August 12, 2016

In the first week of August 2016, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People's Court tried and convicted one rights lawyer and three activists of “subversion of state power.” They were Zhai Yanmin (翟岩民), a law firm employee; Hu Shigen (胡石根), a democracy and religious freedom activist; Zhou Shifeng (周世鋒), a lawyer and law firm director; and Gou Hongguo (勾洪国), a rights activist. 

Although Chinese law specifies punishment for the crime of “subversion of state power” (颠覆国家政权罪), it does not define the acts that constitute the crime:

Among those who organize, plot or carry out the scheme of subverting the State power or overthrowing the socialist system, the ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years . . . . (Criminal Law, art 105(1))

But as these trials unfolded, “edited transcripts” released by the official Xinhua News Agency provided a glimpse of what the prosecution and the court considered to be acts of “subversion”: these acts can be no more than a dinner party discussion about social change and about how lawyers can help defend the rights of workers.

(From the trial transcript of Hu Shigen)

Prosecutor:

2) On February 1, 2015, defendant Hu Shigen went to a lunch gathering attended by 15 people, including Zhou Shifeng, Li Heping, and Zhai Yanmin at Qiweishao restaurant in Chaoyang District, Beijing, at which they discussed topics revolved around “how lawyers might get involved in the labor movement” and “how lawyers can get involved in sensitive case incidents,” etc. Hu Shigen put forward three major elements for the transformation of the state: “a strengthened citizenry, a split within the ruling party, and the intervention of international society,” along with the five major programs for the construction of a future state: “transformation, nation-building, people’s livelihoods, remuneration, and punishment,” and actively planned for the subversion of state power.

. . .

This court holds that defendant Hu Shigen organized, planned, and carried out subversion of state power and overthrowing of the socialist system, and his actions violated article 105(1) of the Criminal Law . . . .

HRIC has selected, annotated, and translated excerpts from the official “edited transcripts” in order to provide English readers with a closer view of an episode in a judicial process where the exercise of fundamental rights of citizens, protected by the Chinese Constitution and international law, may be judged to be serious crimes. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states that citizens of the PRC “enjoy freedom of speech, . . . of assembly, of association” (art. 35), rights that are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a signatory to the Covenant, China has the obligation to act in good faith and not defeat the purpose of the ICCPR by undermining such rights.

On June 17, 2016, the Wuhan Municipal Procuratorate indicted Wuhan activist Qin Yongmin of “subversion of state power.” Qin had previously been sentenced to 12 years in prison for the same crime. Prior to the indictment, Qin was formally arrested on May 12 after having been disappeared for one year and four months.

Qin Yongmin is a longtime democracy and human rights activist who has advocated for "national reconciliation, adherence to human rights principles, positive interactions, and a peaceful transition of power." Qin was first convicted of "subversion of state power" in 1998. For more information, please see: http://www.rosechina.net/rq/jdxx/2016-07-02/7835.html

“Lawyer Xia Lin: Such Is Our Country, and All We Can Do Now Is Fill Up Our Glasses”

Guo Yushan, September 20, 2016

[HRIC Note: On September 22, 2016, Xia Lin (夏霖), a well-known criminal defense lawyer of the Beijing Huayi Law Firm was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of political rights by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.

In October 2014, after Guo Yushan (郭玉闪), director of the Transition Institute in Beijing, was detained and accused of taking part in Hong Kong’s Occupy Movement, Xia Lin represented Guo as his defense lawyer. A month later, Xia himself was taken into custody and was later charged with “fraud.” Xia’s trial was held on June 17, 2016, at the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. Xia pleaded not guilty. Ding Xikui (丁锡奎), Xia’s defense lawyer, said: “We believe that all the evidence should be excluded because it was unlawfully obtained. Xia Lin was targeted due to his professional lawyering activities and political views. This case was filed against him just because he represented Guo Yushan. It violated the principle of equal protection under the Constitution.”  

Xia Lin was born in 1970. He graduated from the School of Law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law in 1992 and started to practice law full-time in the same year. He went to Beijing in 2001 and worked at the Beijing Yipai Law Firm before joining the Beijing Huayi Law Firm. Xia Lin defended well-known activists and human rights defenders, including Ai Weiwei (艾未未), Ran Yunfei (冉云飞), Tan Zuoren (谭作人), Pu Zhiqiang (浦志强), and Guo Yushan (郭玉闪), in their high profile cases. His other high profile cases included those of Cui Yingjie (崔英杰), a Beijing street vendor who killed an urban law enforcement officer named Li Zhiqiang (李志强) (2006), and of Deng Yujiao (邓玉娇), a waitress, accused of stabbing a local official to death (2009).]     

Lawyer Xia Lin: Such is Our Country, and All We Can Do Now Is Fill Up Our Glasses

Guo Yushan

September 20, 2016

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

On September 22, after enduring nearly one year and 11 months of agony, Xia Lin (夏霖), a lawyer and a friend of mine, was finally brought before the court for sentencing. No matter what crimes they have charged him of committing, the whole world knows that he was detained for being my defense lawyer, for which he has greatly suffered to this day.

In May 2014, Xia Lin found himself in the middle of controversy for representing Pu Zhiqiang (浦志强). Around mid-June, Xia Lin, Kaiping (黄凯平), and I were having a painful discussion on Old Pu’s case over drinks at the Beijing Workers’ Stadium. Old Xia abruptly said to me, “If you end up being detained one day, I’ll be your lawyer and will definitely put up a good fight for you in public, however much it would cost me.” I replied, “Absolutely. If I get detained, by all means, knock yourself out and don’t worry a thing about how much it would cost me.” With Kaiping as our witness, we ended this exchange of words with the three of us raising our glasses and finishing our drinks in one gulp.

Who would’ve thought that this day would come so soon? Three months afterwards, I was taken into custody, so was Kaiping, and Xia Lin indeed became my defense lawyer. And in another month, Xia Lin himself was also detained. Soon after that, I was relocated to a different detention facility and then to another, while Xia Lin was kept at the No. 1 Detention Center this whole time. A year later, when I was released on bail and regained my freedom, Xia Lin was kept behind bars because he refused to confess. Another year went by, and the day has finally arrived for him to hear his verdict.

We have all paid the price we had expected to pay—it had been predestined at the very moment in our youth when we made a choice about how to treat our country. In 1989, at the prime of his youth, Xia Lin chose to join those of his generation in Tiananmen Square to give all that they had in the fight for a better country. And when he was a student at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law, he vowed publicly to never, in his life, become a lapdog or lackey of injustice.

He has certainly honored his promise. For the last 27 years, he has not once had a change of heart. From Guizhou to Beijing, from representing businesses to defending human rights activists, he has walked an increasingly difficult and frightening path in life. And for the hefty price we would end up paying, Xia Lin and I were mentally prepared. Watching the reaction and cruelty of the current political system, he is far more clearheaded than I am.

As if by fate, our lives have been interwoven ever since we first met in Professor Mao Haijian’s (茅海建) modern Chinese history class at Peking University. In 2004, when my fellow protesters and I were besieged during an assembly on the Jing Yuan Courtyard of Peking University, Xia Lin came to the scene with his lawyer’s license and the power of attorney from us students and then walked in circles around the courtyard, standing by to intervene at any time. In 2008, when he was in Badong County of Hubei Province working on the Deng Yujiao (邓玉娇) case, I traveled hundreds of miles from Beijing to lend him my assistance. In 2012, after I dropped Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚) off at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, Xia Lin came to my study and combed through and analyzed for me, item by item, all the possible legal means the authorities could take against me for what I did, from the charge of “subversion of state power” to that of “illegal business operations.” Two years later, when I was imprisoned, those discussions proved to be the most valuable experience.

We are both aware of the crosses we are destined to bear for history. Whether it’s Xia Lin, me, or many, many others who have taken up the same cause, we are all fated to serve as the stepping-stones that pave the way toward China’s future. It’s our utmost honor to accept this humble place in history. Whatever the future may have in store for us, we have not forgotten the aspirations that brought us here in the first place, nor will we ever forget them. Come what may, demonization or heavy sentences, nothing coming from this country would surprise us. During my detention, I said repeatedly that once sentenced, I would see no difference between spending one day and one decade in prison. Given Xia Lin’s unyielding pride and tenacity, I’m certain he would feel the same way. On September 22, Xia Lin could be sentenced, say, to 11 years or two years in prison. Whatever the number might be, it has nothing to do with the law. This is our fate, and we shall accept it. Such is our country, and all we can do now is fill up our glasses. On September 22, I will bring wine to wait for the result outside the court. But actually, for Xia Lin, me, Judge Yi Daqing (易大庆), and the No. 101 Special Investigation Team, this is not the end, but a beginning. 

It became known on August 1 that lawyer Wang Yu, the principal “culprit” in the “709 crackdown” was released on bail pending further investigation. The news came after she had been held in secret detention for more than one year, during which time she had no access to lawyers and nothing was known about her by the outside world. In this reflection, Wang’s defense lawyer, Wen Donghai, compares her case with that of Zhao Wei, both of whom were at the center of the “709 crackdown” and have been released on bail. The similarities listed by Wen include:

• appearance on communications platforms such as Weibo,
• sincere confession and earnest repentance,
• the needlessness of legal evidence or trial, and
• the superfluity of the Constitution, Criminal Law, and every other law.

Wen further observes that confession is a prerequisite for—but not a guarantee of—release on bail.

