Zhicheng Gao: Study on the Present Condition of Christian House Churches in Xinjiang

China Aid Association
Petition for Administrative Reconsideration
Petitioner: Xian Guiying, female, 40 years old, Han nationality, residing in Pingtan Village, Xinglou Township, Pizhou City, Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.
Petitioner: Zhang Suihong, female, 35 years old, Han nationality, residing in Hequan Village, Biantang Township, Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.
Petitioner: Wei Rongzhen, female, 44 years old, Han nationality, residing in No. 4 Section 15, Qianshanmiao, Gengji Township, Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.                          
Defendant: Public Security Bureau, Wen County, Henan Province.    
Requests for reconsideration:          
1. Revoke the Decision on Administrative Penalty on Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County, and return seized property.     
2. Deal with the actions of the Public Security Bureau of Wen County which severely violate regulations on case handling procedures.  
3. The Public Security Bureau of Wen County must apologize to Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen, and reinstate their freedom of religion and their dignity under the Constitution.        
Facts and Causes:
    At approximately 5 PM on March 13, 2006 after Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen attended the traditional Christian “house gathering” held at the home of Ma Wenqing in Zhangsi Village, Xiangyun Township of Wen County and were walking on the road, a number of Public Security officers took them by force to the Public Security Bureau of Wen County. They were cursed and insulted and subjected to illegal interrogations and beatings. March 14, 2006 the Defendant charged the Petitioners with engaging in evil cult activities and disrupting public order based on murky facts without an investigation. The penalty decision assessed upon Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen, by the defendant, was 7 days administrative detention according to Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order” (See attached Exhibit 1), and seizure of carry-on property (See attached Exhibit 2). Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen refuse to accept such administrative behavior and the administrative penalty decision based on the grounds as follows:
I. Unclear Facts
    The Defendant’s decision on March 13, 2006 to charge the Petitioners with exploiting an evil cult to disrupt public order was grounded on Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order” which says: organizing, abetting, threatening, deceiving, and instigating others to engage in activities of evil cults or heterodox sects, or disrupting public order and damaging other persons’ health by exploiting evil cults, heterodox sects or superstitious activities. Here two facts must be clarified:      

