Lawyer Li Zhiyong: Li Biyun came second in the election for deputy director of the neighborhood committee.

[2] According to a Weibo post by Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm [@Lawyer Li Zhiyong]: On January 12, 2013, the election for the neighborhood committee of Rongli Community, Ronggui Street, Shunde District, Foshan City, was held from 7:30 to 14:00. This neighborhood committee election actually applied the election procedures for village committees. The election will select the village committee director, deputy director, members, group leaders, and resident representatives (including women representatives).

[3] Over 200 villagers recommended four village committee candidates, including Li Biyun. However, they did not make it onto the official candidate list. Subsequently, the results of the election for the neighborhood committee of Rongli Community, Ronggui Street, Shunde District, Foshan City, were announced. Independent candidate for the People's Congress, Li Biyun, who is now arrested on suspicion of obstructing official duties, received 687 votes in the election for deputy director of the neighborhood committee, ranking second.

[4] Meanwhile, lawyers including Wang Quanping, Ge Wenxiu, Ge Yongxi, Xi Qilei, Li Zhiyong (first from left), as well as independent candidates from Shenzhen, and citizens such as Xiucaijianghu and Yang Chong, observed the elections for several village committees, village representatives, and group leaders in Shunde.

[5] Additionally, Lawyer Li Zhiyong received a message on Sina from Shunde City Network, requesting his phone number so that reporters could learn more about the situation. Lawyer Li Zhiyong has provided his phone number and welcomes interviews.

Related link: On November 22, 2013, Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm [@Lawyer Li Zhiyong] posted on Weibo: In the case of Li Biyun's election sabotage, the Foshan Intermediate People's Court issued a criminal ruling. The ruling stated that the opinions raised by Li Biyun and her defender lacked factual and legal basis and were not adopted. The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld.

In response, the defender argued that according to Article 223 of the Criminal Procedure Law, if the defendant raises objections to the facts and evidence determined in the first instance, and it may affect the conviction and sentencing, the appeal case should be heard in open court.