關於 come down to meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

How to Have God’s Faith

“Jesus replied, “Let the faith of God be in you! Listen to the truth I speak to you: If someone says to this mountain with great faith and having no doubt, ‘Mountain, be lifted up and thrown into the midst of the sea,’ and believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.” (Mark‬ ‭11:22-23‬ ‭TPT‬‬)

In the passage above, Jesus said the “faith of God” and not “faith in God”. If we want to perform mighty miracles like casting a mountain into the sea, we will need to receive God’s own faith.

“For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think reasonably, as God has apportioned to each person a measure of faith.” (Romans‬ ‭12:3‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

You see, there is the measure of faith that God already gave to us in the past, and also God’s own faith that He gives to believers at appointed timings.

The former is the one that we keep free from unbelief through daily renewing of the mind, while the latter is more powerful because it is pure and guaranteed to mightily prosper in its intended purpose.

“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another faith, by the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, by the same Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages. But the one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing to each one separately as he desires.” (1 Corinthians‬ ‭12:7-11‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Faith is one of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. He distributes this “faith of God” at times. Every believer can receive this.

To understand when this God-faith comes, we have to know the delivery system:

“Faith, then, is birthed in a heart that responds to God’s anointed utterance of the Anointed One.” (Romans‬ ‭10:17‬ ‭TPT‬‬)

Many English Bible translations do a poor job of translating the verse above. They stray from the original Greek meaning. However, I like the translation I quoted above.

The words translated as “anointed utterance” in Greek is “rhematos” which means “a spoken word”. “The Anointed One” is Christou, which is Christ.

“Rhematos Christou” is not referring to God’s written Scriptures in general. That one would be the logos word, or “what God has said before”. The rhema word is talking about what Christ is currently actively saying to you through His Spirit inside you.

When Jesus speaks a rhema word to you, it carries God’s authority. When you hear and act upon that word, the “faith of God” is imparted to you for mighty power to be released. This is when miracles and breakthroughs flow.

Let us see this in action:

“Peter answered him and said, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the waters.” He said, “Come!” Peter stepped down from the boat, and walked on the waters to come to Jesus.” (Matthew‬ ‭14:28-29‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Jesus said “Come,” and this rhema word carried the authority for Peter to transcend the natural laws of nature. When Peter heard the command and acted upon it, the “faith of God” was imparted to him, empowering him to walk on the waters.

You may be surprised by this, but even Jesus depended on the rhema word from His Father during His earthly ministry.

“Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.” (John‬ ‭5:19-20‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before doing any miracle, Jesus first received the rhema word from the Father, and He simply obeyed, acting upon what the Father showed Him.

When Jesus acted upon the rhema word, God’s power flows because the authority, faith, and will of God are working in perfect synergy.

It is therefore most crucial that we ask the Lord to give us the rhema word for our situation. To receive it, you can calm your emotions and pray about your situation, listening in silence to see what the Holy Spirit brings to your attention.

Other than that, sometimes He uses your pastor or Christian friend to speak divinely inspired words to you. The Holy Spirit is the source of the rhema word. The way He delivers it isn’t the most important thing, so be open to however He chooses to convey the rhema word to you.

When it comes, grab hold of it in your heart, and act upon it, for it is the key to unlock God’s supernatural provision in your situation!

The 37 recorded miracles of Jesus Christ in the four gospels show us God’s heart of love and Grace towards us. As you explore them in “Messiah’s Miracles”, faith will arise in your heart to receive miraculous breakthroughs in your own life: https://bit.ly/messiahs-miracles

【Hello Hater】@鬼才做音樂 2021 Ghosician

《Hello Hater》Youtube 高清版MV： https://youtu.be/xyos93gW5e4

The Making Of《Hello Hater》幕後花絮 Youtube高清版： https://youtu.be/RCV8qTt4ktY

《Hello Hater》數位音樂下載 Online Music Download：https://lnk.to/HelloHater

Lyric Version《Hello Hater》動態歌詞版 Youtube高清版 : https://bit.ly/3hSHUio

-
Uhh Hello Hater
啊 哈嘍 黑特

Uhh Mother Fxcker
啊 馬德法克

我又來了 (我又來了)
I am here again (I am here again)

我又來了 (我又來了)
I am here again (I am here again)

我又來了來了來了來!
I am here again, again!

