Chapter 458 Wrong Loophole? The basis for the presiding judge's rejection.

Bench on the judging table.

As the presiding judge, Zhang Mengwei has known about Su Bai's statement of this lawsuit for a long time.

Because of this case ....

During the collation period, as well as during the appeal of the accusation.

From any point of view, these are the only two points that are important for the indictment.

That is, the two points stated by Su Bai are the infringement of the right to name and the infringement of the right to be educated

Zhang Mengwei sorted out the relevant materials a little, and made a rough summary of these two points in his heart.

Then he looked at the defense.

"Does the defendant's lawyer have anything to state about the plaintiff's accusation against the defendant, or is there anything that needs to be refuted?"

This time, the defense only appeared in court to appoint a lawyer.

As Ye Meizhen's entrusted lawyer, he is also a well-known lawyer in Zhou City's civil litigation.

Zhou Liang is too familiar with the trial process of the Zhou Intermediate Court.

And I know too much about the local judicial environment.

Although the judicial environment is not bad, there will be no serious unjust, false and wrongly decided cases, serious judgment tendencies, and so on.

But in judgments, it is common to be biased and to clearly favor the other side in accordance with the law.

One more point.

What is the main basis for the verdict?

The main reliance is on the presiding judge.

Wang Qirui made it very clear when he found their law firm and entrusted this trial.

That is, in this trial, there is no need to do too much, and there is no need to do too many strong rebuttals.

It is only necessary to look for some favorable conditions according to the evidence of the other party

As long as you can refute the other party and have a basis, it's fine.

Leave the rest alone.

What does this mean?

This has made it clear that Wang Qirui has already said hello to the court.

His side is not too important, he just needs to make a statement in accordance with the usual court hearing.

Thinking of this, Zhou Liang opened his mouth to make a statement:

"Presiding Judge."

"We don't have much objection to the infringement of the plaintiff's right to a name."

"But as for the amount of compensation, we disagree."

"The amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff for more than 120,000 yuan is too high."

"In terms of name rights, our client, Ye Meizhen, used the name Liu Wenya to accept the income from her own labor."

"I just used Liu Wenya's name, and I didn't use this name to generate any benefits."

"In other words, Ye Meizhen's labor remuneration is all in exchange for her own labor."

"Here, we are willing to compensate the plaintiff for the cost of 5,000 yuan for the infringement of the right to a name."

"I don't recognize the amount of more than 120,000 yuan proposed by the plaintiff."

"Also...."

"The plaintiff's claim violates the right to education."

"We think this should be dismissed in court."

Here's why:"

"First of all, the nine-year compulsory education ends in junior high school, and Liu Wenya is no longer protected by the nine-year compulsory education law after graduating from high school."

"In addition, the defense does have actual evidence of the violation of the right to education."

"However, there is substantial evidence to prove that our client Li Meizhen violated Liu Wenya's right to education, which cannot be judged at the trial."

"In the same way, we can't use this to demand compensation from the plaintiff in court."

"Because this trial involves civil liability, it is a civil case."

"What is the right to be educated?"

"The right to be educated is the Constitution!"

"There is a huge difference between the Constitution and the Civil Law, and the plaintiff files a civil lawsuit based on the content of the Constitution, so that we are liable for the civil lawsuit."

"That's completely unreasonable and doesn't work."

"Therefore, our application is dismissed, and the second content of the plaintiff's statement."

"That's what we're saying."

Zhou Liang made a statement at the trial in accordance with the basic legal content.

The content of the statement is also very concise, that is, in the course of this case.

It was determined that compensation was required for the infringement of the right to a name, but the amount of compensation was only willing to pay 5,000.

Other than that....

The right to be educated is also a constitutional content, and should not bear civil liability, and should not be subject to a civil lawsuit, to apply for the rejection of Su Bai's lawsuit.

Then again.

What is the situation of Zhou Liang's statement?

What's in it?

There's a very interesting thing in this.

