Justin Zheng

Previous report links:
http://www.atlanta168.com/p/201306/20130616/1_23641.html
http://www.atlanta168.com/p/201308/20130813/1_24642.html
http://www.atlanta168.com/mobile/p/m/1/34599

Brief Summary:  On May 18, 2005, on the 4th floor of Indianapolis Marion County Government Building, the victim Yongping Zhou went to Marion County courtroom for his case hearing, was assaulted and severe injured by bailiff Belanger inside and outside the courtroom; he was framed up with 5 falsified criminal charges by a group of Indianapolis government officers’ perjuries. And the government’s chief mayor and sheriff hid the crime scene’s surveillance footages to harm Mr. Zhou’s innocent life, which had been requested by Mr. Zhou’s faxes on June 10, 2005 and were subpoenaed for several times by two US courts. Their dirty criminal activities upon the innocent victim were outrageous, made Indiana University two outstanding law school professors Henry Karlson and Joe Schumm separately decide to help Mr. Zhou with their legal expertise based on their righteousness; two professors separately and independently helped Mr. Zhou to combat the injustice system for 3 years since 2005, until Mr. Zhou defeated the whole falsified case in April 2008 at the Indianapolis Marion County Court with the whole case dropped.

In this hate crime event, the exonerate evidence is the crime scene’s surveillance footage of Indianapolis Marion City County Government Building, many staffs and officers confirmed to Mr. Zhou the existing of surveillance system inside the whole Marion County Government Building everywhere, but its government chief mayor and sheriff hid the crime scene’s surveillance footage, which had been subpoenaed by the courts’ subpoenas repeatedly.

Indiana University law school professors Henry Karlson and Joe Schumm gave Mr. Zhou the great legal helped for 3 years, especially when Mr. Zhou was deprived his constitutional right of being represented by an attorney. They separately taught Mr. Zhou the law and the legal technology, then he defeated State prosecutors and their 6 witnesses’ perjuries at the jury trial without a lawyer and an interpreter. He cross-examined to expose the perjury of each State witness during the trial, he convinced all American jurors with his own testimonies on the stand. The law school professors’ greatness and righteousness saved Mr. Zhou’s innocent life, all his American and Chinese friends felt moved by what two great law professors had done to save his innocent life, the righteousness prevails the evils, even our common people are so vulnerable in front of the corrupted government mafia-style officers.

Mr. Zhou went to FBI Indianapolis field office to report this horrible hate crime event on April 21, 2008 with a large package of evidences, its FBI field chief Welch sent his assistant agent Robert to accept the crime reporting.  

Mr. Zhou gave agent Robert the large amount of evidences about the multi-felony crimes committed by Indianapolis officers and chiefs, such as the hate crime, self-denial perjury, tampering with the evidences of the crime scene surveillance footage and medical records, obstruct justice, the perjury crime of replying the Court’s subpoena with lies, criminal frame up with self-denial perjury, the aggressive assault by policeman and the misprision of the felony by Indy local chiefs. FBI agent Robert concluded that it was the corruption crime case in the end of their 3-hour meeting, agent Robert told Mr. Zhou that he will report it to the boss chief agent Welch to decide which squad to investigate the case, while there are two squads in the field office which could investigate this kind of crime case.

But FBI field chief Welch refused to reply to Mr. Zhou since then, no matter how Mr. Zhou followed up to contact him, obviously he covered it up. 

Iowa Chinese Association director Mr. Swallow Yan gave Mr. Zhou the great supporting with numerous helps since 2007, including referring him to China Tribune editor Ruzhao Cheng and reporter Ms. Qian and Ms. Su and Ms. Li, referring him to Chinese Consulate’ consuls for protection, referring him to U.S. House Representative to finally make FBI admit Zhou’s reporting the hate crime case at FBI Indianapolis field office, FBI no longer denied it.

Chinese Chicago General Consulate’s consuls requested FBI chief Welch to investigate Mr. Zhou’s hate crime event based on International Law in June 2011, FBI chief Welch ignored Chinese Chicago General Consulate consuls’ justified request with the contempt of International Law since then.

In November 2012, the US House Representative inquired U.S. FBI for Zhou’s hate crime event, FBI immediately replied to the House Representative without one day delaying, late gave the formal reply to the House Representative by admitting Mr. Zhou’s reporting the crime case to FBI Indianapolis field office in April 2008, and gave the idea of FIOA. However, until today, FBI continued to cover it up by refusing to release and reply.

A group of law school professors of the best Chinese law schools, such as Beijing University law school, China University of Political Science and Law, Nanking University law school, have given their supporting for Mr. Zhou’s seeking for justice in his hate crime event, they had found it as the serious human abuse case, in which U.S. government officers abused and tortured the innocent people with their perjuries and their crimes at their duties.

What two IU law professors separately and independently found about Mr. Zhou’s hate crime case are similar and consistent, which was consistent with what all Indiana jurors had found in his case, which was consistent with what FBI Indianapolis field agent Robert found based on the large amounts of evidences and documents, which was consistent with what the community leaders and five newspapers and television’s host and editors and reporters had found, which was consistent with what Chinese Consulate’s consuls found, which was consistent with what the U.S. House Representative found in this hate crime case, which was consistent with what the group of law professors of three best law schools in China had found in this hate crime case.

LA Television English program host Jack Zhao interviewed Mr. Zhou and journalist Li, see the links of TV reporting:
http://www.channelge.com/index.php/videos/h/from-east-to-west/item/12345-discrimination-or-misconducted-law-enforcement
http://www.channelge.com/index.php/videos/h/from-east-to-west/item/11237-green-card-holder-vs-misconducted-violence

The full cover reporting by reporter Ms. Xiaoyan Li was posted online by several websites and published by the China mainland famous magazine in June 2013, got hundreds of thousands readers’ attentions: 
http://www.atlanta168.com/articles.php?id=23641
http://www.atlanta168.com/articles.php?id=24642
http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/63011/201307/13554.html

China Tribune editor Cheng and his reporters Ms. Xiaoming Qian and Ms. Xingqi Su had reported it for four times. LA Chinese Newspaper editor Sunny Qiu had reported it twice, World Journal Newspaper chief editor Shyh Yaw Chen had reported the event for 3 times since 2009.
http://chinatribune.us/news_2012/pdf/news_2012_N26/352A10_Print.pdf


Mr. Zhou graduated from the best university Qinghua in China, and immigrated to USA in May 1997, later went to Purdue University for the graduate engineering program.

On May 18, 2005, Mr. Zhou drove from Detroit to Indianapolis, went to Marion City County courtroom for the case hearing between him and his ex-wife, which initialed in 1997 and had lasted for 8 years since then. His case hearing was over, his public defender David Martinet just withdrew from his case; his new private lawyer Gonzalez did not appear but faxed in the representation form. But the trial date remained as next Wednesday without being continued, which had been set months ago; the time was very tight for his new lawyer to prepare the trial within one week. Mr. Zhou discussed with public defender Martinet for transferring his case file to the new lawyer Gonzalez. Martinet asked Mr. Zhou to check the file to find out the documents needed to be exchanged, so Mr. Zhou sit in the gallery to go through his case file.

Suddenly, Mr. Zhou heard someone to talk over his head, he lifted his head from the document package, he found one of the bailiff, later verified by the court record as Balenger. Mr. Zhou never had any contact with bailiff Belanger, although he had been to that courtroom for 8 years. Balenger asked Mr. Zhou to leave the courtroom, Mr. Zhou replied that he was discussing with his attorney Martinet for the case file copy. Balenger then said: “I count 5, you leave, otherwise I will arrest you.” Belanger began to count. Mr. Zhou felt the threaten, he put his documents on the top of his backpack, hold them with one hand, picked up his jacket with another hand, then walked toward the small door. As soon as he got out of the door, Belanger punched his neck, twisted him to squeeze his head against the wall, then handcuffed Mr. Zhou; the large amount documents were dropped off his hand spread all around the floor, his jacket was dropped on the floor too. It scared Mr. Zhou. He saw two people standing on the hallway, one was in front of him about several feet. With his first reaction, Mr. Zhou felt he needed to know the witness’s name, he called the witness “what is your name, what is your name?” Before the witness gave a reply, Belanger pushed Mr. Zhou back into the courtroom, once again, Belanger squeezed Mr. Zhou and his head on the wall; Mr. Zhou could see the judge on the bench, he began to seek help from the judge. To avoid Mr. Zhou getting help from the judge, Balenger pushed him out of the courtroom again, threw him on the floor, grabbed his hair to punch his head’s front side and right side on the hard floor repeatedly. Mr. Zhou lost the consciousness during the brutality assault. His face got severe injures at the middle area of the right brow and at the lower area of the right temple with a lot of bleed.

Later, Belanger falsified his police report (proper cause affidavit) under his oath and his lied testimonies that he handcuffed Mr. Zhou, Zhou ripped off the handcuffs and attacked him. Belanger testified that it was female public defendant Lozano who called him to ask him to drive Mr. Zhou out of the courtroom, and he also testified that in the hallway Mr. Zhou had asked the name of one standby witness. Later at the trial Lozano testified the same to confirm that she called Belanger to drive Mr. Zhou out of the courtroom.