我就是教壞囜仔大細 (幹)
I am the bad influencer to the multitudes (Fxck)

袂爽來找恁爸 (來)
If you are upset, come to me (Come)

假的帳號 到處留言
Using fake accounts to leave comments around

面對面陰莖縮進裡面 (咻)
Dick recoils while face to face (Aahs)

我教壞囜仔大細 (吶)
I will influence the multitudes negatively (Nah)

袂爽來找恁爸 (來)
If you are upset, come to me (Come)

確診陽痿 存一支嘴
Impotency leaves you with only a mouth to talk

幹恁阿公ㄟ踹共!
Fxck You, come and face me directly

踹! 呸!
Show up your face!

你頭腦裝洨
Your brain is filled up with semen

眼睛髒看東西都黑掉
Everything looks black in foul eyes

天生雞雞太小 薪水太少
Born with tiny dick, drawing a little salary

只能用鍵盤來高潮
Orgasm only via keyboard

因為想法跟你的不同
As my view is different from yours

所以才能夠比你成功
Therefore I attain greater success than you

看到社會不公 袂爽就講
I would voice up against injustice

你只能跪拜舔騙讚歌頌
You can only truckle and flatter

才不鳥限流被黃標 (想唱啥就唱啥我驕傲)
Never be bothered with restricted flow or yellow tag (I am proud to sing whatever I like)

還開了抖音微博帳號 (有空就麻煩快點舉報)
Registered TikTok and Weibo accounts in addition (Please report when you are available)

整天斷章取義 亂貼標籤
Always misinterpret and label me as you like

根本噁心犯賤 他媽嘴臉
Absolutely disgusting and cheap ugly face

快來黑我 訂閱 分享
Twisted my initial meaning, then subscribe & share my video

害我 每天在賺大錢
Making me tons of money

看見我執迷不悟 刀槍不入
How stubborn and invulnerable I am

脫了你三件內褲
Take off your three briefs

我就是全身的酷 看別人吐
I am damn cool, yet you threw up

Such an outlandish way of gesture
幹恁娘這種程度

Bought bullets cost thirty thousand Pew Pew Pew
買了個銃子 三萬塊嘟嘟嘟嘟

Talkative non-stop, I'll shoot your house
靠北我射你住處

I just need trap but not protection
我只要陷阱 不需要別人的護

Fxck your busybody noisy pig
操你妹雞婆的豬

I am not afraid, I choose to do only serious task
我沒在怕的 我只幹大的

Go to hell bastard, I wanna rebuke till you can't refute
去你的Sucker 壓著你罵的

Consistent tactics similar reply in comments, damn
一貫的伎倆 留言我操

Shut up when you have finished, I deal with big cases
罵完了閉嘴 老子搞大的

I am a sinner never give a shit about moral
我是個罪人 沒在管道德

場子可燥了 沒啥可套的
The place is so boring, nothing is interesting

我只要錢 我不要命
I am willing to risk for money

快給我Shit 而且要Free
Give me shit and it must be free of charge

女兒長大 學床叫
Daughter grown up mature begin to moan

臭婊子幹完 還要
After done first round, initiate another round

小孩照三餐 打掉
Repeated abortion non stop

懶得聽廢話 I’m Bounce
Fed up with the rubbish, goodbye

哈哈 (哈)
Haha (Ha)

幹妳的Bitch啪啪 (蛤?)
Fxck you bitch (Alright?)

媽媽生的臭俗辣 (臭俗辣)
Born to be a coward (Coward)

爸爸生的破麻 (Fxcked up)
Born to be a whore (Fxcked up)

留言區的廢物那些笨豬沒有惡意
All these comments left by the pigs are senseless

但是就是為了能在網路上面To The Top
Just to catch attention online

需要的是共鳴 才能發現
Demand for support, debunk the myth

佩服你的勇氣沒有準備還想Fxck
Salute your courage of simply fooling around

按你讚 快給我笑 (給我笑)
Give you Like, smile to me please (Smile to me)

討論度還在堆高 (長高)
Discussion is getting more intense (Growing)

把你爸媽Shut Down
Shut down your mom and dad

緬甸街中和Town (栗子)
Myanmar Street in Chunghe Town (Chestnut)

聽我的歌 每天看我的影片
Listen to my songs and watch my videos every day

像吞我的洨 然後吃我的大便
Like drink my semen and eat my poo

媒體就愛 報導轉貼
Media loves broadcast and re-post

你恨死恁爸 一直打臉
You hate me to death but slap in your own face

Hey Hater Loser Keyboard Warrior
嘿 黑特 魯蛇 键盘侠

You Mother Fxcker Come and Lick My Shit
馬德法克快來舔我的大便!

