關於 20 july 2018 day ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【停滯型通膨即將來臨嗎？】

我認為我們即將在一兩年內經歷全球大部分地區的停滯型通膨（stagflation）。我認為投資的方向也會因此微調。

1. 濫發通貨的後果比我們想像中嚴重

我在《後疫情時代中國面對的經濟環境》一文中預測的通貨膨脹現象，已經從資本市場、房地產市場逐漸拓展到美國一般消費市場。

從媒體報導或社群網站上的照片記錄看來，普遍性的消費商品價格上漲已然發生。（見圖）

如同諾貝爾經濟學獎得主F. A. Hayek曾以蜂蜜形容貨幣的流動，在注入貨幣的過程，會造成某部分價格上漲，然後才慢慢拓展出去。而以當今Fed的貨幣干預手段，我們可以看到美國國債利率的下跌與股票、衍生性金融商品市場的價格上漲為常見的起點。而最後，亦如另一位諾貝爾獎得主M. Friedman所言：「通貨膨脹始終是貨幣現象」。

我相信讀者也在許多財經媒體上看到有關通貨膨脹的警告或討論了。

經濟學家Joseph Carson指出，美國在1970年代的CPI統計是包含房地產價格，因此1979年CPI成長11.3％中有相當比例是因為當年房地產價格激增。但現今的統計卻排除了房地產價格。而新冠疫情之後美國房地產價格因濫印貨幣而飆漲，故即便美國官方公佈的過去12個月CPI增長5.4%，但如果採取1970年代的標準計入房地產價格因素，則實際CPI漲幅應該是兩位數！

這也表示，Fed聲稱通貨膨脹只是暫時且不嚴重的論點，很可能是基於刻意被低估的統計方法。另一個值得一提的，是Fed自疫情封城後每個月都買入$400億美元房貸為基礎的金融證券（mortgage-backed securities），但我們也都清楚2008年美國金融危機的一大肇因就是美國聯邦政府轄下兩個專門替房貸信用擔保的房利美、房地美機構（Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac），其相當於政府干預市場的行為扭曲並蒙蔽了市場對真實風險的判斷。

更值得警醒的是如顧問公司MBS Highway指出美國Fed實質買入的房貸基礎證券金額恐怕高達$1000億美元每月，硬生生人為壓低房貸利率0.25~0.35%。

綜合來看，Fed刻意濫發通貨不但眾所周知，很可能實際規模超越我們理解。而美國政府的CPI統計卻因排除房地產與股票等資產，無法正確地理解真實通膨現狀。

2. 政府引發通膨並非萬靈丹 -- 菲利普曲線早已失效

美國上班族實質週薪相較去年同期收入下降了1.7%，製造業員工更是下降了2.2%。

然而根據總體經濟學的菲利普曲線與相關理論認為，通貨膨脹引發的實質薪資下降理論上應該可以提高就業。可事實上我們看到的是五月份高達900萬份職位仍空懸找不到勞工。根據華爾街日報報導，六月份失業率5.9%竟仍高於新冠疫情前的3.5%。

為何如此？早幾年我已經多次撰文談過，菲利普曲線只是基於紐西蘭某一小短時期的統計數字，從經濟理論上就存在內在矛盾與瑕疵，根本不是個普遍可適用的通論，頂多算是個「特例」。因此我們常看到經濟學家質疑此曲線失效實屬正常。

從制度經濟學角度觀察，貨幣政策的確可以引發通貨膨脹造成實質薪資下降，但工作機會與適任員工二者的媒合本身並非不存在交易費用，這意味著並非實質薪資下降馬上需求曲線丟進來，交易量（即就業人數）立即增大。

