【08.10.17 纽约时报】中国法院的“毒奶粉”之痛
【原文】：http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/1 ... =1&pagewanted=print【翻译】:http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/5369/16429
2008年10月17日
法院怀柔“毒奶粉”之痛
EDWARD WONG
最初的问题是孩子的尿里含沙，接着是血。而当父母带着孩子上医院时，孩子已经尿不出了。
医生告诉父母，症结是肾结石。5月1日，距最初的症状显现仅两个礼拜，孩子死在了医院里。他的名字叫易凯轩（Yi Kaixuan），6个月大。
在位于中国西北的甘肃，孩子的父母向法院递交了诉状，起诉三鹿集团，也就是凯轩所喝的婴幼儿配方奶粉的制造厂商，要求赔偿。这看上去是一场责任明晰的官司，因为自上个月以来，三鹿正处于这场中国最大的食品污染风暴的中心。然而，从另外两个正在处理相同案件的法院的情况来看，法官至今仍拒绝开庭审理。
在一长串问题食品药品的清单中，有毒婴儿配方奶粉只是最新的一个，而这却实实在在地暴露出中国监管机构的无能与腐败,中国市场庞杂巨大，但这并不能成为监管不力之理由。那些生产劣质食品的企业鲜有受到司法系统处罚的时候，我们说的是那个由|中|国|共|产|党|领导的司法系统。
一些律师和法官尽其所能想要在中国确立法院的威信，然而，很多时候，当|我|党|需要着手掩盖一些纷争的事实时，法院常常沦为被动的布偶。
“当孩子去了的时候，我感到自己就要垮掉了，而他的母亲即使现在也极力避免去想这件事情，”孩子的父亲——30岁的易永生（Yi Yongsheng）在西安从事卑微的建筑工作——通过电话说道，“我并不对这场官司报什么希望，我只是想要寻求公正。”
承受着巨大压力的中国官员们，为了促进经济的高速增长以及维持社会稳定，往往更加偏爱制造商而非消费者。产品责任案件往往很难立案更不用说胜诉了，尤其当被告是国有企业或与政府有着密切关系时。
那些备受瞩目的诉讼，往往被官员们是为是潜在的仕途危险，于是他们往往竭尽全力地去让原告息讼宁事，而非让公正的车轮前行。据那些自愿帮助受害者家属的法律学者及律师称，在这场毒奶粉危机中，许多省份的官员都通过各种途径向家属、律师及法官施压，要他们放下手上的案子。
如果这事发生在西方，那律师们可能会联合三鹿。这家中国最大的牛奶生产商坐落于石家庄，其生产的牛奶被检测发现有含量巨大的三聚氰胺，这种有毒的化学原料被人为地添进兑水的牛奶以便增加蛋白质的含量。至少已有4个孩子死于肾结石引起的并发症，而另外53,000个孩子已出现相关症状。在那些大量被隐匿的证据曝光后，一些高级政府官员和涉案公司高管已被迫离职。
在中国，易先生和他的妻子向三鹿提出了152,000美元的赔偿请求，他们是少数提起诉讼的受害者家属之一。原告们都是单个家庭，法官并没有合并审理，这是因为在中国，若有集体诉讼，那将会被强烈劝阻。
全中国有超过100名律师自愿给那些焦虑的父母们提供法律援助，但一些律师说，当地政府官员已经向他们施压，要他们别管这些案子。
“这场危机将看不到司法的身影”，中国人民大学法学教授张新宝（Zhang Xinbao）认为，“我们的司法系统及机制在这件事上起不了作用，而这正是法律专家们所担心的。”
“在西方，这样的产品责任案件将会导致集体诉讼，”张教授说道，“而在中国，他们并不想看多如此多的人被卷入一场官司，这将会威胁到社会的稳定。”
北京大成律师事务所主任钱卫勤（Qian Weiqing），在上周的一次法律会议上提到，政府持续性打压这类诉讼的行为，已经“错过了很多进步的机会，包括完善法律实施制度，司法制度及救济制度。”
政府官员已经告诉律师及受害者家属，他们将可能在庭外得到补偿。
四川当地政府正是用这个办法，来对付那些在5.12地震中由于校舍坍塌而丧命的孩子们的家属。如果家属们愿意签署协议放弃对“豆腐渣”校舍的调查要求，他们才能得到政府的补偿。许多家庭拿了钱，但对没有人为他们孩子的死负责感到非常愤怒。
就像校舍的坍塌一样，这次毒奶粉事件同样牵扯到从政府官员至公司高管之间的层层黑幕。他们之间的这种联系使理清责任承担成为了微妙的政治游戏。官员们更愿意通过施压让受害者家属接受上面所说的补偿，而不是让法院介入调查，一位正在收集资料以便提起集体诉讼的律师说道，“在中国的传统上，政治往往高于法律。”
“保护三鹿就是保护政府自身，”他补充道，“像这样的居民健康危机不仅是三鹿的问题，更牵涉到从石家庄至中央的各级官员，还有媒体监督、食品监管部门以及那些商人与官员之间的肮脏交易。”
对于这次毒奶粉丑闻，法官们正试图决定是否要接受三宗分别于甘肃、河南及广东提交的立案申请。只有甘肃的案子涉及一名死去的孩童，也就是易先生的孩子。“河南的法院已经拒绝了两宗案子"，河南律师常博阳（Chang Boyang）提到，他自愿为一对夫妻代理案件，他们1岁的孩子今年9月死了。
