(June 22, 2011, Wednesday.  大致审阅了刘谢夫妇Rule12(b)(6) 动议文件和原告的第二修正诉状  the Second Amended Compliant。刘先生在6/19/11 文章中邀请专家评论，lawandorder 义不容辞。动议中对13个指控的每个指控都有在法律上取消的多种论证，但关键的要害还是诉讼期，本文也只谈这个问题。所有引述原告第二修正诉状的原文指控的下划线都是本文所加。)

第一， 刘先生在6/19/11 文章中讲：“最困难之点，在于要在短短25页之内把整个动议写明、写完，这就需要咬文嚼字，反复斟酌，务求一句顶一句。当然，最重要的是准确、严谨，做到一拳致命，绝对不能玩那种用于炒作的花拳绣腿。”-- 准确。 职业上经常讲的一句话： "It's not how much you say; it's what you say."  刘先生还讲: “据了解，如果莫虎的动议长达50页，那么海明的抗辩也可以长达50页，莫虎决定不给海明这个机会。现在由于莫虎的动议案只有25页，因此海明的抗辩案也必须限于25页，这就要看海明有没有莫虎的这种真功夫了。” -- 不准确。本案地区法官Judge Sand （见 Individual Rules of Practice - July 28th, 2010）和助理法官Judge Francis （见Individual Rules of Practice - February 24th, 2011）都要求动议法律陈述（Memorandum of Law） 不超过25 页，否则要请求法官批准。任何一方都有可以请求增加页张，一般情况下法官也都批准。

第二，Rule 12(b) 动议经常称为 "在诉状的四个角内打诉状。” 诉状里面有的指控跑不掉，诉状外面的事实或指控进不来 （有几种情况除外）。 因此，如果动议方或反驳方呈交任何诉状以外的材料（"matters outside the pleadings"），该条款要求法官不予考虑。 但是，如果法官要考虑这些诉状外的材料，这个动议就必须是变为由条款56 管辖的书面判决动议。  ("12(d)  Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings.  If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.  All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.")  从经验上看，法官一般不把取消动议变为书面判决动议，所以一般都不考虑诉状外的材料来做决定是否取消诉状。 因此，很有可能法官对Franklin K. Chiu 律师作证引出的那些除了第二修改诉状 (Ex. C) 以外的文件 （Exs. A-B, Exs. D-I）不予考虑。同样，Franklin K. Chiu 律师作证引出的第13段有关律师之间谈和解的内容也不会考虑。 （除非能够满足那几种例外情形。）当然，这些材料和Rule 11惩罚动议直接相关。

第三，原告第二修改状中对停止诉讼期流失有明确地指控。主要有两点：第一点，被告在过去的10 多年中不在纽约/美国，以试图使用纽约诉讼法CPLR 207来复活诉讼期。 该条款规定在被告返回之前诉讼期时间不流失。（"... the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time he comes into or returns to the state"）。（见第39 段, "... KS Liu and Winston Sie have been out of the country as well as the jurisdiction for most of the past ten years.  They have been doing business in China and Hong Kong. Therefore, the statute limitation may have been tolled.”；见第43段“... KS Liu and Wilson Xue have been out of the country for most of the past ten years, as they have been doing business in China and Hong Kong.  ... Wilson Xue has denounced his US Citizenship and accepted Hong Kong citizenship. Therefore, the statute limitation may have been tolled."; 见第145段， " ... KS Liu and Winston Sie have been out of the country as well as the jurisdiction for most of the past ten years.  They have been doing business in China and Hong Kong. Therefore, the statute limitation may have been tolled."） 尽管如此，纽约法院对原告使用207条款非常苛刻，原告几乎无法依靠207款达到复活诉讼期。（见207 条款使用的3个例外。） 第二点，原告在过去的10 多年中被软禁无能起诉，已达到证明要挟，恐吓，逼迫来停住诉讼期的时间流逝。（见第27 段，“K.S. LIU and GINA HIU-HUNG Liu have acted in concert with Zhang Jian, the President of Chinese Gymnastic Association, preventing Ms. LAN and her parents from voicing any complaints or lodging claims against whoever could be liable for her injuries, in an effort to protect the Defendants and business partners, who are acting in a conflict of interest.  As a matter of fact, Ms. LAN has been under house arrest by K.S. LIU and GINA HIU-HUNG Liu, who listens to their Chinese boss only.”； 见45段 “... During the period of 10 months after plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff Sang Lan was placed in co-defendants Liu’s house arrests.”） 这点我在以前的文章中有讲过，就算是有这些情形，法律要求诉讼期必须在这些情形不存在之时再开始算起。纽约最高法院早在1887年的一个案例中曾经讲过，“诉讼期的时间流逝和一个受伤的人的智商程度，或者和他是否有充足的勇气和独立去克服逆境去捍卫它的法律权利无关。" ("[T]he statute begins to run irrespective of the degree of intelligence possessed by the injured party, and whether he has enough of courage and independence to resist a hostile influence and assert his rights or not.") （Piper v. Hoard, 62 Sickels 67, 107 N.Y. 67）。 尽管证明这两点成功的机会几乎不存在，原告只是希望能够创造出事实争议，在Rule 12(b) 动议上求存活（survival）。尽管如此，刘谢夫妇的法律陈述上应该在这两方面正面出击(direct attack) 或从原告背后出击 （preemptive strike）, 适当引用法院先例来证明，就算这些指控是事实存在的话 (这是Rule 12(b) 动议标准)， 这两点不可以构成停止诉讼期流失 (toll)的依据 。

