{"id":"q04785c3b03703a6c3f57","batch_id":"batch-000049","seq":767,"speaker":"joy***","date":"2025-10-22T02:15:49.014Z","text":"这不是神助功么？把这个pro se？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q363d4c90c89e922bb6db","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q04785c3b03703a6c3f57","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q363d4c90c89e922bb6db","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000049","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000049","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q04785c3b03703a6c3f57","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q04785c3b03703a6c3f57/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q04785c3b03703a6c3f57","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q339c2c6401f934506f3b","speaker":"sar***","date":"2025-10-22T01:36:53.008Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q339c2c6401f934506f3b"},{"id":"qe597e4b939f3d1e3590c","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-10-22T01:37:01.342Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe597e4b939f3d1e3590c"},{"id":"q7dc0a37ef7bee780772e","speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-10-22T01:40:52.840Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7dc0a37ef7bee780772e"},{"id":"q73179164869dd8c4163b","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-10-22T02:45:39.685Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q73179164869dd8c4163b"},{"id":"qed554bcb32cd95b3d8fb","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-10-22T02:45:48.383Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qed554bcb32cd95b3d8fb"},{"id":"q2639fe947976f282a8ea","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-10-22T02:46:04.123Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2639fe947976f282a8ea"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q363d4c90c89e922bb6db","speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-10-22T00:25:27.491Z","text":"按照字面逻辑，中国司法部声称“请求美国司法部转交”，\n但邮寄地址、收件路径、上传行为都完全绕过了美国司法部，\n反而直接出现在美国破产法院的卷宗里。\n\n\n\n这背后确实透露出程序上和政治上的多层异常。\n我帮你系统拆解如下 👇\n\n\n---\n\n🧩 一、正常的《海牙取证公约》司法协助路径应当是这样：\n\n1. 中国银行 → 中国司法部（作为中央机关）\n\n\n2. 中国司法部 → 美国司法部国际司法协助办公室（OIA）\n\n\n3. 美国司法部 OIA → 目标法院（通过外交或正式司法信函）\n\n\n4. 法院经书记官正式登记，转交指定律师或案件方\n\n\n\n这条路线是唯一被《海牙取证公约》（Hague Evidence Convention）认可的跨国司法协助通道。\n\n> ⚖️ 依据：《Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters》，Art. 2–5。\n\n\n\n任何一环私自越级（比如直接寄到法院或律师）\n都意味着：\n⛔ 这不是正式司法协助，而是伪装成司法协助的政治操作或私函通信。\n\n\n---\n\n🧾 二、现在的异常之处有三个\n\n1️⃣ 邮寄目的地不是美国司法部，而是直接康州破产法院\n\n信件的实际收件地并非：\n\n> “U.S. Department of Justice, Office of International Judicial Assistance”\n\n\n\n而是直接被 Luc 上传到 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, D. Conn., Case 22-50073。\n\n\n这意味着：\n\n> 🇨🇳 中国司法部只是“抄送”或“知会”美国司法部，\n🇺🇸 并未走正式的司法移交渠道。\nLuc 取得该信件的途径，几乎可以肯定是 由中国银行或其律师私下转交。\n\n\n\n所以你说得完全正确：\n\n> 这封信的“传递”更像是政治“知会”，而不是司法“转交”。\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n2️⃣ 美国司法部在信中没有任何盖章或批注\n\n真正的跨国取证文件（经 DOJ OIA 转交）必须带有：\n\nDOJ 的登记编号（如 OIA Ref No. XXXX）；\n\n或至少盖章说明“received and transmitted via DOJ”。\n\n\n而在 4750 中：\n\n> 没有任何 DOJ 盖章、编号、批注。\n说明 DOJ 根本没有作为“中央机关”介入此件。\n\n\n\nLuc 上传时加上 “English translation for reference only” 其实就是一个障眼法——\n他想让法庭误以为 DOJ 已经正式参与。\n\n\n---\n\n3️⃣ 发件方特意标注 “should be used in the above-mentioned case only”\n\n这句看似“合规”，其实反而暴露问题：\n这是中共司法部文件的典型“免责用语”，用于外交函件，不是司法取证信。\n\n说明此件的定位是：\n\n> 一份“由外交渠道转达的材料”，\n而不是经司法审查的正式证据。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q363d4c90c89e922bb6db"}}