在河南这个贫穷落后的省份，律师们要比在中国其他地区面对更多的来自政府的阻扰。至少有20名律师退出了自愿为受害者家属维权的行列。9月27日，当地司法局的官员与律师们见了面，要求他们不要去管这些案子。
自愿者团体在10月7号发布了工作简报称，政府官员们直接告诉他们不要给受害者家属任何法律上的帮助。
人权律师李方平（Li Fangping）称，北京律师协会的官员召集了律师们并且劝阻他们去接受毒奶粉案件，尤其是那些原告来自不同省份的案件。律师们被告知不要将工作简报公布在网上。而那时，自愿律师们已经接到了超过1,200个求助电话。
许多律师认为将司法局或律师协会的要求置于不顾是非常困难的，一方面他们被要求加入这些组织，另一方面，这些组织由司法行政部门控制，因而直接关系到他们的执业资格问题。
中国律师协会（“律协”）是这个国家的律师组织，强烈地阻扰集体诉讼。2006年3月，律协颁布了一份执业指南，旨在阻碍超过10人的诉讼的发生。这份指南虽然并没有直接禁止集体诉讼，但是为其设置了重重阻碍，例如律师需要提交他们与当事人的谈话笔录给司法局，研究中国法的纽约大学法学教授Jerome A. Cohen称。
10月10日，一些律师、法学教授及法官在人民大学举行了会议商讨此次毒奶粉事件的法律事宜。陈先洁（Chen Xianjie）法官提到，中国法院对应对集体诉讼没有经验，“如果法院将三鹿案件合并审理，那消费者最终将得不到法律保护，”他警告说。
陈法官说，用传统方式解决受害者家属的请求更为妥当。政府应当将其作为行政事务处理并给予适当补偿，他说，医疗费用已由政府垫付，当然还有其他补偿。
一些中国人对此提出了异议，政府怎么能用财政税收来弥补个体公司所犯的错误呢？
October 17, 2008
Courts Compound Pain of China’s Tainted Milk By EDWARD WONG
BEIJING — The first sign of trouble was powder in the baby’s urine. Then there was blood. By the time the parents took their son to the hospital, he had no urine at all.
Kidney stones were the problem, doctors told the parents. The baby died on May 1 in the hospital, just two weeks after the first symptoms appeared. His name was Yi Kaixuan. He was 6 months old.
The parents filed a lawsuit on Monday in the arid northwest province of Gansu, where the family lives, asking for compensation from Sanlu Group, the maker of the powdered baby formula that Kaixuan had been drinking. It seemed like a clear-cut liability case; since last month, Sanlu has been at the center of China’s biggest contaminated food crisis in years. But as in two other courts dealing with related lawsuits, judges have so far declined to hear the case.
Tainted infant formula is the latest in a long string of food and drug safety problems that have exposed corruption and inefficiency among China’s regulators. But the problem goes well beyond the inability of regulators to police a huge, dynamic economy. Companies that produce shoddy goods rarely face financial penalties from the legal system, run by the Communist Party.
