Part Two: Chivalrous Lawyer: Legal Rescue of the "Sea Palace"

6. Deploying Troops

Before introducing the exciting court proceedings, let us first compare and study the defense statement of the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau (Longgang District Oceanic Bureau) and the written representation prepared by Attorney Wang Tengfeng in just a few days. This will allow us to fully understand the litigation strategies of both sides, then focus on the courtroom effects of different strategies during the trial, thereby making an objective judgment on which strategy is superior. However, we must always keep in mind that the essence of administrative litigation is judicial review of specific administrative actions by government departments, with the focus limited to the legality of the administrative actions, not their reasonableness (appropriateness). Attorney Wang Tengfeng pointed out the crux of this case months ago in an interview with a reporter from Southern Daily: the three decisions made by the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau on March 1, 2011, and the forced demolition implemented on April 8 were all procedurally illegal! However, the uniqueness of the "Sea Palace" as a new phenomenon and the complex social background factors leading to the "Sea Palace" dispute cannot be ignored. To seize the moral high ground, reverse the unfavorable public opinion, and win the understanding and sympathy of the judges, a skilled litigation lawyer must handle this issue reasonably and appropriately both in court and in out-of-court maneuvers. The representation prepared by Attorney Wang Tengfeng not only highlights the key issue of the illegality of the administrative actions but also reasonably reconstructs the story of the "Sea Palace." Such a litigation strategy should naturally achieve good courtroom results. On the other hand, the weakness of the "Sea Palace" is that it has never obtained legal status for years, its business activities far exceed the scope of "aquaculture and recreational fishing," and it has previously faced administrative penalties. It is expected that the defendant would seize on this issue to make a big deal.

With the assistance of their attorney, the defendant submitted three "Administrative Defense Statements" in response to the claims in Cases No. 45, 47, and 53. For ease of comparative study, the key points of the three "Administrative Defense Statements" are summarized as follows:

Regarding Cases No. 45 and 53, the defense opinions on the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing'" and the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate'":

I. Basic Facts of the Case

1. On June 29, 2010, the Offshore Company (abbreviation of "Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd." — editor's note) submitted to the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau a "Request for Subsequent Renovation of the Dismantled Original 'Offshore Palace' Structure," applying to transform the "Offshore Palace" into a comprehensive aquaculture and leisure fishing raft with both "aquaculture and leisure fishing" functions, as well as a leisure fishing raft. On December 12 of the same year, the Offshore Company submitted a "Report on the Rectification of the Offshore Floating Island" to the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, claiming that the rectification project had been successfully completed.

2. On December 18, 2010, the Offshore Company submitted a "Request for Certificates for Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" to the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, again claiming that the rectification had been completed. Based on this, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau issued a "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" [Shen Long Nong Zi (2010) No. 144] (hereinafter referred to as the "Reply") on December 22, 2010, and issued an "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" with fish raft number D126 on December 25 of the same year.

3. Subsequently, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau discovered through various channels that the Offshore Company had not actually transformed the "Offshore Palace" into an "aquaculture and fishing raft"; the "Offshore Palace" had always been an extremely luxurious private club or venue. The "Offshore Palace" had never obtained a "Sea Area Use Right Certificate" for the sea area it occupied.

4. On March 1, 2011, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau determined that the Offshore Company still did not meet the conditions for leisure fishing and aquaculture production, on the grounds that it had not obtained sea area use rights, had not strictly complied with the rectification requirements, and the actual area used for aquaculture was too small, failing to meet the functional zoning requirements for shallow sea aquaculture. After deliberation, it issued a "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply on the Application for Certificates for Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing'" and a "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate'."

5. II. The "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" should be revoked in accordance with the law.　

6. 1. The Offshore Company did not actually transform the "Offshore Palace" into an "aquaculture and fishing raft" that met the functional positioning of the sea area; the "Offshore Palace" had always been an extremely luxurious private club or venue. Moreover, the "Offshore Palace" had never obtained a "Sea Area Use Right Certificate" for the sea area it occupied — clearly, the "Offshore Palace" substantially failed to meet the requirements set forth by the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau in the "Reply," and contradicted the original intent of issuing the "Reply," seriously violating relevant provisions of laws and regulations such as the "Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China."

2. In the "Reply," the administrative basis for fishing raft operations was the "Longgang District Interim Regulations on the Management of Offshore Fishing Rafts" issued by the Longgang District People's Government, which in turn was based on the "Guangdong Province Interim Measures for the Management of Recreational Fisheries" [Yuefu Ban (2007) No. 22] issued by the Guangdong Provincial People's Government on March 14, 2007. Article 28 of this local regulation clearly states: "These Measures shall take effect from the date of issuance and be implemented on a trial basis for three years." Evidently, this local regulation became invalid on March 14, 2010, and accordingly, the basis for the "Reply" issued by the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, i.e., the "Longgang District Interim Regulations on the Management of Offshore Fishing Rafts," has also naturally expired.

