博客栏目停服公告
因网站改版更新,从9月1日零时起美国中文网将不再保留博客栏目,请各位博主自行做好备份,由此带来的不便我们深感歉意,同时欢迎 广大网友入驻新平台!
美国中文网
2024.8.8
定稿已于7月15日发给美联社。感谢188位网友的联署,包括40位实名网友及148位网名网友。(名单统计截止于7月15日美国西部时间晚八时)
岳博士起草的帖子非常好非常专业,感谢他!前一封信是普通网友的呐喊,而岳博士那篇是专业人士的深刻剖析。这篇是打狗棒,岳博士那篇是夺命剑,呵呵。如果大家决定发岳博士的作为第二封公开信的话,我第一个签名!
注:由于本稿是大家共同努力和讨论的结果,我只是执笔人。而且大家也都签名同意发表。我没有权力为所有人作出撤换稿子的决定。如果您在本稿签名过,但现在认为本稿不妥,不愿署名的,请跟帖告知,或email联系我。
==========================================================================
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are readers of your news article “Lawyer: Deal reached to care for paralyzed gymnast” dated July 12, 2011, written by Mr. Larry Neumeister, Associated Press. Most of us are are from north-america and mainland China, and have been reading the news about Sang Lan’s lawsuit for the past two months.
We write to request your attention to the inaccurate and misleading statements made by the lawyer for the paralyzed gymnast. We also request that you consider publishing a remedial report based on the information stated in the letter, as we believe any reputable and responsible news organization should do.
Below is an incomplete list of misleading or inaccurate statements in the report as well as the facts we discovered to challenge those statements.
1. "The lawyer, Ming Hai, said he could not divulge details of the deal. Still, he said it will provide up to $10 million in cash and health care over the lifetime of the 30-year-old gymnast, Sang Lan." (underlines added)
What we found: the statement of "(TIG) will provide up to $10 million in cash" is misleading, and "(TIG) will provide health care over the lifetime of Sang Lan" is what she already got in 1998. In other words, what is agreed in the settlement is no different from what had been stipulated in the original insurance policy in 1998.
Under the current insurance policy established in 1998, Sang Lan already has a coverage up to $10 million dollars, which of course is not in cash. This information is available at http://www.sinovision.net/blog/ksliu/details/85486.html. Unless there is a a cheque with a substantial dollar amount issued to Sang Lan (which was denied by TIG Insurance Company), Ming Hai’s statement about the "up to $10 million in cash"is evidently incorrect and obviously made to mislead the readers.
We have contacted TIG Insurance Company to verify Ming Hai's statement. The Director of Litigation Richard Fabian denied that TIG paid a fat cheque to Sang Lan. Apparently $10 million is a big dollar amount. Although both parties didn't disclose the amount of the monetary compensation, what Ming Hai said is contrary to TIG’s stated position. (For our investigatory work please refer to https://www.sinovision.net/blog/aiai/details/85691.html)
Also, Mr Fabian stated that TIG denied all the allegations that Sang Lan made in her complaint, since they didn't do anything wrong, nor did TIG make any apology to Sang Lan; TIG has been paying for Sang Lan's medical expense claims in the past 13 years, fully in compliance with the insurance policy. Mr Fabian also stated that Sang Lan's insurance policy has not been revised during the settlement.
Furthermore, some documents from TIG dated 1998 (please refer to http://www.sinovision.net/blog/ksliu/details/85486.html) already explained that what she got is a life-long insurance, and the injury-related medical expenses are eligible for claim. This is in agreement to TIG’s original agreement or insurance policy.
2. "The settlement will provide money to cover Lan's health care in China. Previously, her health care was paid for only in the United States." (underlines added)
What we found: Sang Lan's health care has been paid by three parties: TIG, the national health insurance in China and her employer in China, while most of the Chinese people only have coverage from the national health insurance.
First, as Mr Fabian stated, TIG has been paying her for her health care in compliance with her insurance policy. And that includes her eligible medical expenses in China. Please refer to the explanation to the insurance policy (http://www.sinovision.net/blog/ksliu/details/85486.html)
Second, Sang Lan herself have stated a few times (both in the past and recently), that she has medical expense coverage by the national health insurance in China according to the health plan's policy.
Third, again, Sang Lan stated before that her rehabilitation expenses (which is not an eligible expense for the above-mentioned health insurance in China) have been paid by her employer in China.
For Sang Lan's own statements about her medical expense coverage in China, please refer to her own blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47420b930100cj4p.html
3. "He said she was staying ... for another month before returning to Beijing, where she will live with her boyfriend and continue to earn about $230 a month at speaking engagements and other public functions." (underlines added)
What we found: the above statement about her income in China is incorrect, and is contrary to what Sang Lan and her boyfriend have been saying in the past. Sang Lan has been living a very good life in China. She is much wealthier than most of the Chinese people, and her monthly income is around $4,500 (in USD), which is much more than the $230 Ming Hai claimed.
