On July 31, Friday, this is our usual climbing day. For the past four days, I have spent every day in a bad environment. During the day, I still read as usual, but outside the yard are surrounded by people in black. Although most of them were cheated and treated badly, they eventually constituted a threat to me and my family and made noises around my yard. Police cars repeatedly threatened in the community, once again proving that they were involved in the illegal demolition. Originally quiet country house, become noisy. I had to hide in the house to write. I mostly write articles in the morning, deal with some more relaxed affairs in the afternoon, and improve articles in the evening. In recent days, in addition to writing a letter, “To Dai Binbin on the wall breaking invasion”, and “The legality of forgery”, I also finalized the “Suburbanization is an irresistible trend” which has been basically completed and put it on my blog. After their reading it, some friends said that I was “very calm”. In fact, I was not calm. In the evening, there were always voices of people in black outside the wall. Even in the latter half of the night, there are the voices of the team training, shouting the command, and pulling the iron fence. They didn’t care at all that this is the home where others sleep. I lay in bed and couldn’t sleep for a while, and suddenly thought, this is my home, we have the right to go in and out freely.
On Friday afternoon, we called the demolition party and asked to go out. They discussed and agreed to let us go out. But because of their guilty conscience, they’ve locked our car and they drove it over. As a matter of fact, we have already moved the important things. We collected some books and small articles which contain information or think they have some value, and put them into the car. We gave our key to a neighbor for in case of accident. We’re not moving out, we’re going out for the weekend. When I was about to get on the bus, I suddenly found that more than a dozen people from the demolition party were watching around. Some even said, “Teacher Sheng, are you leaving?” As if to say goodbye to me. I didn’t pay attention to her. This kind of person who broke into the wall has no moral basis for politeness. Legally, I didn’t think I’m moving. I was just leaving my home for a while. But I also knew that physically, I was afraid I couldn’t come back. Legally, this is my legal home; but technically, someone has the ability to tear it down without being punished for the time being.
That evening, I finalized and sent out the “Legality Forged”; a few days later, on August 4, I completed another article, “Triple False of ‘Judgement'”. So far, I basically completed my preliminary comments and analysis of this incident. The conclusion is that the court “administrative ruling” based on which the demolisher of Huairou district is based does not exist at all. The behavior of the demolisher on July 28 is “illegal from the beginning to the end”. I wrote a letter to Mr. Li Keqiang. I also accused about this case, forging official documents of state organs and illegally demolishing them, to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Soon, the Huairou District procuratorate called and said that I had to report to the public security organ first. If the public security organ did not accept it, I could file a complaint with the procuratorial organ. I then reported the police to the “director’s mailbox” on the website of Beijing Public Security Bureau. At the same time, I also reported to the website of the CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Supreme Court. I wrote another letter to Dai Binbin, telling him that I was only leaving temporarily, not moving away; if he intruded or demolished, it would be a crime; and told him that I knew that his “court administrative ruling is false”. His website responded to me with some words like saying “this is over.”. But I know, in his heart, it won’t end until the rest of his life.
The day after we left my yard, we were climbing the mountain behind Dajue temple and found that my yard had been invaded. After that, the information was interrupted. Later, on August 5, my neighbor sent me videos and photos of the yard of my house being demolished. My courtyard is very easy to recognize. This is the original model room. It is the yard you can see at the first sight when you enter the community gate. The walls of yard and the house collapsed, only three trees could be seen. Two of them are ginkgo trees, which I planted as soon as I lived in the yard; the other one is Begonia, which was planted earlier by the developer. There is a pavilion outside the courtyard. When it was built, it blocked my view of the Great Wall from the house. Although this has been expected, but my heart is still dull pain. As I have said, the house is the outer body of human beings, and demolition is to hurt life. I can feel more about the feelings of my neighbors, especially those who live here only. Most of the neighbors cherish this place more than we do. We may be one of residents who took care here more extensively. When I visited to my neighbor’s house, found that their house structure, appearance, interior decoration, furniture and furnishings, courtyard layout, plant and vegetable gardening were all more exquisite than ours. Here, it is a kind of life that enjoys nature and can play its own aesthetic imagination. In order to resist demolition, neighbors put up banners of “I love the courtyard” in the community. And one of the greatest evils in the world is to purposefully destroy what others cherish most.