In summary, in accordance with the "Guangdong Province Administrative Approval Management and Supervision Measures" and relevant laws and regulations, the respondent believes that the "Reply" should be revoked according to law.

3. The "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" should be revoked according to law.

Pursuant to Article 11 of the "Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 3 of the "Measures for the Registration and Issuance of Aquaculture Certificates for Waters and Tidelands," the issuance of "Aquaculture Certificates" falls within the statutory authority of local people's governments at or above the county level. The former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, as the competent fisheries administrative department of the government, had no authority to issue an "Aquaculture Certificate" to the offshore company. Therefore, in accordance with the "Guangdong Province Administrative Approval Management and Supervision Measures" and relevant laws and regulations, the respondent believes that the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" should be revoked according to law.

4. The former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau has the authority to revoke the "Reply" and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," and the corresponding procedures do not violate any legal provisions.

1. The former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau has the authority, upon discovering that the "Offshore Palace" substantially fails to meet the requirements of the "Reply," contradicts the original intent of issuing the "Reply," and involves issues such as lack of legal basis or expiration of legal basis, to self-correct in accordance with legal provisions such as the "Guangdong Province Administrative Approval Management and Supervision Measures" and the "Shenzhen Several Provisions on Non-Administrative Approval and Registration," and directly revoke the "Reply" it originally issued.

2. The former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau had the authority, upon discovering issues such as administrative overreach, to self-correct in accordance with regulations like the "Guangdong Province Administrative Approval Management and Supervision Measures" and directly revoke the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" it had previously issued.

3. No law mandates that a hearing must be held for actions such as self-correction or revocation of the "Reply" and "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" by the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau. The Bureau's revocation of the "Reply" and "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" did not violate any legal provisions.

Regarding Case No. 47, defense opinions on the forced demolition action:

I. Basic Facts of the Case

1. On October 14, 2008, the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau issued a "Notice of Administrative Penalty" to the Maritime Company for the offshore structure (i.e., the "Sea Palace") built in Dongshan Bay, Nan'ao Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen. On January 13, 2009, the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau lawfully held a case hearing and issued the "Administrative Penalty Decision" [Yue Shen Long Hai Penalty (2008) No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the "Penalty Decision"] on February 13 of the same year.

2. As the Maritime Company failed to comply with the "Penalty Decision" within the specified period, the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau applied to the Longgang District People's Court for compulsory enforcement. On November 20, 2009, the Longgang District People's Court issued the "Administrative Enforcement Ruling" [(2009) Shen Long Fa Xing Shen Zi No. 78], ruling that compulsory enforcement be granted in accordance with the law.

3. On June 29, 2010, the Maritime Company submitted a "Request for Subsequent Renovation of the Dismantled Original 'Sea Palace' Structure" to the former Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, applying to transform the "Sea Palace" into a comprehensive aquaculture and leisure fishing raft with both "aquaculture and leisure fishing" functions, as well as a leisure fishing raft. On December 12 of the same year, the Maritime Company submitted a "Report on the Rectification of the Sea Floating Island" to the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, claiming that the rectification project had been successfully completed.

4. On December 18, 2010, the Offshore Company submitted a "Request for Certificates Regarding Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" to the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, again claiming that rectification had been completed. Accordingly, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau issued a "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" [Shen Long Nong Zi (2010) No. 144] (hereinafter referred to as the "Reply") on December 22, 2010, and issued a "Breeding Registration Certificate" (hereinafter referred to as the "Certificate") with fish raft number D126 on December 25 of the same year.

5. Subsequently, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau and the Ocean Bureau discovered through various channels that the Offshore Company had not actually transformed the "Sea Palace" into an "aquaculture and fishing raft," and that the "Sea Palace" had always been an extremely luxurious private club. On March 1, 2011, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau issued a "Notice of Revocation of the Reply on the Application for Certificates Regarding Offshore Aquaculture and Fishing" and a "Decision on Revocation of the Breeding Registration Certificate."

6. The former Longgang District Ocean Bureau issued notices on March 1 and March 14, 2011, respectively, requiring the Offshore Company to return the illegally occupied sea area and restore it to its original state within a specified period. Given the Offshore Company's refusal to comply, the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau issued a "Notice on Compulsory Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State" to the Offshore Company on March 25, 2011, deciding to forcibly dismantle the "Sea Palace" in accordance with the law. On April 8, 2011, the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau began organizing the dismantling of the "Sea Palace."

