Corruption and perverting the law divorce case
How did Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou District People's Court in Beijing pervert the law to decide the divorce case?
1: Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court perverted the law and ruled that the property ratio between men and women reached 3.03 million: 380,000 after divorce.
2. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court perverted the law and solved the case with 8 10000 fake loan!
3. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court talked to the defendant in this case when he adjourned in the middle of the court session!
4. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court perverted the law and confused the audience. Yang Fengshu ignored the documents!
Zhou Tong court Tang Xinghua used the telephone number 010-81553 501.
In March 2007, during the important court sessionNo. 14, Tang Xinghua talked with the defendant in this case during the recess!
March1410: 35: 0516 seconds called 108 1553508 Beijing local 0.40 0.00.
March 28th 17:48: 10 26 second call 108 1553508 Beijing local 0.40 0.08.
March 22nd10: 52:1821sec 108 1553508 Beijing local 0.40 0.08.
Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court tried the case unfairly, and the entity was completely unfair.
1, Judge Tang Xinghua ruled that the division of property was unfair.
In the case of divorce dispute between Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu, Judge Tang Xinghua ruled that Yang Deshuai was raised by Fan Yuhua himself, and the total value of the property divided to Fan Yuhua was less than 400,000 yuan, while the property awarded to Yang Youshu by Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou District Court was 3.03 million yuan. Including two buildings in Ningjin County, Shandong Province, with an area of nearly 1000 square meters and a value of (original value) 165438+ 10,000 (while Tongzhou has only one set with an area of only 86 square meters and a value of 460,000, but most of them are bank mortgage loans, and only1546/kloc-was repaid in the second instance. Including the lease right of 34 mu in Songzhuang Village, songzhuang town, Tongzhou District, Beijing, for which the husband and wife have paid the transfer fee of 2 1.68 million yuan and the rent of 92,000 yuan, and the house with the area of 1.824 square meters invested and built by the husband and wife on this land. As a result, Fan Yuhua can't divide and enjoy * * * property equally, but she has to bear the unfair result of 3290 14 yuan construction debt. What's more, because Judge Tang Xinghua didn't make it clear whether the debts were jointly and severally borne, the executive court of this court forcibly sealed up and executed the small apartment at Room 80/KLOC-0, Unit 4, Building 5, Qian Lin Li Jingyuan, Qiao Zhuang North Street, Tongzhou District, which Fan Yuhua shared with his son and only owned and lived. Therefore, Fan Yuhua believes that the judgment of Tang Xinghua in the original trial was very unfair, and even a large number of household appliances, furniture, office equipment, medical equipment, etc. purchased during the marriage contained in his first-instance judgment were awarded to Yang Youshu without any value confirmation. Moreover, the high-value property supported by the bills and other evidence I submitted, such as piano, wardrobe, color TV, processing machine, sphygmomanometer, stereo, boiler, etc. Although Yang Youshu admitted the existence in court, the court of first instance did not pursue it, just because Yang Youshu said in court that "the boilers in these things were included in the project payment of 1.2 1.8 million yuan, and the others were lost and gone". Let's look at the construction contract. The subject matter of the contract is clearly defined in the scope of the contract, that is, the main body and decoration. The whole contract does not and cannot include boilers and other equipment (on the contrary, there are other contracts and signatories for the procurement and installation of boilers, and the evidence has been provided by myself). As for the piano and other things, Yang Youshu not only admitted the existence, but also provided relevant bills, so the fact that his property exists and its value cannot be erased at will because Yang Youshu said "lost, gone". Therefore, Tang Xinghua's silence on high-value property in the judgment violates the just position of the people's court.
At the same time, Tang Xinghua advocated that Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu agreed that the present value of the above-mentioned property was zero, and cited factors such as Beijing Youshu Chinese Medicine Clinic's failure to fulfill the planning approval procedures, the increasing rent of leased land, and the inability to promote patents. This is untrue and unfair. Although the value-added space of real estate is limited due to the above reasons, Fan Yuhua will never agree that its value is zero, because the consideration and cost paid by both husband and wife to build the building and obtain the relevant land use rights should naturally become the building and its property. If its value is zero, why didn't Yang Youshu give up the right to use it and Tang Xinghua awarded it to Fan Yuhua? Therefore, the so-called view that all parties agree that its value is zero is only a manifestation of Judge Tang Xinghua's unfair position.
To sum up, Fan Yuhua believes that Tang Xinghua's division of property in this case is seriously unfair, which leads to the unfair result that Yang Youshu's husband and wife have more property than Fan Yuhua, amounting to about 2.04 million yuan. For details, please refer to the annexes: List of Value of Division of Property in the Original Judgment and Annexes I, II and III.