美國Fed的達拉斯分行4月份報告就指出：30.9％因疫情失業的勞工並未重新回到他們原本的舊工作，此數字還高過去年7月的19.8％。

根據美國人力網站ZipRecruiter近日研究發現幾個目前美國就業市場現象：

a. 本來在娛樂或餐飲旅館行業的就業人士，被疫情的強迫停業嚇怕了，高達70%欲轉行，但多數卻因為行業專業不同難以順利轉換跑道。

b. 過去幾個月來新開出的職缺與失業人數竟然同步上升。

c. 因為疫情許多人跑去城市郊區甚至鄉村避難，結果開出職缺的區域與求職者所在區域出現明顯分離。

d. 同樣因為疫情封城管制造成的後果，紐約市區星巴克的今年五月來店人數相較兩年前同期下降65%，工作機會也隨之發生改變。

e. 每週$400美元的失業補助讓許多失業者不急於找工作。溫蒂漢堡、必勝客、Applebee's、Taco Bell等知名連鎖餐廳提供額外的獎金補貼也依然找不到員工。

而這一些因交易費用增加產生的就業市場成交量下降，從制度經濟學角度來看難以依靠貨幣政策改善，而是必須透過放寬就業市場法規來協助降低交易費用。可是我們看到卻是迷信政府管制的新一任Biden政府。

3. Biden總統的行政命令

今年7月初美國總統Biden簽署了一系列行政命令，新增了橫跨農業、健康產業、物流、交通、科技產業、勞工...等各種管制，聲稱可以透過政府干預帶來產業競爭狀態的改善與消費者/勞工權益。

我們可以從Biden總統的發言看到他對基礎經濟學概念的嚴重無知與缺乏：“Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation,” ... “Without healthy competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want, and treat you however they want. And for too many Americans that means accepting a bad deal for things that you can’t go without.”

經濟學認為競爭無處不在，而不同的侷限條件會導致競爭的態樣改變。某些侷限條件下的競爭會有較高的租值消散，某些則較少。純粹市價競爭的自由市場是理論上完全無租值消散的一種競爭態樣。

因此，政府管制往往帶來的只是更多租值消散與尋租空間。誠如雷根總統說過：「政府本身就是問題，而不是解答。」

所以我們不難發現試圖以更多管制措施、更多政府干預來「使市場健康競爭」的Biden政府，必然是一場徒勞無功且弊病叢生的白工。只是所增加的交易費用，依然是由美國人民來承擔，這對通貨膨脹烏雲蓋頂的底層百姓而言，恐怕雪上加霜。

還記得中美貿易戰多篇文章我均指出，從正確的經濟學邏輯角度來看，時任Trump政府對中國的各種關稅或非關稅貿易壁壘，最終的成本承擔者只會是美國消費者。

我們看到前任Fed主席，現任美國財政部部長Janet L. Yellen也於7月中旬接受紐約時報採訪時鬆口承認Trump時代對中國的關稅障礙結果是在傷害美國消費者。（"Tariffs are taxes on consumers. In some cases it seems to me what we did hurt American consumers, ..."）

這樣的錯誤，美國政府百年來犯了無數次。例如我們曾談過Milton Friedman 與George Stigler 兩位諾貝爾經濟學獎得主共同撰寫的知名論文「Roofs or Ceilings? The Current Housing Problem」以1906年甫大地震後225,000人無家可歸的舊金山市為研究對象，發現當時無力管制的市政府放任市場自由定價，結果是多數人很快找到新家，即便是十分貧窮者，也有與之對應的廉價房屋提供（1906 advertisement “Six-room house and bath, with 2 additional rooms in basement having fire-places, nicely furnished; fine piano; … $45."）

但到了1946年，舊金山因人口增長而推出租金管制，明明房屋短缺嚴重性遠不如1906年大地震後的慘狀，但卻發生多數人租不到房子的窘境！

根據二位經濟學大神研究，1906年每一個想租屋的人，大約有10間房子供選擇；但租金管制後的1946年，每375個求租客對應10間房子供給。

更嚴重的實例還有1970年代石油危機期間，美國政府出台的各種價格與非價格管制干預措施的結果，反而更抬高國內石化產品價格，加劇石化產品短缺現象，不但各地加油站大排長龍，不少妙齡女子以身體為代價與加油站老闆員工上床以取得汽油的新聞不絕於耳。