    1.  Faith vs. Evil Cult.
    2.  The Legitimacy of “House Gatherings”    
    1. While Petitioners Xian Guiying, Zhang Suihong, and Wei Rongzhen were walking on the road after the gathering,they were charged by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County with exploiting an evil cult to disrupt public order in violation of Item 1, Article 27 of “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order.” This charge was totally confounding right and wrong and reversal of good and evil. To judge if the Petitioner’s Christian faith is right or wrong is none of the business of the Defendant, but should be done by the Bureau of Religious Affairs of Wen County together with pastors in the Christian church. The Petitioners did not take advantage of their faith to defraud people of a single penny, nor did they disseminate opinions of anti-Party, anti-society, or anti-human nature. Facts have proven that they attended a Christian “house gathering.” The articles they brought with them, which were seized by the Defendant, were all items of Christianity, not a single one belonged to an evil cult. The Petitioners’ faith is pure Christian faith. The Defendant did not produce any facts or evidence to prove that the Petitioners committed the crime of exploiting an evil cult, nor did they conduct an in-depth investigation, but applied Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order” to detain the Petitioners for 7 days based on murky facts. The legal foundation was erroneous and the administrative action was arbitrary and barbarous, amounting to illegal interference in the Petitioners’ freedom of religion. Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religion. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities.” Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”
     Article 251 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China explicitly prescribes: “Workers of state organs who illegally deprive citizens’ of their right to freedom of religion or who encroach on minority nationalities’ customs or habits, if the case is serious, are to be sentenced to two years or fewer in prison or put under criminal detention.”              
    2. The Defendant said, while interrogating the Petitioner Zhang Suihong, that the gathering at Ma Wenqing’s home was not registered and was not a Three-Self church, so it was an illegal gathering and that coming from Jiangsu to Henan to meet constituted an evil cult, and that those gathering at Ma’s home were all evil cult members. These words demonstrate the Defendant’s one-sided view that gatherings at registered churches are legal and his assumption that Christian gatherings in homes are illegal. As law enforcement agencies handling religious affairs, they do not have an in-depth understanding of the relevant state policies, laws, and regulations on religion. Ignorance of the law will definitely lead to violation of the law. The state laws and regulations have explicit definitions and explanations in regard to gatherings such as that at Ma Wenqing’s home which belong to the traditional Christian “house gathering.”                  
     1. Centrally issued Document No. (82) 19  entitled “Regarding the Fundamental Positions and Fundamental Policies on the Issue of Religion in our Country during the Socialist Period” states in Part 6 that all the normal religious activities conducted at the venues of religious activities and the homes of religious believers according to religious customs, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting the scriptures, incense burning, Sunday worship, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, celebrating religious festivals, Last Rights, funeral services, etc., shall be administered by religious organizations and believers themselves and be protected by law without interference from anyone. As for the religious activities held by Christians in their homes, these should not be permitted in principle, but should not be prohibited by rigid and inflexible rules either. Instead, these should be handled by patriot religious professionals conducting persuasive efforts on the believing masses to make appropriate alternatives.
     2.In the “Reader of Laws, Regulations and Administration on Religion in China” covering the intensification of administration of religious affairs according to law Part 10 “Concerning the Necessity of Registration of Christian Gathering Sites and ‘House Gatherings'” – The house gatherings in traditional Christianity mainly refer to the religious life conducted by the believers in their own homes, attended primarily by family members and occasionally by a limited number of relatives and neighbors, with activities focused on Bible reading and prayer. Such gatherings are not presided over by religious ministers, and do not conduct religious ceremonies such as baptism. Such house gatherings do not belong to venues of religious activities and do not fit in the range of registration with the government. However, religious citizens must obey laws and regulations while holding house gatherings, and should not affect or interfere in the normal life, work, or study of their neighborhood.      
            3. Part 3 of the White Paper “The Status of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” (issued by the Information Office of the State Council on October 16, 1997) regarding the “judicial and administrative safeguard and supervision on freedom of religion” states that the religious activities conducted by Christians according to customs of Christianity at their homes such as Bible reading and prayer, attended primarily by family members and friends (customarily referred to by Chinese Christians as “house gatherings”) are not required to register.                     
    4. Article 51 of the “Reader of Popularizing the Law on Religious Affairs” defines the range of registration for venues of religious activities: the religious life conducted by the believers at their own homes according to traditional customs of Christianity, attended primarily by their own family members and occasionally by a limited number of relatives and neighbors, with activities simple in content and form generally limited to Bible reading and prayer. Such personal residences of believers do not fall in the range of registration for venues of religious activities.              
   5. Article 21 of the “Regulations on Religious Affairs of Henan Province” stipulates that the collective religious activities of believer should generally be conducted in the legally registered venues of religious activities. Believers can also conduct religious life in their own homes according to religious customs. Non-religious organizations or non-religious venues shall not organize or hold religious activities, nor shall they accept alms giving, contributions, offerings and other religious donations.                   
    6. Article 11 “The State Protects Normal Religious Activities” in the “Study Materials on Religious Policies, Laws and Regulations” compiled by the Department of Policy, Law and Regulation of the Administration of Religious Affairs of the People’s Government of Henan Province: The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the state protects normal religious activities, which refer to those religious activities conducted within the range permitted by the Constitution, laws and regulations. They usually refer to the religious activities conducted by believers at the legally registered venues of religious activities according to the canons, customs and practices of the various religions, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting scriptures, fasting, Sunday worship, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, Last Rights, funeral services, celebrating religious festivals, etc., as well the religious life conducted by  believers in their own homes. All these are normal religious activities protected by law and nobody shall interfere with.                   
  7. Article 3, Part 1, Question 1, of “Annotation of Regulations on Religious Affairs”: This article stipulates the obligations of the state in safeguarding freedom of religion according to the Constitution, laws, rules and regulations, and at the same time prescribes the duties that should be performed by the religious circles, as well as the principles that should be observed by various aspects of society.          
i. The State protects normal religious activities and maintains the legal rights of religious organizations, venues of religious activities, and citizens believing in religion according to law.                 (1)        With regard to    “normal religious activities,” there is a broader understanding and also a narrower understanding of religious activities. Religious activities in the broader sense include those conducted collectively by the believing masses and those conducted individually by believers themselves. Religious activities in the narrower sense refer mainly to those conducted collectively by the believing masses. Those religious activities conducted by religious organizations, venues of religious activities, professional religious ministers, and the believing masses according to the canons, customs and traditional practices of the various religions and within the range permitted by the relevant state policies, laws and regulations, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting the scriptures, incense burning, Sunday worshiping, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, Last Rights, funeral services, celebrating religious festivals, etc. at the venues of religious activities and homes of the believing masses, all belong to normal religious activities. The collective religious activities conducted by believers should generally be held at legally registered venues of religious activities and administered by the religious organizations and the believing masses themselves. Of course, conducting religious activities shall not violate the laws, rules and regulations of the state, shall not disrupt public order, shall not cause physical harm, shall not obstruct implementation of the state’s education system, nor shall they be allowed to exploit religion to oppose the Party leadership and socialist system, or disrupt national unification and solidarity of the various nationalities.           
8. “Transcripts of answers to questions concerning house gatherings by Ye Xiaowen, Director of the Administration of Religious Affairs of State Council”          
    In February 1996 Ye Xiaowen accepted the interview in Beijing from Ms. Menglan Chen, chief Beijing correspondent of CNN.                       
    Chen: China advocates freedom of religion. Why are there reports that some people are arrested because of holding religious ceremonies at home?                  
    Ye:            In China, no one will be arrested because of holding religious ceremonies at home. If there is any religious believer being imprisoned in China, I can tell everybody present responsibly, that he or she is being incarcerated only for breaking the law, not for believing in religion.              
            On August 25, 1998, the State Administration of Religious Affairs invited    Pat Robertson, Chairman of board of Christian Broadcasting Network of the U.S. for a visit.       