II. The sea area occupied by the "Sea Palace" should be "restored to its original state" in accordance with the law.

The Offshore Company has never obtained a sea area use right certificate or a breeding certificate. The large-scale offshore structure "Sea Palace," built through long-term illegal occupation of the sea area, is an illegal offshore structure—this conduct clearly constitutes a serious violation of the provisions of the "Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China." According to the relevant provisions of the aforementioned law, the sea area occupied by the "Sea Palace" should undoubtedly be restored to its original state. The "Penalty Decision" issued by the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau after strict legal procedures, including a hearing, regarding the "Sea Palace" case is a legally effective document that also explicitly requires "restoration of the sea area to its original state."

III. The former Longgang District Ocean Bureau has the legal authority to dismantle the "Sea Palace."

1. The "Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China" grants the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration the administrative enforcement power to "restore the sea area to its original state." Article 42 of this law stipulates: "If anyone illegally occupies a sea area without approval or by fraud, they shall be ordered to return the illegally occupied sea area, restore it to its original state, and confiscate the illegal gains..."

2. The "Penalty Decision" is a legally effective document with compulsory enforcement power. After the "Penalty Decision" was enforced by the Longgang District People's Court, the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration discovered that the Maritime Company had not strictly complied with the "Penalty Decision" to "restore the sea area to its original state." Under these circumstances, the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration has the right, with reference to Article 87 of the "Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and in accordance with Article 42 of the "Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China," to choose to apply to the court for enforcement or to directly enforce, i.e., to forcibly "restore the sea area to its original state" for the area occupied by the "Sea Palace."

3. The term "restore the sea area to its original state" as stipulated in Article 42 of the "Sea Area Use Management Law of the People's Republic of China" means: "Cease all production, business operations, and other related activities in the illegally occupied sea area, dismantle illegal sea-use facilities and structures in that area, and if damage has been caused to the sea area, take remedial measures, carry out restoration, and return the sea area to its state before the illegal occupation." The former Longgang District Oceanic Administration has repeatedly issued notices requiring the Maritime Company to return the illegally occupied sea area and restore it to its original state within a specified period. Given the Maritime Company's refusal to comply, the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration has the right to forcibly restore the sea area to its original state in accordance with the law, including the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace."

4. The procedure by which the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration lawfully demolished the "Sea Palace" does not violate any legal provisions.

5. 1. The basis for the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration's forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" is the "Penalty Decision." This forced demolition is a continuation of the enforcement of the original "Penalty Decision," which itself is a legally effective document that went through strict legal procedures such as hearings. It is noteworthy that the demolition itself is not an administrative penalty but an administrative enforcement action of an already effective legal document.

6. 2. No law mandates that administrative enforcement actions, such as the demolition of the "Sea Palace" by the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration, must undergo a hearing. The procedure followed by the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration in demolishing the "Sea Palace" does not violate any legal provisions.

Below is the full text of the agency opinion written and published by Attorney Wang Tengfeng in the "Sea Palace" case. Compared with the defense opinions of the above defendants, the offensive and defensive positions are clear at a glance, and the level of litigation strategy and debate artistry is evident. As a matter of experience, one should generally prepare an outline of agency opinions carefully before trial, laying a solid foundation for high-level performance during the trial. After the trial, based on the pre-trial outline and combined with the creative effects and circumstances during the trial, the final written agency opinion should be completed and formally submitted to the court as the basis for the final judgment.

Representation statement for the "Sea Palace" illegal administrative dispute litigation case.

Respected Presiding Judge and Judges:

Attorney Wang Tengfeng of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, entrusted by Shenzhen Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., invested by Mr. Guo Moumou, provides legal aid services out of public spirit. Today, he attends the trial of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Shenzhen Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. against the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau for illegal administrative actions (illegal demolition) and substantial compensation claims at the Shenzhen Longgang District People's Court. To better distinguish right from wrong, correct misconceptions, defuse anger, eliminate conflicts, and provide reference opinions for fair judicial adjudication, after repeated pre-trial investigations of facts and study of laws, the following agency opinion is now presented, hoping the court will consider and adopt it. This agency opinion is divided into three parts and takes approximately 40 minutes. Details are as follows:

I. Origin of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Litigation Dispute:

Since 2003, Mr. Guo Moumou, a young entrepreneur who graduated from the Lu Xun Academy of Fine Arts and switched from painting, harbored the ideal of developing exquisite marine structures with an artistic approach to marine resources. After arduous journeys and careful investigations, he arrived at Dongshan Bay, Shenzhen, a coastal city of dreams. Creatively leveraging folk wisdom, he spontaneously used private capital to explore and develop idle shallow sea resources. Through meticulous thought, repeated demonstrations, hard work, creative invention, and nearly 100 million yuan in investment, starting from a simple beachside wooden cabin, he persisted for years with unwavering effort, finally creating a dazzling group of marine structures. If named, its essence is a "sea raft" (due to its structural origin from rafts), with the standard academic term internationally known as a "floating island," now colloquially called the "Sea Palace" by the media. The public's common name derives from its design and majestic appearance, precisely reflecting Mr. Guo's creative wisdom and hard work in self-developing shallow sea resources, yielding extraordinary results admired and envied by the public and society! It is said that this luxurious raft (artificial floating island) is the most cost-effective marine structure globally in terms of raw materials, design, and investment, integrating aquaculture, fishing, leisure, and sightseeing. It is both exquisite and sturdy, truly a Shenzhen first and a world first. Such a classic masterpiece, however, due to hype from some media, resentment of the rich by angry youths, ignorance of the masses, and misleading public opinion, was forcibly dismantled by management under the pressure of a manipulated atmosphere to protect themselves, nearing extinction.

