Counselor Zou Li Hui has not accepted the response of the District Justice Bureau to request administrative review and follow-up.

Application for administrative review

Applicant: Zou Li Hui, born on 27 February 1957, Han ethnic group, a person from Yongtai County, Fujian Province, practising lawyer, address: Law firm of Fujian Yang, west side of the Grand Mansion Park, Guan Hue County, Fujian Province, telephone: 13338283186; 13950309665.

Claimant: Jiannan City Judicial Department, 11th floor, Port-au-Prince Centre A, located at Wen Quan Street and Tang Metsurgical Crossroads, Jeen-Nan Province, Tel. 0531-88115070.

Statutory representative: Thong Swe, Director General.

The applicant, who reported numerous offences and suspected offences against discipline to the judicial officer Li Ai Xin of the judicial office of the city of Jenan (retired on 18 May 2026 during the reporting period), contested the respondent ' s unsigned reply, arguing that the defendant had deliberately violated the legal procedure, violated the facts on which the applicant had provided evidence and the relevant legal provisions, and had not been informed of the avenues and deadlines of relief for non-compliance with his reply, was suspected of fraud and applied for administrative review.

Request

. The defendant ' s administrative offence was dismissed for hearing in accordance with the law, and the information was referred to the competent disciplinary and inspection authorities and public security organs, respectively, for the purpose of filing a case, in accordance with the procedure established by law, for the finding of the alleged offender, Li Ai Xin, for alleged criminal infractions and offences.

ii. Transfer of material suspected of fraud to the competent disciplinary inspectorate, which will provide due party disciplinary action, for inspection, inspection and inspection; Criminal liability is established in accordance with the law if the offence is serious.

Facts and reasons

The applicant sent a letter in early January 2025 to the Commissioner of the Szet, the legal representative of the applicant, reflecting the alleged intentional murder of four deputy public security officers of the Zhiqiang Zhiqiang Zhang, the four-song public security bureau of the city of Ulantzab, in the city of Inner Mongolia, and the case of the Supreme People ' s Procuratorate, in which he had been granted a request for compensation, and had been in wantonly, attacked the Supreme People ' s Procuratorate, created legal incriminating (and charged for the violation) and requested that the respondent be given prompt stop and redress. However, the defendant did not respond, resulting in the "sing of a song" by Li Ai-Sing, who had been accused of serious violations of the law, including "attacking, denigrating the judiciary, disturbing court order, insulting others" and "defusing his lawyer's license" in order to insult him, after he had failed to respond, and had committed many serious violations, including the "singing of a song" by the so-called "Yan-Singing" teacher, Yang Jin-ju, who had been established with his Qianjiang Qian teacher, who had stated that she wanted to report her to the disciplinary inspectorate. The applicant is verbally accused of “black-handedly reporting to the disciplinary inspectorate” and is publicly insinuated, and is subject to censorship and censorship in the country.

In April 2025, the applicant formally filed a report with the Monitoring Board of the Jenan City Disciplinary Commission and the Ministry of Justice on the alleged violation of many of the law and discipline of Li Ae-Sin, who was suspected of having been involved in a joint effort with Yang Kim-ju to incite subversion of State power. (a) The Disciplinary Commission of Jenan City and the Ministry of Justice, after having transmitted the applicant ' s complaint to the Disciplinary Commission of the Quilombo District and the respondent, respectively, and having referred it to each other, did not receive the applicant ' s complaint and did not investigate it in accordance with the law; The applicant also sent a full set of reports to the Ninth Patrol Unit of the Central Party of the Communist Party in Shandong Province on 18 September 2025, accompanied by a letter to the Central Patrol Unit, which, in the event of a sinking of the sea, was unable to respond.

In April 2026, Fujian Jianli Lin, who is currently residing in Jeenan City, submitted the same information to the authorities of Shandong Province, the Jeennan City Disciplinary Commission, the Political and Legal Commission and the Judiciary Administration in April 2025, in response to the same information as the applicant. The respondent was informed in writing on 30 April 2026 that the information transmitted by the letter and information received from the Sun City Office was dealt with in accordance with the Regulations on the Work of Letters and Visits and the Rules on the Processing of Complaints by Listed Letters and Visits, as provided for in the Regulations on the Legal Classification, in accordance with the administrative performance procedures.