Belanger maliciously lied to falsify his police report (Probable Cause Affidavit) under his oath to frame up Mr. Zhou, state prosecutors conspired with him to make up 5 falsified criminal charges upon Mr. Zhou. Belanger testified under his oath that he handcuffed Mr. Zhou, then Mr. Zhou ripped off the handcuffs, Zhou attacked him by using 10 fingernails to scratch his upper right arm deeply into his flesh. But even a kid could know that no one could rip off the handcuffs, it was just Belanger’s lies and his perjury under oath to falsify his police report, and falsified the case on Mr. Zhou.

On the same day May 18, 2005 around noon time, Belanger took some photos of his right upper arm of his claimed injures. He went to the big hospital nearby for medical treatment. He testified under oath in the report that Mr. Zhou used 10 fingernails to scratch his right upper arm deeply into his flesh. But his injury photos did not show any finger mark at all, just showed 3 huge long wide bruise like corn-size. In the court investigation discovery proceeding, Belanger and prosecutors refused to release his hospital medical records and his doctor’s name to Mr. Zhou, when Mr. Zhou filed to request for them based on the law. These were enough to prove that Belanger falsified his injures and falsified the relevant testimonies; just because the medical records contradicted to his lied testimonies, Belanger and persecutors were scared to release his hospital records and his doctor’s name, made Mr. Zhou unable to subpoena his doctor to testify at the trial and unable to obtain his medical records to examine.

Indianapolis Marion County chief officers and the prosecutors conspired to hide the crime scene’s surveillance footages to cover up this hate crime event, maliciously falsified 5 bogus criminal charges on Mr. Zhou, including trespassing the courtroom, beating to injure bailiff Belanger. In the initial hearing of bonds, Mr. Zhou immediately asked to judge to review the crime scene’s surveillance footages, pointed out that it was Belanger who assaulted him, he did not do anything on Belanger, he just walked to leave the courtroom with his large package documents and his jacket. He told the judge that he was the victim and Belanger was criminal assaulter, to ask judge to arrest Belanger.

On June 10, 2005, Mr. Zhou requested the mayor and sheriff to release the crime scene surveillance footages by faxes. The phone conversation between his office staff and Mr. Zhou were recorded legally under both parties’ agreement for the recording. In the discover proceeding, his attorney private Stern issued the subpoena for the surveillance footage too. These evidences had been given to FBI Indianapolis field office agent.

Later Indianapolis city mayor and sheriff violated the law and violated the court’s subpoena to hide the crime scene’s surveillance footages, continued to cover the truth up. They conspired with Belanger and several staffs, to use their perjuries to intentionally wrongfully charge Mr. Zhou with the 5 falsified charges, including one ridiculous falsified criminal charge of trespassing the courtroom, although they knew Mr. Zhou went to the courtroom for his case hearing on that day, and although the courtroom is open to the public and everyone to stay to watch the hearing.

As common knowledge in USA, US courtrooms are opened to the public; everyone could go to the courtrooms to watch the court hearing without a reason, there is no the trespass court crime in USA for anyone to go and stay inside the courtrooms to watch the court hearing. Especially on May 18, 2005 Mr. Zhou went to that courtroom for his case hearing, which had lasted for 8 years. However, the prosecutors and Belanger conspired together to falsify the trespassing the courtroom charge on Mr. Zhou, although the courtroom is the public access. How dirty they were. This criminal-style wrongful prosecution upon the innocent enraged two IU professors, they separately decided to support Mr. Zhou to defeat the wrongful prosecution and criminal frame-up case.

On May 18, 2005, judge reviewed his new lawyer’s fax-in appearance form, but the new lawyer did not show up; the judge did not continue the trial date, which had been set as the end of May 2005 several months ago. So the time became very tight for his new lawyer to prepare the trial within one week, it urgently needed his former public defender Martinet to transfer the case file to his new attorney immediately. Mr. Zhou discussed with Martinet about the case file copy at the corner private table of the public defender, Martinet asked him to go through to find the necessary copy. The court audio did not record any disturbing and the judge processed the cases smoothly as the audio records indicated. And then Mr. Zhou sat in the gallery to go through the document file.

The female public defender Lozano had no any contact and no relationship with Mr. Zhou at any time; she was not Mr. Zhou’s attorney. As a licensed lawyer, Lozano knows that the client-attorney relationship is privileged based on the law, other attorneys could not involve into the case which his attorney Martinet represented him, even judge did not involve it. And judge even did not pay an attention for what Mr. Zhou and Martinet were doing. Lozano had no any relationship with Mr. Zhou’s case, she knew that she should not interfere into Mr. Zhou’s case with his attorney Martinet at all.

To frame up Mr. Zhou, Lozano falsified her testimonies with her lies in the deposition and at the trial. Lozano lied under oath that Mr. Zhou made the noise in the courtroom to disturb the court hearing, so that she had to call bailiff Balenger to drive him out.

At the trial Lozano intended to use her lied testimonies to cheat the jurors, but Lozano failed, the jurors did not believe what Lozano lied in her testimony. Mr. Zhou gave the simply logic analysis to the jurors, they believed him. Mr. Zhou told the jurors that the whole morning courtroom audio recording proved that no one disturbed the court hearing before and after his case hearing was over; if anyone had disturbed the court, the judge would have stopped the hearing to call the bailiff on the trouble guy, the clerk would call the bailiff on the trouble guy; and if someone disturbed the courtroom, bailiffs themselves would have found and have come upon the trouble guy without anyone’s calling the bailiffs; these bailiffs would find the disturbing by themselves without Lozano’s calling, since the courtroom is very small about 30*30 feet. The facts are that no judge and no clerk and no bailiff came upon Mr. Zhou at all, since no disturbing in the courtroom; only female Lozano called Balenger to drive Mr. Zhou out. Obviously, Lozano falsified her testimonies about the non-existing disturbing in order to cheat the jurors, but she failed to cheat the jurors; the jurors did not believed Lozano’s words, the jurors only believed Mr. Zhou. And the jurors gave the victory to Mr. Zhou in the end of trial on April 18, 2007.

Mr. Zhou’s ex-wife was the license attorney in that state, Lozano was the female attorney license there too. Attorney Lozano and his ex-wife practice the law in the same area.

Lawyer Pengtian Ma reviewed the case file and gave his legal analysis, when Mr. Zhou approached lawyer Ma many years later. Lawyer Ma thought, when Mr. Zhou went to that courtroom for his case for 8 years from 1997 to May 2005, bailiff Belanger had watched him for years. His ex-wife is US citizen, was against him in the case. Mr. Zhou had to defense himself with self representation for years when he had no lawyer, had made the efficient defense. Belanger watched Mr. Zhou for years, accumulated his envy and his hatred towards Mr. Zhou with his prejudice to Chinese. With some undiscovered plot in advance, public defender Lozano called Belanger upon Mr. Zhou on that day, Belanger attacked and tortured Mr. Zhou with his extreme hatred.


As soon as the assault and the falsified frame-up case happened in May 2005, Mr. Zhou began to seek the legal help. Indianapolis Marion County Public Defender offices’ public defenders refused to represent his case with the excuse of interest confliction, because their partner Lozano caused the case. Indianapolis Legal Aid did not take his case.

It was extreme difficult situation, since he could not find a lawyer to represent him. Some Purdue University alumni reminded Mr. Zhou to go back the campus law school to seek the legal help, where Zhou had been to the graduate engineering school before 2000. He went to the campus law school in Indianapolis to seek for the legal help. He contacted the famous law professors in the criminal law field. He first contacted the old professor Henry Karlson at the law school for the legal help, who is listed on Who Is Who.

Professor Karlson still remembered Mr. Zhou’s ex-wife, who was the former law student at the law school in 1990s. Professor Karlson reviewed the case file and his evidences, listened what Mr. Zhou explained the whole event, including the crime scene’s surveillance footage of Marion County City County Building. Professor found the case as a malicious wrongful prosecution case, relating to several felony crimes, such as aggressive assault, multi perjury, tampering with the exonerate evidences; lie to reply the court’s subpoena, criminal frame up with the perjury, misprision of the felony. Professor Karlson decided to help Mr. Zhou in order to save his innocent life from the criminal frame-up by these government officers. In fact, Professor Karlson helped Mr. Zhou to defeat both cases to save his innocent life twice based on his righteousness: 

First, Professor helped Mr. Zhou to win his 1997 case, gave the instructions to his private lawyer Norrick who had never processed a trial before. Professor taught him to give up his constitutional right, to be confident to go to the stand to testify and to tell the jurors the truth as he told professor at the law school office, when all other friends warned him that the jurors would believe his ex-wife, not him, he would lose the trial, since he was a Chinese and a man, his wife was US citizen and woman, all his friends worried for him. Before professor advised him, Mr. Zhou had decided not to go to the stand to testify based on his rights. Under professor’s advice, he decided to give up his rights, to testify to tell the jurors the truth. In January 2006, under professor Karlson’s help, his lawyer Norrick and Mr. Zhou defeated his ex-wife at the jury trial, after 9 years proceeding. 

When the judge read the jury’s verdict, Mr. Zhou’s ex-wife shrieked in the highest sharp tone in front of all jurors and the judge and the staffs, jumped off her seat in the gallery, tremblingly ran out of the door, she cried outside in the hallway with her full lung about an hour, which was the crime scene where Belanger assaulted Mr. Zhou.

