Criminal Petition Against the Third Conviction of Wuxi Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin

Criminal Petition

Petitioner: Shen Aibin, male, Han Chinese, born on October 15, 1973, Chinese citizen identity card number 320201197310154018, residing at Room 202, No. 53 Guangyi Jiayuan, Liangxi District, Wuxi City. Telephone: 17348228687.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the legally wrongful judgment No. (2022) Su 0213 Xing Chu 873 and the legally wrongful ruling No. (2023) Su 02 Xing Zhong 338 issued by Judges Wu Wei, Li Peng and Xia Yan of the Wuxi Liangxi District People’s Court and Judges Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong and Yang Liu of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court in a naked and deliberate manner contrary to the facts and law, and dissatisfied with the Notification of Rejection of Petition No. (2025) Su 02 Xing Shen 40 issued by Niu Zhaoxiang, Li Hailin and Guo Jiguang of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court, hereby files a petition with the Wuxi People’s Procuratorate.

Petition Requests:

1. Conduct a comprehensive, objective, open and fair review of the entire case in accordance with law, organize a public hearing in accordance with law, and lodge a protest in accordance with law;

2. Transfer to the relevant functional organs or departments for handling the acts of favoritism and the perversion of justice deliberately committed by the first- and second-instance judges in rendering legally wrongful judgments during the handling of the original case, as discovered during the examination and review of this petition.

Facts and Grounds

This case was deliberately initiated by Xu Nuo, director of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau; deputy director Zheng Bangxian; Shen Qi, head of the Legal Affairs Brigade; Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Brigade; Wu Deyue, head of Guangyi Police Station; and Han Dawei, political instructor, for the sake of political-stability performance. They first treated the petitioner’s alleged “posting content inciting others to petition on mobile-phone WeChat” as the criminal facts and opened a criminal case for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. After a carefully planned conspiracy to coerce the petitioner into submission through gang-like methods failed, they urgently changed the alleged facts to “fabricating false information and disseminating it over information networks,” transferred the case for prosecution review as online picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and finally had the case manufactured through a chain involving the public security, procuratorial and judicial organs, by Zhang Zhen, former deputy secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the CPC Wuxi Municipal Committee and vice-mayor of Wuxi concurrently serving as director of the Municipal Public Security Bureau (currently removed from office pending investigation), through favoritism and the perversion of justice.

This case is a blatant case of favoritism and the perversion of justice, judicial corruption and abuse of power and persecution, manufactured by the black-and-evil judicial scoundrels of Wuxi for the purpose of retaliation and entrapment and by means of legally wrongful adjudication. It is ironclad evidence of opposing the central authorities, placing themselves above the law, professing compliance while secretly acting otherwise, deceiving those above and below, acting despite warnings, and being two-faced.

The facts established in this case are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the law was incorrectly applied. It is a case of abuse of power and persecution involving the deliberate distortion of facts and abuse of the law. Details follow:

I. Statutory Provisions Cited by the Judgments as the Legal Basis for Conviction

1. Article 293, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China: Whoever commits any of the following acts of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, thereby disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or public surveillance:

(4) Creating a disturbance in a public place, causing serious disorder in the public place.

The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

(1) The criminal conduct punishable under this provision is “creating a disturbance”; the place of the crime is a “public place”; and the prosecution threshold, namely the harmful consequence, is “causing serious disorder in a public place.”

(2) The criminal subject under this provision is the “person creating a disturbance”; the criminal conduct is the conduct of the “person creating a disturbance” in a “public place” to “create a disturbance”; and the criminal consequence is that the conduct of “creating a disturbance” by the “person creating a disturbance” “causes serious disorder in public order.” Moreover, the place where the conduct of “creating a disturbance” occurs and the place where “serious disorder in public order” is caused must be the same place.

(3) To constitute this crime, the person creating a disturbance must possess the subjective-motive element set out in the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble (Fa Shi [2013] No. 18).

(4) To constitute this crime, the prosecution threshold prescribed in Article 8 of the Supplementary Provisions on the Provisions on the Standards for Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (I), issued by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security, must also be met.

2. Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases Involving Defamation and Other Crimes Committed through Information Networks (Fa Shi [2013] No. 21): Whoever fabricates false information, or knowingly disseminates fabricated false information over an information network, or organizes or instructs personnel to disseminate it over an information network, creates a disturbance and causes serious disorder in public order shall be convicted and punished for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble in accordance with Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law.

The following understandings can be drawn from this provision:

(1) This judicial interpretation extends the conduct of “creating a disturbance” in a “public place” under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law to an “information network.” The core conduct is “creating a disturbance,” meaning that conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on an information network is brought within the scope of liability.

(2) The information disseminated over an information network must not only be false information; it must also be fabricated false information.

All information inconsistent with objective facts is false information. According to how it is formed, it can be divided into naturally formed false information and fabricated false information.

