễ nhaaa

My background music:
► Music Credit: LAKEY INSPIRED
Track Name: "Better Days"
Music By: LAKEY INSPIRED @
► Music Credit: Dj Quads
Track Name: "It's Near"
► Music Credit: Artificial.Music
Track Name: "And So It Begins"
License for commercial use: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0 License.
Full License HERE - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Music promoted by NCM https://goo.gl/fh3rEJ

================================
© Bản quyền thuộc về Hà Khuất
© Copyright by Hà Khuất ☞ Do not Reup

Đừng quên nhấn SUBSCRIBE & SEE ALL để bọn mình va phải nhau nhiều hơn!

00:00 Introduction
00:25 BOBBI BROWN Vitamin Enriched Face Base https://bit.ly/3snjkK2
01:04 TATCHA The Silk Canva Filter Finish Protective Primer
02:02 THE FACE SHOP Ink Lasting Foundation Slim Fit EX http://bit.ly/2O3V9gI
03:09 LANCÔME Teint Idole Ultra Long Wear Foundation màu 024 https://bit.ly/3sqRUCQ
04:00 EGLIPS Oil Cut Powder Pact https://bit.ly/2LSFrr6
04:47 LAURA MERCIER Translucent Loose Setting Powder
05:48 ROMAND Better Than Shape màu số 02
06:26 THE FACE SHOP Dual Contour màu 01 https://bit.ly/38CJTRW
07:25 ANASTASIA Contour Powder Kit
08:27 CHANEL Baume Essentiel Multi-Use Stick màu Transparent
09:25 ANASTASIA Nicole Guerriero Glow Kit
10:30 Eglips Natural Slimfit Auto Eyebrow https://bit.ly/3fTqi2d
11:28 Benefit Precisely, My Brow Eyebrow Pencil
12:04 PATRICK TA Major Brow Shaping Wax
13:14 MAYBELLINE Hyper Curl Waterproof http://bit.ly/35BVsZu
13:42 fmgt 2 IN 1 Curling Mascara https://bit.ly/2O5fKkC
14:24 GLOSSIER. Lash Slick
14:55 Kiss Me Heroin Volume Control Mascara
15:31 Kiss Me Heroine Smooth Liquid Eyeliner
16:30 Flow Fushi Moteliner Liquid Eyeliner
16:54 EGLIPS Super Slim Auto Long Eyeliner EXTREME https://bit.ly/2ZgQ0ak
17:25 MAC Glow Play Blush màu Blush, Please
18:03 MAMONDE Flower Pop Blusher màu 1 Pinky Promise https://bit.ly/3leZP1Q
18:25 Tarte This Blush Book belongs to Tartelette
18:58 NARS NARSissist Wanted Cheek Palette
19:45 Sulwhasoo Essential Lip Serum Stick màu 05 Blossom Coral https://bit.ly/3oIWyKm
20:22 DIOR Lip Glow Oil màu 012 Rose Wood
21:03 Kielh's Butterstick Lip Treatment https://bit.ly/39snfwA
21:31 MAC Powder Kiss Liquid Lipcolour màu 996 và 991
22:33 ROMAND Glasting Water Tint màu 08 Rose Stream https://bit.ly/3nFR3Le
22:47 MERZY Another Me The First Velvet Tint màu V6 http://bit.ly/3qe7LCQ
23:09 Giorgio Armani Lip Maestro Liquid Lipstick màu 206
23:51 YSL Water Stain Glow Lip Stain màu 617
24:30 YSL Rouge Volupté Rock'n Shine Lipstick
24:55 CHANEL Rouge Coco Flash màu 152
25:42 CHANEL Rouge Allure Velvet màu 627
26:36 CHANEL Rouge Allure Laque màu 71 Mythe
27:39 Outtro

♥STAY CONNECT VỚI LINH♥
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/themakeaholics/
FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/TheMakeAHolics
BUSINESS EMAIL: themakeaholics@gmail.com

✰LINH MẶC GÌ, BÔI GÌ/ ON ME:
▹▹TRANG ĐIỂM/ MAKE-UP

▹▹TRANG PHỤC/ OUTFITS
➫ Fleur Dress by Des Fleurs

▹▹KÍNH ÁP TRÒNG/ CONTACT LENS
Lens Nice màu Fake Me Hazel

▹▹MÀU TÓC/ HAIR SHADE
➫ Nhuộm tại salon:
Màu nâu choco BeStyle Thạch Thị Thanh - Hairstylist Thái Phạm
hoặc nếu...
➫ Mình tự nhuộm:
L'oreal Excellence Fashion Ultra Light màu 03 Ultra Light Ash Brown
https://bit.ly/2PRjabQ

♥MUSIC//ÂM NHẠC♥
➫

----------------------------------------------------
✰FILMED by/ Quay bởi Linh Trương
✰EDIT by/Dựng video Ngân Hà

✰EQUIPMENTS:
▹▹CAMERAS
CANON EOS 80D
CANON G7X Mark II
DJI Osmo Pocket

▹▹EDITING PROGRAM
FINAL CUT PRO X

▹▹MICROPHONE
RODE Microphones SmartLav
RODE VideoMic GO Lightweight On-Camera Microphone with Integrated Rycote Shockmount
http://amzn.to/2gr1EbO

-------------------------
▹▹DISCLAIMER: Video này không có tài trợ. Mọi cảm nhận & nhận xét đều là thực chất và không bị ảnh hưởng bởi bất kì ai.
▹▹Video được sản xuất bởi Linh Trương, xin vui lòng không tự ý sử dụng video.