(a) The applicant then wrote to the respondent on 28 May to submit a new report to the Jeennan City Council and the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, in addition to all the material submitted in April 2025 at the time of the first report, on the new name of Li Ai, and to submit a large number of new evidence and evidentiary leads, with the result of the joint investigation of the complaint with the State of Lin Rin, which the respondent had received earlier; Meanwhile, given that the incident in question involved new offences and disciplinary offences by Li Ai-Jin, which lasted for several years, and the joint incitement of Li Ai-Sing and Yang Kim-ju to commit crimes against the State, which occurred from November 2021 to early 2022, which was nearly five years old, the case was significant and complex, as well as the fact that Li Ai-Sin worked for more than 20 years in the prosecution system and the disciplinary and inspection services, that Yang was a known “death squad” criminal defence lawyer throughout the country, with experience in counter-investigation and a familiar and nuanced reality, and that he requested that the respondent be heard after the investigation was completed, Examination of evidence obtained, determined and applied, party and political discipline, public evidence, examination, debate and deliberation, in order to establish the facts of the case in a comprehensive and objective manner, in accordance with the law and in accordance with the rules of law, to apply the law, the law and party and political discipline correctly and to make just decisions on their handling!

However, the fact that the respondent received the further submission of the applicant ' s true name on 30 May 2026, and did not receive the applicant ' s information within 15 days of the date of receipt of the complaint, as required by law, and whether it was admissible and notified in writing or by telephone to the Joint Investigation Unit of the Lin Rying State of its response, violated the legal procedure under article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Regulations on the Work of Letters and Visits of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council; After further reminder of the admissibility by telephone on 25 June, which informed Lin Rying in writing on 25 June* 430 that his complaint would be received in accordance with the administrative procedure, a " Request for Admission " was issued on 17 June in response to the supplementary submission by Lin Rying, which actually extended the deadline for reply to 17 August, in a hasty manner, on 25 June 2026, the day the petitioner called for questioning, in different forms,

The above figure is a response from the Judicial Department of the City of Chinan to the case of Zou Li Hui who reported a crime against the law and the alleged crime of Li Ai.

(Reactions to reflect the relevant questions of the new Ying Li, on the unsigned and deliberately unclear attributes of the applicant ' s report; The letter-response series of replies to the reports of the Rin Rin Rin Rin, entitled " Legal (replaces the word “administrative”) and the reply to the applicant and the Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin, as well as the deliberate circumvention of the communication of avenues and deadlines of relief against his or her reply, are intended to exclude legal remedies against the applicant and Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin Rin, and to reveal clearly the state of frustration and fear of dissent of his or her personnel!

The respondent ' s responses to the applicant and to the Lin Lok State clearly contained the following serious problems of wilful violation of the legal procedure, violation of facts and laws, party discipline and suspicion of fraud:

. The procedures for receiving, investigating, responding to and responding to the request and the complaint by Lin Yui-Sin of the alleged criminal offences against Li are seriously illegal and affect the proper handling of the matter.

(a) In April 2026, Lin Yu-Sin filed a complaint for the reporting of numerous offences against the law and alleged offences of incitement to overthrow the State's political power, rather than a regular letter, which falls within the competence of the Department of Monitoring and Inspection and the Department of State Security, which is now re-established as the “political security” body; The judicial office of the city of LJK is the work unit of the reported person, Li Ai Xin, who was transferred “from the marginalized” to the CJK for “involved” in the case of the Heilongang province police officer Xia Jin-jin, who has not been in a leading position but has retained his former status as a “stingling” for many years, and who has long been neglecting his new supervisory role, and who has therefore had an interest in “imprisoning the fair handling of the matter” between the applicant and YYK, and should be avoided by law. The Department of Letters and Visits of the City District referred the reporting from Lin Lok State to the Judicial Department of the City District, in violation of articles 22 (2) and 28 (3) of the Regulations on the Work of Letters and Visits of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council.

The same reason why the applicant was not admitted after receiving the report from the higher authority in April 2025, but rather that he was informed that “after the disciplinary inspection body has reached its conclusions, the Office will proceed with the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions”, is that the respondent is aware of the provisions of the aforementioned Ordinance on the Work of Letters and Visits. The applicant therefore reported the new matter to Lin Yee, the country which was transferred to the City Office on 24 April 2026, correctly, and after the presentation and verification of the information by the referral office, in accordance with article 23, paragraph 3, of the Regulations on the Work of Letter Visits, the information was returned to the City Office, with the consent of the referral office, and they were requested to forward it to the Monitoring Committee of the District Council of the City and the Public Security organs for investigation and investigation of the case.

