就山东高院必须坚持“三严三实”、增强“四个意识”、坚定“四个自信”、做到“两个维护”致霍敏院长的建议函 Letter to President Huo Min Advocating for the Shandong High Court to Uphold "Three Stricts and Three Honests", Strengthen "Four Consciousnesses", Firm "Four Confidences", and Ensure "Two Upholds"
山东省高级人民法院霍敏院长：
Dear Huo Min (President of the Shandong High Court)
本人是北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所律师张庆方，因为代理全国人民都知道是一起特大冤案，而山东高院拒不平反的临沂焚童案的申诉工作，于2024年3月18日下午和四个当事人一起，去贵院信访接待室递交申诉材料。
I am Zhang Qingfang, a lawyer at Handing United Law Firm in Beijing, representing what is nationally recognized as a major miscarriage of justice, the Linyi child burning case, which the Shandong High Court refuses to overturn. On the afternoon of March 18, 2024, I, along with four parties involved, visited your court’s petition reception room to submit our appeal documents.
在现场的遭遇，让我明显感觉您领导下的山东高院，学习领袖思想不用心不过脑子，整个山东高院的工作作风疲沓松懈，对人民群众切身利益漠不关心，我作为一个山东人，一个法律人，对此不能接受，很不满意！
The experience on-site made it abundantly clear to me that under your leadership, the Shandong High Court is not diligently embracing the leader's philosophies, showing a lackadaisical and lax work ethic, and displaying indifference to the immediate interests of the people. As both a native of Shandong and a legal professional, I find this unacceptable and deeply unsatisfying!
昨天下午不到四点，临沂焚童案的四个当事人和张庆方律师、李庆铎律师来山东高院信访室提交申诉材料，我们都已经进来了，也拿了号也排了队。
Just before four yesterday afternoon, the four parties involved in the Linyi child burning case, along with lawyers Zhang Qingfang and Li Qingduo, came to the Shandong High Court's petition room to submit our appeal documents. We had already entered, taken a number, and queued up.
下午四点二十分，法警带着我们到了录入室，经过录入，我们的信访材料已经算是正式进入了程序，录入室的工作人员告诉我们：你们到信访室B128室。
By 4:20 PM, the bailiffs had led us to the data entry room, and after processing, our petition documents were officially in the system. The staff then directed us to petition room B128.
我们到了以后发现，不到四点半里边就没有人了，旁边一个女法官告诉我们说你们走吧，明天再来。我问为什么要明天再来？才4点半啊！不到4点半，为什么就没人了？她说人家没人，人家已经走了，你明天再来。我们就问，你们山东高院执行的是什么工作制？几点下班？
Upon arrival, we discovered the room was empty before even 4:30. A female judge nearby told us to leave and come back tomorrow. I asked, "Why should we come back tomorrow? It's only 4:30!" Not even half-past four, why was there no one? She replied everyone had left, and we should return the next day. We then questioned, "What working hours does the Shandong High Court adhere to? When do you close?"
因为我的嗓门很大，马上过来几个法警，我问他们山东高院信访办是几点下班？他们没一个人正面问答，只是说里边没人了，就是人家走了，你们不能闹！
Given my loud voice, several bailiffs quickly approached. I asked them what time the Shandong High Court's petition office closed. Not one of them gave a direct answer, merely stating that the office was empty, everyone had left, and we shouldn't cause a disturbance.
我们就又跑回录入室问，录入室刚接待过我们的两个工作人员说我们是五点下班，但是我们的工作是分开的，我们只管录入啊，他们的人走了就是走了。
We then rushed back to the data entry room to inquire further. The two staff members who had just assisted us said they close at five, but their duties are separate; they only handle data entry, and if others had left, that was that.
我出了录入室，就要求值班法警马上向领导汇报：你们就是这么对待信访群众的？群众和律师已经领了号，排了队，也录入了材料，信访接待的人为什么把我们留下现场，自己不到四点半就溜号了？你们的领导应该不应该给个说法?
Upon leaving the data entry room, I demanded that the on-duty bailiffs report immediately to their superiors: Is this how you treat those coming for petitions? The public and lawyers had already taken a number, queued up, and had their materials entered. Why did the petition reception leave us there, sneaking off before even 4:30? Shouldn't your leaders provide an explanation?
