Who gave Officer Fan the confidence to make a “cross-provincial summons”?
Object｜Text
Published by: Bin Yue Yu Yun (ID: Lzkj328)
A cross-provincial phone summons, three articles based on court judgments, procuratorate indictments, and public evidence, and a police officer who is under investigation by the Discipline Inspection Commission—all of this, pieced together, is not the rigor of the rule of law, but the arbitrariness of power.
On January 27, 2026, Bin Yue Yu Yun received a cross-provincial phone summons from Officer Fan of the Jinshan Police Station of the Liangjiang Public Security Bureau in Chongqing, citing my publications “He was accused of being promiscuous and demanded 70,000 yuan in compensation｜Civil Lawsuit｜My 10,000-word defense” “A Chongqing tycoon’s affair with a female teacher was condemned by the court” “A billionaire’s affair with a female teacher was condemned by the court, and he turned around to become a member of the “Social and Legal Affairs Committee” of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference” The three articles allegedly insulted and violated privacy. However, the content of these three articles all came from the civil judgment of the People’s Court of Jiangbei District, the indictment of the People’s Procuratorate of Tongliang County, the criminal judgment of the People’s Court of Tongliang County, and the investigation records of the Yubei District Court. In other words, this is an act of public opinion supervision based on public judicial documents.
What’s intriguing is that just three months ago, Bin Yue Yu Yun, in the courtroom of the Chongqing Municipal First Intermediate People’s Court, reported in person the criminal clues of He’s alleged rape, but there has been no news since. And He’s accusation, the public security quickly filed a case and made a cross-provincial summons, the efficiency is astonishing.
What exactly are Officer Fan and his colleagues in such a hurry to “fish far away”?
Civil cases, why must police power intervene?
The defamation disputes between He and multiple parties are essentially civil cases and are being tried in court. Under our legal system, the boundaries between civil disputes and administrative and criminal cases are clear. Even if the parties believe that their right to reputation has been violated, they can completely resolve it through civil litigation, rather than using public power to conduct cross-provincial summons on citizens.
More importantly, when the public security organs receive a report, they should make a basic judgment on the nature of the case. The content of the three articles all comes from judicial documents and public evidence, which is a typical case of public opinion supervision based on public interest. According to the “Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Defamation Cases” by the Supreme People’s Court, as long as the content is basically true and does not contain content that insults the personality of others, it should not be considered as infringing on the right to reputation of others. Officer Fan and his colleagues, if they had done a little common sense analysis, should have understood that this does not fall within the scope of the “Administrative Punishment Law”.
But they didn’t. Not that they couldn’t, but that they didn’t want to.
Knowing that it is illegal, why take the risk?
Officer Fan could not possibly not know Article 118 of the “Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs”: “Summons executed in other places should be executed with the assistance of the public security organs in the place of cooperation, and shall not be summoned in other places without authorization.” It is even less possible not to know that the Ministry of Public Security’s “Six Prohibitions” for cross-regional case handling cooperation clearly requires “strictly prohibiting cross-regional summons without performing cooperation procedures, and violations will be held accountable”.
But Officer Fan not only made a phone summons, but also claimed to have mailed a summons. This series of operations completely stepped on the red line of violations. As the reply from the Police Supervision Department of the Liangjiang Public Security Bureau stated: “Officer Fan is definitely doing something wrong.” The police officer in charge even clearly stated: “Officer Fan is definitely doing something wrong, and our supervision department immediately stopped it after discovering the problem, and there was ‘no such thing’ as mailing the summons.”
This detail is worth digging deeper: a fact that does not exist at all, but was told to the parties by Officer Fan as the basis for law enforcement—is this a serious lack of professional competence, or a deliberate means of pressure?
Well-known media person Da Mo Yu pointed out with a sharp comment: “The police’s cross-provincial summons of Bin Yu was eventually determined by the supervision department that the mailing of the summons ‘simply didn’t happen’, so who is using public power for private gain? This question must be made clear.”
Yes, it must be made clear. When law enforcement officers use a fabricated summons as a bargaining chip to exert “remote pressure”, when “summons in accordance with the law” becomes “fabricating documents to scare people”, this is not a simple procedural flaw, but a fundamental erosion of the credibility of law enforcement.
Six people on a long journey, why such a mobilization?
What’s even more shocking is the subsequent development.