-
欲網購黃明志最新實體專輯《亞洲通才》及歷年專輯和周邊商品請到。Purchase Namewee Latest 《Asian Polymath》 , Others Music Albums & Merchandises Please log in to https://namewee4896.com/

Namewee 黃明志 Telegram Channel :
https://t.me/nameweeofficial

Namewee 黃明志 Official Facebook Fan Page:
https://www.facebook.com/namewee/

Namewee YouTube Channel Link:
http://www.youtube.com/namewee/

Namewee Twitter Channel:
@NameweeO

#Namewee #黃明志 #HelloHater

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”

■ 更多林子安：
INSTAGRAM：https://www.instagram.com/an__official/
FACEBOOK：https://www.facebook.com/Anviolin/
WEIBO：http://weibo.com/u/6511795600
Spotify：https://spoti.fi/2XmfcLw

各式工作演出邀約請私訊IG或臉書專頁
For business, please send private message to my Instagram or Facebook fan page.

■ 更多【Cover by AnViolin】：https://bit.ly/2vWVtF5

🎶樂譜連結 Sheet Music🎶
https://gumroad.com/anviolin
（台灣請用蝦皮）https://shopee.tw/anviolin

--

Violin cover by Lin Tzu An of《Thinking Out Loud》by Ed Sheeran

第一次聽到這首歌的時候就上鉤了～～～
不愧是Ed Sheeran口中最適合走在婚禮走道上的歌，清澈嘹亮的聲線加上背景的吉他、鼓、鋼琴和其他配樂的節奏，好像跟隨節奏的重拍，我們走進浪漫星空之中，在點點星光下感受另一半的心跳，看著另一半的笑眼，即使不說話也知道每一拍心跳代表的意義，再也沒有比這樣更浪漫的事情了吧！

台北的夏天夜晚，送給大家小提琴詮釋的柔情溫暖卻又輕鬆愉快地翩翩起舞的歌😉

歡迎大家在沒有下雨的週末到信義區香堤大道，聽cover歌曲的live版！詳細演出相關資訊，我都會更新在我的Instagram 限時動態！

--

I was hooked to the song when listening to it at the first time.
The modulated voice of Ed Sheeran accompanied by the rhythm n melody of the guitar, drums, piano and others in the background make this work a masterpiece.
No wonder Ed Sheeran said this song is the best song for walking down the aisle.
It was like with the song goes on, we are taken to the place where all we can see is the starry sky and we feel our loved one's heartbeat under the starlight, looking into his/her eyes smile from the cheeks and know the meaning of each heartbeat even if you two don't utter a word.
There is no more romantic love than this, right? 😉

Should you have any request regarding cover songs, just comment below and let me know.
Also please share the video and subscribe to my channel https://bit.ly/2EsTGMQ.
Don't forget to click the 🔔 bell to be notified when my videos come out!

Visit me at Taipei Shin Kong Mitsukoshi Xinyi Plaza to enjoy more my live cover songs. Check it out details on my Instagram stories!

--

編曲Arrange：林子安 Lin Tzu An
混音Remix：林子安 Lin Tzu An
小提琴 Violin: 林子安 Lin Tzu An
攝影師剪接師 Photographer & Film editor: Santon.W
文字編輯 Social media editor/manager: Lily Wu

--

🎻Sponsor AnViolin🎻
如果你喜歡我的影片的話，歡迎贊助我，讓我有更多資源去提升畫面與音樂。
贊助連結：
（台灣請用歐付寶）歐付寶：https://p.opay.tw/77sBF
（Via Paypal）Sponsorship：https://www.paypal.me/Anviolin

--

【Cover by AnViolin】每週上傳新的小提琴cover影片，
喜歡的話請訂閱我的頻道 https://bit.ly/2EsTGMQ
也記得開啟🔔訂閱通知，按讚留言分享給你家人朋友看！

還想看子安cover什麼歌？留言跟我說 ！

--

#EdSheeran
#ThinkingOutLoud
#AnViolin
#ThinkingOutLoudViolin
#ThinkingOutLoud小提琴
#EdSheeranViolinCover
#CoverSong
#ViolinCover
#CoverByAn
#林子安
#林子安小提琴