    Robertson: As soon as the venue of religious activities is registered, can believers freely pray and read the Bible there?     
    Ye: They can pray and read the Bible whether they register or not. Currently there are more than 110,000 venues of religious activities in China. Among them over 80,000 have been registered, and the remaining 30,000 or more have not. Regarding those venues of religious activities that have not yet registered, we only try to educate and persuade them to register with the government, but do not obstruct or interfere with their religious activities within the range permitted by law.                    
   Robertson:If they do not register with the government, will those in charge of such venues of religious activities be imprisoned?   
    Ye: In China, there are absolutely no cases of believers being imprisoned because of not registering with the government or engaging in normal religious activities.  
    On February 6, 1998, Director Ye Xiaowen, together with Han Wenzao, President of the Chinese Christian Association; and Deng Fucun, Vice President and Deputy Secretary-General of the Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee of the Protestant Churches in China, convened a joint press conference in Washington D.C. and answered reporters’ questions on issues concerning religion in China. Reporters from the Washington Post, Voice of America, AFP, Xinhua, China Press, The People’s Daily, and a number of other media organizations were present.                       
    Reporter: Ye Xiaowen, Just a moment ago you mentioned the section on Chinese religion in the human rights report by the U.S. State Department. Could you please talk about your opinions on it?
    Ye:            The accusations of the status of Chinese religion in the human rights report by the U.S. State Department are wrong. Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of religion. The Constitution of China clearly defines this basic right of citizens. And the Constitution and laws have provided practical protections for it. As a matter of fact, ever since the implementation of reform in 1978, while developing social productive forces and improving people’s rights to live and develop, China is dedicated to building a democratic country of rule of law. The various rights of citizens have been gradually developed and protected, so has been citizens’ right to freedom of religion.   
       The Petitioners’ gathering at the home of Ma Wenqing did not violate laws and regulations of the state. The articles they carried with them did not relate to an evil cult, nor bear any criminal facts. Article 30 of the “Act of Administrative Penalty of the People’s Republic of China” clearly stipulates: Any citizen, legal person, or organization that commits an act that violates the order of administrative management and deserves an administrative penalty according to the law, the law enforcement authority must clearly verify the facts. No administrative penalty shall be assessed unless the violation facts are clear.  
    Article 31: Prior to making the Decision to enforce the administrative penalty, the administrative authority should inform the concerned party of the facts, reasons and foundations of making the Decision to enforce the administrative penalty, as well as the rights the concerned party has according to law.           
    Article 132 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities” clearly stipulates that the public security authorities must verify the facts of the violation in handling administrative cases. No decision on administrative penalty shall be made unless the violation facts are clear.          
    The Defendant did not verify the facts and, in circumstance of unclear facts, charged the Petitioners with exploiting an illegal evil cult and penalized them to 7 days detention. This decision on administrative penalty was wrong.  
II. Violation of Case Handling Procedures
   1. Unlawful summons                
    At approximately 5 PM, on March 13, 2006, the Defendant did not produce law enforcement identification or a summons, did not explain the cause for the Summons, or notify the families promptly when they summoned the Petitioners to the Public Security Bureau of Wen County. Upon arrival they did not reissue the Summons immediately and conducted unlawful interrogations. This kind of administrative action severely violates the provisions of Article 46 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities” which stipulates that law enforcement identification and a Summons shall be produced when summoning suspected law-breakers. The suspected law-breakers found on the spot can be summoned by an oral warrant. After the suspects have been summoned for the case, a Summons should be immediately reissued.         
    Article 82 of “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order”: A Summons shall be issued to summon a person suspected of violating the public order for investigation after approval by office in charge of the case of the public security authorities. Persons suspected of actions violating the public order can be summoned on the spot, after police produce a working identification, by oral warrant and making note of this on interrogation records. The public security authorities should inform the person being summoned of the reasons and grounds of the summons. Those who refuse the summons or evade the summons without valid reasons can be summoned by force.   
            Article 83: The public security authorities shall put the person suspected of violating public order through enquiry and verification promptly after summoning, and the time of enquiry and verification shall not exceed 8 hours. For cases of a complicated nature, a penalty of administrative detention according to this rule may apply. The time of enquiry and verification shall not exceed 24 hours.                      
The public security authorities should promptly notify the family of the person being summoned of the reasons and location of summons.     
   2. Refusal of statement and defense         
   On March 13, 2006, the Defendant, in interrogation of the Petitioner Wei Rongzhen, refused the statement and defense from the Petitioner. In addition, the Defendant kicked the Petitioner three times, slapped her face several times, and insulted and cursed her. The Petitioner was so scared that she dared not speak a word. Petitioners Xian Guiying and Zhang Suihong suffered similar brutal beatings, insults, and curses to various degrees. This administrative action severely violates Article 56 of “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities”: In interrogations, the statement and defense of the suspected law-breaker should be heard and verified with care.                      
    Article 32 of the “Act of Administrative Penalty of the People’s Republic of China”: The concerned party shall have the right to make a statement and to defense. The administrative authority should adequately hear the opinions of the concerned party and review the facts, reasons, and evidence raised by the concerned party. The administrative authority should accept those tenable facts, reasons, or evidence raised by the concerned party. The administrative authority shall not aggravate the penalty because of the concerned party’s defense.           
    Article 41: If the administrative authority and its law enforcement personnel do not inform the concerned party of the facts, reasons and grounds of the administrative penalty prior to making the decision, or refuse to hear statements and defense of the concerned party, as prescribed by Article 31 and 32 of this Act, the decision on administrative penalty shall be null, except when the concerned party surrenders the right of defense.                
    Article 22 of the “Act of the Police of the People’s Republic of China”: The police shall not act in the following ways:         
    Item 4.       Extortion of confession through torture, or treat inmates with physical punishment or cruelty;      
    Item 7.  Beat people or instigate others to beat people
    The Defendant did not hear the statement of the Petitioners, let alone review the facts raised by the Petitioners, instead they beat, insulted, and cursed the Petitioners. Therefore the penalty is invalid.           
    3. Handling of seized property 
    On March 13, 2006, the    property of the Petitioners was seized without receipt of a list of seizure. When the Petitioners attempted to claim their property at termination of the detention period, the Defendant refused to return the property without reason. This administrative action severely violates Article 85 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities”: Articles and documents discovered during case investigation that can be used as evidence for the facts in the case, and applicable for being registered and preserved beforehand to prevent concerned parties from destroying and transferring evidence, can be seized after approval by the officer in charge within the public security authorities above the level of those handling the case.              
    Articles and documents unrelated to the case shall not be seized. The articles and documents that are seized, if ascertained to be irrelevant to the case, shall be immediately released from seizure. The legitimate articles and documents under control of the victims shall not be seized, but can be registered and preserved in advance.
   Article 88: the public security authorities     shall make decisions on seized articles and documents within 15 days. If no decision has been made beyond the period, the public security authorities shall return the articles and documents to the concerned parties.       
    Article 89 of “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order”: The public security authorities, while handling cases of maintaining public order, can seize articles that are relevant to the case and necessary to serve as evidence. The property legally possessed by the victims or good-will third parties shall not be seized, yet can be registered. Articles irrelevant to the case shall not be seized.       The seized articles shall be sorted clearly in collaboration with a witness present and owner of the seized articles, and draw up a list on the spot with two identical copies bearing signatures or seals of the investigating personnel, the witness, and the owner. One copy should be given to the owner, and the other be attached for reference.        
The seized articles shall be taken care of and are not to be diverted for any other use. Articles which are not suitable for long-term storage shall be handled according to relevant regulations. Those which are ascertained to be irrelevant to the case shall be returned promptly. Those which are verified to legally belong to other persons shall be registered and returned immediately. Property to which no ownership is claimed within six months or whose ownership is unverifiable, shall be auctioned off in public or dealt with according to relevant regulations of the state with the funds thus obtained being turned over to state treasury.    