因此我推斷，美國如不放寬對中國的制裁，只會加重自身通膨惡果，同時惡化真實失業狀況。

一方面，管制會加重人民負擔提高交易費用這點已經敘明不再重複；另一方面，中國是美國過去二十年瘋狂印鈔卻未引發嚴重通貨膨脹現象的最大助力。

這點不僅我這樣看，如經濟學名家張五常教授、前任美國聯準會主席Alan Greenspan於2005年美國國會聽證會發言，乃至於經濟學人雜誌2004年10月份的特別報告「Unnaturally low -- China is helping to keep down global interest rates」也做如是想，且不說還有許多經濟學家也持一樣的觀點。

誠如Greenspan於前述聽證會上發言指出，對中國貿易制裁結果必然導致美國民生物價上漲與人民生活品質受損，但卻無任何經濟學理與客觀證據支撐政客謬論 -- 制裁中國並無法改善美國就業率。

可即便Greenspan早在2005年國會上已言者諄諄，顯然後來十幾年美國政客們是聽者藐藐。因為政客利益往往不等同於人民利益，這是民主國家最大的侷限條件。

回過頭看，Biden政府上台以來，不但沒有放寬Trump時代對中國的諸多基於污衊指控而實施的貿易制裁，甚至有變本加厲的態勢。但如此舉措對美國自身其實極為不利。行文至此我們已經可以確定實質經濟成長停滯與通貨膨脹雙擊的「停滯性通膨」將來臨。

4. 歐美國家與日本普遍高負債結果只能以提高稅率或利率為結果。

所謂的「現代貨幣理論（MMT）」根本是一套無視成本的胡扯，違背了「凡有選擇必有代價」的經濟學最基礎侷限。各國瘋狂印鈔當然最後會出現通貨膨脹，不負責任的政府只能以提高稅率或提高利率為代價。

只是每個國家面對的侷限條件不同，使得代價發生的時程或「閥值」有所不同。

通貨膨脹現象說到底是個「貨幣增長率對上經濟成長率」的過程 -- 當貨幣增長率追不上實質經濟成長率，通貨收縮會發生；當貨幣增長率超過實質經濟成長率，則通貨膨脹會發生。注意，我這裡指的「實質經濟成長率」是「真實」的經濟成長，而不是GDP、凱因斯經濟學那套錯誤的觀念。這部分我以前就為文批評過，有興趣的讀者請自行查找。

故，同樣因應新冠疫情而寬鬆貨幣的俄羅斯，其面對的國際經貿環境不比美國日本，自然很快就承受不住通膨壓力於近日宣布一口氣調升利率100個基點至6.5%。（見圖）

美國聯邦政府2021年政府負債$28.5兆美元，是GDP的128.31%。僅利息支出達$4025億美元，佔年度預算5.3%，佔聯邦稅金收入9.8%。如果美國無法成功抑制通貨膨脹，則隨之而來的利率飆升將造成美國財政風險。畢竟市場利率始終是由「無風險利率+風險貼水+預期通貨膨脹率」組成。

我們可以注意到1980年代初期，美國國債淨利息支出增加的時期，其相對應的10年國債利率也大幅攀升。

同樣地，在高通膨率的1980年代初期（藍線），市場利率也曾一度飆升至近20%（黑色虛線）。（見圖）

再看看目前世界主要經濟體的債務狀況（見圖）

新冠疫情之後，世界主要國家的債務風險只增不減。

英國經濟學家，前英格蘭銀行與英國貨幣政策顧問Charles Goodhart警告：「中國帶給全世界的經濟紅利若因其人口結構老化而逐漸消失，則世界必將面對通貨膨脹衝擊。」（"...as aging populations in China and other nations spend more of their savings, average interest rates will rise higher than governments have bargained for...China’s greatest contribution to global growth is now past. This great demographic reversal will lead to a return of inflation.”）

