(Clearwisdom.net) On January 17, 2006, the Baoding New Urban District Court

conducted a public hearing for Falun Gong practitioners Mr. Zhang Rongjie, Mr. Zhi Zhanmin, Mr. Liu Yongwang and Mr. Wei Haiwu. The hearing lasted form 9:30 in the morning until 1:10 in the afternoon. All four practitioners were brought to the court in the custody of two security police. The most severely persecuted victim was Mr. Zhang Rongjie, who was so weak and feeble that he didn't even have the strength to talk. He was dragged and carried to the courtroom by the police. Practitioner Mr. Liu Yongwang's feet were numb from torture and he couldn't walk, so he was dragged and carried to the fourth floor courtroom. The three male practitioners were elderly and almost all had grey hair. Baoding City's New Urban District examiner Zhang Yuelong acted as the public prosecutor and conducted the entire hearing. The evidence provided was inconclusive. The reading of the charges was incoherent, and the emphasis on the accused was strong on conviction being "legitimate" and "reasonable" but without presentation of actual facts as evidence to support the charges.

In the final stages of the hearing, the attorney representing the accused took a rational stance; he steadfastly and calmly refuted the accusations with solid facts, showing that the charges by the Chinese Communist Party could not be established.

Some examples:

1. The public prosecutor began with the emergency broadcast incident in Tianjin City. In the beginning he stated that the event was of a "Falun Gong 'truth clarification'" nature. He later repeatedly contradicted his statement, saying that it was the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party that was being broadcast. In this regard, since this court's session was held because of an emergency public broadcast and its related incidents, one wonders how and why, all of a sudden, the topic of the hearing came to focus on "reactionary opinion?" Was there any established legal proof by any branch of government that could verify that the Nine Commentaries is harmful to society? If so, which institution is qualified to make such an evaluation? Even if we take a step back to say the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party is harmful to society, then how exactly is it harmful? If it is harmful to the "political party," then what is the nature and degree of this harm? If, however, there is no binding legality on this issue, then the issue of harm to society is non-existent, and harmful behavior cannot be established. If a further step is taken to evaluate the issue, even if the Nine Commentaries is harmful to the Communist Party, the harm is related to a political party, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the case being heard. The "harm" is totally unrelated and irrelevant.

2. From an excerpt of the court attorney's cross-examination of Mr. Zhi Zhanmin: "Your interruption of this broadcast, was it your own personal undertaking and actions or did some organization direct you to do this?" Mr. Zhi responded: "My personal actions and behavior." In light of this information, the attorney stated his view to the judge that since the incident related to personal behavior, the case could not be viewed and discussed as belonging to any group or organization. In this respect, the indictment against Mr. Zhi Zhanmin could not be established. In the end, the attorney wrapped up the session with powerful legal testimony to explain that Mr. Liu Yongwang and Mr. Wei Haiwu had nothing to do with the emergency broadcast event.

In his statement at this public hearing, practitioner Mr. Zhang Rongjie summoned up all his strength to say in a voice enfeebled by torture: "Under all circumstances and situations, Falun Gong practitioners maintain the discipline of forbearing blows when being hit and not talking back when being verbally abused. Our ultimate cultivation goal is following Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance." Mr. Zhi Zhanmin was interrupted several times as he tried to defend Dafa, and he was arbitrarily silenced by the presiding judge. In his personal defense statement he said he wanted to "expose the lies and rumors and clarify the truth." Before he got a chance to say more, he was silenced by the judge. Practitioner Mr. Liu Yongwang said in his defense statement: "Through the court's investigation and hearing, Mr. Zhang Rongjie and Mr. Zhi Zhanmin have testified that I had nothing to do with the two emergency broadcasts. I further affirmed that I did not participate in and had nothing to do with the broadcast incidents. It's quite obvious that someone is trying to frame me. Whoever is manipulating the facts from behind the scenes against me is liable and guilty." Mr. Liu's statement was interrupted as well, and the judge ultimately silenced him.

In the end the presiding judge pronounced that, on the basis of the public hearing, the legality of court proceedings was being followed and agreed that, through further collective counseling and reviewing, a verdict would be communicated separately.

The writer hereby requests all practitioners who know about this trial to continue to send forth righteous thoughts, be diligent, not to get discouraged, and continually uphold your positive attitude. From what we could see, the evil is lacking the ability to do what it likes. More and more people with righteous thoughts and positive thinking are stepping forward publicly. With the pace of Fa-ractification advancing rapidly, the evil is predestined to be extinguished.