为王宇的最后辩护词

——当认罪成为取保的必要条件

文东海律师

作为王宇的辩护律师，我不是第一个得知王宇取保消息的，甚至也不是第二个，第三个，……。当王宇取保的消息满天飞的时候，我还在法院等待宣判一个案件，当有朋友提醒我的时候，已经是下午六点多了。

我感到震惊，但尔后又释然，震惊的是王宇曾经在709系列案中名列榜首，她的取保完全是意料之外，释然的是自从709大抓捕发生以来，发生了多少让我感到意外和吃惊的事情，王宇的取保只是这诸多意外中的一次而已，即使我身为辩护律师，也不应因为这意外发生在我的当事人身上我就感到格外吃惊。

我有点疑惑，并捎带有一点侥幸，我的当事人出来了，我的千斤重担也可以卸下了，我既为王宇高兴，也为自己庆幸，但随后质疑的思绪却在我脑海中挥之不去，王宇出来了，她为何仍然只是出现在东网的视频报道里，她究竟和出现在微博上的赵威有何区别？而我作为她的辩护律师，和赵威的律师会不会殊途同归？我此前没和王宇有过任何照面，我不知道她神情究竟有何变化，我也不知道她真正自由的时候会是何种状态，我只是隐约感觉到王宇好像一个小学生在面对老师背课文一样，始终规规矩矩地看着老师的眼睛，按照事先熟读过多次的材料一字不漏的重复着课文的内容。

于是我开始比较王宇和赵威的异同，很显然，他们是不同的，一个是久经沙场被誉为战神的人权律师，一个是初出茅庐的黄毛丫头，但她们有何共同点呢？当我看到王宇在一个陌生而又神秘的地方面对东网的摄像头时，我突然明白，他们的共同点就是在微博媒体等这类传播工具上亮相，真诚地认罪，认真地悔过，不需要证据，不需要审判，不需要一切法治的外衣遮挡，而他们此前所谓的颠覆、煽动颠覆的指控，都成了这一天在媒体上亮相的陪衬，真诚地认罪，可以取保，认真地悔过，也许可以回家，宪法、刑法等一切法律都是多余，而709的其他人呢？他们是否有同样的待遇，当曾经作为首犯的王宇都可取保，王宇的丈夫包龙军呢？他不是戏称王宇的“助理”吗？王宇取保，“助理”何为？李和平、谢燕益、谢阳、勾洪国、刘四新、翟岩民等人又该如何呢？

于是我又禁不住想起赵威的辩护律师任全牛的遭遇，赵威取保了，任全牛进去了，并且我也感到背后一丝寒意，我仿佛看到了一副手铐在我面前晃动，当我试图用力抓住它时，却又像试图抓住流水一样无处着力。

于是我终于明白了认罪不是取保的充分唯一条件，但认罪是取保的必要条件，认罪了可能会取保，但不认罪必定取不了保。认罪还能配合警方游街示众，最好像赵威一样演上一出农夫与蛇的故事，便一切都完美了！

我开始思考我的处境，我也许会成为任全牛律师第二，我只是期待赵威背后的“考拉们”有更严丝合缝的布局和更无可挑剔的舞台演出。

这是我最后为王宇的辩护，也是为我自己辩护，更是为709的受难同胞们辩护，我希望它成为最后的绝响，毕竟709受难同胞们的遭遇可以被权力复制粘贴在每一个中国人身上，没有例外，只有王宇、赵威和还在看守所忍受煎熬的709其他受难同胞的区别。

我开始祈祷，为王宇，为赵威，为709的其他受难同胞们，为每一个仍在守护着自己的良知的中国人！！！

                                        2016年8月2日

The ongoing “709 Crackdown,” which began in July of 2015, has primarily targeted rights defense lawyers. Continuing this trend, Hunan rights lawyer Yang Jinzhu, known by some as “Yang Quixote,” is now being oppressed by the local judiciary department. Aware of the possibility of his imminent detention, he has felt no other choice but to announce that he is dismissing his assistants and apprentices to prevent them from being implicated in his case (see Yang’s statement, below). He has also declared that if he is put behind bars, he will “resist with his life,” and will refuse to go on CCTV and make a false, public confession. Lawyer Yang Jinzhu has invited 100 lawyers to convene and form a defense team for him on his behalf, should he be detained.

关于杨金柱律师拟为自己组成百人辩护团的说明

杨金柱

杨金柱律师在湖南省司法厅长沙市司法局这般流氓的逼迫下，为了保护自己的助理和弟子，已经公开宣布：解聘夏亚平律师、陈星律师、刘正峰实习律师、吕姣实习律师等四名助理 ，三名弟子周后有律师吴之成律师刘期湘律师（兼职）在8月30日之前办好异动手续，离开湖南岳林律师事务所。

鉴于近日来的复杂局面和严峻态势，杨金柱律师仍然按照原计划去内蒙避暑旅游写作，坐等公安机关前来捕人。

杨金柱律师已经交代好后事。现在拟为自己组成百人辩护团。特做以下说明：

一、杨金柱律师根据“自愿加入、风险自担”的原则，邀请中国刑辩律师自愿加入该百人辩护团。不道德绑架任何人。即使对杨金柱律师的弟子，也完全遵循“自愿”原则。

二、杨金柱律师一旦进入高墙，即绝食绝水，以命抗争！

三、杨金柱律师一旦进入高墙，拒绝任何形式的讯问。即保持零口供到死。

四、杨金柱律师一旦进入高墙，绝对不上央视，绝对不认罪！

五、杨金柱律师一旦进入高墙，拒绝公安机关安排和指定辩护律师。也绝对不要求公安机关委托律师。

六、杨金柱律师一旦进入高墙，除了绝食绝水致死，绝对不自杀！

七、杨金柱律师已经委托妻子李茂林律师亲自担任律师团的总协调人，按照杨金柱律师留下的锦囊六计，依计行事即可。

八、杨金柱律师已经给自己的七名资深刑辩律师弟子留下特别遗嘱，协助李茂林律师处理相关事宜。

九、恭请自愿加入该百人律师团的律师同仁发手机短信至杨金柱律师的以下两个手机（13908460728、18874009029）。该名单将在杨金柱律师走进高墙之后公布。

特此说明！

2016年7月28日

The wife of Beijing rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong says that as of early morning November 23, 2016, her husband has been missing for more than 24 hours. Jiang was due to arrive in Beijing by train at 6:30am, November 22, after a visit to Changsha to accompany the wife of lawyer Xie Yang, who was detained in the 709 crackdown, and Xie Yang’s lawyer to go to the Changsha Detention Center to attempt to set up a meeting with Xie. Jiang’s wife, Jin Bianling, says in this account that Jiang had told her at 10:22pm, November 21, that he had bought a train ticket to return to Beijing, but he never arrived. She says that every time she called his mobile, she received a cryptic message that said: “The call has been transferred to the secretary’s desk.” Jin urges the public to pay attention to Jiang’s disappearance.  

江天勇妻子：丈夫失联逾24小时

我丈夫江天勇律师几天前去湖南长沙看望709案件被捕律师谢阳的太太陈桂秋。逗留期间，他陪同陈桂秋及谢阳的辩护律师张重实、蔺其磊及律师同仁马连顺到长沙看守所了解谢阳的会见事宜。

11月21日北京时间22点22分，江天勇告诉我，已购买D940火车票回京，发车时间22点53分，正点应于次日6点30分抵京。此后便失去联系，至23日凌晨已经超过24小时。其间我多次拨打他的电话，系统均提示“已转至秘书台”，通过多种网络通讯软件也未能取得联系。经询问长沙和北京的朋友，均称过去24小时之内无法联系上江天勇。

鉴于江天勇在从事人权工作过程中，曾多次遭遇秘密警察的绑架，鉴于“709”之后越来越多的律师遭遇强迫失踪及酷刑，我呼吁各界对江天勇本次的失联予以关注！

江天勇妻子：金变玲

2016年11月23日凌晨

联系号码：＋16262230980

江天勇简介：

江天勇，资深人权律师，现年45岁。2001年取得律师资格证书。2004年11月在北京高博隆华律师事务所供职。2005年受托代理陈光诚案。此后还参与了高智晟案、陕北油田案、广州太石村案、艾滋感染者维权案、乙肝携带者维权案、浙江东阳特大环保案、新疆法制报记者海莱特上诉案（家属迫于官方压力放弃委托）、四川藏区普布泽仁活佛案、甘肃拉扑楞寺久美案等宗教信仰案。2009年7月遭北京市司法局注销律师执业证。其后继续坚持以公民身份参与人权维护工作。

2011年2月19日，江天勇遭警察绑架，失踪长达两个月之久，其间遭到酷刑折磨。

2012年5月4日，因为探望正在北京朝阳医院住院的盲人维权人士陈光诚，江天勇被国保秘密警察残酷殴打，导致左耳鼓膜穿孔，双耳听力下降。至少有五名国保秘密警察参与了这次殴打。

2014年3月，江天勇探访黑龙江建三江黑监狱，遭到警察拘留和殴打，致八根肋骨骨折。

Rights lawyer from Beijing, Jiang Tianyong, has been missing since November 21, 2016. In light of the enforced disappearance and torture he suffered previously because of his involvement in numerous public interest defense cases and legal actions, his wife Jin Bianling, together with four family members of 709 crackdown victims and more than 60 lawyers, jointly issued this statement to express deep concern about Jiang’s situation. They urge the relevant authorities to immediately notify his family, in accordance with the law, and ensure his basic rights of defense by a lawyer. They cannot accept the fact that Jiang is being administratively detained—or criminally investigated—merely because of his visit with a fellow lawyer’s family in Changsha or for trying to help them find out more about that lawyer’s detention. They demand Jiang’s immediate release.    