通膨來襲加上實質生產力成長受損的停滯性通膨夾擊下，歐洲與日本等主要經濟體不得不面對更棘手的債務危機。這些國家未來政治與社會的動盪將會是常見的現象。

美元20多年來快速通貨成長下而無明顯國內通膨的一個重要因素，在於其做為世界最主要國際貿易交易結算貨幣的角色，使得世界整體經濟成長大於等於美元通貨成長時，通膨率不易上升。就如Greenspan 2005年在美國國會作證所闡釋，中國作為1990年代以來美國成長最快且體量非常大的貿易夥伴，中國對美元的需求本身就保證了美元的購買力，同時物美價廉的中國製造產品也大幅壓低了美國國內物價增長率。

上個世代扮演此角色的是日本，因此我們也看到日本與中國分別是目前美國國債最大持有國。（Foreign governments owned US$7.053 trillion of US debt in November, including China's US$1.063 trillion, and Japan's US$1.260 trillion, US Treasury data showed. ）

然後在此次疫情重創且血虧的奧運會之後，其逐漸衰退的整體生產力與相當惡化的債務狀況，我懷疑日本還有多少殘存力量支撐美元。

因此我們不難理解為何美國新任Biden政府上台後汲汲營營地尋求與中國高層會面。

結論

人民幣國際化的推進與中美經貿脫鉤二者都會帶來美元實質購買力的衰退與美國通膨惡化。因此美國政府如要避免財政危機，必須做到二件事：a. 解除貿易壁壘，尤其是針對中國的貿易制裁；b. 確保中國繼續願意大額購買美國債券以及使用美元為主要國際貿易結算貨幣。

中國數字人民幣推展與歐洲也開始積極發展數字貨幣的背後，都是直接對美元在國際貿易、金融體系的競爭。一帶一路若越成功也越能協助人民幣國際化。

這些都是美國非常不樂見。因此我們可以看到美國不斷在造謠污衊中國的一帶一路與科技後門監聽等事項，就算明明被抓包踢爆監聽全世界的是美國自己。

然而如同我多次解釋過，美式民主制度下政客的利益與人民利益往往不一致。當鼓動對中仇視有利於競選時，美國政客很難選擇與中國和平、更深度交流的道路；當增加更多政府管制干預與有利於尋租時，政客也是毫不猶豫地如此選擇。所以我們會在未來相當長時間看到精神分裂的美國 -- 又不希望中國在世界經濟影響力增加而欲打壓，但自己又不能真的因打壓中國與之脫鉤。

這種人格分裂狀態恐怕未來十幾年都會是美國政壇主旋律。

因此站在投資人的角度，我選擇把財產壓在美國利率終將上漲這一大方向上。

文章連結：
https://tinyurl.com/58hauwkf

參考資料：

WSJ, "How Much Are Prices Up? Here’s One Family’s Day-to-Day Expenses." July 9, 2021

WSJ, "Job Openings Are at Record Highs. Why Aren’t Unemployed Americans Filling Them?" July 9, 2021

WSJ, "Governments World-Wide Gorge on Record Debt, Testing New Limits" July 12, 2021

范一飞, "关于数字人民币M0定位的政策含义分析" 2020年09月15日

元毓, "宏觀經濟學的尷尬—菲利普曲線死了嗎？" May 8, 2018

NYT, "Yellen Says China Trade Deal Has ‘Hurt American Consumers’" July 16, 2021

WSJ, "Biden Targets Big Business in Sweeping Executive Order to Spur Competition" July 9, 2021

WSJ, "The 2021 Olympics Are Turning Into a $20 Billion Bust for Japan" July 20, 2021

Bank for International Settlement, "CBDCs: an opportunity for the monetary system" BIS Annual Economic Report | 23 June 2021

Barron's, "The Housing Market Is on Fire. The Fed Is Stoking the Flames." July 23, 2021

Barron's, "Disco Inferno: The U.S. Could Be Headed Back to ’70s-Style Stagflation" July 16, 2021

Reuters, "Russia raises key rate to 6.5% in sharpest move since 2014" July 23, 2021

Milton Friedman & George Stigler, "Roofs or Ceilings? The Current Housing Problem" September 1946

Alan Greenspan, "FRB: Testimony" June 23, 2005

The Economist, "Unnaturally low -- China is helping to keep down global interest rates" Oct 2nd 2004

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”

Phew, I just finished the 2020 sermon notes eBook today. Many of you have been asking when it will be ready, and I'm glad to say that it is now ready and available!