Naturally formed false information is a factual description inconsistent with objective facts that people make about persons, matters or things around them in daily life because of misunderstandings, insufficient knowledge, memory errors, distortion in transmission, incomplete information, errors in reasoning or judgment, and other reasons. Such information is generated through miscommunication and misunderstanding. Dissemination of it does not constitute a crime, regardless of where it occurs.

Fabricated false information, first, has the attributes of “inventing something out of nothing, fabricating out of thin air, and making things up,” as expressed by the words “fabricate.” This is the subjective attribute of the formation of false information. Fabricated false information is a factual description deliberately “fabricated” by the actor that is inconsistent with objective facts; it is an objective fact fabricated for the purpose of deceiving or harming others.

(3) Merely fabricating false information, without disseminating the fabricated false information over an information network, does not constitute a crime.

(4) The fabricated false information disseminated over an information network may have been fabricated by the disseminator or by another person. However, when disseminating false information fabricated by another person, the disseminator must subjectively “know that it is fabricated false information.”

(5) The disseminator may disseminate the information directly over an information network, or may organize or instruct personnel to disseminate it.

(6) After disseminating fabricated false information, the disseminator must also carry out conduct of “creating a disturbance” on the same information network, and this must be done by the disseminator personally, because the provision does not stipulate “or organize or instruct personnel to create a disturbance.”

3. Difference from Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law:

Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law does not require the subsequent commission of conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” after dissemination.

Article 291-1, paragraph 1: [Crime of Placing False Dangerous Substances] [Crime of Fabricating or Intentionally Disseminating False Terrorist Information] Whoever places fake explosive, toxic, radioactive or infectious-disease pathogen substances, or fabricates terrorist information such as bomb threats, biochemical threats or radiation threats, or knowingly and intentionally disseminates fabricated terrorist information, seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or public surveillance; anyone causing serious consequences shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years.

Article 291-1, paragraph 2: [Crime of Fabricating or Intentionally Disseminating False Information] Whoever fabricates false information concerning dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters or police matters and disseminates it over an information network or other media, or knowingly and intentionally disseminates such false information over an information network or other media, seriously disrupting social order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance; anyone causing serious consequences shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.

It can thus be seen that the “fabricated false information” referred to in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 means false information other than that covered by Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law—namely, information other than “terrorist information” and information concerning “dangerous situations, epidemics, disasters or police matters.” By comparison, this type of information is less harmful. Mere dissemination over an information network does not create social harm; conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” must be carried out after dissemination before the prosecution threshold of “causing serious disorder in public order” can possibly be met.

(7) The legally prescribed cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” must be conduct constituting “creating a disturbance.” If there is no conduct constituting “creating a disturbance,” there necessarily cannot be a harmful result consisting of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

(8) “Causing serious disorder in public order” must be proved by evidence. Whether the serious disorder is in cyberspace or in real physical space, objective evidence must prove it; otherwise, the prosecution threshold is not met.

(9) An eligible criminal subject must be a person who successively committed “two acts”: first “disseminating” fabricated false information over an information network, and then carrying out conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on that information network. If there was no dissemination, or if the person merely disseminated information without carrying out conduct constituting “creating a disturbance,” no crime is constituted, and there necessarily cannot be the harmful result required for prosecution of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

II. The Facts Established in This Case Are Wrong and the Evidence Is Insufficient; Conduct That Clearly Does Not Constitute Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble Was Deliberately and Wrongfully Determined to Be Criminal Conduct, Creating a Miscarriage of Justice and Subjecting the Petitioner to Abuse of Power and Persecution.

Criminal facts charged in this case: Between 2019 and 2021, defendant Shen Aibin fabricated false information that he had been falsely accused and framed, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation, and extensively disseminated it on multiple information-network platforms including The Epoch Times, I Love China and Rights Defense Network, causing serious disorder in public order.

Explanation:

In this petition, “networks involved in the case” refers to overseas online media outlets (websites), including The Epoch Times, I Love China and Rights Defense Network, identified by the prosecuting authority as the information networks on which the false information involved in the case was disseminated.

In this petition, “information involved in the case” refers to the “fabricated false information” alleged by the prosecuting authority, namely “information that he had been falsely accused and framed, that his daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him, and that he had suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation.”

(I) The evidence is insufficient for the judgments to establish that the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks was disseminated by the petitioner. The petitioner is not an eligible criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted in accordance with law.

Prosecutor Wang Lei expressly stated during the trial: “We know that the defendant did not have the ability to post this information on these overseas websites.”

Presiding Judge Wu Wei expressly stated during the trial: “Based on the identity determination made by the public security organs by comparing the electronic data in the computer with the photographs, audio, video and other materials used in the overseas reports, the relevant reports are objectively identical and related to Shen Aibin. This evidence proves the connection between the relevant overseas reports and Shen Aibin; it does not prove that you posted them, but proves the identity of the images, videos and audio” (recorded on page 18, ninth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript). He also stated: “The prosecutor has made clear that you could not have posted it on overseas websites, but its source was your computer” (recorded on page 46, eighth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript).

