The plaintiff has been a non-language teacher at XX Primary School in Xindu District since 2003, and has been targeted by the Xindu District Education Bureau, and has continued to fraudulently claim that the conditions are not eligible, infringing on many of the plaintiff's legal rights. In September 2021, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Shuangliu District Court of Chengdu on October 11, after the Xindu District Education Bureau replied again to continue the fraud.
The case was filed and accepted on November 16.
After Judge Wang Xuan took over the case, there was no ** trial. According to the law, a copy of the complaint should have been sent to the defendant within five working days, but Wang Xuan rushed within five working days and asked the plaintiff to go to the court's reception room on the afternoon of the 22nd to explain, split the case, say that he understood the facts of the case, and wrote the plaintiff's statement that "fraud caused it to lose" as "failed the review", and interpreted it as "they said that you did not meet the conditions, that is, the review failed", and concocted the basis for the verdict "self-statement".The review did not pass";
On November 25, the case was filed after Wang Xuan's explanation
On November 29, Wang Xuan ruled that the time limit for filing a lawsuit had expired and dismissed the lawsuit. So far, Judge Wang Xuan has created a Rakshasa miracle in which he "formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and conducted a trial, and the trial has now been completed", and three days after he explained that the split case was filed, and all the indictments were dismissed four days after the case was filed.
That is, the plaintiff split the case according to Wang Xuan's explanation, and after the case was filed, the judge dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of his interpretation, "they said that you did not meet the conditions, that is, the review failed". The explanation is obviously a parole and a real fraud that deliberately concocts false facts.
The three transcripts concocted by Judge Wang were not the original records, but were a mold, and in order to deceive the plaintiff, they were also written as "notification records" and "interrogation records" respectively.
The evidence submitted by the applicant in Document No. 2020-182 of the Xindu District Education Bureau has restored a number of facts, all of which describe the eligibility as non-compliance, fraud, not the "review" explained by Wang Xuan, and the fraud is still continuing, and there is indeed no starting date beyond the statutory time limit for prosecution, which is sufficient to overturn the "self-statement" of the notification record and the interrogation record on November 22, the basis for the verdict concocted by Judge WangThe review did not pass";The judge ignored this crucial piece of evidence and did not explain the reasons for its inadmissibility. The date of the indictment was also deliberately written as 16 November.
This is a notice of acceptance for filing a case after the indictment and after Wang Xuan's explanation.
This is a transcript of Wang Xuan's explanation and understanding of the case on the afternoon of November 22.
In order to better defraud the legal novice plaintiff at the time, this transcript of interpretation and understanding of the case was written as "Notification Record":
This is part of the ruling on perversion of the law made by Wang Xuan on November 29
This is the document 2020-182 of the Xindu District Education Bureau (the official seal is on the third page):
Contains four facts of administrative fraud:
a.The Xindu District Education Bureau defrauded the complainant in 2007 that Putonghua 2B was not eligible, and its reply deliberately concealed the fact that the complainant was not a language teacher. The fact is that the Chengdu Municipal Education Bureau did not implement Chuanjiao (2004) No. 293. At that time, the complainant had been engaged in teaching for five years, had never been a Chinese teacher, and had a college graduation certificate, a certificate of education and educational psychology, and a certificate of Putonghua 2B, which fully complied with the regulations of the Chengdu Municipal Education Bureau at that time, and the Xindu District Education Bureau deliberately defrauded the complainant to lose this right and interest
b.The first time I was asked to apply for a housing subsidy (circa 2007), the complainant was not eligible for fraud, and now it is known that I am fully eligible, and the defendant still insists that I am not eligible, but there is no evidence that I am not eligible, and that he deliberately defrauded the complainant of his housing rights;
c.In August 2013, he deceived the complainant to be promoted to a technician who was not eligible, and his reply deliberately concealed the month in which the complainant obtained the technician certificate, the fact that I did not apply the ** Shefa (2013) No. 207 issued and implemented in October of that year (the original lie was not this), and I was the only person in the school who met all the competition conditions in August of that year, and should be promoted, and his deliberate fraud caused me to lose this right;
d.In 2014, the complainant of its fraud did not qualify for the payment of teacher benefits....Now I know that I am a teacher who has been engaged in teaching for a long time, and the provisions of **She Fa (2013) No. 207 called by the Education Bureau do not apply, and I should be recognized and honored, and his intentional fraud has caused me to lose this right.
In addition, in 2007, I had a Mandarin 2B certificateAugust 2013 my technician certificate;2014 My Teaching Certificate;In 2006, the official website of the Chengdu Municipal Education Bureau notified that it did not implement the language requirements of Sichuan Education (2004) No. 293;In 2009, the official website of the Sichuan Provincial Department of Education announced that it was later changed to the same language requirements as the Chengdu Municipal Education Bureau. ）
In the second instance, there was no inquiry, saying that Wang Xuan was right to split the case, and the rest copied the first-instance ruling. In the first and second instances, the defendant Xindu District Education Bureau did not submit a reply or evidence.
At the retrial, the defendant submitted a reply full of policy lies to prove the fact that it continued to defraud, and the plaintiff informed the judge of the situation, but the judge only wrote that the Xindu District Education Bureau "submitted an opinion stating that ....There is no fraud", reproduced the second-instance ruling.
The procuratorate held a hearing on the four fraud facts set out in Document No. 2020-182 of the Xindu District Education Bureau, but at the meeting, the prosecutor directly lied to the defendant without evidence and ignored the plaintiff's evidence. After that, there was no mention of the hearing, and the first-instance determination was copied. After the appeal to the prosecutor's office was denied, the procedure was concluded.
The plaintiff later found three forged indictments in the files of the Provincial High Court.
The plaintiff appealed to the court, but the on-site submission of the complaint was rejected, and the online submission has been "pending". Here is a screenshot of the court appeal platform:
Every ordinary person who presents evidence and tells the truth is a person who is forced to come into contact with the darkness in society, and is a positive element in realizing "governing the country according to law." Every struggle against darkness is conducive to the path of the Chinese people.
China, motherland, please support the people who are forced to fight in the darkness!