For a limited time only, you can get All My Sermon Notes eBooks, which is a bundle of 7 eBooks (2014 - 2020 sermon notes), for just US$39 which is an awesome 50% discount! Get it here:
https://www.miltongoh.net/store/p16/milton-goh-sermon-notes-ebooks.html

Some people don't buy any sermons because of 'choice paralysis'. There's so many messages to choose from, but they don't know which one they want to get. Even if they bought all the sermons, few people have the time to watch more than 300 hours worth of sermons to see which messages they like.

If you were to buy each sermon at $10, you'd have to spend more than $3000 to get all the sermons in this collection.

Get all my 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 sermon notes in a downloadable and printable eBook format for only US$39 (limited time sale price). That's 7 books in total!

They were meticulously compiled and they are the precious fruit of many hundreds of hours of work since 2014. If you knew exactly how much work and heart went into it, you would say that it's too reasonably priced!

These sermon notes eBooks are easy to read. You can finish reading the points of each sermon in under 10 mins. They can act as a catalogue for you to browse through the sermons and see which ones you want to purchase. After reading the points, you may want to buy the sermon so you can hear exactly how the point was delivered by the speaker.

​You can enjoy these sermon notes eBooks even without internet connection and if you're like me who likes reading physical books, you can print them out and even make your own annotations on them during your personal Bible study time with God.

You will also receive the subsequent years' sermon notes eBooks whenever it is ready... so that means 2021, 2022, 2023, and so on!

If you have purchased this product before, you can claim the 2020 sermon notes eBook by replying to this email with a screenshot of your order confirmation email showing your purchase. I will then send you a link to download the eBook.

Testimonial about Milton's sermon notes:

"Milton Goh my brother, your insight on Grace has set me free from 20 yrs of addiction. I was a 7 time felon but by the GRACE of God I am now an ordained minister. Here is some of my story: I was saved in Dec 2016 and started evangelizing in July of 2017 as soon as I was released. My ministry has led over 800 to Jesus. I go to jails, rehabs, homeless shelters plus numerous churches! Your notes and sermons allowed me to find rest in Jesus. I was getting tired trying to perform what I thought God needed from me. You have made me realize it's 100% the CROSS and now I go constantly for Jesus but never get tired. Thanks for your wisdom and love for Jesus. May God bless you and your family!"
- Michael from Cumberland, Kentucky, USA

"Very encouraging simplified sermons. Needed it especially when I cannot attend church due to family commitments. They heighten my knowledge of God. God is good all the time! Thanks for sharing this Milton. May the Lord bless you."
- Nicole Ng, Singapore

"I write with heartfelt thanks to the man of God (Milton Goh) for having developed the idea of giving a chance to a people you didn't know but thought that they needed this wonderful and amazing message of GRACE. Indeed I Moreen (Ugandan) plus my other fellow brethren from different countries and continents are being blessed. Our hopes are raised high, the guilt and condemnation disappear, our fears and insecurities go despite the surrounding circumstances when we reach out to your blog."
- Mukyala Moreen, Uganda

"Hi Mr. Milton Goh, first of all I would like to say “Praise God and thank you so much Mr. Milton. You are such an answered prayer for me. I was really blessed by your blog. It opened my mind to the reality that there is still more than I can do for my Savior. Your blog melted my heart so much for God and pushed me to desire Jesus more. Your powerful notes anointed by the Lord through the Holy Spirit that you have shared will greatly help me for the expansion and growth of my ministry as well as my relationship with my God. I pray that God will continue to use you to inspire, motivate and uplift dying souls. I pray and I believe some day in the future I will be given a chance to encounter a (real encounter) with a servant of Jesus like you. Be richly blessed by God Mr. Milton and your family as well."
- Christine from Makati City, Philippines