To protect their property rights, original invention, and social wealth, giving it a chance to benefit the country, society, and the public in the future, the plaintiff, after numerous unsuccessful efforts, finally resorted to legal action, hoping for legal protection to give life to the plaintiff's sea raft and floating island! This is the brief origin of the case.

II. The Rights and Wrongs of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Litigation Case

[6] Rights and wrongs are key to this case; legality and illegality are its core. Previously, widespread misunderstandings about this dispute have filled ears and eyes. Today, we must clarify and rectify these errors, reversing mistaken views! Regarding the litigation dispute, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau has shown the following misconceptions and erroneous practices in law enforcement:

　1. Making the acquisition of a sea area use right certificate a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate.

China's "Sea Area Use Management Law" is the overarching specific law governing the use of sea areas nationwide. Article 7 of this law clearly states, "The fishery administrative department shall supervise and manage marine fisheries in accordance with the 'Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China'." Article 2 of China's "Fisheries Law" explicitly states, "This law must be observed in all fishery production activities involving the cultivation and capture of aquatic animals and plants in the internal waters, tidal flats, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and all other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China." Article 11 states, "The state shall make unified plans for the use of waters, determining waters and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture... The people's government at the corresponding level shall issue aquaculture permits, authorizing the use of such waters or tidal flats for aquaculture. Specific measures for issuing aquaculture permits shall be stipulated by the State Council." Article 5 of the national "Measures for the Administration of Aquaculture Permit Issuance" states, "The fishery administrative department of the local people's government at or above the county level shall be responsible for the issuance and management of aquaculture permits for waters and tidal flats within its jurisdiction..." Thus, relevant laws are interconnected and clearly indicate that the fishery administrative department of the local people's government at or above the county level is the statutory authority responsible for issuing aquaculture permits. Once an aquaculture permit is obtained, it naturally grants the legal right to use the designated sea (water) area for aquaculture. No law stipulates that a separate "sea area use right certificate" is required as a prerequisite. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff's aquaculture (fishing) in the designated sea area after obtaining the "aquaculture registration certificate" is entirely legal. The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau's argument that the plaintiff did not legally obtain the sea area use right is purely illegal and unreasonable. Moreover, the fact that over the past 30 years, the Longgang District fishery department has only issued aquaculture registration certificates for supervising aquaculture in the sea area under its jurisdiction without requiring a sea area use certificate as a prerequisite is itself the strongest evidence, contradicting its own sophistry and collapsing on its own!

2. Exaggerating the luxury fishing raft as a "Marine Palace" and falsely labeling it as an "illegal structure"

It is well known that thirty years ago, people went to barbershops for haircuts; today, people go to high-end salons, enjoying music, massages, and hair washing services while getting their hair cut. Thirty years ago, people went to bathhouses to bathe with a towel and a bar of soap; today, people go to spa clubs for bathing, eating, drinking, and entertainment, enjoying star-level services in a one-stop manner. Thirty years ago, farmers planted rice by hand; today, farmers can use electronically controlled mechanized farming in modern agricultural estates. No one wants to return to the primitive society of slash-and-burn farming, so why can't the plaintiff's luxurious fishing raft be recognized and accepted? Although the plaintiff's fishing raft can not only be used for aquaculture and fishing, and its ancillary conditions are indeed luxurious, and it can fully utilize the natural marine conditions to enjoy the ocean scenery, this does not negate its essential nature and function as a fishing raft, nor does it lose its aquaculture and fishing functions! The luxurious and beautiful ancillary living quarters for the raft keeper, even if resembling a "palace," objectively cause no harm. It only reflects social development and progress and should be encouraged. As for the plaintiff's aquaculture and fishing raft, due to its exquisite construction and pleasant scenery, guests often visit to admire it, which is not illegal because no national law prohibits guests from visiting and admiring someone's fishing raft. Moreover, no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drugs occur on the plaintiff's luxurious raft; only gatherings for sightseeing exist. People should not think that the plaintiff's luxurious raft is illegal while others' simple rafts are legal. Such a mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative view against the tide of historical development is wrong! The private desire of envy for the rich should not receive legal and governmental support!

3. The revocation of the aquaculture registration certificate and fishing license approval is claimed as self-correction without admitting it is illegal administration.