就在我和现场法警争执的过程中，旁边一个来信访的群众过来问：你是哪里的律师？山东就需要你这种正义律师，我们这里的律师都不敢说话，我本人也被他们给折磨死了，对这个姓孙的女法官，我就很不满意。随后，这个人还特意加了我的微信，他说：我可以为你作证，他们就是不到四点二十就走了。
During my dispute with the bailiffs on-site, a petitioner nearby asked me: "Where are you a lawyer from? Shandong needs lawyers like you who stand for justice. Our local lawyers don't dare to speak up. I've been tormented by them, especially unsatisfied with this Judge Sun." Then, this person specifically added me on WeChat, saying, "I can testify for you; they indeed left before 4:20."
我们在信访室等到五点钟，没人答复，没人过问的情况下，就发了微博质问山东高院领导：你们是个什么衙门？你们执行的是什么工作制？你们就是这么对待人民的吗？人家当事人和律师都已经进来了，都已经拿到号排了队了，你们负责接待的法官不到4:20就自己给自己下了班，他们就这么随意吗？你们山东高院的领导就给他们这个这这种自由吗？我希望你们查清楚今天下午B128接待室究竟是什么法官在值班，他为什么要4:20就擅自离岗？他应该承担什么责任？由此给我们造成的损失，我们交通费住宿费，这个一系列的损失怎么承担？
We waited in the petition room until five o'clock, with no one responding or inquiring. Consequently, we posted on Weibo questioning the leadership of the Shandong High Court: What kind of operation are you running? What work schedule do you follow? Is this how you treat the people? The parties and lawyers had already made it inside, taken a number, and queued up, yet your reception judges left for the day before even 4:20. Can they really be so arbitrary? Do the leaders of the Shandong High Court really grant them this kind of freedom? I hope you can clarify which judge was supposed to be on duty in room B128 this afternoon, why they left their post at 4:20, and what responsibility they should bear. How will you address the losses incurred by us, including our travel and accommodation expenses, among other costs?
结果，昨天晚上九点五十八分，一个长期关注临沂焚童案的山东社会贤达，发来一段他本人和山东高院信访处长王世心的微信聊天记录，王处长的回复内容如下：
As a result, at 9:58 last night, a Shandong social dignitary, who has long been following the Linyi child burning case, sent me a WeChat conversation he had with Wang Shixin, the director of the Shandong High Court's petition office. Director Wang's reply was as follows:
318 舆情核实情况
318 Public Sentiment Verification Details
经初步核实，情况如下：
After preliminary verification, the situation is as follows:
1、省法院信访大厅来访接待时间上午8：30～11：30，下午13：30～16：30。接待时间到后，除正在处访，法警清场关门，无特殊情况，不延时。
1. The provincial court's petition hall visiting hours are 8:30–11:30 AM and 1:30–4:30 PM. After visiting hours, unless actively handling a petition, bailiffs will clear the area and close the doors without any special extension.
2、省法院B128接访室值班人员王某、邹某均系16：30后，法警清场后离开岗位，离开时无正在处理接访。
2. Staff members Wang and Zou of the provincial court's room B128 left their posts after 4:30 PM, after the bailiffs had cleared the area, with no ongoing petitions being processed at the time of their departure.
3、反映事项中的女法官系孙某，孙称其确实告诉过一名来访人明天来，但系4：30之后，孙告诉其，信访大厅已下班了，请明天再来。
3. The female judge mentioned in the complaint is Sun, who did indeed tell a visitor to come back the next day, but it was after 4:30 PM. Sun informed them that the petition hall was closed and asked them to return the next day.
4、本日信访大厅信访带班干警苑海波，4：40后，除法警外，系最后离开信访大厅接访干警。电话18553107060
4. Today, the petition hall's on-duty officer, Yuan Haibo, was the last petition officer to leave the hall after 4:40 PM, besides the bailiffs. Phone: 18553107060
5、做好明天上午接谈准备
5. Prepare for tomorrow morning's appointment
6、 已报宣传处，密切关注舆情
6. The situation has been reported to the publicity department, which is closely monitoring public sentiment
对王世心处长的上述答复，本人有若干疑问：
Regarding Director Wang Shixin's response above, I have several questions:
第一，如果信访办接待时间果真是上午八点半到十一点半，下午一点半到四点半，你们就不是八小时工作制，而是六小时工作制。谁给你们的自由，拿着山东父老给的俸禄，一天少给山东人民干两小时？
First, if the petition office's reception hours are truly 8:30–11:30 AM and 1:30–4:30 PM, then you're not following an eight-hour workday but a six-hour one. Who granted you the freedom to work two hours less a day while still receiving a salary from the people of Shandong?
