The court cannot protect perverting the law, is not correct (criminal complaint)

An unjust judge, resulting in even more than a few crime. Because the crime is to ignore the law -- like the pollution of the water, and not a fair trial but destroy the law -- like the pollution of the water. -- Bacon

The complainant:Tan Minjian. Male, born 19 April 1946, the Han nationality, Hunan province Yongzhou city Lanshan County, Aid Vietnam demobilized cadres, former director of bureau of traffic of Lanshan county government, assistant researcher. Tel: 18975781738;

The complainant:Li Xiaoming. Male, born 18 September 1964, the Han nationality, Hunan province Yongzhou city Lanshan County, former Lanshan County Department of Transportation Highway station. Tel: 13873193926;

The complainant:Wang Chengyun, male, born 1 April 1966, the Han nationality, Hunan Province, Yongzhou City, Ningyuan County, former deputy director of Lanshan County Highway bureau. Tel: 13874677069.

It requests:

1(2001), revocation of Hunan of punishment and No. third "criminal judgments" second and (2006) the high punishment to No. twenty-first criminal adjudication, the judgment shall be amended according to the plaintiff Tan Minjian is innocent.

2Undo (2010), blue punishment and early word no. first "criminal judgments", (2011) wing punishment two final No. sixty-sixth "criminal verdict", the judgment shall be amended according to the plaintiff Li Xiaoming is innocent.

3,Undo (2010) wing of punishment and No. Fourth "criminal judgments", the judgment shall be amended according to the plaintiff Wang Chengyun is innocent.

The facts and reasons:

The plaintiff Tan Minjian in 2008 September received the Supreme Court of Hunan province (2006) the criminal punishment to No. twenty-first high order. The "decision" illegal procedure, entity fraud, misuse law in adjudication. Tan Minjian repeatedly to the Supreme People's Court of appeal, and then employ justice lawyer Qi endurance, Wang Hequan appeals. But in 2001 March, the Supreme People's court filing a court did not inform the lawyer, and directly inform Tan Minjian did not mention the caseRetrial. According to the lawyer said, want to have new evidence to retrial. In this case the evidence is sufficient to prove innocence, and in 2010, the "-" the Xiaoru, Li Xiaoming, Wang carrying case has made the rehearing judgment, the Chinese small Confucianism have been acquitted. Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case byThe Hunan province high court "ruled" perverting the law limits but not completely correct, commuted from criminal punishment.In this paper, Li, Wang retrial judgment, not but thatNew evidence is the overthrow of Tan Minjian not guilty, "ruled" the false proof, Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun not guilty evidence.

A, 2010 years, Yongzhou City, Lanshan county court, on the "CO" Wen, Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun Xiaoru case to trial, that the Tan Minjian case 3 pen number a total of 7000 yuan.

First the sum of 4000 yuan:

"Some people" the Xiaoru case retrial acquitted[See article Xiaoru (2010) of the criminal and evermoreThe endWord thirdNo."The criminalJudgment"];

"Some people" the case of Li Xiaoming after the retrial, not that the management fee 10000 yuan, distributed to him and Wen Xiaoru each 3000 yuan is a crime [see Li Xiaoming(2011) in two sentencesThe endWord sixty-sixthNo."Criminal rulingThe book"];

ProveAt the same time: distributed to 4000 yuan innocent Tan Min.

The original Yang Haiqing population for conviction error, "ruling" is deliberately to pervert the law (see attached evidence of 4, 5, 6).

Second the sum of 2000 yuan:

"Since people" the Xiaoru, Li Xiaoming case after the retrial, have not found 2000 yuan to Li Qianheng is a criminal offence[See article Xiaoru (2010) of the criminal and evermoreThe endWord thirdNo."The criminalJudgment",Li Xiaoming(2011) in two sentencesThe endWord sixty-sixthNo."Criminal rulingThe book"].

Proof: Li Qianheng gave 2000 yuan Tan Minjian is human liabilities are true, is the legitimate civil.

"Decision" to Li QianhengOn the grounds is upheld, perverting the law (see attached evidence 7).

Third the sum of 1000 yuan:

Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case after the retrial, there is no Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun deliberately corruption and bribery to the fact that Tan Minjian [see Li Xiaoming (2011) wing punishment two final No. sixty-sixth "criminal verdict", Wang Chengyun (2010) in criminal Zaizhongzi No. Fourth "criminal judgments"].

Proof: 1000 yuan Tan Minjian as assistant director of project of 1 years have the right to receive the subsidy (see attached evidence of 2, 3, 4).

