CRIMINAL ACCUSATION, APPEAL, AND APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL SUPERVISION

OasisRadiance

CRIMINAL ACCUSATION, APPEAL, AND APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL SUPERVISION

To: The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, The Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China

And request statutory referral or assignment to People's Courts, People's Procuratorates, and relevant supervisory organs with competent jurisdiction.

CC: Henan Provincial Higher People's Court, Henan Provincial People's Procuratorate, Anyang City Intermediate People's Court, Anyang City People's Procuratorate, Linzhou City People's Court, Linzhou City People's Procuratorate, Linzhou City Public Security Bureau; relevant United Nations human rights mechanisms, international legal institutions, human rights organizations, and other organizations lawfully paying attention to this case.

I. Accuser, Petitioner, and Applicant for Supervision

• Name: Xuefeng (Zhang Zifan)
• Status: Guide of Lifechanyuan
• Identity Credentials: Male, Han ethnicity, Citizen ID Number: 622102195707170213
• Mailing Address: Any correspondence published openly on the smcy.xyz Spiritual Homeland website will be successfully received.
  
  

II. Accused Parties and Entities Subject to Supervision Application

• The Public Security Bureau of Linzhou City and relevant case-handling personnel involved in the investigation, arrest, search, seizure, interrogation, and transfer for detention in connection with Lifechanyuan cases;
• The People's Procuratorate of Linzhou City and relevant personnel involved in the review of arrest warrants, review for prosecution, public prosecution, and legal supervision activities;
• The People's Court of Linzhou City and relevant personnel involved in the trial, adjudication, service of documents, and execution in connection with Lifechanyuan cases;
• Relevant case-handling organs in Anyang City and other units and personnel involved in participating, directing, and coordinating the handling of this case;
• Other state organ functionaries found to bear legal liability upon investigation.
  
  

III. Cause of Action

This petition constitutes a criminal accusation, criminal appeal, and application for judicial supervision regarding the illegal handling of cases, infringement upon citizens' personal rights, property rights, freedom of correspondence, human dignity, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, right to defense, and right to appeal by the relevant public security, procuratorate, and court organs and their case-handling personnel during the arrest, investigation, prosecution, trial, and detention of personnel related to Lifechanyuan on suspicion of the "crime of utilizing superstition to undermine the implementation of law," which has resulted in severe wrongful convictions.

IV. Requested Matters

To uphold the dignity of the Constitution and the law, safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, and prevent the further expansion of wrongful convictions, the following requests are hereby submitted:

First: Request the Supreme People's Procuratorate to investigate clues of duty-related crimes committed by judicial personnel in this case, designating procuratorial organs in a different locality if necessary.

Request a formal statutory investigation into whether the Linzhou City Public Security Bureau, Linzhou City People's Procuratorate, Linzhou City People's Court, and related case-handling personnel engaged in the following unlawful acts:

• Unlawful detention or other methods that illegally deprive or restrict citizens' personal liberty;
• Extorting confessions by torture, violently gathering evidence, or obtaining evidence through threats, inducements, and deception;
• Unlawfully searching persons, residences, business venues, and living quarters;
• Illegally sealing, seizing, freezing, or recovering private property and collective living materials;
• Deliberately concealing exculpatory or mitigating evidence, and selectively admitting only incriminating materials;
• Wrongfully classifying normal expressions of belief, communal lifestyle practices, online article dissemination, mutual assistance, and public-welfare communal living models as crimes;
• Forcibly approving arrests, initiating prosecutions, and handing down prison sentences despite knowing that the facts were unclear and evidence was insufficient;
• Obstructing defense lawyers from lawfully meeting clients, reviewing case files, and presenting defenses, or restricting the parties, their families, and agents from lawfully appealing or filing accusations;
• Delaying the service of verdicts or refusing to deliver judgment documents after sentencing, thereby sabotaging the ability of defendants and their families to appeal, petition, or apply for a retrial;
• Other actions suspected of bending the law for self-serving purposes, abusing power, neglecting duty, infringing upon citizens' rights, and undermining judicial justice.
  
  

Second: Request the Supreme People's Court to initiate trial supervision procedures according to law, or order courts with competent jurisdiction to conduct a reinvestigation or retrial.