According to their statements before (one example would be an interview conducted by a Chinese media; please refer to http://sports.cn.yahoo.com/10-08-/324/2bpa1.html ), following is a list of facts about Sang Lan's financial situation:
- She owns two real estate properties in China, both fully paid. And one of them is in Beijing, one of the cities with the highest real estate price in the world.
- In 1998, She was paid $50,000 (in USD) by TIG Insurance Company. Other than that, she got another $50,000 (in USD) from General Administration of Sports of China.
- She has a good job, and her current monthly employment income is about $4,500 (in USD), which translates to an annual salary of $54,000 (in USD). Please note that the average income for people living in Beijing is about $2,700.
- There was a trust fund set up in 1998, with Sang Lan being the beneficiary. The fund raised $170,000 USD through donations in 1998. From 1998 to 2008, this fund had provided Sang Lan a monthly support in the amount of $500 USD, which translates to $6,000 USD a year. And in 2008, the trustees provided all the remaining fund (over $140,000 USD) to Sang Lan.
- She owns a Van.
- She hires a live-in home personal care attendant who gets paid $540 a month (she also accompanied Sang Lan to US this time).
On another note, according to Ming Hai's blog post, Sang Lan rented a single house with a swimming pool for her temporary place in New York, and paid $4,000 for the two-month stay.
4. ""Thirteen years ago she had a tragic fall that almost killed her," Hai said. "She got her life back again. The American people gave her a second life. She'll always remember that in her mind. She loves this country. She loves whatever this country has done for her."" (underlines added)
This is the most important part, and this is why we wrote to you. “We are not what we say; we are what we do.” Ming Hai stated that Sang Lan thinks that the American people gave her a second life and she'll always remember that in her mind. But what did she do to American people?
Here’s what she did to American people (please refer to her complaint, http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_857060240100siii.html):
- She sued US Gymnastic Federation, which gave her help after her fall in 1998. (the Gymnastic Federation was dismissed now)
- She sued the insurance companies, which have been paying for her medical expenses in 1998 and all the years until today. (the insurance companies were dismissed now)
- She sued an Chinese-American family (Kao Sung Liu, Gina Hiu-Hung Liu and their son Winston Sie).
And here're some facts about the Chinese-American family:
-Who are they? They are the family that voluntarily took care of Sang Lan (who they didn't know at all) for 10 months after her accident in 1998. Although Sang Lan received generous donation and had funds to use for her home care expenses, the family decided to bring her into their own home and provided the most meticulous care, all by themselves, all for free, in order to save the funds for her future living. In fact, they themselves were the biggest donor of the above-mentioned trust fund for Sang Lan.
- What did the American family (the Liu family) do? They can probably write a book about all the effort and help they offered to Sang Lan during that 10 months. Long story short, from a third party's perspective, they didn't do anything obviously wrong. And most importantly, Sang Lan had been expressing her gratitude numerous times towards that American family in the past 13 years until she sued them this year. And in 2008 she even came to US and specifically visited Liu family to thank them.
-What did Sang Lan say about the Liu family? She has written several articles with deep gratitude to the Liu family. In one of the articles she wrote, “At that critical point in 1998, aunt Hiu-hung treated me like her own daughter. Like a mother cares for her child, she helped me in getting through that difficult time.” (please refer to her own blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47420b93010003f1.html)
- And what has Sang Lan done for this family who took care of her for 10 months after the accident? A billion dollars law suit!
"Don't bite the hands that feed you." Sang Lan stated that she always remembers the American people who helped her. Based on the above things she did, does she really think so? Or suing the American people who helped her is her special way of remembering them in her mind & thanking them for their help?
All of the facts we stated in this note are solid and backed by evidence. And should you have any questions, or need more information, we are more than happy to assist you. We understand that due to the language barrier, not all of the relevant information flows smoothly to the US media, and we will do what we can to let people know the true story.
We urge you to seriously consider our request that you publish a remedial report based on the information we have provided in this letter.
