About 2:30 am of July 28, 2020, the Huairou district government illegally broke the wall, and with the advantage of up to 2700 people to less than 100 people, the Huairou district government captured the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, and stationed about 500 people in the community courtyard. There are five to six people at each door; it is said that AnSi road in the east of the community has been blocked for several kilometers with five checkpoints. There are more than 1600 people on two shifts. Until the morning, someone knocked at the door, and a person who looked like a town government official said he would come in and deliver the notice. We refused. Because this kind of person who broke down the wall in the middle of the night is not our guest. However, he put a “notification of the people’s government of Jiuduhe town, Huairou District, Beijing” on our door.
Our personal freedom is restricted. I went out of the door of the courtyard, immediately there were several people in black around to say, “can’t go out.”. I immediately called 110. When the police came, and said that my personal freedom could not be restricted, so these people dispersed. In the afternoon, I went to the community yard and visited a family. When I came out, someone stopped me from coming out. I told him that I came to visit and told him that he had no right to restrict my personal freedom. Walking in the evening is a daily reserved program. When walking, a group of about 30 people in black came around from both sides and said that we could not walk. I said again that they have no right to infringe on my personal freedom. They have tightened their siege on me and my wife, which was about 5 meters recently. This is probably a deterrent strategy. I called 110 again, but no police showed up for twice calls. But when I called, their leader let them spread on both sides. The police asked me on the phone why they didn’t let me take a walk. I told them to tell the police, but they all refused to answer.
I later walked to one side and asked a young man why he was blocking my walk. He shook his head and I said, “do you want to do something you don’t know why?” he said with a smile, “for money.”. The older man next to him tugged at him. I said, “Someone gives you money to do bad things. Do you do them?” He laughed and said nothing. I said, “isn’t it a bad thing that you stop me from walking and interfere with my health?” After a while, the young man loosed his hand with another man next to him and let us pass. When I was walking, I asked some people in black casually. Many of them were recruited temporarily from Daxing, Fangshan, Hebei, Northeast China and other places. The next morning, I continued my daily morning exercise. Although there were people in black all over the community yard, I still ran more than 4000 steps. But in the evening to go for a walk, this time the man in black at the door called the leader. The head was very fat and rude. He immediately called 20-30 men in black to surround us. I called 110, but there was no police for a long time. I had to go back to the yard and not walk.
In the afternoon, one leader of the town, Zhang called. I told him to withdraw the man in black and not to continue to violate our personal freedom. “Because your house is illegal, we have the power to limit your personal freedom,” he said Of course, this is not right. Even if it is “illegal construction”, it cannot limit our personal freedom. Later in the evening, the police also said that this was the order of the district government. He could not stop the man in black immediately. I said to him, “you should obey the constitution first.” “No matter how big the government is, so must the State Council.” “It’s not the government’s order that should always be carried out. What you should do if the government’s leadership wrong?” Of course, I don’t think our yard is an illegal building. I accused vice mayor Zhang and said, “What you did last night was illegal. Because the town government has no power to demolish. “The deputy mayor said, “Did you see our notice? It says we have ‘court administrative ruling’.” I said, “Why don’t you show that court administrative ruling file?” He vowed to have this “court administrative ruling file” and asked me to ask Huairou court. I said that I don’t need to ask. The person who would be worried about is you. If you want to prove that your action last night is legal, you have to show this “court administrative ruling file.”
This issue is very important, concerning the legality of this unprecedentedly evil demolition. “Administrative Enforcement Law” stipulates that “administrative organs without administrative enforcement power” should “apply to the people’s court for compulsory execution.” The town government is “the administrative organ without the power of administrative enforcement.” On July 27,the Supreme Court stressed that the administrative bodies have no power to forcibly demolish before obtaining the court’s permission to enforce the ruling. It is said that in the early morning of July 28, an official of Jiuduhe town went to the gate of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall to shake the above-mentioned “notification of the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing”. Does the town government have no power to demolish? If forced demolition is carried out in the name of the town government, it is illegal. However, will the notification of the town government be legal, as vice mayor Zhang said, if there is a sentence, “the court has made an administrative ruling” in it? Of course not. From the procedure, they should first submit or post the “court administrative ruling” to let the stakeholders, the owner of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, know it, and then obtain the court’s enforcement authorization before the demolition can be carried out. At least, the “notification” should be submitted or posted together with the “court administrative ruling”.