第二，如果四点半下班是明确规定，为什么我在现场大声质问时，现场保安没一个人敢说已经过了下班时间？为什么录入室的两个工作人员明确说是五点下班？
Second, if closing at 4:30 PM is a clear rule, why didn't any security personnel dare to say it was past closing time when I loudly questioned on-site? Why did the two data entry room staff members clearly state they close at five?
第三，如果录入室是五点下班，接待室是四点半下班，是哪个猪脑子做出的这种安排？这不是故意给因为心里有火来上访的山东群众添堵吗？人家辛辛苦苦来了，申诉材料都录入了，信访接待的人却没了。
Third, if the data entry room closes at five and the reception room at 4:30, who in their right mind made such an arrangement? Isn't this deliberately frustrating for the Shandong people coming to file a petition with grievances in their hearts? They come all the way here, get their appeal documents entered, only to find the petition reception personnel have disappeared.
第四，我看山东高院的网站，上边政治学习的内容不少，看你们的表态，似乎不但要做一个让人民满意的好法官，还要学习领袖重要讲话内化于心外化于行。但是，现实中，你们是怎么落实重要讲话精神的？为什么学习领袖思想不用心不过脑子？为什么要做阳奉阴违的两面人？
Fourth, browsing the website of the Shandong High Court, I noticed plenty of content on political education. Your statements suggest an ambition not only to satisfy the people with good judgeship but also to internalize and enact the leader's important speeches. However, in practice, how do you implement the spirit of these speeches? Why do you neglect to earnestly study the leader's thoughts? Why act with duplicity, paying lip service but acting contrary?
霍敏院长，我忍你领导下的山东高院，已经不是一天两天了！从看到临沂焚童案当事人提供的山东高院2021年驳回五人申诉的通知和驳回理由后，我就断定山东高院不是一个讲理的衙门了！
President Huo Min, my patience with the Shandong High Court under your leadership has not been short-lived! Since seeing the notification and reasons for the rejection of the appeal by the five individuals in the Linyi child burning case provided by the Shandong High Court in 2021, I have concluded that the Shandong High Court is no longer a reasonable institution!
2001年3月7日发生在当时的苍山县，现在的兰陵县的5月大婴儿失踪案，苍山县公检法在没有查明失踪儿童下落的情况下，完全依靠残酷的刑讯逼供，炮制出李步尧、冯作力、张晓东、曹永富、王强等五人拐卖儿童一案，依据当时的法律和证据标准，这个案子也是一起非常明显的冤案。
The case of the 5-month-old baby's disappearance on March 7, 2001, in what was then Cangshan County and now Lanling County, where the local judiciary relied entirely on brutal forced confessions without establishing the whereabouts of the missing child, concocting a child trafficking charge against Li Buyao, Feng Zuoli, Zhang Xiaodong, Cao Yongfu, Wang Qiang, and others. By the standards of law and evidence at that time, this case is clearly a wrongful conviction.