When judge read jury’s verdict as the victory to Mr. Norrick and Mr. Zhou, Mrs. Norrick even broke into tears, who came to join her husband’s first trial in his career. Then judge and Mr. Norrick and state prosecutors went to the jury room to thank for the jurors’ great working. Later, inside the courtroom, the clerks and bailiffs, including that assaulter, came to shake the hands with Mr. Norrick and Mrs. Norrick and Mr. Zhou to congratulate their victory. When they were leaving through the clerk office, the judge and all clerks came to shake hands again with Mr. Norrick and Mrs. Norrick and Mr. Zhou, the judge gave the good comments to Mr. Norrick’s first trial representation and Mr. Zhou’s testimonies on the stand. The 9-year long case was finalized with the victory made by Mr. Norrick’s efficient representation and professor Karlson’s great instruction, and his teaching to Mr. Zhou. Professor Karlson was the savior of Mr. Zhou, after 9 years hounded by his ex-wife. That was the first time that professor Karlson saved his life.

Second, professor Karlson later continued to help Zhou to defeat this falsified case from 2005 to 2008, until he defeated the whole falsified 5-charge case, saved his life for second time. The falsified case was extreme difficult, much worse than his ex-wife case, because prosecutors conspired with chief officers intentionally to hide the exonerate evidences of the crime scene’s surveillance footages, because the prosecutors intentionally used 6 witnesses’ perjury to frame up Mr. Zhou for 3 years, and no private lawyer wanted to represent him, after he had contacted more than 20 private lawyers.

In the falsified case, the first judge, grey-hair old gentleman, even wanted to contact professor Karlson at the conference hearing in 2006, after Mr. Zhou told the judge law school professor Karlson was helping him in this case, since he had no lawyer; and both parties concurred. Later, professor Karlson even wrote that the prosecutors must drop the falsified case, which warned the injustice prosecutors to stop their illegal wrongful prosecution towards to an innocent real victim. It really worked out finally in 2008, state prosecutors dropped the whole falsified case upon Mr. Zhou after 3 years wrongful prosecution. Professor Karlson saved Mr. Zhou’s innocent life for the second time.

In summer 2005, when Mr. Zhou went to Indiana University law school to seek the legal help, he also contacted another famous law professor Joe Schumm. After professor Schumm reviewed the whole case file, he took the time to listen Mr. Zhou to explain and to review his evidences, professor Schumm believed his innocent, decided to give the legal aid to Mr. Zhou. Professor Schumm gave many critical legal help to defeat the falsified case, for example: the second judge and prosecutors conspired together to cheat Mr. Zhou by ordering Mr. Zhou to pay up to $6,000 for the transcript fees. When professor Schumm heard the transcript fee episode from Mr. Zhou, professor Schumm immediately sent him two case law, asked him to file these two case law to request the judge to withdraw the old order, and to demand state prosecutors to pay the huge transcript fees. Mr. Zhou immediately filed by inciting the two case law, mentioned that were from the law professor. The second judge had to withdraw the old order, but ruled to demand State prosecutor to pay the huge fees. That transcript is the most critical evidence to prove State 6 witnesses’ perjuries and to prove that prosecutors intentionally used the witnesses’ perjuries to wrongfully prosecute Mr. Zhou for 3 years.


Before the trial April 18, 2007, the 2nd judge deprived Mr. Zhou’s constitutional right of being represented by a lawyer at the trial, both professors separately predicted that the judge would deprive his right of being represented by a lawyer at the trial, both separately taught Mr. Zhou how to claim his constitutional right of having a lawyer to represent at any chance during the trial, if the judge forced him to go on the trial without a lawyer.
Before the trial April 18, 2007, Professor Schumm specially told Mr. Zhou that he controls the law school program for the appeal cases, if Mr. Zhou needs to appeal the case in the future, he will represent Mr. Zhou for the appeal case. It made Mr. Zhou moved and very confident to go to the trial; he knew that he would get professor Schumm to represent him in the appeal, if State prosecutors use their 6 witnesses’ perjuries to successfully deceive the jurors. However, the jurors did not give a damn to the State prosecutors and State’s 6 witnesses’ perjuries at the trial, the jurors only believed what Mr. Zhou testified, only agreed with Mr. Zhou for what he caught the state 6 witnesses’ perjuries in front of the jury. Although he had no lawyer during the trial, since the judge forced him to go on the trial without a lawyer representing him, the jurors just gave a blow to sweep down the prosecutors and their conspired 6 witnesses.

It was the righteousness and the kindnesses of two law professors that saved Mr. Zhou’s innocent life from the 3-year wrongful prosecution case. Indiana University law school professors and U.S. jurors are more powerful than the injustice Indiana judge and state prosecutors and their coward 6 witnesses with their crazy perjuries.

In this wrongful prosecution case, there are 3 critical exonerate evidences: first, the crime scene’s surveillance footage; second, Mr. Zhou’s medical records in Marion County Sheriff Department medical office, which were made by Marion County medical staffs on May 18, 2005 and May 19, 2005 and later; third, Belanger’s medical records. 

1. The exonerate evidence of the crime scene’s surveillance footage:
At the first pre-trial conference of his case, Mr. Zhou requested the judge to review the crime scene’s surveillance footage, later judge granted his motion and ordered in written the prosecutors to obtain the crime scene’s surveillance footage from Indianapolis sheriff office, to release it to Mr. Zhou. However, after many months, in another conference hearing, under the court’s audio recording, the prosecutors claimed that they did not want to review the crime scene’s surveillance footages, they only used Belanger’s testimonies to process the charges. How ridiculous it is here, the prosecutors did not want to review the crime scene’s surveillance footages to see the facts what happened at the crime scene, but the prosecutors only wanted to use Belanger’s testimonies to prosecute charges on Mr. Zhou, when even a kid could conclude that Belanger’s testimony as a lie and perjury? The prosecutors’ malicious claims clearly proved that they intentionally used Belanger’s perjuries to wrongfully prosecute Mr. Zhou, but hid the crime scene’s surveillance footages to cover up the facts that Belanger attacked Mr. Zhou from his back, when he just walked out of the courtroom with the big package documents and jacket in his hands. 

Judge had ordered prosecutors to review and release the crime scene’s surveillance footage to Mr. Zhou. But prosecutors insisted on using Belanger’s obvious perjury to wrongfully prosecute Mr. Zhou. In a hearing during the retrial, these prosecutors claimed that it was their boss to ask them to insist on this case after Belanger’s self-denial perjury had been caught in front of jurors. It is clear that state chief prosecutor intentionally wanted to use Belanger’s lies to wrongfully harm Mr. Zhou’s innocent life, even they knew from the crime scene’s surveillance footages that Belanger’s testimony was perjury. 

What prosecutors claimed about the crime scene’s surveillance footages and what they claimed to only use Belanger’s testimonies to prosecute Mr. Zhou were under the court recording. Obviously, these prosecutors did not have any fear that the court audio recording recorded and caught their crime of hiding the exonerate evidence of the surveillance footage and their criminal plot of intentionally wrongful prosecuting upon an innocent with the perjury. Later when Mr. Zhou reported it to FBI office, he emphasized prosecutors’ tampering with the exonerate evidence, which was recorded by the court.

How dirty the prosecutors and the system are. It is the mafia criminals who controlled Indianapolis government system, Indianapolis Marion County courtroom became a lynching room of these mafia officers. It was outrageous in democracy country U.S.A.

The dirty intentional wrongful prosecution just made two IU law professors be full confident of helping Mr. Zhou to defeat it, the professors continued to give him the strong professional legal aids in the highly dangerous situation.

Mr. Zhou faxed to request Indianapolis mayor Peterson and sheriff Anderson to release the crime scene’s surveillance footage on June 10, 2005. Several courts’ subpoenas were issued to them to order them to release the surveillance footages and other records and evidences; they violated the law by replying the subpoena with their lies and hid these evidences. Indy government’s releasing his partial medical in June 2007 proved the facts that these chief officers had lied to reply to the subpoenas before, they had hidden and still hide other evidences to date.

On June 10, 2005, Mr. Zhou called the hotline of Indianapolis city mayor Peterson office. Under mayor Peterson’s secretary’s advice, Mr. Zhou faxed to both Indianapolis City ( Marion County ) mayor Bart Peterson and Sheriff Anderson to complain that he was tortured bloody by the staff Belanger on the 4th floor of its government building on May 18, 2005, and requested mayor Peterson and sheriff Anderson to release the relevant crime scene’s surveillance footage. Later, the subpoenas were served to both of them, to demand them to release the faxes that Mr. Zhou sent to them, to release the relevant records, including the crime scene’s surveillance footage . They lied to reply that they did not received Mr. Zhou’s faxes, and there is not surveillance system inside the Indianapolis City County Government Building.

However, Mr. Zhou had recorded his phone conversation with Indianapolis government staffs under both parties’ agreement, the staffs confirmed the receiving of his faxes, and forwarded to the mayor and sheriff for investigation. When Mr. Zhou reported the crime to FBI Indianapolis field office, he gave FBI agent the copies of June 10, 2005 fax and relevant the phone call recording, which are the most important evidences which he gave to FBI agent. FBI agent concluded that it was the corruption crime case.

And thousands of Indianapolis City County government staffs knew the existing of the surveillance system of Indianapolis City County Building, which was upgraded by Bush federal government after September 11 terrorism attack. When Mr. Zhou reported the crime case to FBI field office, the existing of surveillance system of Indianapolis City County Building is one of the most important issue to be reported to FBI agent Robert, agent Robert agreed that this issue is easy to investigate since thousand staffs knew the existing of the surveillance system everywhere inside Indianapolis City County Building.

