What is meant by third-party infringement

There is usually a confusion among those who study criminal procedure jurisprudence: in the process of maintaining the implementation of procedural law, why is it possible to exclude an illegally obtained evidence of guilt, even at the expense of indulging in crime? The essence of this question is to exclude illegal evidence, resulting in the substantive law is not implemented. But is procedural law naturally superior and justified? Can substantive law be sacrificed in order to realize procedural law? To cite an example, there was a very sensational case of DU Peiwu a few years ago, which exposed a lot of problems. One of the biggest problems is the issue of extorting confessions through torture. When Du Peiwu was being tried by the Kunming Intermediate Court in Yunnan Province, he twice claimed that he had been coerced into making a confession under torture and asked the Court to exclude illegally obtained confessions. In the courtroom, Du Peiwu and his lawyers cooperated very well, the first time in court to the court to undress, showing the body's tired scars, public outcry, the court adjourned. The defense lawyer lost no time in asking the court to investigate whether torture to extract confessions had occurred, and if so, the confessions should be excluded. Two months after the adjournment, the case resumed. This time Du Peiwu wore a trench coat, the court session when it was his turn to speak, he drew from the waist of the bloody clothes, that is, a bloody shirt, and the court alleged that this is the police torture to force confessions caused by the request for DNA testing of the bloody clothes. In this case, the judge said that the issue had little to do with the case and that the prosecution and defense did not need to dwell on it. Despite the fact that the defendant was found guilty in both the first and second trials, the case proved to be a wrongful conviction, the real murderer was caught, and the two police officers who extracted the confession under torture were eventually sentenced. What impression does this case give us? Perhaps the judges of the Intermediate Court in Kunming, Yunnan Province, when discussing this case, might say: Is it because you have been tortured that the court has to indulge your criminal behavior? Is the essence of this question the fact that an evidence can be excluded in order to uphold the dignity of procedural law, as mentioned earlier, leading to the indulgence of crime and even the destruction of substantive law? Perhaps, this question will never be answered. After all, it is impossible to say which is better or worse, criminal law or criminal procedure law. Sometimes the criminal law is of higher value, for example, a criminal who kills people and provokes public anger, it is unreasonable not to impose the death penalty. But sometimes procedural law is so important that it is hard to say which is better or worse. Today, China's criminal procedure law is arbitrarily trampled, there are three reasons: First, the criminal procedure lacks the content of the right, from Roman law, the West has been such a proverb: no right (right) there is no program, the life of the program lies in the right, there is no right for the connotation of the program is a bunch of technical rules. If there is no citizen's rights as its connotation, the criminal procedure law and household appliances manual is almost the same, if the criminal procedure law becomes the instruction manual, it is not called law. So, behind the procedure are the rights of the citizens. This is a basic point of view, but many of our current procedures do not include rights. Secondly, China's procedural law tends to emphasize the form of the procedural rules, while ignoring the substantive value of the procedures. Many procedures at a glance belong to a kind of technical steps, ways, or even flow into a series of practical formalities. In a word, our procedure lacks its value content. In particular, the content of justice. Thirdly, the reason why our procedure has been questioned as to why it cannot be violated lies in the absence of provisions on legal liability for violation. When the criminal law is violated, the consequence is a penalty. Even the dumbest ruler knows that the criminal law cannot be written in such a way that murder is strictly prohibited, arson is strictly prohibited, and uselessness is strictly prohibited. In the past, when Liu Bang and Xiang Yu fought for the world, Liu Bang entered Xianyang earlier than Xiang Yu, and there was the famous covenant: "Death to murderers". Although the four words are very primitive, but with the basic elements of criminal law, "murderer", the crime constitutes also, "death", the penalty also. Liu Bang did not give orders such as "strictly prohibit killing" and so on, because he knew that "strictly prohibit killing" is just a slogan, not useful for stopping murderous behavior. We used to say that we should firmly implement the family planning policy, which was written on the wall, but what if you violated it, there were no legal consequences. Therefore, even the clumsiest legislator knows that criminal liability should have penal provisions, and the whole theory of criminal law is a combination of the theory of crime and the theory of penalty. On the contrary, if you look at the entire Criminal Procedure Law, you will find that it is filled with a large number of slogans and declarations, such as "torture is strictly prohibited to extort confessions," "witnesses must appear in court to testify," "the defendant has the right to a defense," and so on. ", and so on. But the crux of the problem lies in what to do if the confession is extorted by torture? Witnesses should appear in court does not appear in court how to do? What about the deprivation of the right to defense? For