关于江天勇律师失踪逾六日的关注声明

知名人权律师江天勇先生，自2016年11月21日22时许知会其妻金变玲女士已订购当日长沙南至北京西D940次动车后失联，截至11月27日晚已失踪逾六日。

据悉，江律师此赴长沙是为看望被捕律师同行谢阳的太太陈桂秋教授。期间又陪同陈桂秋及谢阳两位辩护律师去长沙看守所了解谢阳的会见事宜。

江律师执业以来，长期活跃于人权捍卫工作第一线，办理和参与诸多公益维权案件和法律行动，以致律师证被非法注销。鉴于他遭遇过强迫失踪、导致左耳鼓膜穿孔、八根肋骨骨折的酷刑，我们对他的失踪，深表忧虑并高度关注，特呼吁如下：

一、敦请相关公安部门立即对江天勇律师失踪一事展开调查。

江律师亲属代表于11月23日下午往江的户籍地郑州市公安局桐柏路分局报失踪案，被以管辖问题推诿。因江律师行程安排事涉湖南、北京及铁路两地三方，故促请相关部门协调查明江的下落。

二、如果有关部门对江天勇律师采取相关强制措施，我们要求办案机关立即依法书面通知其家属，并保障其获取律师辩护之基本权利。

考虑到江天勇律师此次赴长沙是去看望谢阳律师家属，而谢阳律师又是709案当事人之一，这令我们高度怀疑江律师此次失踪或被有关部门采取行政拘留或其它刑事强制措施，即便如此我们依然呼吁立即通知家属，避免没必要的家属和社会恐慌。

三、如果仅因江律师赴长沙看望同仁家属或陪同同仁家属了解会见事宜而可能对其进行任何的行政拘留甚或刑事追究，我们表示完全彻底的不能接受，要求立即予以释放。

2016年11月27日

联署声明人：
金变玲 （江天勇妻子）

四位709家属以及61位律师
陈桂秋 709案家属
李文足 709案家属
王峭岭709案家属
原珊珊 709案家属

蔡瑛
曾义
常伯阳
陈建刚
陈金华
陈进学
陈以轩
丁家喜
丁锡奎
董前勇
付爱玲
葛文秀
纪中久
蒋援民
李柏光
李方平
李金星
李静林
李威达
李永恒
李昱函
梁小军
蔺其磊
刘士辉
刘书庆
刘巍
刘正清
卢廷阁
罗茜
吕方芝
马连顺
孟猛
瞿远
任全牛
舒向新
隋牧清
覃臣寿
覃永沛
唐吉田
滕彪
童朝平
王清鹏
王秋实
王振江
温海波
文东海
吴魁明
徐红卫
于全
余文生
张海
张磊
张重实
郑恩宠
钟锦化
邹丽惠
林礼国
王磊
谢六生
王学明
马卫
胡贵云
陈南石

Since Lawyer Xie Yang’s arrest and detention as part of the “709 crackdown,” his case has been twice transferred for review and prosecution. In their separate accounts (below), Xie’s lawyers, Zhang Chongshi and Lin Qilei, report the following: the prosecutor Li Zhiming from the Changsha People's Procuratorate interrogated Xie Yang for 17 days consecutively and refused to let them meet Xie or review his case file, and authorities at the Changsha No. 2 Detention Center, in denying their access to Xie, claimed on October 10 that Xie Yang had “changed his lawyers,” but refused to show any documentation proving that Xie had indeed made that decision.

“709”案谢阳律师被违法阻止律师会见和阅卷

律师张重实：谢阳案两次移送审查起诉至今天，长沙市检察院办案检察官李治明连续17个工作日提审谢阳，违法阻碍律师会见和阅卷；长沙第二看守所配合检方行为，一直以检方提审为由阻碍律师会见。多日来都在工作日询问李治明提审安排情况，要求给予律师会见时间，李治明均不作回应，昨日晚间给李治明短信询问今天是否提审，李治明仍不答复，今日9时前进入长沙市第二看守接待厅，被告知检方已在提审谢阳中，无法答复何时能安排会见的问题。得知探视谢阳和给谢阳存钱公民被打被扣，心中隐隐作痛，为时局悲哀。[流泪][流泪][流泪]（2016年10月8日）

【谢阳律师案件进展情况大号外】蔺其磊律师：2016年10月10日14:30，我和张重实律师到长沙市第二看守所继续要求会见谢阳律师，大门口被拦住，一警号011136的50来岁的警察，粗暴的说：谢阳的律师已经换了，你们不能进去。我问他姓名，他蛮横地说：我代表看守所，不用告诉你名字。现在还在交涉。

我们要求就算是谢阳自己真的又聘请了律师，按照规定应该给我们书面的文书，而且我们还可以要求与谢阳本人核实的。

没想到一个公权机关和司法机关会如此荒唐，蛮横无理。

（另，一到看守所大门口，我们就看到左右两个牌子，上写：监所重地，严禁拍摄！）

Nine rights defenders from Suzhou were detained by the authorities for publishing “sensitive” comments on the Internet early last month, during the G20 summit. Wang Mingxian was one of them; to date, his family has not received any notification of his detention. On October 13, Wang’s lawyer, Sui Muqing, went to Changshu Public Security Bureau to inquire about the case. He was told that the notice of Wang Mingxian’s detention had been sent as a registered letter. He checked with the post office, but found that the letter had in fact not been sent. Lawyer Sui requested notification from the police regarding the charges against Wang, as well as the location of the detention center; his requests were rejected without grounds. After contending for over an hour, he was informed verbally that Wang was suspected of the crime of disrupting court order, and had been put under residential surveillance in a designated location—the address of which was not given.      

苏州大抓捕——王明贤案

隋木青律师在维权圈发帖：今天下午约十五时许，再次赶到常熟市公安局。法制大队如约派出接待人员，在索要了相关委托手续后，告知王明贤的羁押通知书已经以挂号信寄出，经查询，邮局未寄发。我无力也无意追究警方逾期三十几天未通知王家人的责任和原因，要求警方口头告知王明贤的罪名及羁押场所，接待警察却以需要审核委托手续真实性及我非委托人为由拒绝告知，声称会重寄通知。随后询问我是否曾遭刑事强制措施，外出办案是否得到广州警方批准。我坦然告知，我在去年709大抓捕中被以煽颠罪指定场所监视居住五个月，我外出办案是否得到广州警方批准恕不奉告，与案件无关。我继续指出，警方审核委托手续系一种即时的形式审核，在委托手续齐备、无明显可疑处的情况下还要另行审核，实为鸡蛋挑骨头式的滥权行为，不合法律规定和办事通例，也违背所有公权机构须遵守的便民原则，于法于情均不合。

经过一个多小时唇枪舌剑辩论，对方稍有妥协，口头告知：王明贤涉嫌扰乱法庭秩序罪，被指定场所监视居住（与我去年在709大抓捕中的遭遇相同，只是罪名不同），监居地址不予告知（与其他同案被捕的苏州公民情形一样）。我指出不告知监居地址也是非法的，接待警察说通知书采用公安部统一版式，没有监居地址。看来，常熟警方的违法行为，或因凭恃尚方宝剑或因无奈。哪种可能性大呢？

先前已记下这位警察的警号准备投诉、控告之，现放弃。by隋牧青2016.10.13.19时

On July 12, 2015, attorney Xie Yanyi was secretly detained by the authorities. By the time his family finally received official notice of his arrest on January 11, 2016, Xie had been in custody for over 400 days. The numerous visitation requests filed with the Tianjin Public Security Bureau by the lawyers hired by Xie’s family were all denied; these same lawyers were later dismissed. Instead, Xie’s family was informed that the authorities had arranged a court appointed lawyer for him. In protest, his wife, Yuan Shanshan, filed a suit against this “officially appointed lawyer,” but the court of first instance refused to accept the case. After an appeal, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate Court will hear the case on October 21, at 3:00 pm. Yuan Shanshan is calling on all of China’s 300,000 lawyers to pay attention to this precedent-setting suit against a court appointed lawyer. 

律师家属起诉“官派律师”第一案

原珊珊（谢燕益妻子）

2016年10月21日天津市第二中级人民法院开庭审理我起诉官方为谢燕益安排的律师北京鑫兴（天津）律师事务所陈文海律师一案，此案缘由是谢燕益律师自2015年7月12日秘密抓捕之后，2016年1月11日家属才收到逮捕通知书，谢燕益涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪，在这400多天家属聘请的律师被天津公安局多次不安排会见最后遭到解聘，2016年8月8号在天津市检察院第二分院得知谢燕益被移送检察院，还有代理律师了，我作为谢燕益的妻子及谢燕益的其他家属完全不知道这是从哪冒出來的律师。嗣后，我本人并代表谢燕益的其他家属起诉这不知从哪冒出来的律师称“官派律师陈文海”，一审法院不予受理，上诉天津市第二中级人民法院，天津二中院于10月21日下午3:00开庭审理。此案是一个先例，对当今法条的理解和执行都有历史记录意义。此案可能不是第一例，但我希望是最后一例，律师就应当履责，按照《宪法》要求维护法律制度，维护社会公平正义，我及家人真诚的邀请全国30万律师在10月21日关注天津市第二中级人民法院，同时盼望律师跟正义与法律为伍，不是做知法犯法、执法犯法的傀儡。

2016.10.17

Wang Qiaoling, wife of human rights lawyer Li Heping, and Yuan Shanshan, wife of lawyer Xie Yanyi, went to the Changsha City No. 2 Detention Center in the morning of October 8, 2016, to deposit money for human rights attorney Xie Yang, who was detained in the “709” crackdown. Without cause, Wang and Yuan were first blocked outside the gate of the detention center, and then violently forced into a police car. Wang was also slapped in the face.