I have published some articles before, from various perspectives to the illegality of demolition. I also wrote three essays about the illegal demolition of Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, to prove that the forcible had forged the “administrative ruling of the court” even according to the existing law. I recently found that one of the parties to the administrative penalty decision of the “administrative ruling” and “administrative penalty decision” of Beijing Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Commission (hereinafter referred to as “BPNC”) has been shut down a long time ago, which furthers to prove their forgery nature. But at the philosophical level, it doesn’t need to be proved. Because an action that leads to the result of sin must be against natural law. Specifically, the rule of law achievements made by the Chinese mainland over the past thirty years of reform and opening up have formed a constitutional and legal system to protect civil rights. Any violation of civil rights will be prohibited by this or that law. An action aimed at destroying the good life of citizens cannot be done without breaking the law. Whether these laws can play a protective role lies in whether they can be observed and implemented. Therefore, even according to the “ideas” and steps that the plotter wants others to believe, it is impossible to “succeed” if they do not violate the law. For example, assuming that the Huairou district government does have what they call “administrative ruling of the court”, everything is as they said, still doomed to be illegal.
Even if the “administrative ruling of the court” they call is true, and the” decision on administrative penalty “of BPNC is also true, the” decision on administrative penalty “is also illegal. First of all, we should pay attention to that if it wants to make this administrative penalty, it must follow the legal due process stipulated in the Administrative Penalty Law. This includes prior notification to the parties (Article 31). And generally, it is understood that “the parties to administrative proceedings It includes the plaintiff, the defendant, the co-litigant and the third party. ” (Baidu Encyclopedia) and in this particular case, the actual “executed person” is not the party who is “illegal”, but the owners who buy the houses of the “illegal party”. The purpose of law is to seek a fair solution among different stakeholders. Therefore, whether the owner of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall is regarded as “party” or “executed person”, it is necessary to take the owners of the Courtyard as “party” or “executed person” to be informed directly, and only if their rights are exercised can this just solution be found. According to Article 32, “the parties have the right to make statements and plead. The administrative organ must fully listen to the opinions of the parties and review the facts, reasons and evidences put forward by the parties.” According to Article 42, the parties have the right to propose a hearing. However, the owners were not informed in advance, and there was no opportunity to make statements and arguments. According to Article 41, “the decision on administrative penalty” by BPNC cannot be established”.
If the owners have the opportunity to make statements, plead, and hold a hearing, if the cross examination is conducted before the administrative penalty for such a serious matter as the demolition of the house, and the hearing is fair, the so-called “administrative penalty” may be prevented. According to the so-called “administrative ruling”, the BPNC said, “according to the 2005 land use map of Huairou District, the land occupied is vegetable land, orchards and river water surface. According to the overall land use planning of Huairou district (2006-2020), the planned use is for forestry. “Therefore, it is concluded that this is “illegal construction”. However, since there are controversies, it is not only based on the drawings, but also on-the-spot investigation. In fact, the land occupied by the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall is a river beach. Photos of the construction process show that the surface layer is a layer of river beach stones. The reason why it is reported as “vegetable land, orchard” is due to the government’s subsidy policy for agricultural land, and many rural collectives falsely report of farmland. As for the planning after 2006, there is no practical basis; of course, it can not compete with the right to housing protected by the constitution. However, in fact, the BPNC did not go through this due process when making the “decision on administrative penalty”. The “decision on administrative penalty” (Jingguizi (Huai) Fazi (2019) No. 053) is illegal and has no legal effect.
Even if the BPNC breaks through the above provisions of the administrative punishment law, even if it is assumed that the old Beijing courtyard of the great wall of water is an illegal building, there are still laws to restrict it. This is Article 29 of the administrative punishment law, which states that if an illegal act is not found within two years, no administrative penalty shall be imposed. The Old Beijing Courtyard was built in 2006, 13 years ago, long beyond the two-year limit. Of course, they may quote the article that “if the illegal act has a continuous state, it shall be calculated from the date of the end of the act”, and quibble that the illegal act of “illegal construction” has continued until the “illegal construction” is identified, but this is obviously confusing the concepts of “act” and “result of act”. The construction behavior ended 13 years ago. The existence of the Old Beijing Courtyard is the result of this act, not the act itself. This difference can also be distinguished by the simple past tense (constructed) and past perfect continuous tense (have been constructing) in English. This is basic common sense. If this is denied, this article 29 has no meaning. Because almost all the consequences of “illegal acts” that have not been found will continue to this day. For example, if someone cut down a tree, the consequence of its continuation is that the tree is gone, but it cannot be said that the behavior continues to this day.