Under the provisions cited by the judgments as the legal basis for conviction, the eligible criminal subject in this case must be the person who disseminated the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks involved in the case.

The first-instance prosecutor and presiding judge both admitted during the trial that the information involved in the case on the overseas online media was not posted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not an eligible criminal subject in this case and should be acquitted in accordance with law.

(II) The judgments produced no evidence proving that the petitioner carried out conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on the overseas websites where the information involved in the case was disseminated.

It was not until he obtained the indictment that the petitioner learned that information concerning his experiences had been posted on these overseas online media outlets (websites). Before that, the petitioner had no knowledge of it at all, much less had he engaged in any conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on these online media outlets. Nor do the judgments contain evidence proving that the petitioner engaged in such conduct on these online media outlets.

In order to abuse the statutory provision, the second-instance ruling actually treated the petitioner’s communications with others on WeChat as “creating a disturbance.” This is an error in determining the facts and an error in applying the law. Even if there had been conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on WeChat, it could not be treated as the “creating a disturbance” prescribed in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21. The conduct prescribed in that provision must be carried out on the information network where the fabricated false information was disseminated.

(III) The evidence is insufficient for the judgments to establish that the information involved in the case disseminated on the information networks involved in the case “caused serious disorder in public order.” It does not meet the legal prosecution threshold and does not constitute a crime.

First, the legally prescribed cause of “causing serious disorder in public order” is conduct constituting “creating a disturbance.” Since no one in this case carried out such conduct on the information networks involved in the case, it follows that there could not have been a harmful consequence of “causing serious disorder in public order.”

The criminal conduct convicted under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law is “creating a disturbance” in a public place. Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 extends the conduct of “creating a disturbance” in physical space under Article 293, paragraph 1, item (4), of the Criminal Law to virtual online space. Therefore, the criminal conduct in information-network space must also be “creating a disturbance.”

From the difference between Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 and Article 291-1 of the Criminal Law, it can be determined that the criminal conduct convicted under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 must be “creating a disturbance.”

Second, the judgments contain no evidence proving that the overseas information networks involved in the case caused “serious disorder in public order” because the information involved in the case was disseminated on them.

According to the meaning of the law, “serious disorder in public order” includes serious disorder in the order of virtual cyberspace and in the order of real physical space.

The judgments contain neither evidence proving that dissemination of the information involved in the case caused serious disorder on the virtual information network (namely, the overseas online media involved in the case), whether in its underlying technical order or system functions—such as server crashes, data congestion or inability to access the site—nor evidence proving that dissemination of the information involved in the case on the information network caused panic, flight or large-scale gatherings among the public in physical space, resulting in loss of control of social-management and social-life order, such as major traffic paralysis, loss of function of large venues, mass incidents and panic (crowd disturbances, panic and stampedes, or illegal gatherings), obstruction of important activities and facilities, or waste of government resources.

Moreover, all the information networks involved in this case are overseas online media outlets (websites). Investigative organs have no authority to determine whether order on an overseas website was seriously disrupted, unless they obtain certificates and evidence issued by the overseas online media outlet.

The judgments nevertheless treated the number of clicks and reposts of the information involved in the case on overseas networks as the standard for determining that it “caused serious disorder in public order.” This is an error in applying the law.

Click and view counts and repost counts are one of the circumstances under Article 2, item (1), of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21 for determining that the “circumstances are serious” under Article 246, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law [the crimes of insult and defamation]. Moreover, click rates should be calculated after “deduplication,” meaning “unique visitors” (UV), rather than being statistically calculated according to page views (PV).

In this case, none of the investigative, prosecutorial or judicial organs performed deduplicated calculations of the number of clicks on the information involved in the case on overseas networks, which the investigative organs unlawfully obtained.

(IV) The evidence is insufficient for the judgments to establish that the information involved in the case on the information networks involved in the case “originated from the petitioner’s computer.”

The judgments state that some of the photographs and text, as well as a video clip, among the information involved in the case posted on the overseas networks involved in the case were identified by the Wuxi Public Security Bureau Institute of Forensic Evidence as completely identical to material stored on the computer in the petitioner’s home, and therefore determine that the information involved in the case on the information networks “originated from the petitioner’s computer.”

First, during the trial the petitioner repeatedly stressed: “I do not know where the information involved in the case on the networks came from. The photographs and text on my computer were written and produced by others and sent to WeChat groups. I thought they were good, so I downloaded and saved them from the WeChat groups. The video was filmed by me and then saved to my computer, but after filming it I sent it to all the WeChat groups.” This proves that the source of the photographs and text was WeChat groups, and that the video had already circulated in the various groups. Thus, the photographs, text and video had already been disseminated to unspecified persons, and were not obtained and saved only by the petitioner.

