Yang Jinzhu lawyers in the Beijing Judicial Bureau 4.22 hearing on the cross examination opinions

 This paper has madePeople.com.cn Forum,Tianya forum law,Rednet Forum,Tencent Forum,NetEase Forum,Katie Forum,Western people forum

Dear host:
   Beijing Municipal Bureau of justice of our listening to Beijing word (2010) administrative punishment case No. second, judicial administrative organs concerned rights to hearing notice pointed out: Tang Yoshida "disrupting the order of the court proceedings, interference of normal behavior, according to the" law "provisions of the people's Republic of China of forty-ninth the sixth item of the first paragraph, the quasi administrative punishment give you his lawyer's practice certificate revoked". To prove the Tang Jitian counsel "disrupting the order of the court proceedings, interference of normal behavior," the investigators in Beijing City Bureau of justice lawyer administration produce relevant evidence. As Tang Jitian lawyers entrusted agent, published the following examination opinions of the relevant evidence, for the reference.
    A survey showed, all evidence list
   The investigation showed all the evidence list as follows:
   1,LuThe city intermediate people's court in the trial transcript in April 27, 2009
   2,LuBeijing City Bureau of justice punishment Tang Jitian lawyer and lawyer Liu Wei requirements issued by the city intermediate people's Court of the judicial proposal
   3,LuHe Feng judge issued by state city intermediate people's Court of identity
   Issue 4, judge He Feng's testimony
   5,LuIssued by the city intermediate people's court bailiff Zhu Songlin identity
   In 6, Zhu Songlin was the testimony of
   7,LuIssued by the State Bureau of justice to the Sichuan Provincial Department of justice demands punishment Tang Jitian lawyer and lawyer Liu Wei proposal
   Transcripts of 8, Beijing City Bureau of justice investigators speaking to Tang Jitian's lawyer
   Transcripts of 9, Beijing City Bureau of justice investigators speaking to Liu Wei's lawyer

    Two, nine copies of evidence of specific examination opinions
    (a), the Luzhou City Intermediate People's court trial transcripts of the testimony in April 27, 2009
   1, the trial transcript does not have the authenticity and legality
  The court notes while the state city intermediate people's court official, but not Tang Jitian and Liu Wei two defense lawyers signature, due to the Luzhou City Intermediate People's Court issued a request punishment Tang Jitian and Liu Wei law judicial proposal to the Beijing Municipal Bureau of justice, the school and the Tang Jitian, Liu Wei lawyers constitute a de facto relationship. So, cannot exclude the altered or falsified the trial transcript may. The trial transcript does not have the authenticity and legality.
   2, the trial transcript content that Tang Jitian, Liu Wei the lawyer did not disturb the order of the court, did not interfere with the normal activities of litigation
   China's "Criminal Procedure Law" provisions of article 161st: "during the court trial, if the litigant participant or bystander violates the order of the court, the presiding judge shall warnings to stop. To listen to, be forced out of the courtroom; if the circumstances are serious, shall be detained for a fine of one thousand yuan or fifteen days following."
   "The Supreme People's Court on the implementation of 'of the people's Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law' interpretation of several issues" the provisions of article 184th: "during the court trial, if the litigant participant or bystander violates the order of the court, the collegial panel shall handle it according to the following circumstances:
(a) for violation of a court order if the circumstances are relatively minor, the court should stop and disciplinary warning;
(two) for the warning stop, can command was forced out of the courtroom;
(three) for violation of a court order and if the circumstances are serious, shall be reported to the approval of the president of the post, on the behavior of detention to a fine of 1000 yuan or fifteen days following;
(four) for seriously disrupting the order of the court, which constitutes a crime, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law."
   According to the above provisions, if Tang Jitian, Liu Wei lawyers in the trial process is disrupting the order of the court, the court notes should have "the warnings to stop and admonition", "instruction was forced out of the courtroom" records, if the circumstances are serious, shall also have to Tang Jitian, lawyer Liu Wei "1000 yuan of the following a fine or detention" fifteen days following the record. The trial transcript without any of the above aspects of the record. So, even if confirmed the authenticity and legitimacy of the trial transcript of the trial transcript, the specific content is proof of the Tang Yoshida, Liu Wei lawyers are strictly abide by "the people's Republic of China People's court rules", doesn't exist at all disturb the order of the court, the interference of litigious activities normal behavior.

    (two), the Beijing Municipal Bureau of justice punishment Tang Jitian lawyer and lawyer Liu Wei requirements issued by the Luzhou City Intermediate People's Court of judicial proposal examination opinions
   The authenticity of the 1, accepts the judicial proposal. The judicial proposals with theLuThe city intermediate people's Court issued by the administrative official, is the hospital.
   2, the judicial proposal does not have the effect of evidence. The judicial proposals to the hospital after the trial produce, can not objectively reflect the April 27, 2009 the day of the trial proceedings, could not be identified Tang Jitian, lawyer Liu Wei disturb the order of the court, interference litigation activities of the admissibility of evidence.
   The specific content of the judicial proposal 3, mostly with Tang Jitian, Liu Wei lawyers are disrupting the order of the court proceedings, the interference of no relevance, the basic content of Liu Wei and Tang Jitian, lawyers, the day of the trial, and the proposal for the text mostly use the "hat", "big stick" "the Great Cultural Revolution" language, is a typical "to beat, is never wanting"!