The problem is, after 13 years, it is found that a certain community is “illegal construction”, and what kind of due process of law should be. Although according to Article 29 of the administrative penalty law, administrative penalty cannot be imposed again, but the relevant administrative organs should be punished for not finding out in time. Article 62 of the law stipulates that “law enforcement officers neglect their duties and do not stop or punish illegal acts that should be stopped and punished, thus causing citizens to In case of damage, the person in charge directly responsible and other persons directly responsible shall be given administrative sanctions according to law; if the circumstances are serious enough to constitute a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.” That is to say, if the BPNC thinks that the Old Beijing Courtyard is “illegal construction”, it means that it did not “stop” and “punish” in the process of implementing the “illegal construction” 13 years ago, and indulged the parties to sell their houses to a bona fide third party who did not know, and because of the forced demolition, they “suffered damage” and their homes worth more than one million yuan were illegally demolished. According to Article 62, it is obvious that the person in charge of the Commission should be punished by law. However, in fact, on the contrary, the BPNC has not been punished. Instead, it has punished the citizens whom they have done harm on, totally reversing the injuring and victim.
According to their story, the organization, which should have been punished, has taken an obviously malicious approach, putting the blame on the most innocent person in the story, the owners of the houses. It is assumed that BPNC made the so-called “decision on administrative penalty” on December 23, 2019 as it said, it also concealed this fact from the owners of the Old Beijing Courtyard in February, even when answering the letter from the owners of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, it did not mention that it had ever done such an administrative punishment involving the important rights of the petitioner (Sheng Hong, 2020). However, this malice was revealed in the “Administrative ruling” of Huairou District Court on July 27. It said that within six months after the “decision on administrative penalty” was issued to Zhongtian Hengchi Co., Ltd. and Xitai village Co., Ltd. , the parties did not file an administrative reconsideration or administrative lawsuit, so the punishment has come into effect. Everyone knows that these two so-called “parties” have sold their houses and made profits, and the property rights have been transferred to the owners. It is impossible to punish the “illegal construction” parties by forcibly demolishing the houses, but it will damage the innocent third party in good faith. What’s more, one of them, Beijing Zhongtian Hengchi Company has long ceased to exist, how can it “file an administrative reconsideration or administrative lawsuit”?
As we have discussed earlier, the “parties” of administrative punishment should include the owners who actually bear the major punishment. What the BPNC said that the “parties had been informed” is incomplete or even maliciously concealed. However, both the Administrative Reconsideration Law and the Administrative Litigation Law stipulate that the stakeholders should participate in the administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation, and the premise is that they should be informed. With regard to the third party involved in the subject matter of administrative penalty, Article 39 of the administrative compulsory law clearly stipulates that “if the third party claims rights to the subject matter of execution, the execution of administrative penalty shall be suspended.”. This also shows that the third party must be informed before they can “claim their rights”. Therefore, the act of concealing administrative penalty information by BPNC from the third person, the owners of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, is not only an act of dereliction of duty by the administrative department to damage citizens, but also an act of deliberately injuring specific persons, which hinders the owner from enjoying the above “claim of execution object”. The purpose is to demolish the houses of these citizens, which is completely contrary to the positioning of government.
Finally, although the BPNC has continuously broken through the legal restrictions, there is still a basic restriction on “administrative penalty”, which is determined by the nature of “administrative penalty”. “Administrative punishment” is a way to maintain social order, which is different from “criminal punishment”. The difference is that the object of “administrative penalty” is “administrative illegal act”, which has low ethical accountability and social harmfulness, and is a kind of lighter illegal act, so its punishment is also lighter; while the heavier crime and punishment belong to the scope of “criminal punishment” (Chen Xingliang, 1992). Administrative punishment should not cross the border and stipulate the measures that only criminal punishment can take. In the administrative punishment law, the most serious administrative punishment is “confiscation of illegal property”, which generally refers to the property obtained by illegal means. Of course, it can not be interpreted as “confiscation of real estate”, because real estate is not only a property right, but also a residential right. Although the latter covers the former, it is far greater than the former. Not to mention “forced demolition”. Generally speaking, “confiscation of real estate” only applies to the property of enemy countries or war criminals; or people who have serious economic crimes or treason and other serious crimes. In theory, forced demolition is a more severe punishment than confiscation.