长沙警察火辣辣，便衣查证扇耳光

709王峭岭

10月8日上午一上班时，我跟谢燕益律师的妻子原珊珊在长沙市第二看守所下了出租车。一看，诺大的停车场，两边几十个制服警察和警车。

我们向大门走去，一个穿黄白条纹上衣圆胖大眼的人拦住我们。

问我干什么？我说存钱啊。

他问给谁存钱？我说谢阳律师！他说谢阳律师有钱，不需要存钱。

我笑了，问：“你谁啊？执行公务得要证件！”你得拿证件向我出示。

这个白胖面团似的人反问我：你的身份证！我看看。

我说奇怪啊，应该你先亮证件才有资格查我的身份证！我就是来存钱，你拦着我查身份证算什么？

白面团蛮横的说：我说了就说了，谢阳不需要钱！

这时一个穿制服的警察过来，向我要身份证，我掏出递给他。他看完还给我说，存钱要申请。

我说我现在向你申请给谢阳律师存钱。他说我是派出所的不管这个。我说，那好，我去看守所，向看守所提出申请。

这个制服警察一挥手，带到派出所去！我说我申请存钱,干嘛去派出所？

一群长沙警察如狼似虎的扑上来，抓着我跟珊珊就往车上拖！我说好了，我不存了。

警察怒吼道：不存也得去派出所！一个警察怒喝着我：配合点！

我说我不存钱了，奋力挣扎着却无济于事……

一个警察把我粗暴拖到依维柯警车上，掐住我的胳膊直接把我按到在长条椅凳上，那个警察几乎压住了我全身，觉得异常受羞辱，奋力反抗。

反抗中踢了警察一脚，那警察松开了我，恼羞成怒，扇了我一个耳光。

我也惊呆了！暴力执法我算见识了：我一个女人，千里迢迢来长沙，为了给我丈夫李和平律师的朋友，被关在长沙二看的谢阳律师存点钱。先是无故被阻看守所门外，无故被暴力抓到警车上，这一耳光后我明白雷洋是怎么死的了！就是不肯配合“违法”而死，不肯配合所谓的“执法”而死的。

我看着那个打我耳光的警察说，你告诉我名字，警号！你真了不起，把脸转过来让我拍一张！那个没挂警号穿着类似警察制服的人，始终不再把头转过来。

后来在泉塘派出所来了一个国宝模样的人，说要我把发出去的警察照片删掉是对我好。我说你们抓了我的老公，刑讯逼供；我来给朋友存钱，你们警察打了我耳光。这是对我好？鬼扯吧你！后来拒绝理睬那个国保。

709王峭岭

2016年10月8号

Since Beijing lawyer Jiang Tianyong’s disappearance on November 21, neither his family nor the defense lawyers appointed by his family have received any written notice regarding his status.  Official media have carried out wanton smear campaigns against him, misleading public opinion. In response to this, Jiang’s two lawyers issued the following statement, strongly condemning the illegal acts of the public security bureaus and the media; in addition, they plan to take legal action to investigate the legal responsibility of those involved. 

覃臣壽、陳進學關於江天勇案的律師聲明

一、江天勇家屬及其委託的律師廣東律成定邦律師事務所律師陳進學、廣西百舉鳴律師事務所律師覃臣壽，在二零一六年十一月二十一日江天勇失聯至今，沒有獲得任何關於江天勇的書面通知。

二、至今沒有任何官方機構依法告知家屬及律師有關江天勇涉嫌的罪名、關押地點、偵辦機構及辦案人員姓名和聯繫方式、其人身是否安全、是否遭受酷刑等，已經嚴重侵犯江天勇人身權利及律師的辯護權利。

三、我們強烈譴責公安部門、官方媒體極端不公正地、鋪天蓋地對江天勇的抹黑、炒作、先入為主的輿論誤導、媒體審判。

四、我們不認可公安部門、官方媒體對江天勇的抹黑、構陷，有關侵權（犯罪）行為應立即停止，並公開道歉，我們會立即採取法律措施追究有關責任人的法律責任。

聲明人：

廣東律成定邦律師事務所律師：陳進學
電話：13826002506

廣西百舉鳴律師事務所律師：覃臣壽
電話：15289649064

2016年12月16日

HRIC received the following account of the “release on bail” of lawyer Li Chunfu (李春富), who was detained in the 709 crackdown in 2015. The account describes Li in a state of apparent psychological damage. It was written by Wang Qiaoling (王峭岭), wife of Li’s brother, lawyer Li Heping (李和平), and by Li Wenzu (李文足), wife of lawyer Wang Quanzhang (王全璋). Li Heping and Wang Quanzhang are two other rights defense lawyers who were detained in the 709 crackdown, and who have been in custody since July 2015 on charges of “subversion of state power.” 

Below is HRIC’s translation of the account and of Li’s “Release on Bail Decision” issued by the Tianjin Municipal Public Security Bureau.

Li Chunfu was born in 1972.

Lawyer Li Chunfu Released on Bail, Emaciated and in State of Extreme Fear

By Wang Qiaoling and Li Wenzu
January 13, 2017
[Translation by Human Rights in China]

Yesterday, January 12, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., Li Chunfu was returned to the door of his Beijing home by policemen from the precinct in his neighborhood. Chunfu’s wife opened the door, stunned by what she saw.

Chunfu was skin and bones, pale, and dazed. He looked like a man in his 60s.

The policemen told Chunfu’s wife: Li Chunfu has been released on bail. The policeman left after saying this. But Chunfu stood at the door of his home and did not dare enter. His wife sobbed.

Chunfu’s wife wanted to take him by the hand to come inside. But he was afraid and dodged. Relatives who live nearby came to the house, after hearing news of his return. But Chunfu jumped and pushed them away. He said: “Go away, quick! Dangerous!” So they sat some distance from him.

This morning (January 13), Chunfu was still in a state of extreme fear. When he saw his wife making a phone call, he threw his arm around her neck in a chokehold and shouted angrily: “Who are you calling? You are bringing me trouble!” While shouting, he was applying force and trying to strangle her. Luckily, the relatives who were there pulled him away from her.

The police had warned Chunfu’s wife that if she got in touch with Wang Qiaoling, they would take Chunfu away again. But the relatives couldn’t stand it anymore—they wanted to tell Wang Qiaoling about what was happening with Chunfu.

We are heartsick in knowing Li Chunfu is in such a state! Every day and night we have been hoping for the return of Li Heping and Wang Quanzhang. Are you both still alive?

Update from Wang Qiaoling, night of the January 13:

Chunfu seems to have uncontrollable violence toward his family. Right after we left them today, he was beating his wife again. Chunfu’s male friends are taking turns staying at his home, in hopes that things would improve in a few days. If things get out of control, they can help call the police. We agree with that.

Release on Bail Decision

On January 12, 2017, the Tianjin Municipal Public Security Bureau released lawyer Li Chunfu on bail. The January 5 bail decision indicates that Li is being investigated for "subversion of state power," and that he may be sentenced to limited-term imprisonment or greater. The decision also states that Li Chunfu was “released on guarantee pending further investigation” because his release will not cause a risk to society.

Seventy-six well-known Chinese individuals, including legal scholars, practicing lawyers, economists, publishers, documentary filmmakers, writers, and poets, have joined in an open letter to ask for the resignation of Zhou Qiang, President and Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court. In a speech at a conference of chief justices of China’s higher courts on January 14 in Beijing, Zhou asked courts at all levels to firmly oppose the influence of such “incorrect tides of thinking” as Western “constitutional democracy,” “separation of powers,” and “judicial independence.”

The letter states that judicial independence is the cornerstone of a civilization based in the rule of law, a norm that has been universally accepted and incorporated in international treaties, including those signed by China. The signers argue that in challenging this consensus among civilized nations, Zhou’s continued service as Chief Justice of China’s highest court is a mockery of the progress of rule of law in China.

Below is an English translation of the open letter by Human Rights in China.

A Chief Justice Like Zhou Qiang Must Leave:

An Open Letter Urging Zhou Qiang to Resign

January 19, 2017

[Translation by Human Rights in China]

Being a judge is not an ordinary occupation—it is sacred. This sanctity is bestowed by the sacred nature of law itself. A judge has just one duty: safeguard the sacred law. To qualify as a judge—let alone President and Chief Justice of the highest court—one must revere the sanctity of the law and of the profession of judges, and be brave enough to defend this sanctity.

This is the reason we urge Chief Justice Zhou Qiang of the Supreme People’s Court to resign: his demonstrated personal temperament is diametrically opposed to that which is required for his position.

This was reflected in his speech on January 14 at a conference of the chief justices of the nation’s higher courts. In this speech, he characterized judicial independence—universally recognized as a good thing—as “Western,” and grandly urged a fight against "Western judicial independence." In essence, he is using the opposition to "Western judicial independence" in order to declare war on judicial independence in China.