第四，原告第二修改状中还有和桑兰基金会相关对诉讼期复活的指控。 （见第8 项指控，84 段， “... K.S. LIU and K.S GINA HIU-HUNG recently in 2008 provided portions of the funds to Ms. LAN without accounting for the remaining funds. Said funds have been mishandled, misappropriate , embezzled, looted and comingled with defendants’ personal funds without Sang Lan’s consent."; 见第九项指控， 89 段  “...K.S. LIU and K.S GINA HIU-HUNG recently in 2008 provided portions of the funds to Ms. LAN without accounting for the remaining funds. ... "）以上两段中所提“recently in 2008" 目的就是要把10 多年的诉讼期复活， 或至少创造出事实争议，在Rule 12(b) 动议上求存活。尽管法院不会轻易考虑诉状外的材料，但是如果这方面有文件证明和原告相反的指控，递交出来有利无弊。

第五， 原告第二修改状中还隐藏着和桑兰基金会相关有效诉讼期的指控。见第10 项指控，第94 段，“... Hugh Mo as a former legal advisor also owes a special duty to former client Sang Lan" 中动词用的是“owes" 暗示这个动作现在还继续存在。见第14项指控，第115 段，“K.S. LIU and K.S. GINA HIU-HUNG intentionally and knowingly use Ms. LAN’s name, portrait, image and picture for the purposes of advertising or trade without consent and for a profit”中动词“use" 不是过去时， 暗示这个动作现在还继续存在。刘谢夫妇的法律陈述中讲 "诉状中没有对律师Mo 或者Liu 对原告有任何信任责任的指控。" ("There is no allegation that Attorney Mo or the Lius owed any fiduciary duty within the relevant time period to Sang Lan.") (第11页)。但诉状中第44-45 段中可以理解成有对这种责任的指控。  同样，尽管法院不会轻易考虑诉状外的材料，但是如果这方面有文件证明和原告相反的指控，递交出来有利无弊。

第六， 针对第17 项性侵的指控，原告第二修改诉状对诉讼期的复活是完全依靠纽约民事诉讼法 CPLR 215(8)。 该法条规定如果因当年性侵事件对刘先生父子的刑事案件已开始，那么相应的民事诉讼可以在这个刑事案件终止后的一年之内开始，即使从发事起一年时间早已过期；或者如果是强奸等所规定性犯罪的话，那么相关民事诉讼可以在刑事案件终止后的5年之内开始，即使从发事起一年时间早已过期。( CPLR 215(8).  " (a)  Whenever  it is shown that a criminal action against the same defendant has been commenced with respect to the event or occurrence from which a claim governed by this section arises, the plaintiff shall have at least one year from the termination of the criminal action as defined  in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law in which to commence the civil action, notwithstanding that the time in which to commence such action has already expired or has less than a year remaining.  (b) Whenever it is shown that a criminal action against the same defendant has been commenced with respect to the event or occurrence from which a claim governed by this section arises, and such  criminal action is for rape in the first degree as defined in section 130.35 of the penal law, or criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in section 130.50 of the penal law, or aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree as  defined in section 130.70 of the penal law, or course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree as defined in section 130.75 of the penal law, the plaintiff shall have at  least  five  years from the termination of the criminal action as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law in which to commence the civil action, notwithstanding that the time  in  which  to commence such action has already expired or has less than a year remaining.") （黑体部分本文所加） （见第17 项指控，第40 段，“Ms. Sang Lan confirmed the above sexual assault and have filed a criminal complaint against the offenders recently with the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office.  The District Attorney Office has contacted Sang Lan’s attorney, invested time and resources on the investigation of this matter, and has made appointment with Sang Lan to meet her personally.”） 因此，这个性侵指控是否能够使用215(8) 条款达到诉讼期复活，要看政府是否能够启动对刘先生父子的刑事案件。政府能否对13年前的事件立案，需要刑事法律专家来分析和判断。 但是， 从民事诉讼角度来看，因为现在还没有开始任何刑事案件，那么第17项对刘先生父子性侵指控的诉讼期就不能依靠215(8)条款来复活。尽管如此，刘谢夫妇的法律陈述上应该在这两方面正面或从原告背后出击, 作适当的法律论证。

第七，刘谢夫妇的法律陈述脚注8 （Footnote 8）中提示， 针对法院管辖权问题，刘谢夫妇将单独递交动议，估计是依靠刘先生之子的香港公民为依据，法院缺少diversity 管辖权。 不明白的是， 此动议为什么没有同时一起出手，以便增加Rule 12(b) 取消动议的力度。