Therefore, “confiscation of real estate” or “forced demolition” can only be a kind of criminal punishment, which should be prosecuted by the procuratorate and made by the court through due process of law. The administrative order does not contain such severe punishment, so an administrative agency is not qualified to make decisions. Moreover, in the current large-scale illegal demolition movement, the owners whose houses have been demolished are people who have no fault or serious crime. If the “illegal construction” accused by BPNC does exist, the actual culprits are also builders and sellers. And even for them, their fault is not serious enough to confiscate the property or even demolish it. The legislative law stipulates that “the constitution has the highest legal effect, and all laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, autonomous regulations, special regulations and rules shall not conflict with the constitution.” (Article 87) also stipulates that “without the basis of laws, administrative regulations and local regulations, local government rules and regulations shall not set norms that impair the rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations or increase their obligations.” BPNC has no power to violate the constitution. It directly impairs or even denies citizens’ property rights and housing rights. It takes “confiscation” and “demolition” as punishment means for “illegal construction”, which breaks through its upper limit of power.
We have noticed that a few years ago, the Ministry of land and resources at that time still had some discretion. For example, from 2014 to 2016, the punishment of “illegal construction” by Beijing Bureau of land and resources was almost “fine”, and only one was “confiscation of illegal gains” (Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources, 2018). This is still roughly appropriate. Because the so-called “illegal construction” mainly takes up agricultural land and rarely damages the ecology. Even if there are negative results, we can take other methods to punish, and even make up for the consequences of the so-called “illegal construction”. For example, the occupation of agricultural land can be solved by the balance of occupation and compensation. It is more economical and efficient for the occupier to open up new agricultural land on similar land by means of fine or other means, even if it is to spend money to transport the soil from other places. As for the ecological environment, I have discussed some of them in the “Suburbanization is an irresistible trend”. Villa owners will not destroy the environment, but will plant plants and improve the environment due to their worship of nature and beauty. Even if some places need more investment, it can be achieved by imposing fines on builders and sellers. More importantly, the principle of proportionality is an important principle of the rule of law. Even if the builders and sellers of houses have been accused of wrongdoing, the homes of owners who are as the third party with goodwill cannot be forcibly demolished and their aesthetic lifestyle destroyed as punishment means. This is extremely asymmetric.
Look at Huairou district government again. We note that the so-called “administrative ruling” of Huairou District Court was settled on July 27, while the illegal invasion of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall by Huairou district government was about 2:30 a.m. on July 28, which was equivalent to that night. This shows that the so-called “court administrative ruling” is manipulated by the district government even if it is not forged. Because a just court decision should be a suspense, it is impossible to know in advance that there is a definite ruling, and therefore it is impossible to prepare carefully in advance. If they wanted to organize 2700 people, multiple forklifts and hook machines and dozens of moving vehicles on July 27, it would take at least a few days. If they wanted to raise funds for this, it would take a longer time. It was impossible to stealthily attack in the early hours of July 28. This also reflects the government of Huairou district is in a state of impatience to do evil. Now, investment in a bank or large amount of funds transfer needs a “calm period” of two or three days. Such a destruction involving hundreds of innocent owners’ billions of yuan of assets is so urgent. It is also obvious that it doesn’t want to give the goodwill third party the time to claim their rights. We have to say that the goodwill and loyalty of government officials are the last defense line to protect constitutional rights.
What’s more strange is that even if we believe in the stories made up by the Huairou district government, the practices of the BPNC and Huairou District fully demonstrate the existence of a “conspiracy” against the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall. The purpose is to demolish this community, and the form is unscrupulous. As I have mentioned in “Let illegal demolition fear the rule of law” and “An important lesson of property rights theory”, Jiuduhe town government of Huairou District once went to the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall on March 23, March 26, and March 30 to paste “Notice of demolition within a time limit”, “Notice of urging” and “Decision on demolition within a time limit”, all in the name of the town government, without mentioning the “decision on administrative penalty” made by the BPNC in December 2019. There can only be two cases. On one hand, there is no such “decision on administrative punishment” issued by BPNC; on the other hand, the government of Jiuduhe town is aware of the administrative penalty proposed by BPNC to Xitai village under its jurisdiction, involving more than 100 families living in the town. However, it did not mention it in the above-mentioned three announcements. In connection with words getting dizzy with success in the so-called “administrative ruling” of Huairou District Court, it can only be said that it is a deliberate concealment.