these questions, the Criminal Procedure Law does not make any clear provisions. Therefore, from the point of view of the logical composition of the law, the entire criminal procedure law lacks precisely the sanctioning rules or legal consequences of the provisions. In fact, behind the criminal procedure, there are a series of civil rights elements. And all kinds of different forms of procedural violations, whether it is overdue detention, torture to extort confessions, violation of the rights of lawyers or the impairment of fair trial, in fact, is nothing but a special kind of public **** infringement, that is, the police, prosecutors, judges arbitrarily infringe on the basic rights of the suspect, the defendant's behavior. Some of the violations of these procedural offenses belong to civil rights in the general sense, while others directly trample on the constitutional rights of citizens. Articles 37 to 40 of the Chinese Constitution provide for a series of citizens' personal rights, such as inviolability of human dignity, freedom from arbitrary restriction of personal liberty, freedom of communication and freedom from arbitrary search and seizure. It is conceivable that other private citizens may restrict or even commit serious violations of these constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens. However, the greatest violators of these rights may not be citizens in general, but rather state agencies with various public * * * powers. In particular, in criminal proceedings, the investigative behavior of police and prosecutors, especially the coercive measures of deprivation of personal liberty and compulsory investigative behavior enjoyed in the process of investigation, are more likely to cause serious threats and violations of these constitutional rights. Because it is very simple, the investigative organs of detention, arrest is often the biggest threat to the personal freedom of citizens, the police search, seizure, wiretapping is the biggest violation of citizens' home secrets, communication secrets and even personal privacy, and the kind of secret custodial interrogation is enough to constitute a serious violation of citizens' human dignity! If the police, the prosecutor's investigative power and prosecution of all effective constraints, then, the citizens of the above constitutional rights to be arbitrarily trampled on the possibility of will always exist, the criminal procedure in the public *** infringement and even constitutional infringement of the chances of happening will always be very large! Because of this, the criminal procedure law as the practice of "human rights law" and the constitution of the "applicable law", it is necessary to the suspect, the defendant's constitutional rights to make a more complete protection, and in these constitutional rights are violated to provide adequate judicial The "applicable law" of the suspect and the accused requires more complete protection of the constitutional rights of the suspect and the accused, and adequate judicial relief when these constitutional rights are violated. To this extent, we can say that the criminal procedure is not a simple technical formality, but with a clear content of rights and value elements; police, prosecutors, judges for the proceedings are not only a formal violation of the law, but with a clear public *** infringement of the nature of the infringement of the constitution. Therefore, for should be in order to exclude an illegal evidence without sacrificing the indulgence of crime this question, we may as well transform it into this question: is it in order to fight crime can destroy the Constitution? In order to solve a case can violate the constitutional rights of a citizen? If the former question can be transformed into the latter two questions, then the criminal procedure law will have a solid legal basis. But unfortunately, China's current criminal procedure law is still basically a system of technical rules dependent on the criminal law, not only does not have too much rights content, but also with the image of the Constitution's safeguard law is very far, and can not provide effective remedy for the constitutional rights of citizens. First, the criminal procedure law is a dynamic constitution, is a living human rights law, this is one of my basic views. In the past, those who engaged in constitutional law ignored sectoral laws, thinking that constitutional law should mainly study the configuration of various national public **** powers, such as the relationship between the legislative, judicial and executive powers, and the relationship between the central and local authorities. These studies are of course very meaningful and necessary to carry out. However, there is also a large and extremely important area of constitutional law, that is, the relationship between public **** power and individual rights, especially in the occasion of public **** power institutions to violate, deprive the individual rights, what kind of limitations the former should be subjected to. Western scholars usually refer to this area as "human rights law". However, in view of the fact that the most serious violations of human rights often come from the public authorities, this kind of human rights law is in fact an integral part of the Constitution. From this point of view, the criminal procedure law and administrative law are precisely the laws that regulate the relationship between the public power of the State and the rights of the individual, and belong to human rights law in the constitutional sense. This is because the most serious violations of citizens' constitutional rights occur in the field of administrative law and criminal procedure law, where administrative penalties in administrative law and the abuse of investigative powers in criminal procedure law ultimately