How hard is it to tell the "tietong boss?

How hard is it to tell the "tietong boss? 18:11:27 Source: 396 comments posted by Weibo online users on the Forum

• As a law student and a law teacher, I love writing. This year, I suddenly came up with an idea that while writing a good article, we want to use our own practical actions to make ourselves more realistic with some social injustice ". As a result, Zhang jinde, my friendly colleague and litigation partner, recently submitted three complaints to the Shanghai Railway Transportation court ......

Author: Li shaozhang (Legal Department teacher of Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law)

1. From "fail" to "fail"

-- Thanks to Beijing-Shanghai Court's two attitudes towards the "tietong boss"

At the beginning of this year, Jiangxi passenger Ding changxiang purchased a t79 train ticket from Beijing to Zhengzhou. The Beijing Railway Bureau was taken to court for "different tickets with the same price. The Beijing Railway Transportation Court accepted the case according to law and made a first-case judgment on August 16, rejecting Mr. Ding's claim. Hao Jinsong, a Master of Law from China University of Political Science and Law, called "grassroots fighters, these years have not been idle. In the past two years, the final result of the three tickets to claim an invoice is a one-win and two-defeat. Recently, he filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Railways and the Beijing Railway Bureau regarding the price rise of the spring festival games. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court finally accepted the case and the winning or losing case is pending for trial. On June 16, last August, jin Rong, an assistant researcher from the Chinese Emy of sciences, also pushed the Beijing Municipal Railway Bureau to the dock due to a dispute over accidental injury insurance premiums. The Beijing Railway Transportation court ruled that he had lost the lawsuit. In the case of these cases alone, the five plaintiffs won only one victory, and the "tietong" Victory rate was as high as 80%. It can be seen that if the law is used as a fatal weapon to fight against the railway, it will often fall into the ground. Whether it's the Ministry of Railways or the Railway Bureau, once they get involved in a lawsuit, it will be "no fault ".

However, in any case, from the perspective of these cases, the Beijing Court ensures that the right of appeal of citizens can be exercised normally, at least after accepting the case according to law, the effect of the plaintiff's right of action can be extended to the trial stage. Such a plaintiff was lucky that although substantive rights may not be remedied, procedural rights could still go along the legal track. However, this summer, I was lucky enough to have a rights lawsuit with my colleague Mr. Zhang jinde. We also encountered the embarrassment of "different tickets at the same price" that Mr. Ding of Jiangxi met. We will submit three pieces of paper sued by the Ministry of Railways, the Beijing Railway Bureau, and the Shanghai Railway Bureau to the People's Court of Shanghai railway transportation. In addition to accepting the complaint and issuing a receipt, the Court did not accept or reject the ruling within the statutory period, but called us to "report to relevant departments ", I have not yet made it clear that even the minimum legal basis cannot be explained. When asked which one is the basis for such a "Notice", the judge then says, "You are a legal teacher and check it by yourself ", then I said, "When are you free? When can I tell you ". In the end, we were intercepted by the channels for appeal relief. It was a bad thing for me.

In the past, I often wondered why some people were so arrogant that they could not tell me ". Now, I have realized that it is a luxury to count on the "success" of others. Even if you are lucky enough to be able to "bring it to the end", you may think that it is just whimsical and hard to tell.

I originally naively planned to write articles and get in touch with some direct social practices, including judicial practices, during my personal "Eleventh Five-year Plan, specifically, we call for various events, behaviors, institutions, and organizations that infringe upon private rights in Chinese society. Practices are also dominated by litigation, that is to say, through court litigation, I wrote a series of articles "promoting the concept of civil law, shouting for protection of private rights, and promoting the rule of law in China" during the Tenth Five-Year Plan. Due to the "fail" practical thinking, I also expected that I would lose in the competition with the public monopoly industry and strong groups, we are also ready to become the "losing King. Once there is a continuous and exciting situation of losing complaints, I also imagine the establishment of a plan called "China losing Website", that is to say, I have prepared for the "oriental invincible" mentality. If I can really realize the Bad Name of the "losing King", I can even open an elective course for students at the university I work for. The course name is called "the principles and practices of losing litigation ". At the same time, I want to write a documentary about the current lawsuit at the age of 40 through a ten-year lawsuit. Now, at the beginning, there are many obstacles and I am at a loss. I found that not only is it far from "winning", but also 30 thousand feet away from "losing! Imagine that although the Court opened the door to reception for you, it also closed the door to exercise the right of appeal and relief, what is our dream of "winning" and "losing?

Objectively speaking, my friendly colleagues and litigation partners have received some special courtesy. For example, when I submit a complaint, the Court finally accepts it, the evidence signing procedure has been completed. Out of the Court door, we are constantly mutating: if we are suing two non-legal migrant workers, will we simply send the complaint without accepting the complaint? I think this is not impossible. Because when the complaint was filed, the judge tried his best to persuade us not to file a lawsuit, repeatedly debating the truth, and even said, "you have to be aware of it. This case is very sensitive, you are too big to accept it. When we say that we are not accepting a ruling, the judge simply tells the truth, saying "no ruling is required ", in addition, we are also disgusted with the "strong books" and "do not understand China's national conditions", and warned us that what we talk about in books and what we set in law are very different from what we do in practice. At that time, I thought, how did I perform this operation in practice? This question has been closely related to me. It was not until one day that I received a phone call from the court that I initially understood that the original "practice" was doing so. That is, only the phone number is reported to other departments, and neither the order is accepted nor the decision is rejected. It has been 14 days since our lawsuit was filed, and it has already exceeded the legal 7-day Acceptance Period. The Court repeatedly stressed that, in accordance with article 111st of the Civil Procedure Law, it seems that the Court has successfully completed the reply to our lawsuit. However, a person who understands the legal knowledge of civil litigation knows that the decision cannot be replaced by the ruling, which is two different issues in the Civil Procedure Law. Recently, we have sent three "insist on prosecution request letters" to the court for registration, again clarifying our attitude and providing the Court with an opportunity for correction which they might not want.