It is not legal if only mentioned such a “court administrative ruling” in the “notification”. Because there may not be such a file. In my letter “To Dai Binbin on the invasion by breaking wall”, I said that the “notification” did not produce the “administrative ruling” of Huairou court cited by it, so it could not prove to the residents that the “administrative ruling” existed, and might even commit the crime of falsely claiming the court ruling. “Even if there are, it is still a problem whether the quotation or paraphrase is accurate. Therefore, if the “administrative ruling” is not produced, the “notification” of the town government will certainly have no legal effect. Therefore, Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, in the early morning of July 28, was illegal to carry out an invasion by wall breaking.
This issue is very important, concerning the legality of this unprecedentedly evil demolition. “Administrative Enforcement Law” stipulates that “administrative organs without administrative enforcement power” should “apply to the people’s court for compulsory execution.” The town government is “the administrative organ without the power of administrative enforcement.” On July 27, the Supreme Court stressed that the administrative bodies have no power to forcibly demolish before obtaining the court’s permission to enforce the ruling. It is said that in the early morning of July 28, an official of Jiuduhe town went to the gate of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall to shake the above-mentioned “notification of the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing”. Doesn’t the town government have no power to demolish? If forced demolition is carried out in the name of the town government, it is illegal. However, will the notification of the town government be legal, as Vice Mayor Zhang said, if there is a sentence, “the court has made an administrative ruling” in it? Of course not. From the procedure, they should first submit or post the “court administrative ruling” to let the stakeholders, the owner of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, know it, and then obtain the court’s enforcement authorization before the demolition can be carried out. At least, the “notification” should be submitted or posted together with the “court administrative ruling”.
It is not legal if only mentioned such a “court administrative ruling” in the “notification”. Because there may not be such a file. In my letter “To Dai Binbin on the invasion by breaking wall”, I said that the “notification” did not produce the “administrative ruling” of Huairou court cited by it, so it could not prove to the residents that the “administrative ruling” existed, and might even commit the crime of falsely claiming the court ruling. “Even if there are, it is still a problem whether the quotation or paraphrase is accurate. Therefore, if it didn’t show the “administrative ruling”, the “notification” of the town government will certainly have no legal effect. Therefore, Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, was illegal to carry out an invasion by breaking the wall in the early morning of July 28.
Now we can go further and explore whether there is such a “court administrative ruling”. Take a closer look at the “notification” issued by the Jiuduhe town government, which states that “the people’s Court of Huairou District of Beijing has made an administrative ruling No. (2020) Jing 0116 Xing Shen No. 35, ruling that the person subjected to execution shall be punished in accordance with the decision on administrative punishment (Jingguizi (Huai) punishment Zi (2019) No. 053) made by Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources. I first searched the Huairou District Court website and the “China judicial document website” for this “administrative ruling”, but I couldn’t find it. Then I went to the website of Beijing Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Commission to look for the “administrative punishment decision”, and found a “statistical table of administrative punishment cases in Huairou District in 2019” (see Annex 1 for details). There are 29 “administrative punishment decisions” with the words “Jingguizi (Huai) punishment zi (2019)”. The largest number is “No. 040”, and there is no “No. 053” of “administrative punishment decision”. That is to say, the “administrative punishment decision” of Beijing natural resources and Planning Commission quoted in the notification of Jiuduhe Town People’s Government of Huairou District, Beijing does not exist.
Is that true? Other signs are also proving that the “administrative punishment decision” cited by the Jiuduhe town government does not exist. On March 23, March 26, and March 29, 2020, Jiuduhe town government posted “notice of ordering demolition within a time limit”, “notice of urging” and “notice of decision on compulsory demolition” to residents of Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall for three consecutive times. None of them mentioned the “decision on Administrative punishment” made by Beijing natural resources and Planning Commission in 2019. If this “administrative punishment decision” has been made in 2019 and is above a town government in terms of administrative level, department nature and authority, it cannot be explained why the town government has not cited it in the above three notices.