Request a comprehensive review of the convictions, evidence, procedures, and application of law in Lifechanyuan-related cases, with a strict focus on:

• Whether there is a clear, specific, and authentic "state law or administrative regulation" that was allegedly undermined;
• Whether there is reliable and sufficient evidence proving that members of Lifechanyuan executed concrete acts to "undermine the implementation of state laws or administrative regulations";
• Whether thought, belief, essays, lifestyle, and communal living practices were inherently and wrongfully equated with criminal acts;
• Whether ordinary community life, collective labor, shared financial arrangements, mutual elderly care, and the online dissemination of articles were arbitrarily interpreted as "organized crime" or "superstitious crime";
• Whether there are instances of unclear facts, insufficient evidence, erroneous application of law, procedural violations, or a failure to exclude illegal evidence;
• Whether legal fact-finding was substituted with political, labeled, and stigmatized characterizations;
• Whether there was a pattern of disparate sentencing for identical cases, selective prosecution, or backward-engineering facts to force a pre-established conviction.
  
  

Third: Lawfully retrieve and openly review key evidence and materials.

Request the statutory retrieval, examination, and disclosure to the parties, defense counsels, or agents of the following materials:

• Approval documents, directive orders, and operational logs regarding the centralized arrest operation;
• Detention warrants, arrest warrants, search warrants, seizure inventories, and lists of frozen/sealed assets;
• Complete synchronized audio and video recordings of all interrogations;
• Physical examination records upon entry into the detention center, medical records during detention, and meeting logs;
• The generation process of witness testimonies and corresponding synchronized audio/video records of witness questioning;
• Complete documentation regarding the extraction, preservation, forensic appraisal, and transfer of electronic data;
• The appraisal and review bases through which the implicated articles, videos, and website materials were designated as "superstitious" or "undermining the implementation of law";
• The entrustment procedures, qualification credentials, scope of appraisal, evaluation methods, raw source materials, and cross-examination records regarding the opinions issued by the Institute of Contemporary Religion under the Shandong Academy of Social Sciences, the Shandong International Anti-Cult Research Center, and other participating institutions;
• Indictments, supplementary investigation materials, court trial transcripts, written judgments, and certificates of service;
• All materials capable of proving that the defendants are innocent, bear minor culpability, or that procedures were violated and evidence was illegally obtained.
  
  

Fourth: Immediately safeguard the fundamental litigation and personal rights of currently detained personnel.

Request immediate statutory protection ensuring that detained personnel are granted:

• The right to receive written judgments, rulings, and other formal legal documents;
• The right to lawfully file appeals, petitions, and applications for retrial;
• The right to meet with defense counsel and obtain an effective defense;
• The right to notify family members, correspond, receive necessary daily necessities, and access proper medical treatment;
• The right to be free from extortion of confessions by torture, disguised physical punishment, personal humiliation, and psychological oppression;
• The right to have the necessity of their detention reviewed and to apply for a modification of compulsory measures.
  
  

Fifth: Correct the wrongful classification, release innocent personnel, revoke unlawful judgments, and hold relevant personnel legally accountable.

If review reveals that Lifechanyuan personnel committed no criminal acts, or that the accusations rely on unclear facts, insufficient evidence, erroneous application of law, and severe procedural violations, request the following actions according to law:

• Declare the relevant individuals innocent;
• Immediately release all personnel who remain detained;
• Revoke the erroneous judgments, rulings, and associated compulsory measures;
• Return all properties that were unlawfully seized, sealed, frozen, or recovered;
• Initiate state compensation procedures for individuals subjected to wrongful detention, wrongful arrest, wrongful sentencing, unlawful confinement, illegal evidence gathering, and unlawful property seizure;
• Pursue criminal, disciplinary, and state compensation recovery liabilities against case-handling personnel suspected of violating laws and regulations.
  
  

V. Facts and Grounds(1) This case is not an ordinary isolated incident, but a major matter involving the concentrated arrest, long-term detention, prosecution, and sentencing of multiple individuals.

According to current public records and statements from the parties, relatives, and witnesses, personnel related to Lifechanyuan have faced concentrated arrests, detentions, interrogations, prosecutions, and trials in Linzhou, Henan, and other regions since July 2025. Multiple individuals have been pursued for criminal liability on suspicion of the "crime of utilizing superstition to undermine the implementation of law." Several have already been sentenced, while others remain detained or are currently serving prison sentences.

This case involves a large number of citizens and spans multiple procedural stages, including arrest, search, seizure, interrogation, detention, prosecution, trial, service of judgments, legal defense, family notification, and property disposal. Any illegality in even a single link fundamentally undermines the factual baseline and adjudicative validity of the entire case.

