“The True Story of a Century: Who are the Grave Diggers Worried by Xi Jinping?”

Audience friends, hello everyone! Welcome to watch “The Truth of a Century”.

In September 2024, the official publication of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, “Qiushi,” published an article by the CCP leader Xi Jinping. The article stated that the education of the CCP must not cultivate “socialist disruptors and gravediggers,” otherwise, it is a failure of education.

However, a recent case in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, has revealed the lawlessness of CCP officials and their cold-heartedness towards the Chinese people. Are they the disruptors and gravediggers that Xi is worried about, the destroyers of the Party? In this episode, we will discuss this case.

Former Shenyang Petition Bureau cadre Guo Hong reported that the former director of the Shenyang Petition Bureau, Chen Guoqiang, secretly opened bank accounts and inappropriately held over 100 million yuan in stability maintenance funds, a report that was proven true.

On September 12, 2024, the whistleblower Guo Hong was taken to court as a criminal suspect.

According to an informant interviewed by the Epoch Times, the prosecutor in court disclosed six accounts privately opened by Chen Guoqiang, detailing deposits in which bank, including 60 million in one bank, one billion in another, and so on, totaling six accounts with account numbers provided. This indicated that Chen Guoqiang had issues, which had been dealt with by issuing a Party warning and administratively demoting him.

The informant stated that the lawyer argued, “We are all knowledgeable and cultured people. Now I ask you: for the six accounts privately opened by Chen Guoqiang, let’s add them up: does it exceed one billion? Is Guo Hong’s report true? Did he provide false information?” The judge was speechless. If Guo Hong’s report is true, then why arrest Guo Hong? The judge had no response.

In court, Guo Hong, a law graduate, refuted the so-called evidence provided by the prosecution with relevant legal provisions.

However, the prosecutor still recommended a sentence of less than five years for Guo Hong.

According to Article 41 of the Constitution, it is a citizen’s right to report illegal activities of state officials. Guo Hong’s serious report on Chen Guoqiang’s violations of discipline and law was an act of upholding social justice, and the report was accurate, a great deed.

Why did the Public Security Bureau arrest him? Why did the Procuratorate prosecute him? Why did the court try him? On what basis did the prosecutor recommend a sentence of less than five years?

Guo Hong, a former cadre at the Shenyang Petition Bureau, began reporting in 2014. After reporting, on December 17, 2015, he was suddenly illegally arrested by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and subjected to torture. Guo Hong told the Epoch Times journalist interviewing him by phone:

“After being arrested, (the police) directly put leg irons and handcuffs on me and detained me in the basement for 48 hours. There were no procedures at that time.”

“They tortured me severely, causing a perforated left eardrum, an 8 cm head wound, severed hand nerves, torn and fractured fibrous rings of the cervical and lumbar vertebrae, joint injuries all over the body, bleeding gums, and damaged neck vertebra blood vessels.”

Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau illegally arrest Guo Hong? Who gave the orders? Who ordered the use of torture? Why use torture?

In fact, a month after the Shenyang Public Security Bureau arrested Guo Hong, the case was dropped. Because Guo Hong insisted on his innocence based on the legal report, even under interrogation, he did not admit guilt. The police did not find any criminal evidence and had to release Guo Hong.

In the following eight years, Guo Hong appealed to relevant departments in Shenyang and Liaoning Province, as well as central bodies like the Central Discipline Commission and the National Supervisory Commission over 4800 times, with no results.

Guo Hong said that during the 8 years, despite making over a thousand appeals to the Liaoning Provincial Prosecutor’s Office without a single response, going to the Central Discipline Commission led to no consequences. His reporting email and WeChat were shut down, with dozens of email accounts blocked.

Over the 8 years, all levels of officials in the CCP, known as “servants of the people,” remained indifferent.

On October 14, 2022, Guo Hong drove to Beijing for medical treatment and a lawyer. Arriving at the Liaoning Panjin highway service area, he was surrounded by over thirty people and ten cars arranged by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Shenyang Petition Bureau, unlawfully depriving him of his freedom for 9 days and nights.

During this time, Guo Hong called the police over forty times. The Panjin Public Security Bureau received the calls but used “lack of jurisdiction” as an excuse to not intervene in the illegal activities on-site.

On October 23, almost collapsing under pressure, Guo Hong had no choice but to break through the encirclement to escape.

On October 24, Guo Hong was criminally detained by the Shenyang Public Security Bureau Yuhong Branch on charges of “intentional destruction of property.”

Guo Hong’s trip to Beijing for medical treatment and a lawyer was his legitimate right as a citizen. Why did the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Petition Bureau arrange over thirty people and ten cars to surround him? Who gave the orders? Why deprive him of his freedom illegally for 9 days and nights?

According to the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, illegal detention constitutes a crime. The Shenyang Public Security Bureau and the Petition Bureau’s actions violated citizens’ freedom.

Why didn’t the Panjin Public Security Bureau protect Guo Hong’s personal freedom according to the law after receiving his distress calls?

In a situation where Guo Hong’s life was threatened and stranded for 9 days and nights, why did he have to escape under such circumstances?

According to the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, the maximum period of detention is 37 days. However, the Shenyang Public Security Bureau detained Guo Hong for 150 days with only a detention notice.

The investigators claimed they needed to conduct a psychiatric evaluation on Guo Hong, which did not count towards the investigation period as per the Rules on Judicial Identification Procedures.

Setting aside the fact that Guo Hong was mentally sound, according to Article 28 of the General Rules on Judicial Identification Procedures, the judicial identification entity should complete the identification within 30 working days from the effective date of the commission. Therefore, the maximum detention period in this case should have been 67 days: the 30-day identification period plus the 37-day detention period.

Even if a psychiatric evaluation were necessary, the detention should have ended on the 67th day when the evaluation period expired. Why wasn’t he released?

The only reasonable explanation is that someone intentionally wanted to exact revenge on Guo Hong, perhaps using the extended detention to mentally wear him down or force him to admit guilt.

The serious unlawful acts of the Shenyang Petition Bureau, Public Security Bureau, and others raise the question of why no one intervened. Chen Guoqiang, the former director of the Shenyang Petition Bureau involved in over a hundred million yuan case, received merely a Party “warning” and administrative “demotion.” According to insiders, Chen Guoqiang has already emigrated to Australia.

How could a serious corrupt figure involved in hundreds of millions of yuan of misconduct receive such a lenient punishment? Did Chen Guoqiang receive special protection from higher-ups? Was it intentional to allow him to leave the country?

Why did officials target and retaliate against the whistleblower of Chen Guoqiang? Could there be more hidden motives behind this?

Over the course of 8 years, from agencies directly responsible for overseeing the Shenyang Public Security Bureau and Petition Bureau to the Central Discipline Commission and National Supervisory Commission, they have effectively protected corrupt individuals and persecuted good citizens. Their actions deviate completely from the CCP’s slogans of “governing according to law” and “governing the country according to law.” The handling of the Guo Hong case and his current difficult situation can only erode any hope for Guo Hong, his family, friends, and all those who sympathize with him, towards the CCP.

Are they the gravediggers of the CCP?

That concludes today’s program. Thank you for watching, and we’ll see you next time.