Some lawyers and judges are making great efforts in China to establish the power of the courts. Still, courts often remain passive pawns in the party’s efforts to handle big disputes behind closed doors.
“I felt myself falling apart when he died, and my wife even avoids thinking about it now,” the baby’s father, Yi Yongsheng, 30, said by telephone from the city of Xian, where he works menial construction jobs to send money home. “I don’t place too much hope in the lawsuit. I just want to ask for justice.”
Chinese officials, under pressure to promote fast rates of economic growth and to enforce social stability, routinely favor producers over consumers. Product liability lawsuits remain difficult to file and harder still to win, especially if the company involved is state-owned or has close connections to the government.
Officials also view high-profile lawsuits as a potential political threat and go to great lengths to silence the plaintiffs rather than allowing the wheels of justice to turn. In the milk crisis, officials in several provinces have put pressure on many involved, including parents, lawyers and judges, to drop the issue, said legal scholars and lawyers who have volunteered to help the parents.
Western lawyers would probably have lined up to sue Sanlu. One of China’s largest milk companies, Sanlu, based in the city of Shijiazhuang, was the most prominent dairy producer found to sell milk products tainted with melamine, a toxic chemical illegally added to watered-down milk to artificially increase the protein count and fool safety tests. At least four babies have died from complications resulting from kidney stones, and 53,000 children have been sickened. Senior government officials and company executives were fired after evidence emerged of a wide-ranging cover-up.
In China, Mr. Yi and his wife, who are seeking $152,000 from Sanlu, are among only a handful of Chinese who have filed a lawsuit against a dairy company. The plaintiffs are all individual families; lawyers say there is almost no chance that any judge would consider a class-action lawsuit because those are strongly discouraged in China.
More than 100 lawyers across the country put themselves on a list of volunteers willing to give legal advice to anxious parents, but local government officials have put pressure on some not to take on any cases, several lawyers said. At least two dozen have since removed themselves from the list.
“This will move further away from the legal system,” Zhang Xinbao, a law professor at People’s University of China, said of the milk crisis. “The legal system and mechanism we have can’t function in this case. This is what law experts are concerned about.”
“This is a product liability case that in a Western country would turn into a class-action lawsuit,” Professor Zhang said. In China, he said, “they don’t want to see so many people getting involved in one lawsuit. This might threaten social stability.”
Qian Weiqing, the head of the Dacheng Law Office in Beijing, said at a legal conference last week that the government, in continually suppressing such lawsuits, had “missed many opportunities to improve the system to deal with these problems, including perfecting the law enforcement system, the judicial system and the relief system.”
Government officials have told parents and lawyers in the milk cases that their complaints can be resolved through out-of-court compensation payments.
Local governments in Sichuan Province employed the same strategy with grieving parents whose children died in school collapses during the May 12 earthquake. Over the summer, the officials compensated the parents if they signed individual papers agreeing to drop demands for investigations into shoddy school construction. Most of the parents accepted the money, but many said they were furious that no one had been held responsible for the deaths of their children.
As with the school collapses, the milk scandal involves a web of complicity linking company executives to government officials. Those connections make sorting out responsibility a delicate political task. Rather than allow the courts to weigh in, officials prefer to press complainants to take compensation, said Teng Biao, a lawyer in Beijing who is collecting material for a possible class-action lawsuit. “Traditionally in China, politics is always higher than the law,” he said.
“To protect Sanlu is to protect the government itself,” he added. “A public health crisis like this not only involves Sanlu. It involves many officials from authorities in the city of Shijiazhuang up to the central government. It involves media censorship, the food quality regulatory system and the corrupt deal between commercial merchants and corrupt officials.”
In the milk scandal, judges are trying to decide whether to accept three lawsuits that have been filed separately in the provinces of Gansu, Henan and Guangdong. The Gansu lawsuit is the only one to involve a dead child, Mr. Yi’s son. Courts in Henan have already rejected two other cases, said Chang Boyang, a volunteer lawyer in Henan representing parents whose 1-year-old son died in early September.
Lawyers in Henan, a poor backward province, have faced more harassment from local officials than lawyers elsewhere. At least 20 of the lawyers who have dropped off the volunteer list are from Henan. On Sept. 27, officials from the province’s judicial bureau, which administers the courts and legal licenses, met with lawyers to discourage them from taking the cases.
