搜索此博客

2026年4月8日星期三

Shanghai Judge Intentionally Miscarry justice

 



Complaint Letter

 

To: Supervision Office of Shanghai Higher People's Court

 

Complainer: Shi Chaosheng, Male, born on xx, 1959, Han nationality, ID Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Address: xx, xxxx, xx Town, Songjiang District, Shanghai, Contact Phone: xxxx.

 

Complained Persons:

 

1.  Lu Wangshu(陆望舒), Judge of Chedun People's Court of Songjiang District People's Court of Shanghai, presiding judge of the case of marital property division (Case No.: (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666);


2. Cai Jun(蔡珺), Judge of Songjiang District People's Court of Shanghai, presiding judge of the divorce case (Case No.: (2024) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 25967);

3. Chen Chang(陈昌), Secretary and President of Songjiang District People's Court of Shanghai;

4. Zhuang Qian(庄倩), President of Chedun People's Court of Songjiang District People's Court of Shanghai.

 

Core Grounds for Complaint

 

The complainer is a patient with advanced lung cancer and the plaintiff in Case No. (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666. During the trial, Judge Lu Wangshu, the presiding judge of the case, intentionally violated legal procedures, improperly determined the basic facts of the case, illegally refused to investigate key evidence, erroneously identified 1,585,017.54 yuan, which should be community property of the couple, as the defendant's pre-marital property, and illegally deprived the complainer of a huge amount of medical expenses for cancer treatment. Judge Cai Jun neglected her duties and refused to investigate the defendant's act of concealing property in the preliminary divorce case, laying a hidden danger for the subsequent improper judgment. As superior leaders, Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian ignored the complainer's urgent appeal as a patient with advanced cancer, failed to effectively supervise and condoned the disciplinary and illegal acts of the judges under their jurisdiction. Now, I complain in accordance with the law, requesting a thorough investigation into the disciplinary, illegal and improper judgment acts of the complained persons, pursue their corresponding disciplinary and legal responsibilities, and legally initiate retrial proceedings to protect the complainer's legitimate rights to life, health and property.

 

Basic Facts and Background of the Case

 

The complainer and the defendant Ren xx registered their marriage on November 9, 1992. Due to the impact of an external case, they divorced by agreement on August 29, 2019. At the time of divorce, about 1 million yuan of community cash property of the couple under Ren xx's name was not divided. They remarried on May 11, 2021, and there Ire no other marital connections during their marriage. The complainer contributed more than 90% of the family property. His income before and during the marriage was handed over to Ren xx for disposal and financial management, and his salary card was also kept by her.

 

On May 15, 2021, the complainer was diagnosed with malignant tumor of the right middle lobe of the lung - adenocarcinoma of the right middle lobe, Stage IVA (advanced stage). Subsequent treatment requires high medical expenses, and the condition continues to deteriorate. After targeted drug resistance, it is necessary to continuously change treatment plans and use high-priced self-funded drugs.

 

In October 2024, Ren xx sued for divorce from the complainer (Case No.: (2024) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 25967), and the court ruled against divorce. However, as the actual controller of the community property of the couple, Ren xx repeatedly refused to pay medical expenses to the complainer. Due to lack of money for treatment, the complainer had to apply for a loan from the town government and participate in a phase I clinical drug trial with extremely high risks, and her act has been suspected of illegal abandonment.

 

In July 2025, to ensure the demand for treatment in the advanced stage of cancer, the complainer filed a lawsuit for division of marital property during the marriage (Case No.: (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666), requesting the division of the community property of the couple concealed under Ren xx's name. After the trial of the case, Judge Lu Wangshu only ordered Ren xx to pay the complainer xxxxxxx yuan as property compensation, erroneously identified 1,585,017.54 yuan, which should be community property of the couple, as Ren xx's pre-marital property, and illegally ordered the complainer, as the victim, to bear most of the case acceptance fees, seriously infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the complainer.