很简单的道理：稍微懂点侦查心理学的人，都知道侦查中，一旦突破了嫌疑人口供，除非存在能理解的理由，不会有主要事实都交待了，次要事实拒不交代的情况。谁能接受五个同案在笔录中都承认拐卖儿童的事实，却无人能说清被拐儿童的下落？而且五人的口供之间，他们不同时间的供述之间矛盾重重？谁能接受现场的男主人被打成重伤，兰陵公检法却不敢追究五个当事人故意伤害罪的责任？谁能接受嫌疑人都在笔录中承认孩子被捂死后焚烧扔河里了，兰陵公检法却不敢追究故意杀人罪的责任？既然有了口供不敢定故意杀人罪，找不到孩子下落，为什么就敢定拐卖儿童罪？一起只有孩子失踪能够确认，其他任何事实都无法证实的案子，当时就不该抓人！
Anyone with a basic understanding of investigative psychology knows that during an investigation, once a suspect's confession is obtained, unless there is a comprehensible reason, it's unlikely that all major facts would be confessed while minor facts are withheld. Who can accept that all five co-defendants admitted to child trafficking in their statements, yet none could clarify the whereabouts of the trafficked child? Moreover, how can contradictions abound within their confessions and across different timelines? Who can accept that the male homeowner was severely injured yet the Lanling judiciary dared not pursue intentional harm charges against the five? Who can accept that the suspects admitted in their statements that the child was suffocated, burned, and thrown into a river, yet the Lanling judiciary dared not pursue charges of intentional homicide? If confessions are insufficient to determine intentional homicide, and the child's whereabouts are unknown, why rush to charge them with child trafficking? A case where only the child's disappearance could be confirmed, with no other facts verifiable, should not have led to arrests
更让本人作为一个法律人，一个刑辩律师无法接受的是，在当年的被告人李步尧口中“捂死、焚烧后丢河里了”的婴儿，18年后的2019年亡者归来，已经回到生父母身边的情况下，山东高院对五个蒙冤入狱六到十年的当事人提起的申诉，仍然无耻的以“申诉人所提被拐卖儿童已经找到的新证据，证明原审判决确有错误的申诉理由，本院认为，涉案男婴找到的事实，并不能否定当年李步尧、曹永富、张向前等被告人抢走的事实，也无法证明李步尧、张向前未参与拐卖儿童的事实，故该申诉理由不能成立。申诉人所提‘被告人供述系被刑讯逼供所得，依法应予排除’的申诉理由，经审查并未有确实的证据予以证实，该申诉理由亦不能成立“驳回”。
What is utterly unacceptable to me as a legal professional and criminal defense lawyer is that, with the baby alleged by defendant Li Buyao to have been "suffocated, burned, and thrown into the river" returning alive to his biological parents 18 years later in 2019, the Shandong High Court still shamelessly rejected the appeal of the five individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned for six to ten years. The court dismissed the new evidence presented by the appellants that the supposedly trafficked child had been found, claiming it did not negate the fact that Li Buyao, Cao Yongfu, Zhang Xiangqian, and others had taken the child, nor did it prove that Li Buyao and Zhang Xiangqian had not participated in child trafficking. Therefore, the appeal reason could not be established. The appeal reason that the defendants' confessions were obtained through torture and should legally be excluded was also dismissed by the court without solid evidence to confirm it.
对贵院的驳回理由，本律师忍不住要骂niang：几个未署名的审查申诉法官，究竟是如何混进法官队伍的？基本的证据学常识，他们完全不懂？如果没有被逼供，李步尧会供述“孩子被我们捂死后焚烧，扔河里了”，会打碎茶杯吞瓷片寻短见？会咬掉自己的半截舌头？其他四个当事人会至今仍有累累伤痕？
Regarding the court's rejection reasons, I can't help but curse: How did these anonymous judges reviewing the appeal manage to join the ranks of judges? Don't they understand the basics of evidence law? If not forced, would Li Buyao confess to "suffocating the child, burning him, and throwing him into the river," break a teacup to swallow porcelain shards in an attempt at suicide, or bite off half his own tongue? Would the other four still bear numerous scars to this day
不需要实地调查，仅查阅原审案卷即足以认定本案中存在严重刑讯逼供的一个冤案，在亡者归来的情况下， 你们就只知道坐在办公室里，拍脑袋断案？有没有刑讯逼供，你们就不知道找来五个当事人验验身上的伤痕，就不知道咨询法医？山东高院就这个工作态度这种办案水平，怎么能让山东百姓满意？几个尸位素餐的申诉审查法官，山东人民养着你们有什么用！
No need for a field investigation; just reviewing the original case files is enough to determine that this case involves a serious instance of torture for confessions. With the supposed victim returning alive, do you only know how to make decisions from your offices without investigating whether torture occurred, not thinking to examine the five for scars or to consult forensic experts? How can such an attitude and level of case handling by the Shandong High Court satisfy the people of Shandong? What use is it to the people of Shandong to keep these judges who merely occupy their positions without contributing?
