当前在线人数15639
首页 - 分类讨论区 - 华人世界 - 渥太华版 - 同主题阅读文章

此篇文章共收到打赏
0

  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
您目前伪币余额:0
未名交友
[更多]
[更多]
讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
[版面:渥太华][首篇作者:lvus] , 2014年05月12日18:04:59 ,474次阅读,4次回复
来APP回复,赚取更多伪币 关注本站公众号:
[分页:1 ]
lvus
进入未名形象秀
我的博客
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏] [举报] [ 1 ]

发信人: lvus (lvus), 信区: Ottawa
标  题: 讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调... (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon May 12 18:04:59 2014, 美东)

【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: lvus (lvus), 信区: WaterWorld
标  题: 讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon May 12 15:34:55 2014, 美东)



方师祖遭威胁报警寻求安全保护
众网友读帖子回应表示关心支持
正必胜斜

首先,衷心感谢众多网友的关心关怀支持保护,兄弟给你们磕头了!
兄弟先叙述报警经过,然后再讲述报警的具体程序。
报警经过:
兄弟昨晚接收电邮后,刚开始没觉得太可怕,但是越想越不对劲,越想越觉得害怕。兄
弟受到的潜在威胁有两个部分:1)人身安全; 2)被起诉。同时,兄弟在精神上受到
极度惊吓,今天因为过度害怕都不敢出门上班,只能报警寻求警方保护。先拨打911,
接线生回答后,兄弟告诉她兄弟受到的安全威胁是来自于昨晚收到的一封邮件,并不是
现场的威胁,接线生让兄弟改打另一个电话号码。兄弟打通后,接线生转给了一个报警
专线,询问了姓名、地址、电话等情况后,让兄弟别出门在家等待警官上门。大约过了
一刻钟左右吧,警官来到我家,先看了昨天兄弟接收的电邮,告诉兄弟那不是立即的威
胁,因为没有白纸黑字地写明到我家干什么,不能立案24小时提供安全保护但建议如果
有生人叫门,没搞清楚来访者身份前不要开门,如果觉得可疑,马上拨打911。接下来
调查威胁性邮件的来龙去脉,兄弟出示了所有网上帖子和邮件往来。警官觉得“捐款事
件”有可疑之处,但她仅是接报警员,没权决定是否当场立案并发给我立案号码,她需
要回警局根据提供的资料由主管决定,让我等待电话通知。大约一个小时后,我接获电
话,通知我fraud部门的主管决定成立专案调查此次捐款事件,派专门警员负责接受举
报和资料并展开调查,让我补充提交想要提交的所有资料。所以,接下来讲述报警的具
体程序。
报警程序:
报警电话:1-613-230-6211
案例号码:2014-109126
Q1:谁可以报警?
A1:严格来讲,任何人觉得可疑都可以报警,但没有捐款的人报警是尽公民的义务,而
捐款人作为直接受害者报警更有力度。举报说明(statement)没有具体的规格和文本
,建议具体写明什么时候看到听到什么后捐了多少金额,后来又看到什么而觉得被欺骗
了,觉得自己成为直接受害人(victim),对整个募捐过程的感想包括因此次募捐活动
而心理遭受伤害;渥太华华人社区的互相信任因此次募捐活动而遭受破坏,对以后可能
真正遇到困难的同胞需要帮助时没有人愿意出手相助;中国人的声誉因此次募捐事件而
遭受损害 …… 等等,都可以写进举报说明。
Q2:怎么举报?
A2a:因为911用于紧急报警呼救,举报募捐事件不是紧急情况,建议大家不要拨打911
占用紧急报警呼救的有限资源而是拨打1-613-230-6211。
A2b:可以个人举报,也可以集体举报。
A2c:可以在家里通过电话举报,等待警官上门接受举报说明和举报材料;也可以携带
举说明和举报报材料到任何警局举报。
Q3:已经立案调查的案例号码是什么?
A3:Ottawa Police的Fraud部门已经成立专案调查此次捐款事件,已经立案调查的案例
号码是:2014-109126。一般情况下,每次举报被接受警局决定立案后警局都会给举报
者发一个案例号码。因为此次举报的属于同一事件,警局建议使用已经立案调查的这个
案例号码(case number),便于统一收集归类处理举报资料统一进行调查。警局建议
举报此次募捐事件时引用(reference)这个案例号码。
Q4:除了举报说明,还需要什么资料?
A4a:多多益善!募捐组织者的联系方式包括姓名、地址、电话号码及工作单位等,越
详细越方便警察调查。
A4b:网站comefromchina.com (CFC) 的拥有者管理者的姓名、办公地点及联系方等,
越详细越方便警察调查。
A4c:CFC删除了什么由CFC自己公布的公告及回应帖子,如有的网友留底备案或者载图
都行,直接作为举报附件,不要给网络链接增加警方调查的工作量。
A4d:CFC发布的所有公告、通知及回帖载图,直接写到材料里,不要给网络链接增加警
方调查的工作量。
A4d:谁用什么具体的ID贴了什么帖子被CFC删除,如有的网友留底备案或者载图都行,
直接作为举报附件,不要给网络链接增加警方调查的工作量。
A4e:谁的什么具体ID、IP被CFC封禁
A4f: 募捐受益人的财政状况如难者工作情况及工作单位提供的人寿保险、遗孀的工作
情况、住宅状况等任何有关的财政信息。
Q5:还可以举报什么别的内容吗?
A5:Ottawa Police的Fraud部门只负责募捐事件的举报和调查,别的比如CFC是否践踏
了言论自由、身为公务员的募款组织者是否违反了公务员行为准则,Ottawa Police的
Fraud部门不接受这些举报和调查,质疑者可以向有关负责的具体部门举报,比如the
CRTC,The Ethics Commissioner of the Parliament, The Ethics Committee of the
Treasury Board, the ethics committees of various federal government
departments (e.g., CRA, PWGSC), the human resources and personnel
departments of various federal government departments.
Q6:警方调查后还有什么后续行动?
A6:警方调查后判断决定募捐活动的性质,然后决定是否由警方提出刑事公诉。但是,
捐款受害人可以通过法庭提出个人或集体民事诉讼(individual/class-action civil
lawsuit),诉讼对象由诉讼者决定,比如募捐组织者及CFC。公诉或者民事诉讼是两个
独立的司法程序,两者之间没有矛盾和对立,可以同时进行。