2. Judge Tang Xinghua violated the mandatory provisions of China's marriage law and took an unfair position.
Article 36 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "After divorce, parents still have the right and obligation to raise and educate their children."
Article 37 stipulates: "After divorce, the other party shall bear part or all of the necessary living expenses and education expenses for the children raised by one party."
Article 39 stipulates: "At the time of divorce, the property of husband and wife shall be handled by mutual agreement; If the agreement fails, the people's court shall make a judgment based on the specific circumstances of the property and the principle of taking care of children and women's rights and interests. "
Fan Yuhua, misled by his attorney, put forward a request to give up asking Yang Youshu to bear child support, but I don't think Yang Youshu's cancer is the reason for him to evade his legal obligation to raise children. What's more, Yang Youshu's property now sentenced by Tang Xinghua amounts to more than three million yuan. Even if the retrial court supports his idea of fair division of property, he still has more than1700,000 in his name, and it will not affect his medical treatment or life because he only bears hundreds of thousands of child support. What's more, according to Yang Youshu's own certificate issued by JD.COM Sino-American Hospital, Yang Youshu's later treatment cost is about 500,000 yuan. No matter whether the certificate accepted by Tang Xinghua is true or not, at least it shows that the legal obligation of raising children will not affect Yang Youshu's treatment and living standards. Judge Tang Xinghua, in order to protect the interests of one party, even ignored the provisions of compulsory law and forced him to evade legal obligations. His position is very unfair!
Second, Judge Tang Xinghua's judgment violated the principle of autonomy of the parties and the principle of autonomy of the judges outside the application of the parties, which seriously violated the legal provisions.
Regarding the two valid patents under Fan Yuhua's name, when Fan Yuhua asked for an evaluation of the marital property, Shu and his entrusted agent called them worthless and refused to include them in the property division. At Fan Yuhua's insistence, Yang Youshu made it clear in court that he would give up these two patents and transfer the ownership to Fan Yuhua. This shows that the parties reached a division agreement on the contents of the dispute, which was recorded by the court and was the expression of the true meaning of both parties. It should be said that there is no dispute between the two parties on the ownership of this intangible asset, and there is no need to submit it to the court as a petition. However, the court of first instance ruled in item 9 of its judgment that this part of the property exceeded the wishes and demands of the parties and was awarded to Yang Youshu, which failed to pass the value evaluation (although Fan Yuhua clearly stated in the first instance that he requested the evaluation and was willing to pay the relevant evaluation fees in advance). And Tang Xinghua really pretended not to see it! !
3. Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court found that the facts were unclear and perverted the law.
1, Yang Youshu's infidelity to marriage is the core fact that led to the divorce of Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu. However, after Fan Yuhua submitted a large number of documentary evidence (letters, diagnosis certificates) and physical evidence (photos, laboratory sheets, medical cards) that could reflect that Yang Youshu had lived with others, the court of first instance still refused to identify the relevant facts. Judge Tang Xinghua's reason is only: "Because the witness did not appear in court to accept the questions of the parties." Fan Yuhua believes that this reason of Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court is a powerful statement of perverting the law, because Yang Youshu did not submit witness testimony to this fact, nor did he ask the witness to testify in court. The evidence presented is documentary evidence and physical evidence discovered by Fan Yuhua. Although Judge Tang Xinghua asked Fan Yuhua on the spot whether Liu Wei, who had an illegal sexual relationship with Yang Youshu, could be allowed to testify in court, the evidence was obtained when Fan Yuhua learned that Liu Wei had arrived in Beijing and found the rental house where he and Yang Youshu lived. At that time, only Yang Youshu was present, and Liu Wei had fled. After this incident, Fan Yuhua decided to leave Yang Youshu. Under such circumstances, how did Fan Yuhua find Liu Wei, and how did Wei, who was originally a rival in love with Fan Yuhua, testify in court at the request of Fan Yuhua? Judge Tang Xinghua's unreasonable request is nothing more than making things difficult for Fan Yuhua. In addition, whether it is the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) or the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure, there is still an obligation to provide witnesses to testify in court when the parties have adduced sufficient material evidence and documentary evidence for their claims. There is no provision for divorce cases caused by marital infidelity, and only a third person outside the case can testify in court. I wonder what is the legal basis for Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court to refuse to identify relevant facts when Fan Yuhua submitted sufficient evidence for his claim? ! I, Fan Yuhua, believe that the evidence provided