Judicial independence is simply judicial independence. In today's world of deep tolerance among diverse human civilizations, judicial independence is the cornerstone of a civilization based in the rule of law. It has long been accepted by all of humanity and become the shared wealth among humankind. Consequently, it has been included in a variety of international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice, etc. And the Chinese government long ago signed these treaties. There is only “judicial independence”; there is no such thing as “Western judicial independence." This, in theoretical terms, is a long-settled issue, and uncontroversial to begin with.

However, in Zhou Qiang’s January 14 speech, as President and Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, he openly challenged this consensus and mobilized the entire court system to declare war against “Western judicial independence." To begin with, he created a problem out of a non-problem, rocking public opinion and causing great ideological confusion. This is clearly not how a professional judge should behave. Related to this, merely five months ago, Zhou Qiang stressed that Party committees and government departments at all levels must not interfere with the judiciary—thus emphasizing judicial independence. This shows even more clearly his flip-flopping and opportunistic nature.

A Chief Justice like Zhou Qiang must leave. Otherwise, it will lead to irreparable consequences.

Judicial independence is at the core of a civilization based in the rule of law. Without judicial independence, rule of law is an illusion. In China, judicial independence is facing stubborn resistance from the power elites. The usual tactic of the power elites is to label judicial independence as "Western," thereby stigmatizing it. That is, they oppose judicial independence itself in the name of opposing "Western judicial independence.” Zhou Qiang's January 14 speech was the perfect appeal to them, and was a testament to his own personal choice: in the intense contest between a civilization based in the rule of law versus a civilization against the rule of law, he stood clearly on the side of the latter.

That someone like Zhou Qiang continues to serve as President and Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court is a mockery of Chinese law and rule of law process. This will cause the public to lose confidence. And confidence is more precious than gold. If the loss of public confidence results in the loss of the majestic power that advances the rule of law, what power is left to constrain the enormous force against the rule of law? What hope would there still be in advancing in China a civilization based in the rule of law?

In order to restore public confidence and hope in the rule of law, and for the dignity of legal persons in China, we, solemnly, in the capacity of citizens, urge Chief Justice Zhou Qiang to admit responsibility and voluntarily resign. If Chief Justice Zhou refuses to accept this request, we will, during the Two Congresses this year, bring this request to the National People's Congress and ask it to exercise its power in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, and remove a Chief Justice of the highest court who harms the common knowledge of the rule of law.

Citizens of the intellectual sector (by family name):

Ai Xiaoming, Guangzhou, Scholar
Buer Jide, Beijing, filmmaker and Painter
Chen Haodong, Shenzhen, Painter
Chen Yixuan, Hunan Lawyer
Chen Jiangang, Beijing, Lawyer
Cui Weiping, Beijing, Scholar
Chu Chengfang, Beijing, Scholar
Feng Yanbo, Xi'an, Scholar
Feng Chongyi, Hunan, Scholar
Fan Xiao, Beijing, Scholar
Fu Minrong, Shanghai, Lawyer
Gan Lan, Chongqing, Lawyer
Gao Qu, Beijing, Constitutional Bachelor
Guo Daohui, Beijing, Scholar
Guo Yuhua, Beijing, Scholar and Lawyer
Guo Xiongwei, Hunan, Scholar
Gu Xiaofeng, Jiangsu, Citizen
Duo Zhanqiang, Beijing, Scholar
Geng Xiaonan, Beijing, Publisher
Li Wen, Beijing, Entrepreneur
Li Nan, Hebei, Poet
Li Yunzhong, Shanghai, Poet
Li Weihua, Taiyuan, Citizen
Liu Weihua, Chongqing, Lawyer
Liu Zhizhang, Ningxia, Freelancers
Lin Liguo, Shanghai, former Lawyer
Lin Daoyan, Hainan, Citizen
Lou Jian, Beijing, Scholar
Li Xianting, Beijing, Artist
Lu Nan, Beijing, Renmin University Alumni
Min Liangchen, Zhengzhou, Freelance Writer
Mao Yushi, Beijing, Scholar
Hao Jian, Beijing, Scholar
Hou Junjun, Shaanxi, Citizen
Jiang Zhiqiang, Beijing, Citizen
Jiang Yongji, Gansu, Law Personnel
Ou Biaofeng, Hunan, Citizen
Qiu Bei, Shanghai Citizen
Qiu Jiajun, Shanghai, Editor
Rong Jian, Beijing, Scholar
Shuai Hao, Beijing, Scholar
Shi Wenhua, Jiangsu, Citizen
Su Xiaoling, Beijing, Writer
Shen Zijun, Lanzhou, Citizen
Shi Binhai, Beijing, Contemporary History Scholar
Tang Longbing, Chongqing, Engineer
Tang Tianhao, Chongqing, Lawyer
Tong Wenjie, Hunan, Citizen
Wang Xiao, Hebei, Senior Economist
Wang Ronghui, Xiamen, Citizen
Wang Dongcheng, Beijing, Scholar
Wang Qingying, Guangdong, Citizen
Wang Ruiqin, Beijing, Entrepreneur
Wu Wei, Beijing, Scholar
Wu Qing, Beijing, Scholar
Xiang Songzuo, Beijing, Scholar
Xiao Xuehui, Chengdu, Scholar
Xu Xu, Hubei, Independent Reviewer
Xia Yeliang, Beijing, Scholar
Xiao Shu, Wuhan, Independent Reviewer
Yan Lingqi, Qinghai, Poet
Yang Yunjin, Shanghai, Scholar
Yuan Zhaohui, Beijing, Citizen
Zi Hang, Guangdong, Writer
Zhu Xinxin, Hebei, Scholar
Zhang Qianfan, Beijing, Scholar
Zhang Wenkai, Beijing, Lawyer
Zhao Xiaohui, Beijing, Screenwriter
Zhang Xianmin, Beijing, Film Maker
Zhou Chenggang, Beijing, Editor
Zhao Shilong, Beijing, Media People
Zhao Qiqiang, Shanghai, Director
Zhao Guojun, Beijing, Law Scholar
Zou Yi, Nanjing, Austrian Economics
Zeng Xiangmei, Guiyang, Retired Engineer
Zhang Shengli, Hangzhou, Writer

Human rights lawyer Xie Yang, from Changsha city, Hunan, was originally arrested during the "709” crackdown in 2015 and was not allowed to meet with his lawyers until December 2016. In addition, his lawyer Liu Zhengqing did not receive Xie’s indictment until January 4, 2017. The indictment claims that Xie instigated others to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist system, both very serious crimes. It also claims that Xie gathered people to stir up trouble and attack the court, resulting in serious disruption to court order. The Changsha Municipal Procuratorate requests that the court hold Xie Yang criminally responsible for carrying out these acts. 

Human rights lawyer Xie Yanyi went missing in July 2015 as part of the 709 crackdown; it was not until January 2016 that his family finally received official notice of his arrest. Not only were his family members denied the right to hire a lawyer; they were also followed and surveilled 24 hours a day, and were frequently abused and threatened. Furthermore, Xie’s wife Yuan Shanshan was twice taken away to the police station: on one such occasion, she was detained without legal procedure for three days while she was pregnant; for one day during her detention she was denied water, food, and access to the toilet.  

谢燕益妻儿的人权状况！真过份！
原珊珊（谢燕益妻）

谢燕益中国职业15年的律师，2015年7月12日失踪，2016年1月11日我才收到逮捕通知书，家属聘请的律师被解聘，也剥夺了宪法所赋予我家的一切权力，权力机关为谢燕益指定官派律师！

我在家除了带3个孩子还尽量为谢燕益发声，我的境遇是：

1. 我被抓进两次派出所，最多一次关3天，不给任何的法律手续，其中一天不给孕期的我提供水、食物、不让上厕所。
2. 我在看守所被武警拖出来扔到地上。
3. 我躲避追踪抓捕带着5个月女儿流浪一个月。
4. 北京国宝到我娘家骚扰，包括三姑六大爷。
5. 我被辱骂、恐吓多次。
6. 我及3个孩子被逼迁多次。
7. 在我家各方，出行路口安装8个以上摄像头
8. 10月21日开始公安局在我家附近租两套房子，24小时，4小时一班跟踪、追踪，监控我包括孩子（最大的12岁）。
9. 公安局无牌照车几个月如一日的24小时在我家楼下蹲守。
10. 这一切在我家都在继续，真心希望我家是最后为人权法治填坑的。

男有刀客杨佳，女有魔刀原珊珊也会有道理了。

这是一个以恶治恶不要脸的流氓社会。

原珊珊/谢燕益妻
 2016年12月10日世界人权日

In her statement, Chen Guiqiu, wife of lawyer Xie Yang who was detained in the 709 crackdown, calls attention to the procedural violations committed by the authorities with regard to her husband’s case. The two lawyers she retained to serve as her husband’s defense lawyers, Zhang Chongshi and Lin Qilei, submitted all processing documents to the respective case handling units in accordance with the law and in a timely manner. However, the case handling units and personnel intentionally put off fulfilling their legal responsibilities, refusing to allow the defense lawyers to meet with Xie or review case documents. Considering that Xie Yang is confirmed to have been tortured numerous times in prison; and considering that the family-appointed defense lawyers of other victims arrested in Tianjin and other places in the 709 crackdown were also deprived by authorities of their right to meet with their clients, Chen states the following: she’ll never dismiss Zhang Chongshi and Lin Qilei as Xie’s chosen defense lawyers; since losing his freedom and having been deprived of his right to meet with and obtain help from his lawyers, Xie’s “right to a self-appointed lawyer" has been violated; the authorities’ appointing a lawyer out of “kindness” is meaningless; any other Chinese lawyer who casts aside professional ethics and accepts the position of being Xie’s “officially designated defense lawyer”—in effect an appointment by the authorities by force—is acting contrary to the law and should be condemned. Furthermore, she and Xie will never give up pursuing unscrupulous lawyers of this kind on moral and legal grounds.