The facts fully demonstrate that on July 15, 2010, after repeated demonstrations, multiple coordinations, on-site inspections, and careful study, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau issued a reply clearly agreeing that the plaintiff could operate the rectified fishing raft in the designated sea area according to functional planning for aquaculture and recreational fishing. On December 22, 2010, it issued another reply via document Shen Long Nong Zi [2010] No. 144, agreeing to the plaintiff's aquaculture and recreational fishing matters. On December 25, 2010, it formally issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," permitting the plaintiff to operate legally. However, less than three months later, on March 1, 2011, influenced by human factors, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau blatantly violated legal procedures, hastily issued a notice and decision to arbitrarily and peremptorily revoke the plaintiff's legally obtained aquaculture and fishing certificates and illegally withdrew the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate." This seriously violated Articles 7 of China's "Administrative License Law" and Articles 8(5) and 31 of the "Administrative Penalty Law": administrative decisions must go through statutory hearing procedures and must grant the relative rights holder (the plaintiff) sufficient rights to defend and state their case in advance. Therefore, the administrative act of the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau on March 1, 2011, can only be a new administrative violation and can never be claimed as "self-correction." Even if subjectively intended as "self-correction," it should still comply with the law and act according to legal procedures, rather than compounding errors. To "self-correct the previous error in issuing the certificate," it again violated national statutory procedural regulations, committing a new error! And errors in law enforcement must be corrected!

4. Forcibly demolishing and calling it "legally restoring old punitive measures" while refusing to admit "illegally implementing new punitive measures"!

The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau argued that the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was a legal enforcement measure based on the administrative penalty decision Yue Shen Long Hai Chu Fa (2008) No. 1, and was a resumption and continuation of a previous old administrative penalty decision. Such absurd reasoning clearly contradicts the facts and violates the law. In fact, the defendant, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau, repeatedly admitted in court proceedings that the administrative penalty decision Yue Shen Long Hai Chu Fa (2008) No. 1 had been executed and concluded by the Longgang District People's Court through the administrative execution ruling (2009) Shen Long Fa Xing Shen Zi No. 78, with the plaintiff paying a fine of 490,000 yuan to complete the execution. The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau was fully aware of this fact but stubbornly denied that the enforcement had concluded, insisting falsely that this forced demolition was a resumption and continuation of the (2008) No. 1 administrative penalty. If that were the case, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau should have legally applied to the Longgang District People's Court's enforcement division to resume judicial enforcement. However, in reality, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau did not apply for judicial resumption but arbitrarily carried out the forced demolition itself, without legal basis. If it were a new penalty measure, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau did not, in accordance with China's "Administrative License Law" and "Administrative Penalty Law" and other relevant regulations, grant the relative rights holder (the plaintiff) statutory rights such as the right to defend and state their case, which is also illegal. Regardless of the rationale the defendant, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau, used for this forced demolition decision and action, it is clearly and seriously illegal, completely wrong, and according to law, the People's Court should correct it and impose penalties!

Appendix (I): Factual Evidence

1. Document No. 66 (2007) of Shen Long Nong Zi, titled "Reply on the Application for Developing Offshore Leisure Fishery Projects," issued on June 11, 2007, by the defendant's predecessor, the Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau. This indicates that the plaintiff's establishment of an offshore leisure fishing raft project was approved and actively guided by the defendant.

2. On July 11, 2007, the "Cooperation Agreement" between Shenzhen Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Nanao Dongyu Shareholding Cooperative Company, along with cooperation fee receipts. This indicates that both parties jointly cooperated to develop recreational fisheries, promote marine-themed tourism, and strive to solve the problem of local fishermen escaping poverty and becoming prosperous.

3. On June 3, 2009, the defendant's superior, the Shenzhen Municipal Oceanic Administration, issued document Shen Hai Han [2009] No. 25, the "Reply on the Application of Shenzhen Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. for a Sea Area Use Certificate." This shows that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use rights certificate.

4. On July 3, 2009, the superior of the defendant, the Shenzhen Municipal Oceanic Bureau, issued Document No. [2009] 30, titled "Second Reply on the Issue of Handling the Sea Area Use Permit for Shenzhen Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd." This indicates that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use right certificate.

5. On July 15, 2010, the defendant, the Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, issued the "Reply on the Application of Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. for the Renovation of Dismantled Offshore Structures." This shows that after careful study, the defendant decided to legally permit the plaintiff to operate marine leisure projects such as aquaculture and fishing in the designated sea area.

6. On December 22, 2010, the defendant, the Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued Document No. [2010] 144, titled "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing." This indicates that after careful study and on-site verification, the defendant approved the plaintiff to designate the disassembled floating islands as aquaculture rafts and leisure fishing rafts according to specific plans.

7. On December 25, 2010, the defendant, the Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" with raft number D126. This shows that the defendant acted lawfully and fulfilled its legal obligations.

