Triple False of “Judgement” / Sheng Hong

We exposed that the Jiuduhe town government of Huairou District forged the “administrative ruling” of Huairou Court (Sheng Hong, “The Legality Forged”, July 31, 2020), broke the wall in the early morning of July 28 to invade the Old Beijing courtyard in Water Great Wall, and restricted the personal freedom of residents. On July 31, the government of Jiuduhe town sent several people to a resident’s home in the Courtyard and showed them a “administrative ruling of Huairou court”, but the residents were not allowed to take photos. The residents had to read it themselves and record the sound (see the attachment for preliminary transformed text). However, the government of Jiuduhe town was self-defeating, which further proved that their so-called “administrative ruling” was forged.

If we want to tell the authenticity of an antique, and the seller shakes the antique in front of the buyer and does not let the buyer take photos, who believes that the antique is real? A proper procedure for distinguishing the truth from the false should be to let the buyer look at it carefully in person, take the photos and videos back, and ask some experts to express their opinions. If they have different opinions, they should adopt the majority opinion. If the Jiuduhe town government wants to prove that the “administrative ruling” on which it acts is true, it has to produce the original of the document, the on-site video, and provide a copy to each owner. This should have the seal of Huairou court and the signature of the chief judge. Owners can ask relevant experts to identify whether the “ruling” is true. The Jiuduhe town government’s doing so shows that it is in a double panic. On the one hand, if it cannot prove that there is such an “administrative ruling”, it will commit the “crime of forging official documents of state organs”, and bear all the criminal responsibilities since July 28; on the other hand, it will further commit its “crime of forging official documents of state organs” if it knows that the “administrative ruling” does not exist and wants to prove the existence of the document. If it is exposed, it can deny that it has provided a forged “administrative ruling”. However, it further proves that the “administrative ruling” is forged.

Let’s step back and assume that there is a text of the “administrative ruling” that they brought, which is also a forgery. This is because there is a fatal flaw in the content. That is, fake laws, or outdated and invalid laws are cited here. It said, “in accordance with Article 43, paragraph 1, of the land administration act …” The old Land Management Law is used here, which says that if land is needed for construction, “state owned land must be applied for according to law.”. However, the new “land management law” in 2020 has made major amendments, one of which is that rural collective land can enter the construction land market. Therefore, the first paragraph of Article 43 in the old land management law is deleted. The Jiuduhe town government also said that the Huairou court’s ruling was made on July 27, 2020, and the new land management law of 2020 should of course be applied. According to the legislative law, “laws made by the same organ if the new provision is inconsistent with the old one, the new one shall apply.” (art. 92) this is the basic common sense of a judge. The forged “administrative ruling” finally said that the chief judge was Wu Jun, which should be an insult to the judge, because she could not have such poor professional quality. Unexpectedly, she did not know that the land management law, which is crucial to this case, had been amended, and its important basis, article 43, paragraph 1, of the old Land Management Law was deleted.

The second hard injury of the so-called “administrative ruling” is that it has quoted another article of the old land management law, the first paragraph of Article 76. Although this clause is still retained in Article 78 of the new land management law, it cannot be concluded that the old Beijing courtyard house of the Great Wall should be demolished. It said, “Rural villagers have not been approved in case of illegal occupation of land, the land administrative department of the people’s government at or above the county level shall order the return of the land illegally occupied. Where agricultural land is converted into construction land without authorization in violation of the general plan for the utilization of land, the newly-built buildings and other facilities on the land illegally transferred shall be demolished within a time limit. “The so-called construction and use of agricultural land should be “approved” by the higher authorities, which was put forward in the “urban and rural planning law” which was implemented in 2008. However, the old Beijing courtyard of the great wall of water was built in 2006, so it cannot be “retroactive”. Not to mention, the land used by the community of Old Beijing Courtyard is wasteland, not agricultural land. What’s more, what is said to be demolished within a time limit is “building newly”. It is clear that houses built 14 years ago should not be considered “new”. Therefore, the forged “administrative ruling” refers to two legal articles as legal basis, one is outdated and invalid false law, the other is obviously distorted use of law.