Even the Beijing Municipal Natural Resources and Planning Commission did not mention a word on February 17, 2020 when answering the petition from the residents of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, about It once made an “administrative punishment decision ” with the number of “Jingguizi (Huai)fazi (2019) No. 053” (see Annex 2 for details). It only says “in accordance with the spirit of the Ministry of natural resources documents.”. Although the so-called “document spirit” has no legal effect at all, the Beijing natural resources and Planning Commission used it to prevaricate, which also showed that it had not made and could not again make the “administrative punishment decision” of “Jingguizi (Huai) fazi. (2019) No. 053”.
In the letter sent to me by Jiuduhe town government of Huairou District on June 11, 2020, there was no mention of the so-called “administrative punishment decision” (Jingguizi (Huai) fazi (2019) No. 053). See Annex 3 for details.
Therefore, it can be considered that the “administrative punishment decision” (Jinggzi (Huai) fazi (2019) No. 053) mentioned in the notification of Jiuduhe Town People’s Government of Huairou District, Beijing does not exist at all. If this “administrative punishment decision” does not exist, then the “Jing 0116 Xingshen No. 35 administrative ruling” made by Huairou District Court will not exist at all. No reason, how is there a result? It’s like wheat seedlings without seeds and bread without flour.
If there is no such “administrative ruling” issued by the Huairou District Court, the “notification letter of the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing” will lose the last straw. That is, it has no legitimacy at all. If this “notification” does not have any legitimacy, then before dawn of July 28, the town government launched the wall breaking infringement on the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, without any legal basis, but a very bad criminal act.
Moreover, the Jiuduhe town government fabricated a “court administrative ruling” out of thin air and was suspected of “forging the official documents of state organs”. According to Article 280 of the criminal law, it was sentenced to “fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 10 years”. Because of the forgery of the “court administrative ruling”, the evil purpose of the Jiuduhe town government has the surface “legitimacy”, and can carry out illegal actions, that is, illegally using administrative resources and financial funds, at the labor of 2700 people, at night infringes citizens’ housing rights, property rights and personal freedom, and carries out large-scale illegal demolition in violation of the constitution. As a result, more than 130 households lost their homes, lost a huge amount of property, and suffered serious physical and mental trauma. It seems that the celling of penalty to “forging the official documents of state organs” is too low. For this incident, the superior government or the court should immediately order it to stop the illegal demolition in the name of forged “court administrative ruling” and stop the infringement on the personal freedom of the owner of the forced demolition. The longer the invasion is, the more homes will be demolished, and the greater the criminal level will be.
This kind of forgery of “court ruling” or even “law” occurs from time to time. As early as 2009, when the government of Yangfang town in Changping District of Beijing forcibly demolished an ecological greenhouse, it quoted “Article 73” of the Administrative Punishment Law in its “decision on compulsory demolition”, but there were only 70 articles in the law. Although judged illegal by administrative reconsideration, the actual damage has been caused, and the forger has not been punished (Tu Ming, Zhou Ning, “there are no legal provisions cited by the town government for forcibly demolishing and quoting”, Xinhua, January 16, 2012). In the large-scale demolition of the tile kiln in Changping last month, although some court rulings are true, there are also some so-called “court rulings” that are questionable. If Jiuduhe town and Huairou District and its main responsible persons are not severely punished by law, an evil “tradition” will be formed in the local government. Will not the whole legal system be forged, will not the rights of citizens be deprived at any time? Who can rest assured that their own community will not be “invaded by breaking walls” at night?
Annex 1: Statistical table of administrative punishment cases in Huairou District in 2019
（http://ghzrzyw.beijing.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/xzcfjg/tdzf/201912/t20191213_1156991.html）
Annex 2: reply to letters and visits issued by Huairou branch of Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources
Appendix 3 Reply of Jiuduhe town government to Sheng Hong
July 31, 2020; Forget-talk Hill Study
Nature of Rights 