Mr. Dai Binbin:
At the end of the night yesterday, the persons you sent were so brave, that they broke down the south wall of our community in spite of the risk to crime. It is said that as many as 1500 people invaded the private territory of our community. Of course, you are braver than them, because although it is they who actually commit crimes, I have told you many times that the primary responsibility for these illegal acts will not fall on others. I’m still worried about you. What are you doing for?
- “Administrative Enforcement law,” the “illegal building If it is necessary to demolish them compulsorily, the administrative organ shall make a public announcement and order the parties concerned to demolish them by themselves within a time limit. If the party concerned does not apply for administrative reconsideration or bring an administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit, and does not dismantle it, the administrative organ may force the demolition according to law. ” (Article 44) its meaning is obviously that it can not be forcibly removed before the administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation procedures are completed.
- “Administrative Enforcement law” stipulates that “administrative organs shall not implement administrative enforcement at night or on statutory holidays.” (Article 43) the wall breaking invasion was at night.
- The demolition personnel used excavator to damage the wall, which commited the “crime of infringing upon the property rights of citizens”. Without the consent of the residents of the community, they broke into the community from the broken wall and committed the crime of illegal invasion.
- After the demolition personnel enter the community, block the community and forbid residents to go in and out, which is the “crime of illegal detention”.
- The “notice from the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing” is invalid because the town government has no right to enforce the demolition.
- The “notification” did not produce the “administrative ruling” of Huairou court, so it could not prove the existence of the “administrative ruling” to the residents, and might even commit the crime of falsely claiming the court judgment.
- It also did not produce the “decision on administrative penalty” issued by the Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources, so it could not prove the existence of the “decision on administrative penalty”.
- The “notification” is based on the “administrative ruling” of Huairou District Court in Beijing. It is made before the administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation procedures of the owners of the residential area are completed, which violates the legal procedures and is invalid.
- The above ruling of Huairou District Court is made in response to the “decision on administrative punishment” issued by Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources, which is in the case of concealing the actual major stakeholders – the owners of the community, and only informs Beijing Zhongtian Hengshi Investment Co., Ltd. and Xitai village Co., Ltd. of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing, violates legal due procedure.
- The the owners who purchased real estate from Beijing Zhongtian Hengshi Investment Co., Ltd. and Xitai village Co., Ltd. of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing, is a bona fide third party. Even if the residential area is really “illegal construction”, it must be fully compensated by the seller before it can be removed. However, in the case of no compensation for the owner as a bona fide third party, the broken wall invasion did not punish the real fault Party (seller), but imposed the fault loss on the owner, which violated the basic principle of the civil law to protect the bona fide third party.
- You spend the taxpayer’s money to hire illegal demolition personnel, which violates the reasonable scope of the Budget Law on the use of financial funds.
I repeat, even if you invade our community, you can’t prove that you are legal. It can only prove that you have the technical ability and administrative resources of illegal invasion and illegal demolition. These resources were originally given to you temporarily by us, so that you can protect our houses and properties. But you use this delegated power to do something that seriously hurts us.
I called 110 police in the middle of the night yesterday, but no police arrived at the scene and didn’t contact me. So far, your people are still illegally detaining us. They didn’t give any reason, just because they are so numerous that they threaten the residents. I also called the police 110 on “illegal detention”. Although the police came, they still did not act.
I hope you can correct these mistakes in time. Repair the south wall of my community. Withdrew those unknown illegal demolition personnel out of the community. And criticizing the police who did nothing about crime yesterday and today.
Don’t think once upon you make a unilateral court ruling learned from Changping, you become “legal”. Any judgment is invalid without the participation of important stakeholders.
You should not think that it is legal to force the owners to agree to sign and forcibly demolish by this illegal detention method. If you look at all times and all over the world, who will recognize the forced contract? Even if some owners are forced to sign their consent under pressure, they can be overturned at any time as long as they prove that the signature is forced. Isn’t it easy to prove that you sent so many people to block and intimidate the owners? You should be smarter than Yu Changhui, do you believe in such a poor method?
Although you are much worse than I expected, you are neither moral nor intelligent, but I have to catch up with Wang Yangming, and still believe that everyone has conscience. Conscience is not only morality, but also wisdom. Don’t you still want to be the most unconscionable person?
Sheng Hong
July 28, 2020, Forget-talk Hill Study
Note: Dai Binbin is the secretary of Huairou District Committee of CCP
Nature of Rights 