(2) The application of Article 300 of the Criminal Law must rely on clear statutory components of a crime; abstract labels cannot replace specific facts.

The "crime of utilizing superstition to undermine the implementation of law" cannot be established simply because a group possesses a specific belief, publishes articles, practices a distinct communal lifestyle, or holds values that differ from mainstream society. The core component of this offense requires that the actor must have executed concrete acts that utilized superstition to disrupt the implementation of specific national laws or administrative regulations, reaching the threshold of social harm mandated by criminal law.

Therefore, this case must answer a set of foundational questions:

• Which specific state law or administrative regulation did Lifechanyuan personnel undermine?
• What concrete objective acts constituted this disruption?
• What is the causal link between the actors' conduct and the alleged harmful outcome?
• Where are the specific victims, the objective harmful consequences, and the verifiable evidence?
  
  

If the prosecution and the written judgments fail to answer these questions explicitly, and instead repeatedly rely on conceptual and evaluative rhetoric such as "superstitious organization," "bewitching personnel," "developing control," "propagandistic articles," and "collecting offerings," the case fails to meet the strict statutory standard requiring that facts be clear and evidence be reliable and sufficient for criminal conviction.

Criminal justice cannot substitute evidence with labels, replace facts with ideological stances, or exchange statutory components for societal prejudice. Doing so opens a dangerous door where any group practicing an alternative lifestyle can be arbitrarily funneled into a catch-all criminal category. This severely damages both individual justice and the authority of the nation's rule of law.

(3) Normal expressions of belief, dissemination of thought, communal living, and mutual assistance practices must not be arbitrarily criminalized.

Lifechanyuan has long expressed its philosophy, literature, lifestyle models, and civilizational explorations openly. The actions of relevant personnel—including participating in communal living, collective labor, mutual elderly care, publishing articles online, producing short videos, and organizing online and offline exchanges—do not inherently constitute criminal conduct.

If the case-handling organs maintain that these actions constitute a crime, they bear the statutory burden to prove:

• Which specific act fulfills the mandatory components of Article 300 of the Criminal Law;
• Which specific act actually obstructed the implementation of a national law or administrative regulation;
• Which specific act produced a concrete, real-world, and provable harmful consequence to society;
• Which specific defendant executed which specific act;
• The exact status, role, subjective intent, and objective behavior of each individual within the alleged joint offense;
• Whether the alleged "victims" truly exist, whether their participation was entirely voluntary, or whether they were subjected to coercion, deception, or control;
• Whether the associated evidence was obtained through legal procedures and thoroughly cross-examined in court.
  
  

In the absence of these essential components, criminal convictions cannot be rendered based solely on ideological content, expressions of belief, group identity, organizational names, lifestyle choices, the volume of essays or videos, or the mere fact of communal cohabitation.

(4) If forced arrests, back-tying, threats, violence, prolonged interrogation, or induced confessions occurred, illegal evidence must be excluded and accountability pursued according to law.

Criminal proceedings are strictly evidence-centered. Evidence must be obtained lawfully and verified as true. Any confessions, testimonies, or materials obtained through extortion of confessions by torture, violent evidence collection, threats, inducements, deception, fatigue interrogation, disguised corporal punishment, or psychological oppression must be excluded according to law.

In this case, if any of the following circumstances occurred, a formal review for the exclusion of illegal evidence must be initiated immediately:

• Utilizing violence, threats, or humiliating methods to control individuals at the arrest scene;
• Subjecting arrested individuals to back-tying, prolonged forced crouching, restriction of food and water, restriction of restroom access, or deprivation of rest;
• Utilizing threats of severe sentences, threats against family members, or inducements of leniency to extract confessions or force the identification of others;
• Obtaining statements through explicit promises such as "plead guilty and receive leniency" or threats such as "refuse to plead guilty and receive a maximum sentence";
• Conducting interrogations without complete, synchronized audio and video recordings, or using recordings that are incomplete, edited, or mismatched with the written transcripts;
• Witness testimonies that were template-generated or explicitly induced by case handlers;
• Utilizing administrative, psychological, or isolation pressures to compel individuals to make statements against their true will.
  
  

Illegal evidence cannot serve as the basis for a verdict. Any indictments or judgments built upon illegal evidence must be legally rectified.

(5) Delays in serving or refusing to deliver judgment documents severely impair the parties' rights to appeal, petition, and seek remedies.

