A case involving 810,000 yuan was confused by fake IOUs, and the judge was confused by Hulu, and the case was decided on December 25, 2007. Judge Tang Xinghua of the District People's Court illegally ruled on the divorce case. What happened?
1: Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court violated the law and ruled that the ratio of post-marital property between men and women after divorce reached 3.03 million: 380,000
2: Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court violated the law and ruled in the case of 810,000 fake IOUs!
3: Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court had a phone call with the defendant in this case during the recess in the middle of the trial!
4: Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court made a wrongful judgment and admitted that he was confused. Yang Feng wrote and did not distinguish between the sample documents!
Tongzhou Court Tang Xinghua’s current phone number is 010--81553501
During the important court session on March 14, 2007, Tang Xinghua and the defendant in this case talked during the recess!
At 10:35:05 on March 14, the number 1081553508 was called in 16 seconds, Beijing local 0.40 0.00
At 17:48:10, March 28, the number 1081553508 was called in 26 seconds, Beijing local 0.40 0.00
On March 22, 10:52:18, I was called 1081553508 in 21 seconds. Beijing local 0.40 0.00
Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court tried the case unfairly and the entity was completely unfair
1. Judge Tang Xinghua ruled that the division of property was unfair
In the divorce case between Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu, Judge Tang Xinghua ruled that Yang Deshuai should be raised by Fan Yuhua by herself, and the total value of the property divided to Fan Yuhua was less than RMB 400,000. However, Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou District Court ruled that Yang Youshu’s property was worth a huge 3.03 million, including two buildings with an area of ??nearly 1,000 square meters and a value (original value) of 1.1 million that the family purchased in full in Ningjin County, Shandong Province ( The only one given to me, Fan Yuhua, was a house in Tongzhou with an area of ??only 86 square meters. Although it was worth 460,000 yuan, most of it was a bank mortgage loan. As of the second trial, the total repayment was only 154,610 yuan), including the transfer fee of 210,000 yuan paid by the husband and wife. 34 acres of leasehold rights in Songzhuang Village, Songzhuang Town, Tongzhou District, Beijing, with fees and a rent of 92,000 yuan, and a house with an area of ??1,824 square meters built on the land by the couple with an investment of about 1.68 million yuan. This resulted in the unfair result that Fan Yuhua could not equally divide and enjoy the owned property, but had to bear the construction debt of 329,014 yuan. What's more, because Judge Tang Xinghua did not clarify whether the debt was borne jointly or severally or in shares, the court's enforcement division forcibly seized and executed the property in Qiaozhuang North, Tongzhou District, that Fan Yuhua had shared and only owned and lived with her son for a total amount of 329,014 yuan. Small apartment in Room 801, Unit 4, Building 5, Lijingyuan, Jieqianlin. Therefore, Fan Yuhua believed that the original trial of Tang Xinghua was extremely unfair. Even the large amount of home appliances, furniture, office equipment and medical equipment purchased during the marriage contained in the first-instance judgment were all awarded to the defendant by the court without any confirmation of value. Yang Youshu. Moreover, the high-value properties supported by the bills and other evidence submitted by me, such as pianos, cabinets, color TVs, processing machines, blood pressure machines, stereos, boilers, etc., although Yang Youshu admitted in court that they existed, the court of first instance only relied on Yang Youshu's sentence. "Among these things, the boiler was included in the construction of 1.218 million yuan, and the other things were lost and gone." They were never traced again. Moreover, after checking the relevant construction contract, the subject matter of the contract is clearly stipulated in the scope of contract: the main body and decoration. The entire contract does not and cannot include boilers and other equipment (on the contrary, there is a separate contract and contractor for the purchase and installation of boilers, and I have provided this evidence). As for other items such as pianos, Yang Youshu admitted their existence and provided the relevant bills himself. The fact that their property exists and their value cannot be arbitrarily erased just because Yang Youshu said "lost, gone".