A working brief issued Oct. 7 by the national volunteer group said the officials had directly told the lawyers not to give any legal aid to the parents.
Mr. Chang said the pressure actually took a subtler form. Officials told the lawyers to report to the government if they decided to handle a milk case. The officials also reiterated rules mandating that the lawyers tell the government if they take any cases centered on incidents involving many people or delicate issues.
Li Fangping, a human rights lawyer, said officials from the Beijing lawyers association met with lawyers in the capital last month to discourage them from filing milk lawsuits, especially suits with plaintiffs from multiple provinces. The lawyers were told not to publish working briefs on the Internet. At the time, the volunteer lawyers had already gotten more than 1,200 phone calls from concerned parents.
Many lawyers find it hard to ignore the entreaties of provincial judicial bureaus or lawyers associations, which they are required to join. Those groups are controlled by the Ministry of Justice, which ultimately makes the rules for licensing lawyers.
The All China Lawyers Association, the country’s bar association, strongly discourages class-action lawsuits. In March 2006, the association put out a guiding opinion aimed at curbing cases involving 10 or more plaintiffs. There was no outright ban on class-action lawsuits, but the association put in place onerous rules, including a requirement that lawyers report conversations with clients to the judicial bureaus, said Jerome A. Cohen, a professor of law at New York University who specializes in the Chinese legal system.
On Oct. 10, a group of lawyers, law professors and a judge from the Supreme People’s Court held a conference at People’s University to discuss the milk scandal’s legal issues. The judge, Chen Xianjie, said China’s courts had little experience with class-action suits. “If the court accepts the Sanlu case as a collective lawsuit, consumers would end up with no legal protection,” he warned.
Judge Chen said it would be better for the parents’ complaints to be treated in the traditional manner. The government should handle them as an administrative issue and dole out compensation, he said. It has already agreed to pay medical bills, but has yet to offer more compensation.
Some Chinese have raised questions, though, about whether the government should be using taxpayers’ money to compensate for private companies’ mistakes.
Huang Yuanxi and Zhang Jing contributed research, and Jim Yardley contributed reporting.
[ 本帖最后由 星光 于 2008-11-1 16:10 编辑 ] 该话题已经过时.
[ 本帖最后由 langxianping 于 2008-11-9 02:31 编辑 ] 感觉政府的这些做法只会失去民心。 那些消费者已经在庭外事先得到补偿。个体公司所犯的错误已经受到全社会的惩罚.
他们还要到法院做什么?因为是公众问题就可以获取高额的补偿吗?就可以随意要求政府和社会吗? 原帖由 天马 于 2008-11-9 09:13 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
那些消费者已经在庭外事先得到补偿。个体公司所犯的错误已经受到全社会的惩罚.
他们还要到法院做什么?因为是公众问题就可以获取高额的补偿吗?就可以随意要求政府和社会吗? ...
难道使用法律给自己讨个公道不可以吗？公众问题就不可以获得高额补偿吗？请给出法律条款．
说了通过法律途径你认为这是＂随意＂吗？
难道补偿就可以免除起诉的权利吗？补偿了多少，依据是什么？全社会的惩罚属于宪法还是刑法？ 失望，还谈什么依法治国。但愿不要是真的 如果通过法律途径去获得高额补偿.好啊,你自己鉴定去啊.最后能顺利鉴定几个出来?这样很好玩吗?
如果只要法律,那把事先的补偿拿出来呀.如果社会上都处心积虑去谋取高额利益是不是一个物欲横流.值得鼓励吗?
从法院和从政府出来的补偿有什么区别吗?法院还有协商调解呢.政府调解就不算数是吗?
也许有人另有意图吧. 原帖由 天马 于 2008-11-9 11:28 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
如果通过法律途径去获得高额补偿.好啊,你自己鉴定去啊.最后能顺利鉴定几个出来?这样很好玩吗?
如果只要法律,那把事先的补偿拿出来呀.如果社会上都处心积虑去谋取高额利益是不是一个物欲横流.值得鼓励吗?
从法院和从 ...