8. On March 1, 2011, the defendant, the Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing,'" the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate,'" and the "Notice on Ordering Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State." This indicates that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions contrary to facts and the law, seriously infringing on the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

9. On March 14, 2011, the defendant, the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, issued the "Notice on Ordering the Return of Illegally Occupied Sea Area and Restoration to Its Original State." This indicates that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions contrary to facts and the law, seriously infringing on the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

10. The "Notice on Forcibly Restoring the Original State of the Sea Area" issued by the defendant, Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, on March 25, 2011, indicates that the defendant hastily made an erroneous administrative decision contrary to facts and the law, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's lawful rights and interests.

11. The "Notice on Self-Handling of Demolition of Building Structures" issued by the defendant, Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, on March 28, 2011, indicates that the defendant hastily made an erroneous administrative decision contrary to facts and the law, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's lawful rights and interests.

12. Facts reported by media such as Xinhua Net on April 8, 2011. This indicates that the Defendant has carried out compulsory demolition, and all structures on the surface of the fishing raft platform have been completely removed, with only the fishing raft platform remaining. Due to technical capability and environmental safety constraints, the Defendant is still in the process of evaluating and planning for further compulsory demolition.

Appendix (II): Legal Basis

1. Provisions of Articles 2 and 11 of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," effective from October 1, 1990.

2. Provisions of Articles 7, 15, 16, 19, 25, 31, and 43 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Sea Area Use," implemented from January 1, 2002.

3. Provisions of Articles 2 and 8 of the "Measures for the Administration of Sea Area Use Right Certificates," promulgated and implemented on June 7, 2002.

4. Provisions of Articles 11 and 38 of the "Regulations on Fishery Management of Guangdong Province," effective from September 1, 2003.

5. Article 7 of the Administrative Licensing Law, effective from July 1, 2004, stipulates that administrative licensing must follow statutory procedures.

6. Articles 3, 4, and 18 of the Guangdong Province Artificial Reef Management Regulations, effective from November 1, 2004.

7. Article 26 and other provisions of the Guangdong Province Sea Area Use Management Regulations, effective from March 1, 2007.

8. Articles 2 and 5 of the Guangdong Province Recreational Fishery Management Trial Measures, issued and effective from March 14, 2007.

9. Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, and 14 of the Longgang District Temporary Regulations on Sea Fishing Raft Management, effective from February 11, 2009.

10. Article 8, Item 5, and Article 31 of the Administrative Penalty Law, effective from August 27, 2009, stipulate that administrative decisions must follow statutory procedures.

11. Provisions of Articles 2, 11, and 28 of the Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended on August 27, 2009.

12. Provisions of Articles 5, 8, and 10 of the Measures for the Administration of Aquaculture License Issuance, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2009.

13. Provisions of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 35 of the "Shenzhen Interim Measures for the Registration of Offshore Structures" implemented from March 1, 2010, with the Shenzhen Municipal Planning and Land Resources Commission having published a notice on March 3, 2011, that relevant rights holders may handle the registration of property rights for sea area structures.

III. The Enlightening Significance and Aftermath Handling of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Litigation Dispute:

The above facts and laws have fully demonstrated that the luxury fish raft, sea floating island, or "Sea Palace" in dispute in this case is entirely permissible and should legally survive. The tragedy it faces today is inseparable from the irresponsible misleading by some media, the siege formed by ignorant hatred of the rich among some people, and the fragmented, disjointed, mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative departmental work styles of certain individuals in relevant government functional departments. In particular, the defendant, as a first-level administrative authority, lacks a sense of responsibility and accountability, loses the courage to innovate, fails to seriously study and accurately grasp legal and regulatory provisions, administers inaccurately, enforces the law inadequately, and cannot effectively, flexibly, proactively, and responsibly coordinate, handle, and respond to complex issues and new things. This self-protective, mechanical, rigid, blind, and arbitrary administrative style, even exceeding authority and violating the law, led to erroneous decisions, the dismantling of the floating island, and the destruction of wealth, which is regrettable. In this regard, Mr. Guo Moumou, under the pen name "Floating Island Child," fully described the tragedy of the floating island in his article "The Lament of the Sea Palace," which evokes deep emotion after reading. A young entrepreneur full of ideals, using his own intelligence and creative labor, boldly explored and developed marine resources with his own substantial funds, making uncomplaining and active efforts to develop the marine economy and promote a strong maritime nation. His efforts objectively played a huge positive role in seeking land from the sea and advancing our country's coastal defense construction. This good deed was subjected to criticism and suppression in a difficult game of reason and misunderstanding, legality and illegality, support and opposition! Some people today may still be constrained by various objective limitations and cannot view it with detachment, but I believe that in the future, people will look back and regret today's mistakes. If the sea floating island cannot become a monument standing on the sea, it will surely become a monument in the memory of those who retain conscience! Regardless of people's attitudes, the creation of the sea floating island has already become a model for efficiently utilizing marine resources to develop the marine economy in our country, making a huge positive contribution to strengthening our coastal defense construction! It has played a constructive role in the development, utilization, management, and service of our country's marine waters. We live in this hot land of Shenzhen, full of innovative spirit. While people sing praises of reform and opening up and getting rich, they should be highly vigilant: on one hand, they enjoy the rich fruits of reform and innovation; on the other hand, they intentionally or unintentionally become stumbling blocks hindering the continued deepening of reform and continuous exploration and innovation! It is hoped that all relevant parties will deeply reflect and pay attention! It is hoped that the defendant can be rational, calm, thoughtful, dare to take responsibility, and with the principle of considering the interests of the country, society, and the people, regardless of temporary reputation gains or losses, examine and treat the dispute in this case with a highly responsible spirit, cherish and protect tens of millions or nearly a hundred million yuan of social wealth, and not let it be destroyed by a numb and mechanical work style. Let our Shenzhen coastal leisure tourism industry have one more highlight, one more business card, one more industry, one more new star. Because preserving the "sea floating island" benefits the country, the people, and oneself:

First, preserving the "floating island on the sea" benefits the country.

Our government clearly stated in the "National Marine Economic Development Plan Outline" formulated in 2001: The state should vigorously advocate and encourage private capital to invest and finance the development of coastal areas and develop characteristic tourism. Guangdong Province has been listed by the State Council as a national marine comprehensive development pilot zone. In 2008, Shenzhen also formulated the "Several Opinions of Shenzhen on Accelerating the Development of the Marine Industry and Building a Strong Marine City." Obviously, the "sea floating island," a typical new thing that creatively utilizes private wisdom and private capital to innovate and develop the marine economy, conforms to the industrial policy direction and marine economic development direction of the national and regional governments. It can not only increase tax revenue for the national and local governments but also does not hinder the national defense security of the territorial sea and airspace in that area; on the contrary, the "sea floating island" initiative is not only beneficial to the economy but also beneficial to the national coastal defense, with significant positive value.

Second, preserving the "Sea Floating Island" benefits the surrounding social public.

The "floating island on the sea," a coastal aquaculture, fishing, and leisure complex built on floating structures near the sea, can beautify the coastline, create distinctive coastal tourist attractions, and become a new source of economic growth for local fishing villages and individual fishermen, increasing income and driving new economic development in the surrounding coastal areas and even the entire Shenzhen coastal region's fishery and tourism industries, benefiting people's livelihoods. Since it is located in a coastal bay, after addressing sewage issues, it does not hinder the normal use of the sea area or the marine ecological environment, nor does it affect the production and life of coastal fishing villagers. On the contrary, it can be developed into a multifunctional comprehensive leisure fishery cultural and creative industrial park integrating fish farming, fishing, fish viewing, leisure, entertainment, seafood tasting, and seafood shopping, operated comprehensively to develop a series of economies, serving as a wonderful tourist attraction for Shenzhen citizens, benefiting society and the people!

Third, preserving the "sea floating island" is conducive to the development of the enterprise itself.

The establishment of the "Floating Island on the Sea" represents a bold breakthrough innovation and a beneficial attempt by private enterprise capital to seek new industrial directions and develop emerging industries. If the "Floating Island on the Sea" can continue to develop and mature, it is bound to become a new industry (sector). In that case, private enterprise capital will not only find new ways to survive and develop but also generate greater returns, driving the continuous growth and expansion of private enterprises and private capital, thereby adding a new path to national prosperity and the enrichment of the people!

In 2010, the sixth New Year editorial of *Shenzhen Economic Daily*, titled "Let Dreams Become the City's Defining Trait," stated: "After taking office, Wang Rong, member of the Provincial Party Standing Committee and acting mayor, immediately felt Shenzhen's unique character. When introducing Shenzhen to others, he particularly favored the emotional term 'dreams.' During a meeting with Alibaba's Jack Ma, he said: 'Shenzhen grew from nothing to something, from small to large, gathering so many talented individuals with dreams to strive and start businesses here, precisely because of its superior environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. This is Shenzhen's greatest charm. Shenzhen is truly a good place, and it will not disappoint entrepreneurs with dreams!' Clearly, what keeps this vibrant land of Shenzhen perpetually dynamic is not tangible policies or systems, but intangible dreams. There is a term called the American Dream, meaning people firmly believe that through relentless effort in the United States, they can achieve a better life. And Shenzhen is undoubtedly a place where people realize the Chinese Dream. It has always been the best city for talented individuals with ideals, drive, and a distaste for old institutional constraints to fulfill their dreams. Shenzhen boasts an indescribable environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. The Shenzhen Special Economic Zone is now 30 years old. Thirty is no longer a young age. Yet, as long as we make dreams a defining trait of Shenzhen, our city will never grow old."