    This kind of administrative action on the part of the Defendant employed trickery and deception and the believers were greatly hurt. Moreover, it spoils the image of “running the police for the public and enforcing the law for the people” advocated by the Party and the government. Most detestable of all are the beats, insults and cursing by the police officers handling this case. It is shameful for the public security departments to have such “black sheep” officers acting in utter disregard of law and discipline. The Petitioners strongly urge that the government assess administrative discipline upon the officers handling this case.     
    Summarizing the above-mentioned facts and reasons, a request for reconsideration is filed according to law, in order to protect the legitimate rights of the Petitioners, to normally implement laws and regulations of the state, and to safeguard the dignity of the state. And a review thereof according to law is expected, as well as a written response to be provided to the Petitioners.                       
Hereby addressed to   
The People’s Government of Wen County
Petitioner:         Xian Guiying    
Petitioner:         Zhang Suihong  
Petitioner:         Wei Rongzhen

Entrusted agent: Chu Huaiting         
March 30, 2006                           
Addendum materials:         
1.         Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security      
2.         Certificate of Detailed List of Properties
3.         Entrustment Paper 
The Public Security Bureau of Wen County
Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security
Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 038
Penalty receiver: Zhang Suihong, female, current age 35 years, residing in Hequan Village, Biantang Township, Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province. 
Now it is discovered that Zhang was engaged in evil cult activities to disrupt public order at the home of Ma Wenqing, in Zhangsi Village, Xiangyun Township of Wen County on March 13, 2006.   
The above-mentioned facts have been corroborated by the self-statement of Zhang Suihong, the person of action in violating maintaining public order, and by eye witness testimony. 
Based on Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining public order of the People’s Republic of China,” it is decided that a penalty of 7 days administrative detention is thus assessed. You are required to                   before                
If you refuse to accept this decision, you can file a petition for administrative reconsideration, within 60 days from the day of receiving this decision, to the Public Security Bureau of Jiaozuo City or to the People’s Government of Wen County, or institute an administrative proceeding with the People’s Court according to law.      
March 14, 2006       
Public Security Bureau of Wen County
Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security
Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 036
Penalty receiver: Wei Rongzhen, female, current age 44 years, Han nationality, residing in Xiguan, Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.          
Now it is discovered that Wei was engaged in evil cult activities to disrupt public order at the home of Ma Wenqing, in Zhangsi Village, Xiangyun Township of Wen County on March 13, 2006. 

The above-mentioned facts have been corroborated by the statement of Zhang Suihong, the person of action in violating maintaining public order, and by eye witness testimony.  
Based on Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining public order of the people’s republic of China,” it is decided that a penalty of 7 days of administrative detention is thus assessed. You are required to   before            
If you refuse to accept this decision, you can file a petition for administrative reconsideration, within 60 days from the day of receiving this decision, to the Public Security Bureau of Jiaozuo City or to the People’s Government of Wen County, or institute administrative proceedings with the People’s Court according to law.                     
March 14, 2006
Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security      
Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 037     
Penalty receiver: Xian Guiying, female, age 40 years, Han nationality, residing in Xuzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province.  
Now it is discovered that Xian was engaged in evil cult activities to disrupt public order at the home of Ma Wenqing, in Zhangsi Village, Xiangyun Township of Wen County on March 13, 2006. 
The above-mentioned facts have been corroborated by the statement of Zhang Suihong, the person of action in violating maintaining public order, and by eye witness testimony.    
Based on Item 1, Article 27 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order of the people’s republic of China,” it is decided that a penalty of 7 days of administrative detention is thus assessed. You are required to    before         
If you refuse to accept this decision, you can file a petition for administrative reconsideration, within 60 days from the day of receiving this decision, to the Public Security Bureau of Jiaozuo City or to the People’s Government of Wen County, or institute administrative proceedings with the People’s Court according to law.                      
March 14, 2006
Certificate
My name is Zhang Suihong. Following is a list of the articles seized by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County from me on March 13, 2006:
One Bible, one Canaan Hymns, one hymnal, two textbooks, two notebooks, and photocopied hymn sheets.  
Certifier: Zhang Suihong
March 30, 2006
Certificate        
My name is Xian Guiying. Following is a list of the property seized by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County from me on March 13, 2006: RMB50.00.   
Certifier: Xian Guiying

