The people of China, various media and websites are invited to forward and interpret it, and expose that the Yanshi court deliberately bent the law. Everyone is equal before the law, and no organization or individual has the privilege beyond the Constitution and the law.

Yanshi court (former presidents Ruan, Xian Zhi and Xu Chaoyang) regards itself as a special citizen outside the law? Openly perverting the law.

Wu Degan and Gu economic dispute case, Hei Hai case assigned by Yanshi court, the court are his sworn brothers. In order to get rid of Wu Degan, the black hand deliberately bent the law. Li Genle, an unqualified citizen, was hired for trial and left execution.

In 2003, Min 48 made an absurd judgment and rejected the plaintiff's claim, which was beyond the scope of the plaintiff's claim. Wu De, who perverts the law and decides that there is no illegal fault, shall bear the responsibility.

When the people's procuratorate protested, the lover Wu Degan did not bear the judgment responsibility of No.48 in the absurd civil judgment No.2005 13, and the retrial did not allow the people's procuratorate to participate in the trial. On the basis of revocation, Wu Degan was intentionally injured by maintaining the judgment beyond the scope.

Execution, beyond the scope of the judgment, violates the second and fourth items of Article 250 of the Enforcement Law. All the property of Wudegan Coal Pellet Factory and the property of the computer room will be kept until 15 years.

Governing the country according to law; It has been fourteen years since the Yanshi court made absurd judgments, executed absurdly and deliberately bent the law to frame Wu Degan. The French Open has been restored, the Yanshi Court has neglected its duties and perverted the law, Wu Degan complained, Luoyang Intermediate People's Court upheld it, and the High Court rejected it. Will the party discipline and state law really get out of control?

First, Yanshi court openly perverted the law and entrapped Wu De's factual evidence;

1, plaintiff gu v defendant Wu Degan's case of non-payment of rent for breach of contract,

Request; Make land available, compensate for losses,

2. Counterclaim the plaintiff Wu Degan, counterclaim the defendant Gu's request to block the entrance of the briquette factory without authorization and cause losses due to infringement; Compensation.

Yanshi court held a hearing; We believe that the land contract signed by the plaintiff Gu and the eighth villagers' group in Yaogou Village is valid. The plaintiff Gu subcontracted part of the contracted land to Wu Degan without the consent of the villagers' group, which violated the law. Its behavior is invalid, so the losses caused are at your own risk. Gu, the plaintiff, blocked the gate of Wudegan Coal Pellet Factory without authorization and acted improperly. However, the defendant Wu Degan illegally operated the briquette factory without a business license, and changed the land use. His income was illegal and not protected by law, so his request for compensation for losses was not supported.

Pang Yanmin Zi Chu's Civil Judgment No.48 of 2003 is as follows:

1. The land subcontract between plaintiff Gu and defendant Wu Degan is invalid.

2. Defendant Wu De was limited to returning the 0.5 mu of land used to the plaintiff within 20 days after the judgment came into effect.

Third, reject the plaintiff's concern for rent,

4. Reject the counterclaim of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) Wu Degan.

The trial distorted the law; 1. The plaintiff Gu violated the legal provisions, and Wu De, who ruled that there was no fault, was liable.

2. Yanshi court is deceptive. Does plaintiff Gu have a second lawsuit?

3. Reject the claims of the two plaintiffs, and there is no responsibility between the original defendants.

Yanshi court has no right to judge Wu Degan to bear the responsibility of Article 2.

The civil protest No.92 (2003) and the judgment No.48 (Minzi) are beyond the scope of the plaintiff's claim and violate the trial principle, and the plaintiff should not bear the responsibility.

In 2005, Luo Min ruled in the civil ruling No.96 that Yanshi Court would retry and during the period of suspension would execute the original judgment.

In 2005, Yan Min Zaizno. 13, retrial perverts the law, and procuratorate personnel are not allowed to participate in court proceedings. (Procedural violation) The first article of the original judgment is revoked, and the second, third and fourth articles of the judgment beyond the scope of the plaintiff's appeal are maintained.

According to the provisions of the trial principles, Yan Min was acquitted. 2005 13 does not belong to the scope of the procuratorate's protest. No procuratorate personnel participated in the court proceedings. Yanshi court has no jurisdiction to hear.

2. Evidence that Yanshi Court has perverted the law and injured Wu Degan for fifteen years;

Execute the people's word [2003] No.48 judgment, II. (Defendant Wu De is limited to returning the used 0.5 mu of land to the plaintiff within 20 days after the judgment comes into effect) refers to withdrawing from the land, sending someone to the person subjected to execution according to law, and the Yanshi court will keep it in place and detain it, refusing to take the machinery, equipment and daily necessities of Wu De Dry Coal Pellet Factory for more than ten years. 2005. 1. 18. The court refused to grant Wu Degan the right of execution, and the property was destroyed and rotted.

1, evidence; The property registration record of March 16, 2004 proves that this execution violates the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Law. When the execution is carried out, the person subjected to execution shall be notified to be present, and if the person subjected to execution is a legal person or other organization, the legal representative or principal responsible person shall be notified to be present. Those who refuse to be present will not affect the execution.

According to the records of property right registration; The court did not inform the adult family members of the person subjected to execution, nor did it inform the representative or principal responsible person to be present to check the property.

2. evidence; The execution record of March 16, 2004 proves that the property forcibly moved out of the house or land in violation of Item 4 of Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Law was sent to the designated place by the people's court and handed over to the person subjected to execution. If the person subjected to execution is a citizen, he may also give it to his adult family members. The losses caused by the refusal shall be borne by the person subjected to execution.

Yanshi court didn't send someone to transport it, nor did it give it to adult family members. But stay where you are and take care of it. Without the permission of the court, Wu Degan may not enter the briquette plant or deprive Wu Degan of his legal rights.

To sum up; Bold, Guo Dongxin, the trial court of Yanshi Court, judge rules, trial principles, laws and regulations, he dared to trample on, deliberately bending the law to harm Wu Degan. Is it really impossible for national laws to take him?

Yanshi court so, after the judgment, execution. All the property of Wu Degan's coal ball factory machinery and equipment room belongs to the plaintiff, absurd judgment, absurd execution, legal justice, where is the power of the people! Defending rights according to law has failed for more than ten years, where is the party discipline and state law?

Requests, personnel and media forwarding; Unscramble and expose the perverted behavior of Yanshi court. Safeguard the dignity of party discipline and state law and uphold justice.

I am here to convey

China people, media,

Wu Degan, Dongpang Village, Pangcun Town, Yibin, Luolong City, Luoyang City.

Telephone number (1522557551) (13949286241)

Published on 20 17 10.

The evidence is attached; Plaintiff Gu's claim, counterclaiming plaintiff Wu Degan's claim, (2003) Minzi No.48 judgment. (2004) Luo Jian Kangminzi No.92 Civil Protest, (2005) Luo Min Zaizi No.76 Civil Ruling, (2005) Yan Min Zaizi No.0/3 Judgment. (2008) Yu Fa Shen Min's promise. (2009) Award of Luo Min ZaiziNo. 1 140. 102 final judgment, (20 1 1) Yu Fa Shen Min's promise. 00 199 refusal notice,