2. The critical evidence of Belanger’s medical record, related to major charges on Zhou:
Because Mr. Zhou was charged with having beaten and injured bailiff Belanger, and Belanger testified in his police report that he got the injuries and immediately went to the big hospital to treat his injures, State prosecutors and Belanger had the duty to release his medical records and his doctor’s name to Mr. Zhou, which are relevant evidences relating to major charges upon Mr. Zhou. The subpoenas had been issued for his medical recorded too. But prosecutors and Belanger refused to release his medical records and refused to release his doctor’s name and contact information to Mr. Zhou all the time.

Belanger’s injure photos indicated that his testimonies about his injure was inconsistent to his injures on the photos: Belanger testified under oath that Mr. Zhou used 10 finger nails deeply scratch into his right forearm to injure him; but in the photos of his right arm, there was no fingernail marks at all, there were only 3 huge ellipse-shape bruise wounds. 

Mr. Zhou filed to request the judge to order prosecutors and Belanger to produce the evidences of his medical record and release his doctor’s name based on the law and subpoenas. But the judge denied Mr. Zhou’s such rational request without a reason, allowed Belanger and prosecutors to hide his medical records and his doctor’s name from Mr. Zhou. However, Belanger’s medical record was the major evidence relating to the felony charges on Mr. Zhou. Indiana Trial Rule and the law code render Mr. Zhou the rights to examine the relevant medical evidences relating to the charges. Ridiculously the judge broke the law to allow the prosecutors to hide to the critical evidence of Belanger’s medical record and his doctor’s name. This judge maliciously broke the law to deny Mr. his right to examine Belanger’s medical evidence and to subpoena the doctor. The judge even threatened to throw Mr. Zhou into the jail as the contempt of the court if he kept requesting Belanger’s medical record and doctor’s name from Belanger and prosecutors.

3. The critical evidence of Mr. Zhou’s medical record possessed by Indianapolis Marion County Sheriff medical office, the sheriff lied to reply the subpoena to hide it:

On May 18, 2005, after Mr. Zhou was injured by Belanger, Marion County sheriff department’s two male medical staffs rushed in to treat Mr. Zhou with the medicine and the bondage. The same day photo shot of Mr. Zhou by the department clearly indicated his medical treatment on his head with the big bandage. After the treatment, two male staffs gave Mr. Zhou a form to sign, the form is named as Refusal Medical Treatment, and they must think that Mr. Zhou could not read English. Mr. Zhou immediately rebut them that he just got their medical treatment, he did not refuse for the treatment, why they gave him this Refusal Medical Form to sign? He wrote long comments on the form. Two staffs ran away quickly. During the day, Mr. Zhou repeatedly asked the officers to send him to the hospital, the staffs refused to send him to the hospital. Next day May 19, 2005, he got more medical treatment, he wrote other long comments on the May 19, 2005’s medical form, but the June 2007 released medical records did not include this form.

Before the trial, in 2005 and in 2006 and in 2007, Mr. Zhou and his attorneys issued subpoenas and requested Marion County Sheriff Department medical office to release his medical records. But sheriff chief lied to reply to the subpoena to deny the office had Mr. Zhou’s medical record, broke the law to hide his medical records in sheriff’s medical office. Mr. Zhou filed with the court to ask the judge to demand Marion County Sheriff and his medical chief to release his medical records in their medical office.

In the conference hearing, under the court audio recording, Judge told Mr. Zhou that Sheriff medical office did not have any medical record of him, but no medical staffs appeared to testify. Mr. Zhou replied to rebut Judge how she knew the sheriff medical office did not have his medical record when no medical staff came in to testify about his medical records? He showed Judge his smug shot of May 18, 2005 with the big bondage on his face, which proved his medical treatment by the staffs. It is common knowledge that Sheriff medical office examines every innate with a personal medical record on the first day as its routine. Judge was mad on him for his questioning, threatened to throw him into jail as contempt of the court if he continued to request his medical records from Sheriff medical office. Under the judge’s malicious threatening, Mr. Zhou was not able to obtain his medical records from Marion County Sheriff medical office, although the law renders him the right to obtain his medical record from Sheriff medical office.

However, after Mr. Zhou won the jury trial in April 2007, Marion County Sheriff medical office in June 2007 faxed to Mr. Zhou to release his partial medical record of May 19, 2005, still hid his May 18, 2005 medical records and other part records until today. 

The partial medical records released in June 2007 by Marion County Sheriff department has clearly proved that the judge had lied to cheat Mr. Zhou that Marion County sheriff medical office did not have his medical records during the previous conference hearing, which was audio-recorded into the records. It also proved that Marion County Sheriff medical department chief and sheriff had broken the law by lying to reply to several court subpoenas, had broken the law to hide Mr. Zhou’s medical records. It was multi felony crimes, when its department officers and sheriff lied to reply the court subpoenas and hid his other part medical records until today.

In general, before the trial, Mr. Zhou could not obtain any of these 3 important evidences: the crime scene’s surveillance footage, Belanger’s medical records, his own medical records possessed by Marion County Sheriff medical office. Indianapolis government chiefs broke the law to lie to reply the court subpoenas for several times and broke the law to hide these critical evidences until today. The partial medical records released in June 2007 just proved that Indianapolis government chiefs broke the law to lie to reply the court subpoenas and hid the evidences. When Mr. Zhou reported the case to FBI Indianapolis field office, these were other major perjury crimes in the reporting.


Because female public defender Lozano called police upon Mr. Zhou to cause this case, Marion County public defenders refused to represent Mr. Zhou in this case for the interest confliction excuse. However, the judge found Mr. Zhou as the indigent, he was eligible for an appointed lawyer, law school professor gave this idea. So Mr. Zhou repeatedly filed to ask the judge to appoint a lawyer for him based on his due process rights, and public defenders had refused to take his case for the interest conflicts reason. In 2006, the judge appointed one special private lawyer Ford as his attorney.

However, the appointed attorney Ford refused to do any investigation for his case, refused to follow up the previous subpoenas to obtain the evidence, the crime scene’s surveillance footages, from Indianapolis City County government offices, although Mr. Zhou gave Ford the several officers’ names, who proved the existing surveillance system of the whole Indianapolis City County Building. Ford also refused to work to obtain Mr. Zhou’s medical records from Marion County government department, refused to request Belanger’s medical records from Belanger and the hospital. Ford also refused to investigate to find two standby witnesses at the crime scene on May 18, 2005, he even refused to meet Mr. Zhou in his law office at any time.

Appointed attorney Ford even refused to contact the law school professor Karlson for the great pro bono legal help. After Mr. Zhou got the new lawyer Ford, he informed professor Karlson. Professor Karlson asked Mr. Zhou to pass his message to lawyer Ford that he liked to help Mr. Zhou’s case as the legal expert, let Ford to contact him, just like Professor had helped his 1997 case by giving the expertise opinion to his lawyer Norrick. 

Then Mr. Zhou sent emails and called to tell Ford how professor Karlson had helped to win his 1997 case as the expertise to his lawyer Norrick, passed the message to ask Ford to contact professor. He also told Ford that the first judge had contacted professor Karlson in this case. However, Ford just ignored it. When Mr. Zhou met Ford at the court hallway, he personally asked him to contact professor for legal help, Ford just ignored it. What Ford rejected professor Karlson to help to the case and what he refused to work to investigate the case indicated that Ford intentionally hurt the case, hurt it tremendously.
Attorney Ford has his own private law office, but he refused to meet Mr. Zhou in his office at any time. Ford only met Mr. Zhou in Marion City County Building when his case had a court hearing. Each time of their meeting, Ford always talked with Mr. Zhou for short time and quickly left for busy excuse. No matter how Mr. Zhou asked Ford to contact to discuss with professor Karlson for legal help, Ford just refused to do so. Obviously attorney Ford’s refusal to work was hurting Mr. Zhou, not to help him, which just benefited the prosecutors to frame up Mr. Zhou in this case.

Two years had passed, on February 26, 2007, he went to the case hearing. In the hallway, attorney Ford cheated Mr. Zhou about the law code and mentioned his trial strategy in front of witness Mr. Burkhart. Attorney Ford said to Mr. Zhou in front of Mr. Burkhart, based on the law codes in the case, State prosecutors did not need to prove that you (Zhou) had attacked and injured Belanger, prosecutors only needed to prove that you had touched Belanger, and made Belanger felt the pains, does not need to prove that you had injured Belanger, so he will argue the touching and pain at the trial with prosecutors.

It was Ford’s lies about the Law Code in the case, also it switched Belanger’s falsified police report into a new lied story, because Belanger had testified in the police report that Mr. Zhou had attacked and injured him, his injure photos showed 3 big wounds, it was not a case of “touching and pains”. The law codes of the charges show that the injury was the necessary element for the charges to be established, Ford lied about the law codes.