Therefore, Tang Xinghua’s behavior of not mentioning this high-value property in the judgment was contrary to the impartial stance of the People’s Court.
At the same time, Tang Xinghua claimed that both Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu recognized that the present value of the above-mentioned property is zero, citing factors such as Beijing Youshu Medical Clinic's failure to complete the planning approval procedures, increasing rental land rents, and the inability to promote the patent. It is inconsistent with the facts and unfair. Although the value-added space of the property is limited due to the aforementioned reasons, Fan Yuhua will never accept the statement that its value is zero, because the husband and wife paid the same amount for the construction of the building and the acquisition of the relevant land use rights. The consideration and cost of the property should of course form part of the present value of the building and the land beneath it. If its value is zero, why didn't Yang Youshu give up its right to use it, and why didn't Tang Xinghua award it to Fan Yuhua? Therefore, the so-called statement that all parties agree that its value is zero is just a manifestation of Judge Tang Xinghua’s unfair stance.
To sum up, Fan Yuhua believes that Tang Xinghua’s property division in this case was seriously unfair, which led to the unfair result that Yang Youshu received more of the couple’s total property of about 2.04 million yuan than Fan Yuhua. For details, please see the attachments: List of property division values ??and Attachments 1, 2 and 3 of the original judgment.
2. Judge Tang Xinghua violated the mandatory provisions of my country’s Marriage Law and took an unfair stance
Article 36 of the “Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates: “After divorce, Parents still have the rights and obligations to raise and educate their children.”
Article 37 stipulates: “After divorce, for the children raised by one party, the other party shall bear part of the necessary living expenses and education expenses. Or all of them."
Article 39 stipulates: "In the event of divorce, the spouses' separate property shall be handled by agreement; if an agreement cannot be reached, the people's court shall take care of the children and children according to the specific circumstances of the property. "Fan Yuhua was misled by her attorney to give up her request for Yang Youshu to bear child support, but I believe that Yang Youshu's cancer is not a reason for him to avoid his legal obligation to support his children. What’s more, Tang Xinghua’s property is now over RMB 3 million, and even if the retrial court supports his claim for a fair division of property, the property under his name is still over RMB 1.7 million, and he will not be liable for a mere ten thousand yuan. Tens of thousands of child support payments affect his medical treatment or life. What's more, according to the certificate issued by Jingdong Sino-American Hospital submitted by Yang Youshu himself, Yang Youshu's later treatment costs were approximately RMB 500,000. Regardless of whether the certificate accepted by Tang Xinghua is true or not, it at least shows that the legal obligation to support the children will not be Affecting Yang Youshu's treatment and living standards. However, in order to protect the interests of one party, Judge Tang Xinghua ignored the provisions of the mandatory law and made excuses to support him in evading legal obligations. His position is very unfair!
2. Judge Tang Xinghua’s judgment violated the principle of party autonomy and ruled outside the parties’ requests. The procedure was seriously illegal.
As for the two valid patents under Yang Youshu's name, when Fan Yuhua asked for the assessment to be included in the joint property of the couple during the marriage, Yang Youshu and his agent said they were worthless and were unwilling to transfer them. Its valuation is included in the divided property. At Fan Yuhua's insistence, Yang Youshu made it clear in court that he would give up these two patent rights and transfer their ownership to Fan Yuhua. This shows that the parties have already reached a division agreement on the content of the dispute, and it has been recorded by the court, which is an expression of the true intentions of both parties. It should be said that there is no dispute between the two parties about the ownership of this intangible asset, and there is no need to submit it as a petition to the court for ruling. However, in the ninth item of its judgment, the court of first instance ruled on this part of the property beyond the parties’ intentions and claims, and awarded it to Yang Youshu, and it failed to pass the value appraisal (although Fan Yuhua clearly stated at the first instance that she requested appraisal and was willing to do so). Pay the relevant assessment fees in advance). And Tang Xinghua really pretended not to see it! !
3. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court did not clearly identify the facts and made illegal decisions
1. Yang Youshu’s marital infidelity was the core fact that caused the divorce between Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu.
However, the court of first instance still refused to recognize the relevant facts even after Fan Yuhua submitted a large amount of documentary evidence (letters, diagnosis certificates) and physical evidence (photos, laboratory receipts, medical cards) that could reflect that Yang Youshu lived with others and had children. Judge Tang Xinghua’s reason was simply: " Because the witness did not appear in court to be questioned by the parties, Fan Yuhua believed that the reason given by Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court was an unfair judgment, because Yang Youshu did not submit witness testimony on this fact, nor did he ask the witness to appear in court to testify, and all the evidence he provided was false. I, Fan Yuhua, investigated and discovered the documentary and physical evidence. Although Judge Tang Xinghua asked Fan Yuhua on the spot whether Liu Wei, who had an illegal sexual relationship with Yang Youshu, could be allowed to appear in court to testify, the evidence was obtained when Fan Yuhua learned that Liu Wei had arrived in Beijing and found the rental house where he and Yang Youshu lived together to catch him. , only Yang Youshu was present at that time, and Liu Wei had fled in haste. It was after this happened that Fan Yuhua decided to leave Yang Youshu. Under such circumstances, how could Fan Yuhua find Liu Wei, and how could Liu Wei, who was romantically opposed to Fan Yuhua, appear in court to testify at Fan Yuhua's request? Judge Tang Xinghua's request was unreasonable and was nothing more than making things difficult for Fan Yuhua. Moreover, neither the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" nor the "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation" of the Supreme People's Court have found that the parties have produced conclusive and sufficient physical and documentary evidence for their claims. Under such circumstances, there is still the obligation to provide witnesses to appear in court, and there is no requirement that a divorce case due to marital infidelity requires a third party outside the case to testify in court before it can be determined. I wonder what the legal basis is for Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court to refuse to identify the relevant facts even though Fan Yuhua submitted sufficient evidence for her claim? ! I, Fan Yuhua, believe that the evidence provided by me that a third party and Yang Youshu cohabited and had children has reached a certain and sufficient level. If Tang Xinghua still has questions, he can directly contact Liu Wei according to his authority and resolve them through a paternity test, or contact relevant insiders. Investigate or detect whether Yang Youshu knows Liu Wei. What's more, the relevant materials submitted by me, Fan Yuhua, include the phone numbers of six insiders, including herself and witnesses Dr. Ma, Master Jia, Wang Ping, and Zhang Wenxu, personally provided by Liu Wei. At the same time, Yang Youshu is also obliged to provide counter-evidence to Fan Yuhua's evidence. However, if the court does not exercise its authority and Yang Youshu cannot provide counter-evidence, the court should accept Fan Yuhua's evidence, and the court should confirm the facts of Fan Yuhua's claims. If Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court disqualifies Fan Yuhua’s evidence based solely on Yang Youshu’s denial, this is against the relevant legal provisions on evidence. Moreover, according to Article 79 of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation": "The people's court shall state in the judgment document the reasons for whether or not to accept the evidence." However, the court of first instance rejected the evidence submitted by Fan Yuhua that she lived together with Yang Youshu and had a child. The woman's autographed letters, confessions, photos, medical cards, diagnosis certificates and other evidence were not included in the explanation of the reasons for not being accepted; instead, she unilaterally condemned me, who had long since left Yang Youshu, for not fulfilling my duty of care and assistance to the sick Yang Youshu. This is a serious injustice on the part of Judge Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court. I, Fan Yuhua, believe that the fact that Judge Tang Xinghua did not confirm my claim that Yang Youshu was unfaithful in marriage means that the original court of this case did not clearly determine the facts. On this basis, the unfair judgment made by Tang Xinghua of the Tongzhou Court was a violation of the law.
2. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court did not clearly determine the facts regarding Yang Youshu’s so-called loan for medical treatment, and made a wrongful ruling.
Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court found that the fact that Yang Youshu borrowed a total of 810,000 yuan from Yang Derui, Chen Jifeng and Yang Wenshu was established based on the three IOUs issued by Yang Youshu. Fan Yuhua believed that Judge Tang Xinghua also had unclear facts regarding whether the loan relationship was established.
First of all, the three so-called borrowers are all collateral or direct blood relatives of Yang Youshu in the second generation. Among them, Yang Derui is Yang Youshu’s biological son, Chen Jifeng is his third daughter-in-law, and Yang Wenshu is Yang Youshu’s. Brothers.
Although the above three witnesses came to court to testify about the alleged fact that they borrowed money from Yang Youshu, according to Article 69 of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation": "The following evidence cannot alone be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case: ( 2) Testimony from witnesses who have an interest in one party or his agent. "The above three witnesses are all direct or collateral blood relatives of Yang Youshu, and they certainly have an "interest" relationship with Yang Youshu in this case. Of course, Yang Youshu has a "powerful" relationship, so his testimony or so-called IOU alone should not be accepted according to the rules of evidence in civil litigation, unless there is physical evidence such as bank transfer vouchers, withdrawal vouchers, or other disinterested witnesses to testify. However, Judge Tang Xinghua did insist on affirming the case. Therefore, I, Fan Yuhua, believe that the original court's decision was obviously a violation of the law.
Secondly, the three original IOUs presented in court were inconsistent with the copies submitted when the case was filed. Faced with questioning by my agent, Fan Yuhua, Yang Youshu and the witnesses also admitted in court that the originals and copies were inconsistent because The original documents were all added later (see pages 12 and 13 of the first-instance trial transcript). The reason for the later additions was said by witness Yang Fengshu because the original documents were lost. However, the first witness Yang Derui did not explain, but Judge Tang Xinghua also did not explain. No further questions. It can be seen from this that the purpose of these three IOUs goes without saying.
Again, only three of the four so-called IOUs that Yang Youshu borrowed for medical treatment appeared in court to testify. One of them, Yang Fengshu, appeared in court to testify, but one named Yang Wenshu did not appear in court to testify. However, the court did not confirm the fact that Yang Fengshu borrowed 30,000 yuan, but it determined that the IOU of Yang Wenshu, who did not appear in court to testify, was valid as evidence, and supported Yang Youshu’s claim and determined that his 60,000 yuan loan was valid. I don’t know that the court did this. What is the basis for inverting it? Is it just because Yang Wenshu advocated 60,000, while Yang Fengshu advocated only 30,000? This shows that Judge Tang Xinghua’s position is unfair.
Fourth, witness Chen Jifeng said that Yang Youshu borrowed the 450,000 yuan from him with the purpose of returning it to Yang Fenglan (see page 14 of the first-instance trial transcript), which is the same opinion as Yang Youshu (see first-instance trial transcript, page 13 Page). Since the money was returned to Yang Fenglan or used to repay Yang Fenglan, why did Yang Fenglan use this IOU to sue Yang Youshu in August 2007 to demand the return of the money? The only explanation is that the loan relationship was fictitious in the first place. However, the perjurer Yang Fenglan took advantage of the money and claimed the "right" against Yang Youshu based on the false IOU issued to him by Yang Youshu.
To sum up, Fan Yuhua believes that the four loan relationships are full of loopholes. The four so-called loans are just Yang Youshu forging debts in an attempt to achieve his illegal purpose of dividing the marital property.
To sum up the above, Judge Tang Xinghua was full of loopholes in the divorce case between Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu. The facts were seriously unclear, the procedures were seriously illegal, the position was seriously unfair, the judgment was seriously unfair, and the judgment was a violation of the law!