"Wang Chengyun, Li Xiaoming" that concealed for funds, is in the whole project safety, quality and save about 600000 yuan of funds and strict control, have the right to use and dispatch system of job responsibility budget, "cheat", "set up a" deliberate "corruption" is false, perverting the law, and leads to a lower court to Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case not completely correct.

More than 3 of the total 7000 yuan "bribery" can not be established, shall be declared innocent.

Two, the case of Li Xiaoming, because the Supreme Court of Hunan province "award", in order to more than third pen referee "bribery", has been characterized as "corruption", not Lanshan county court, Yongzhou City Intermediate People's Court of retrial to overturn the qualitative superior court and intentional error law.

Because of the Supreme Court of Hunan Province(2006) the high punishment to No. twenty-first criminal rule on Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case "cheat", "set up a" deliberate "corruption" false (see attached evidence 12), leading to a lower court on the Li Xiaoming case not completely correct.

Li Xiaoming (2010) blue punishment again early word number first "criminal judgments", (2011) wing punishment two final No. sixty-sixth "criminal verdict" (pp. 4 ), found "guilty" reason is: "Li Xiaoming and the unit leadership on business for two times without reimbursement is real, but cannot change its corruption public property".

This argument is untenable, contrary to the law:

1, "Li Xiaoming and the unit leadership on business for two times without reimbursement is real", which proved that these funds have been spending, no personal possession.

2Unit two, and leading travel reimbursement is not for business may be reimbursed without reimbursement of expenses, and not for the money, the original approval as "corruption" itself is wrong, the retrial no reason cannot change the nature of the embezzlement of public funds".

3The expenditure of these funds are strictly controlled, so that the whole project safety, quality and save about 600000 yuan of funds of funds within the responsibility. They need to dispose according to the actual operation and scheduling, is legal. Only the fact that the money is not a "corruption".

"Criminal law" provisions of article 382nd of the crime of corruption is: "the state personnel who take advantage of their office, embezzle, steal, cheat or by other means of illegal possession of public property, is the crime of corruption", "by state organs, State-Owned Company, enterprises and institutions, people's organizations entrusted management, management of state-owned property, taking advantage of his position, embezzle, steal, cheat or by other means of illegal possession of state owned property, to corruption theory".

Retrial from a large number of facts, evidence, determine the "Li Xiaoming and the unit leadership on business for two times without reimbursement is real", this is the reduction of Li Xiaoming did not "using the convenience of duty, embezzle, steal, cheat or by other means of illegal possession of public property" fact, ordinary people can judge this is not "corruption". The Yongzhou City Intermediate People's court retrial said "can not change the nature of the embezzlement of public funds", this is because the province high court not investigation and verification, First impressions are strongest in the "decision", in addition, identified as "corruption", deliberately wrong applicable law.

Li Xiaoming is innocent, shall be declared innocent.

Three, the case of Wang Chengyun, is the same as the Supreme Court of Hunan province "award", in order to more than third pen referee "bribery", has been characterized as "corruption", the Yongzhou City Intermediate People's court retrial not overthrow qualitatively superior court deliberately looking for excuses not correct.

Wang Chengyun (2010) wing of punishment Zaizhongzi No. Fourth "criminal judgment" (page fifth) that Wang Chengyun "guilty" reason is: "the plaintiff Wang Chengyun proposed above repeated reimbursement proceeds have been used for public spending, partly for damaged engineering has to pay Le Zai reasons, only some witnesses in 2009 November issued by the evidence of effectiveness and probative force of the evidence, can not deny the fact that, the second instance, the court shall not accept".

All of the above reasons, did not dare to overthrow the province high court "ruled" has been qualitatively excuse:

1Wang Chengyun, the proposed "duplicate account", "affiliated engineering side ditch many times by the passing vehicles crushed after" repeated account ", not false impersonation" duplicate account ", it is normal to project funding, not for personal possession for the purpose of corruption;

2, "money has gone to public expenditure, parts for damaged engineering has to pay, not" Le Zai "decision" that "only part of witness", but all parties had confirmed.

1995Years, Lanshan County procuratorate will Li Hangqing, Le Zai et al to procuratorate detention, forced to hand over 18000 yuan project money, Wang Chengyun payment thereafter, other workers to Li Hangqing, Le Zai punish wages, Le Zai sorrow so sick and died. Le Xiaozai is dead, but with him to the site's wife proved, in Li Hangqing and in construction workers all have been confirmed, don't affect the validity of evidence and probative force. The Yongzhou City Intermediate People's court because of the provincial high court not investigation and verification, First impressions are strongest in the "decision", in addition, identified as "corruption", did not dare to qualitative change, using the "death cannot be reversed" weakness, deliberately looking for an excuse.