Even if there were any “three types of disciplinary and inspection procedures” that Li Ai had subsequently claimed, the respondent would have thought that he could handle the new complaints against her, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Rules Governing the Legal Classification of Complaints by Letter and Visits, the department responsible for the correspondence (Office of the Authority) would have to ask the functional counterpart of the disciplinary team, the inspection unit (Search Office) to establish a case-finding unit under the procedure established by the Law on Political Discipline of Public Officials of the People's Republic of China, but not to have access to the department “Trilling in the letter”. (b) A “administrative discharge” procedure” which is vague and vague.

In conclusion, the respondent ' s receipt, investigation and response to the applicant and the State party ' s complaint of numerous offences against the law and discipline of Li Ai Xin, and of alleged offences of incitement to overthrow the State ' s authority, constitute a serious violation of the legal procedure and affect the legal, objective, thorough investigation and proper handling of the matter, and its response to the applicant and the State party shall be withdrawn in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulations on the Work of Letters and Visits of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council.

/ / / / / / / / / Qu Qu Qu @

The applicant and Lin Lok provided a large amount of evidence and evidence, in their own way, to report many of the violations of the law and discipline committed by Li Ae-Sung. In the case of the applicant, for example, on 28 May 2026, the applicant again filed a complaint against Lee Ai-Sin, and provided a large number of new evidence and evidentiary leads, as well as a list of materials and statements of evidence, in addition to the submission of the first report to the Jenan City Disciplinary Commission and the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, which was used to link the report. (a) Eight groups of evidence and evidence were used to report the various violations of discipline committed by Ying, the first of which was the case of Li Ying, who was suspected of having committed offences against the company and company Wei-shin, and whose activities were used illegally to set up various hot spots, including eight photographs; Group 2: Internet users criticized the new statements and actions of the new network and the new confrontation with Li, which contained six images; Group 3: The online community publicly questioned the illegal payment of fees for the name of Li Ae-Sin (Li ' s new response constitutes self-identification), which contained 13 pictures; Group 4: The applicant verified to a retired member of the Provincial Judicial Department of the State of Qiang, Shandong Province, the fact that Li Ai Xin had committed an offence against the police in the Heilongjiang and that he had been charged for the offence in the name of providing legal assistance to the visitors. The material in group 1-4 above provides investigative leads for reporting the various violations of the law and discipline committed by YI Ai-Sin, and requires organizational verification.

(a) A fifth group: Li Ai Xin publicly threatened to take a knife to go to Fukuzhou in 2025 to cause trouble for the applicant, with six photographs proving that Li Ai Xin attempted to take the knife to the applicant's law firm in retaliation for the incident; Group 6: The applicant assessed the statements and actions of the Lee Ae-Sin, who was exposed to the press outside the country and placed on the list of the villains, with two videos, two files and 14 photographs, which demonstrated that Li Ae-Sin had long concealed close links with what he identified as the “anti-communist media” and had failed to report to the organization, and had been seriously disloyal to the party and had been very unfaithful to the organization; (a) Group 7: Micro-Cybershot of the Micro-Cybers of the Rule of Law, which confirms that Li Ai Xin publicly declared in the Group that he had retired on 18 May 2026 and that he would henceforth be free from the disciplinary rule of law that “public officials are not allowed to use the Internet” and would be engaged in full-time online abuse, alerting and prosecuting, every six months, public threats and reprisals against cyber opponents by abusing public security and judicial resources; Group 8: Li Ai Xin, a friend-circle, micro-clan chat, 4 (scribble in two pages), which demonstrates that Li Ai Xin has been able to boast over his “deficient” (and recently self-exposed to his complaints and to remove the official articles of Lin Rin) by posing as false facts such as “false, false accusations, violations”, and by making random complaints and removing the applicants and Xu Sheng, Lin Yeo-gil, Wang Beyung and others from the scenes, exposing their violations of discipline, alleged crimes, and public articles and tremors (which have recently reached over 30 articles in his own right and his own right, and removing the official articles of Lin-Ky country) The violation of the law, which was the "marginalization" of the CMC from the District Council to the Judicial Department of the District of Luntown, whose original public name, Spring Rain, was permanently sealed, was not only retrodden but also increased, illegal registration and the use of the corporate public name, Microloan, continued to use the name "Sun Rain" as a covert name, with no end to the use of hotspot legal cases, with various cyber-prosecutions, even openly stomping, attacking judicial organs such as the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court, and shamelessly speaking of “legal intelligence experts”. I'm sorry. Recently, the Public Watch of the Enterprise was used in violation of the law, and public threats were made to use the police (complaints) + legal action to force the opponent to “conciliate in good faith at all stages” with him, and to abandon the reporting. This act of Li Ai Xin has become a cyber-bullying, “coercion” and “coercion” of the Internet's black and black power! The material in this group is composed of new self-identifications by LEE, which can be used as evidence, in accordance with the law, for the finding of new violations of discipline.