 

Specific Disciplinary, Illegal and Improper Judgment Acts of the Complained Persons

 

1. Judge Lu Wangshu: Intentionally made improper judgment, violated legal procedures, and subjectively and maliciously deprived the complainer with advanced cancer of medical expenses

Concealed major facts of the case and ignored the key circumstance of undivided property

 

The civil judgment of Case No. (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666 clearly states that when the complainer and Ren xx divorced by agreement in 2019, about 1 million yuan of community cash property of the couple under her name was not divided, which is the core dispute of the case. However, Judge Lu Wangshu intentionally concealed this major fact during the judgment, did not conduct any review or identification on the subsequent whereabouts of the undivided cash and the converted financial management funds, which directly led to the wrong determination of the basic facts of the case and laid a core hidden danger for the subsequent improper division of property.

Illegally refused the legal application for investigation and evidence collection, and deliberately evaded the fact that the defendant concealed property.

 

On July 31, 2025, the complainer's lawyer legally submitted an application for an investigation order to the court, requesting an investigation into Ren xx's bank fund flow since May 1, 2013, to verify the community property of the couple concealed by her at the time of divorce in 2019 and the source of subsequent financial management funds. Judge Lu Wangshu only allowed the investigation of the flow since 2023, and unreasonably refused the key flow from 2013 to 2023.

 

The complainer submitted written objections to Lu Wangshu three times on August 14 and August 24, 2025, and submitted certificates of financial products of Ren xx in Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of Communications from 2012 to 2018 (with a total principal of more than 1.33 million yuan + 40,000 US dollars, all of which are community property of the couple), clearly informing that the restriction on the scope of investigation would mislead the judgment result; on September 26, 2025, the complainer raised objections again through the 12368 litigation service hotline, but Judge Lu Wangshu insisted on his own way and continued to illegally refuse the legal investigation request, resulting in the fact that Ren xx concealed a huge amount of community property of the couple could not be fixed through judicial investigation.

Violated legal cross-examination procedures and erroneously determined the nature of property without evidence support

 

Without any effective evidence support, Judge Lu Wangshu violated the legal procedures for evidence cross-examination stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law, failed to organize both parties to cross-examine the source of 1,585,017.54 yuan of financial management funds under Ren xx's name in Shanghai Pufa Bank (969,119.96 yuan), Bank of Communications (465,897.58 yuan) and Bank of China (150,000 yuan), and subjectively and intentionally identified the above funds as Ren xx's "pre-marital property", and rejected the complainer's claim on the ground that "Shi Chaosheng failed to prove that the financial management was purchased with his capital contribution".

 

In fact, Ren xx retired in 2019, with a monthly pension of only about xxxx yuan and no other sources of income. It was impossible for her to suddenly have a huge amount of funds for financial management after the divorce. The above funds Ire all converted from the undivided community property of the couple in 2019. The complainer has submitted preliminary evidence such as income certificates, financial product certificates and bank transfer records to complete the burden of proof. The determination of Judge Lu Wangshu is a typical improper judgment without evidence support.

 

Illegally divided the case acceptance fees, favored the erring party, and caused serious judicial injustice

 

In this case, Ren xx had obvious faults: first, she concealed the community property of the couple, gave false testimony in the trial of the divorce case, falsely claimed that she only had 100,000 yuan in cash but submitted evidence of 1.45 million yuan in financial management in Shanghai Pufa Bank in court; second, she refused to pay medical expenses to her spouse with advanced cancer, which is suspected of the crime of abandonment. According to legal provisions, Ren xx should have borne all the case acceptance fees, but Judge Lu Wangshu engaged in irregularities for personal gain, ordered the complainer to bear 7,614 yuan out of 8,891 yuan of acceptance fees, and only ordered Ren xx to bear 1,277 yuan, which seriously violated the principle of fairness and caused serious consequences of judicial injustice.