In either case, although the town government does not have the qualification to judge “illegal construction” and the power to demolish it, it is also responsible for the legal documents it issued, whether positive or negative. After the owners of the Courtyard filed administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation against the administrative decision of the town government, according to Article 44 of the administrative compulsory law, Huairou district government can not forcibly demolish it. No matter whether there is a “decision on administrative penalty” issued by BPNC, the administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation filed by the owners of the Courtyard are all against the administrative penalty of the same subject matter. Therefore, even if other administrative counterparts have not filed administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation, the owners, as one of the administrative counterparts of this administrative penalty, have met the Article 44 “cannot be forcibly removed”. That is to say, if there are really two overlapping “administrative penalties” of the same subject matter, as long as the parties have conducted administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation against any one of them, their houses cannot be forcibly demolished. According to Article 39 of the administrative compulsory law, the owner’s administrative reconsideration is equivalent to “the third party’s claim on the subject matter of execution”, and the execution shall be suspended because of “definite reasons”. The Huairou district government pretended that its Jiuduhe town government had not posted a notice threatening forced demolition, and had not received any administrative reconsideration or litigation from the owners. It was an act of concealing one’s ears and stealing the bell.
Neither the BPNC nor the Huairou district government can avoid the most important problem, that is, to the suburban community construction projects they agreed to or even encouraged 10-20 years ago, without denying and punishing their original decisions, nor promising to protect the consequences caused by them, they made a new decision to deny their original decision and destroy the result agreed and encouraged by their original decision. And this consequence has been added input of others. This violates the basic principles of the rule of law and the market. If a subject in a market finds that his past decisions are wrong, he can only admit that the current situation of others caused by his past decisions cannot be denied and can only modify his own decisions. In other words, under what circumstances can an administrative body deny its previous decisions? Due process of law should be: firstly, it should negate its original decision in words according to the original decision-making procedure and make it known to the public; at the same time, it should punish the person who is responsible for the wrong decision. Second, it must protect the rights of others who pay costs because of its erroneous decisions. It must also make full compensation for the possible damages caused by rectify the errors, and whether the compensation is “sufficient” has the final say of the injured party.
As we all know, the Old Beijing Courtyard was built in 2006 with the encouragement of Huairou district government, and the Land Resources Bureau at that time at least acquiesced in land use. This is similar to the situation of many suburban communities in Beijing, such as Changping, Huairou, Miyun and so on, which have obtained support and encouragement from at least district level governments. However, from 2019 to 2020, without any public denial of their original decisions and without taking responsibility for the consequences of their wrong decisions, they turned to say that the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall is “illegal” and should be “demolished”. They are not the government to provide public goods, but an organization that infringes on civil rights to cause public bads. In law, if a natural person or legal person changes his decision and does not make a public statement, and does not bear the consequences of his own behavior, he will deny his natural person or legal person status. If a society tolerates that the administrative departments of the government can deny its commitment without constraint, and do not bear the legal responsibility for their wrong decision-making, and do not bear the material and spiritual losses caused to its citizens, and say that it is “right today, not wrong yesterday”, it will bring terrible disasters to the society and its citizens. This is not tolerated by a country ruled by law.
Now the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall has been razed to the ground, which shows that the laws listed above have been destroyed by the BPNC and the Huairou district government. Based on the discussion of this article and my previous articles, the relevant administrative departments have violated at least 20 legal provisions (see the appendix for details). This is equivalent to the fact that there are 20 checkpoints on a road. As long as one of the 20 checkpoints fails to pass, there will be no way to go through this road. As long as one of these 20 laws worked, the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall would not be demolished. Now that the Huairou district government has proved that it has completed the illegal demolition of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, it shows that it has the ability to ignore these 20 legal barriers and has broken through without exception. The destruction of the legal system seems less intuitive than the images of the demolition impact and the rubble of the Courtyard, but it is more fatal than the destruction of homes. The destruction of the rule of law and property rights system is not only the demolition of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, but also the illegal demolition of large villas in Changping, Huairou, Miyun, Shandong, Hebei and other places in Beijing. It also demonstrates to the society that an administrative department of a government can violate any law and can demolish any building. This kind of damage to the principle of rule of law and the spirit of the constitution will not only be manifested in the field of property rights and housing rights, but also can be generalized to any field, and the constitutional rights of citizens and other organizations will not be guaranteed by law.