谢阳妻子致中国律师的声明

我已委托张重实、蔺其磊二位律师作为谢阳的辩护人，二位律师已经依法及时将委托手续分别递交给了谢阳案的办案单位长沙市公安局、长沙市检察院、以及羁押谢阳的长沙市第二看守所，上述单位及办案人员皆已收到辩护人的委托手续及会见手续；上述单位及人员现皆在恶意拖延履行法定职责，如拒不安排律师会见谢阳，拒不安排律师阅卷。

鉴于：

1、我们已确切知道谢阳遭遇了多次酷刑，逼供、逼认罪，家人、亲朋、辩护律师、同事也有多人被709谢阳专案组逼着去见谢阳劝谢阳认罪；

2、709案天津等其它地方的被捕者亦遭到官方剥夺家属委托的律师会见、辩护的权利，官方强行为失去自由的被捕者安排无职业伦理的无良律师做被捕者的“辩护人”；

3、长沙市检察院李治明等自9月17日至今的每个工作日的全天都提审谢阳以恶意阻止律师会见

的基础性事实，我们担心谢阳在无法获得辩护律师帮助又可能被酷刑、长期洗脑、长期疲劳审讯的情况下究竟能坚持多久；他会不会最终扛不住而“认罪”甚至“永不上诉”、“绝不上诉”？会不会如天津那些被捕者那样“自己聘请律师”？会不会要求家属换掉现在的律师？

故，我特在此向中国全体律师声明如下：

1、我认为张重实、蔺其磊二位律师法律专业知识、技术过硬，履职勤勉积极，我十分满意、非常感激，我绝不解聘他们；

2、谢阳在失去自由、且前面已被长期剥夺会见律师、获得律师帮助权利的情况下“自己委托律师”的行为无效；

3、官方代为指定律师、代为“好心”找律师的行为无效；

4、在我已聘请律师的情况下，任何其他中国律师不顾职业伦理、接受官方指定、安排强行做谢阳的“辩护人”是非法、无效的，是应该受到谴责的，我及谢阳将来绝不放弃追究这种无良律师的道义及法律责任。

声明人：谢阳妻子陈桂秋

2016年10月9日

In 2014, lawyer Li Jinxing, of Chengsi Law Firm in Shandong, defended Yang Maodong (aka Guo Feixiong) in his joint trial with Sun Desheng for “gathering a crowd to disrupt order in a public place.” The trial took place at the Guangzhou Municipal Tianhe District People’s Court [Translator’s note: Li Jinxing was one of two defense lawyers for Yang Maodong, the other being Zhang Lei, while Sun Desheng was represented by Chen Jinxue]. As a consequence, on December 2, 2016, the Ji’nan Municipal Justice Bureau issued a notice informing Li that he must attend an administrative hearing for his alleged crimes of “disrupting court order” and “interfering with the normal conduct of litigation activities.” Furthermore, the notice stated that, if he is found guilty, his license to practice law would be suspended for one year.

In response, Li Jinxing sent a letter to members of the All China Lawyers Association that included a request to help safeguard lawyers’ legitimate rights to practice. He also requested that experts of the ACLA look into this matter and provide guidance to criminal defense lawyers in certain situations. In particular, he asked: If the person sitting in the defendant’s seat is Nie Shubin [who was cleared of the charges of rape and murder in December 2016, more than two decades after his execution], Qoysiletu [who was declared innocent in 2014, 18 years after his execution for rape and murder], or others whose unjust treatment in court has led to wrongful executions, what should lawyers do? Should lawyers argue strongly for what is right? If so, how?

Yang Maodong and Sun Desheng’s first instance trial was held on November 28, 2014; they were sentenced a year later, on November 27, 2015. Li Jinxing thinks that the reason debate and conflict occurred during the trial is entirely because of the serious judicial injustices that occurred in court, including serious violations of both the defendants and defense lawyers’ legitimate rights and interests, which led to the defense counsels being unable to properly perform their defense duties. Therefore, Li Jinxing contends, the Tianhe District People’s Court’s complaints against the defense lawyers are completely unreasonable, and the Ji’nan Municipal Justice Bureau’s actions to bring about administrative punishment were made in spite of the basic facts of the court session, without regard for the causes for the dispute, and that these actions have led to serious infringement of lawyers’ rights to practice.

给中华全国律师协会的维权请求信：如果被告人席上坐的是聂树斌，我该怎么办

中华全国律师协会：

我是山东成思律师所李金星律师，因依法担任广州天河法院杨茂东、孙德胜聚众扰乱公共场所秩序一案辩护人，济南市司法局以扰乱法庭秩序、干扰诉讼活动正常进行为由拟对本人作出停止执业一年的行政处罚。本人作为中华全国律师协会的一名会员，特向贵会提出维权请求，同时请求贵会组织专家研讨，给刑事辩护律师予以指导，即：假如刑事审判庭被告人席上坐的是聂树斌、呼格吉勒图、滕兴善或者张辉、张高平、陈满、陈夏影，在法庭严重不公正甚至足以造成错杀的严重后果下，律师应该怎么办？律师是否应当据理力争？律师如何据理力争？

一、本人辩护的杨茂东、孙德胜聚众扰乱公共场所秩序一案基本情况

2014年6月19日，广东省广州市天河区检察院向天河法院提起公诉，指控被告人杨茂东、孙德胜犯有聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪。这个所谓的聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪名，实际是因为杨茂东2014年1月份声援支持南方周末新年献词事件以及孙德胜等人要求官员公布财产、要求全国人大签署《公民经济权利和政治权利公约》（我国政府1998年签署了该公约）。这个罪名显然是非常荒唐的，因为从现有证据看根本没有任何秩序被扰乱，所有的视频证据都证明现场是平和、理性、有秩序。该案由天河法院2014年11月28日第一次开庭审理，2015年11月27日第二次开庭。由于严重司法不公，该案庭审中发生了控辩审冲突。本案辩护人是我、张磊律师、陈进学律师、陈以轩四名律师，全部做无罪辩护。

二、本人行政处罚案件过程中济南市司法局、山东省司法厅有关情况

2016年1月，天河法院向山东省司法厅发出司法建议，要求司法行政部门以扰乱法庭秩序为由对本人作出停止执业六个月以上的行政处罚。2016年3月山东省司法厅将投诉函转交济南市司法局，要求济南市司法局处理我本人。2016年9月7日济南市司法局正式立案，并对本人调查了解情况，本人提出此案律师权益被严重侵犯，此案涉嫌严重司法不公，如果济南市司法局对本人作出行政处罚（根据律师法规定，济南市司法局只能作出停止执业一年以下行政处罚，省司法厅可以作出吊销律师执照的处罚），本人必将通过行政复议、行政诉讼方式来说明为何本案存在严重控辩审冲突，控辩审冲突的实质是严重的司法不公。

之后，山东省司法厅领导与本人座谈三次，并正式通知将由山东司法厅吊销本人律师执照。但提出如本人能够满足以下条件省司法厅就可能在万分之一的情况下不予吊照，继续让我留在律师队伍：第一，深刻反省在天河法院杨茂东辩护一案犯下的严重错误；第二，彻底与一些律师断绝往来；第三，彻底退出微博、微信；第四，彻底不再办理重大敏感案件。我没有答应这些要求。2016年10月8日，山东省司法厅对本人吊销律师执照行政处罚立案。之后两次谈话中，山东省司法厅领导又对我提出考虑到我家庭比较困难，尽量保留我的律师证，退回济南处理，但这非常非常困难，可能性很小，需要争取。并且对我提出，如果把本案再次退回济南市司法局作出停止执业处罚不吊销律师执照，能否做到不申请听证，不申请复议，不提出行政诉讼。考虑到我的行政处罚一案将有可能变成一个社会热点事件（我多年来的想法是不给老家添乱），仅仅处于这个原因，我答应了这个“三不”要求。本人感到受到莫大委屈。

在我答应对停止执业一年的“三不”承诺后，2016年10月28日，山东省司法厅再次将本人行政处罚一案转交济南市司法局。2016年12月2日，济南市司法局作出行政处罚（听证）告知书，告知本人：济南市司法局将对本人作出停止执业一年的行政处罚。之后，本人经过反复考虑，艰难抉择，最终提出了听证申请。济南市司法局于2016年12月21日在济南市历城区彩石镇举行了听证会。

三、 关于行政处罚一案我的基本意见

我认为，济南市司法局对我的行政处罚是完全不公正的，不可接受的，是对刑事辩护律师的打击和报复，是刑辩律师执业过程中普遍绝望后的再次伤害。济南市司法局和山东省司法厅在我的行政处罚一案中的做法，更令我无法接受。我的具体意见都反映在我的《听证申请书》、《听证会上陈述意见》，随本求助信一起提交全国律协，听证会代理人何兵教授、周泽律师的代理意见，也一并提交。