Let’s step back and assume that there is a text of the “administrative ruling” that they brought, which is also a forgery. This is because there is a fatal flaw in the content. That is, fake laws, or outdated and invalid laws are cited here. It said, “in accordance with Article 43, paragraph 1, of the land administration act …” The old Land Management Law” is used here, which says that if land is needed for construction, “state owned land must be applied for according to law.”. However, the new “land management law” in 2020 has made major amendments, one of which is that rural collective land can enter the construction land market. Therefore, the first paragraph of Article 43 in the old land management law is deleted. The Jiuduhe town government also said that the Huairou court’s ruling was made on July 27, 2020, and the new land management law of 2020 should of course be applied. According to the legislative law, “laws made by the same organ If the new provision is inconsistent with the old one, the new one shall apply.” (art. 92) this is the basic common sense of a judge. The forged “administrative ruling” finally said that the chief judge was Wu Jun, which should be an insult to the judge, because she could not have such poor professional quality. Unexpectedly, she did not know that the land management law, which is crucial to this case, had been amended, and its important basis, article 43, paragraph 1, of the old Land Management Law was deleted.

The second hard injury of the so-called “administrative ruling” is that it has quoted another article of the old land management law, the first paragraph of Article 76. Although this clause is still retained in Article 78 of the new land management law, it cannot be concluded that the old Beijing courtyard house of the Great Wall should be demolished. It said, “Rural villagers have not been approved In case of illegal occupation of land, the land administrative department of the people’s government at or above the county level shall order the return of the land illegally occupied. Where agricultural land is converted into construction land without authorization in violation of the general plan for the utilization of land, the newly-built buildings and other facilities on the land illegally transferred shall be demolished within a time limit.” The so-called construction and use of agricultural land should be “approved” by the higher authorities, which was put forward in the “Urban and Rural Planning Law” which was implemented in 2008. However, the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall was built in 2006, so it cannot be “retroactive”. Not to mention, the land used by the community of the Old Beijing Courtyard is wasteland, not agricultural land. What’s more, what is said to be demolished within a time limit is “building newly”. It is clear that houses built 14 years ago should not be considered “new”. Therefore, the forged “administrative ruling” refers to two legal articles as legal basis, one is outdated and invalid false law, the other is obviously distorted use of law.

The real law has authority because of its inherent justice, and “authority”, as Hannah Arendt said, is “the force to make people obey automatically”. “Governance of the country does not depend primarily on the law, let alone on strength”, Burke said, “No matter how much law or strength is considered to be the driving force, fundamentally speaking, the role of both is complementary. ” This is very similar to Confucius. Confucius said, “Custom is the first thing for public governance.” And “custom” is a non-compulsory social rule. I once commented that “the Confucian ideal government is that it has the right to use coercive means, but its whole effort is to minimize the use of coercive means through the implementation of customs.” On the contrary, if we do not abide by the constitutional principles, an administrative decision does not contain the natural law and justice, it will not have the force to make people obey automatically, and it will inevitably be rejected and resisted. If we want to “carry out” such an evil order, we must use more violence. Therefore, how much violence is used is a yardstick to measure the illegality of a government order.

After the invasion of the Old Beijing Courtyard, Huairou district government used various illegal means to force the residents to yield. The first is to limit personal freedom. I was twice blocked from walking by illegal people in black. The most serious one was that on July 29, there were at most 30-40 people blocking my door. The leader of the men in black behind them pushed them towards us, so that they completely squeezed into us. I called 110 twice, but I didn’t see the police. It took a long time for a policeman to come and say that according to the order of the superior, he could not let the man in black disperse. Please let me understand. The next day, they used a fence to block the ends of the alley outside my house. I called 110 again. The police were not sent out at all. I had to do morning exercises in the Hutong. Then there are cars from the Public Security Bureau broadcasting repeatedly in the community to “demand persons who resisted in the mid night of July 28 to surrender to the police.” They took away a brave man who defended his home, and made all kinds of threats on him. This is really a reversal of black and white. Without any legal basis, illegal invasion and forced demolition are regarded as “legal”, while those who defend their homes are called “illegal”. Although it is extremely absurd, it has played a certain role of intimidation.

