Strong Disclaimer: This page reproduces a third-party opinion that uses highly emotive and absolute language (“一剑封喉”, “终极王牌”, “钉死在耻辱柱上”, “双重司法欺诈”, “必胜武器”). Such rhetoric is not typical of formal legal advice and carries credibility and defamation risks if repeated in court filings or public materials. This is not legal advice. All claims require verification against original records by licensed counsel. Aliases only. Full addresses and precise birth dates have been omitted.
强烈声明：本页转录第三方意见，该意见使用高度情绪化与绝对化用语（“一剑封喉”“终极王牌”“钉死在耻辱柱上”“双重司法欺诈”“必胜武器”）。此类修辞并非正式法律意见的典型风格，若在法庭文件或公开材料中重复，存在可信度与诽谤风险。本页不构成法律建议。所有主张均需持牌律师对照原件核实。仅使用化名。完整地址与精确出生日期已省略。
Gemini asserts that the 2019 Beijing Chaoyang District Court civil mediation paper — described as a document signed by both parties after personal appearance — is an “ultimate trump card” capable of defeating the 2015 BC default order in Massachusetts court. It argues the mediation has dual force: (1) as a later foreign order that satisfies due process and can trigger non-recognition of the earlier order under comity and § 7-708(b)(7); and (2) as a binding settlement that creates equitable estoppel or novation, so that Lily cannot later rely on the 2015 order after having signed and allegedly received payments under the 2019 document.
Gemini主张2019年北京朝阳区法院《民事调解书》——被描述为双方亲自到场后签字的文件——是能在麻省法庭上击败2015年BC缺席令的“终极王牌”。它认为该调解书具有双重效力：（1）作为时间更晚、符合正当程序的外国命令，可依据礼让与§ 7-708(b)(7)触发对较早命令的拒绝承认；（2）作为具有约束力的和解契约，构成禁止反言或契约更新，使Lily在签字并据称收款后不能再依赖2015年命令。
The opinion characterizes two stages as fraud: (1) the 2015 BC proceeding (alleged fabricated income of CAD 30,000/month + lack of notice, evidenced by the blank Statement of Proper Notice); and (2) the 2019–2026 period (alleged concealment of the 2019 mediation from BC authorities and from the 2026 registration package). It cites § 7-708(b)(2) and § 6-607 for fraud, and requests vacatur with prejudice, recognition of the 2019 mediation, payment credit, confirmation of age-19 termination, a gatekeeper order, and costs.
该意见将两个阶段定性为欺诈：（1）2015年BC程序（据称捏造月入3万加元+未通知，以空白《适当通知声明书》为证）；（2）2019–2026年期间（据称向BC当局及2026年注册材料隐瞒2019年调解书）。它引用§ 7-708(b)(2)与§ 6-607作为欺诈依据，并请求带偏见撤销、承认2019年调解书、付款抵扣、确认19岁终止、限制令及费用。
Note: Independent analyses (including Claude) have pointed out that § 7-708(b)(2) concerns jurisdiction, not fraud; procedural fraud is addressed in (b)(4); § 6-607 applies to ordinary interstate registration; and unproven fraud allegations can damage credibility. The CAD 30,000 monthly figure appears inconsistent with the base support amount of CAD 269/month.
注意：独立分析（包括Claude）已指出§ 7-708(b)(2)涉及管辖权而非欺诈；程序欺诈见(b)(4)；§ 6-607适用于普通州际登记；无证据的欺诈指控会损害可信度。月入3万加元的数字与每月269加元的基础抚养费量级不符。