We thank you for your attention on this matter. If you have any further question, please feel free to contact us. We can be reached at aiai.young@gmail.com. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Aiai Young, on behalf of (注:为隐私故,实名签名筒子们的姓名在此略去):
Bloggers (most of which are from https://www.sinovision.net/blog/):
2011死磕迷, 保姆小杜, 佳佳, folk3, 春夏秋冬, pollyzixin, 不屈仙人,
红男绿女, dodoaush, weijs, loveparadise, 苏岛橘子, GOUP律师, 女猫晒晒,
抛砖引玉, 胡了, maomao1, 大梦如戏, elba, wangwang, jake,
2012不寻常, 对岸的灯, 毛茂, 小迷糊, 中国大鼻子, luren,
lin010, INOFD, mgzww999, dogwood, xiangrikui, lovebirds,
爱娱乐, mingbuping, 红玉, 夏天的驴, oosakajp, 支持艾艾, INOFD,
围观群众, Athene, holly花园, 指间沙, 前直180, 打假大哥大, 染尽胭脂,胆小鼠, Kingsbury, Nathan, kittyzfong, southbank, titanwinter , jamesjie, AA70A , 三难1972, 害人害己又害明, windbell, 看戏党地下党员, nbxxp, 打酱油, obama-2011,
我就是局部地区个别人, 路平, 路平ZH, 春到曼哈顿, xintianyue, xinqus,
yuanye 8848, Salong77, ForJustice, 昆仑一 , pseudososo, jake,
豆子猫 , 布依族, 今宵夜深沉, 缠唐韵轩, 女公子, 看你怎么演到最后, 在家看好戏,
凤毛麟角, 当空彩虹, 初夏雨霏霏, 烂剑两把, 第一健康, 蔑视丧蝗, 包子打狗, 小聪,
看好戏, 桑棍做剑, 定哥, 相信好人, 何必当初, 一帆风顺, 静清雨滴声, chi202, Northstar, CNM_HM, Zoebb88, xml11, CINDY197233, chachacha,
南海渔人, 230美元, tobuto, 第一缕阳光, 磕米粉, oyoyoxy, angelwing,
supergirl2011, 开开心心看戏, yyu8561, 14417335, 薰衣草, 齐人忧天,
磕小粉, 一米阳光2011, 太阳风暴11, Lotus , hicb2011, 海棠馆主,
扭腰过客, jennleng , 懒猴子, xinkaixin, chuanbo2010, 清茶,
bayonet123456, 网络漫步, titawu, cherrylcxc317, 妞妞001122, wzgwz2012,蝴蝶 zoebb88,sunying, west-east, marygeng, 茭白好好吃, 小馋猫, 橡皮擦,梦醉唐朝, 心愿风铃1987, lilaoTAO, 螨婷我信赖, V2倒蛋, 要船票, 工藤美雪77,花儿那么红
To: kittyzfong 你曾经说:我觉得岳博士说他的代拟文可供大家使用,那在这个节骨眼上就先用下,不要要求大家处理的方法都一样。还请艾艾等代表大家发出,同时注明还有众多人士签名的更为详细的信件准备发出,如能当面采访更好。我想发出后会引起重视的,报社也许会有后续的动作。
艾艾,我觉得不要再犹豫了,赶快发出去吧,岳博士是写得比较专业,但是我们本来就是作为普通的网民来发这封信的,而且目的是在于揭露真相,岳博士的文章可以让他另外发,如果他自己愿意的话,既然他都表明自己写的都不签名,那么我们已经有了136位网民的支持签名的公开信,有什么不发的道理? 岳博士这么专业,那就让他想点专业的方法,我们还是应该继续我们的做法。
To: 红男绿女 你曾经说:我相信,如果美联社刊出证明海明屡屡骗人的消息,会给海明极其沉重的一击的。建议以博士的稿件为基础修改,或直接先用此稿,尽快发给美联社,及时向公众揭露海明的流氓嘴脸。
岳博士的建议的确有助于把火力集中到海明行骗这个点上。他的稿子中提及桑兰的估计收入高出230数倍,不过是他把说谎的责任放到海明的头上。他说海明把保险公司比作活雷锋,并给了一个链接,美联社查阅链接后,会知道雷锋精神是慷慨奉献(不管是否真有其事),那么等于说保险公司对桑兰有违反保险规定额外给予的行为,这必然遭到保险公司的强烈否认。这些都可说明海明总是在骗人。在一场官司中,如果律师的诚信有问题,那么该律师所
To: mingbuping 你曾经说:an agree (nothing) = $400,000,000.00
“原告认可被告同意1998年桑兰受伤不是她自己的错(Plaintiff appreciates that defendants agree that the injury sustained by Sang Lan in 1998 is not her own fault.)。”。
桑兰的律师海明说:“美国体操协会是1998年友好运动会的邀请方,主办者,美国官方体育机构,又是专业的体操鉴评机构。他们说1998年桑兰受伤不是她自己的失手,不是她的失误,这是权威的结论。友好运动会保险机构也认同这个说法,说明
To: mingbuping 你曾经说:“原告认可被告同意1998年桑兰受伤不是她自己的错(Plaintiff appreciates that defendants agree that the injury sustained by Sang Lan in 1998 is not her own fault.)。”。
新华社:桑兰他们为何要“弹冠相庆”?