Second, the photographs and text were downloaded and saved by the petitioner from WeChat groups. Their true source was group members, who may themselves have obtained them from members of other WeChat groups. The same text and photographs circulated in various groups, and their data characteristics did not change after group members downloaded and saved them. Therefore, it was not only the petitioner’s computer that contained photographs and text whose characteristics were completely identical to those in the information involved in the case on the networks. If any group member saved the photographs and text, they too would have characteristics completely identical to those in the content involved in the case on the networks. Merely because the photographs and text on the petitioner’s computer had characteristics completely identical to those in the information involved in the case, it cannot be determined that they originated from the petitioner’s computer. The evidence is not reliable or sufficient, reasonable doubt cannot be excluded, and the conclusion is neither unique nor certain.

Third, although the video was filmed by the petitioner himself, he posted it in the various groups immediately after filming it. The possibility that group members forwarded, collected, downloaded and saved it cannot be excluded. Although the Wuxi Public Security Bureau Institute of Forensic Evidence confirmed that the video in the information involved in the case was completely identical to the video on the petitioner’s computer, it was also completely identical to the video collected and downloaded by all group members. Therefore, the fact that the video in the information involved in the case was completely identical to the video on the petitioner’s computer cannot by itself establish that the information involved in the case on the information networks originated from the petitioner’s computer. This determination does not exclude reasonable doubt, the conclusion lacks unique certainty, and the expert conclusion is not reliable or sufficient evidence.

(V) The evidence is insufficient for the judgments to establish that the information involved in the case was fabricated by the petitioner.

During the trial, the petitioner repeatedly stressed: “Although my computer contained material identical or similar to the information involved in the case, it consisted entirely of material I sent to various WeChat groups. Group members (including public-security, procuratorial and judicial personnel, lawyers, legal workers and rights defenders) reached conclusions through comprehensive analysis of the judgments, evidentiary materials and other material. They determined that the case involving my conviction for intentional destruction of property was a case of favoritism and the perversion of justice, judicial corruption and abuse of power and persecution deliberately manufactured by the judicial scoundrels of Wuxi through deliberate distortion of facts and abuse of the law; that the second case was a miscarriage of justice manufactured through favoritism and the perversion of justice by the Huishan public-security, procuratorial and judicial authorities acting as a chain, and was a typical case of judicial corruption and abuse of power and persecution; and that the information about my minor daughter suffering retaliatory persecution and being sentenced was also a conclusion reached by group members through comprehensive analysis of the case materials. I thought their analysis made sense, so I accepted and believed it and saved their analysis and conclusions on my computer.”

The judgments determined solely because the petitioner’s computer contained material identical or similar to the information involved in the case that the information on the information networks originated from his computer. This determination does not accord with common sense or logic, and the possibility that other group members disseminated it cannot be excluded.

Although the petitioner accepted the group members’ conclusions and used them in his petitions and complaints, the content did not originate with the petitioner; it originated from the collective analytical conclusions of group members. Therefore, the judgments’ determination that the information involved in the case was fabricated by the petitioner is based on evidence that is unreliable and insufficient, and the conclusion lacks unique certainty.

(VI) The judgments’ determination that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information” is an error in determining the facts and in characterization, treating “subjective cognition” as “false facts.”

Although the judgments determine that the information involved in the case on the networks was fabricated by the petitioner and that the evidence that it originated with him is insufficient, the charged characterization—that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information”—is, as far as the petitioner is concerned, an error in determining the facts and in characterization. It is in fact a deliberate distortion of facts and abuse of the law intended to retaliate against and frame the petitioner.

1. Objective facts that the petitioner has experienced

For the petitioner, he has personally experienced the following objective facts:

(1) The petitioner himself has been sentenced twice: the first time, the Binhu Court sentenced him for intentional destruction of property; the second time, the Huishan Court sentenced him for picking quarrels and provoking trouble;

(2) The petitioner’s minor daughter has been sentenced;

(3) Extremely strong electromagnetic radiation and high-frequency sound waves appeared in the petitioner’s home;

(4) In addition to being sentenced twice, the petitioner has also been subjected to two criminal case filings. The first was on July 30, 2015 (on the eve of Army Day), when a case was filed against him on suspicion of obstructing official duties. The second was on September 3, 2019 (on the eve of the 70th anniversary of National Day), when a case was filed against him on suspicion of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Both cases were filed for political-stability purposes and both ultimately came to nothing;

(5) Since his release following his first sentence on March 12, 2015, the petitioner’s movements and communications have been tracked and monitored 24 hours a day. Friends around him have been threatened and intimidated by the public security authorities. His finances have been blocked, and the company he registered was also intimidated, harassed and forced to cancel its registration;

2. The petitioner expressed subjective cognitive judgments based on objective facts and feelings arising from his own experiences, namely his understanding, evaluation or judgment of those experiences.