However, the respondent did not investigate, verify and verify, in an objective and comprehensive manner, the evidence submitted by the applicant in group 1-4 in accordance with the law, and concluded that the facts evidenced in group 5-8 were not recognized in their entirety, and that many violations of the law by Li-ai were deliberately concealed and protected from reporting party and political disciplinary action.

In particular, the respondent, in his third reply, stated that “When he was in my Bureau, most of his Internet access was concentrated after work, and occasionally he used his working hours to make statements in his Twitter community. In accordance with the relevant provisions, such as the Regulations on the Conduct of the Communist Party Network of China, the Bureau has repeatedly warned Li Ai Xin and has organized a thematic group to educate him about criticism”, which is clearly contradictory and cannot be justified! The simple point is, if Li Ae-sung is simply “sometimes using his working hours to make statements in his Twitter group”, how can he be reminded of many times and be educated about criticism by the convening of a panel of the Special Party? I'm not going anywhere.

. The key facts that were proved by the applicant and the State of Lin Yu are not established as deliberate circumvention of the criminal act of Li Ai Xin, suspected of inciting subversion of State power in association with Yang Kim-jaung.

The applicant and Lin Lok-kwu provided, in their own way, substantial and sufficient evidence to report the crime of Li Ai Xin, who was suspected of having been involved in a conspiracy with Yang Kim-ju to destabilize the State. The applicant also provided evidence in relation to the three sets of evidentiary material, the second set of evidence not directly related to the latter and the third set of evidence, which was provided by Lin-Leon, to report that Li Ae-Sin was suspected of having been involved in a conspiracy to destabilize the State, in conjunction with the former Hunan suspended lawyer, Yang Kim-ju. The first group of evidence: the applicant argued that Li Ai Xin was suspected of having been involved in a joint crime with Yang Kim-ju in inciting subversion of the State, containing 3 files and 15 photographs (of which Yang Ai-Sung created 5 photographs of the file supporting the Prison Serious Crimes Fund, and created separate folders), that he had sufficiently argued and substantiated his allegations of his involvement with Yang King in inciting subversion of the State regime, and that he had responded to her new challenge (namely, the so-called note by Li Ai-Sin). The response of Li Ae-Sin to the applicant cannot be refuted, but instead complain to Tate Corporation that the official article published by the applicant in this context shows that Lee Ae-Sin is deeply afraid of his own crimes, knowing that he is guilty of such crimes!

The evidence provided by the applicant above also demonstrates that the respondent ' s first reply to the report contained the following serious problems:

First, the applicant did not report any “contribution fraud” (not a statutory offence) between YI Xin Li and Yang Kim-ju. The applicant considers that, without a declaration, Yang Kim-ju, in the first of the so-called “Four years to thoroughly examine suspected cases of serious offences committed in the prison system”, and in the context of the “Focus of suspected grievances” of the so-called “Sixteen-year period”, raised funds in open form from several of his 9,000-strong micro-clinics, and over the 10 days of 11-20 November 2021, over a total of 288 persons were collected for various purposes, suspected of having collected funds illegally; (b) The “first five members of the Board of Directors” were given the position of “member of the Board” by the “first five members,” except the Yang family, and the “unworthy of the Kim-jooned” of the “member” of the Yang Kim-joon by “the one who does not contribute more than a hundred dollars,” and the “friend” of his “thou” was forced to donate, by means of deception and extortion, in order to collect funds illegally and on suspicion of fraud; On 29 November 2021, under the name of Chang Sha Yang Kim-Jin Legal Services Ltd., Yang Kim-ju declared the establishment of a fund for the purpose of “Special Fund for Recourse to Suspected Illness Claims in Prison” as the “Kin-Jin Legal Aid Fund”, in the context of strong opposition from many legal sources, particularly the persistent reports from Lin-Liu State; (a) On 8 December 2021, after several changes of name, the Shiolin Legal Aid Fund was granted in the name of his then wife, Lee Moolin, but only eight days later applied for withdrawal; On 24 December of the same year, when the Shiolin Legal Aid Fund was withdrawn, the request for the establishment of the so-called “Foundation of the Public Interest of the French People” (which was now changed to Yang Kim-Jin Yang-sei) on behalf of the Hunan Yuering Law Office, headed by his wife, Shiolin Li, was made and only “refunded” (as determined by the respondent in his reply) was likely to be linked to fraud.