    (three), to prove he Feng judge issued by the Luzhou City Intermediate People's Court of the identity of the examination opinions
   The authenticity and legitimacy, recognition of the identity of 1.
   2, the proof of identity only proves that he Feng Department of court judges, and participated in the April 27, 2009 trial lawyer, Liu Wei, and Tang Jitian are disrupting the order of the court, without any correlation interference action of normal behavior.

    (four), the issue he Feng judge testimony examination opinions
   Form elements, the testimony of 1 do not have words evidence, that does not have a truth.
  This proved to be "He Feng" readme testimony, no witness, no witnesses reported content ID, no press that He Feng's handprint, therefore cannot prove that the testimony why peak judge wrote. He Feng judge as a criminal court judge, should know the form elements readme verbal evidence, the testimony can not be used as the admissibility of evidence.
   The specific content of 2, the testimony that Tang Jitian, lawyer Liu Wei retired fact, cannot prove whether Tang Jitian, Liu Wei's lawyer has justified reasons may, more can not prove that Tang Jitian, Liu Wei lawyers disturb the order of the court proceedings, interfere with normal.

    (five), issued by the Luzhou City Intermediate People's court bailiff Zhu Songlin's ID cardMingThe examination opinions
   1 to 3, and evidence consistent examination opinions, authenticity and legitimacy of the identity recognition.
   2 to 3, and evidence consistent evidence, the proof of identity without any relevance to the case.

    (six), Zhu Songlin was the testimony of witnesses
   1 to 4, and evidence consistent evidence, the evidence form elements do not have verbal evidence, that does not have a truth.
   This proved to be "Zhu Songlin" readme testimony, no witness, no witnesses reported content ID, no press that Zhu Songlin's handprint, therefore cannot prove that the testimony was written by Zhu Songlin bailiff. Form elements do not have the testimony readme verbal evidence, so it can not be used as the admissibility of evidence.
   2, the witness testimony can not only prove that Tang Jitian, Liu Wei lawyers disturb the order of the court proceedings, interference of normal behavior, proof to the contrary legal practicing rights lawyer Liu Wei Tang Jitian, have been seriously infringed.

    (seven), the Luzhou Municipal Bureau of Justice issued to Sichuan Provincial Department of justice demands punishment Tang Jitian lawyer and lawyer Liu Wei proposal examination opinions
   1, the proposal does not meet the formal requirements verbal evidence, can not be used as the admissibility of evidence
   Investigators did not produce the proposal in the original hearing, produced a copy. Copy words evidence can not be used as evidence, this is as everyone knows. Investigators in Beijing City Bureau of justice lawyer office in such a serious hearing with copy presented as evidence, do not know the administrative punishment has strict rules on evidence form elements?
   2, the proposal does not have legitimacy
   According to the above listed in China's "criminal law" and the judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the people's Court confirmed the defender, is whether there are disrupting the order of the court proceedings, interference of the normal activity of the only authority. Luzhou Municipal Judicial Bureau issued the proposal without any legal basis, beyond the scope of powers.
  Due to the above two points, the proposal does not have the formal requirements of evidence, does not have the legitimacy, so it can not be used as the admissibility of evidence.

    (eight) on the record, investigators in Beijing City Bureau of justice to talk to Tang Jitian's lawyer cross examination opinions
   1, the approval of the conversation record authenticity, legitimacy and relevance.
   The specific content of 2, the record of conversation is Tang Jitian's lawyer argued that the appeal and, strictly abide by "the people's Republic of China People's court rules" in the course of the trial of the day, abide by discipline of lawyers and occupation moral, infringed on its lawyers licensed rights, forced to choose to retire, not there are disrupting the order of the court proceedings, interference of the normal activity of behavior.

   (nine) on the record, investigators in Beijing City Bureau of justice to talk to Liu Wei's lawyer cross examination opinions
   1, the approval of the conversation record authenticity, legitimacy and relevance.
   The specific content of 2, the record of conversation is Liu Wei's lawyer argued that the appeal and, strictly abide by "the people's Republic of China People's court rules" in the course of the trial of the day, abide by discipline of lawyers and occupation moral, from its lawyer legal right to practice serious infringement cases, forced to choose to retire, fundamental there is no disturb the order of the court proceedings, interference of the normal activity of behavior.
   

    Three, the conclusion
   Nine evidence 1, Beijing City Bureau of justice lawyer office investigators produced, without a valid evidence to prove that Tang Jitian has "disrupting the order of the court proceedings, interference of the normal activity of behavior" in the course of the trial in April 27, 2009, the Beijing Municipal Bureau of justice according to law "provisions" of the Chinese the people's Republic of China forty-ninth sixth item of the first paragraph of Tang Jitian lawyer's practice certificate revoked without any evidence to support.
   Part of the evidence nine evidence 2, Beijing City Bureau of justice lawyer office investigators produced in sufficient proof: Tang Jitian lawyer in the trial process in April 27, 2009 to strictly abide by the "people's Republic of China People's court rules", its legal right to practice subject to serious abuses, lawyer Tang Jitian is in its legal practice rights can not be guaranteed under the condition of forced to retire.
   The above examination opinions for the host of reference, and requested the host be adopted.

                                     Hunan Tongcheng law group firm
                                           Yang Jinzhu lawyer
                                        April 22, 2010

                              In this paper, people.com.cn forum published