3The expenditure of these funds, are under strict control, so that the whole project safety, quality and save about 600000 yuan of funds of funds within the responsibility. They need to dispose according to the actual operation and scheduling, is legal. Only the fact that the money is not a "corruption".

The case 9 years ago is the Hunan Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection and Yongzhou city's Du Xiangcheng Xiao Daming told us that persecute, manufacturing case; after 3 years the Supreme Court of Hunan Province, Cai Junwei Hu Jianfu Officials one another., perverting the law. But the false is false, this man-made provincial major cases by the appeal, verification, so far have come out, The case is entirely cleared. We appeal to the Supreme People's court and 3 years, to the Supreme People's court for justice, safeguard social fairness and justice and the socialist rule of law, in accordance with the law retrial, acquitted.

Yours sincerely

Supreme People's court

Plaintiff: Tan Minjian (ID 43292719460419001x)

Li Xiaoming(ID 43292719640918001x)

Wang Chengyun(ID 43292719660401001x)

2011Years9Month5Day

A list of evidence:

1The Supreme Court of Hunan province (2001), Hunan of punishment and No. third "criminal judgment"

The judgement of no evidence of 3 total 7000 yuan, breach of privilege "the crime of accepting bribes sentenced"

2Yongzhou City People's Congress, "about Tan Minjian petition case request opinion letter"

Proof of 3 total 7000 yuan

3Yongzhou City Department of transportation, "about the court to the crime of accepting bribes to tan Minjian judicial suggestions from punishment"

Proof of 3 total 7000 yuan

4County People's Congress Standing Committee, director Jiang Jinsheng's testimony was

That pen is 4000 yuan first, margin financing, self financing the construction of the station project, is the normal operation the management fees without working capital.

Proof of third pen 1000 yuan is the Tan Minjian has the right to receive the subsidy; that Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun receives funding is blue even highway engineering, quality and efficient, saving money more than 60 yuan of funds not invade responsibility, many public funds to tan Minjian bribery.

5Yang Haiqing, in the prosecution's confession record

That pen is 4000 yuan first public meeting agreed by both parties of the management fee, which is not individual behavior, not bribery. "Decision" to hide the evidence.

6Liao the state

It is proved that the reason and the use of management fees

7Small Confucian humanities, handles the testimony, that 4000 yuan has been spending.

8Li Qianheng and Li Qianheng in the confession, transcripts of procuratorial organs "supplement"

Proof of second pen 2000 yuan is purely personal communication, rather than the "decision" made up "use post convenient for Li Qianheng to profit"

9In this paper, Xiaoru (2010) wing punishment Zaizhongzi No. third "criminal judgment"

Wen Xiaoru retrial acquitted:

Proof: Tan Minjian first pen 4000 yuan management fee of 3000 yuan for the innocent, Xiaoru distribution simultaneously;

Proof: Tan Minjian second pen 2000 yuan not guilty, "ruled" the Xiaoru 2000 yuan guilty evidence is false evidence.

10Again, Li Xiaoming judgment

Retrial cognizance of corruption 12000 yuan (from criminal punishment) [original cognizance of corruption 41000 yuan (real penalty sentenced 3 years 6 months). The 12000 element refers to Li Xiaoming and Wang Chengyun from the engineering grass alone has checked in reading digital accounted for 2 times, and found Li Xiaoming with leading travel reimbursement is not 2 times.

Proof: Tan Minjian first $4000 not guilty, 3000 yuan management fee and Li Xiaoming distribution;

Proof: Tan Minjian second $2000 not guilty, "ruling" with 2000 yuan Li Xiaoming guilty evidence is false evidence.

Proof: Tan Minjian third pen 1000 yuan not guilty, "ruling", Wang Chengyun Li Xiaoming taking 15000 yuan management fee to the Tan Minjian bribery evidence is false evidence.

11Again, Wang Chengyun judgment

If the second judgment cognizance of corruption 14000 yuan (from criminal punishment) refers to the ancillary works many times by the passing vehicles crushed rebuilt, with Li Xiaoming from the engineering grass alone has checked in reading digital reimbursement.

Proof: Tan Minjian third pen 1000 yuan not guilty, "ruling", Wang Chengyun Li Xiaoming taking 15000 yuan management fee to the Tan Minjian bribery evidence is false evidence.

12The Supreme Court of Hunan province (2006), Hunan high punishment to No. twenty-first "criminal ruling".