Obviously, Ford conspired with prosecutors to switch Belanger’s old lie to a new lied story. Belanger’s lied police report was too ridiculous, no one would believe it, prosecutors would be impossible to use his insane testimonies of his police report to deceive the jurors. And prosecutors and Ford plotted and conspired to switch to the new lied story, then Ford told Zhou that prosecutors did not need to prove he attacked and injure Belanger, only need to prove “touch and pain”; thus it was his (Ford’s) trial strategy to argue the new lie story of “touching and pains” at the trial. Ford told Zhou the new lies and his trial strategy in front of Burkhart, to mislead him to the new lied story, so Ford could cooperate with prosecutors to argue the new lied story at the trial by ignoring Belanger’s old lies in the police report. Their plot seemed perfect; it just needs Ford to mislead Mr. Zhou to agree with Ford’s strategy of “touch and pains” for the trial.

Finally, Ford not only refused to investigate and to obtain the evidences in the case, but also conspired with prosecutors to switch the old lies to the new lied story of “touching and pain” to frame up Zhou in a better way. Ford audaciously worked for prosecutors to deceive Mr. Zhou disregarding Mr. Burkhart’s witnessing, even lied about the law code to mislead Zhou. The new lies are difficult to prove as a lie: Belanger had cuffed Mr. Zhou, anyway there was body touching, how smart Ford and prosecutors were?

But, how possible to deceive the jurors that a body touch turned out the 3 huge bruises as Belanger’s injure photos showed? It would be possible if Ford and prosecutors cooperate together to only argue the “touch and pain” but ignore Belanger’s old lies of his injures at the trial, Ford already told Zhou and Burkhart about his trial strategy of “tough and pain”.
It clearly proved that Ford conspired with prosecutors to switch to a new lied story to frame up Mr. Zhou in the coming trial. To successfully mislead Mr. Zhou to the new lied story, Ford even deceived Zhou about the relevant law codes in front of Mr. Burkhart.

It was really horrible situation; it urgently needed to expose Ford’s cheating and his conspiracy with prosecutors to stop his cheating. Mr. Zhou decided to file to expose him.

Under Mr. Zhou’s request, Mr. Burkhart wrote and supplied his notarized affidavit to Zhou, to give the details how attorney Ford cheated Mr. Zhou about the relevant law code and the “touching and pains” strategy, which Ford will argue with prosecutors in the trial. 

It was really lucky that Ford cheated Mr. Zhou in front of Mr. Burkhart, the great witness gave his affidavit to prove Ford’s cheating in so dangerous situation; otherwise it would be very difficult to make others believe that Ford deceive him about the relevant law code and the “facts” of Belanger’s police report by switching to a new story “touch and pain”, that Ford did not work for Mr. Zhou’s case, but worked for prosecutors and Belanger.

Mr. Zhou filed to the court by attaching the affidavit of Mr. Burkhart to expose appointed attorney Ford’s cheating him about the law code and switching Belanger’s police report to the new lies, asked the judge to stop Ford’s cheating him since Ford was appointed by the judge. In his motion, Mr. Zhou did not ask the judge to fire Ford, did not ask Ford to withdraw, he just asked the judge to stop Ford’s cheating, since he needs an honest and efficient lawyer as the case law regulates. As US case law indicated, the appointed attorney must be efficient and competitive, surely not a cheater and liar lawyer. And Mr. Zhou never asked Ford to withdraw from his case at any time.

In the following hearing, when Mr. Zhou raised his filed motion about Ford’s cheating and lies with Mr. Burkhart’s affidavit, judge did not cross-examine anything either on Ford, or on Mr. Zhou, or on Mr. Burkhart who was there ready to testify. Ford did not argue a word, the judge just ordered Ford to withdraw without giving a reason, did not appoint a new lawyer for him, the judge just quickly set the trial date in 18 days ahead.

The judge did not ask Ford whether he falsely explained to Mr. Zhou about the law code and his trial strategy as Mr. Burkhart witnessed. It is relevant to the judge, because this judge appointed Ford to Mr. Zhou, and it is relevant to Ford’s ethnical duty, it is relevant to Mr. Zhou’s right of having an efficient competitive attorney to represent him. When Ford breached his attorney’s ethnical duty to cheat Mr. Zhou, it was offensive to this judge too, since this judge trusted Ford to arrange him as the appointed lawyer. 

Mr. Burkhart’s affidavit gave the clear facts to expose Ford’s cheating, but the judge was  not bothered by Ford’s cheating, did not question on Ford to verify; Ford did not argue a word. In simply logic, the judge acquiesced in what Ford cheated Mr. Zhou as the facts.

Many federal case law and Indiana State case law indicated that the appointed lawyer must be efficient and competitive. Ford is far away from an efficient attorney, Ford cheated Mr. Zhou, but benefited the prosecutors; and he refused to do any investigation, refused to obtain the important evidences from Marion County government. Now Mr. Burkhart’s affidavit proved that Ford cheated Mr. Zhou about the law code, cheated Mr. Zhou by switching Belanger’s old lies to a new lied story, to help State prosecutors to frame up Mr. Zhou with the new lies in better way. Since the judge appointed attorney Ford to Mr. Zhou, judge ordered Ford to withdraw after Mr. Burkhart’s affidavit, the judge should appoint him a new efficient lawyer to substitute Ford, but judge did not.

However Mr. Zhou could not find a new lawyer within 18 days, although he tried to hire some attorney after judge ordered Ford to withdraw. He filed two emergency motions to ask the judge to continue the trial date, in order to have the time to find a new lawyer. 

Two law school professors predicted that the judge may force Mr. Zhou to go on the trial without a lawyer. Both professors gave him many ideas about the trial if the judge denied his constitutional right of being represented by a lawyer, or did not continue the trial date to give him more time to hire a new lawyer. They did not want Mr. Zhou to pro se process the trial by himself without a lawyer, each of them advised him that he should take any chance to claim to the judge of his constitutional right of having a lawyer to represent for the trial, when the judge forces him to go on the trial without a lawyer. 


The trial of the falsified case happened on April 18, 2007, none of the critical evidences had been released by Indianapolis city mayor and sheriff and its department medical officer and Belanger and his hospital, which have been subpoenaed for several times. 

When Mr. Zhou came to the courtroom on April 18 2007 for the trial, he was shocked to see that attorney Ford came in to sit behind him. Judge told Zhou that attorney Ford was assisting him as a legal adviser. Ford sit there without a word. Mr. Zhou rebut judge that attorney Ford had cheated him and was caught by witness Burkhart, and you ( judge) had ordered Ford to withdraw from the case, Ford was not qualified to join the trial even at all, not even as an adviser. Mr. Zhou further told the judge that he did not need a legal adviser, he needed a lawyer to represent him as US constitutional renders him this right. Judge was mad, still ordered Ford to sit behind him as an advisor. During the whole trial of 18 hours, Mr. Zhou never talked with attorney Ford at any time, he did not want to be trapped by the judge and Ford as if he accepted Ford as a legal advisor. During the 18-hour trial, Ford kept silence without a word as a puppet, the judge’s tamed pet.  

There must be a secret illegal contact between the judge and Ford out of the courtroom during the 18 days period after the date when judge ordered Ford to withdraw and before the trial April 18, 2007, because there was no any hearing during these 18 days. After Ford had withdrawn from the case 18 days ago, he became irrelevant to this case, he was not supposed to join the trial at all. Ford would not be able to know that judge wanted him to sit behind Mr. Zhou at the trial. Only because judge had secretly contacted Ford without courtroom hearing during the 18 days, Ford was able to know that judge needed him to sit behind Mr. Zhou at the trial as the so-called legal advisor. However, based on Professional Liability Law and the Judicial Ethics Regulation, it is illegal for a judge to contact one party out of the courtroom hearing without another party knowing. When this judge contacted Ford during the 18 days without a hearing, it was illegal, especially this judge instructed Ford to appear to the trial as sit behind Mr. Zhou without his consent. This judge had repeatedly broke the Law and the Rule to harm Mr. Zhou’s innocent life, now even forcedly furnished Ford sitting behind him as a puppet when he disagreed, after she had ordered Ford withdraw from the case, after Ford’s cheating him had been caught.

Although Mr. Zhou told the judge that he needed a lawyer to represent him for the trial for over 20 times during the trial, the judge still deprived his constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer, but equipped Ford behind him as a silent puppet.

Mr. Zhou immediately saw through the judge’s dirty trick of setting Ford behind him, the judge’s purpose was to hurt Mr. Zhou in the future’s appeal about the issue of his not being represented by a lawyer. The judge furnished Ford sitting behind Mr. Zhou as a puppy legal adviser, prosecutors could argue in the appeal that Mr. Zhou had a legal advisor. But U.S. Constitution renders Mr. Zhou to be represented by a lawyer, not a mute puppet legal advisor behind him. To avoid the judge’s dirty trick about the legal representation, he did not talk with Ford at any time during the 18-hour trial.

When judge deprived his due process right, judge forced him to proceed the jury trial without a lawyer and without an interpreter. The trial lasted for 18 hours from the morning to the next day early morning, even no food for Mr. Zhou. 

At the trial, when Belanger went to the stand to testify, the prosecutor began to question on him. After, it, the judge asked Mr. Zhou to cross examine on Belanger. Mr. Zhou brought out the transcript of Belanger’s previous deposition, to ask the judge to order Belanger to sign it. Judge claimed that it was notarized by the court reporter, not need Belanger to sign. Mr. Zhou pointed out the last 2nd page of the transcript, which requires Belanger to sign, so ask Belanger to sign. Judge had to order to Belanger to sign it. Belanger took long time to review the whole transcript, then he signed it before all jurors.