March 30, 2006
Certificate
My name is Wei Rongzhen. Following is a list of the property seized by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County from me on March 13, 2006: RMB 82.00, one Bible, one Canaan Hymns, one hymnal, two notebooks, and photocopied hymn sheets.
Certifier: Wei Rongzhen
March 30, 2006
Letter of Entrustment 
    The principal Wei Rongzhen, in regard to my refusal to accept Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 036 Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and filing Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, hereby entrusts Mr. Chu Huaiting as agent with the following authorizations: 
     (1) Gather and provide evidence;    
     (2) Present proxy opinions;           
     (3) Apply for challenge;
     (4) Withdraw Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
     (5) Receive documents of Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf.
The principal: Wei Rongzhen                     The entrusted: Chu Huaiting
March 30, 2006
Letter of Entrustment
    The principal Xian Guiying, in regard to my refusal to accept Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 037 Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and filing Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, hereby entrusts Mr. Chu Huaiting as agent with the following authorizations: 
     (1) Gather and provide evidence; 
     (2) Present proxy opinions; 
     (3) Apply for challenge; 
     (4) Withdraw Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
     (5) Receive documents of Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
The principal: Xian Guiying                                The entrusted: Chu Huaiting
March 30, 2006
Letter of Entrustment     
    The principal Zhang Suihong, in regard to my refusal to accept Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 038 Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and filing Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, hereby entrusts Mr. Chu Huaiting as agent with the following authorizations: 
     (1) Gather and provide evidence;
     (2) Present proxy opinions;      
     (3) Apply for challenge;
     (4) Withdraw Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
     (5) Receive documents of Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
The principal: Zhang Suihong      The entrusted: Chu Huaiting       
March 30, 2006
The People’s Government of Wen County
Notice of Acceptance and Hearing of Reconsideration Case 
Wen Gov. Reconsideration Acceptance No. (2006) 14     
Xian Guiying:   
You refused to accept the Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 037 “Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security” by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County on March 14, 2006, and filed Petition for Administrative Reconsideration to this government on March 31, 2006. A review has found that it conforms to the range of Reconsideration prescribed by Article 6 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.” It is decided that the Petition will be accepted for hearing based on stipulations of Article 17 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.”
            You are hereby notified.
April 3, 2006 
The People’s Government of Wen County
Notice of Acceptance and Hearing of Reconsideration Case    
Wen Gov. Reconsideration Acceptance No. (2006) 15 
Zhang Suihong:
You refused to accept the Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 038 “Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security” by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County on March 14, 2006, and filed Petition for Administrative Reconsideration to this government on March 31, 2006. A review has found that it conforms to the range of Reconsideration prescribed by Article 6 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.” It is decided that the Petition will be accepted for hearing based on stipulations of Article 17 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.”
            You are herby notified. 
April 3, 2006 
The People’s Government of Wen County
Notice of Acceptance and Hearing of Reconsideration Case
Wen Gov. Reconsideration Acceptance No. (2006) 16 
Wei Rongzhen:
You refused to accept the Wen Pub (bureau) Decision (2006) No. 036 “Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security” by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County on March 14, 2006, and filed Petition for Administrative Reconsideration to this government on March 31, 2006. A review has found that it conforms to the range of Reconsideration prescribed by Article 6 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.” It is decided that the Petition will be accepted for hearing based on stipulations of Article 17 of the “Act of Administrative Reconsideration of the People’s Republic of China.”          

You are herby notified.
April 3, 2006  









Petition for Administrative Reconsideration

Petitioner: Ma Jianling, female, 38 years old, Han nationality, residing in Jiashapa Village, Wenyu Township, Lushi County, Sanmenxia Prefecture, Henan Province.