Proof: Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun and developed by "ruling" pressing but not completely correct:

"Decision" in Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case retrial made up before, Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun"Cheat", "a"With corruption crime subjective intention, the purpose of which is to Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun as a "corruption and bribery", so as to maintain the Tan Minjian bribery (see page 13).

"Ruling" wrote: "the investigation, Wang Chengyun, Li Xiaoming privately in collusion, will be part of the phase two project of highway engineering quantity even Li Hangqing, Le Zai two migrant workers team completed blue ancillary works not by the contractor Lanshan County Highway Bureau, financial settlement, and direct settlement and bureau of transportation construction in Lanshan County, in addition to cheat the public more than 9000 yuan, will also set out to Lanshan County Road 15% indirect costs 1.5 yuan by many, this section is not extracted as a travel allowance management fee. 3500 yuan Wang Chengyun, Li Xiaoming from for approval, and not the subsidy, but bribery."

"Decision" to Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun to impose "cheating", "set" conclusion, this is Li Xiaoming, the king the carrier made with subjective intent "corruption" qualitative. The lower courts may not this qualitative change the superior court.

The Li Xiaoming verdict finds embezzlement amount 41000 yuan, after the retrial of the (2011) wing punishment two final No. sixty-sixth "criminal ruling" negative 29000 yuan, but will still have to public expenditure not reimbursement 12000 yuan as "corruption", listing the reason is "Li Xiaoming and the two non reimbursement is real, but can not change the nature of the embezzlement of public funds" (see the "ruling" page fourth). "Two times on business without reimbursement is real" has been proven business spending, personal unoccupied, how can we recognize as "corruption?! This ridiculous reason is the Yongzhou intermediate people's court in the province high court ruling in the "" has been qualitative, helpless and list;

The Wang Chengyun verdict finds embezzlement amount 32900 yuan, after the retrial of the (2010) wing of punishment and No. Fourth "criminal judgments" negative 18900 yuan, but will still have been issued to the construction workers 1.4 yuan as "corruption". List of reasons is "part of damaged engineering has to pay for music Zai reasons, only some witnesses in 2009 November issued by the evidence of effectiveness, and proof of its evidence can not deny the original one, the second facts" (see page fifth).

The truth is: in 1996, Lanshan procuratorate workers Le Xiaozai detention persecute to hand over 18000 yuan, therefore, Yue small Zi and others will be considered not to Wang Chengyun to pay. In 2009, Wang Chengyun Tsai et al. Small request to explain the matter, but the music the calf had died, by his wife and other migrant workers issue did receive wages that Wang Chengyun. The fact that the court should notice of investigation le the calf wife and other workers to appear in court, is very easy to find out. But the Yongzhou City Intermediate People's court has to "only part of the witness in 2009 November issued by the evidence of effectiveness, and proof of its evidence can not deny the original one, the second facts", this is the Yongzhou intermediate people's court in the province high court ruling in the "" is qualitative, do not responsible and forced the conviction was.

Evidence1The Supreme Court of Hunan province (2001), Hunan of punishment and No. third "criminal judgment"

The judgement of no evidence of 3 total 7000 yuan, breach of privilege "the crime of accepting bribes sentenced"

Evidence2Yongzhou City People's Congress, "about Tan Minjian petition case request opinion letter"Prove3Pen Co7000Yuan

Evidence3Yongzhou City Department of transportation, "about the court to the crime of accepting bribes to tan Minjian judicial suggestions from punishment"Proof of 3 total 7000 yuan

Evidence4County People's Congress Standing Committee, director Jiang Jinsheng's testimony was

That pen is 4000 yuan first, margin financing, self financing the construction of the station project, is the normal operation the management fees without working capital.

Proof of third pen 1000 yuan is Tan Minjian Engineering Command deputy commander has the right to receive the subsidy; that Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun receives funding is blue even highway engineering, quality and efficient, save money 60 yuan responsibility fund, does not exist many public funds to health after Tan Min invaded the bribery facts.

Evidence5According to the conviction, Yang Haiqing, Chen Yangge, Liao Bentai in the prosecution's confession record.

Yongzhou, Lanshan people's Procuratorate, in the event of disputes and relevant leaders condemned by the masses and Lanshan traffic bureau, in retaliation for the Lanshan Department of transportation, not only illegal detention, beating Lanshan traffic bureau staff, and forensics, deliberately concealed engineering safety, quality, efficient fact; hidden project funding difficulties, and frontier construction the facts; concealed engineering is not final completion of fact, extraction of confession, interpret out of context to distort the facts, wrongful prosecution.