Mr. Zhou then began to use the transcript of Belanger to cross examine Belanger, asked Belanger to show the jurors how “Mr. Zhou ripped off handcuffs and attack him” as the transcript recorded Belanger’s such testimonies, Belanger immediately denied his previous testimonies by saying “no no , I did not say that”. But the transcript recorded his testimonies, which was made and notarized under oath by the court reporter with the audio recording; and Belanger just signed the notarized transcript a few minutes ago in front of all jurors. Mr. Zhou caught Belanger’s self-denial of his own previous testimonies in front of the jurors.

Belanger denied was his own previous testimonies under oath, which was the basis of the whole falsified case and was the basis of his falsified police report. It proved that the whole case was built on Belanger’s self-denial perjury and lies. As the law professor and the legal experts confirmed later that self-denial was typical sheer perjury, obstruct justice felony crimes. 
Because no lawyer represented him at the trial, because he could not reach the law professors to verify the legal definition at the trial time after he caught Belanger’s self-denial false testimonies, Mr. Zhou could not raise the strongest argument at the end of the trial. Because law professors and Mr. Zhou never predicted that Belanger would self-deny his own previous testimonies, there is no strategy for self-denial perjury situation. And the self-denial perjury came out to shock all in the courtroom too. Later, after the trial, law professor confirmed that the self-denial is typical perjury and obstruct justice, the judge should dismiss the whole case right there, since the whole case was built on Belanger’s previous testimonies, the caught self-denial perjury.  

Although Belanger's self-denial perjury was caught in front of all white jurors, prosecutors continued to use the caught Belanger's perjury to go on the trial, the judge still did not dismiss the whole case, but allowed State prosecutors to use Belanger’s self-denial perjury to go on the trial. It was against the law when the prosecutors used the caught self-denial perjury to process the trial, and the judge broke the law to allow using the perjury to process the trial. It was so dirty, the whole courtroom seemed like a mafia lynch on the innocent people, when this judge publicly allowed the prosecutors to use the caught perjury to go on the trial to wrongfully prosecute the innocent victim. However, the jurors did not give a damn to the judge and the prosecutors, the final verdict by the jurors gave the fatal blow on the judge and the prosecutors.

State prosecutors also brought another 5 government officers to testify at the trial to frame up him with lies. Each of them made up a different lied testimony, contradicted to others’. Mr. Zhou cross-examined them to expose their perjuries one by one.

State’s another important witness was bailiff Woods. At the trial, Woods suddenly made a new false testimony on the stand, Woods claimed that he saw Mr. Zhou attacking Belanger in the hallway from the half opening door, although Woods did not testify this detail at all in his previous deposition. In his previous deposition, Woods only claimed that he saw some happened inside the courtroom, not outside, since he stayed inside. But Woods made a fatal mistake in his new lied testimony, he falsely described the steering direction of the door at the crime scene, opposite to the true steering direction of the door.

Mr. Zhou immediately exposed his lies to the jurors, he pointed the door on the map of the crime scene, indicated to the jurors the true steering direction of the door. He rebut Woods, if the door steered in the direction in half open way as Woods testified, the door would only open to the walls, Woods would only see the walls in the hallway, not be able to see anything between Belanger and Mr. Zhou. Mr. Zhou successful caught Woods’ new lies in front of jurors, just after he lied it for the first time, because Woods did not lie this detail in his deposition. The jurors did not believe what Woods testified.

It was extreme difficult for Mr. Zhou at the trial, since he did not obtain none of the critical and exonerate evidences possessed by Marion County government, which were requested by the subpoenas, since he had no lawyer to represent him in violation of his due process rights. Following two law professors’ advices for the trial, during the 18 hours trial, he repeatedly told judge for over 20 times that he did not want to proceed the trial by himself, he needed a lawyer to represent him for the trial as his constitutional right, the judge still forced him to go on the trial without a lawyer and an interpreter. 

So Mr. Zhou repeatedly claimed his right of having a lawyer. Before the close argument, around 11PM, judge called him and prosecutors to close the bench, judge threatened to throw him into jail as contempt, if he claims one more time that he needed a lawyer to represent him. State prosecutor showed his villainous smile when the judge repeatedly denied Mr. Zhou’s request for a lawyer, they seemed see their victory, since the judge even threatened him if he raised the lawyer representation issue in the close argument.

State prosecutors no hesitation brought in 6 officers to testify with their perjuries to frame up Mr. Zhou, they wanted to deceive the jurors with their 6 officers’ perjuries.

It was extreme stressed and dangerous situation for Mr. Zhou at the trial, he had to immediately figure out the strategy how to expose State witnesses’ new lies in front of all jurors, because these witnesses did not testify these new details during their previous depositions. During the trial, when Mr. Zhou found these state witnesses falsified new lies than their previous testimonies in the depositions, he must expose them immediately in front of the jurors; otherwise they may deceive the jurors with their new and old lies.

The depositions had been made by the appointed lawyer Ford upon State’s 6 witnesses without noticing Mr. Zhou except Belanger’s. Mr. Zhou even did not know that Ford had made the depositions on these 6 witnesses, until he received the mails of 6 packages of transcripts of their depositions. When he reviewed the transcripts of State’s 6 witnesses, he found these witnesses just testified a little details, seemed not hurt on him, some of them lied a little. But at the trial, these 5 witnesses suddenly falsified more lies in front the jurors, (one of these witnesses did not come to testify in the trial), it was very tight time for Mr. Zhou to figure out the strategy how to expose each of 5 witness’s new lies.

Ford only noticed Mr. Zhou for Belanger’s deposition in advance. So Mr. Zhou drove from Detroit to Indianapolis to join Belanger’s deposition. The deposition was set in the public defender office inside Marion City County Building, not in Ford law office. But the public defenders had claimed the interest confliction, refused to represent Mr. Zhou in his case. Mr. Zhou asked Ford why the deposition was not set in his private law office or in prosecutor office, but was set in the interest confliction office of Marion County public defender? Ford was mad, refused to reply, he went straightly to talk with the prosecutors by leaving Mr. Zhou alone. Ford could use public defender office, it was so strange.

When the deposition went on under the court reporter’s presiding, Belanger swore his oath, began to testify. As soon as Belanger answered some questions for the event’s occurrence, he began to lie and made false testimonies.

To expose Belanger’s initial lies, Mr. Zhou wrote a note with some special questions, gave it his attorney Ford, to let Ford to ask Belanger these special questions, which would compel Belanger to clarify the circumstance about his initial several lies. Ford turned to Mr. Zhou, Ford loudly censured him in front of all that he was disturbing the deposition, although Mr. Zhou did not say a word except passing the note to Ford. In a court hearing, it is very normal that the client passes a note to his attorney. Ford warned him that Ford would call the policemen to drive him out of the office, if he gives another note to Ford. Eventually Ford did not use any question of Zhou’s note to question on Belanger. Because of Ford’s refusal, Mr. Zhou could not go through Ford to ask any question on Belanger during the whole deposition, as if Mr. Zhou was irrelevant to the case. Belanger scoffed, when Ford accused and warned Mr. Zhou to be driven out of the room. Belanger became more excited for what Ford censured Mr. Zhou, he made more and more crazy lies during the following deposition, he testified that he had handcuffed Zhou, then Mr. Zhou ripped off the handcuffs, jumped on him to attack him with 10 fingernails.

Belanger’s such lie won't be able to cheat a teenager, even a kid knows that no one could rip off the handcuffs, a kid could conclude that Belanger lied to make false testimonies, but Ford did not challenge Belanger’s such lies at all, Ford didn’t raise any question to compel Belanger to specify how Mr. Zhou ripped off the handcuffs after Belanger had handcuffed him. Ford did not act as a lawyer to raise a little reasonable doubt, which a kid even could raise, so the whole deposition became Belanger’s talk show.

During the whole deposition, Ford refused to have any communication with Mr. Zhou, refused to use his note’s questions to question on Belanger, it caused that Mr. Zhou could participate in the deposition, just like Mr. Zhou had not joined the deposition of Belanger, Mr. Zhou could not go through Ford to ask any question to expose Belanger’s multi lies. And Ford did not raise a single useful question to challenge Belanger’s multi lies. 

When Ford began to represent Mr. Zhou over a year ago, he had written to Ford and had explained to Ford what happened on May 18, 2005 for many times, Ford knew the detailed facts of the event, so Ford knew what Belanger lied repeatedly in the deposition, Ford even did not want Mr. Zhou to remind him by the note during about Belanger’s lies. But Ford just did not challenge Belanger’s lies with a little reasonable doubt at all. Ford just let Belanger’s lies to stand without any challenge and without questioning Belanger with reasonable doubt during the whole deposition. For example, Ford admitted to Zhou in their previous discussion that Belanger’s injure photos indicated that his injury was not consistent to his testimony about his injure. Ford even agreed to obtain Belanger’s hospital medical records as he promised to Mr. Zhou in front of witness Mr. Burkhart. But in the deposition, Ford didn’t question Belanger about his injures at all, after he had  agreed with Mr. Zhou that Belanger’s injures were not caused by anyone’s fingernails. 

Ford had already cheated Mr. Zhou in front of witness Burkhart by helping prosecutors and Belanger to switch to a new falsified ”touch pains” story. This deposition showed that Ford cooperated with Belanger very well. All these indicated that Ford will cooperate with prosecutors by switching to the new touch-pain story and will not challenge Belanger’s lies at the trial, just like Ford cooperated with them in the deposition.