 

Intentionally delayed the case handling process and missed the best treatment opportunity for the complainer with advanced cancer

 

The complainer is a patient with advanced lung cancer. During the trial of the case, his condition continued to deteriorate, with symptoms of brain metastasis and bone metastasis. He repeatedly applied to the court for expedited trial and requested supervision by the president, hoping to obtain property division funds in a timely manner to purchase high-priced mature self-funded drugs. However, Judge Lu Wangshu ignored this, intentionally delayed the case handling process, deliberately evaded the core property dispute, resulting in the complainer being unable to obtain treatment funds in a timely manner and having to be forced to participate in a phase I clinical drug trial with extremely high risks and strong side effects, missing the best treatment opportunity, with obvious subjective malice.

 

Retaliated against the complainer's petition and abused judicial power

Due to the above series of illegal acts of Judge Lu Wangshu in the case trial, the complainer legally carried out petition for rights protection. Although there were emotional expressions during the period, they Ire all reasonable demands to protect his own legitimate rights to life and health. Dissatisfied with the petition, Judge Lu Wangshu abused his public power and directly retaliated against the complainer by refusing to investigate evidence, improperly determining facts, and erroneously ruling on property division funds, which directly led to significant and irreversible damage to the complainer's legitimate rights and interests.

 

Judge Cai Jun: Negligence of duty, dereliction of duty and inaction, refusal to investigate the fact that the defendant concealed property

 

In the divorce case (Case No.: (2024) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 25967), as the presiding judge, Judge Cai Jun found in the trial that Ren xx gave false testimony in court (falsely claiming that she only had 100,000 yuan in cash, but submitted evidence of more than 1 million yuan + 450,000 yuan in financial management in Shanghai Pufa Bank). The complainer legally applied to investigate Ren xx's bank flow since January 1, 2016 to verify the concealed property, but Judge Cai Jun neglected his duties and directly refused the legal investigation application, failing to perform his legal duty of investigation and verification, resulting in the fact that Ren xx concealed property was not identified in the case, laying a direct hidden danger for the subsequent improper judgment of Judge Lu Wangshu, and his act has constituted dereliction of duty.

 

 Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian: Inadequate supervision, connivance, and indifference to the sufferings of the masses with advanced cancer

As the Secretary and President of Songjiang District People's Court and the President of Chedun People's Court respectively, Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian are the direct superior leaders of Judges Lu Wangshu and Cai Jun. When the complainer repeatedly reflected the illegal problems in the case trial through petition and clearly informed that he was a patient with advanced lung cancer in urgent need of judicial relief, the two ignored the sufferings of the masses' life and health and the complainer's reasonable and legal demands, failed to correct any of the disciplinary, illegal and improper judgment acts of Judges Lu Wangshu and Cai Jun, but instead condoned and even endorsed them, with serious absence of supervision responsibilities, leading to the continuous occurrence of judicial injustice and causing bad judicial and social impacts.

 

Legitimate Requests of the Complainer

 

1. Based on the above facts, the acts of the Complained person Lu Wangshu have violated the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Judges Law, the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China, etc., and are suspected of the crime of improper judgment as stipulated in Article 399, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China; Judge Cai Jun constitutes negligence of duty and dereliction of duty; Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian, as superior leaders, have inadequate supervision and connivance. To protect the legitimate rights and interests of the complainer and defend judicial justice, I hereby put forward the following requests in accordance with the law:

Legally initiate retrial proceedings: Request to immediately initiate retrial of the effective civil judgment of Case No. (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666 ex officio by designating the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, the superior court of the original trial, in accordance with the provisions of Article 205 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

2. Legally re-divide the community property of the couple: Request to order the defendant Ren xx to pay the complainer 1,585,017 yuan as compensation for the community property of the couple in the retrial in accordance with the provisions of Article 1092 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (this amount does not include the xxxxxxx yuan already paid in the original judgment), so as to ensure the complainer's fund demand for treatment in the advanced stage of cancer.

3. Legally change the subject of bearing the case acceptance fees: Request to order the defendant Ren xx to bear all the original case acceptance fees of Case No. (2025) Hu 0117 Min Chu No. 19666, and pay the complainer 7,614 yuan of acceptance fees if already prepaid.