Why can they be so unscrupulous? My lawyer told me that the administrative reconsideration application I sent to Huairou District was sent back intact. What does that mean? This shows that the agency wants to eliminate the fact that I have applied for administrative reconsideration. According to the administrative reconsideration law, if the administrative organ that receives the application does not accept it, it shall inform the applicant in writing within 5 days. It has never been stipulated that the applicant’s application can be returned. This is another violation by Huairou District Government in order to cover up its illegal activities. On August 31, I also received a “decision on not accepting administrative reconsideration” from the Beijing municipal government, which said that there was no legal interest between the applicant and the “decision on administrative penalty” issued by the BPNC. This has gone beyond the absurdity of “calling a stag a horse”. This is not only to say that it confounds black and white, but also refers to its abuse of public power and domineering. Assuming that the “decision on administrative punishment” issued by the BPNC is true, the Huairou district government has forcibly demolished my home, causing me more than 1 million yuan of property loss and countless spiritual loss. It says that it has no interest with me, which is a lie that can be proved by simple common sense. The reason why the Beijing municipal government dare to say this is because it despises the legal system of our country. It need not to prove or confront because it is able to abuse public power. This means that it is speaking with violence.
In fact, as early as the end of March, I filed an administrative lawsuit with the Huairou District Court, but I haven’t received any response. This shows that Huairou district government is directly interfering with the court. This is also in violation of the constitution, which states that “the people’s courts shall exercise judicial power independently in accordance with the law and shall not be interfered by administrative organs, social organizations and individuals.” (art. 126) the reason for the lawless conduct of the executive branch of the government is that it can block the channels for citizens to obtain legal relief when their rights are harmed, which is illegal in itself. However, the harmfulness of this kind of “illegal” is much higher than that of direct infringement, which destroys the judicial system as a “social epidemic prevention system”. In a society ruled by law, the legal system is used to protect the constitution, and its most important binding object is the administrative department of the government. Because only they have the ability to abuse civil rights and cause social disaster on a large scale. This legal system is designed to restrain the government. Once the legal system is destroyed, no one can restrict the administrative departments of the government and let their wills run rampant in the society. Its existence is a kind of anti-constitution existence.
We can see that after the Old Beijing Courtyard was captured and destroyed by Huairou district government by unprecedented illegal means, the demolition movement in various districts of Beijing has become more and more unscrupulous. For example, the government of Qiaozi town in Huairou District cheated out the residents of Yushuishanju community in the name of flood control on August 13, and blocked the gate of the community when they returned. Another source said that Huairou District simply gave Sihe Shangcheng community an ultimatum, which only allowed three days to move. On the third day, it directly came to demolish the house, and in two days the demolition was finished. Since the fall of Wayao villa zone at the end of June, nearly 1800 villas have been illegally demolished. The request of the household with sole residence to keep the house is ignored. Recently, I heard that someone said that “after dismantling the tile kiln, the incense hall will be demolished.”. Xiangtang has 3800 households and 10000 people, which is equivalent to a town. This evil wind of illegal demolition has blown into the urban area of Beijing. Regardless of the fact that the residential area is already used for construction, and the land dispute within the community is within the scope of community autonomy, the government administrative department forcibly enters the community and demolishes the fences and sunshine houses of the owners. If the residents have any conflict, they will send police or people in black to intimidate them, and the beautiful community has become messy. Illegal evictions are expanding and accelerating. In such a system environment, the government administrators have become unreasonable, arrogant and rude, which makes people feel that “if they succeed, they will be rampant”.
This arrogance is the result of an illusion. I once reminded Dai Binbin not to think that he is “legal” if he illegally forcibly demolishes “successfully”. As long as we are a little sober, we can see that this is just an illusion caused by his misuse of our resources. How long can this paradox last? In the specific situation of human society, sometimes there will be the phenomenon that illegal acts cannot be stopped and punished because of the unrestricted power. But the history of the Cultural Revolution tells us that although Jiang Qing did what she wanted when she was powerful, she could not escape the severe punishment of the law ten years later. Now this kind of violation of more than 20 laws and regulations, will people forget it? Do not go forward with great strength and vigor in the rule of law and democracy? Even in China’s mainland, which one supports this lawless act in the principles the ruling party declared? The Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee stressed the rule of law, and “decided” to “resolutely investigate and deal with law enforcement violations, illegal use of power and other acts.” If this principle is not used now, it will be used eventually. A violation of one law is an offence, while a violation of twenty is a breach of the legal system and a much more serious crime. The more legal provisions a illegal act violates, the more intolerable the citizens and society will be, and the earlier and more severe it will be corrected.