我认为，天河法院杨茂东一案之所以出现了辩审冲突，完全是因为法庭严重司法不公，严重侵犯被告人、辩护人合法权益，导致辩护人无法正常履行辩护职责。天河法院对律师的投诉完全无理，济南市司法局据此作出行政处罚是根本不顾开庭基本事实，不分析基本原因，严重侵害了律师执业权利。

1、天河法院不予保障律师复制录像光盘的权利。杨茂东一案中作为指控聚众扰乱公共场所秩序的最关键、最核心证据是案发现场的录像光盘。本案开庭前，我们辩护人多次提出根据刑诉法38条的规定依法复制这些光盘，但天河法院予以明确拒绝。其具体理由是律师只能到天河法院看，并且天河法院无复制光盘的设备。对此，辩护人不止一次要求天河法院落实刑诉法38条赋予律师复制证据的权利，甚至多次向广东高院、广州中院反映，也向广东、广州、天河三级检察院反映要求法律监督保障律师辩护权利，但自始至终该问题都没有得到解决。作为聚众扰乱公共场所秩序的案件，现场录像光盘的复制对于律师准备辩护、反复研究案情、讨论案情、论证案情、进行有效质证和辩护无疑是极端重要的。庭审中律师要求法官回避等引起的辩审冲突，很大程度上是因为这个原因。

2、合议庭不予调取无罪证据。

杨茂东一案侦查阶段有大量可以证明被告人无罪的证据没有移交法庭，辩护人多次申请法院调取，天河法院根本不理睬。法院完全没有按照刑诉法39条规定（律师申请调取无罪证据的权利，）这也是庭审中形成冲突的重要原因。

3、辩护律师在法庭上不能说一句完整的话。

在法庭质证、发表辩护意见过程中，辩护律师只要发言，最严重的时候甚至每隔几秒钟就会遭到审判长的粗暴打断、无理指责，甚至辩护律师面对公诉人一次性举证50页多页证人证言想逐份质证也遭到合议庭呵斥。庭审连续18个小时，辩护人至少被打断发言上千次，审判长把神圣的法庭搞得像屠宰场一样暴力和混乱。辩护人为了争取发言，不得不多次向合议庭抗议：“究竟本案让不让律师进行辩护”。听证会时济南司法局从18小时庭审精心裁剪出30分钟录像，但从这30分钟录像却完全可以看出，绝对不是律师在扰乱法庭秩序，而是审判长在扰乱法庭秩序。对此，我坚定认为，参与听证会的所有代表实际上是理解律师、同情律师的，只是敢怒不敢言。

4、增加罪名不给辩护人预留辩护时间。

2015年11月27日，杨茂东案宣判前十分钟，合议庭突然告知辩护人：法庭认为杨茂东不仅构成检察院指控的聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪，还构成寻衅滋事罪——这是在起诉书没有指控的基础上凭空增加了一个罪名。对于此种突发情况，辩护人执业多年从未遇到过，因此，根据最高院司法解释的规定，我向法庭提出必须给辩护人预留辩护时间，辩护人至少要会见被告人征求被告人对于增加罪名的意见以及是否认罪。但合议庭置之不理以律师具有专业知识可以立即辩护为由直接开庭。十分钟后，直接开庭宣判早已打印后的判决书，这证明开庭前所谓征求辩护人意见是多么虚假。对天河法院如此践踏法律、玩弄律师的行为，辩护律师不得不抗议。尤其宣判时，法警对被告人施以过度暴力，被告人疼痛大叫，法庭显失基本人权，辩护人又不得不发言阻止（这是有关方面故意泄漏在互联网上的，本案四名律师在宣判时抗议法警过度暴力的一分钟视频，但法警视频部分被有意遮盖住了）。但这些，却成为辩护人“扰乱法庭秩序”的“罪证”。

5、济南市司法局用30分钟经过精心裁剪的庭审录像作为处罚律师的依据，严重侵犯了律师在行政处罚程序中的自我辩解的权利。杨茂东一案第一次庭审，从早晨九点一直持续到第二天凌晨三点。18小时的庭审，几乎全部是审判长在训斥律师，粗暴打断律师发言，对律师正当合法的要求不予理睬。但是，济南市司法局作为行政行政机关却不敢全部调取这18小时庭审录像并公开展示这些证据，只裁剪出30分钟的录像，甚至把庭前不是开庭时的辩审之间激烈争论也故意当作庭审假象来抹黑律师，这更是我根本不能接受的。我提出要求济南市司法局调取18小时庭审录像，济南市司法局说没有必要；我们提出复制这30分钟的录像以便于更有效自我陈述和辩解，济南市司法局也坚决不允许。我们认为，作为司法行政机关，济南市本应更好地履行保护律师权益的角色，没想到却扮演了这样一个的角色，我无比心寒。

四、我对全国律协的请求

我永远也不会忘记，2011年7月22日，因我在办理北海案“裴金德等涉嫌故意伤害罪案”辩护期间遭受暴徒围攻殴打住院，全国律协发出了如下声明：

中华全国律师协会严重关注律师在北海依法执业过程中遭受的不法侵害

近日，中华全国律师协会收到广西壮族自治区律师协会报告称：李金星等律师接受“裴金德等涉嫌故意伤害罪案”、“杨在新等4名律师涉嫌妨害作证罪案”当事人的委托，在北海开展工作期间，会见多次受阻并被要求反复安检，特别是7月18日，受委托的律师遭到大约20名不明身份人员的围攻，导致受伤，李金星律师现仍在医院观察。中华全国律师协会对律师依法执业过程中，人身权利遭受不法侵害的情况表示严重关切，强烈要求北海市司法机关立即采取相应措施，保证律师人身安全，并切实维护律师会见、调查取证和阅卷等合法执业权利。中华全国律师协会将密切关注事态的发展。

这是个对我来讲极其宝贵的声明，它虽然已经被载入历史，但却多年来一直鞭策我勤奋工作，维护法律正确实施，做一名好律师。我从未敢忘记，在我执业生涯最困难最危险的时候，全国律师给予的这份关爱，这份来自娘家人的支持。

今天，面对我的行政处罚，我本来可以默然接受。实事求是讲，谁愿意和司法局把关系搞僵？谁愿意给老家制造热点呢？但我最终无法说自己。我下了很大决心，我的意图是想通过对我问题的处理，引起全社会、法学界对控辩审冲突的重新认识。严重的司法不公必然导致严重的控辩审冲突，从来没有哪个公正的法庭上会发生控辩审冲突。严重控辩审冲突的根源不查清楚，不形成共识，即使把律师就地消灭也解决不了问题。

我在济南听证会上正式提出：鉴于对我的行政处罚有着很强的行业示范意义，我希望济南市司法局能够把本案提交中华全国律师协会以及中国刑事诉讼法研究会征求意见。

因此，我请求全国律协：

第一，组织专家对我的行政处罚案件进行论证。论证我辩护的杨茂东案件，哪些问题属于法庭，哪些问题属于律师，律师的庭审豁免权如何保护？

第二，即使处理律师，也要告诉律师遇到严重司法不公，律师到底应该怎么办，尤其是庭下投诉、控告等根本不起任何作用时，律师当庭怎么办？假如遇到律师权益被严重侵犯，法庭严重不公甚至法律明文规定都不遵守，律师是不是应当据理力争？

第三，命案辩护呢？正如我在听证会发言中提到，假如被告席上坐的不是杨茂东而是聂树斌、呼格吉勒图、滕兴善、赵作海、佘祥林、陈满、陈夏影、张辉张高平，被告人面临严重司法不公，甚至律师不竭尽全力辩护就会出现错杀被告人的严重后果，律师是否应当必须坚持据理力争？律师的执业伦理是否要求必须据理力争，还是当明显违法的法官说不的时候律师首先考虑自保不说话？我们律师执业伦理究竟在这里如何要求，律师又应如何把握？

全国律协：我非常热爱刑事辩护，我认为我离开这个我热爱的行业前，最后恳求和最大希望就是通过我自己的案例分析，帮助全国广大律师搞清楚上述问题。

特此求助，请求维权。

李金星律师
二0一六年十二月二十五日

附：
1、天河法院司法建议；
2、济南市司法局听证告知书；
3、听证申请书；
4、李金星律师听证陈述意见；
5、何兵教授代理意见；
6、周泽律师代理意见。

To: Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council

RE: Sustaining attention to human rights violations in China

Excellency,

After another year marked by enforced disappearances, denial of due process, and continued efforts to suppress human rights, we call on your delegation to join with other States to take collective, coordinated action at the 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council to hold China accountable for its human rights record.

One year ago today, the High Commissioner released a statement[1] calling on China to address a wide range of human rights violations. The concerns he raised were echoed by many States at the March 2016 Human Rights Council, including through a strong cross-regional statement delivered on behalf of twelve States. These States reiterated the High Commissioner’s call for China to uphold its own laws and international commitments, and urged China to release lawyers and other human rights defenders detained for their human rights work.

Human rights defenders, their families, and other activists were encouraged by the strong message of international solidarity sent by the joint statement. The Chinese Government, however, seems to have ignored it entirely. In March 2016, States at the Council raised concerns about the following trends; a year later, the reality on the ground remains unchanged, and in some cases has worsened.