4. Legally pursue the disciplinary and legal responsibilities of the Complained persons:

(1) Request to impose corresponding disciplinary sanctions on Lu Wangshu, Cai Jun, Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian in accordance with the provisions of Article 126 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China and Article 10 of the Judges Law;

(2) Request to severely pursue the illegal trial and dereliction of duty acts of Lu Wangshu and Cai Jun in accordance with the provisions of Articles 8 and 14 of the Measures for the Investigation of Responsibility for Illegal Trials by Judges of People's Courts, and revoke their relevant judicial positions;

(3) Request to file a case for investigation into Lu Wangshu's act of improper judgment in accordance with the provisions of Article 399, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, and pursue her criminal responsibility in accordance with the law.

 

Solemn Statement

 

The complainer is a patient with advanced lung cancer, and his condition has developed brain metastasis and bone metastasis. Due to the improper judgment of Judge Lu Wangshu, he was illegally deprived of a huge amount of medical expenses, resulting in the complainer being unable to purchase high-priced mature self-funded drugs in a timely manner for effective treatment, and having to be forced to participate in a clinical drug trial with extremely high risks. His condition continues to deteriorate, and he has suffered great physical and mental blows.

If unpredictable tragedies such as the complainer's suicide occur due to improper handling of this complaint, all legal consequences and social impacts shall be fully borne by Lu Wangshu, Cai Jun, Chen Chang and Zhuang Qian.

I earnestly request your Supervision Office to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation into the matters Complained this time in accordance with the principle of taking facts as the basis and law as the criterion, make a fair handling in accordance with the law, timely protect the legitimate rights and interests of the complainer, demonstrate judicial justice, and avoid causing bad social impacts!

 

Respectfully,

Complainer (Electronic Signature): Shi Chaosheng

March 18, 2026

 

Annexes of Core Evidence

1. Income certificates of the complainer and Ren xx, the defendant in the original trial;

2. Court trial opinions of the divorce case (Case No. 25967);

3. Application for investigation order and three objections;

4. Partial petition materials;

5. Civil judgment of Case No. 19666.

 

2026年3月7日星期六

附件 3 三次申请调查令异议- 陆望舒法官违法拒绝调查

 

附件3-1

调查令签发异议说明

2025)沪0117民初19666

 

致上海市松江区人民法院陆望舒法官

抄送:陈昌书记,院长,庄倩庭长,

 

陆望舒法官

 

我,石朝生民身份证号码: xxx。电话:17xxx

 

今我律师来电称您对调查令签发提出异议,大致以下2点,我解释说明随后:

一,  不同意调查被告任xx20215月复婚前的银行明细。认为2019年协议离婚已经对夫妻共同财产做了分割。只同意复婚后日期内的财产调查。

说明如下:

1. 我和被告任xx1992年起有两段婚姻,彼此都没有与他人婚姻参杂期间。

2. 我是两段婚姻夫妻共同财产90%以上的贡献者,证据已提交。

3. 2019年协议离婚,因受苏州工业园区人民法院(2019)苏0591民初4834号苏州市新鸿基精密部品有限公司诉石朝生名誉权纠纷一案影响在上海市浦东新区民政局协议离婚,任xx名下有大笔存款未被分配,也未向石朝生披露。 2025115日松江区人民法院(2024)沪0117民初25967号庭审时任xx向法院提交的证据中有上海浦东发展银行人民币145万元理财款,我向法院提交了庭审意见,要求调查核实,见附件,202546日再次要求法官调查核实。见庭审意见和合并审理请求。

4. 主审法官将简易程序改为普通程序,但没有做任何普通程序应该做的事,包括调查核实已知的任xx2019年协议离婚隐匿财产, 我已经通过12368信访向陈昌院长提出控诉。见信访件。