As a result of large-scale illegal demolition, in Beijing Changping and Huairou and other places, there have been many pieces of rubbles with a few dozens of acres, or more than thousands of acres. If we rebuild our former homes on these ruins, we must restore and consolidate the legal environment and property rights system. The premise is that those who destroy the legal system by illegal demolition are severely punished, and those citizens who are illegally infringed by the administrative department are fairly and fully compensated. An effective environment of rule of law is not realized by paper regulations, but by a series of long-term rewards and punishments. The gradual formation of property rights institution is also along the struggle against the people who destroy the property rights, the justice of those whose property rights damaged is realized, those who violate the property rights are punished. Here, the efforts of all victims of illegal demolition to restore their homes are consistent with the efforts of China under the rule of law. After such a process, government officials began to revere and respect the constitutional rights of citizens. All those who dare to challenge these rights will stay in prison. The power resources from citizens can only be used to protect citizens’ personal freedom, property rights, housing rights and freedom of expression. This history of illegal demolition will be remembered as a painful lesson for future generations. At this time, all homes can be truly safe. If one day we can see the Old Beijing Courtyard reappear on the original site of Jiudu River, it will not only be a victory for its owners, but also a festival for China’s rule of law and property rights institution.
Chen Xingliang, “on the difference between administrative punishment and penalty punishment”, China law, No.4, 1992.
Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources, “administrative punishment for illegal construction”, website of Beijing Municipal Commission of planning and natural resources, May 20, 2018.
Sheng Hong, “Legality Forged”, July 31, 2020.
Appendix: illegal acts of Beijing municipal government departments and their subordinate organizations on the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall
1. On March 23, 2020, the government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing, posted a “notice on demolition within a time limit” at the gate of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall. The town government has no legal basis, has no qualification and power to determine “illegal construction”, which is a transgression of authority and an illegal threat to demolish;
2. On March 26, the government of Jiuduhe town posted a “letter of urging” to the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, which is a transgression of authority and an illegal threat to demolish;
3. On March 30, the government of Jiuduhe town posted a “decision on demolition within a time limit” at the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, which is a transgression of authority and an illegal threat to demolish;
4. At about 2:30 a.m. on July 28, the Jiuduhe town government, without the authorization of the court, raided the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, violating Article 53 of the Administrative Enforcement Law. The “administrative organs without administrative enforcement power” should “apply to the people’s court for compulsory execution.”
5. Before the administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation procedures of the owners of the residential area have not been completed, the act of sneaking attack and forcibly demolishing is a violation of the Administrative Compulsory Law, which says “If it is necessary to demolish houses 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)
6. The wall breaking invasion was at night, which violated the administrative compulsory law, and “administrative organs shall not implement administrative enforcement at night or on statutory holidays.” (Article 43).
7. The town government sent up to 2700 people to encircle the community. Without the consent of the residents of the community, they rushed into the community from the broken wall, and sternly threatened the residents of the community, thus committing the “crime of illegal invasion”.
8. In the attack, the demolition personnel used hook machines to destroy the walls, and later demolished all the houses and yards of the whole residential area of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall into ruins, which was a crime of abusing public power and violating citizens’ property rights on a large scale.
9. In the sneak attack, the demolition personnel were armed with iron bars and shields, seriously injuring three residents of the community, thus violating the “crime of illegal injury”.
10. After the forced demolition personnel entered the community, blocked the community and forbidden residents to go in and out, thus committing the “crime of illegal detention”.
11. The forced demolition personnel obstructed the entry and exit of postmen and couriers, which violated the “freedom of communication” rights of residents in the community.
12. The forced demolition personnel made water and power cut accidents in the community, which violated the Administrative Compulsory Law that “administrative organs shall not stop water supply, power supply, heat supply, gas supply and other means to force the parties to implement relevant administrative decisions.” (Article 43)
13. The Huairou district government abused the police force and directly or indirectly participated in the illegal demolition operations on and after July 28, and did not send the policemen when the owners of the residential area 110 called the police. This violated the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Police Law, which supports the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Article 21 of the Police Law, which states that the cases reported by citizens should be investigated and dealt with in a timely manner “. In addition, it has violated the ban of the State Council that “public security police should not be used at will to participate in compulsory land acquisition and demolition” (State Council emergency notice (GBF  No. 15)).
14. Huairou district government staff threatened the owners of the community not to record videos and take pictures of forced demolition by abusing police force, forcing the owners to close three WeChat groups, which violated the owners’ constitutional right of free expression (Article 35).