还真告诉你，三鹿奶粉鉴定国家已经做了．非法添加化工原料！废止所有＂免检＂食品！别告诉你没看见．当然你有身体障碍除外．
国家什么时候事先补偿了？国家所做的就是及时挽救患儿生命．请你给出就奶粉事件的国家赔偿标准的链接．＂个体公司所犯的错误＂请问国家为什么要做出补偿？文字游戏好玩么？好玩就给出链接我们继续玩．
＂社会上都处心积虑去谋取高额利益是不是一个物欲横流＂你的意思是大家在用自己的亲生骨肉的生命去换取高额利润？还物欲横流？难道三鹿真的是在做利国利民，强健下一代的好事么？你在想什么？难道真的是你智商所至？
中国是法制社会！领导们一再重申！你认为国家做出对患儿的及时抢救是调解？那又何来解职大批官员为代价呢？温总又何来＂痛心＂一说呢？又何来＂企业要有道德的血液！＂一说呢？又何来＂彻查食品行业违法，确保人民生命安全＂一说呢？
你的意思就是国家补偿和法律宣判是一样是意思？那还要法院做什么呢？你的意思就是中国不是一个法制社会，而是一个人制社会了？
不是也许，肯定有人另有意图，那就是你这样的人．拼命唱衰法制社会下的中国！拼命制造事端给外媒以口实！拼命抹杀国家在奶粉问题上及时挽救生命的人道主义行动！
你很ＣＮＮ～～～
ＰＳ：文字游戏真的很好玩，但不适合小朋友．
[ 本帖最后由 维诺纳 于 2008-11-9 15:10 编辑 ] 三鹿奶粉鉴定不是司法鉴定.别无知好不好.
鉴定国家已经做了吗?你见过一张司法鉴定书没有?每个有损害者都能及时科学依法坚定出来吗?别告诉我谁有这个本事.
如果不是物欲横流,那你告诉大家,那赔偿标准是多少才满意.再次要你提出赔偿标准.别一味冲动胡扯.
如果给予一定经济利益,那么对患者家庭来说无论是国家补偿或法律宣判,实质上都是使他们得到利益的方式.
我并不反对该事件国家赔偿,动辄进法院未必是好的选择,得利的另外还会有律师.他们的分成可是相当的高昂.
能说是个体公司所犯的错误吗?涉及的可是有多个厂家.致病原因能鉴定出是哪个牌子的牛奶吗?要每个牛奶厂家都来顽抗应诉吗?有国家统一接手赔偿,再由国家向牛奶厂家索取费用不可以吗?
现在的确是没有看到相关国家赔偿,但国家没有否定国家赔偿,解职大批官员既表明政府失职. 政府会不赔偿吗?我不相信. "政府官员已经告诉律师及受害者家属，他们将可能在庭外得到补偿"这句话是你帖子里的.
既然政府答应赔偿,为什么一定要请律师进法院?
中国目前还不是法制社会.法制社会只是我们努力的目标.政府的作为是对法制的补充.制造事端扩大矛盾拖延事件给外媒以口实恐怕是那些无论如何都要法院见的人.
免费检查免费治疗你认为只是人道主义吗?人道主义就是免费吗?