violate citizens' constitutional rights. Arbitrary searches, arbitrary detention, arrest and custody ultimately violate the constitutional freedoms of citizens. Until today, we discuss the problem of prolonged detention remains above a technical level. In fact, the essence of prolonged detention should be unlawful detention, that is, the outstanding detention behavior of police and prosecutors violates the constitutional rights of suspects and defendants. However, scholars of criminal procedure law seldom examine this issue from a constitutional perspective and tend to treat him as a technical issue. Some judges are likely to say this, what is so great about prolonged detention, I prolonged detention of suspects for three or four months, but a case was completed, punished a perpetrator, the social effect is obvious, this prolonged detention and what is wrong with it? It is without the constitution as the support of the criminal procedure law, as a solid foundation for the proceedings, and also due to the lack of a complete human rights law to connect the constitution and criminal law, our today's criminal procedure law will only be in the state of dispensable, and there will not be any legal consequences after the violation. At present, China's criminal procedure jurisprudence is facing a series of theoretical problems that are difficult to solve, such as why the rights of defendants and suspects should be relieved, why procedural violations should be sanctioned, and why confessions obtained by torture should be excluded, etc. The answer is simple: these procedural problems should be solved in a timely manner. In fact, the answer is very simple: these procedural offenses violate the constitutional rights of citizens, violate the constitutional order, and undermine the foundation of the rule of law, and therefore cannot be tolerated in order to combat crime in individual cases and undermine the Constitution. The Constitution, as the fundamental law, is the foundation of the rule of law in the country and cannot be undermined. Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Code is a dynamic constitution and a human rights law. Secondly, a large number of rights stipulated in the criminal procedure law can be directly transformed into constitutional rights. The first ten amendments to the U.S. federal constitution were made Bills of Rights, the bill of rights provides nearly twenty rights belong to the citizens in the state's criminal charges are enjoying the basic rights, such as obtaining bail, jury trial, speedy trial, access to defense and other rights. Even in the United States, criminal proceedings can be directly called constitutional criminal procedure. When I visited Yale Law School last year, I found that the criminal procedure law of the United States is to a large extent not a mere sectoral law, but a branch of the United States Constitution. Even the exclusionary rule, which seems to be purely a matter of the criminal procedure system, is regarded as an extremely important constitutional issue. In contrast, in China's criminal procedure law, a large number of defendants' rights have not been transformed into constitutional rights, such as the right to be tried by a neutral court, the right to be confronted with witnesses, the right to present witnesses and evidence of one's own side, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, and the right not to be subjected to double jeopardy for a single act, etc., which are all still regarded as pure criminal procedure rights or "principles of criminal procedure". "principles of criminal procedure" without any substantial connection with constitutional rights. As a result, these rights can neither be called constitutional nor have access to effective judicial remedies. Take for example the right to a fair trial. A fair trial is said to be the intermediary and bridge for all human rights and is also known as the right to be heard. In human rights law, the right of appeal is called the first human right. If you are willing to do comparative law research, you can take a look at Chapter 1 of the German Basic Law and Chapter 2 of the Chinese Constitution. Both of them stipulate the basic rights of citizens, and some of them are even listed in greater detail in the Chinese Constitution. However, there are two provisions of the German Basic Law that are not found in the Chinese Constitution: first, when the rights of the citizens provided for are violated, there must be an express authorization in the law; and second, when the state public *** authority violates the rights of the citizens, it must do so within the range provided for by the law. These two provisions are also known in public law as the principles of legality and proportionality, and the principles of legality and proportionality of crime and punishment are the embodiment of this principle in criminal law. However, this principle is not found in the Chinese Constitution, which is considered to be a wonderful piece of paper with people's rights written on it, but none of which can be turned into living and remediable rights. Three or four years ago, constitutional scholars in China were still discussing whether the constitution was to regulate the citizens or the state power, and were still arguing about the basis of the constitution. Because the 82nd Constitution also provides that "no person or organization may violate the personal freedom of citizens", which seems to indicate that the behavior of individual citizens is also regulated by the Constitution. However, we believe that the object of the Constitution is not individuals and organizations, but the public power of the state, and it is the vigilance and constraint of the public power. The Constitution regulates the relationship between public power and public authority as well as the relationship between public power and private rights. The violation of citizens by the state's public power is the greatest threat. However, our Constitution does not make any provision for the principles of legality and proportionality to be followed in the case of infringement of private rights by public *** power. Certainly, under the provisions of the German Basic Law, all civil rights, once violated by the public * * * power of the state, entitle any violated person to apply to a neutral judicial body for a neutral judicial remedy and an opportunity for a fair hearing. There is also no provision in our Constitution for this right of petition clause. It is conceivable that, with regard to the deprivation of civil rights by the public * * * authority of the state, we have neither physically limited the scope and boundaries of the public * * * authority, nor procedurally constrained the process and manner in which the public authority is exercised. Under such circumstances, can private rights still be upheld? Obviously not. So the conclusion is that once the rights of the defendant in a criminal prosecution cannot be elevated to a constitutional right, it will certainly become rootless, without foundation, and it will be difficult to obtain constitutional relief and full respect. It will be difficult to answer the eternal dilemma - can a suspect be indulged in committing a crime in order to preserve his fundamental rights? No one can answer this question. Thirdly, the constitution must be justiciable. Violations of the constitution must be transformed into litigation proceedings as the basis for adjudication, or else the constitution is just a declaration on paper. Unconstitutional review broadly consists of two major categories: one is the adjudication of disputes between public power and public authority. In a country governed by the rule of law, all political, religious, and social issues can be transformed into legal issues. The second category is the resolution of disputes between public power and private rights. This occurs when citizens should also be given the opportunity to take their cases to constitutional adjudicating bodies after ordinary judicial remedies have been exhausted. A complete and mature state governed by the rule of law should allow citizens to take violations of their constitutional rights to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court. And without unconstitutional review, all constitutional rights are difficult to obtain the last judicial remedy. Second, out of the epistemological misunderstanding, the introduction of value theory below the second issue, out of the epistemological misunderstanding, the introduction of value theory. Today, scholars of criminal procedural law often with criminal law scholars together to discuss issues. We are surprised to find: the most conservative law scholars are not in the criminal law community, and in the criminal procedure law, criminal procedure law so far, there are still people adhere to the truth, find the truth, not in vain these epistemological significance of the concept of the 14th century in France, there is a notorious investigating judge, often on the implementation of the suspect's brutal acts of torture to force confessions, his famous saying is "for the truth! He famously said, "For the sake of the truth, I will do whatever it takes. China's Criminal Procedure Law often expresses the notion of seeking the truth from facts, not to be wronged, not to be indulged, and to correct any mistakes. This reminds me of the horrific system of killing corpses for death practiced by the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th century. This is the ancient version of seeking truth from facts and rectifying mistakes, which is indeed bloody, full of cruelty and inhumanity. It is conceivable that if we insist on the principle of rectification of mistakes, do we still have to abide by the statute of limitations system? The existence of the statute of limitations system emphasizes the humanity of the criminal law and the moderation of the state's penalties. But the statute of limitations system is actually advocating "the facts can not seek the truth", because since the real perpetrator was found after the fact, then just because the legal period of recourse has passed, no longer pursued criminal responsibility, this is not against the principle of rectification of mistakes? It seems, but we need to seek truth from facts, there is a mistake must be corrected this epistemological principle for righteousness in-depth reflection. First, in order to achieve a desirable outcome of the proceedings, the criminal procedure and process will have to be ignored. From the philosophical epistemology, any activity has an ideal goal, not achieved that is a failure, and all the means to achieve this goal and set up the process are in a subsidiary position. As a result, any behavior that contributes to the discovery of the truth is desirable and justified, and any behavior that hinders the discovery of the truth is unjustified and undesirable. However, since ancient Rome, almost all the reform of the litigation system seems to guarantee the discovery of the truth of the case has nothing to do, and even a lot of litigation principles and institutional design is to hinder the discovery of the truth. Such as the right to silence, is equivalent to let the defendant has the right to anti-investigation; evidence exclusion rules, is equivalent to a large number of evidence that will help to discover the truth of the matter will be discarded; witness testimony immunity system, is equivalent to allow specific witnesses because of kinship and professional relations and refused to provide evidence. As an example, in the past, arguing the defense system, some law scholars believe that the defense system embodies the dialectical materialism epistemology of the law of unity of opposites, the prosecution and defense finally reached a high degree of unity. But as we all know, the lawyer defense defense of the highest state of innocence, the defense is to find the facts in favor of the defendant, so that the defendant escapes the net of law, then the duty of the defense attorney is to find the truth, or cover up the truth? In fact, to be precise, the basis for the existence of the defense system is not to discover the truth, but to protect the interests of the accused. But this interest is often in direct contradiction to the truth. Therefore, almost no civilized defence system has the discovery of the truth as its direct goal. In ancient Rome, there are two proverbs of the law of evidence, one is "whoever claims, whoever gives evidence". From the point of view of litigation law, the claimant's ability to litigate is too poor, in civil litigation, it is too normal to have reason to win the case. But from the epistemological point of view, "reasonable not win the case", it seems too inconsistent with reason. Secondly, "all the evidence in court to support the existence and truth", "no evidence to support the non-existence". Then what is meant by truth? What is supported by evidence is the truth, otherwise it is not the truth. But this statement violates the basic principles of philosophical epistemology ah. According to the basic principles of epistemology, the truth exists objectively and is not subject to human will. But this is a philosophical concept that cannot be applied to litigation. In reality, there is insufficient evidence to dare to be found not guilty and to be sent back for retrial. Chengde, Hebei Province, there was a case of four farmers robbed, killed cab drivers, the case in 1994, the court of first instance sentenced to death, the Hebei Higher People's Court for three consecutive times to play reaffirmation, and in the last remanded for a retrial of the implied, I hope that the court of first instance to do "leave room for the verdict". The Chengde Intermediate Court understood this and sentenced two people to death, one to a suspended death sentence and one to life imprisonment, with the benefit of the doubt. It can be seen, in order to find the truth of the endless criminal prosecution activities undermine the justice of the process, undermining the civilization of the process, resulting in a lot of modern litigation system rules can not be introduced into China's three major procedural law. It can be said that the biggest theoretical obstacle to China's evidence legislation today is epistemology, the philosophy of seeking truth from facts and discovering the truth. It is a kind of philosophical perfectionism that makes the ideal result replace the civilized process of handling cases. After all, almost all civilized litigation systems are not conducive to the discovery of the truth, or even impede the discovery of the truth, and what this truth conceals is the arbitrariness of the state's crime-fighting efforts and the actuality of the arbitrary abuse of the state's penal power. Secondly, under the influence of epistemology, proof activities in litigation need to reach an unrealistic maximum standard, which results in the litigation proof activities do not exist at all an operable standard of proof. As for the standard of proof, the three major procedural laws of China have the expressions of "clear facts" and "sufficient evidence". Last year, I introduced China's criminal procedure law to American scholars and students at Yale Law School, and I found it difficult to translate this phrase: The fact is clear, the evidence is enough, is this a standard of proof? This can only be an abstract ideal goal. This standard of proof is set too high, has been high to the point that do not want the standard, in English, the goal is called goal, the standard is standard, the two are not a concept, can not be mixed, otherwise equal to no standard. So the Chinese line of procedural law will prove that the standard is set too high, actually lead to practice does not exist in Fenhe operable standard. So far, about the objective truth, the legal real problem, many people are discussing, can not be solved because there is no get rid of the influence of this theory. What makes us feel sad is that many young scholars forget that legal science seeks the science of justice, not the science of truth, and still look at the problem with the theory of epistemology. Epistemology undermines justice. Broadly speaking, the truth is an objective fact, belongs to the epistemological category, justice, justice is the category of value theory, the two emphasis on different priorities. The most ideal state is to discover the truth and realize justice, but often encountered is the truth can not be found, how to do, is it necessary to unlimited discovery of the truth, allowing the Procuratorate unlimited withdrawal of charges, of course, can not. Many people have a misunderstanding of the relationship between truth and justice, one is to discover the truth to damage the process, often can not achieve justice, resulting in injustice. I myself have a deep understanding of what the best weapon to discover the truth is, is to try to obtain the defendant's guilty confession. It can be said that obtaining a confession is a shortcut to discovering the truth. But even if the goal of the truth has been achieved, justice will still be jeopardized if the means of obtaining the truth are unlawful and unjust. In addition, the realization of justice often does not presuppose the truth; justice must be realized even in the absence of the truth, which is the true meaning of procedural law and a manifestation of procedural consciousness. In the interest of time, I will now summarize this issue. This discourse of epistemology has lost its legitimacy in today's China and has become an obstacle to the reform of our litigation system and the establishment of a theory of rules of evidence. There are two major obstacles to our judicial reform today, one from the system and the other from the epistemology. Get rid of the epistemology, need to introduce a new set of theories, I call process theory, procedural justice theory is part of it, not all. Study of the judicial process should have a process consciousness, our litigation activities first appeared in front of us is the process, is the process of justice, not the result of justice, the result arises in the process, can not be separated from the proper process, this is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man's biggest difference. A former Justice Douglas of the United States famously said that by far the greatest distinction between the rule of law and the arbitrary rule of man lies in the process. The British legal historian, Mr. John Mayne, once said that the hallmark of human progress was "from identity to contract". I would say that Mayne was speaking more in the area of private law. In fact, in the field of public law, the greatest sign of human progress so far is "from result to process", that is to say, from concern for results and conclusions to concern for process and procedure. Even justice, which is concerned with results, has to emerge from the process, and cannot bypass the process of justice to produce conclusions. But scholars who insist on epistemology have only results in their eyes, ignoring the proper legal process. It is precisely the proper legal process, procedural justice, and fair trial that determines the difference between the rule of law and a society ruled by man. This is also the reason why the criminal procedure law is more closely linked to the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the means and opportunities to fight for their rights in the face of the trampling of constitutional rights by public power. Finally, whether studying the rules of evidence, or the three major lawsuits and the review of unconstitutionality, it is important to have a basic value concept, and to view the litigation activities as two processes: one is the process of realizing and choosing the value of the law, and the other is the process of realizing the law itself. Truth cannot be substituted for value selection. Epistemology cannot solve this problem. In addition, litigation is the process of realizing the law, our second instance procedure exists in name only, in form, because it is regarded as continue to discover the truth of the activity, the second instance should be towards the legal trial. A recent trend in judicial reform to establish a legal trial, the establishment of the third trial, the death penalty review is also absorbed into the third trial, which has reached the **** understanding, to build the Supreme Court of the country's six branches, East China in Shanghai. The third trial is a legal trial, the two sides open debate, factual issues are no longer discussed. Uniform application of the law, to determine the standard, to ensure the uniform implementation of the law. So the appellate trial should be more towards a legal trial rather than a factual trial. This is the only way of China's judicial reform, the first thing to overcome is the epistemology, out of the epistemological misunderstanding, the introduction of the theory of value, the process of justice, the introduction of legal remedies. Third, the return of the litigation form of the following third issue, the return of the litigation form. Today's criminal procedure is not essentially litigation, a large number of phenomena show that China's investigation procedures, prosecution procedures and even trial procedures have not yet established a complete litigation form, but also stay in a kind of administrative way of punishment. The following definition of what is litigation. Civil litigation is the mother of litigation, is the origin of all litigation procedures, litigation activities essentially have two characteristics, one is to have a neutral third party, otherwise it is a naked administrative criminal activity. Civil litigation without a neutral third party, it is not litigation, may be a settlement activity, such as private. There is no third party to judge on behalf of the state, is arbitration. To have a third party on behalf of the state to exercise the right to adjudicate, this is the first essential features of litigation. Secondly, there must be a confrontation between the prosecution and the defense on an equal footing, otherwise it is not litigation either. In administrative punishment activities, the police punish a person, there is no equality, I punish, you are punished. Of course, in Western countries, administrative punishment has also changed, such as the United States Microsoft was accused of violating the federal law against unfair competition, it is said that the case has recently been mediated and closed, Microsoft exempted from the fate of being divided into three, but handed over a huge amount of compensation. The process was one in which the U.S. Federal Department of Justice went to federal court to sue Microsoft, rather than imposing penalties directly. Of course, this is a new type of system that can be called an "administrative contract", where you violate the contract and I sue you, through a form of litigation. If the Microsoft case had happened in China, it would have been a different picture: the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) would have split Microsoft into three, and then Bill Gates would have filed an administrative lawsuit in the form of a civil lawsuit against the government. But Microsoft no longer exists. ．．．．．．