by me that there is a third party living with Yang Youshu has reached a sufficient level. If Tang Xinghua still has questions, he can contact Liu Wei directly according to his functions and powers, and solve them by means of paternity test, or investigate with relevant insiders or take a polygraph to see if Yang Youshu knows Liu Wei. In addition, all the relevant materials submitted by Fan Yuhua were provided by Liu Wei himself, including the telephone numbers of himself and six insiders, including witnesses Dr. Ma, Master Jia, Wang Ping and so on. At the same time, Yang Youshu also has the obligation to disprove Fan Yuhua's evidence. However, if the court does not exercise its functions and powers, and Yang Youshu cannot provide evidence, on the contrary, Fan Yuhua's evidence court should accept it, and Fan Yuhua's fact court should recognize it. If Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court simply denies Yang Youshu's evidence, it is against the relevant evidence law. Moreover, according to Article 79 of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings": "The people's court shall specify the reasons for the admissibility of evidence in the judgment documents." However, the court of first instance did not explain why Fan Yuhua's personal letter, confession, photos, medical cards, diagnosis certificates and other evidence of a woman who has children with Yang Youshu were not adopted. On the contrary, I unilaterally condemned Yang Youshu, who had already left Yang Youshu, for failing to take care of and help him after his illness. This is a serious unfair position of Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court. I, Fan Yuhua, think that Judge Tang Xinghua's failure to recognize the fact that Yang Youshu was unfaithful to his marriage is because the facts of the court of first instance in this case are unclear, and on this basis, he thinks that the unfair judgment made by Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court is a perverted judgment.
2. Judge Tang Xinghua's so-called borrowing money to treat diseases in Yang Youshu is actually that Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court cannot clearly ascertain the facts and pervert the law.
Judge Tang Xinghua of Tongzhou Court was established on the basis of the case that Yang Youshu successively borrowed 865,438+00,000 yuan from Yang Derui, Chen Jifeng and Wen Yang. Fan Yuhua believes that Judge Tang Xinghua is equally unclear about whether the loan relationship is established.
First of all, these three so-called borrowers are Yang Youshu's second-generation collateral blood relatives or direct blood relatives, among which Yang Derui is Yang Youshu's own son, Chen Jifeng is his third daughter-in-law, and Yang Wenshu is Yang Youshu's younger sister-in-law. Although the above-mentioned three witnesses appeared in court to testify the so-called fact of borrowing money from Yang Youshu, according to Article 69 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, "the following evidence cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case alone: (2) the testimony issued by a witness who is interested in one party or his agent." The above three witnesses are all direct or collateral blood relatives of Yang Youshu, and they certainly have an "interest" relationship with Yang Youshu and an "awesome" relationship with Yang Youshu in this case. Therefore, unless there are physical evidence such as bank transfer vouchers and withdrawal vouchers or other witnesses who have no interest, according to the rules of evidence in civil proceedings, their testimony or so-called IOUs should not be accepted. But Judge Tang Xinghua did insist, so I, Fan Yuhua, think it is very obvious that the court of first instance perverted the law.
Secondly, the three original IOUs presented in court are inconsistent with the copies submitted at the time of filing. Yang Youshu and the witnesses, in the face of my agent Fan Yuhua's query, also admitted in court that the original and the copy were inconsistent because the original was supplemented (see pages 12 and 13 of the trial transcript of the first instance). Later, the supplementary reason was that witness Yang Fengshu said that the original was lost, but the first witness Yang Derui did not. It can be seen that the purpose of these three IOUs is self-evident.
Third, among the four so-called IOUs borrowed by Yang Youshu for medical treatment, only three borrowers testified in court, one of whom was Yang Fengshu and the other was Yang Wenshu, but did not testify in court. However, the court did not recognize the fact that Yang Fengshu borrowed 30,000 yuan, but recognized the validity of Yang Wenshu's IOU as evidence, and supported Yang Youshu's claim that his loan of 60,000 yuan was valid. I wonder what is the basis for the court to overturn the case? Just because Yang Wen advocated sixty thousand, and Yang Fengshu only advocated thirty thousand? Judge Tang Xinghua's position is unfair.
Fourthly, witness Chen Jifeng said that Yang Youshu borrowed 450,000 yuan from him to return Yang Fenglan (see page 14 of the trial transcript of the first instance), which is the same as Yang Youshu's opinion (see page 13 of the trial transcript of the first instance). Since the money was returned to Yang Fenglan or Yang Fenglan, I don't know why Yang Fenglan used this as an excuse to sue Yang Youshu in August 2007, asking him to return the money. The only explanation is that the loan relationship is false. However, Yang Fenglan, who gave false testimony, was driven by money and claimed "rights" from Yang Youshu on the grounds of his false certificate.