[ 本帖最后由 天马 于 2008-11-9 16:13 编辑 ] 这个问题是这样，如果家长和商家庭外和解，签了赔偿协议，放弃起诉权力的话，就不能再告到法院了。
如果只是取得了部分赔偿，但是保留诉讼权利的话，可以起诉
如果没有获得赔偿当然可以起诉
相关法律可以参考《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》《消费者权益保护法》《中华人民共和国产品质量法》《中华人民共和国民法通则》等等 三鹿奶粉鉴定不是司法鉴定.别无知好不好.＊＊只要是国家鉴定机构出来的结果就可以被司法鉴定所采用，谁无知？＊＊
鉴定国家已经做了吗?你见过一张司法鉴定书没有?每个有损害者都能及时科学依法坚定出来吗?别告诉我谁有这个本事.＊＊同上～有前提，国家机构非民间机构＊＊
如果不是物欲横流,那你告诉大家,那赔偿标准是多少才满意.再次要你提出赔偿标准.别一味冲动胡扯.＊＊物欲横流的是无良企业，这点你还没弄清楚？要求无良企业赔偿多少是受害者的事情和国家无关．现在貌似你比较冲动，难道你是利益集团的不成？＊＊
如果给予一定经济利益,那么对患者家庭来说无论是国家补偿或法律宣判,实质上都是使他们得到利益的方式.＊＊搞清楚国家赔偿和企业违法经济索赔是两个概念，国家没有违法！！＊＊
我并不反对该事件国家赔偿,动辄进法院未必是好的选择,得利的另外还会有律师.他们的分成可是相当的高昂.＊＊是否愿意聘请律师和付费高低是他人的问题，针对违法企业难道不采取法院控告？那法律拿来干嘛？难道你要群体抗议和野蛮报复才正确？你是唯恐天下不乱吧～～＊＊
能说是个体公司所犯的错误吗?涉及的可是有多个厂家.致病原因能鉴定出是哪个牌子的牛奶吗?要每个牛奶厂家都来顽抗应诉吗?有国家统一接手赔偿,再由国家向牛奶厂家索取费用不可以吗?＊＊每个受害者都有起诉无良企业的权利，无论他是那个厂家，也无论他有几个．起诉就有应诉．有看见受害者委托国家么？为什么什么麻烦都要赖在国家身上？为什么有法律而不能使用呢？＊＊
现在的确是没有看到相关国家赔偿,但国家没有否定国家赔偿,解职大批官员既表明政府失职. 政府会不赔偿吗?我不相信. "政府官员已经告诉律师及受害者家属，他们将可能在庭外得到补偿"这句话是你帖子里的.＊＊你在没有看见国家赔偿的信息下为什么一味叫嚣要国家来赔偿呢？目的何在？你信不信没人会在乎．．．＊＊
既然政府答应赔偿,为什么一定要请律师进法院?＊＊又来．．．你确定政府要赔偿吗？仔细看看你上面一句话，戴好眼镜＊＊
中国目前还不是法制社会.法制社会只是我们努力的目标.政府的作为是对法制的补充.制造事端扩大矛盾拖延事件给外媒以口实恐怕是那些无论如何都要法院见的人.＊＊目前不是法制社会？新中国建国这么多年就没有法律可依？这个话轮子们经常挂在嘴边．法院正确判决外媒当然会报道，难道不能证明依法治国的根本路线么？我就知道你不愿意看见！＊＊
免费检查免费治疗你认为只是人道主义吗?人道主义就是免费吗?＊＊国家医院要不惜代价的先抢救受害儿童，全面开展免费普查儿童健康的工作．以上是领导人说滴，并且做得非常及时！你认为不是人道？＊＊
别急，用红字说明不了什么～～哈～～
[ 本帖最后由 维诺纳 于 2008-11-9 18:17 编辑 ] 连什么是司法鉴定都不知道,只知道胡搅.就你这水平.你听说过代位赔偿吗? 原帖由 天马 于 2008-11-9 19:26 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
连什么是司法鉴定都不知道,只知道胡搅.就你这水平.你听说过代位赔偿吗?
请问国家质监局和国家食品药品管理局算不算鉴定监督机构？司法鉴定不可能采用以上机构的检验么？你确定？告诉我那个单位适合？
不好意思，我这水平的确不高，也不用听说什么．听说的东西靠不住．对付你那是游刃有余了．．．
不过我知道任何公民都有使用法律维护自己的合法权益．
请你指出我那一条属于＂胡搅＂？那你怎么不一条一条的来驳斥我啊，哈哈～～
很纳闷你为什么不用红字了．．．要不，把字体放大试试？
[ 本帖最后由 维诺纳 于 2008-11-9 20:36 编辑 ] 关键是在中国是官员在决定审判案件。 独立的司法系统不存在，那些集体诉讼是不可能存在。司法要如何独立，本身是一个大问题。司法系统既要实践社会主义，又要独立于GCD官员的管制，如何平衡这2点？ 原帖由 西拿 于 2008-11-9 20:33 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
关键是在中国是官员在决定审判案件。 独立的司法系统不存在，那些集体诉讼是不可能存在。司法要如何独立，本身是一个大问题。司法系统既要实践社会主义，又要独立于GCD官员的管制，如何平衡这2点？ ...
非常正确！您指出了问题的所在．
我上面的言论是针对某些利益集团枪手的．这些人出了事情就指望国家给他们擦屁股．害怕受害者诉讼企业导致企业倒闭和个人利益的流失．
页:
[1]