Lyric
Padung Songsang

Melody
BOSSA ON THE BEAT

Director
Weirdvisuel

Producer
Jakkapong banleng

Co-producer
Papavin pongkoon

Light director
Thanawat Tangpraditkun
Cameraman
Theeratuch kitvate

Editor
Sutipon Jareerat

Props
Worawit kraiwitoon
NATTAWAT MADEE
Nuttapong Laepuang
Passakorn songsang
Phakphum songsang

Location
Cheeze.looker.studio
Ppoojiradt

Makeup effect
Chai chuanchyn

-Lyrics

- Mood -

Look at me and listen
Don’t be conceited by your fame
Cos money and fame don’t last
It can crumble if you don’t come down off your high horse

Confident that you’re all that
Arrogant with your ego
Dissin on others like they’re inferior
Bragging about making it
Hell, one day you might fall, who knows

Put it in that thick skull of yours
Nobody is better than anybody
Looking at people like they are trash and you are King
Can get you crushed like you are nothing

Give others a chance
Fool, you ain’t no King
Sneering at the underdog with that face of yours
Actin like you own it all is fuckin embarrassing
No respect is the only outcome you’ll get

Use you head, power that you gain
Don’t use it to beat and kill others to dust
Brag, boast, block, bastardize
When you fall off your horse all you’ll hear is this

hahaha hahaha...

You might be good but don’t be big headed
Give other people a chance
Don’t get carried away with pride
Popularity and glory
Be realistic, there’s up and there’s always down


Think it over, the life that you built
Being kind to others
Will give it more meaning
When you die
Friends and all
Will keep you in their memories

A hot sunny day could end in with rain
Fame can perish, it’s just a cycle, is what I’m told

Accept it, accept it, accept it
Don’t be misguided, don’t be misguided

Facts of life is death and life
Get a grip, don’t lose yourself

Don’t, don’t, don’t hate, no don’t
No, no don’t loathe, don’t judge

Replace it with love, kindness, generosity and friendliness
Take the big out of the head and put it in the heart
Don’t stand in the way

If someone is down
show them the light
Help them find the way
Pull them out from the dark
Don’t just ignore and walk pass
When it’s your turn to fall you’ll be left with nobody
And this will be the voice that haunts you

hahahaha hahahaha…

I have lived the underdog’s life
Won’t budge with the fame along the way
Because nothing lasts forever
Sleep, wake up, life, death
it’s destined to be

When you have honour
Power and fortune
What you preach and say
To others will always go.


One day it’s gone
The pride that you use to own
Not only people
Dogs won’t even throw you a bone


- อารมณ์ -

มองตากูแล้วมึงจงฟัง
อย่าเหิมเกริมในความดัง
ชื่อเสียงเงินทอง ไม่จีรัง
ระวังจะพัง ถ้ามึงยังกร่างและก๋ากั่น

มั่นหน้า ในความเจ๋ง
ผยองตนเป็นขงเบ้ง
เหยียดคนไม่เก่งว่ากระจอก
ไอ้คนที่บอกสักวันมันอาจจะขึ้น
วันหนึ่งมึงอาจจะลงใครเล่าจะรู้

สำเนียกเอาไว้ จำใส่สมองของมึงเอาไว้
ไม่มีใครเหนือกว่าใครบนโลกนี้
ไอ้คนมึงมองเป็นขี้และมึงเป็น King
อาจโดนขยี้เป็นขี้ได้

เปิดโอกาศคนอื่นเขาบ้าง
อย่ามาดหมาเป็นราชาในสายมึง
พอเห็นใครด้อยก็ถากถาง ทำหน้าตึง
สำแดงเดช ว่าของถึง มันน่าอาย
ผลลัพธ์ที่ได้ จะไม่มีใครเคารพมึง

มึงคิด ให้ดี ว่าบารมี ที่ได้มันมา
อย่าใช้มาเข่น มาฆ่า ผู้น้อยให้เป็นธุลี
ยกตน ข่มท่าน ปิดกั้น ย่ำยี
เมื่อไร้ค่า ตกต่ำ มึงจะได้ยินเสียงนี้

ฮาฮาฮา ฮาฮาฮา

เตือนตัวเองว่าเก่งได้ แต่มึงอย่ากร่าง
ดัง เปิดทางคนอื่นบ้าง อย่ากั๊กไว้
อย่าหลงตน อย่าจองหอง
ว่าชื่อเสียงมึงเกรียงไกร
เผื่อใจเอาไว้ บันไดขึ้นได้ต้องลงเป็น
กลับไปคิด ชีวิตที่สร้าง
พระคุณให้คน
มันมักมีความหมาย
เวลามึงตายแล้ว
มิตรสหายทุกคน
จะเก็บไปจดจำ
ตะวันที่ร้อนสุดท้ายยังมีฝนตกทับ
มีดังต้องมีดับ เป็นวัฎจักร พระเคยสอนไว้


ปลง มึงปลง มึงปลง
อย่าหลง อย่าหลง
จงปลงเสียเถิด มีตาย มีเกิด
อย่าหลงเตลิด ให้มีสติ


อย่าชิ อย่าชิ อย่าชิง อย่าชัง ไม่รัง
ไม่ก่ง ไม่เกลียด ไม่เดียด ไม่ฉันท์
ให้รัก ให้ใคร่ เมตตา น้ำใจ ไมตรี
ต้องมีให้บ้าง ไม่ขวางทาง
ไม่หวงก้าง

ใครต่ำตม
จงยื่นมอบแสงสว่าง
ให้เขาได้เห็นทาง
คนล้มต้องฉุดบ้าง
อย่ามัวเฉยเมย แล้วเดินผ่าน
เวลามึงล้มและอ้างว้าง ไม่เหลือใคร
เสียงนี้จะคอยหลอกหลอนมึงอยู่ข้างๆ

ฮาฮาฮา ฮาฮาฮา


คนอย่างกู อยู่มา เยี่ยงหมาแล้ว
จะมีแวว ดังเด่น ไม่เต้นตื่น
เพราะรู้ว่า ความดัง ไม่ยั่งยืน
หลับกับตื่น ตายอยู่
มันคู่กัน


เมื่อยามมึงมีศักดิ์ศรี
มึงมีอำนาจและวาสนา
จะพูดจะจา จะเสวนา
กับใครต่อใคร มันมักจะได้ผล


วันหนึ่งอำนาจมึงหมด
ศักดิ์ศรี มึงหนีออกไปจากตัวตน
อย่าว่าแต่คนเลย
หมาก็ยังไม่มอง

---
กดติดตามบรรยากาศทัวร์คอนเสิร์ตและความฮาของ แจ๊ส สปุ๊กนิค ปาปิยอง กุ๊กกุ๊ก ได้ที่นี่
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtRzHaTQnfacmDUITEQbgxQ
ติดตามความน่ารักของน้องแตงไทยได้ในช่อง Miss tang : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf4cJ1Z9qo6aoEjsYWFN7XA
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/jazzspkk
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/jazz_spkk/?hl
#เพลงใหม่แจ๊ส #อารมณ์ #JSPKK

今回は
⬇︎「MAN WITH A MISSION」さんの「FLY AGAIN 2019」（フル）をカバーしました！

「スーパーラグビーサンウルブズ 2019シーズン公式テーマソング」主題歌
フジテレビ系月9ドラマ「ラジエーションハウス～放射線科の診断レポート～」挿入歌

▶︎歌い手「HARAKEN」さん✨ &「ケイト・エヴォラ」さん✨

ご視聴お願いします♪

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎本家さま

MAN WITH A MISSION 『FLY AGAIN 2019』
https://youtu.be/KA1O3Ce46Bc

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎チャンネル登録はこちら♪
http://bit.ly/MikiFujisue

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎クレジット

・歌　　　　：HARAKEN & ケイト・エヴォラ
・音楽制作　：藤末樹
・映像編集　：藤末樹
・企画構成　：藤末樹

・Associate Art Director：Mark Kobayashi (GAIKEI)
・Executive Producer：Miki Fujisue

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎藤末樹 - Miki Fujisue（SNS）

Twitter : https://twitter.com/MikiFujisue_Tw
Instagram : https://instagram.com/miki.fujisue
Facebook Page : https://facebook.com/Miki.jpn

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎HARAKEN（SNS）
Twitter : https://twitter.com/HARAKEN75766631

⬇︎HARAKEN カバー動画集
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZRggFcpoLzKIYvbOTEEQZZKMleoxayov

米津玄師 - 馬と鹿
https://youtu.be/aTuS0CSOlQI

折坂悠太 - 朝顔
https://youtu.be/OSSo706lQE8

手塚翔太（田中圭）- 会いたいよ
https://youtu.be/wBV6uBLRtg0

RADWIMPS - スパークル
https://youtu.be/aGhfsJnPHCM

RADWIMPS - 前前前世
https://youtu.be/Y7kDIhxsbC8

サカナクション - モス
https://youtu.be/TAMZWMDrOJc

RADWIMPS - なんでもないや
https://youtu.be/75OvfaO_UV8

山崎まさよし - One more time, One more chance
https://youtu.be/06sYj8ssdTU

BUMP OF CHICKEN/月虹
https://youtu.be/z0nVb74dHFI

MAN WITH A MISSION/FLY AGAIN 2019
https://youtu.be/4ZFDQqjiMD8

RADWIMPS feat.三浦透子/グランドエスケープ
https://youtu.be/LcULkAfuoiA

米津玄師/海の幽霊
https://youtu.be/PgEREb6Zos8

MAN WITH A MISSION/Remember Me
https://youtu.be/WmqROVgmJxQ

菅田将暉/いいんだよ、きっと
https://youtu.be/UT3nZQeNDYg

菅田将暉/まちがいさがし
https://youtu.be/expHyXp1fpQ

RADWIMPS/愛にできることはまだあるかい
https://youtu.be/BcK3fFejTnY

Aimer/STAND-ALONE
https://youtu.be/A5qZjKfC3dM

亀梨和也/Rain
https://youtu.be/EfCh3sBkRMI

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎ケイト・エヴォラ - Cato Evora（SNS）

Twitter : https://twitter.com/cato_evora
Instagram : https://instagram.com/cato_evora
YouTube : https://youtube.com/channel/UC9RlV6d0aSJIdXNYy9SrJ6w

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎歌詞

FLY AGAIN 2019 - MAN WITH A MISSION
(作曲︰Kamikaze Boy / 作詞︰Kamikaze Boy・Jean-Ken Johnny)

Searching for the meaning
Looking back what’s leaving
Falling down again you
Lose control so easy

Yet, the only reason
There goes one more season
Can’t you see what you can do?
All the thing’s that you should lose

Find what is the truth, life just seems so cruel
Winner, loser never know who’ll finally be the fool
Just release your heart
Light it on, Alert
The one and only matter that’s the story and the start

Notice that you are not alone
Yeah come with us now,
Break the wall down, yes we can

Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah
Fly Again, yeah yeah ye-ye-ye-ye-yeah

Life just comes and go
Tomorrow never knows
Stand up once again to
Walk into the world for you

The feeling is so new
Believe in what you do
Don’t you ever be afraid in losing
That’s the clue

Find what is the truth, life just seems so cruel
Winner, loser never know who’ll finally be the fool
Yes you are not alone
Yeah come with us now
Let us start it on, here we can

Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah
Fly Again, yeah yeah ye-ye-ye-yeyeah

We know where we should go
We know where we should go
We know where we should go
We know where we should go

Falling down again
We meet again my friend
Life just comes and go
But tomorrow never knows

Searching for the meaning
Looking back what's leaving
Falling down again you
Lose control so easy」

Find what is the truth, life just seems so cruel
Winner, loser never know who’ll finally be the fool
But you are not alone we are not alone
We know what’s waiting out there
We know where we should go

Living in the world is as he said
Running like a rolling stone we go down
The riddle and the rhyme is up to you
Feel the beat and this sound
You got to know You got to seize this now
Ready when you are, we’re always here.
Off we go

Yeah…

Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah oh
Fly Again, yeah yeah
Fly Again, yeah yeah ye-ye-ye-yeyeah

-----------------------------------------------

⬇︎関連リンク

MAN WITH A MISSION - 日本クラウン公式ページ
http://www.crownrecord.co.jp/artist/mwam/whats.html

MAN WITH A MISSION - ソニーミュージック公式ページ
http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/artist/manwithamission/

MAN WITH A MISSION - Ameba Blog
https://ameblo.jp/mwamjapan

MAN WITH A MISSION - Myspace
https://myspace.com/mwamjapan

MAN WITH A MISSION - Twitter
https://twitter.com/mwamjapan

MAN WITH A MISSION - Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/MWAMjapan

ラジエーションハウス～放射線科の診断レポート～ - HP
https://www.fujitv.co.jp/radiationhouse/

ラジエーションハウス～放射線科の診断レポート～ - Twitter
https://twitter.com/radiation_2019

ラジエーションハウス～放射線科の診断レポート～ - 1話60秒予告
https://youtu.be/HdgB-fH9Yis

#MANWITHAMISSION #FLYAGAIN2019 #ラジエーションハウス