5. xx其它银行账号亦有可能有隐匿的夫妻第一段婚姻形成的共同财产情形。

6. 因此我请求签发调查令应根据以上实情,调查从201351日至2025年签发日的所有任xx银行财产,否则有可能误导法官做出错误不公的裁判

二,被告银行账号是否掌握,如没有,影响调查令签发。

说明: 不掌握。 但现在银行仅凭身份证号码,不需要银行账号就可以完成调查财产的工作。我本人在好几个银行已经注销了银行卡,最近也仅凭身份证就调出了过去十几年的转账记录。

特此说明并请求您立即签发调查令,调查日期从201351日到签发日止的被告各银行财产历史明细。

石朝生

2025-8-14

 

附件 3-2

第二次调查令签发异议说明

2025)沪0117民初19666

 

致上海市松江区人民法院陆望舒法官

抄送:庄倩庭长,

 

陆望舒法官

 

我律师822日与您沟通调查令签发,您仍有异议:

一,  只同意调查被告任xx个别,而不是请求的6个银行账户历史明细;

二,  必须提供任xx银行账号才可以签发调查令

再次说明如下:

一,某个还是所有6个银行账户需要调查

1.      814日已通过材料递交时已说明了需要调查所有被告银行账号历史明细必要,任xx2025115日离婚案庭审时作伪证,当蔡珺法官厉声质问她现在银行存款是多少时,她回答10万元人民币,而她当日向法庭提交的证据里一个浦发银行就有145万元做了理财,其它账户亦未可知。这个伪证事实您可以调取离婚案庭审视频或笔录予以确认。

2.      xx所有银行账户信息从未向原告我透露或披露,过去几十年我给她亲手交付,转账或由她掌握的我的工资卡里提取的资金都有可能存入她的任何一个银行账户,而具体情况我并不掌握,因此有必要调查其所有银行账户历史明细。

3.      如果陆法官您能确定被告任xx哪个账户在2019年离婚时隐匿了财产,其它账户则没有,您大可签发您确定的该银行账户调查令, 但我以为,您大概率不可能在调查所有账户之前就知道某个账户有隐匿,其它没有,除非被告与您通了气,虽然这种可能不能排除,但与法有违,相信您作为主持公平正义的人民法官绝不会与当事人有私下交易,对不?否则您必定做出错误不公的裁判。

4.      请勿在签发请求的某个或所有6个银行账户继续耽搁迁延,不然原告只能信访并再次请陈昌院长甚至中央巡视组求决了。

二,具体银行账号

1. 上次已说明现在银行仅凭身份证号码,不需要银行账号就可以完成调查财产的工作。我本人在好几个银行已经注销了银行卡,最近也仅凭身份证就调出了过去十几年的转账记录。

2. 为满足您不尽合理的要求, 我在任xx向法庭提交的证据里,另拖着沉重病体查遍所有角落找到以下银行账号信息:以下客户名均为: 任xx

A, 工商银行账号:622c主要账号,必须调查

B.中国银行账号:4x 主要账号,必须调查

C.交通银行账号:62xx 主要账号,必须调查

D. 浦发银行账号: 无法查到,主要账户,必须调查

E.建设银行账号:无法查到,次要账户

F.农业银行账号:无法查到,次要账户

3. 特别提示: 任xx以上6个银行均有可能还有其它未知的账号,或是某个银行有不止一个账号的情形,隐匿了夫妻共同财产。

因此,您在签发调查令时,除了调查以上有账号的信息之外,应注明所有任xx该银行未知账号的历史明细。建议只提及客户任xx该银行所有账户的历史明细即可。如果因您签发了未提供账号信息,银行拒绝配合调查事,我作为申请人愿意承担责任,不再另行请求。

特此说明并请求您立即签发调查令,调查日期从201351日到签发日止的被告各银行财产历史明细。

石朝生

2025-8-24

附件 3-3

第三次调查令签发异议说明

2025)沪0117民初19666

 

致上海市松江区人民法院陆望舒法官

抄送:庄倩庭长,

 

陆望舒法官

 

这是今天第二次调查令签发异议的补充说明

刚刚从家里某个地方找到任xx2012-2018 中行,工行和交通银行的理财产品证明,具体如下:

1. 工商银行 2012-12-25 购买理财937000

2. 交通银行 2013-5-7   购买理财 400000

3. 中国银行 2018-2-24 编号。。。52101 购买理财20000美元

4. 中国银行2018-2-24 编号。。。52102 购买理财20000美元

 

以上共计人民币133700和美元4万。这些也许仅是所涉账户里的部分款项,在2019年离婚时未分配,也未在2025115日离婚案庭审时向法庭提供,隐匿嫌疑极大。

为此敦促您立即签发调查令,调查日期从201351日到签发日止的被告6个银行财产历史明细。

石朝生

2025-8-24

 

以下为原告向法庭提交的2012-2018 xx银行账户做的理财项目,资金来源均为夫妻共同拥有资金。(其中交通银行20151020日 编号002x,金额为745000元的是新提交)

 

 

 

 

2025-9-26原告通过12368联系法官,对陆望舒决绝调查核实任xx第一段婚姻隐匿财产提出异议。

 

信访:离婚案主审法官拒绝调查核实任xx隐匿的夫妻共同财产





 

 

 

 

2026年3月6日星期五

上海法官陆望舒故意枉法裁判, 非法剥夺癌症晚期老人158万多救治和救命钱, 故意激怒逼迫癌晚原告走绝路

 

中共上海市松江区纪律检查委员会,监察委员会;

 

我叫石朝生,我是松江区车墩人民法庭2025 0117 民初 19666婚内财产分割纠纷案原告,癌症晚期老人。

 

向你们举报松江法院院长陈昌,姑息,背书,纵容本案主审法官陆望舒知法犯法,在原审过程中违法拒绝当事人申请调查收集关键证据,故意隐瞒原告提交的重要证据和重要情节故意违反法律程序,对主要证据不予质证,判决认定基本事实没有证据支持,非法剥夺原告当事人巨额¥1585017元救治和救命钱,玩忽职守,滥用公权力,对举报人信访打击报复;故意拖延办案,耽误举报人癌晚救治和生命;故意违法支持过错方

 

陆望舒故意违背事实和法律,枉法裁判,主观恶意深重,对举报人打击巨大,举报人有可能选择轻生,造成严重社会影响。

 

诉求:

 

1.  请求依照《中国共产党纪律处分条例》第一百二十六条;《法官法》第十条;《人民法院审判人员违法审判责任追究办法》第八条,第十四条;《刑法》第399条第二款追究党纪和玩忽职守,枉法裁判罪。

2.  请求依照《民诉法》第二百零五条规定,指定原审上级法院,即上海市第一中级人民法院在原审判决生效后立即依职权再审。

 

是由:

 

1.    原被告有两段婚姻,均为同一对象。判决书第2页明确2019829日协议离婚时未分割被告名下夫妻现金100万左右。原审陆望舒法官判决时故意隐瞒此重大情节。

2.    在两段主要是第一段婚姻里原告贡献了90%以上的家庭财产,第一段婚姻期间,原告的收入都即时转给被告由其支配和理财,工资卡也交其保管。附件1,原告被告收入。

3.    202410月任xx起诉离婚,判决不准离婚,即25967案件。2025115日庭审,xx出示的证据包含浦发银行100 万和 45 万元作了理财,其来源属于第一段婚姻未分割的夫妻共有现金。任xx坚称其拥有两套房产之外,只有 10 万元的现金(包括理财),涉嫌隐藏重大夫妻共有现金。事实是任xx2019年离婚到2021年复婚期间无任何其它婚前财产。

4.    xx2019年已经退休,每月4000左右退休金,没有其它收入来源,没有也不可能在离婚后突然拥有158多万巨额资金进行理财。石朝生请求法庭调查,责令原告必须如实提供 2016 1 1 日以来所有银行账户内的资金流水。附件 2

5.    主审法官蔡珺玩忽职守,拒绝调查。以上事实和证据于2025-8-14日提交19666号原审法官陆望舒,但在裁决时陆望舒明知有超过100万巨额未分割夫妻共有现金的事实和证据,却故意做出错误裁判,枉法裁判,无以复加。