以上是兄弟在极度惊慌的情况下凭借记忆根据与警官的当面或电话对话而能想起来的。
有任何错处如错字别字等,请网友们跟帖斧正;网友们如有什么不明白的地方或者别的
补充问题,敬请跟帖提问,兄弟尽可能回答。

多谢大家的关心关怀支持爱护保护!
本主题由 中文网 于 2014-5-12 09:39 删除回复

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

讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...

本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-7 10:36 编辑


号角嘟嘟嘟声声撼天召秃笔脱帽不可沽名学霸王锋不藏拙锐指牛鬼尽书钢铁事实反正群
魔诸乱
鼓点咚咚咚擂擂动地摧义士出山宜将剩勇追穷寇势如破竹气镇蛇鼠彻揪利益集团戳穿鬼
魅伎俩
中华清誉得之不易岂容陪葬言论自由与生俱来难忍践踏

讨贼檄文·一
诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调侃对联选编

     公元两千又一十四年(明国一百零三年)三月一十九日,刘氏越君,神州帝都人
士,先就读哈里法克斯市达尔豪西大学几年得IT学位,后迁居加拿大京城渥村数载,就
业于联邦政府国税局,百业尽兴,房车俱备,弃年迈体弱多病父母于不顾,乃携妻儿老
小举家休闲度假于南美洲古巴国。视汹涌澎湃的淘流滚浪为公共泳池私家浴缸,取乐嬉
戏于海滨。无奈,暗流不识君面,巨浪劈头盖脑。水性不佳救仔心切,不幸葬身鱼腹英
年早逝。
     遗孀弃尸异国率子返乡。越明日,有邻里故旧数众连夜炮制募捐倡议,编造凄凉
穷相,极尽煽情伎俩,“……父尽最后一口气对子曰:I cannot save you any more(
孩子,老爸再也救不了你了);刘家没有买旅游保险,平时也没有准备任何人身保险/
按揭保险的事,只有工作单位给员工买的基本保险可用,简直是杯水车薪;救急不救穷
……”,贴于村中中文网站 comefromchina.com(CFC)。CFC“皇上”当道,急于捞取
名利进入“主流社会”,见此机会觉乃天送也,立刻行动,连夜召集朝内重臣后宫佳丽
组织募捐委员会自任主委兼中文媒体发言人(坊间传闻,主委亦刘君故邻胜友)。更有
非黄非白的假洋鬼子(报纸证实亦为刘君故交),野心勃勃,欲参选问政充当渥村侨界
第一名华人国会议员。这不是送上门来的捞取政治资本的大好时机?岂可轻易放过?翻
译捐书兼任英文媒体发言人,联系各大媒体驻外领馆(那口英文呀,写的也好,说的也
罢,实令人不敢怎么恭维也)……
     渥村同胞见闻死者家贫,乏资运送遗体返乡安葬,岂可令同胞乡党孤魂野鬼于异
国它地?村中男女老少高矮胖瘦闻噩皆哀声连连叹息绵绵,痛心疾首捶胸顿足,爱心泛
泛善举竞赛。十龄女童馨其所有,断腿“先生”踊跃捐献,贫寒学子解囊襄助,疲惫苦
工节食力赠 …… 捐献者犹如村中赶集争先恐后竞多怕少,经私下亲自赠送上门、支票