That is, if according to the situation stated by Zhou Liang, this case has formed a perfect closed loop in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal claims were not answered.

——In this case, Lin Meizhen did indeed infringe on Liu Wenya's right to education.

But in judicial cases.

It cannot be judged that in Article 2 of Su Bai's litigation application, Lin Meizhen violated Liu Wenya's right to be educated based on the content of the constitution and the assumption of civil liability.

So what to do?

Is that the only way to dismiss the lawsuit application is to be dismissed?

According to this statement, is there no responsibility for the defendant at all?

This means that although the plaintiff has appealed the complaint, it cannot be judged to be in this case.

Even under the existing conditions, there is evidence to prove that the defendant violated his legal rights and interests in the right to education.

Still unable to protect their judicial rights and interests through judicial means?

Isn't that?

The purpose of the law is to protect the legal rights and interests of the victim.

If you look at it according to this situation, when it comes to the Constitution, you can't guarantee your own rights and interests.

Does this count as a vulnerability?

Then again, in this case, you have to understand one thing first.

Whether the Constitution can be prosecuted as a law of litigation?

In China, in the case of theory, the law is prosecutable.

The constitution is the basic law of the country's laws.

And the constitution takes precedence over other laws, such as civil law, criminal law, administrative law, local administration law, etc.

Where there is any conflict between the Constitution and other laws, the Constitution shall take precedence.

But in practice, there are no cases of constitutional prosecution.

Liu Wenya's case.

At the beginning, Su Bai thought that the simple thing was that he determined that the situation involved in this case was not complicated.

The difficulty is that this case has constitutional implications for the right to education.

The defense can use this to achieve the purpose of rebuttal.

But since the constitution is prosecutable in domestic regulations.

Then it is a violation of the constitution and civil liability is also within a reasonable range!

It's just that there is no precedent in China!

Otherwise, according to the defendant's legal statement, this case really involves legal loopholes!

Thinking of this, Su Bai spoke:

"We do not agree with the content of the defendant's statement."

"We believe that in this case, the constitution involved is indictable."

"Since that's the case...."

"So why can't you take civil liability?"

"So in response to this, we do not agree with the content of the defendant's statement."

"One more point, what we want to state is that the defendant has violated the legal rights and interests of our client."

"What does this have to do with the Constitution, civil law, criminal law?"

"We didn't state too much about the civil liability caused by the judgment."

"By that point."

"The circumstances stated by the defense do not exist."

“.….”

This time, there are not many content conditions stated by Su Bai.

Because it involves the content of the Constitution, he wants to state too much.

There is also nothing superfluous to state, only one point needs to be stated -

The constitution is available for prosecution.

If the presiding judge agrees with such a view.

Then the case can be ruled in favor of them, and the defendant can be held to bear the issue of civil liability.

The presiding judge disagreed.

They also won the case, but with fewer legal benefits than before.

The current situation is up to the presiding judge to decide the case.

Bench on the judging table.

Zhang Mengwei, as the presiding judge, listened to the content of the defenses of both sides.

A simple tidying was carried out.

In general, Zhang Mengwei is definitely more inclined to the content of the defendant's statement.

First of all, let's talk about the content of the law.

According to the content of the law, there are no legal cases in China where the Constitution is used as the main judgment for prosecution and the Constitution is used as the main judgment.

He understood the meaning of Su Bai's statement later, which roughly meant that he did not require the constitution to be the judge.

It is only required that Ye Meizhen be judged to have violated Liu Wenya's legal rights and interests.

But he couldn't tell that either.

Because Wang Qirui has already greeted him, his inclination must be towards the defendant.

About the circumstances of this case.

Zhang Mengwei already had a general idea and result in his heart, and rang the gavel.

Zhang Mengwei raised his head slowly: "The collegial panel has a view on the situation involved in this case. ”

"To conclude as follows:"

"First, the defendant Ye Meizhen was confirmed to infringe on the plaintiff Liu Wenya's right to name."