6.    为查清第一段婚姻未分割的巨额夫妻共有现金情况原审19666原告律师2025731日提交调查令申请,请求调查201351日以后被告任xx银行资金情况。

7.    出于枉法裁判和主观恶意,陆法官只准调查2023年以后被告银行资金流水。原告分别于2025814日和824日共三次向陆望舒书面提交异议并提交了4份任xx2012-2018 中行,工行和交通银行的理财产品证明(属于夫妻共有财产),附件 3

8.    原告依法警告陆法官:“调查从201351日至2025年签发日的所有任xx银行财产,否则有可能误导法官做出错误不公的裁判”。2025-9-26日原告再次通过12368联系法官,对陆望舒拒绝调查核实任xx第一段婚姻隐藏财产提出异议。

9.    陆望舒一意孤行,坚持在枉法裁判道路上狂奔,持续非法拒绝原告合法请求。

10.在判决时,在没有任何证据支撑下,陆望舒违反法律程序,未与原被告质证证据和情节,主观故意将本属于夫妻共同拥有的巨额资金共计1585017.54(浦发¥969119.96;交通¥465897.58;中行¥150000)非法判给被告作为其婚前财产,并伪称“石朝生未举证证明该理财来源于其出资购买”。

11.陆望舒之枉法判决非法剥夺了原告1585017.54的癌症晚期救治和救命钱,造成重大枉法裁判的既成事实,让原告痛不欲生。

12. 被告任xx隐藏夫妻共有现金;先后两次在丈夫(原告)癌症病情加重需要更换治疗方案,拒绝给付治疗金,涉嫌违法和遗弃犯罪,毫无疑问是原审的过错方,理应承担全部诉讼费。陆望舒徇私舞弊,竟然判决受害方原告承担原审受理费 8,891元中的7,614 元,而过错方被告任xx仅负担 1,277 元。司法不公,未见如此甚者!

13.陆望舒之所以知法犯法,故意枉法裁判,打击报复,究其原因包括但不限于以下:

13-1 官官相护;25967号离婚案,主审法官蔡珺玩忽职守,拒绝调查核实任xx隐藏财产。石朝生多次信访并将情况告知19666号主审法官陆望舒和其领导。对于蔡珺法官的渎职行为,陆望舒和松江法院不但不予纠正,反而置党纪和法律于不顾,继续恶意拒绝调查核实原告举报人同一请求。知法犯法,罪上加罪。

13-2陆望舒及松江法院在19666原审过程中暴露的诸多问题,包括故意忽视请求加急审理和院长督办;故意拖延审理,拒绝核实被告任xx隐藏巨额夫妻现金等,原告多次依法信访也许有时有情绪化情形,目的只有一个,就是希望陆望舒和松江法院依照本案癌晚特情,依法加急审理,公平公正裁判,不料却适得其反,得到了疯狂打击报复。附件 4  原审19666审理过程中部分信访

13-3陆望舒及相关人员对信访十分厌恶,对群众流露的一些情绪耿耿于怀,滥用手中公权力拒绝调查核实共有现金,故意拖延审理,徇私枉法,对原告举报人恣意打击报复,导致重大枉法裁判。

13-4 陆望舒上级,包括松江区人民法院书记院长陈昌,车墩法庭庭长庄倩,作为党员领导,漠视群众疾苦和原告作为癌症晚期老人合理诉求,监管不力,姑息,纵容甚至背书陆望舒枉法裁判,把可能造成原告举报人轻生并造成严重社会影响的风险当儿戏。

 

敬请纪监委彻查本举报暨请求,依纪依法,避免导致癌晚原告举报人轻生,造成严重社会影响。如处理不当,发生原告举报人轻生和不可预测的悲剧,必须追责陆望舒,陈昌,庄倩,蔡珺四人。

 

此致

中共上海市松江区纪委,监察委员会

原告举报人 石朝生

联系:

email: charlesshi882outlook.com

微信: hotguy9918