尤其被打脸的是，就在山东高院2021年驳回五个当事人的申诉申请后，兰陵政法委书记宋自强2023年4月12日亲自召集兰陵县公安局局长张新玉、检察院检察长卢文平、法院院长侯雷，并由案件当年公诉人李岚、现磨山镇党委书记和派出所所长给五人作陪，对五人通报：小孩找到后，在省专案组的督导下，真凶线索已查到兰陵县神山镇一案犯，但因其他案件被枪决，拐卖儿童案无法继续查下去；小孩养父母之所以未被追究法律责任，因过追诉时效。宋书记及公检法一把手，均劝五人沉住气，再耐心等等。宋志强书记承诺，会尽快亲自跑省政法委汇报本案，请示解决方案。
It's particularly embarrassing that after the Shandong High Court rejected the appeal applications of the five individuals in 2021, Secretary Song Ziqiang from the Lanling Political and Legal Committee convened a meeting on April 12, 2023. This meeting included Director Zhang Xinyu of the Lanling County Public Security Bureau, Chief Prosecutor Lu Wenping, Court President Hou Lei, and the case's original prosecutor Li Lan, as well as the current Secretary of the Communist Party in Moshan Town and the head of the local police station. They gathered to update the five individuals on significant developments: the previously thought lost child had been found, and under the provincial task force's oversight, leads had pointed to the real culprit in Shen Mountain Town, Lanling County. However, further action was halted as the suspect had already been executed for unrelated crimes, and the child's adoptive parents faced no charges due to the statute of limitations expiring. Secretary Song, along with senior officials from the police, prosecution, and court, appealed for calm and patience from the five, promising to personally escalate the matter to the provincial Political and Legal Committee in hopes of finding a resolution.
但是，时到今日，又是将近一年过去了，山东省的司法系统仍然不肯启动再审程序，为五个受尽折磨，一身是伤的当事人平反。你们究竟是要五人为你们下跪，求你们这些青天大老爷，还是衙门口往南开，有理无财莫进来，盼着五人给你们送钱？
However, nearly a year has passed, and the judicial system of Shandong Province still refuses to initiate a retrial process to exonerate the five individuals who have been tortured and bear the scars. What exactly do you want from these five? Do they need to kneel before you, begging you, the high and mighty officials, or do you adhere to the principle that justice is only for those with money, hoping the five will bribe you?
人民领袖指出：许多案件，不需要多少法律专业知识，凭良知就能明断是非，但一些案件的处理就偏偏弄得是非界限很不清楚。各行各业都要有自己的职业良知，心中一点职业良知都没有，甚至连做人的良知都没有，那怎么可能做好工作呢？政法机关的职业良知，最重要的就是执法为民。
The people's leader has pointed out that many cases don't require much legal expertise; conscience alone can discern right from wrong, yet some cases are handled in such a way that blurs the lines between justice and injustice. Every profession should have its own professional conscience. Without even a bit of professional conscience, let alone a conscience as a person, how can one possibly do their job well? The most important professional conscience for judicial and legal authorities is to enforce the law for the people.
山东高院现在缺少的，就是职业良知
What the Shandong High Court now lacks is professional conscience!
作为一个山东人，作为一个法律人，在此，我郑重建议：山东高院应该立即主动启动临沂焚童案的再审，并追究制造本起冤案，以及阻挠本案平反的所有责任人，不要继续正事不干，扯皮推诿，丢山东人的脸，对人民领袖阳奉阴违了！
As a Shandong native and a legal professional, I solemnly suggest: The Shandong High Court should immediately take the initiative to start a retrial of the Linyi child burning case and hold accountable all those responsible for creating this wrongful conviction and obstructing its correction. Stop avoiding real work, shirking responsibility, and disgracing the people of Shandong, and stop paying lip service to the people's leader!
本人作为冯作力的律师，绝对不会继续惯你们的毛病，不会容忍你们继续漠视五个兰陵百姓的合理诉求，拿着山东人民给的工资，不干正事，不干人事。
As Feng Zuoli's lawyer, I will not continue to indulge your faults, nor will I tolerate your continued disregard for the legitimate demands of the five citizens of Lanling. You collect salaries from the people of Shandong without doing your job or doing right by the people.
建议霍敏院长立即在整个山东法院系统开展一次触及灵魂的学习重要讲话活动，每一个山东法官都务必做到坚持“三严三实”、增强“四个意识”、坚定“四个自信”、做到“两个维护”！
I advise President Huo Min to immediately initiate a profound study session on important speeches throughout the entire Shandong court system, ensuring that every judge in Shandong adheres to the "Three Stricts and Three Honests", strengthens the "Four Consciousnesses", solidifies the "Four Confidences", and achieves the "Two Upholds"!
Zhang Qingfang
北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所律师
Lawyer at Handing United Law Firm in Beijing
2024年3月19日
March 19, 2024
张庆方律师手机：13910405610
Lawyer Zhang Qingfang's mobile: 13910405610