The crime of civil and administrative abuse of law refers to the serious conduct of judicial personnel who deliberately violate the facts and the law and make false judgments in civil and administrative trial activities. Article 399: Judicial staff engage in favoritism Anyone who bends the law, bends the law for favoritism, or intentionally violates facts and the law to make a wrongful judgment shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention; if the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than 10 years; if the circumstances are particularly serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years. In civil or administrative trial activities, those who deliberately violate the facts and the law and make wrongful judgments, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention; if the circumstances are particularly serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than 10 years. If a judicial official commits corruption and perverts the law, and commits the acts in the preceding two paragraphs, and at the same time constitutes a crime stipulated in Article 385 of this Law, he shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of heavier penalties. Standards for filing a case: The "Standards for Filing a Case" stipulates that a case should be filed if one of the following circumstances is suspected: 1. A violation of the law, causing property losses to citizens or major property losses to legal persons or other organizations; 2. A violation of the law, causing the parties and their relatives to commit suicide , disabled or mentally disturbed; 3. Forging relevant materials and evidence, creating a false case and perverting the law; 4. Colliding with the parties to create perjury, destroying evidence or tampering with trial records and perverting the law; 5. Other serious circumstances.
Standards for filing serious and extremely serious cases: The "Standards for Major and Extraordinary Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Infringement Directly Accepted for Investigation by the People's Procuratorate (Trial)" stipulates that (1) Major cases: 1. Wrongful judgment, resulting in property losses of more than 100,000 yuan to citizens, legal persons or other The organization's property losses exceed 500,000 yuan; 2. The judgment is made in violation of the law, causing mental disorder or serious injury to the parties and their relatives. (2) Extraordinary cases: 1. A wrongful judgment, causing property losses of more than 500,000 yuan to citizens and more than 1 million yuan to legal persons or other organizations; 2. Causing suicide and death of the parties and their relatives.
Tongzhou District Court Tang Xinghua’s illegal judgment of property division (possession) value comparison list
1. Property and value details of the judgment awarded to Fan Yuhua
1. Property 1 Total down payment of area plus repayment at the time of division (actual division amount)
Qiaozhuang North Street, Tongzhou District
86 square meters in Building 5, Qianlin Lijingyuan, 461,54610 yuan
p>
Room 801, Unit 4
2. A Blue Bird car (used for 6 years and 3 months, overhauled 3 times) Evaluated residual value: 23,000
3. Deposit of 210,000
Total: 387,600
2: Details of the property and value of the judgment awarded to Yang Youshu
1. The area of ??2 properties: Total The price has been repaid (actual division amount)
Ningjin County, Shandong Province 999.33 square meters 1.1 million 1.1 million
2. 50-year land use rights of 34 acres have been paid transfer fees of 210,000 , total usage fee of 92,000 for 4 years: 302,000
3. Above-ground building (clinic) 1,824 square meters construction investment (basic value): 1.5 million
4. Outpatient department Equipment (purchased in August 2004, see Appendix 2 for details)
Original value: 52,610 yuan 70 Depreciation value: 36,827 yuan
5. Boilers, computers, air conditioners, furniture, etc. ( See Appendix 3 for details) Total original value: 97,329 yuan
70 depreciation value: 68,130 yuan
Total: 3.007 million yuan
Three have not been judged but Yang Youshu Property transferred or actually possessed (Schedule 4)
8 computer therapy machines worth 160,000
2 freeze dryers worth 170,000, totaling 337,000 Depreciation value: 230,000 Yuan
4. Judgment of debts borne by Yang Youshu (authenticity not determined)
Yang Derui (his eldest son) 300,000, Chen Jifeng (his daughter-in-law) 450,000, Yang Wenshu (his brother) Total of 60,000***: 810,000
5. Total actual property divided (possessed) by Yang Youshu (the second item plus the third item minus the fourth item): 242.7 loss
6 , the original court's unfair judgment resulted in Yang Youshu sharing more property than Fan Yuhua. Total (the fifth item minus the first item):
Total: 2.04 million