Even if the information involved in the case was published by the petitioner, it was his subjective cognitive evaluation of his own experiences. Based on his own understanding and judgment, the petitioner expressed the view that his two sentences were cases of judicial corruption, false accusation and abuse of power and persecution deliberately planned and manufactured by the judicial scoundrels of Wuxi; that his minor daughter had suffered retaliatory persecution because of him; and that the extremely strong electromagnetic radiation appearing in his home was an attempt to harm him.

These statements constituted both the exercise of citizens’ freedom of speech under Article 35 of the Constitution and the exercise of citizens’ rights to criticize, make suggestions and supervise under Article 41 of the Constitution.

3. The judgments’ treatment of the petitioner’s subjective cognitive evaluation of his own experiences as fabricated false information is an error in characterization.

Objective facts: events that actually occurred and require evidentiary support;

Subjective cognition: an interested party’s understanding, evaluation or judgment of an event based on his own experiences and feelings, constituting a subjective evaluation or expression of opinion, to which right and wrong apply, but not truth and falsehood;

Fabricating false information: inventing out of thin air facts that do not exist at all, with the purpose of deceiving others or disrupting order, generally requiring proof that the person knew it was false but deliberately disseminated it;

Cognitive judgment: a subjective feeling arising from an interested party’s genuine experiences, and the person’s interpretation of what happened to him. Such feelings fall within the scope of freedom of speech or the right to petition and supervise. Even if the language is harsh, an evaluation based on a factual foundation does not constitute “fabrication.”

When this is considered together with the understanding of “fabricated false information” in Article 5, paragraph 2, of Fa Shi [2013] No. 21, it is clear that the error in the judgments is that they directly treated the petitioner’s subjective cognitive evaluation arising from real events he experienced as false facts fabricated out of thin air. This confuses “facts” with “opinions,” or “factual statements” with “expressions of opinion,” and is a typical error in determining the facts.

4. The judgments’ grounds for determining that the information involved in the case was “fabricated false information” are absurd and their logic is evil.

(1) The reason given by the judgments for determining that “the petitioner was falsely accused and framed, and his daughter suffered retaliatory persecution because of him” was fabricated false information was that all three cases (meaning the petitioner’s two convictions and his daughter’s one conviction, three cases in total) had been appealed and the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court had issued final, effective rulings.

First-instance presiding Judge Wu Wei stated during the trial: “‘The three cases’ have all taken legal effect. Your belief that there were errors is your subjective understanding. The judgments in the three cases have taken effect, and under the law, an effective judgment is correct” (recorded on page 34, sixth line from the bottom, of the trial transcript).

During the trial, presiding Judge Wu Wei also stated: “Under the provisions, matters confirmed by an effective judgment of a people’s court do not need to be proved by evidence.”

That is indeed so: what an effective judgment confirms does not require evidence to prove its legality and fairness. But does an interested party’s raising doubts about an effective judgment and expressing doubts about the legality and fairness of its decision constitute fabricating false information?

How evil is this! How evil are the legal principles and logic!

Indeed, under the law, an effective judgment is correct. However, the law does not prohibit an interested party from questioning the legality and fairness of an effective judgment and expressing a subjective cognitive evaluation of it. On the contrary, as a matter of legal principle, not all effective judgments are necessarily lawful and fair. If all effective judgments were lawful and fair, why would the law establish an “adjudication-supervision procedure,” and why would it grant interested parties the right to petition against judgments that have already taken effect?

(2) The judgments’ reason for determining that “he suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation” was fabricated false information was: “Without ruling out other possibilities, he said that someone was using electromagnetic radiation against him and even pinned the blame on the authorities.”

The trial transcript clearly records prosecutor Wang Lei as saying: “Shen Aibin did not understand where the false information lay. The falsehood alleged by the prosecutor is the electromagnetic-radiation persecution described by Shen Aibin; the key point is the persecution. Without ruling out other possibilities, he said that someone was using electromagnetic radiation against him and even pinned the blame on the authorities.”

Under the Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates, the burden of proof in a public-prosecution case rests with the prosecuting authority. Since the prosecutor determined that “the petitioner suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation” was false information, the prosecutor had the duty to prove that the petitioner had not suffered electromagnetic radiation, or had suffered electromagnetic radiation but that it was not caused by public power and was not persecution. This is a statutory duty. Yet the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof to the petitioner and actually required him to “rule out other possibilities.”

Statement: To date, no public authority has intervened to investigate the electromagnetic radiation appearing in the petitioner’s home. To evade responsibility, the judicial scoundrels instructed the Wuxi Ecology and Environment Bureau and the Liangxi District Ecology and Environment Bureau to issue false certificates, and instructed the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau to issue false police-incident records. They will all ultimately be held accountable.

Since no public authority investigated the electromagnetic radiation appearing in the petitioner’s home, what was the basis for the prosecutor’s determination that “the petitioner suffered persecution through electromagnetic radiation” (moreover, the petitioner did not see the expression “persecution through electromagnetic radiation” online, only statements about an attempt to harm him)? This determination lacks a factual and legal basis.