It should be said that although we have received preferential treatment from the court, it seems that the court treats law teachers with great respect, but we feel that compared with the holy right of action, it is just a kind of courtesy. Our identity is a citizen, not a teacher. What we want is the right of action, not the client. Facts have proved that my analysis is quite powerful, because our right to appeal suffered three interceptions in just seven days. For example, if we persuade us not to sue in person, we even suggest opening a seminar for academic research. This is a ridiculous suggestion in the eyes of a simple person, because I want litigation, not research; my right of action can be seriously realized only in the Trial Chamber, however, I cannot exercise my right of action in the research room. Another example is that during the waiting day of the week, the relevant departments also sent a letter to our School of Political Science and Law in an attempt to interfere with our right to appeal through these three bad tricks. For another example, the court does not decide whether to accept the case or not, and even the "Notice" reported by other departments is unclear. We believe that the Court has not fulfilled its obligation to "inform. As a form of supervision, we took telephone recording and fixed these valuable materials in time. I am honest and loyal to the Judiciary. At that time, I will be exposed based on the development of the situation to exercise the constitutional right of citizens to supervise the judiciary.

When the case develops to this step, I think it is not just "Rights Protection", but also "Legal protection ". The dignity of the law is to be defended by death, so that no one, including any court, can maliciously misinterpret or ignore it. As a matter of fact, in today's Chinese real society, there have been countless people whose rights have been, are, or are still being violated, and some have been protected by private remedies, however, a considerable number of people choose "default" in the face of such circumstances, or complain in the public, and even some people do not realize that their rights have been eroded. Fewer people are willing to initiate judicial procedures and seek public relief. Perhaps, I guess that China is far from entering the age of rights, let alone a society ruled by law. According to the expectations of the legal rules, what about a lawsuit that won't win a lot but won't take a bully defendant? You can't tell me whether to live or live, or even "fail". So, I can always hear complaints about "difficult litigation. Academic and practical circles have paid more attention to "difficult execution", but in some cases, "difficult filing" is more serious than "difficult execution, it directly rejects citizens' right of action from the cold.

The problem is that, from the perspective of current legislation, the Court does not decide whether to accept or not accept the act of inaction at the end of the legal acceptance period, there is almost no direct legal provision to sanction such serious violations of the law. Moreover, this kind of judicial inaction is aimed at protecting the administrative power and at the expense of citizens' right of action. When the right of appeal of a citizen persists after the decision is rejected, but the above inaction of the court occurs, the citizen's right of action is almost intercepted, and the real right is also ruined! This is terrible. In this case, public opinion supervision, as one of the forms of social supervision, is particularly important. However, if the voice of public opinion cannot meet a certain quality, or it cannot make a certain influence rationally, it can only be regarded as a "complaint", "Emotion", or "irrational" by the relevant authorities, and will not be ignored at all. When the news media is widely or deeply concerned, it may play a role, but in turn it will accuse the media and the public. Some scholars are writing articles to condemn the media, such as the twists and turns of the recent Foxconn case. Some scholars have already written articles accusing the media of "Arrogance" and criticizing the media and the jurist for interfering with the judiciary. In fact, in my opinion, for some cases that were originally found to be awkward, the reason why the media and scholars condemned and discussed the case did not aim at interfering with the judiciary, it is a matter of objective problems in the process of supervision over the judiciary and a respect for the power of media supervision.

Some people may think that the Court cannot be blamed for the "no" issue, because the Court itself has many "difficulties ". I think we all understand the "difficulties" of the courts, and even some "difficulties. However, citizens who have the right to appeal cannot tolerate these "difficulties" of courts. If the Court has "difficulties" and therefore passes these costs on to the client, or even the right of appeal to citizens, the "difficulties" of the court should not be tolerated or indulgent at all. As citizens, we have the obligation to preserve our rights as far as possible in accordance with the procedures of law and the rules of the law, rather than considering their so-called "difficulties" for courts ", it is not to go beyond the law when the legal channels have not been exhausted, because if we really want to do so, we will be wrong. The mistake is that we have not exhausted the legal procedures and rules with priority.

Therefore, in the public interest and private interest litigation that sued the "Leader" in Beijing, People First accept the lawsuit and then let you lose the lawsuit in the verdict, as some people call it, it will never allow the plaintiff to make a smooth profit in the real world. The Court's attitude can be summarized as "Yes, but no", which is the bottom line of respect for citizens' right of action. In the face of three of our lawsuits, the Shanghai Railway Transportation court began to use the naive idea of "leaving nothing to worry" and simply put our right of action in the cradle. The Court's attitude can be summarized as "Sue, but cannot sue", meaning that everyone can sue, however, when the court encounters the so-called "sensitive", "interest", and other obstacles that touch the seat and ticket, it will give you a bitter taste of "no. Compared with "fail", this is a typical infringement of citizens' right of action. At this point, in the face of "failure", I think that defenders should dare to pay various costs within the framework of legal rules. We do not require all people in the society who face such problems to have a sense of priority in legal procedures, but at least on the Chinese land today, we absolutely cannot lack such a group of people who promote the rule of law with practical actions. Even if this kind of action is so small and light as a goose feather, even if it is criticized by some people who hold different opinions as a heristic or "ulterior motives", we will also fight for the shame of "not coming to the snow. Even if we can't imagine a successful result, we should hold this old complaint and try our best to boarding the Court ship to reach the other side of the "Losing lawsuit" in advance.