Huairou district government completely blocked the Old Beijing Courtyard community. According to the visitor’s description, there are five checkpoints outside the community, surround by people in black. Residents of the courtyard outside are also unable to enter. They are coerced into signing an agreement with the town government to transfer the property to the town government without the promised amount of compensation. If the owners don’t agree, they won’t be allowed in. Through the blockade of the community, they block the channels for residents to buy food. Even if it is online shopping, express delivery is not allowed to send food in. Residents want to send administrative reconsideration materials by express, but the courier is blocked from entering the community. They lock the owner’s car and only with their consent can the owner drive. There was an owner who wanted to drive into the community to carry things, but was stopped by the man in black at the door of the community, and asked her to take things out of her home and put them in the car. However, it was still hundreds of meters away from the gate. The owner was extremely indignant and said that if she was not allowed to drive in, “I would kill myself here.” They illegally infringe on the freedom of expression and communication of the owners. The messages and videos sent by the owners are quickly deleted, and the three WeChat groups of the owners are forced to disband.

In addition, there are about 500 people in black station in the community, and each family is surrounded by 5-6 people. During the day and night, they chat and talk. In the middle of the night, they still line up, shout commands and changed their duties. The noise makes the residents unable to rest normally and affect their living environment. Later, they deliberately make water and electricity accidents, saying that the electric switch jump down, and the water pump is broken. In the past fourteen years, there has been no such accident. What’s more, they has begun to demolish the public houses and screen walls of the community, and several houses that furniture of which has been moved out. The demolition process not only has a lot of noise, but also is a kind of destructive and violent scene, which will cause mental harm to normal people and has the psychological effect of intimidating residents. More specifically, they also called friends of the residents and asked them to convey threats that their jobs would be affected if they did not move away. All in all, these are the “dexterity” that local governments teach and learn from each other across the country. All these means are illegal. Because the purpose of Huairou district government is illegal. It is impossible to achieve illegal purposes by legal means and peaceful means. Therefore, it is proved once again that the legality of the night attack by Huairou district government is forged.

So, what should Huairou district government do? First, all illegal activities since the night attack on July 28 should be stopped immediately, including restricting the personal freedom of residents, illegally demolishing, destroying the normal supply of water and electricity by creating hydropower accidents, withdrawing all the people who are occupying the community, lifting the blockade of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, and allowing residents to enter and leave freely. What if it doesn’t? It may further cover up the truth and carry out the “forgery” to the end. But it will be more difficult. Because it’s very difficult to make lies around. This needs to compile the information that connects the front, back, left and right, so that it can’t have flaws. In addition, it would be illegal if the “administrative ruling” of Huairou court could not be obtained in the first time, that is, before July 28. It is practically impossible to make up an administrative ruling at that time in the future. Because it is necessary to make up a “decision on administrative punishment” issued by Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources in 2019. But in 2019, all the information on the agency’s website has been fixed, and any addition or modification has to leave a flaw, and more forged evidence will be provided. What’s more, if there will be an “administrative ruling” without all the hard injuries and forgery marks I pointed out earlier, it must also be forged, because it deliberately avoided mistakes after reading my article.

Finally, we assume that the Huairou district government has made a perfect forgery, so that it does not reveal all the flaws, but it cannot avoid its hasty and clumsy forgery. This is the final failure of this forged “administrative ruling”. It does not mention “Jiuduhe town government”, but only says that the judgment is “organized and implemented by the people’s Government of Huairou District, Beijing”. Some people will say that Jiuduhe town is not a subordinate unit of Huairou District? Can’t Huairou District entrust Jiuduhe town government to do this? We already know that town level governments have no right to enforce demolition unless authorized by the court. This authorization must be direct, not indirect; otherwise, the lower level government will be tacitly authorized by the higher level government. Even if the Huairou district government entrusts the Jiuduhe government to demolish houses, there must be a formal written authorization in the name of Huairou district government, not in the name of Jiuduhe town government. We now know that the “notification letter of the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing” presented by the Jiuduhe town government is in the name of the town government, not in the name of Huairou district government. It has not obtained any authorization from its forged “court administrative ruling”. This is a complete failure of forgery. This town government’s “notification” is illegal from beginning to end.

August 4, 2020 in Fivewoods Studio

Author: flourishflood

Economist, Confucianist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s