Criminal judgments directly impact personal liberty. A written judgment is not merely a notification of an outcome; it is the fundamental instrument through which a defendant exercises their constitutional right to appeal, petition, apply for a retrial, or request legal supervision.

If defendants, their families, and defense counsels are denied access to the written judgment over a prolonged period, or are only verbally notified of the outcome without receiving the complete document, it directly cripples:

• The defendant's ability to evaluate and articulate grounds for an appeal;
• The defense counsel's ability to present valid legal opinions;
• The family's ability to lawfully retain lawyers for subsequent stages;
• The party's ability to apply for a retrial, file a petition, or lodge an accusation;
• The public's ability to supervise judicial rulings according to law.
  
  

The delayed service, withholding, or selective delivery of judgments constitutes a severe procedural violation. We request the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate to investigate and correct this matter.

(6) Academic appraisals, expert opinions, and religious research institution findings must not substitute for the court's independent review of the components of a crime.

Publicly available records indicate that the case-handling organs have cited opinions from certain research institutions, appraisal bodies, or experts to label Lifechanyuan's anthologies, philosophies, articles, and videos as "superstitious materials" or items of a similar nature.

Regarding this, the applicant submits that the following issues must be reviewed according to law:

• Whether the institutions issuing these opinions possess valid, statutory forensic appraisal qualifications;
• Whether the entrustment and referral procedures were lawful;
• Whether the objects of appraisal were complete, authentic, and free from selective truncation;
• Whether the methods of evaluation were scientific, objective, and neutral;
• Whether the appraisers appeared in court to accept cross-examination;
• Whether the conclusions merely offer value judgments and ideological commentary rather than legal fact-finding;
• Whether the appraisal opinions acted ultra vires by substituting the judicial organ's duty to determine the components of a crime.
  
  

Any appraisal or expert opinion can only serve as one piece of evidence among many. It can never replace the independent judicial review that a court must conduct regarding criminal facts, statutory components, subjective intent, objective actions, harmful outcomes, and causal relationships. Most fundamentally, a court cannot deduce that "relevant personnel committed a crime" simply because "a certain institution deems their philosophy incorrect."

(7) This case involves fundamental civic rights protected by the Constitution and must be reviewed with extreme caution.

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China protects citizens' personal liberty, human dignity, inviolability of the home, and the freedom and privacy of correspondence. It explicitly mandates that citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief and possess the right to file petitions, accusations, or reports against state organs and state functionaries for violations of law or dereliction of duty.

This case does not merely involve the individual fates of several Lifechanyuan members; it tests whether state organs can lawfully distinguish between:

• Thought vs. Crime,
• Belief vs. Crime,
• Communal Living vs. Crime,
• Textual Expression vs. Crime,
• Voluntary Offerings vs. Fraudulent Fraud,
• Civilizational Exploration vs. Undermining the Implementation of Law.
  
  

If these boundaries are blurred, criminal law shifts from a tool meant to punish concrete crimes into an instrument used to suppress thought, belief, alternative lifestyles, and social experimentation. This directly contradicts the foundational principles of ruling the country according to law, protecting human rights, procedural justice, and the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege).

(8) International human rights standards similarly mandate the prevention of arbitrary detention and the protection of freedom of thought, belief, and a fair trial.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to personal security, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, a fair trial, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

The applicant is not requesting any organ to act outside the framework of Chinese law. Rather, we petition the Chinese judicial organs to conduct an open, serious, thorough, independent, and lawful review of this case strictly in accordance with the Chinese Constitution, Chinese Criminal Law, Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, and the human rights protection principles consistently declared by the Chinese government.

(9) Publicly publishing this application is a method of seeking remedies under realistic constraints and does not constitute a waiver of any formal legal procedures.

Due to health constraints and other factors, the applicant is unable to travel to the courts or procuratorates in person to submit these materials, and thus utilizes the public network to lodge this accusation, appeal, and application for supervision. The applicant trusts that the relevant state organs possess the means to receive this application and fulfill their statutory duties of review, referral, and supervision.

Simultaneously, the applicant retains the right to submit this application and any subsequent supplementary materials through all lawful channels, including postal mail, online government platforms, retained defense lawyers, authorized agents, assistance from close relatives, referrals by overseas human rights entities, and the attention of international legal institutions.

Publishing this document online is not a rejection of formal legal channels. Rather, under realistic conditions where formal channels are obstructed, information remains opaque, legal documents are withheld, and the parties are detained, it stands as an open call for aid, public supervision, and a verifiable method of leaving a permanent record to prevent the ongoing expansion of a wrongful conviction.