"There is an objection between the two sides that they should not bear civil liability for the circumstances involved in the Constitution."

"Do the plaintiffs and defendants have any objections to the summary?"

Su Bai: "No objection. ”

Zhou Liang: "We have no objection. ”

"Since both parties have no objection to the infringement of the right to a name on the first point."

"The two sides also disagree on whether they need to bear civil liability for the circumstances involved in the Constitution."

"And the views of all parties have been stated."

"The court, after considering the content of the statements of the parties, made the following determination:"

"Judgment: Reject the plaintiff's claim that Ye Meizhen violated Liu Wenya's right to education."

"Can the parties explain in detail the amount of compensation now?"

"Plaintiff, can you provide an explanation of the amount of compensation of more than 120,000 yuan sought?"

Facing the presiding judge's inquiry, Su Bai raised his hand and signaled:

"Presiding Judge."

"I would like to ask the presiding judge, why did you reject our claim?"

"What we said in the process of making a statement just now is very clear."

"Our litigation request is to determine that Ye Meizhen violated the legal rights and interests of our client Liu Wenya."

"According to the evidence submitted by us, did Ye Meizhen not infringe on the legal rights and interests of our party?"

Facing Su Bai's question, on the bench, Zhang Mengwei frowned slightly.

Although he was a little dissatisfied with Su Bai's question, he still answered his question.

"Ye Meizhen violated the legal rights and interests of the woman's client, which is evidenced by facts."

"But what legal rights are being violated?"

"The right to be educated."

"So what law does the right to education belong to?"

"The Constitution."

"Well, the lawyer entrusted by the plaintiff is also very clear and clear that the violation is the right to be educated."

"The right to be educated is constitutional."

"This trial is mainly judged in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law."

"Is there anything wrong with rejecting your appeal through this?"

"The presiding judge in question, the Constitution can also be used as a law for prosecution, why should it be dismissed?"

"There is no legal provision that the Constitution cannot be used as a law for prosecution, right?"

"The presiding judge dismissed on the basis that the Constitution cannot be used as a basis for legal proceedings, but there is no law to show that."

On the trial bench, Zhang Mengwei didn't know how to answer Su Bai's question.

Because this question is very difficult to answer.

So he changed the subject: "This trial will not discuss this issue too much. ”

"If the plaintiff believes that there is an objection to this judgment, or there are other circumstances, it can appeal or submit it to the supervision department for review."

"Let's continue to discuss the amount of compensation."

"Please entrust a lawyer to state the basis for your claim for more than 120,000 yuan in compensation."

“.….”

On the bench, Zhang Mengwei looked straight at Su Bai after saying these words.

He changed the subject, and there was nothing wrong with that.

is also not afraid of Su Bai appealing or submitting it for supervision and review.

Because what can he be examined by submitting an inspection review?

The review did not reveal the slightest fault.

Appeals, of course, can be appealed.

When appealed to the High Court, the High Court made a different judgment.

So what could he have a problem with?

It's nothing more than deducting a little performance at the end of the year.

In fact, Su Bai's question was very tricky, and if he didn't answer, he couldn't make any impact.

But if answered .... Then the outcome of this judgment may change dramatically.

In other words, it is not a good result for him, the presiding judge, or for the defense.

…

In the plaintiff's seat, Su Bai looked at the presiding judge's gaze.

The two looked at each other.

Su Bai knew in his heart that the presiding judge's purpose in changing the topic.

- I can't answer the question he asked.

Or that it could not answer the questions he asked.

The advance of the case is carried out by the presiding judge.

The presiding judge's leanings are on the side of the defense, and there are no major problems with the process and legal defense.

In this case.... Su Bai couldn't make any big rebuttal in the trial.

Because the trial relies on the right to judge.

Even if he raises any objections, the presiding judge only disagrees with them or dismisses them.

Then it doesn't make much sense to bring it up.

…

PS: Ask for a monthly pass~

Mobile version:

『Click here to report error』『Add to bookmark』