During the deposition, Ford used his best efforts to help prosecutors and Belanger. Ford’s dishonest behaviors really encouraged Belanger, Belanger was extreme happy for it, Belanger smiled all the way from the beginning to the end during the deposition. Belanger saw that everyone is on his side against Mr. Zhou, not only the prosecutors and judge, even Mr. Zhou’s appointed lawyer Ford was supporting him for any of his lies with no question to challenge on him. Thus, Belanger became totally insane to testify with more and more insane lies. The deposition of Belanger went on very smooth without any challenge from the appointed attorney Ford, everything favored Belanger, the appointed lawyer Ford almost called the policeman on Mr. Zhou for passing him a note.

However, just because of Belanger’s previous multi lies under his oath in his police report and in his deposition, it gave Mr. Zhou the opportunities to expose Belanger’s lies one by one in front of all jurors, when he cross-examined Belanger with his previous lied testimonies. Mr. Zhou successfully compelled Belanger to self-deny his own previous testimonies and caught his perjury before all jurors, won the trial without a lawyer. As American friend said, it is the God’s way to punish the liars by making them insane at first. Ford tremendously helped Belanger and prosecutors to frame up Mr. Zhou with their lies, but stupidly made Belanger insane, when they felt so good and so high.

The trial lasted from 8AM until next day's early morning 1AM, the judge still did not let the jurors go to home to rest, but sent them to the jury room to deliberate after 1AM.

After half an hour deliberation in the jury room, around 1:30AM, the jurors reached the verdict and gave the victory to Mr. Zhou, knocked down the bogus felony charges falsified by the prosecutors and Belanger. The jury verdict startled the prosecutors, when judge read it, one female prosecutor almost fell on the floor when she was leaving. 

The judge’s face became twisted and pale, when she read the jury’s verdict. This judge, who is 2nd judge, had used her best efforts, and had violated the rule and the law to assist State prosecutors to frame up Mr. Zhou with the caught perjury, she allowed Indianapolis City County government hiding the critical evidence in violation of the law and the rule, she allowed the prosecutors to use self-denial perjury to go on the trial, made her courtroom like lynch mafia house; but finally all her efforts fell apart in front of the great jurors. The jurors did not give a damn to the judge and the prosecutors, the jurors did not believe any of state’s 6 witnesses testimonies, who were Indianapolis government officers; the jurors only gave the victory to a Chinese engineering graduate from the local campus of Purdue University. Professor Karlson praised the wisdom of American jurors for their justified verdict. Professor Schumm was happy for Mr. Zhou’s victory, agreed to continue to give the legal help. It was professor Karlson’s second time to save his life from the wrongful prosecution, it was also professor Schumm’s help to save his life.


Mr. Zhou won the jury trial on April 18, 2007 when the major felonies had been denied by the jury, the 3 misdemeanors were mistrial and will be retrial.

When the first conference hearing of the retrial was heard in June 2007, Mr. Zhou requested prosecutors to produce the transcript of April 18, 2007 trial. Judge conspired with prosecutors to cheat Mr. Zhou that he had to pay the transcript fees, which may up to $6,000 or more, judge ruled to ask Mr. Zhou to pay the huge transcript fees. Mr. Zhou asked professor Schumm about the transcript fee issue, Professor confirmed that it was on State, should not charge on him, and Professor gave him two relevant case law. Mr. Zhou immediately filed to request the judge withdraw its ruling by inciting the two case law, especially he mentioned in his motion that two case law were given by the IU law school professor to challenge their cheating. The judge surely knew the law and the Rules that State should pay for transcript fee, but she conspired with prosecutors to cheat Mr. Zhou, ruled Mr. Zhou to pay the huge fee, when it should be on State’s cost. Although the judge had knew he was innocent, knew that prosecutors was using the perjuries to hound Mr. Zhou’s innocent life, but the judge supported prosecutors to harm to do so, even wanted to cause the huge debt on him for transcript fee, after she had found him indigent before.

Since Mr. Zhou incited the two case law in his motion, in June 2007, the dishonest judge had to withdraw her previous order and ruled State to pay to make the huge transcript fee.

Professor Karlson wrote the written conclusion that State must drop the whole falsified case upon Mr. Zhou, Mr. Zhou brought it to show the prosecutors at the court conference, who were the former students of professor. But the prosecutors refused to drop the case, said that it was his bosses to decide to go on the case, insisted on using the 5 witnesses and Belanger’s caught self-denial perjury to go on the retrial.

Private lawyer Jennifer was referred to Mr. Zhou by the law professor before the trial, after appointed attorney Ford withdrew, there was about 18 days ahead the trial. Because Mr. Zhou could not borrow the huge money within 18 days for her attorney fee, lawyer Jennifer did not take his case before the trial. After the trial, Mr. Zhou contacted lawyer Jennifer again for the retrial. Lawyer Jennifer heard his pro se victory at the trial, and the prosecutors’ refusal to drop the falsified case by insisting on using the perjuries to go on the retrial, she raised her attorney fee 180% for the retrial. Mr. Zhou was surprised, he asked her why raising the attorneys after the majority falsified charges had been defeated, after the perjury of State’s witnesses had been caught too, only 3 small misdemeanor charges were left. Jennifer replied to him whether he realized that he faced worse situation than the situation before the trial? Could he find any other attorney to take his retrial when the prosecutors intentionally used the caught perjuries to go on the retrial, when judge allowed using the perjury to the trial? Lawyer Jennifer said if she was not referred by the law professor, she would not even consider taking his retrial case at all.

Mr. Zhou felt freezing, even it was hot summer time. It was true, the situation was more horrible than before the trial. Now, prosecutors and judge all knew clearly that Belanger’s self-denial perjury was the severe felony crime as well as his obstruct justice felony crime, knew State’s other witnesses’ perjuries were caught in front of the jury too. However prosecutor still insisted on using these caught perjury of their witnesses to go on the retrial, even disregarded their professors’ justified warning, the judge did not dismiss the falsified case after the perjury was caught in front of her, supported them to use the caught perjury to continue to hound Mr. Zhou at the retrial. 

Jennifer analyzed correctly that the situation became much worse than before trial, he faced prosecutors’ publicly criminally frame-up with the caught self-denial perjury, prosecutors became shameless and fearless for their criminal mafia lynch towards to an innocent, since judge supported prosecutors’ illegal criminal frame-up; these malicious prosecutors even disregarded their law school professor’s warning. And Indianapolis government chiefs continued to hide the crime scene’s surveillance footage and his major medical records, only released his partial medical record in June 2007 after the trial.

Where was the hope for Mr. Zhou in the coming retrial? He was facing a group of mafia gangsters of Indianapolis government chiefs and prosecutors. If Mr. Zhou was convicted by one of the falsified misdemeanor charges, he would be thrown into Indiana prison; later Immigration Service would deport him based on the conviction.

At the second conference hearing, prosecutors brought a two-page agreement to Mr. Zhou, which prosecutors had drafted in advance. Prosecutors told Mr. Zhou if he signs the agreement, they would drop the case, they told him that he could not modify the agreement; he only could sign it, or reject it. In this draft agreement, prosecutors asked him to withdraw his civil lawsuit in US Federal District which he filed on May 18, 2007,
asked him to give up suing any officer for this event, to give up any legal action in the future for this event, then as exchange, prosecutors will drop the whole case. 

Mr. Zhou replied that he needed to get the legal advices from the law professors about this draft agreement. Prosecutors allowed him to take the agreement to go to the law school. The second conference hearing was continued without being heard by the judge.

Mr. Zhou brought the agreement to see law professor Karlson, professor pointed it out that it was ransom. It is real dirty system, the law and the courtroom became their lynching tools, the government and the court were controlled by the mafia-style officials.

Now it was so tough choice for Mr. Zhou: if he signs it, the falsified case will be dropped completely, his life will become safe, after so many years being hounded by his ex-wife and the malicious prosecutors since 1997; but these criminal officers of Indianapolis government would be able escape from any punishment for the multi felony crimes of what they had committed to hound him during these years, such as the multi perjury felony crime, obstruct justice felony crime, tampering with evidence felony, criminal frame up felony crime with their perjury, misprision of felony crime, the hate crime offense, the aggressive assault felony crime, the offenses of US Civil Right Statute.

If he refuses to sign it, it will be showdown, he had to face the extreme difficult situation of the retrial, which will be processed based on the caught perjuriy, but no private lawyer wanted to involve it, even the professor referred lawyer was reluctant to take his case.

Mr. Zhou decided to go on combating these malicious prosecutors and Indianapolis government officers, since he got the strong supports from the law professors. At the court conference in January 2008, under the court recording, Mr. Zhou formally rejected the prosecutors’ agreement as the ransom. Prosecutors became angry, immediately asked the judge to set the retrial date. Mr. Zhou immediately requested the judge to order the prosecutors once again to pay and make the transcript, which the judge had ordered prosecutors to do it more than half a year ago, but prosecutors still did not make the transcript after half a year. Judge did not set a retrial date, had to order the prosecutors to pay to make the transcript for second time, set another conference date on April 24, 2008; the court reporter estimated that she needed one month around to make the transcript.

Mr. Zhou decided to go to the ultimate showdown with these evil prosecutors and Indianapolis government officers. With two Indiana University law professors’ support, he was confident to defeat them completely, the righteousness should prevail the evils.