But in doing soBIAfter oral evidence, can prove the following facts: 1, the management fee is the contractor, construction party group meeting, through the calculation of the consensus, which is not a personal behavior. This is a normal price in economic work, and bribery is the essence of the distinction, is embodied in the construction of a serious and responsible work; 2, the extraction of funds for the organization to resolve project construction fund management fee. This is to compress the indirect cost of project, and ensure the normal operation of funds of engineering construction, is generally taken by way of (they go to other local construction are 9%). Auditing department is legitimate; 3, in the two phase of the project, they are with Li Qianheng in a public offer competitive bidding below standard. This fact itself had been proved that the construction side open, extraction of management fees is not right, money transactions for the purpose of "bribe"; at the same time that their testimony was fall mark after a biased one-sided, should discard the false and retain the true, adopted to prove the truth of fact.

"Decision" the confessions of Yang Haiqing et al., make up for not existing bribery, illegal, have an ulterior motive of misuse law in adjudication.

Evidence7In this paper, Xiaoru handling for the public use of 4000 yuan

Evidence8According to the conviction of Li Qianheng, in the prosecution's confession record, and added that "Li Qianheng".

Lanshan, Yongzhou people's Procuratorate because of disputes with the Bureau of transportation, make groundless accusations shepherd Li Qianheng had to bribe traffic bureau. The process of Li Qianheng about the construction of the,All right, there is no any money exchange. Li Qianheng's "supplement" that is 2000 yuan in debt and human's confession completely consistent, solid proof that this is very normal civil behavior. But the "ruling" deliberatelyPh.D.Tan Minjian "caused by taking the advantage of his position as a criminal offence Li Qianheng profit". The implementation of misuse law in adjudication.

Evidence9In this paper, Xiaoru (2010) wing punishment Zaizhongzi No. third "criminal judgment"

Wen Xiaoru retrial acquitted:

Proof: first management fee of 4000 Yuan Tan Minjian and Wen Xiaoru at the same time distribution;

Proof: "decision" by the Xiaoru 2000 yuan guilty evidence is false evidence, Tan Minjian second 2000 yuan,

Evidence10Li Xiaoming, another order of second instance

Retrial cognizance of corruption 12000 yuan (from criminal punishment). This 12000 yuan 3000 yuan and Li Qianheng does not contain distributed to 2000 yuan, and identified with Li Xiaoming leading travel 2 (spending 12000 yuan) reimbursement is not real.

Proof: first management fee of 4000 Yuan Tan Minjian and Li Xiaoming at the same time distribution;

Proof: "ruling" with 2000 yuan Li Xiaoming guilty evidence is false evidence, Tan Minjian second 2000 yuan.

Proof: "ruling" with Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun show the management fee of $15000 to the Tan Minjian bribery evidence is false evidence, Tan Minjian third 1000 yuan.

Evidence11Again, Wang Chengyun judgment

Proof: Tan Minjian third pen 1000 yuan not guilty, "ruling", Wang Chengyun Li Xiaoming taking 15000 yuan management fee to the Tan Minjian bribery evidence is false evidence.

Evidence 12The Supreme Court of Hunan province (2006), Hunan high punishment to No. twenty-first "criminal ruling".

Proof: Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun and developed by "ruling" pressing but not completely correct:

"Decision" in Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun case retrial, made up Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun has the corruption crime subjective intention, the purpose of which is to Li Xiaoming, Wang Chengyun as a "corruption and bribery", so as to maintain the Tan Minjian bribery (see page 13).

The Li Xiaoming verdict finds embezzlement amount 41000 yuan, after the retrial of the (2011) wing punishment two final No. sixty-sixth "criminal ruling" negative 29000 yuan, but still

Will have been for public expenditure not reimbursement 12000 yuan as "corruption", listing the reason is "Li Xiaoming and the unit leadership on business for two times without reimbursement is real, but can not change the nature of the embezzlement of public funds" (see the "ruling" page fourth). "Two times on business without reimbursement is real" has been proven business spending, personal unoccupied, how can we recognize as "corruption?! This ridiculous reason is the Yongzhou intermediate people's court in the province high court ruling in the "" has been qualitative, helpless and list;

The new Conservatory: Guqin

Singer: Collection (mainland)

LP: Reggae

Li Sao
The creak of an oar
The pan blue
Daoyi
Xiaoxiang Shuiyun
-- referring to the harsh reality that talent and ability can rarely meet people who can really appreciate them
Changmen complain
Guangling San
Bid farewell to a departing friend
The drunkard
Wild geese on the beach