Lawyers should uphold justice in the world—The ultimate revelation of the "Sea Palace" case (Part 16)

2. Lawyers Should Uphold Justice in the World

Attorney Zhi Ming, amidst such a one-sided public opinion environment and with government authorities having already taken decisive action against the "Sea Palace," dared to publicly express dissenting views. On one hand, this defied universal condemnation; on the other, it was like provoking the mighty. This was not a spur-of-the-moment act or a mere coincidence, but rather a habitual course of action driven by his unwavering belief over nearly three decades of practice—"lawyers should uphold justice in the world"—and a natural manifestation of his chivalrous spirit as an attorney.

Zhiming Lawyer was born in 1963 into a cadre family in Tongling, Anhui Province. From a young age, he was nurtured by the simple and upright family atmosphere. His childhood coincided with the unprecedented ten-year turmoil, a special era when the rule of law was absent, society was in disorder, and human rights were not upheld. The many injustices and unfairness of that time left a deep imprint on his young heart and planted the seed of an ideal to strive for justice in the world for a lifetime. As he grew older, he came to know through books the upright and law-abiding Judge Bao, the fiercely justice-seeking Lu Xun, and the outspoken advocate Shi Yang.

Lawyer Zhiming has always believed that the spirit of chivalry is the foundation and essence of a litigation lawyer's practice. If one cannot stand up for the rights of the weak or fight against injustice, one cannot become a true litigation lawyer. Moreover, the "weak" in a lawyer's eyes should be understood broadly in line with the spirit of modern rule of law. Undoubtedly, the most marginalized members of society are, in most cases, the weak, and their rights deserve special attention from litigation lawyers. However, in the eyes of a litigation lawyer, even criminal suspects and defendants who may face the death penalty for heinous crimes are also "weak" before the mighty machinery of state law. Fighting for their rights, ensuring they receive fair and impartial trials, and safeguarding procedural justice are duties that litigation lawyers cannot shirk, even if such efforts are not understood by the general public and must not be abandoned in the slightest. In the "Sea Palace" incident, Guo's bohemian temperament as an artist, the conceit of an innovative inventor, and the financial power of a successful entrepreneur made him a target of public criticism in a particular social climate. His "Sea Palace" was also portrayed as an evil symbol of power-money deals. Amid the overwhelming public opinion that could corrode and destroy, and under the actions of irrational government departments that violated the law, Guo and his Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. were also bona fide "weak" parties. Bravely stepping forward to speak for them is a natural manifestation of the chivalrous spirit of a litigation lawyer!

The admirable chivalrous spirit in Lawyer Zhi Ming was already fully evident in his early legal career in his hometown of Tongling, Anhui Province, during the 1980s. Let us take a moment to revisit the first criminal private prosecution case he handled involving insult and defamation, which gained nationwide influence.

It was a day in April 1986. Xi, a female employee at the post office in Tongling City, Anhui Province, went to the legal advisory office of the local judicial bureau, and tearfully recounted to Wang Tengfeng, a lawyer who had only been in practice for a year, the painful experience of having her dignity and reputation subjected to prolonged insults and slander by her colleague Pan. Xi and Pan had originally been colleagues and master-apprentice, enjoying a good relationship. Unexpectedly, over time, Pan developed improper feelings toward the young and attractive Xi. Upon noticing this, Xi felt disgusted and began to deliberately avoid and distance herself from Pan. Resentful over this, Pan maliciously fabricated rumors that Xi had engaged in ten illicit sexual relationships with multiple people, including himself, to ruin her reputation. To achieve his disgraceful personal desires, Pan also snooped around to track Xi's whereabouts and harassed her with long-term stalking. Seeing that Xi still refused to yield, Pan even put up big-character posters and, on several occasions, verbally abused and physically assaulted her in public. Xi's body and mind were severely devastated, and she was driven to despair, ultimately attempting suicide by poisoning herself, only to be rescued in time. However, the suicide attempt still sparked much gossip among the locals who were unaware of the truth, creating a very adverse social impact.

In extreme anguish, Xi, with the comfort and support of her husband, finally emerged from the shadow of pessimism and turned to the law for help. However, after consulting the few lawyers available in Tongling at the time, she found that none were willing to take on her criminal private prosecution case. The reasons were not only the difficulty in gathering evidence, but mainly because Pan held some influence at his workplace, being a mid-level cadre in the post and telecommunications bureau, and even the bureau's leadership shielded him, so lawyers were reluctant to provoke this "hornet's nest" that was Pan. In such a situation, a desperate Xi approached the young lawyer Zhiming. After listening to Xi's tearful account, Zhiming rose to his feet in righteous indignation and immediately accepted her commission, filing a criminal private prosecution for defamation and insult in court.