15. After the invasion on July 28, the “Notice of the people’s Government of Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing” pasted by the government of Jiuduhe town at each door was invalid, because the town government had no right to enforce the demolition, and it was an illegal threat of forced demolition.
16. The “notification” did not produce the “administrative ruling” of Huairou court cited by it, so it could not prove the existence of the “administrative ruling” to the residents; nor did it produce the “decision on administrative punishment” issued by BPNC, so it could not prove the existence of the “decision of administrative penalty”; Jiuduhe town government was suspected of “forging the document of the state organ” Crime of writing “.
17. The “notification” is based on the “administrative ruling” of the court of Huairou District in Beijing, which is made before the administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation procedures of the owners of the residential area have not been completed, which violates the legal procedures and is invalid.
18. The above ruling of Huairou District Court was made in response to the “decision on administrative punishment” issued by BPNC, which in the case of concealing the actual major stakeholders—the owners of the residential area, only informed Beijing Zhongtian Hengshi Investment Co., Ltd. (actually no longer exists) and Xitai village Cooperative, Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing, is major violations of the due procedure of law.
19. The owners of the residential area purchased the real estate from the cooperative of Xitai village, Jiuduhe Town, Huairou District, Beijing. They are bona fide third party. Even if the residential area is really “illegal”, it must be fully compensated by the seller before he can withdraw from the house. 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.
20. The Huairou district government has spent taxpayers’ money to employ illegal demolished personnel and equipment, which violates the reasonable scope of financial funds in the Budget Law (Article 27, Article 93).
21. Before making the decision on administrative punishment (jinggzi (Huai) no.053) on December 23, 2019, the BPNC did not inform the owners of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, violating the Administrative Punishment Law which requires the party concerned to be informed in advance (Article 31);
22. They did not listen to the statement and defense of the owners of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, in violation of Article 32 of the Administrative Punishment Law, “the parties have the right to make statements and pleadings. The administrative organ must fully listen to the opinions of the parties and review the facts, reasons and evidence put forward by the parties. “
23. As a result, the owner has not been given the opportunity to hold a hearing, which violates Article 42 of the Administrative Punishment Law, which says the party concerned has the right to propose to hold a hearing;
24. Due to the failure to perform the above procedures of the administrative penalty law, the above written “decision on administrative penalty” issued by BPNC is invalid, but it is still regarded as valid, which violates Article 41 of the Administrative Penalty Law that “the decision on administrative penalty cannot be established” if it fails to fulfill the procedures mentioned above.
25. The above-mentioned “decision on administrative penalty” issued by BPNC was made 13 years after its so-called “illegal construction” act, which violates Article 29 of the Administrative Punishment Law. “If an illegal act is not found within two years, no administrative penalty shall be imposed.”
26. If the BPNC finds that the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall is “illegal construction” and leads to the illegal demolition of the Old Beijing Courtyard in Water Great Wall, it has not been found and punished 13 years ago. Article 62 of the “Administrative Punishment Law” stipulates that “law enforcement officers neglect their duties and do not stop or punish illegal acts that should be stopped and punished, thus causing citizens to In case of damage, the person in charge directly responsible and other persons directly responsible shall be given administrative sanctions according to law; if the circumstances are serious enough to constitute a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.”
27. BPNC directly took “confiscation” and “demolition” as punishment means for “illegal construction”, which seriously breaks through its upper limit of power and violates the upper limit of administrative punishment stipulated in the Constitution, the Legislative Law and the Administrative Punishment Law.
28. If the “administrative ruling” of Huairou District Court on July 27, 2020 is true,the first clause of article 43 of the Land Management Law of on July 28, 2020 it cited is an outdated law, and has been deleted in the new Land Management Law of 2020.The first clause of Article 76 cited by it, namely Article 78 of the new Land Management Law, stipulates that “the newly-built buildings and other facilities on the illegally transferred land shall be demolished within a time limit”. Neither of them can draw the conclusion of forced demolition. This is suspected of “judgement of perverting the law”.
29. The Huairou district government’s return of my application for administrative reconsideration violates the provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, “if the administrative organ accepting the application does not accept it, it shall inform the applicant in writing within 5 days”.
30. The above-mentioned acts of BPNC, Huairou District and Jiuduhe town government infringed on the constitutional rights of personal freedom, property rights, housing rights, freedom of expression and freedom of communication.
September 8, 2020 at Fivewoods Studio