Li Qiaochu: Record of My Second Visit to the Supreme People's Court to Submit Petition Materials

Today, March 26, 2026， Attorney Li and I came to the Supreme People's Court for the second time to submit petition materials。 The first time we submitted materials， after reviewing them, the judge in the reception room on the second floor said, “Personally, I think the possibility of a retrial is low,” and returned the materials to us， saying, “You can come back in three months， a different judge may have a different opinion， or it may still be me”。 After saying this, the judge sent us away， without accepting the materials or providing any written opinion， which meant that the petition procedure was never initiated。 After returning that day, we mailed a written petition and related materials to the Supreme People's Court， and more than three months have passed， but the materials are still under review， and the petition has not yet been docketed。 At the same time, I also mailed a complaint concerning the judge's unlawful conduct in the reception room， but after it was signed for, it disappeared without a trace。

So today we came for the second time， attempting to submit the materials in person and inquire about the progress。 Today, we first filled out the “Repeat-Visit Personnel Registration Form” on the first floor， and when we reached Reception Room 206 on the second floor， we immediately saw that it was the same judge as last time。 The judge said that he had no impression of us at all， and asked whether we needed to change judges。 Attorney Li said：“We prepared further regarding the questions you raised last time， so there is no need to change judges， you reviewed our case last time， and this way we do not have to start from the beginning。” The judge pulled up the record from December 4, 2025, on his computer， and said that he had written down all the key points of our petition last time。 He then asked whether the lawyer could provide the case-file materials， saying that he needed to check my statements in the case-file transcripts and make a judgment based on the facts。

Attorney Li described the difficulty of reviewing the case file during the proceedings：“Because the case was classified， we were not allowed to make copies during the first-instance trial， and could only transcribe key points。 When we petitioned the Shandong Provincial High Court， we were not even allowed to transcribe them， and could only look at them with our eyes， forcing ourselves to memorize more than 200 pages of case files， so this has truly been very difficult for us。” After hearing this, the judge expressed understanding and said：“Then wait for the court here to apply to retrieve the case file， because as for the factual basis， I cannot verify what you say out of thin air。 Ours is a society governed by the rule of law; we have to look at the evidence。” When we asked when the case file could be retrieved， the judge said it was difficult to estimate and suggested that we return to the Supreme People's Court in three months to inquire about the progress。 Finally, we confirmed with the judge whether he would accept the petition and related materials we had brought this time？ The judge said that he could see all the materials we had mailed in the system。

While waiting in the lobby， we exchanged “experiences” with the people around us， all of whom had come nearly 10 times， and I was deeply moved： People need, from the depths of their hearts, for justice to exist in this world， need the innocent to ultimately receive redress， and need the guilty to ultimately be punished。 But my experiences over the past several years have not given me such solace。 Yet I know that the meaning of perseverance is not to point to one's wounds and seek sympathy， but to bravely and firmly face adversity、 to remain unyielding throughout the petition process、 and to stand forthrightly by the truth。 And we will always believe in kindness， love， friendship, and the feeling of relying on one another。

Appendix： Record of My First Visit to the Supreme People's Court to Petition on Constitution Day, December 4, 2025

On Constitution Day, December 4, 2025， Attorney Li and I went to the petition-filing hall of the Supreme People's Court to submit materials for a criminal petition。

We first filled out the 《First-Visit Personnel Registration Form》 at a window on the first floor， and after the staff entered our basic information， they arranged for us to take our petition materials to Room 206 on the second floor to meet with a judge。

In the reception room， we submitted the petition and all the evidence to the judge。 After reviewing all the materials， the judge listened to our account of the circumstances。 Throughout the process, the judge repeatedly emphasized that our claim of procedural violations was “unsupported by anything but words,” while “the court's judgment has a factual basis”。 The lawyer responded： The case file could not be copied， and when we petitioned the provincial high court, we were not even allowed to transcribe it。

Moreover, we had already submitted relatively compelling evidence of procedural violations， including： evidence that the courts handling both the first- and second-instance proceedings in the case unlawfully deprived Attorney Li Guopei of her right to conduct a defense， but that the second-instance ruling was nevertheless served on Attorney Li and required her to sign a proof of service； and the purchase receipt for my gold-colored Microsoft laptop（proving that the purchase date had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged time of the “crime”）。

Afterward， the judge returned the petition and related materials to us through the window and said：“I have read your petition, and I have a general understanding of what you and the lawyer reported。 I can only say that the possibility of a retrial is low， though of course this is only my personal view and opinion。 If you do not agree with what I have said， you can come back in three months to submit the materials， perhaps another judge will have a different view， or perhaps it will still be me。” The lawyer followed up：“If we come back in three months, and after the materials are returned we come back again three months later to submit them, when will there be a final disposition of the petition？” The judge replied：“It is also possible that after the materials have been submitted several times, if the judge feels that the possibility of a retrial is low, he will not look at them again。”

The lawyer repeatedly emphasized that the petition met the requirements： the judgment had taken effect， and there was a dismissal decision from the provincial high court， so under the procedure we had the right to petition the Supreme People's Court。 The petition materials we submitted complied with the provisions of the judicial interpretations and therefore should have been accepted。 The judge responded：“This is not a matter of your saying something and that making it so。”

Afterward, the lawyer and I repeatedly requested that the judge issue a written receipt in accordance with the law， and the judge said：“There isn't one。” The judge then emphasized that we had already taken up an hour and should leave as soon as possible so as not to delay the people waiting in line behind us。

Ultimately， our petition materials were returned and we received no written document whatsoever（no receipt、no dismissal decision、and no written explanation of any kind）， meaning that the petition effectively never entered any procedure。 The judge also did not give his name or identification number at any point， and there was no identification displayed at the scene， so we did not know who was handling the matter and were unable to effectively exercise the legal right to remedy granted to us。