5. The “fabricated false information” determined by the judgments was in fact objective fact, not false information, and even less was it fabricated. The petitioner has conclusive evidence.

The petitioner has sufficient facts and grounds to prove that his first sentence by the Binhu Court was not only a legally wrongful judgment, but also a judicial-corruption case and abuse-of-power and persecution case deliberately and carefully manufactured by people. The Wuxi Intermediate Court informed the petitioner that this was an “internal request-for-instructions case.” The essence of the case was to wrongfully determine that the petitioner’s acts of emergency avoidance and courageous conduct in helping others constituted intentional destruction of property. No power or influence can conceal this; the case file is ironclad evidence.

The petitioner also has evidence proving that his second sentence by the Huishan Court was a blatant case of favoritism and the perversion of justice manufactured by the Wuxi Public Security Bureau’s State Security Detachment in collusion with former petitioner Ding Hongfen, on the premise that State Security police officer Deng Yongfeng fabricated medical records to falsely accuse and frame him, through the manufacture of the illegal “consultation opinion” and false expert opinion, and finally through a legally wrongful judgment. It was an abuse-of-power and persecution case deliberately and carefully planned and manufactured by people, and I have conclusive evidence. However, the black-and-evil public power in Wuxi is currently buying off personnel working at higher levels everywhere, secretly defaming, vilifying and slandering me, and enticing and corrupting some senior officials with economic benefits, resulting in my inability to successfully petition to date.

The sentencing of the petitioner’s minor daughter was an even more typical case of retaliatory persecution. A series of circumstances—including unlawful case filing, unlawful submission for approval of arrest, and unlawful determination of facts—as well as the letter issued by the Liangxi District Justice Bureau to the investigative authorities concerning the strict confidentiality of the investigation and assessment opinion on Shen Jiayi, further confirm that the case was triggered by the petitioner. Because of the petitioner, the investigative authorities turned (or manipulated) an ordinary civil dispute into a criminal case. The case file is also ironclad evidence, which no power or influence can conceal or change.

III. The Litigation Procedures Were Unlawful, Seriously Affecting a Fair Trial

(I) Serious violations of the investigative procedure

1. The criminal facts determined by the judgments were never “filed” or investigated by the investigative authorities

On May 14, 2020, the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau filed a case for picking quarrels and provoking trouble on the basis of the criminal facts that the petitioner had “posted information inciting others to petition on mobile-phone WeChat,” and imposed residential surveillance as a coercive measure. On November 16 of the same year, this was changed to release on bail pending trial.

On June 25, 2021, the petitioner was again criminally detained for 30 days, and on July 24 was again released on bail pending trial.

On March 6, 2022, the petitioner was again criminally detained for 30 days. In order to subject the petitioner to closed detention, certain judicial scoundrels of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau unlawfully designated the case to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Public Security Bureau. When the petitioner was released from the Wuxi Detention Center on April 5, he was taken directly to “Fontainebleau Villa” in Dingshan Town, Yixing City, to undergo residential surveillance at a designated location. The purpose was to exploit the petitioner’s lack of a fixed residence in Yixing to impose residential surveillance at a designated location and thereby detain, torture, abuse and beat him.

On September 26, 2022, the Yixing Public Security Bureau suddenly transferred the case to the Yixing People’s Procuratorate for prosecution review on the basis of the criminal facts that the petitioner had “disseminated fabricated false information over an information network.” Before this, no one had ever investigated with the petitioner the conduct of “disseminating fabricated false information over an information network.”

2. The case was unlawfully designated to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Public Security Bureau

Under Article 22 of the Provisions on the Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases, the prerequisite for designating jurisdiction is the existence of circumstances in which “jurisdiction is unclear or disputed” or “the circumstances are special.” This case met none of the legally prescribed circumstances for designated jurisdiction. The Wuxi Public Security Bureau exceeded the scope of the discretionary authority granted by law by designating the case to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Public Security Bureau, lacked the necessary legal conditions, and violated procedure.

The document designating jurisdiction presented at trial also failed to state the grounds for designated jurisdiction as required by law.

3. After the case was designated to the jurisdiction of the Yixing Public Security Bureau, it was instead handled by a “special case group” of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau. Therefore, all expert opinions issued by the Institute of Forensic Evidence of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau may not be used as evidence because the expert procedure was unlawful.

The case was initially filed by the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau. In order to subject the petitioner to closed detention, it was unlawfully designated to Yixing. However, under the Provisions on the Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases, after a case is designated to Yixing, the original Liangxi Public Security Branch may no longer participate in it.