In summary, the agent hopes that the rhetoric of the editorial is not merely confined to paper but deeply rooted in people's hearts and implemented in every aspect of specific work. We must not view the "Floating Island on the Sea" in this case with a one-sided, narrow, conservative, mechanical, or short-sighted perspective, but rather with a flexible, forward-looking, and developmental outlook. To truly uphold social harmony, fairness, justice, progress, and development, effectively protect social wealth from unnecessary loss, efficiently utilize marine resources to develop the ocean economy and enrich the nation and its people, a fair judgment should be made in this case, correcting the defendant's illegal errors in accordance with the law, so that this vibrant land of Shenzhen leaves no regrets! No loss of public trust! No further controversy! Thank you!

Agent: Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer

June 21 (24), 2011

Extended topic: In administrative litigation, only the defendant is tried, not the plaintiff.

Ordinary readers, as laypeople in law, may wonder: Guo's "Sea Palace" is indeed legally problematic, so how does he have the confidence to face the government in court? And why is lawyer Wang Tengfeng so confident that he can defeat the government in court?

A major difference between administrative litigation and civil litigation is that the court only tries the defendant, not the plaintiff—that is, it only examines the legality of the government's (defendant's) administrative actions, regardless of whether the administrative counterpart (plaintiff) has acted legally. In plain terms, even if we ordinary citizens engage in illegal acts and deserve administrative penalties from the government, if the government's procedure for imposing the penalty is illegal—for example, failing to hear our defense or not informing us of our right to request a hearing—we can still file an administrative lawsuit against the government. After accepting the case, the court will only review whether the government's procedure for imposing the administrative penalty was legal, not whether our own actions warranted the penalty.

In the early practice of administrative litigation in China, there was a controversial case that violated traditional Chinese legal thinking and caused a stir, known as the "counterfeiter suing the anti-counterfeiter" administrative lawsuit. On July 28, 1995, the First Inspection Team of the Sichuan Provincial Technical Supervision Bureau, acting on a report and with assistance from Chengdu Rainbow Electric (Group) Co., Ltd., sent personnel to seal off nearly 20,000 Rainbow-brand electric mosquito-repellent tablet packaging boxes printed without Rainbow's authorization at Jiajiang County Color Printing Factory in Leshan City, Sichuan Province. They also sealed the relevant printing equipment and factory premises, and in early October imposed fines of 50,000 yuan and 40,000 yuan on the factory and its legal representative, Wan Jianhua, respectively. Dissatisfied with the administrative coercive measures and penalties, Jiajiang County Color Printing Factory and Wan Jianhua successively filed administrative lawsuits in Jiajiang County Court and Chengdu Intermediate People's Court, naming the Technical Supervision Bureau as the defendant. During the trial, many news media (including CCTV) provided continuous coverage, and some National People's Congress representatives intervened strongly. The questions "Can anti-counterfeiting be wrong?" and "Can a counterfeiter put the anti-counterfeiter in the defendant's seat?" sparked heated debate.

What ordinary Chinese people cannot understand is that the Jiajiang County Color Printing Factory had clear and conclusive evidence of counterfeiting, and should have accepted the investigation and punishment by the Technical Supervision Bureau. How could it instead sue the bureau that was cracking down on counterfeiting? Isn't this "turning the world upside down"? Similarly, ordinary Chinese initially could not understand the actions of criminal defense lawyers: this criminal defendant had clear facts of the crime, sufficient and conclusive evidence, and extreme subjective malice, deserving death. How could a lawyer defend him? Where is the conscience? Where is justice? In fact, these misunderstandings stem from the traditional Chinese legal thinking that emphasizes substantive justice while neglecting procedural justice, whereas procedural justice is the core and cornerstone of modern legal concepts.

So-called procedural justice, in terms of administrative actions, requires government departments to strictly implement administrative actions in accordance with legal procedures, ensuring the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts. In a word, government departments should act according to the law, rather than illegally or even arbitrarily and recklessly. One important purpose of the administrative litigation system is to provide judicial relief opportunities for administrative counterparts, supervising the lawful exercise of administrative powers by government departments through judicial review. Similarly, the purpose of the criminal defense system in criminal justice is to ensure that criminal suspects or defendants receive a fair trial, preventing wrongful convictions.

Returning to Guo Moumou and the "Sea Palace," even if the "Sea Palace" should indeed be forcibly demolished according to the law, government departments must strictly follow legal procedures, just as a criminal defendant guilty of a capital crime must undergo due legal process and be sentenced before being executed according to the law. It cannot be like in some past "lawless" "revolutionary" movies, where someone says, "You traitor! On behalf of the Party and the people, I will shoot you dead!"

　　(待续)