To sum up, Fan Yuhua believes that the relationship between the four loans is full of loopholes, and the four so-called loans are just Yang Youshu's forged debts in an attempt to achieve the illegal purpose of his multiple husband and wife properties.
To sum up, Judge Tang Xinghua's trial of Fan Yuhua and Yang Youshu's divorce case is full of loopholes, the facts are seriously unclear, the procedure is seriously illegal, the position is seriously unfair, the judgment is seriously unfair, and the judgment is perverted!
The crime of perverting the law in civil and administrative trials refers to the serious behavior of judges who deliberately violate the facts and laws and pervert the law in civil and administrative trials. Article 399 Any judicial officer who intentionally perverts the law by violating facts and laws shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention; If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years; If the circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years. Deliberately violating facts and laws and perverting the law in civil and administrative trial activities, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention; If the circumstances are especially serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years. Judicial personnel who commit the acts mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs and commit the crimes specified in Article 385 of the Cost Law shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of heavier punishment. Criteria for filing a case: The criteria for filing a case stipulate that a case should be filed if it is suspected of one of the following circumstances: 1, perverting the law and causing heavy property losses to citizens, legal persons or other organizations; 2, perverting the law, causing the parties and their relatives to commit suicide, disability, mental disorders; 3. Forging relevant materials and evidence, making false cases and perverting the law; 4, colluding with the parties to create perjury, destroying evidence or tampering with court transcripts, perverting the law; 5. Other serious circumstances. Criteria for filing major cases: The Criteria for Filing and Investigating Major Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Infringement Directly Accepted by People's Procuratorates (Trial) stipulates: (1) Major cases: 1, perverting the law, resulting in property losses of citizens100000 yuan or more, and property losses of legal persons or other organizations of 500000 yuan or more; 2, perverting the law, causing mental disorders or serious injuries to the parties and their relatives. (2) Abnormal situation: 1. Misjudgment of the law, resulting in property losses of citizens of more than 500,000 yuan, and property losses of legal persons or other organizations of more than/kloc-0.0 million yuan; 2. Causing the parties and their relatives to commit suicide.
Tongzhou District Court Tang Xinghua misjudged case property division (possession) value comparison table
I. Details of the property and value granted to Fan Yuhua.
1. The down payment of the total area price of the property plus the repayment at the time of division (actual division)
Qiao Zhuang North Street, Tongzhou District
Building 5, Qian Lin, Li Jingyuan, 86 square meters, 46 1546 10 yuan.
80 1 Room 4 Unit
2. Assessed residual value of a Bluebird (used for 6 years and 3 months, overhauled for 3 times): 23,000.
3. The deposit is 2 10000 yuan.
Total: 387,600
Two. Details of the property and value awarded to Yang Youshu by the judgment.
1.2 Property area: the total price has been returned (actually divided).
Ningjin County, Shandong Province, 999.33 square meters, 165438+ ten thousand, 165438+ ten thousand.
2.34 mu of land use right is 2 1 000 yuan for 50 years, and 92,000 yuan for 4 years, totaling 302,000 yuan.
3. Above-ground building (clinic) 1.824 m2 investment (basic value): 65,438+500,000 yuan.
4, outpatient equipment (purchased in August 2004, see table 2)
Original value: 526 10 yuan 70% depreciation value: 36,827 yuan.
5. Total original value of boilers, computers, air conditioners and furniture. (See Annex III for details): 97,329 yuan.
70% depreciation value: 68 130 yuan.
Total: 3.007 million yuan
3. The property that Yang Youshu has not decided but has been transferred or actually occupied (Table 4).
The value of 8 computer therapeutic devices is 1.6 million.
The value of two sets of quick-frozen dryers is 1.7 million yuan, totaling 330,000 yuan. 70% depreciation value: 230,000 yuan.
Four. Judgment on Yang Youshu's debt (the authenticity is uncertain)
Yang Derui (eldest son) 300,000 yuan, Chen Jifeng (daughter-in-law) 450,000 yuan and Yang Wenwen (younger brother) 60,000 yuan * * *: 8110,000 yuan.
Verb (abbreviation of verb) The total amount of property actually divided (occupied) by Yang Youshu (item 2 plus item 3 minus item 4): 242.7 loss.
6. The unfair judgment of the court of first instance resulted in Yang Youshu's property being more than Fan Yuhua's (item 5 minus item 1);
Total: 2.04 million