Nevertheless, the Liangxi Branch participated throughout. Late at night on April 5, 2022, it took the petitioner from the Wuxi Detention Center to Yixing to undergo residential surveillance at a designated location. On April 25, Yang Hua, head of the Criminal Police Brigade of the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Municipal Bureau, and police officer Wang Xiaoming of Guangyi Police Station came to the residential-surveillance location, saying they wanted to “resolve the channel issue” for the petitioner. When the petitioner questioned the legality of their presence there, Yang Hua told him: “This case is now under the jurisdiction of the ‘special case group’ established by the Wuxi Public Security Bureau. The group leader is Director Zhang Zhen. If you object to the designated jurisdiction, you can report it to Leader Zhang (Zhen). We are only responsible for talking with you.” The residential-surveillance location was also guarded in rotation by police officers from Guangyi Police Station, and the special police were assigned by the special-police brigade of the Liangxi Branch.

Because this case was handled by the “special case group” of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau, none of the expert opinions issued by the Institute of Forensic Evidence of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau may be used as evidence. The evidence violates the principle of impartiality: the agency handling a case may not itself examine and accept evidence that it itself manufactured.

4. All information and other evidence concerning the overseas networks involved in the case collected through illegal means by the investigative authorities constitute illegal evidence and may not be accepted under law.

The investigative authorities’ method of collecting the information involved in the case from the overseas networks was unlawful. During the trial, when the prosecutor read out the source of the information on the overseas networks obtained by the investigative authorities, he said: “The investigative authorities collected it using bridge technology.” This collection method is an illegal act expressly prohibited by the state and violates Article 6 of the Administrative Measures for the Security Protection of Computer Information Network International Interconnection of the People’s Republic of China. It should be investigated and handled under Article 14 of those Measures. Therefore, evidence obtained through this illegal method should be excluded in accordance with law.

5. The investigative authorities altered and forged the Interrogation Transcripts

After the petitioner was placed under residential surveillance at a designated location in Yixing, Yang Hua separately took Wang Xiaoming, Shao Xuefeng and Zhu Chuang to Yixing to interrogate him. However, in the subsequent transcripts, the interrogators were all altered and replaced with people the petitioner did not know. This had three purposes: first, to conceal the Liangxi Branch’s continued illegal participation in the case; second, to conceal the handling of the case by the “special case group” established by the Wuxi Public Security Bureau; and third, to conceal the serious violations of the investigative procedure.

The dates of the forged transcripts were from April 25 to September 25, 2022. There were 14 transcripts in total, of which only four were genuine: the interrogation transcripts of Shao Xuefeng and Lü Da on May 9 and 11, 2022, and the two interrogations by Yang Hua and Zhu Chuang on September 24 and 25. These were also the final two interrogations, and they are sufficient to prove that I was interrogated by the “special case group” of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau; otherwise, Yang Hua and Zhu Chuang had no authority to interrogate me. Of course, the transcripts also mentioned the “special case group.” The other 10 transcripts were all altered fabrications.

(II) The three judges on the second-instance collegiate panel had significant conflicts of interest in this case and were required by law to recuse themselves, but refused to do so.

The information involved in the case, namely the alleged “fabricated false information,” refers to information that the petitioner’s first sentence by the Binhu Court for intentional destruction of property was abuse-of-power persecution, that his second sentence by the Huishan Court for picking quarrels and provoking trouble was false accusation and entrapment, that his minor daughter’s sentence by the Liangxi Court for forcible indecency was retaliatory persecution, and that the petitioner was harmed through electromagnetic radiation. It therefore concerns information about the “three cases,” as well as information about an attempt to harm the petitioner through electromagnetic radiation, all of which was characterized as fabricated false information.

The core issue in this case should actually be whether the “fabricated false information” charged by the prosecuting authority was fabricated false information—in other words, whether the Binhu Court’s and Huishan Court’s judgments against the petitioner were fair and objective, and whether they constituted abuse-of-power persecution and false accusation and entrapment; and whether the judgment against the petitioner’s minor daughter constituted retaliatory persecution. The answer to these questions directly concerns whether the three second-instance judges committed favoritism and perversion of justice.

All three members of the second-instance collegiate panel in this case—Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong and Yang Liu—were first- or second-instance judges in the “three cases.” Gu Rongrong was a judge on the collegiate panel of the Huishan Court that sentenced the petitioner for picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Xu Haihong and Yang Liu were judges on the collegiate panels of the Wuxi Intermediate Court in the second-instance proceedings involving the petitioner and his daughter. Therefore, all the members of the collegiate panel had significant conflicts of interest in this case and were directly connected with its disputed issues.

During the second-instance proceedings, the petitioner submitted an Application for Recusal, but they refused to recuse themselves. Under the Criminal Procedure Law and the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the two second-instance judges should have recused themselves in accordance with law. Their failure to do so gave rise to suspicion of favoritism or legally wrongful adjudication.

The second-instance trial procedure seriously violated the law and deprived or restricted the petitioner’s statutory litigation rights. The ruling it issued has lost legal effect. Under Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Law, failure to recuse when recusal is required constitutes the serious procedural violation of “violating the recusal system” prescribed in Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Under Article 463 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the case should also be retried.

IV. This Case Is a Judicial-Corruption and Abuse-of-Power and Persecution Case Carefully Planned and Manufactured by the Judicial Scoundrels of Wuxi to Retaliate Against the Petitioner, a Case of Favoritism and the Perversion of Justice, and a Blatant Case of Legally Wrongful Adjudication. Details follow:

(I) They knew that the information involved in the case on the overseas networks was not disseminated by the petitioner.

The indictment expressly states that the information involved in the case was “disseminated” on online media such as The Epoch Times, proving that the prosecuting authority subjectively knew that the information on the overseas networks was not disseminated by the petitioner. The prosecutor and presiding judge also confirmed during the trial that it was not disseminated by the petitioner, while the legally eligible criminal subject must be the person who disseminated the information on the overseas information networks.

(II) They knew that the petitioner had not carried out conduct constituting “creating a disturbance” on the overseas information networks involved in the case;

(III) They knew that the information involved in the case on the overseas information networks had not produced the harmful result required for prosecution of “causing serious disorder in public order”;

(IV) They knew that the information involved in the case did not legally constitute “fabricated false information”;

(V) They knew that the photographs, text and video information saved on the petitioner’s computer could not by themselves establish that the photographs, text and video used in the information involved in the case had been provided by the petitioner merely because their data characteristics were identical;

(VI) They knew that the petitioner had not engaged in conduct constituting “creating a disturbance,” yet treated his communications with others on WeChat as such conduct (as determined in the second-instance ruling);

(VII) They knew that the information involved in the case on the information networks was not disseminated by the petitioner, but in order to maliciously frame him, they determined that the information on the networks was disseminated by the petitioner on the grounds that he admitted during trial that he had “previously posted content on WeChat that was identical or similar to the information involved in the case.” Yet they provided no evidence showing when, on which WeChat account, or what content the petitioner posted, or when and by whom that content was forwarded to the information networks involved in the case. Their efforts were truly elaborate.

It can be seen from the foregoing that the prosecutor and the first- and second-instance judges knew that the “criminal facts” charged were not, as a matter of law, the legally prescribed criminal facts of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. Nevertheless, in order to subject the petitioner to abuse of power and persecution, they openly abused their authority, deliberately distorted facts and abused the law. They first wrongfully determined that conduct wholly unrelated to the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble constituted that crime, and then, through evil logic, pinned this “wrongfully determined criminal conduct” on the petitioner. The baseness of their methods, viciousness of their intentions and evil nature of their logic are obvious. It would not be excessive to say that these black-and-evil judicial scoundrels deserve the extermination of nine generations! The case file is ironclad evidence, and no power or influence can conceal it!

This case is a typical abuse-of-power and persecution case, involving mainly the following unlawful circumstances:

1. The judgments incorrectly determined the facts and incorrectly applied the law;

2. The evidence relied upon to decide the case was unreliable and insufficient;

3. The litigation procedures prescribed by law were violated, seriously affecting a fair trial;

4. The judicial personnel engaged in legally wrongful adjudication while hearing the case.

Under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People’s Procuratorates and the Provisions of the People’s Procuratorate on Handling Criminal Petitions, the Wuxi People’s Procuratorate is requested to follow the principles for handling criminal petitions, conduct a comprehensive, objective and fair review in accordance with law, hear the petitioner’s opinions in accordance with law, organize a public hearing, expose and correct this case of favoritism and the perversion of justice carefully planned and manufactured by certain judicial scoundrels in Wuxi, lodge a protest in accordance with law, safeguard judicial fairness, uphold the dignity of the law, protect the petitioner’s lawful rights and interests, and support the central authorities’ governance of the country according to law. At the same time, please transfer to the relevant authorities for handling the acts of abuse of power and deliberate violations of the facts and law in rendering legally wrongful judgments through favoritism and the perversion of justice by relevant personnel during the handling of this case, as discovered while handling the criminal petition.

List of Wrongdoers in the Case of Favoritism and the Perversion of Justice:

Zhang Qin, Wang Lei and Li Tongyuan are prosecutors from the Liangxi District People’s Procuratorate of Wuxi who appeared in court to prosecute;

Wu Wei, Li Peng and Xia Yan are judges on the first-instance collegiate panel of the Liangxi District People’s Court;

Gu Rongrong, Xu Haihong and Yang Liu are judges on the second-instance collegiate panel of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court;

Niu Zhaoxiang, Li Hailin and Guo Jiguang are judges on the retrial collegiate panel of the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court.

To:

Wuxi People’s Procuratorate

Petitioner:

Date:

Attachments:

1. One copy of the first-instance judgment;

2. One copy of the Wuxi Intermediate Court’s Notification of Rejection of Petition;

3. One copy of the petitioner’s identity card.

Note: The second-instance ruling cannot be provided because it was abusively withheld by the Liangxi Branch of the Wuxi Public Security Bureau. Please obtain it by retrieving the complete case materials in accordance with law.