Petitioner: Hou Xiang, female, 45 years old, Han nationality, residing in Jiashapa Village, Wenyu Township, Lushi County, Sanmenxia Prefecture, Henan Province.
Petitioner: Cai Yanli, female, 26 years old, Han nationality, residing in Meigoukou Village, Wenyu Township, Lushi County, Sanmenxia Prefecture, Henan Province.
Defendant: Public Security Bureau of Wen County       
Requests for reconsideration:          
1. Revoke the Decision on Administrative Penalty on Petitioners Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County, and return seized properties.    
2. Deal with the actions of the Public Security Bureau of Wen County which severely violates regulations on case handling procedures.  
3. The Public Security Bureau of Wen County must apologize to Petitioners Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli, and reinstate their freedom of religion and their dignity under the Constitution.
Facts and Causes:
     On March 14, 2006, without investigating the facts, the Defendant charged the Petitioners with engaging in evil cult activities and disrupting public order based on murky facts. The penalty decision assessed upon the Petitioners of 5 days of administrative detention and seizure of carry-on property without providing legal documentation. Petitioners Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli refused to accept such administrative behavior and the administrative penalty decision for the following reasons:       
I. Unclear facts
    The Defendant charged on March 13, 2006, that the Petitioners exploited an evil cult to disrupt public order without factual and legal grounds, and assessed upon the Petitioners, 5 days of administrative detention without providing a penalty decision paper. Only the Public Security Bureau of Lushi County provided a testimony (See Exhibit 1) of the Defendant’s conviction of the Petitioners as evil cult members. Here two facts must be clarified:
    1.  Faith vs. Evil Cult   
       2.  The Legitimacy of “House Gatherings” 
1. While petitioners Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli were walking on the road after the gathering, they were taken to the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and charged with exploiting an evil cult, disrupting public order and given an Administrative Penalty. This charge totally confounded right and wrong and reversal of good and evil. To judge the Petitioners’ Christian faith is not the business of the Defendant, but should be decided upon the basis of the Bible and facts by the Bureau of Religious Affairs of Wen County together with pastors in the Christian church. The Petitioners did not take advantage of their faith to defraud people of a single penny, nor did they disseminate opinions of anti-Party, anti-society, or anti-human nature. Facts proved that they attended a Christian house gathering. The articles they brought with them, which were seized by the Defendant, were all items of Christianity, not a single piece belonged to an evil cult. The Petitioners’ faith is pure Christian faith. The Defendant did not produce any facts or evidence to prove that the Petitioners committed the crime of exploiting an evil cult, did not conduct an in-depth investigation, but detained the petitioners for 5 days based upon murky facts. This kind of administrative action was arbitrary and barbarous, amounting to illegal interference in the Petitioners’ freedom of religion. Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religion. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities.”       
   Article 18 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”    
   Article 251 of the “Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China” explicitly prescribes: “Workers of state organs who illegally deprive citizens’ of their right to freedom of religion or who encroach on minority nationalities’ customs or habits, if the case is serious, are to be sentenced to two years or fewer in prison or put under criminal detention.”              
    2. The Defendant said, while interrogating the Petitioners Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli that the gathering at Ma Wenqing’s home was not register and was not a Three-Self church so it was an illegal gathering, that coming from Lushi County to Wen County for the gathering was exploiting an evil cult, and that those gathering at Ma’s home were all evil cult members, and that not belonging to the Three-Self church constituted an illegal evil cult. These words show that the Defendant has a one-sided view that gatherings at registered churches are legal, and assuming that home gatherings by believers are illegal. As law enforcement agencies handling religious affairs, they do not have an in-depth understanding of the relevant state policies and laws and regulations on religion. Ignorance of the law will definitely lead to violation of the law. The state laws and regulations have explicit definitions and explanations in regard to gatherings such as that at Ma Wenqing’s home which belong to the traditional Christian “house gathering.”              
     1. Centrally issued Document No. (82) 19    entitled “Regarding the Fundamental Positions and Fundamental Policies on the Issue of Religion in our Country during the Socialist Period” states in Part 6 that all the normal religious activities conducted at the venues of religious activities and the homes of religious believers according to religious customs, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting the scriptures, incense burning, Sunday worshiping, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, celebrating religious festivals, Last Rights, funeral services, etc., shall be administered by religious organizations and believers themselves and be protected by law without interference from anybody else. As for the religious activities held by Christians at their homes, these should not be permitted in principle, but should not be prohibited by rigid and inflexible rules either. Instead, these should be handled by patriot religious professionals conducting persuasive efforts on the believing masses to make appropriate alternatives.
2.In the “Reader of Laws, Regulations and Administration on Religion in China” covering the intensification of administration of religious affairs according to law Part 10 “Concerning the Necessity of Registration of Christian Gathering Sites and ‘House Gatherings'”: The house gatherings in traditional Christianity mainly refer to the religious life conducted by the believers at their own homes, attended primarily by family members and occasionally by a limited number of relatives and neighbors, with activities focused on Bible reading and praying. Such gatherings are not presided over by religious ministers, and do not conduct religious ceremonies such as baptism. Such house gatherings do not belong to venues of religious activities and do not fit in the range of registration with the government. However, religious citizens must obey laws and regulations while holding house gatherings, and should not affect or interfere with the normal order of life, work, or study of their neighborhood.                
3. Part 3 of the White Paper “The Status of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” (issued by the Information Office of the State Council on October 16, 1997) regarding the “judicial and administrative safeguard and supervision on freedom of religious belief” states that the religious activities conducted by Christians according to customs of Christianity at their homes such as Bible reading and praying attended primarily by family members and friends (customarily referred to by Chinese Christianity as “house gatherings”) are not required to register.              
4. Question 51 of “Reader of Popularizing the Law on Religious Affairs” defines the range of registration for venues of religious activities: the religious life conducted by believers in their own homes according to traditional customs of Christianity, attended primarily by their own family members and occasionally by limited number of relatives and neighbors, with activities simple in content and form generally limited to Bible reading and praying. Such personal residences of believers do not fall in the range of registration for venues of religious activities.
5. Article 21 of the “Regulations on Religious Affairs of Henan Province” stipulates that the collective religious activities of believers should generally be conducted in the legally registered venues of religious activities. The believers can also conduct religious life at their own homes according to religious customs. Non-religious organizations or non-religious venues shall not organize or hold religious activities, nor shall they accept alms giving, contributions, offerings, and other religious donations. 
           6. Question 11 “The State Protects Normal Religious Activities” in the “Study Materials on Religious Policies, Laws and Regulations” compiled by the Department of Policy, Law and Regulation of the Administration of Religious Affairs of the People’s Government of Henan Province: The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the state protects normal religious activities, which refer to those religious activities conducted within the range permitted by the Constitution, laws and regulations. They usually refer to the religious activities conducted by believers at the legally registered venues of religious activities according to the canons, customs and practices of the various religions, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting the scriptures, fasting, Sunday worshiping, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, Last Rights, funeral services, celebrating religious festivals, etc., as well the religious life conducted by believers in their own homes. All these are normal religious activities protected by law and nobody shall interfere with.
       7. Article 3 Part 1 Question 1 of “Annotation of Regulations on Religious Affairs”: This article stipulates the obligations of the state in safeguarding freedom of religion according to the Constitution, laws, rules and regulations, and at the same time prescribes the duties that should be performed by the religious circles, as well as the principles that should be observed by various aspects of society.
     I. The State protects normal religious activities and maintains the legal rights of religious organizations, venues of religious activities, and religious citizens according to law.              
(1)        With regard to    “normal religious activities,” there is a broader understanding and also a narrower understanding of religious activities. Religious activities in the broader sense include those conducted collectively by the believing masses and those conducted individually by believers themselves. Religious activities in the narrower sense refer mainly to those conducted collectively by the believing masses. Those religious activities conducted by religious organizations, venues of religious activities, professional religious ministers, and the believing masses according to the canons, customs and traditional practices of the various religions and within the range permitted by the relevant state policies, laws and regulations, including but not limited to worshiping the Buddha, reciting the scriptures, incense burning, Sunday worshiping, praying, explaining the scriptures, preaching the Gospel, Mass, baptism, being initiated into monkhood or nunhood, Ramadan, Last Rights, funeral services, celebrating religious festivals, etc. at the venues of religious activities and homes of the believing masses, all belong to normal religious activities. The collective religious activities conducted by believers generally should be held at legally registered venues of religious activities and administered by the religious organizations and the believing masses themselves. Of course, conducting religious activities shall not violate the laws, rules and regulations of the state, shall not disrupt public order, shall not cause bodily harm, shall not obstruct implementation of the state’s education system, nor shall they be allowed to exploit religion to oppose the Party leadership and socialist system, or disrupt national unification and solidarity of the various nationalities.
8. “Transcripts of answers to questions concerning house gatherings by Ye Xiaowen, Director of the Administration of Religious Affairs of State Council”          
    In February 1996, Ye Xiaowen accepted the interview in Beijing from Ms. Menglan Chen, chief Beijing correspondent of CNN.               
    Chen: China advocates freedom of religious belief. Why is there reporting that some people are being arrested because of holding religious ceremonies at home?                 
    Ye:            In China, no one will be arrested because of holding religious ceremonies at home. If there is any religious believer being imprisoned in China, I can tell everybody present responsibly, that he or she is being incarcerated only for breaking the law, not for believing in religion.              