After the phone summons was determined to be a violation by the supervision department, the Jinshan Police Station did not stop there. On March 31, a group of six people, driving a Tianjin-registered GAC Trumpchi white business business car, came to Anhui to conduct a “cross-provincial” operation against the parties. In name, they claimed to be looking for Bin Yue Yu Yun as a witness to collect evidence.
This is too contrary to common sense. Six police officers, traveling thousands of miles across provinces, just to “collect evidence” from the publisher of a self-media article? This kind of battle, those who don’t know might think they are investigating some major case. But in fact, this is just a civil dispute involving the right to reputation, and the content of the article all comes from public judicial documents.
What kind of “evidence” requires six people to travel and travel thousands of miles? What kind of “case” is worth using such a large-scale police force?
Such a mobilization, such a long journey, this is not “collecting evidence”, it is clearly a “demonstration”. Six people came across provinces in one car. It is more like sending a signal than trying to find out the facts: regardless of whether the procedures are compliant, regardless of whether the supervision has stopped, what should be done must be done, and the people who should be “cared for” must be “cared for”.
The result has not yet come out, and a new “long journey” has arrived
The most disturbing thing is the timeline.
On January 27, Officer Fan implemented the illegal cross-provincial summons. Subsequently, the Chongqing Municipal Public Security Bureau directly investigated and handed it over to the supervision department of the Liangjiang Public Security Bureau for investigation, confirming that Officer Fan had law enforcement problems, and the case was transferred to the Discipline Inspection Commission for handling. As of March 31, the investigation results of the Discipline Inspection Commission have not been announced, and Officer Fan is still under investigation.
However, it is against this background that a police station whose police officers are under investigation for illegal case handling, and the relevant police officers are still in the process of being handled, a new “long journey” has already quietly set off. A group of six people from the Jinshan Police Station, driving a Tianjin-registered business car, traveled thousands of miles to Anhui. This kind of operation of “investigating while continuing” makes people have to question: If Officer Fan’s illegal case handling is only a personal behavior, why can the police station level still organize such a large-scale cross-provincial operation during his investigation? If this set of operational logic has been stopped due to violations, why is the same model still being continued within the same system?
An illegal act that is under investigation, not only has not been completely corrected, but has been upgraded to a six-person long journey during the investigation. How can people believe that these actions are out of public interest, rather than some deep-rooted inertia?
Double standards, tearing apart the underlying color of power
In contrast, the contrast is even more striking:
Bin Yue Yu Yun reported in court that He was suspected of rape—this is a serious criminal clue, and the content of the report all comes from the investigation records of witnesses Xiong, Yu, and others by the Yubei District Court, which is clearly a public report letter. However, this report letter has sunk into the sea, and there is no feedback.
He sued the three articles—this is a civil dispute, and the content of the articles all comes from judicial documents, etc., which is clearly public opinion supervision. However, the local police station launched a thunderous attack, not only filed a case and summoned, but also sent six people on a cross-provincial long journey after the supervision stopped, the efficiency and intensity are admirable.
A report that needs to be protected is ignored; an accusation that needs to be restricted is magnified. This contrast cannot be explained by “doing things in accordance with the law”, but can only be understood by “looking at people and serving dishes”.
Officer Fan’s sentence in the phone call, “Although there is evidence, those things should not be published by you”, exposed this logic: it is not whether what you say is true, but whether you “have the right to say it”. This logic is exactly the same as the conclusion of Judge Li Chao of the Yubei District Court, “No matter how many acts of promiscuity a person has, the media cannot say that he is ‘promiscuous'”. When the power holders determine that “it should not be said”, even if the evidence is conclusive, it cannot be said.
Three “Ruyi Birds”, what are they planning?
Relevant people analyzed that Officer Fan and his colleagues were in a hurry to make a cross-provincial summons, and even went to the trouble of a six-person long journey. It is hard to say that there are no three “Ruyi Birds” hidden behind it:
First, paving the way for He’s second instance with the media. The second instance of the defamation disputes between He and multiple media and self-media such as The Paper, Ji Lu Liu Jie, and Bin Yue Yu Yun has not yet been pronounced. If the defendant can be made to “bow their heads” or “silence” at this time, it will undoubtedly add chips to He in the lawsuit.
Second, to “reduce the burden” for Officer Fan who handled the case illegally. The Discipline Inspection Commission’s investigation of Officer Fan is ongoing. If at this time, the focus can be blurred by “the other party also has problems”, it may be possible to find an excuse for Officer Fan’s violation. The coincidence of time in this operation of “investigating while putting pressure” is hard to ignore.