VI. Legal Bases

This application is submitted primarily based on the following laws, regulations, and legal standards:

• The Constitution of the PRC: Provisions regarding the state's respect for and protection of human rights; equality before the law; freedom of religious belief; inviolability of personal liberty and human dignity; inviolability of the home; protection of the freedom and privacy of correspondence; and the right of citizens to petition, accuse, and report violations.
• The Criminal Law of the PRC: The principle of legality; Article 300; and provisions regarding the crimes of unlawful detention, extorting confessions by torture, violently gathering evidence, unlawful search, bending the law for self-serving purposes, abuse of power, and neglect of duty.
• The Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC: Provisions regarding evidence-based adjudication; the presumption of innocence; freedom from coerced self-incrimination; the exclusion of illegal evidence; the right to defense; trial supervision; and procuratorial supervision.
• The State Compensation Law of the PRC: Provisions governing state compensation for wrongful detention, wrongful arrest, retrials correcting convictions to absolute innocence, extorting confessions by torture, unlawful use of weapons or police equipment, and the illegal sealing, seizure, freezing, or recovery of property.
• The Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Strict Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases jointly issued by the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice.
• The Rules of Criminal Procedure for People's Procuratorates regarding the fulfillment of legal supervision duties and the statutory handling of judicial personnel who utilize their office to commit crimes that infringe upon citizens' rights and damage judicial justice.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Fundamental human rights principles regarding freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, access to effective remedies, a fair trial, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• Other current statutory laws, judicial interpretations of China, and international human rights norms.
  
  

VII. Catalogue of Evidence and Clues

The applicant requests the relevant organs to lawfully retrieve, verify, and examine the following evidence and clues:

• All approval files, command orders, and operational logs issued by the Linzhou City Public Security Bureau and associated organs regarding the concentrated arrest of Lifechanyuan members in July 2025;
• Scene videos, body-worn camera footage, and photographs taken during the arrest operations;
• The master list of arrested individuals, their detention warrants, arrest warrants, and logs from their places of confinement;
• Search warrants, search transcripts, seizure inventories, and records tracking the storage and disposal of property;
• All interrogation transcripts along with their corresponding synchronized audio and video recordings;
• All witness testimonies, statements of alleged victims, and materials documenting the process of their generation;
• Materials tracking the entire process of electronic data extraction, preservation, forensic appraisal, and transfer;
• Indictments, supplementary investigation files, court trial transcripts, written judgments, and certificates of service;
• Written testimonies from the parties, family members, and eyewitnesses detailing the exact circumstances of their arrest, detention, interrogation, evidence collection, property handling, and the service of judgment documents;
• The complete text and context of Lifechanyuan's public articles, videos, and website records;
• Verifiable materials capable of proving that Lifechanyuan members participated in communal life completely of their own free will, free from coercion or control, and that no acts of fraudulent financial accumulation or disruption of law enforcement occurred;
• Other relevant materials capable of demonstrating that the facts of this case are unclear, evidence is insufficient, procedures were violated, and the law was erroneously applied.
  
  

VIII. Conclusion

This application is not an act of confrontation against state laws; rather, it is an earnest plea ensuring that national laws are genuinely respected, accurately applied, and justly executed.

If Lifechanyuan personnel have genuinely committed criminal acts, let the specific facts, concrete evidence, and exact statutory clauses be clearly itemized according to law, and let their full right to legal defense be robustly guaranteed.

If no criminal facts exist—or if the accusations are built upon unclear facts, deficient evidence, erroneous application of law, and flagrant procedural violations—let the matter be legally corrected: release the innocent, pursue accountability for those who handled the case unlawfully, restore citizens' rights, and rebuild public trust in the judiciary.

The dignity of the law does not lie in successfully securing a conviction, but in uncovering the truth.

The authority of justice does not lie in an institution claiming to be perpetually correct, but in its courage to correct itself the moment an error is discovered.

The civilization of a nation does not lie in whether its machinery can crush the weak, but in whether it protects the right of every single individual to receive fair treatment before the law.

Respectfully submitted to:

The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

The Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China

Accuser, Petitioner, and Applicant for Supervision: Xuefeng (Zhang Zifan)

June 30, 2026

Source: Lifechanyuan | Author: Xuefeng | [Xuefeng Corpus · Lifechanyuan]