• Arbitrary arrests and ongoing detentions: After more than 18 months, the lawyers and other human rights defenders detained in the ‘709 crackdown’ remain the focus of significant pressure. According to recent counts, eight of them remain in jail awaiting trial. Twenty-six have been released on bail and most of them, despite their apparent release, are unable to continue working and are subject to surveillance, threats and ‘soft detention’.
• Enforced disappearance and refusal of access to counsel: On 21 November, the Chinese authorities abducted human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong who, though disbarred in 2009 for his work, had continued his work as an active figure within the legal community. His family was informed of his detention nearly one month later, and despite swift action by the Special Procedures, Jiang remains in ‘residential surveillance in a designated location’. The UN Committee against Torture in its 2015 review of China called for the Government to repeal provisions of the Criminal Law allowing residential surveillance, calling it ‘de facto incommunicado’ detention.
• Extraterritorial actions: Gui Minhai, a Swedish national targeted in a roundup of Hong Kong booksellers, was kidnapped by state security authorities in Thailand in October 2015 and remains in prison in China. His family does not know his location, have little if any access to him, and have not received clarification on any legal proceedings. On 27 January 2017, businessman Xiao Jianhua , a Canadian national, was reported missing from Hong Kong; although media have said he is on the mainland, his precise whereabouts are unknown.
• Hong Kong: Hong Kong citizens advocating for democratic institutions and respect for human rights work in an increasingly challenging environment. Beijing continues to interfere in Hong Kong’s various institutions, including the courts, and according to media reports delayed the submission of a follow-up report by the Hong Kong authorities to the Committee against Torture.
• The right to a fair trial: The family and legal representatives of detained human rights defenders remain, in the vast majority of cases, blocked from visits and information on national security grounds. Televised ‘confessions’ continued to be aired. This included a ‘confession’ by lawyer Wang Yu that sought to smear the work of Zhou Shifeng, head of the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm who was sentenced to seven years in prison in August 2016.
• Freedom of expression: Advocates for peaceful expression and association, online and off, as well as researchers, writers and journalists, have come under particular pressure. Non-governmental organizations estimate that in 2016, police arrested over 100 individuals for exercising their right to freedom of expression. This included figures well-known for documenting and disseminating information on human rights violations, such as veteran activists Huang Qi and Liu Feiyue. Their websites, and others including one aimed at facilitating peaceful dialogue within China’s diverse Muslim community, have been effectively shut down. Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti continues to serve a life sentence, and Tibetan activist Tashi Wangchuk has been detained for over a year for requesting Tibetan language classes in local schools.

These actions demonstrate that the Chinese Government has failed to make progress on almost every point raised at the Human Rights Council. The facts also stand in marked contrast to China’s rhetoric, which has emphasized renewed commitment to the multilateral system, including through its re-election to the Human Rights Council.

We urge your delegation to join with others to take collective, coordinated action at the upcoming Council session, through a second joint statement and individual statements, to make clear that systemic human rights violations in China will not go unnoticed and unchecked.

In addition to highlighting the inaction on key points from last year’s statement, delegations should:

• Insist that China uphold its obligations to prevent, punish and remedy torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, including by ordering prompt, impartial, independent investigations into reports of torture of detained lawyers and human rights defenders, including Li Heping, Wang Quanzhang and Xie Yang.
• Urge China to amend or repeal the Overseas NGO Management Law; any efforts to implement the law in its current form will – by definition – run counter to international human rights standards and undermine the independence of civil society.
• Call for the repeal or revision of the Counter-Terrorism Law, and speak out against the increasing use of national security legislation and draft ‘regulations on religious affairs’ to criminalise and harass those exercising freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression, recognizing the disproportionate impact this has on Uyghur and Tibetan communities, as well as religious minorities.
• Denounce the continuing forced evictions and other violations of human rights, including cultural rights, of monks and laypersons at Larung Gar, a major site of Tibetan Buddhist teaching and worship.
• Call for China to respect the right of everyone to freedom of movement and residence, and the right of everyone to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her own country; and in this regard to remove all travel bans and other restrictive measures that have been imposed on individuals for their activities to promote and protect human rights, and to cease the arbitrary confiscation of passports, in particular of Tibetans and Uyghurs.

In the past, the Chinese Government has openly expressed its displeasure with critical scrutiny of its human rights record. Such reactions demonstrate that China is sensitive to international attention. Public recognition at the Human Rights Council that China should be bound by its international human rights obligations will again give hope to thousands of defenders, lawyers, petitioners and others who seek to promote human rights in the country.

At a time when human rights are increasingly under threat, the Human Rights Council should ensure that all its members, including China, ‘uphold the highest standards’ of human rights and ‘fully cooperate’ with the Council and its mechanisms, as required by UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251. In so doing, the Council will continue to act in accordance with its founding principles, and in defence of universal human rights everywhere.

Please be assured, Excellency, of our highest consideration.

Amnesty International
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation
FIDH, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Freedom House
Frontline Defenders
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Watch
Independent Chinese PEN Center
International Campaign for Tibet
International Commission of Jurists
International Service for Human Rights
International Tibet Network
Lawyers Rights Watch Canada
PEN America Center
Students for a Free Tibet
Tibet Justice Center
World Organisation Against Torture, in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
World Uyghur Congress

Sichuan rights defender Chen Yunfei was accused of "picking quarrels and provoking troubles," and was tried at Wuhou Court in Chengdu, Sichuan, on December 26, 2016. During the trial, the court forcibly confiscated the computer belonging to Chen’s defense lawyer Liu Zhengqing, claiming that Liu was recording the trial proceedings.

In his statement below, Liu says that despite the fact that he had already shut down his computer and put it in his bag at the start of the trial, the court kept the computer and did not return it to him in a timely manner. Liu also maintains that since the court took possession of the computer without going through any procedures to establish its existing contents, he cannot be held responsible for contents added after the computer was taken from him. Based on his experience, Liu believes that the Chengdu authorities’ confiscation of his computer is not simply an unlawful act, it may be part of a greater behind-the-scenes conspiracy against him.

关于陈云飞案开庭时武侯法院强抢我电脑的郑重声明

刘正清

陈云飞案今天(2016年12月26日)在成都武侯法院开庭，在开庭过程中因审判长李毅明显对我律师歧视性的对待甚至借听从审判长指挥之名剥夺我律师应有的辩护权。后，在我有机会问陈云飞时。我对陈说“今天的状况你也看到了，请你不要指望今天的审判会给你一个什么公正，你一旦发现我们两个律师无法履行职责保护你的合法权利的情况你就立即解除我们俩律师，今天法庭外面有好几百警察，这就是一场消耗战。基于此，所谓起诉书指控的事实方面问题我就不问了”。接着第一辩护人冉彤针对起诉书上指控的4个问题进行发问。后，陈云飞就问冉彤律师：“上次我要你们调取陈华清的房产证，你们调了没有？”。冉彤律师说：“陈华清被控制了，出不来。”陈云飞就说：“既然你们不能保障我的合法权益，那我就解聘你们。另聘律师。”审判长当时警告我说我不应该跟陈云飞这样说。后宣布休庭，做陈云飞的工作。

休庭完后，法官首先很客气地要我们律师签庭审笔录，签完之后他们就厉声地对冉彤说：“我们怀疑你有录音，我们要检查你的电脑。”因冉彤在法庭上确实使用了自己的电脑(当然这是合法的)，我当初以为只是检查冉律的电脑。过一会后，又来一“法警队长”令喽罗抢我的包，说要搜查包里的东西。

关于此事特作如下说明：

1、进法庭前审判员就使用电脑问题跟我们交涉过，我明确说可以使用法院提供的电脑，且我有纸质案卷材料，不用电脑也行。这点法官和国保是知道的。

2、我这台电脑是三合一的平板电脑，是刚买不久的，成都国保及法院技术人员再笨，也不至于不会开机。故我有合理的理由怀疑其强抢我电脑并留置不及时归还，必有不可告人的目的——栽赃陷害！该电脑在开庭时我没有使用且处于关机状态、放在包里。自今天上午11点后失去我的控制，落在成都当局控制之中。11:00至下午15:30在我的目视范围之下，期间我见他们用u盘插入电脑上，我当即进行了警告称：搞坏了电脑及下载东西到电脑上产生的一切法律后果均由你们负责！(当时法庭有视频监控)。15:30后被成都便衣拿走，此电脑自此控制在成都当局手里。

3、成都当局明知我未打开电脑（有监控视频为证），却仍要以有录音嫌疑为由头，检查我的电脑，实属借此报复及修理我。

4、陈云飞要解聘律师并非我的作用，之前就有明确的意思表示（他给我有其亲笔写的书面证据），成都当局奈陈云飞不何，就将气出在我头上，实属项庄舞剑，意在沛公，找错了对象。其意图是司马昭之心路人皆知！

5、武侯法院强抢我电脑后，未办理任何固封（固定证据）手续。自该电脑失去我控制之后，电脑里添加任何内容均与我无关。

6、凭我以往的经验，成都当局强扣我电脑绝非一起简单的违法，后面必有加害我的更大阴谋。为此，趁其构陷图谋尚未发生之前，我还能对外发声之前，特预先将此情况公之于众。

因现在我心绪很乱，暂时写到这里，待心情平静之后，我会将今天开庭的前后经过详叙。因我网络技术不好，请关注此事的朋友为我将此声明收藏、保存一段时间，以备不测和作为未来的呈堂证词。

刘正清2016年12月26日