、email transfer及Paypal等形式源源不断流入指定募捐账号。不几日,一万、两万、
三万 …… 善款数目远超运尸丧事所需 ……
     继之,遗孀及英文媒体发言人示相于中央电视台,噩讯广传,惨状毕露,举国上
下捐献惠赠,气势汹汹益发不可收拾,善意款项自四面八方如潮涌入,猛涨爆增。越数
日,有数众对君家状况了如指掌如数家珍,对募捐行径心生疑惑,布公其实情于短帖间
。原来募书所言全属捏造,看:公婆双双,政府职员,年薪不详,谅难太低;人寿保险
,两载薪金,一笔清付,无须交税;死亡抚恤,不计其数。高尚小区,豪宅一幢,香车
两辆。想:事实铮铮,板上钉钉;洋装金碗,沿街乞讨?如此募书岂非白日梦语,睁眼
说瞎;瞒天过海,欺骗同胞;诈取捐款,玩弄怜悯!质疑声略有所闻,“皇上”凭其网
站第一波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP,死伤不计其数。
     众益怒,身处民主法治国度,如此行径置公众知情权、言论自由及国家王法于何
地?“新手上路”雨后春笋,愤怒声讨彼伏此起,络绎不绝震耳欲聋。“前庭后院”家
事隐私岂容外人嬉戏侃闹,大胆到公然发帖指明“皇上没有穿衣服”,朝内大臣乱棒高
举,第二波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP浪及全网,ID、IP陪葬者复不计其数。
     遗孀公开信出,哀悼竞赛犹似赶集争先恐后,“走好”“节哀”“保重”…… 花
圈烛光挽联络绎不绝,回帖在不足两小时内超过200。细读公开信,天呐,这语文一定
是什么名校的什么中文系什么名教授“亲自”教出来的,搪塞推托随手写来笔走龙蛇,
忽悠伎俩独步渥村空前绝后。然则,前言不答后语,矛盾纰漏百出 …… 质问声讨浪淘
愈高。“皇上”凭其“后院”网站,第三波删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP席卷全网,苍荑满
目哀鸿遍野,惨状难述不堪入目。不才注册才三天的ID及IP未能逃过一劫,不幸被扼杀
在摇篮之中当陪葬品。
     弃尸诈捐骗局乎?真相终将大白于光天化日之下!乌云蔽日尚几昼?只手遮天还
几夜?过去时:悲剧!进行时:闹剧!将来时:惨剧?
     中华子孙之清名良誉得来极其艰难,岂容陪葬!与生俱来的言论自由神圣不可侵
犯,难忍践踏!
     不才未识事主男女诸君,前无故怨后没新恨,被逼出山秃笔脱帽,拙著口诛笔伐
讨贼檄文者三章:《讨贼檄文·一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调侃对联选
编》;《讨贼檄文·二:中英文公开信》;不日内定稿《讨贼檄文·三:诈款门录》。
     哀文封笔时拨群魔诸乱以反正,诈局戳穿日归炎黄子孙予清誉。哀哉!逝者如无
边春雨悄悄去;日子似不尽渥河滚滚来。任重道远?关山能越!呜呼。
本主题由 中文网 于 2014-5-12 13:27 删除回复




--
※ 修改:·lvus 於 May 12 16:40:10 2014 修改本文·[FROM: 24.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 网址:mitbbs.com 移动:在应用商店搜索未名空间·[FROM: 24.]

 
lvus
进入未名形象秀
我的博客
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏] [举报] [ 2 ]

发信人: lvus (lvus), 信区: Ottawa
标  题: Re: 讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon May 12 18:05:53 2014, 美东)

http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/WaterWorld/2418569.html
--
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 网址:mitbbs.com 移动:在应用商店搜索未名空间·[FROM: 24.]

 
lvus
进入未名形象秀
我的博客
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏] [举报] [ 3 ]

发信人: lvus (lvus), 信区: Ottawa
标  题: Re: 讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu May 15 15:18:47 2014, 美东)


http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=84


可能证明貌似诈骗动机的重要线索

本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-14 09:09 编辑


要点

一)       CFC发布的诸公告,遗孀3月30日致捐赠者的公开信,以及Andy发给我的电
子邮件等之间,存在着一系列的互相矛盾和漏洞。这一系列的互相矛盾和漏洞不能不令
人怀疑在3月30日前,遗体已经火化或古巴火葬场已经获悉家人火化遗体的决定。然而
,没钱运遗体回来是募捐组织者一再坚持使用的募捐理由。他们直到4月3日还把这个理
由刊登在报纸上。
二)       Andy声称,遗孀和他都向全国媒体完全披露了真实信息。媒体决定向观众/
读者披露或不披露哪些信息,他管不了。因此,误导责任在媒体。
三)       CFC 3月25日发布公告,停止主动募捐活动。这里面存在两个问题:
     1 )这是募捐组织发布的正式公告,有没有发往全国性媒体?毕竟,全国性、全
球性的募捐活动是媒体宣传后发动的。
     2 )家庭朋友和英文媒体发言人Andy 3月28日接受Nepean-Barrhaven News采访,
这个报纸4月3日发行。报纸引用Andy的话说,遗体遣返和丧葬费用估计在$30,000之上
,募捐活动已经筹集到$20,000。难者家庭经济困难重重。
四)       在3月30日致捐助者的公开信里,遗孀声称家人被加拿大领事馆告知一系列
事情(详见下文),但Andy声称他在3月31日以私人公民身份第一次与使馆联系。

详情

1)Andy声称,家属和他都明确向媒体通报了真实财务状况比如夫妻都是政府工,没有
购买人手保险等,交谈都超过30分钟以上,是媒体选择不报道难者经济情况的,误导的
责任在媒体。 引Andy email的原话,“As well, you misunderstand how the media
works here in Canada. We have an outstanding free press and they are free to
report on any story the way they see fit. Ms. Fanyan Bu and I answered many
questions on the day of the interviews. For example, we told the media
about the job situations (both of them are employed with the Fed' Govt),
they did not buy any life insurance, and many other issues were discussed.
The interviews lasted approx 30 minutes both on and off camera with CTV and
another 30 minutes with CBC. The actual broadcasts lasted only a few minutes
. It is not up to me to decide what they can or cannot put on air or in
print.”

2)CFC公告3月25日停止主动募捐,Andy作为发言人3月28日接受Nepean-Barrhaven
News采访。主动募捐并没有停止。Andy作为家庭朋友和募捐活动英文媒体发言人在采访
时对记者说运尸体加丧葬费用估计在$3万以上,已经募集到$2万,家属经济困难重重。

3)家属在3月30日公开信里明确指出,“在进一步和加拿大驻古巴领事馆的沟通后,我
们被告知只能选择在渥太华接收遗体或者骨灰,即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗
体,甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝。事发初期,由于要照顾家里有两位年愈古稀
的老人和心灵受重创的孩子,身体本身就十分虚弱的我实在无法抽身飞往古巴。如今在
调整数日之后,我觉得身体条件允许我亲自前往古巴取回刘越骨灰。我感谢自告奋勇愿
意陪同我到古巴迎取刘越骨灰的两位志愿者,也感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、敦促
古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化,并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会。希
望我们可以顺利地将刘越骨灰带回渥太华,早日入土为安。”
但Andy的email说,“March 31, 2014: I helped call the Canadian Embassy in
Cuba as a private citizen and helped liaise Ms. Fanyan Bu with the person in
charge of the regional affairs for Canadians who are in Cuba and also
helped with some English email correspondence until Ms. Fanyan Bu traveled
to Cuba to retrieve Mr. Yue Liu's remains”。

这里面漏洞太多了:

a)被告知在3月30日,而Andy以普通公民身份3月31日才跟驻古巴领事馆联系,被告知
在前联系在后,到底谁在撒谎?
b)“即便家属去古巴也未必能够见到刘越遗体”。为什么见不到?是不是尸体早已火
化?
c)“甚至连观看遗体火化的要求也被拒绝”。被谁拒绝了,是加拿大领事馆还是古巴
有关当局?
d)“敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化”。即时当时尸体没有火化,是不是
早发出火化尸体的通知了?
e)“为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会”。加拿大人到古巴连签证都不要,为什
么去古巴迎接骨灰的机会需要加拿大领事馆争取?
--
--
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 网址:mitbbs.com 移动:在应用商店搜索未名空间·[FROM: 24.]

 
lvus
进入未名形象秀
我的博客
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏] [举报] [ 4 ]

发信人: lvus (lvus), 信区: Ottawa
标  题: Re: 讨贼檄文•一:诈捐门“豪言壮举”网友问答谎言怒斥调...
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu May 15 15:19:28 2014, 美东)


http://www.ottawachinesenet.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=84


Possible key leads to proof of the suspected scam motives

本帖最后由 方舟子的师祖 于 2014-5-15 13:04 编辑

What follows is an English translation from the post in Chinese by“渥村未名
人”(I have his permission to do so). Please use the English version if
there are errors/inaccuracies.
以下是山人从“渥村未名人”中文帖子翻译的英文(我有他的授权),题目是山人加的
。如果翻译有错漏,以英文版为准。

Highlight

a) Deducting from a series of inconsistencies in CFC's announcements, the
widow's open letter, and Andy's emails, it is suspicious that the body was
cremated or the Cuban crematorium was informed of the family's decision to
cremate the body before March 30. Yet, body repatriation was the main reason
the fundraisers persistently used to appeal for donations and/or defend the
fundraising campaign in their ownannouncements. They were talking about
body repatriation up until April 3.

b) Andy claimed that the widow and he disclosed truthful information to the
national media. It was up to the media to decide what information to or not
to disclose to their audiance/readership. Therefore, the misleading
responsibility rests with the media.

c) Active fundraising activities were officially announced on CFC to be
ceased by March 25.There are two issues involved here:

     1) Was this official announcement released to the media whereby the
nation-wide and world-wide fundraising drive was launched?
     2) Family friend and the English media spokesman, Andy Wang, was
interviewed by the Nepean-Barrhaven News on March 28, and the paper was
published on April 3. In the newspaper report, Andy was quoted as saying
that body repatriation and funeral-related costs were estimated to be over $
30,000 and the donation campaign received around $20,000.The family now
faces difficult financial challenges.

d) In the open letter to donors on March 30, the widow claimed that the
family was told by the Canadian Consulate of a series of things (see below
for details) but Andy claimed he made the first-ever contact with the
Embassy as a private citizen on March 31.

Details

1) In his email, Andy made it very clear that the widow and he have made it
clear to the media about the family’s true financial conditions such as
that the couples were government employees and that they did not buy any
life insurance. They talked to the media for over 30 minutes. It were the
media that chose not to fully disclose the truthful information. This is to
imply that the misleading responsibility rests with the media. To quote Andy
’s very own words, "As well, you misunderstand how the media works here in
Canada. We have an outstanding free press and they are free to report on any
story the way see fit. Ms Fanyan Bu and I answered many questions on the
day of the interview. For example, we told the media about the job
situations (both of them are employed with the Fed 'Govt), they did not buy
any life insurance, and many other issues were discussed. The interviews
lasted approx 30 minutes both on and off camera with CTV and another 30
minutes with CBC. The actual broadcasts lasted only a few minutes. It is not
up to me to decide what they can or cannot put on air or in print."

2) CFC announced on March 25 to stop active fundraising activities. Yet,
Andy as a family friend and spokesman was interviewed on March 28 by the
Nepean-Barrhaven News and the paper was published on April 3. As a family
friend and the fundraising English media spokesman, Andy was quoted as
saying that body repatriation and funeral-related expenses were estimated to
be over $30,000 and the fundraisers have collected around $20,000. The
family now faces difficult financial challenges. The amount of donations
Andy mentioned was far below CFC updates.

3) The widow said in the March 30 open letter (I could not find an English
version, so I took the task of translating into English. I am responsible
for any errors and/or inaccuracies), “After further communications with the
Canadian Consulate in Cuba, we are told to receive either the body or ashes
in Ottawa. Further, even if family members go to Cuba, we may not be able
to see the body. Furthermore, our request to watch the cremation was also
rejected.……  I would wish to thank two volunteers to accompany me to Cuba
to receive Yue Liu’s ashes. I would also wish to thank Andy for his help
for contacting the Canadian Consulate, urging the Cuban cremation agency to
cremate the body as soon as possible, creating the opportunity for us to go
to Cuba to retrieve the ashes. ……”.

Yet, Andy 's email unambiguously stated, “March 31, 2014: I helped call the
Canadian Embassy in Cuba as a private citizen and helped liaise Ms. Fanyan
Bu with the person in charge of the regional affairs for Canadians who are
in Cuba and also helped with some English email correspondence until Ms.
Fanyan Bu traveled to Cuba to retrieve Mr. Yue Liu's remains”.

There are too many outrageous inconsistencies involved here:

a) The family was told on March 30 yet Andy made the first-ever private-
citizen contact on March 31. How in the world could the family be told a day
before Andy made the initial contact with the Embassy?

b) “Even if family members go to Cuba, they may not be able to see the body
”.One can’t help but wonder why not? The only logical answer one can
deduct is that the body was already cremated or the family has informed the
crematorium with the decision to cremate before March 30.

c) “Our request to watch the cremation was also rejected”. Who rejected
that request, the Canadian Consulate or Cuban authorities?

d) “Urging the Cuban cremation agency to cremate the body as soon
as possible”. One can’t help but ask even if the body was not cremated
before March 30, has the family informed the crematorium with the decision
to cremate before March 30?

e) “Creating the opportunity for us to go to Cuba to receive the ashes”.
What is exactly going on here? A visa is not even required of Canadians to
travel to Cuba, how come the family needed the Canadian Embassy to fight for
the opportunity to go to Cuba and retrieve the ashes?

--
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 网址:mitbbs.com 移动:在应用商店搜索未名空间·[FROM: 24.]

[分页:1 ]
[快速返回] [ 进入渥太华讨论区] [返回顶部]
回复文章
标题:
内 容:

未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿

友情链接


 

Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

版权所有,未名空间(mitbbs.com),since 1996