However, Attorney Zhiming, who soon began preparing the case, quickly encountered a major obstacle unique to defamation cases: the difficulty of evidence collection. Especially in that era, high-tech recording and video equipment was unheard of, and Pan's infringing actions left no other physical or documentary evidence. Young, enterprising, and perceptive, Attorney Zhiming immediately realized that the evidence in this case could only rely on witness testimony and the statements of the parties involved. Yet the probative value of witness testimony is relatively low, and convincing the judge with just one or two witnesses would be difficult. Moreover, mobilizing numerous employees of the defendant's unit to testify against their own colleague was even more challenging.

Attorney Zhiming was not intimidated by the difficulties. He first remained composed and quietly worked on the thoughts of some employees within the post office. Although many employees initially adopted a "mind your own business" attitude and refused to testify against Pan's misconduct, inspired by Attorney Zhiming's chivalrous spirit of pursuing justice and never giving up, ultimately eleven employees of the post office, guided by their own conscience and their disgust at Pan's wrongdoing, agreed to his request. Subsequently, to achieve effective cross-examination results, protect the witnesses' personal safety, and accommodate their personal concerns, Attorney Zhiming, after collecting written witness statements, also brought some witnesses who were unwilling to testify in court before the presiding judge handling the case, asking the judge to verify the authenticity of the statements in person. In this way, through repeated arduous efforts, Attorney Zhiming finally obtained a large amount of firsthand material, forming an interlocking chain of evidence, and on this basis developed a rigorous and comprehensive representation opinion (Figures 64-67).

In the courtroom, facing the accusations of the private prosecutor, Xi, Pan not only flatly denied them but also spread his hands and said smugly, "Suing me for defamation? Wishful thinking!" When the judge demanded to know on what grounds the defendant claimed the private prosecutor had improper relationships with men, Pan retorted casually, "The world is full of wonders! I said she had relations with men—why can't that be the truth?" However, the knowledgeable lawyer then delivered the private prosecution statement, using "ironclad evidence" painstakingly gathered through meticulous investigation, combined with sound legal reasoning and empathetic psychological analysis, to expose Pan's deeply hidden, sinister subjective criminal intent. This was corroborated and linked with his overt objective actions, forming an airtight and unassailable case. Seeing his filthy, shameful private desires laid bare before the public, Pan's true nature was revealed, and his psychological defenses finally collapsed. His face flushed and paled alternately, cold sweat trickled down, and he hung his arrogant head in shame and dejection, clearly signaling his inner state of guilt.

But after snapping back to reality, Pan realized that he was well-connected within the post and telecommunications bureau, favored by his superiors, and considered a respectable "figure" of some standing. Even if someone accused him of defamation, he assumed no one would dare to testify in court. Pan began to ramble on with his self-serving arguments, his arrogance flaring up once more. However, the sharp-witted lawyer turned the tables by capitalizing on the fabricated "facts" Pan had concocted for his defense, presenting testimony from over a dozen witnesses along with other evidence. Through meticulous logical reasoning and precise psychological analysis, the lawyer dismantled Pan's arguments completely, shattering his outwardly strong but inwardly weak psychological defenses. In the end, Pan had no choice but to submit to the court proceedings and was compelled to confess the basic facts of his illegal activities. After a thorough and careful trial and deliberate deliberation by the court, taking into account Pan's unrepentant attitude, the first-instance court ultimately sentenced him to one year in prison (Figures 68-70).

Upon learning that he was sentenced to one year in prison, that his position at the post office would be handed over to someone else, and that his status as a public official would be lost, Pan refused to admit guilt and filed an appeal. His family then hired a well-known local senior lawyer at a high fee to defend him in the second-instance trial. However, facts remained facts, and all the various "efforts" made by Pan and his family came to nothing. The renowned local lawyer's defense for Pan in the second instance was also defeated by a young and fearless lawyer from Zhiming. The intermediate people's court lawfully rejected Pan's appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Against the backdrop of the 1980s, when the legal system was extremely underdeveloped, and in Tongling City, where people's awareness of law and rights was just beginning to emerge, a young lawyer with no power or influence dared to break through numerous obstacles and take enormous risks to send a mid-level cadre of the Post and Telecommunications Bureau, who was highly favored by his leaders, to prison. This caused a sensation in the then relatively closed-off Tongling City, became a topic of widespread oral discussion among the common people, and its social significance far exceeded the case itself. Such a successful criminal private prosecution case of defamation and insult was considered a typical example nationwide at the time. As a result, national-level media such as People's Daily and the Central People's Broadcasting Station also reported on it (Figure 71). After Xi's unfortunate experience and his efforts to uphold his legal rights were disclosed by the media, many sympathizers and supporters from all over the country sent him phone calls and letters, delivering endless care and comfort like falling snowflakes. Xi also emerged from the shadows from then on, and his family lived with dignity and pride, becoming close friends with the bold and righteous lawyer who championed justice.

(To be continued)