Secondly, the applicant submitted “a search for the establishment of the Assistance Fund, initiated by the former lawyer of Hunan Province, Yang Kim-ju, in early November 2021, in the Friends Circle, with a donation of $666 from Li Ai-Sin on 8 November, and on 8 December with the consent of the Hunan Public Welfare Foundation to establish the Moolin Legal Aid Fund, to mobilize the donation of the money from the Friends Circle, to which Yang Kim-Jin was paid and to which a special group was established. The founder of the Fund, Yang Jin-joon, invited Li Ai-Shin to chair the Board of Directors of the Fund, and Li Ai-Sin indicated that the Board would “consider” but that the Fund did not formally hire Li Ai-Sin as Chair of the Board, nor did Li Ai-Sin actually chair the Board of Directors of the Fund, and did not hold any position in the Fund”; “On 26 December 2021, Li Ai Xin contributed $666 to the `Françaignor' Public Interest Fund', which Yang Kim-ju is applying for, and on 4 January 2022 Yang Kim-ju returned the money to Li Ai-Sin. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulations of the Foundation, Li Ai Xin has only contributed to two funds, not the founder or applicant of the fund, and currently has no evidence of the existence of a special fund for the prosecution of suspected malpractices against persons illegally convicted of serious prison offences. He has responded to the applicant and Lin Yeo-chung's report that “Li Ai Xin is suspected of having been involved in a conspiracy with Yang King-Jin to incite subversion of State power”, denying that Li Ai Xin is suspected of having been involved in this joint crime with Yang King-Jing, and deliberately circumventing the following key facts:

1. The first contribution of $666 from Lee Ai, a contribution to the Special Fund for Complaints of Suspected Misdemeanours in Prison Cases, and the fact that Li Ai Xin has been a public prosecutor for 23 years in a provincial capital city, a member of the provincial and municipal crime warning education panel, a municipal investigator to oversee 10 good cases, 10 good cases for prevention (job crime), a provincial prosecutor's competition, 31 years of service, and currently in the civil service, where he has not retired from service in a provincial capital. (a) The work experience, the “honour”, the illegal collection of “special funds for serious criminal suspects” for Yang Kim-ju, the endorsement of the “legitimate” to the illegal fund-raising exercise, and the appreciation and preference of the suspended lawyer, Yang Kim-Jin (and thus the worship of Yang Kim-Jin by Li Ai-Sin and the public worship of Yang King-Win as Master), and the assignment of her as “independent supervisor” for the fund; Li Ai Xin accepted the mandate as “institutionally” and issued “Council Resolution No. 1” under the name “Sun Rain and Rain” ordering that “all contributions will be unattainable until the end of the first phase of the contribution process on 30 November 2021”.

1. The aforementioned fund was revoked on 24 December 2021 by a letter from the Chang Sha ' a Sun Foundation, which expressly prohibited any further so-called charitable activities on its behalf, but Yang Kim-joon and Li Ai Xin were not willing to make a move to plan the so-called "Foundation for the Defence of the Public Interest of the French Business Society" without the approval of the fund, Li Ai-Sin followed the family of three and made a further contribution of $6666, and Yang Kim-ju was once again given the post of "Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the Fund"; The continued reporting by Lin-Ling has caused great social displeasure and has affected the nation ' s charitable efforts (Li Ae-Sung has spoken to Chiang Tieyang, Secretary-General of the Chang Sha Tsun Foundation, more than four years after the transmission of his tweets), and it is regrettable that Li Ae-Sung has not been in this chair. The respondent deliberately distorted the factual process of Li Ai Xin's two previous contributions, on the pretext that “the successor fund did not formally hire Li Ai Xin as the Chairman of the Supervisory Board, nor did Li Ai Xin actually become the Chairman of the Board”, that Li Ai Xin only contributed to two funds, not the initiator or applicant of the Fund”, that Li Ai Xin “did not take any position in the Fund”, that “there is no evidence at present of his illegal establishment of a special fund for serious prison offences against suspected malfeasance”, and that he deliberately circumvented the activities of the “active and active participation” of the Lee Ai Xin, a key member of the criminal enterprise. The decision).