            On August 25 1998, the State Administration of Religious Affairs invited     Pat Robertson, Chairman of board of Christian Broadcasting Network of the U.S. for a visit.       
    Robertson: As soon as the venue of religious activities is registered, can believers freely pray and read the Bible there?     
    Ye: They can pray and read the Bible whether they register or not. Currently there are more than 110,000 venues of religious activities in China. Among them over 80,000 have been registered, and the remaining 30,000 or more have not. Regarding those venues of religious activities that have not yet registered, we only try to educate and persuade them to register with the government, but do not obstruct or interfere with their religious activities within the range permitted by law.                    
   Robertson:If not registered with the government, will those in charge of such venues of religious activities be imprisoned?       
    Ye: In China, there are absolutely no cases of believers being imprisoned because of not registering with the government or engaging in normal religious activities.  
    On February 6, 1998, Director Ye Xiaowen, together with Han Wenzao, President of Chinese Christian Association, and Deng Fucun, Vice President and Deputy Secretary-General of the Three-self Patriotic Movement Committee of the Protestant Churches in China convened a joint press conference in Washington D.C. and answered reporters’ questions on issues concerning religion in China. Reporters present were from the Washington Post, Voice of America, AFP, Xinhua, China Press, the People’s Daily and a number of other media organizations.                  
    Reporter: Ye Xiaowen, Just a moment ago you mentioned the section on Chinese religion in the human rights report by the U.S. State Department. Could you please talk about your opinions on it?
   Ye:            The accusations of the status of Chinese religion in the human rights report by the U.S. State Department are wrong. Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief. The Constitution of China clearly defines this basic right of citizens. And the Constitution and laws have provided practical protections for it. As a matter of fact, ever since the implementation of reform in 1978, while developing social productive forces and improving people’s right to live and develop, China is dedicated to building a democratic country of rule of law. The various rights of citizens have been gradually developed and protected, as have citizens’ right to freedom of religion.
     The Petitioners’ gathering at the home of Ma Wenqing did not violate laws and regulations of the state. The articles they carried with them did not relate to an evil cult, nor bear any criminal facts. Article 93 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order” clearly stipulates: the public security authorities can make decisions on maintaining public order penalties, on handling cases of maintaining public order where the case facts can be verified by evidence other than personal statements; but decisions on maintaining public order penalties cannot be made on cases where there are only personal statements and no other evidence to prove the case facts.    
            Article 30 of the “Act of Administrative Penalty of the People’s Republic of China” clearly stipulates: Any citizen, legal person, or other organization violating the order of administrative management that deserves administrative penalty according to law, the law enforcement authority must clearly verify the facts; No administrative penalty shall be assessed unless the violation facts are clear.   
    Article 31: Prior to making the Decision to assess the administrative penalty, the administrative authority should inform the concerned party of the facts, reasons and foundations of making the Decision, as well as the rights of the concerned party according to law. Article 132 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities” clearly stipulates that the public security authorities must verify the violation facts in handling administrative cases. No decision on administrative penalty shall be made unless the violation facts are clear. 
     The Defendant did not verify the facts and in circumstances of unclear facts, charged the Petitioners with exploiting an illegal evil cult and penalized them to 5 days detention. This decision on administrative penalty was wrong.   
II. Violation of Case Handling Procedures
   1. Unlawful summoning    
            At about 5 pm on March 13, 2006 the Defendant did not produce law enforcement identifications or a summons, did not announce causes for the summons, or promptly notify the families when he took the Petitioners to the Public Security Bureau of Wen County. Upon arrival they did not immediately reissue the summons and conducted unlawful interrogations. This kind of administrative action severely violates the provisions of Article 46 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities” which stipulates that law enforcement identification and a summons shall be produced when summoning suspected law-breaker. The suspected law-breaker found on the spot can be summoned by an oral warrant. After the suspects have been summoned for the case, summonses should be immediately reissued.                                                                 
2. Refusal of statement and defense
    On March 13, 2006, the Defendant, in interrogation of the Petitioners, refused the statement and defense from the Petitioner. In addition, the Defendant assessed beatings, insults, and cursed the Petitioners. This administrative action severely violates Article 56 of “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities”: In interrogations, the statement and defense of the suspected law-breaker should be heard and verified with care.          
   Article 32 of the “Act of Administrative Penalty of the People’s Republic of China”: The concerned party shall have the right to make a statement and defense. The administrative authority should adequately hear the opinions of the concerned party and review the facts, reasons, and evidence raised by the concerned party. The administrative authority should accept those facts, reasons, or evidence raised by the concerned party that are tenable. The administrative authority shall not aggravate the penalty because of the concerned party’s defense.
   Article 41: If the administrative authority and its law enforcement personnel do not inform the concerned party of the facts, reasons and grounds of the administrative penalty prior to making the decision on administrative penalty, or refuse to hear statements and defense of the concerned party, as prescribed by Article 31 and 32 of this Act, the decision on administrative penalty shall be null, except when the concerned party surrenders the right of defense.                                           
    The Defendant did not hear the statement of the Petitioners, let alone review the facts raised by them. Instead he beat, insulted, and cursed the Petitioners. Therefore the penalty is invalid.
3. No Decision on Administrative Penalty was given at conclusion of the case 
     On March 14, 2006 the Public Security Bureau of Wen County made a decision charging the Petitioners with illegal gathering of evil cult and assessing an administrative detention of 5 days, but did not hand down a Decision on Administrative Penalty, nor did they inform the Petitioners of the legal rights they enjoy. This kind of administrative action severely violates Article 96 of the “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order”: In cases that Public Security Authorities reach a decision on penalty of maintaining public order, a formal Decision on Penalty of Maintaining Public Order should be made with the following content clearly indicated:                            
     (1)  Name, gender, age, title and number of identification card, and address of the person receiving the penalty.
     (2)  Law violation facts and evidence; 
     (3)  Type and reasons of penalty;    
     (4)  Execution method and duration of penalty;       
     (5)  Ways and time limits of petitioning for administrative reconsideration or instituting administrative proceedings if refusing to accept the penalty decision;
     (6)  Name of the Public Security Authority making the penalty decision and date of decision. 
     A Decision on Administrative Penalty should bear the seal of the Public Security Authorities making the penalty decision.           
4. Unlawful seizure of property 
     On March 13, 2006, the property of the Petitioners was seized by the Defendant (See attached Exhibit 2) who did not provide a list of seizure, or Decision on treatment, nor any reason. This administrative action severely violates Article 85 of the “Procedural Regulations on Handling Administrative Cases by the Public Security Authorities”: Articles and documents discovered during case investigation that can be used as evidence for the facts in the case, and applicable for being registered and preserved beforehand to prevent concerned parties from destroying and transferring evidence, can be seized after approval by the officer in charge within the public security authorities above the level of those handling the case.
    Articles and documents unrelated to the case shall not be seized. The articles and documents that are seized, if ascertained to be irrelevant to the case, shall be immediately released from seizure. The legitimate articles and documents under control of the victims shall not be seized, but can be registered and preserved in advance.
    Article 88: the public security authorities shall make decisions on seized articles and documents within 15 days. If no decision has been made beyond the period, the public security authorities shall return the articles and documents to the concerned parties.
   Article 89 of “Penalty Rules of Maintaining Public Order”: The public security authorities, while handling cases of maintaining public order, can seize articles that are relevant to the case and necessary to serve as evidence. The properties legally possessed by the victims or good-will third parties shall not be seized, yet can be registered. Articles irrelevant to the case shall not be seized.
     The seized articles shall be sorted clearly in collaboration with a witness present and owner of the seized articles, and draw up a list on the spot with two identical copies bearing signatures or a seal of the investigating personnel, the witness, and the owner. One copy should be given to the owner, and the other be attached for reference.          
            The seized articles shall be taken care of and not to be diverted for other uses. Articles which are not suitable for long-term storage shall be handled according to relevant regulations. Those which are ascertained to be irrelevant to the case shall be returned promptly. Those which are verified to legally belong to other persons shall be registered and returned immediately. Property to which no one claims ownership in six months or it is impossible to verify the rightful owners, shall be auctioned off in public, or dealt with according to relevant regulations of the state with the fund thus obtained being turned over to state treasury.
    This kind of administrative action on the part of the Defendant employed trickery and deception and greatly hurt the believers. Moreover, it spoils the image of “running the police for the public and enforcing the law for the people” advocated by the Party and the government. Most detestable of all are the beatings, insults and cursing on the part of the police officers handling this case. It is a shame for the public security departments to have such “black sheep” officers acting in utter disregard of law and discipline. The Petitioners strongly urge that the government assess administrative discipline on the officers handling this case.      
    Summarizing the above-mentioned facts and reasons, a request for reconsideration is filed according to law, in order to protect the legitimate rights of the Petitioners, to normally implement laws and regulations of the state, and to safeguard dignity of the state. And a review thereof according to law is expected, and a written response to be provided to the Petitioners.               
Hereby addressed to   
The People’s Government of Wen County
                                                                                                            Petitioner:                     Ma Jianling      
                                                                                                            Petitioner:                     Hou Xiang        
                                                                                                            Petitioner:                     Cai Yanli
                                                                                                            Entrusted agent:             Chu Huaiting         
                                                                                                                                    April 15, 2006