Third, to give an account to He while suppressing the media. As a public figure with influence in the local area, He’s “energy” cannot be underestimated. The rapid intervention of the public security and the six-person long journey are themselves a kind of “account”. And the deterrent effect of this intervention is not only aimed at Bin Yu alone, but also a “warning” to all media that may pay attention to this matter.
If you want to add a crime, why worry about not having an excuse
“Although there is evidence, those things should not be published by you”—this sentence is the most alarming signal of the whole incident.
In a society ruled by law, the right to record and comment on social ills should not be decided by the subjective judgment of a certain law enforcement officer, but should be defined by law. If law enforcement officers can choose law enforcement selectively based on “should or should not”, then the boundaries of power will disappear, and the authority of the law will collapse.
On the day Officer Fan was under investigation, the inspectors of the Liangjiang Public Security Bureau clearly stated: “Officer Fan is definitely doing something wrong.” The police officer in charge even said directly that there was “no such thing” as mailing the summons. This shows that, from a professional point of view, the illegality of this summons is clear. But the question is, why do you have to do it when you know it’s wrong? Why is a “summons” that does not exist at all used as a law enforcement tool? Why can a six-person cross-provincial long journey be organized after the supervision has stopped? Why are the clues of criminal offenses ignored, while civil accusations can get “VIP service”? Why is similar “deep-sea fishing” operations still going on during Officer Fan’s investigation?
These questions do not point to the personal problems of a certain police officer, but to a kind of distorted power ecology—in this ecology, public power can be selectively activated because of “need”, can break through procedures because of “relationships”, and can disregard the law because of “pressure”. What’s even more frightening is that when a police officer who handled the case illegally is under investigation, this logic has not been stopped, but has been continued in another way, and even upgraded to a larger-scale action.
An illegal act that is under investigation, and it cannot prevent new, larger-scale improper behavior from happening—this itself is the most heavy irony of the rule of law, and it is also the most naked betrayal of the core socialist values.
Da Mo Yu’s question is worth everyone’s deep thought: “Who is using public power for private gain?” When a fabricated summons is used to scare people, when a six-person long journey becomes the standard for “collecting evidence”, when civil disputes are upgraded to cross-provincial actions, when the accuser becomes the subject of a summons—the machine of public power, who is it serving?
The thinking of adding a crime must stop, and the abuse of public power must be curbed. When the power holders can arbitrarily define the boundaries of “can say” and “cannot say”, when civil disputes can be easily upgraded to administrative summons, when the accuser becomes the subject of a summons—the foundation of the rule of law is eroded in the “deep-sea fishing” time and time again.
The Discipline Inspection Commission has already intervened in the investigation, which is a good start. But it is far from enough to only deal with one Officer Fan. The questions that need to be asked are: Who gave Officer Fan the confidence to make a “cross-provincial summons”? Who approved the six-person cross-provincial long journey? Why can a “summons” that does not exist at all become a tool for pressure? Why does this logic of selective law enforcement continue during the investigation? When can it be truly severed?
Power is given by the people and must be exercised within the legal framework. Any attempt to suppress speech with power and replace law with will is a trampling on the rule of law and a damage to the public’s rights and interests. Only by returning power to the track of the rule of law and making law the only criterion for defining the boundaries of speech can we avoid more “deep-sea fishing” from running rampant under the sky of the rule of law. (Author: Bin Yu) (Bin Yue Yu Yun WeChat Official Account: lzkj328)
Source | Bin Yue Yu Yun ID: lzkj328
Editor | Xia He
Reviewer | Chang Xi
Published by | Bin Yue Yu Yun ID: lzkj328
【Previous articles review】:
Who is the door of the two levels of courts in Chongqing open for？？？？？？？？？
Who is wrong about the recusal of the trial personnel in the two levels of courts in Chongqing?
Watching the 8 “fighting” incidents in the two levels of courts in Chongqing
How a report on an ordinary case was turned into a difficult case by a group of Chongqing judges
Correct the mistake! The two levels of courts in Chongqing have adopted my suggestions three times
The judgment of the “sweet potato case” in Nanjing makes people believe in the law again
Just now! I was summoned by a “police officer” from Chongqing across provinces by phone
The Paper, why don’t you “surge” in the face of illegal acts?
Thank you for sharing!
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.