610 Office Deceives Defense Attorneys--Mr. Liu Jinglu and Ms. Sun Lixiang End up Sentenced to Nine-Year Terms
(Clearwisdom.net) On January 14, 2009, due to the calculated arrangement of the 610 Office, the court in the Jiguan District of Jixi City, Heilongjiang Province, held a session with only five family members as witnesses to the trial. No lawyers or members of the public were present. The court completely ignored the absence of the required supplementary investigation and that the defendant's statements were obtained through the use of torture. Judge Tang Jingjie of the Jiguan District Court also ordered the assigned local lawyer to write "pledge letters" for the two defendants.
When practitioners Mr. Liu Jinglu and his wife, Ms. Sun Lixiang, received their sentencing papers from the court, they understood the schemes used by the 610 Office. They and their families decided to expose the deceptive practices and seek fair treatment.
On February 17, Mr. Liu and Ms. Sun were sentenced to nine years in prison. They felt the sentence was totally unjustified and appealed immediately. The First Jail in Jixi City promised that their appeal paperwork would be submitted on the 23rd, but this did not occur. On the 26th, the lawyers met with the two defendants and submitted their appeal papers for them.
After Mr. Liu and Ms. Sun began cultivating Falun Gong in 1998, they benefited tremendously both physically and mentally. Mr. Liu concluded his ten-year-old business in Russia in May 2007 and returned home. He was arrested on June 2, 2008, and his personal belongings totaling 300,000 yuan were stolen by agents from the Jixi City 610 Office and officers from the Mishan City Police Department. During the interrogation, the couple was tortured by several officers from the Mishan City National Security Squadron and the Jixi City National Security Branch Squadron.
The Jiguan District Court in Jixi City took the case on October 10, 2008. The only audience-permits issued were given to two of the family members for the first session on October 30. The other 38 permits were all taken by the 610 Office in order to keep the family members from hearing the case. In the court, Ms. Sun exposed the illegal use of torture during her interrogation by the Jixi City Police Department. The court called a recess for the allegation to be investigated.
A month later, on December 1, 2008, Jiguan District Court in Jixi City issued a decree, with Jiguan XiChu Document No. 174, to the Jiguan District Attorney's Office, dismissing the case. The decision was based on rules stated in Article 157, item 2 of Explanations of Issues in Executing the Criminal Litigation Law of People's Republic of China by the Highest Court of the People, which states, "After the court's announcement of recess, it shall assume that if the district attorney's office does not file an appeal for the court to restart the session within the given time, the court shall regard the case as withdrawn."
Two weeks after the court dismissed the district attorney's case, the Jiguan District Attorney's Office surprisingly prosecuted Ms. Sun and Mr. Liu a second time, which is illegal. The district court took the case under pressure from higher courts. During this time, the 610 Office plotted to take advantage of the sentimentality between the defendants and their family members to create conflicts between the lawyers and the family members using underhanded, deceptive tricks. They said that, if the family members would fire the lawyers from Beijing and not mention the interrogation by torture, they would release the defendants. First, they coerced the family members into sending text messages and making phone calls to threaten the lawyers, saying, "If you come here, someone will harm you" and "Please refund our attorney fees." Then they threatened the family members, saying, "If you hire lawyers, we will have the court sentence the defendants to ten or more years."
Those who had extorted large sums of money from the family immediately began to return the money when they heard the news of the couple's appeal. The first day, one person returned 30,000 yuan and on the second day another person returned 10,000 yuan. After the lawyer met with the defendants on the 27th, yet another person returned 20,000 yuan. There is currently still 50,000 yuan unreturned, and the family members plan to demand all of it back.
Related article: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2008/11/29/102612.html