Addendum materials:         
1.  Certificate of the Public Security Bureau of Lushi County    
2.       Detailed List of Seized Properties
3.  Entrustment Paper
Certificate
It is hereby certified that Ma Jianling, Hou Xiang, and Cai Yanli, residents of Wenyu Township of this County, were assessed a public order penalty for participating in an illegal religious activity in Wen County, and were escorted back to this County and concluded execution of the 5 days detention.        
Domestic Security Brigade, Public Security Bureau of Lushi County

March 30, 2006
Certificate                    
Following is a list of the property seized from me by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County on March 14, 2006: Two Bibles, three notebooks, three ball point pens.                 

Certifier:Ma Jianling
April 15, 2006
Certificate           
Following is a list of the articles seized from me by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County on March 14, 2006:
One Bible, one notebook, one ball point pen, and one hymnal.          
Certifier:Cai Yanli
April 15, 2006
Letter of Entrustment     
    The principal Ma Jianling, in regard to my refusal to accept the Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security of 5 days detention by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and filing Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, hereby entrusts Mr. Chu Huaiting as my agent with the following authorizations: 
     (1) Gather and provide evidence;    
     (2) Present proxy opinions;           
    · (3) Apply for challenge;
     (4) Withdraw Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
     (5) Receive documents of Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf.
The principal: Ma Jianling                         The entrusted: Chu Huaiting
April 15, 2006
Letter of Entrustment  
    The principal Cai Yanli, in regard to my refuses to accept the Decision on Administrative Penalty of Public Security of 5 days detention by the Public Security Bureau of Wen County and filing Petition for Administrative Reconsideration, hereby entrusts Mr. Chu Huaiting as my agent with the following authorizations: 
     (1) Gather and provide evidence;    
     (2) Present proxy opinions;           
    · (3) Apply for challenge;
     (4) Withdraw Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf
     (5) Receive documents of Administrative Reconsideration on my behalf.
The principal: Cai Yanli                The entrusted: Chu Huaiting
April 15, 2006.


China Aid Contacts
Rachel Ritchie, English Media Director
Cell: (432) 553-1080 | Office: 1+ (888) 889-7757 | Other: (432) 689-6985
Email: [email protected] 
Website: www.chinaaid.org

Scroll to Top