What's wrong with this lawyer?!

Lawyers, well, they all have the ability to lie with their eyes open, and in court, as long as you're not blatantly spouting nonsense, you'll usually be fine.

Take the notorious Yao Jiaxin case from years past, for instance; there were all sorts of defense arguments, and that's fine—they could defend from various angles.

So when does it become a problem? It's when you've told a lie and then used false evidence to support your point. That's not just a problem; it's a huge one.

Ultimately, if you talk nonsense in court without evidence, the judge will certainly not accept it, and if you talk too much, the judge might even tell you to shut up. It's essentially harmless.
Explore more at My Virtual Library Empire

But using false evidence to commit perjury could cause unexpected turns in the trial, leading to wrongful convictions, and that's why perjury can land you in jail, while lawyers telling tall tales go unpunished.

Therefore, seasoned lawyers simply don't bother with such talk.

It was then the office's turn to present evidence. They had quite a bit of it—fifteen pieces in total, which was a sort of "self-proving innocence."

It might seem unreasonable, but considering this was an administrative office, it made a lot more sense.

Old Tang had no objections to most of the evidence except for the eighth piece.

"We have no objections to the authenticity and legality of this evidence, but we do object to its relevance and the strength of its proof. This evidence does not demonstrate that the demolition office had provided the compensation before making the decision to demolish," Old Tang asserted.

With just that one statement, it was enough. If it couldn't be proved, then it couldn't be proved. Even a trained dog that could say just that would win the case.

The Judgment Chief announced the start of the judicial debate, and Old Tang began to address the opponent's statements.

"Firstly, the defendant claimed that the demolition office, as an internal department, could not be a qualified defendant, which is a misuse of legal provisions," Old Tang stated.

"According to the provisions of 'The Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Correct Identification of Qualified Defendants in Administrative Litigation of Local People's Governments at or Above the County Level' Article 3, promulgated in 2021, whoever makes the decision to demolish is the defendant!"

"Moreover, Jingzhou City has relevant regulations that the housing demolition office is a legally authorized internal institution."

"Similarly, according to the 'Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law' Article 20, an internal organization, dispatched agency, or other organization authorized by laws, regulations, or rules that carries out administrative actions beyond authorized limits, if a party brings a lawsuit because they disagree with the action, the organization or entity that carried out the act should be named as the defendant."

Whether they are internal departments or dispatched agencies, as long as they are legally authorized, they can all be qualified defendants. This legal authorization can be law, regulations, or local rules.

Normally, cities with districts can enact local rules.

And the Supreme Court has also said that even if these institutions act beyond their authorized scope, the lawsuit should be against these institutions, and not the government.

"Therefore, the housing demolition office of Jingnan County can serve as a qualified defendant," said Old Tang confidently.

"Next, the defendant has not provided evidence to prove that the compensation was in place before the decision to demolish..."

During the judicial debate, Old Tang had two core points—the first was to refute the opposition's statements, proving the office could be sued, and the second was hitting right at the heart of the matter.

After finishing, Old Tang just sat there, looking on.

The opposing public service lawyer began a non-stop rebuttal, which nearly put Old Han to sleep.

Completely detached from the evidence, he argued first that small flaws did not matter, then said that it wasn't reasonable for the defendant to have to prove everything by themselves, and so on...

It almost caused the Judgment Chief to lose his composure; he couldn't help but glance at the deputy director, wondering where they had found such a treasure of a person.

It was a law established by the National Congress, and you think it's unreasonable? Who do you think you are...

Don't be surprised, having seen many cases, you'd realize there are all types of lawyers, even those who make a scene in court. You might even question if they're really lawyers at all...

The Judgment Chief couldn't take it anymore; the court had really tried its best with this case!

The plaintiff wasn't allowed to investigate the evidence, they didn't investigate either; during the court statements, they even let the plaintiff speak as briefly as possible, letting the defendant do most of the talking.

It was completely useless, but it was still not a good time to interrupt, so the judge had to let the other side continue.

The public service lawyer was on a roll, feeling like he was making a lot of sense, when in truth he had hardly touched practical work since passing the exam and found the whole experience quite novel.

Finally, the Judgment Chief interjected, "Please, counsel for the defendant, do not repeat yourself. Do you have any new points to make?"

The interrupted public service lawyer realized what was happening, glanced at the deputy director whose face was darkening, and eventually shook his head, "No, nothing more."

"The judicial debate is closed, court is adjourned!"

The Judgment Chief left immediately, not wanting to stay a minute longer. It was now necessary to submit the case to the court's adjudication committee; he couldn't take the fall alone.

Old Tang packed up his things unhurriedly and was about to leave when he saw the deputy director coming towards him.

"Lawyer Tang, right? We've always cooperated whenever your lawyers' association came down for outreach. Now you're doing this, how will things work in the future?" the deputy director began, then added, "What are you trying to accomplish by doing this?"

Hearing this, Lawyer Tang responded, "Things will proceed as they should. As for me, I just can't stand to see an innocent person get locked up. I'm kind-hearted and can't bear to see someone wrongfully accused!"