来源:新华社
2011年07月16日05:24
新华社纽约7月15日体育专电(报道员李大玖)桑兰说,她的维权案取得了“很大的胜利”,因为美国体操协会和3家保险公司都承认当年她从跳马上摔下来不是她的错。她的律师海明甚至用“弹冠相庆”来形容他们的心情。
然而,证据显示,美国体操协会和3家保险公司并没有“承认”什么。相反,他们在协议中巧
To: SuperGirl2011 你曾经说:谢谢支持
赞
“岳博说唐人街斗殴,所以他中立,我是坚决不同意的。因为我们要惩恶扬善。可是我们唾弃海明桑兰,在第三者眼里他们还是中国人,而且也确实是在中国这块土地上成长的怪胎。”
我都成了你的跟屁虫了。呵呵,anyway,既然观点一致就跟吧
To: 海明是阿Q 你曾经说:你还是咬着我不放,哈哈!最后答复你:美联社这一报道据海明博客中说,纽约时报、华尔街日报等都转贴了,你说影响如何?要不要以正视听?有第一次得逞他们就会玩第二次。另,西方媒体很在乎读者的回应,比大陆媒体做得好。所以这信是给总编辑收。我这样的答复如还不满意,那只能请您等明天我有空时我们再议。今天请谅察!谅察!
致国内部分网友。美联社不比新华社(报道所谓重大新闻),它每天发的报道多了去了,大部分是没人看的。它报道桑兰的新闻,根本就像是海明泡澡时放个屁,都不带声响的。99.999999999999%的美国人都是不知道的。可是如果我们跑过去搅一搅,那臭味就散发出来了,海明就得逞了。
To: 毛茂 你曾经说:致国内部分网友。美联社不比新华社(报道所谓重大新闻),它每天发的报道多了去了,大部分是没人看的。它报道桑兰的新闻,根本就像是海明泡澡时放个屁,都不带声响的。99.999999999999%的美国人都是不知道的。可是如果我们跑过去搅一搅,那臭味就散发出来了,海明就得逞了。
本来我们连狗都不打的,是他们窜进来,请它们出去,他们不愿逃,那你说,要不要有行动。他们利用西方媒体不了解情况,难道我们连答复或解释一下都不行吗?家丑是他们先张扬给西方没听到,这样的事实不需要将它倒置。
To: 海明是阿Q 你曾经说:赞
先生,我觉得你还是有些盲目崇拜国外媒体了,他们如果因为不关心无动于衷又怎么样?我们为什么非要洋人作最终的裁判呢?难道你最大的满足就是他们说一句”桑兰错了,海明欺诈了“?
岳博说唐人街斗殴,所以他中立,我是坚决不同意的。因为我们要惩恶扬善。可是我们唾弃海明桑兰,在第三者眼里他们还是中国人,而且也确实是在中国这块土地上成长的怪胎。难道我们非得弄得全世界都知道吗?
To: 海明是阿Q 你曾经说:一封信就能裁判一切吗?从来没有人这么傻吧!请不要浪费时间提问和说服了,就坚持你的观点吧!其实你也是个坚持正义的人,只是在应对的方式上有所分歧。能否求大同或获大意都无所谓。写信本身是给美联社的报道作出众多签名之人如何理解这个报道的解读。没必要对这样的解读要求太高,设想得太远。
先生,我觉得你还是有些盲目崇拜国外媒体了,他们如果因为不关心无动于衷又怎么样?我们为什么非要洋人作最终的裁判呢?难道你最大的满足就是他们说一句”桑兰错了,海明欺诈了“?
岳博说唐人街斗殴,所以他中立,我是坚决不同意的。因为我们要惩恶扬善。可是我们唾弃海明桑兰,在第三者眼里他们还是中国人,而且也确实是在中国这块土地上成长的怪胎。难道我们非得弄得全世界都知道吗?
To: 毛茂 你曾经说:(小声)当然要答复和解释或者质疑了,就是觉得这个质疑的信是岳博士的信比较好一点点
本来我们连狗都不打的,是他们窜进来,请它们出去,他们不愿逃,那你说,要不要有行动。他们利用西方媒体不了解情况,难道我们连答复或解释一下都不行吗?家丑是他们先张扬给西方没听到,这样的事实不需要将它倒置。
To: 毛茂 你曾经说:贝壳村溜过来的
本来我们连狗都不打的,是他们窜进来,请它们出去,他们不愿逃,那你说,要不要有行动。他们利用西方媒体不了解情况,难道我们连答复或解释一下都不行吗?家丑是他们先张扬给西方没听到,这样的事实不需要将它倒置。