3 but the truth is more eloquent than the hymns! On 29 May 2026, Li Ai Xin, a Twitter community such as the Rule of Law, repeatedly published a message entitled “Moolin Legal Aid Fund, which provoked two-fold love”, claiming that “in November 2021, less than two months before Ann met with Yang Jin Jing, a former lawyer (name of Lee Ai Xin), took the initiative to offer ideas and to contribute to the work of the Legal Aid Fund initiated by Kim Jing Legal Advisory Company. This warm investment in the peace of mind seems to be extremely unusual in a country that has been having animosity with Yang King for many years: he has never seen such a strong support for Yang King. It is the same country that launched two emotional attacks against the MLAF in early 2022 and early 2026, four years later. ....2022 The situation in the year of love led to several renamings of the Fund, which eventually lasted only * 8 days and was withdrawn (the applicant called “Li's new self-confession”) not only did it “fell its spear” to prove, support and smite the applicant's and Lin Lo's report, but also struck the respondent, the “investigator”, with a loud slap in the hand!

In the light of the foregoing, the judicial department of the city of Jenan, the defendant, deliberately violated the legal procedure, refused to verify the evidence in a fair and objective manner, and, contrary to the facts as evidenced by the applicant and Lin Yi, deliberately protected Lee Ai-Sin, who committed serious breaches of the law and suspected of having committed crimes in association with Yang Jin-ju, the leaders and the operators directly responsible were suspected of having committed fraud! The respondent expressly informed the State of the complaint to be made in accordance with the “administrative performance procedure”; The applicant's re-submission, which expressly requires a joint investigation of the matter with the State of Lin Liu, which the respondent has previously received, and the respondent's response to the applicant and to Lin Yiu, which is identical in form but in the same content, is sufficient to presume that the respondent's response to the applicant and Lin Yiu Yiu is an administrative response, in accordance with the legal characteristics of the administrative acts of the executive authorities and their staff in the performance of their administrative duties, is in accordance with article II of the Administrative Review Act of the People's Republic of China, which states: “The citizens, legal persons or other organizations consider that the respondent's response to the applicant's request is not in the same form, but is not identical in substance, and is in accordance with the legal characteristics of the administrative acts of the executive authorities and their staff members in the exercise of their administrative duties, and is in accordance with article II of the Administrative Review Act of the People's Republic of China,: The Act applies to administrative review bodies, which apply when their administrative actions infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests; Article 11: “A citizen, a legal person or another organization may apply for administrative review in accordance with this Law if... (xv) it is considered that other administrative acts of the executive branch violate its legitimate rights and interests” and Article 28: “In case of disagreement with the administrative acts of the judicial administration of the local people's government, which performs the functions of the body of administrative review,... may also apply for administrative review to the higher judicial administration” and apply to your office for administrative review in accordance with the law, in accordance with article 50 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Review. Article : “In cases of serious, difficult and complex administrative review, the administrative review body shall organize hearings. The administrative review body shall hold hearings, and shall make public evidence, testimony, arguments, deliberations and support the applicant's request for review, as provided for in the rules of the administrative review body, if the hearing is deemed necessary, or if the applicant requests a hearing.

To the Judicial Department of Jenan, Shandong Province

Applicant: Zou Lihui

October 1st, 20, 6th.

Following: On 12 and 21 October 2026, respectively, the Judicial Department of Jenan City issued a notice of legal admissibility for the administrative review of the applications submitted by Zou Lihe, Lin Jie-chul, and the response of the Judicial Department of Jenan City of China.

After being informed of the news, the reported person, Li Ai Xin, publicly threatened in several micro-clinics that there was no remedy for the complaints, that the Jenan City Judicial Office was seized of the application for administrative review of Zou Lihe, Lin Yi Yi Zhu and Zhou Zhou Zhou, and that the law did not apply for review. He has contacted the administrative review body of the judicial office of Jenan City to challenge it; The staff member of the administrative review body of the Judicial Department of Jenan City responded by telephone that the application for administrative review of Zou Lihe-Lin-Lin was rejected.

Li Ai Xin's statement is true and true. How will the Jinan City Justice Department move? We'll see! I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere.