Li Qing and Yuan Chao: Desire for fairness and justice, and look forward to a reasonable response

Editor's note

The country needs laws, and the masses of the people call for justice. At present, it is a critical period to build a society under the rule of law, and rule of law workers should actively conform to the development trend of the times, shoulder their own missions and responsibilities, and treat their work with a "fair and rigorous" attitude, so that the effectiveness of the law can be demonstrated!

Reasonable demands were not answered

The case of Tuobian Financial Leasing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Li Qing and Yuan Chao over a guarantee contract (right of recovery) has aroused the attention of all sectors of society.

On December 6, 2023, the XX People's Court made a mistake with Li Qing and Yuan Chao's names, contact information and other information, and sent the wrong case information materials such as the summons for court hearing.

On December 28, 2023, Li Qing and Yuan Chao received the correct complaint, summons for hearing and other materials, and in order to protect their legitimate rights and interests, they filed an application for jurisdictional objection, which was delivered to the post office on January 5, 2024. On January 12 of that year, Li Qing and Yuan Chao received feedback that a certain people's court had signed for the materials and documents of the two. Based on the relevant facts and legal provisions, the people's court shall review and make a ruling on the application for objection to jurisdiction in this case.

However, what puzzled Yuan Chao and Li Qing was that the people's court did not make any response for a long time.

On January 19, 2024, Yuan Chao and Li Qing received a system notice from the people's court that the people's court will hear the case online on February 23. Yuan Chao and Li Qing are full of confidence that a certain people's court will hear the issue of jurisdictional objections when the court is held online. Therefore, Yuan Chao, Li Qing and their lawyer went online on time to participate in the trial, and submitted the lawyer's entrustment formalities in the trial system of the people's court. But there were no judges or clerks

It is even more incomprehensible, Li Qing and Yuan Chao suddenly felt strange and called many times to think

Communicating with the judge and asking the reason, but no one answered, and the phone call was really difficult to call, which made people even more puzzling and anxious

。

The process of handling the case is questionable, which affects the authority of the law

With doubts and urgency, on February 25, 2024, Yuan Chao and Li Qing worked hard to get in touch with the clerk of a certain people's court through various complaint channels, and when they asked the clerk about the situation, they were told by the clerk that if the application for jurisdiction objection has not been processed and notified for more than 10 days, it means that the verdict has not yet come out and they need to wait for a while.

In this regard, Yuan Chao and Li Qing sorted out the relevant case materials and time context, and found that their jurisdictional objection applications did not exceed the statutory time limit for reply, and there were disputes over the relevant handling process of the XX People's Court.

Because on February 23, 2024, during the entire online trial, the judges and clerks of the people's court were not online, and even the plaintiff Tuobian Company had been offline, and there was no review of the jurisdictional objection at all. Yuan Chao and Li Qing are extremely angry about this, even if the trial is held online, this is a very important matter, it is related to the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and it is also a manifestation of the majesty of the law. However, the fact that the people's court of such and such a certain person was so lax seriously affected the authority and status of the law.

In order to get an explanation for themselves, Yuan Chao and Li Qing took the initiative to contact the judge of a certain people's court according to the phone number on the summons. During this three-month period, Yuan Chao and Li Qing made a total of more than 30 phone calls, but the people's court never answered their calls, let alone took the initiative to answer their applications, making them even more angry and helpless.

The legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned cannot be deprived

"One wave has not settled, and one wave has risen. "On March 21, 2024, Yuan Chao and Li Qing actually received a notice of closure from a certain people's court, which made the two feel incredible, the ruling on the objection to jurisdiction has not come out, and there is no feedback notice, and even the online trial has become a farce, how could the case be so hastily judged?

This series of questions made Yuan Chao and Li Qing feel incomprehensible, a certain people's court had already received their application for jurisdictional objection and related materials, and the relevant staff clearly knew that the case not only had problems in the jurisdiction procedure, but also had many illogical points in the substantive handling of the trial, why could they still turn a deaf ear?

In today's society governed by the rule of law, defending the authority and justice of the law should become the belief and pursuit of rule of law workers, which is related to fairness and justice, and also related to the status of the law in the minds of the people. Therefore, the people's court should uphold the work attitude of "fairness and responsibility", take every detail of the case seriously, and at the same time strictly follow the provisions of the law, seek truth from facts, and respond positively to the legitimate demands of Yuan Chao and Li Qing. XX people's court must not influence substantive judgments because of procedural issues, let alone arbitrarily deprive the people of their right to participate in litigation, so that the lawful rights and interests of innocent parties are infringed upon.

For this reason, Li Qing and Yuan Chao immediately sent a statement to the court on March 25, 2024, requesting the court to make a prudent judgment, but they did not expect to receive the court's judgment on March 27, 2024, and the judgment time was as early as 20232

The judgment has been made on the 23rd of the month, but it has not been served for more than a month, if it were not for this statement of the situation, I am afraid that it will not be served, and the secretary said that the verdict has not yet come out, this is not a contradiction, what is the hidden truth?

What is even more puzzling is that in the same case and the same facts, the judgment of this court and the judgment of a certain place in Hubei are indeed very different and contradictory, and there is always a wrong judgment, right? A judgment made by the original defendant at the scene in strict accordance with the procedure, or a black-box operation in which one party does not respond, does not answer the phone, does not communicate, and directly makes a judgment in absentia when one party is not present, which judgment is more convincing? What does the court want to hide in such a willful operation? What is the inside story? Why does it not answer the phone, communicate, and do not respond?

postscript

"The eyes of the masses of the people are bright. "All sectors of society will continue to pay attention to the progress of this case, and hope that the people's court can give a reasonable response as soon as possible and live up to the high expectations of the people.

The construction of a society governed by the rule of law is a long and arduous undertaking, and in the process, problems and obstacles will inevitably be encountered. But we believe that the sunshine of justice will surely shine all over the heavens and the earth, so that all the darkness and decay in the world will have nowhere to hide!