"Yours are the best I have ever seen! They should be the official church sermon notes! ... I need to share again. This is written by a young man at NCC Pastor Prince epic amazing sermon notes! This should be in an official publication, it's so professional...! I love your sermon notes! Would like to eventually meet you and give you a gift!"
- Michelle from New York City, USA

Click the following link to buy "All My Sermon Notes eBooks" now and enjoy the 50% discount while it lasts: https://www.miltongoh.net/store/p16/milton-goh-sermon-notes-ebooks.html

2020年12月25日撮影
カメラはGoPro HERO9 Blackを使用しています。
藤沢駅（ふじさわえき）
江ノ島電鉄
1887年（明治20年）7月11日　国鉄（後の東海道本線）旧・横浜駅 - 国府津駅間開通と同時に開業し、旅客・貨物の取り扱いを開始。
1902年（明治35年）9月1日　江之島電氣鐵道線（現・江ノ島電鉄線、以降江ノ電と略す）の駅が開業。
1929年（昭和4年）4月1日　小田急江ノ島線の駅が藤沢町東横須賀464番地に開業。
1972年（昭和47年）4月　江ノ電、仮駅（現・OPA附近）に移る。
1973年（昭和48年）4月　江ノ電、高架化工事着工。翌5月、仮線路使用開始。
1974年（昭和49年）6月7日　江ノ電の現駅舎ビルが供用開始。
2007年（平成19年）3月18日　江ノ島電鉄でICカード「PASMO」の利用が可能となる。
初期には国鉄や小田急と並行する形で線路とホームがあり、2面2線構造の地上駅であった。駅周辺の再開発に伴い、現在の駅ビル方式階上2面1線の構造になった。当初は地下化する計画もあったが、車両の難燃化などの問題から高架化が選択された。
2018年度1日平均乗降人員は23,722人。
The camera uses GoPro HERO9 Black.
Fujisawa Station
Enoshima Electric Railway
The current JR station opened on July 11, 1887.
The current Enoshima Electric Railway line station opened on September 1, 1902.
The average number of passengers getting on and off each day in 2018 is 23,722.
相機使用GoPro HERO9 Black。
藤澤站
江之島電鐵
當前的JR車站於1887年7月11日開放。
目前的江之島電鐵線車站於1902年9月1日開放。
2018年，每天平均上下車的乘客人數為23,722。
相机使用GoPro HERO9 Black。
藤泽站
江之岛电铁
当前的JR车站于1887年7月11日开放。
目前的江之岛电铁线车站于1902年9月1日开放。
2018年，每天平均上下车的乘客人数为23,722。
카메라는 GoPro HERO9 Black을 사용하고 있습니다.
후지사와 역
에노시마 전철
1887 년 7 월 11 일 현재의 JR 역이 개업했다.
1902 년 9 월 1 일 현재 에노시마 전철 선 역이 개업했다.
2018 년도 1 일 평균 승강 인원은 23,722 명이다.

カメラはGoPro HERO9 Blackを使用しています→https://amzn.to/2PD1q7k
GoPro自撮り棒 + 三脚 + セルカ棒→https://amzn.to/2PxiMCA
鉄道の基礎知識[増補改訂版]→https://amzn.to/2Po6dtx
2020年12月31日撮影
川崎駅（かわさきえき）
JR東日本。東海道本線
1872年7月10日（明治5年6月5日）に神奈川駅と共に日本で3番目の鉄道駅として開業。当初は旅客駅。
1898年（明治31年）4月1日に貨物の取り扱いを開始。
1914年（大正3年）12月20日に京浜線（京浜東北線の前身）運行開始。
1918年（大正7年）5月1日に東海道本線貨物支線が浜川崎駅まで開通。
1927年（昭和2年）3月9日に南武鉄道線（現在の南武線）が登戸駅まで開通。
1973年（昭和48年）10月1日に貨物支線 当駅 - 浜川崎駅間が廃止。
1980年（昭和55年）10月1日にSM分離（東海道線と横須賀線の分離運転）により横須賀線が当駅を経由しなくなったと同時に、東海道線のすべての普通列車が停車するようになる。
1981年（昭和56年）9月1日に貨物の取り扱いを廃止。
明治製菓川崎工場へ専用線が続き、貨物輸送が行われていたほか、1970年（昭和45年）頃まで東芝川崎工場へも専用線が続いていた。
1986年（昭和61年）
10月1日に東口地下街「川崎アゼリア」が開業。同時期に川崎駅東口バスターミナルが供用開始。
11月1日に荷物の取り扱いを廃止。
1987年（昭和62年）4月1日に国鉄分割民営化により、東日本旅客鉄道（JR東日本）の駅となる。
1988年（昭和63年）6月28日に橋上駅舎化。駅ビル部分の改装及び増築。
2001年（平成13年）11月18日に交通系ICカード「Suica」の利用が可能となる。
2015年（平成27年）3月14日に上野東京ライン開業。東海道線列車が宇都宮線・高崎線列車と相互直通運転開始。
2017年（平成29年）6月18日に中央北改札供用開始、従来の改札を中央南改札へ、東西自由通路が中央通路に改称。
2018年（平成30年）
2月17日にアトレ川崎内改札（アトレ改札）と、駅の東西を結ぶ北口自由通路および接続する北口改札を供用開始。
11月3日に1・2番線（東海道線ホーム）の拡幅工事が行われる。
2019年度の1日平均乗車人員は215,234人で、JR東日本の駅では北千住駅に次ぐ第11位。神奈川県内での同社の駅では横浜駅に次ぐ第2位。
The camera uses GoPro HERO9 Black
Kawasaki Station
JR East. Tokaido Main Line
It opened on July 10, 1872.
The average number of passengers per day in 2019 is 215,234, which is the 11th largest station in JR East after Kitasenju station. It is the second largest station in Kanagawa prefecture after Yokohama station.
川崎站
JR東。 東海道本線
它於1872年7月10日開業。
2019年的每日平均乘客數量為215,234，這是JR東繼北千住站之後的第11大站。
川崎站
JR东。东海道本线
它于1872年7月10日开业。
2019年的每日平均乘客数量为215,234，这是JR东继北千住站之后的第11大站。
가와사키 역
JR 동일본. 도카이도 본선
1872 년 7 월 10 일 개관했다.
2019 년도 1 일 평균 승차 인원은 215,234 명으로 JR 동일본의 역에서 기타 센주 역에 이어 11 위.

2020年10月14日撮影
川中島駅（かわなかじまえき）
JR東日本　信越本線
1911年（明治44年）5月1日に国鉄信越線の犀川信号所開設。
1917年（大正6年）
7月20日に駅に昇格、川中島駅開業。
11月に篠ノ井駅 - 川中島駅間が複線化。
1984年（昭和59年）1月15日に専用線発着を除く車扱貨物の取扱を廃止。
1985年（昭和60年）3月14日に荷物の取扱を廃止。
1987年（昭和62年）4月1日に国鉄分割民営化により、JR東日本・JR貨物の駅となる。
1995年（平成7年）12月6日に駅舎改築。
1997年（平成9年）3月22日に貨物列車の設定が廃止。
2009年（平成21年）7月23日にホームに待合室設置。
2018年（平成30年）4月1日に改札 - 跨線橋間と跨線橋 - ホーム間にそれぞれエレベーター設置。改札内に多目的トイレ設置。
2019年度（令和元年度）の1日平均乗車人員は1,637人。
Kawanakajima Station
JR East. Shinetsu Main Line
It opened on July 20, 1917.
The average number of passengers per day in 2019 is 1,637.
川中島站
JR東。 信越本線
它於1917年7月20日開業。
2019年的每日平均乘客人數為1,637。
川中岛站
JR东。信越本线
它于1917年7月20日开业。
2019年的每日平均乘客人数为1,637。
가와나카지마 역
JR 동일본. 신 에쓰 본선
1917 년 7 월 20 일 개관했다.
2019 년도 1 일 평균 승차 인원은 1,637 명.