He made the accurate legal research for the perjury felony crime, obstruct justice felony crime, tampering with evidence felony crime, criminal frame up felony crime, misprision of felony crime, US federal law code of hate crime, the aggressive assault felony crime, US federal civil right law, and got the verification with the law professors, then he went to U.S. FBI Indianapolis field office to report his hate crime case on April 21, 2008.


To get the social supporting, Mr. Zhou posted his ipetition letter online to request FBI to investigate his hate crime case, Iowa Chinese Association director Mr. Swallow Yan was his major sponsor for this action, many supporters signed to support him.

On April 21, 2008, with these supporters’ signatures, Mr. Zhou went to FBI Indianapolis field office to report his hate crime with a large package of evidences and documents relevant to these Indy officers’ series felony crimes in his hate crime case, such as the perjury felony crime, obstruct justice felony crime,tampering with evidence felony crime, criminal frame up felony crime, misprision of felony crime, US federal law code of hate crime, the aggressive assault felony crime, US federal civil right law.

When Mr. Zhou was waiting for chief agent Welch at FBI Indianapolis field office, chief agent Welch sent his assistant agent Robert to accept his reporting the crime case. Mr. Zhou took more than 3 hours to explain the detailed facts of his hate crime case to agent Robert, gave him a large package evidences and documents; agent Robert wrote the long note during their long meeting. The wrongful prosecution with the caught perjury had hounded Mr. Zhou for 3 years, the details and evidences had repeatedly astonished agent Robert, when Mr. Zhou passed to agent Robert the large package of evidences and documents one by one, explained the relevant facts, such as Belanger’ self-denial testimonies and its transcript, such as Belanger’s injure photos, such as Mr. Zhou’s faxes to Indianapolis city mayor and his sheriff, such as Mr. Zhou’s partial medical records, which Indy government released the partial around June 2007 but still hid other part of his medical records, such as Mr. Zhou’s injury photos. Mr. Zhou specially told Robert about Indianapolis government chiefs lied to response the court subpoenas, their perjuries in several situations, and their tampering with evidences crimes, the crime scene’s surveillance system and the surveillance footage under the court subpoena in this event: many Indy government staffs confirmed to Mr. Zhou that there was the surveillance system of Indianapolis City County Building, specially on the 4th floor of Indianapolis City County Building, where Mr. Zhou was assaulted and injured by Belanger, there is the lock-in jail on 4th floor with security camera; thousands of Indy government staffs know the existing of surveillance system of the whole Indianapolis City County Building, which was upgraded by Bush federal government finance.

During the 3 hours meeting, FBI agent Robert was convinced by these clear evidences and facts, the crime’s elements: the time, place and suspects and their crime details were clear, Mr. Zhou supplied the amply information to agent Robert. Belanger’s self-denial testimonies and its transcript clearly had proved it as the perjury without needing anyone’s testifying, which was also the obstruction justice felony crime. Mr. Zhou’s photos of the round-injuries on two sides of his head, and the partial medical records proved that they were caused by beaten, not as Belanger testified under oath with his lies that Mr. Zhou’s injuries was caused by fallen down. 

What FBI agent Robert found was consistent as two IU law professors had found, was consistent as what American jurors found. For the issue that Indy government hid the surveillance recording to cover up, there were over thousand Indianapolis government staffs who knew the existing of the surveillance system of everywhere of Indianapolis City County Building, not just the mayor and sheriff chief knew. Agent Robert agreed that it is easy to investigate the existing surveillance system and Indianapolis government chiefs’ tampering with the surveillance footage of this event, since thousand of staffs know the existing of surveillance system of Indianapolis City County Building.

In the end of the meeting, agent Robert concluded that it was a corruption crime case, not only a human right abusing case or hate crime case. Robert said that he would report it to the chief agent Welch, let chief Welch to decide which squad to take the investigation, because there are two squads in this field office, which could investigate Mr. Zhou’s kind crime case. Agent Robert asked Mr. Zhou to wait for chief Welch to contact him. However, since then, Mr. Zhou had called the chief agent Welch for many times; send the mails to FBI field chief agent Welch. But chief agent Welch never replied to Mr. Zhou.


A few days later after Mr. Zhou went to FBI Indianapolis field office to report the hate crime event, on April 24, 2008, he went back to Indianapolis Marion County Court for the court conference of the retrial, which was set by judge in January 2008. When he passed the clerk office, which is in front of the courtroom in the narrow hallway, the clerk asked him why he came back the court, his case had been dismissed. Mr. Zhou was so shocked, because he never knew his case had been closed; when he called the clerk in March weeks ago, the clerk repeated to him the next hearing date April 24, 2008; and at the last hearing in January 2008, the prosecutors even strongly asked the judge to set the trial date of the retrial, they were so angry for his refusing to sign their agreement, they never wanted to drop the case, which was recorded into the records. How was the case closed, when prosecutors never wanted to give up this wrongful prosecution case?

Mr. Zhou wanted to know the reason for the dismissal of his case, why he did not receive any copy service from the judge, the clerk refused to let him go to the courtroom to check. Something special had been prepared in advance: 5 sheriff deputies were already in the clerk office, they immediately came to Mr. Zhou to ask him to no go in, warned him to be arrested if he goes to the courtroom. The court clerk office normally has no policeman.

Mr. Zhou asked the clerk for the order about the case’s closing, the clerk made the copy, and then notarized it under his request. In the order of the dismissal, it showed some early date of the order as February 8, 2008, it also showed the prosecutors filed their motion to drop the whole case on February 6, 2008, then judge ruled to dismiss the whole case. 

However, in March 2008, when Mr. Zhou called the court clerk to check the transcript, which the court reporter said to be done about one month at the last hearing January 2008, the clerk checked and told him not yet, may be ready before next hearing April 24, 2008, the clerk mentioned the next hearing date April 24, 2008, did not say the case was closed.

The Trial Rules regulated the service of filing and order, both prosecutors and the judge should serve their motion and the order to Mr. Zhou, when they were filed and ruled in February 2008. But Mr. Zhou never received any copy of the prosecution’s motion and the judge order in February 2008 or any other time, which had never been serviced.

Thus, based on his March 2008 phone call to the court clerk and based on the facts of his never receiving copies service from the judge and the prosecutor in February 2008 or any other time, these were enough to conclude that the judge order and prosecutor motion were not filed in February 2008 at all, the dates February 6 and 8 of their motion and the order were falsified, not the true filing dates.

Because prosecutors at the last hearing January 2008 was so mad on Mr. Zhou’s rejecting to sign their draft agreement, and prosecutors immediately asked the judge to set the trial date of the retrial, it was impossible that prosecutors then quickly decided to drop the whole case on February 6, 2008 without Mr. Zhou’s signing the agreement or a reason.

The only reason for prosecutors to drop the whole falsified case was that FBI agents began to investigate their corruption crimes, as agent Robert told Mr. Zhou on April 21, 2008 in the FBI field office. FBI’s investigation scared Marion county chiefs and prosecutors and judge, they had to swiftly halt their corruption crimes of using their perjuries and tampering with the exonerate evidences to frame up Mr. Zhou by their reluctantly dropping the whole case. They even did not have the gut to serve the copies to Mr. Zhou based on Trial Rule and the law. 

Then when Mr. Zhou went to the set hearing on April 24, 2008, he found the whole case had been closed and dropped without his knowing. Therefore, it could be further concluded that the dropping case date was within the several days between April 21, 2008 and April 24, 2008, prosecutors and judge did not serve their copies to Mr. Zhou. To cover up the real reason that they dropped the case because of their scared by FBI’s investigation on their corruption crimes, they falsified their filing dates as February 6 and February 8 2008, so that it pretended that they dropped the case before FBI began to investigate on them. But what Mr. Zhou’s calling the court clerk in March 2008 and his not receiving service of judge and prosecutors just proved that the dropping date was not in February 2008 at all, the falsified case was still pending in March 2008. 

If prosecutors was so raging on Zhou’s rejecting their draft agreement, if prosecutors immediately asked the judge to set the trial date at the January 2008 hearing, since they had wrongfully prosecuted Mr. Zhou for so many years since 1997, how possible they dropped the whole falsified case just two weeks later on February 6, 2008 without Mr. Zhou’s signing their agreement and without a reason and without his knowing?

Their dropping the falsified case without Mr. Zhou’s signing was because FBI’s investigation on their corruption crimes upon Mr. Zhou, it is not because they wanted to give up their perjuries to frame up Mr. Zhou by their sudden-growing conscience. These Indianapolis corrupted officers did not have any conscience at all, as law professor found. If they have a little tiny conscience, they would never use their perjuries to frame up victim Mr. Zhou, they would have turned out the crime scene’s surveillance footage on May 18, 2005 at the bond hearing to drop the case within a few hours, not dropped the case after 3 wrongful prosecution years with their perjuries hounding on Mr. Zhou, they would have arrested Belanger on May 18, 2005 based on the surveillance footage.
Although US FBI’ initial investigation for their corruption crime scared these Indianapolis government’s corrupted officers, but these corrupted officers continued to commit several counts of tampering with the evidence felony crimes until today, such as hiding the exonerate evidences of the surveillance footage and his medical records, such as hiding his June 10, 2005 faxes by lying to response the subpoenas until today, their several felony crimes had not stopped yet until today. 

Until today, the transcript of the trial had never been made, although judge had ruled twice in June 2007 and January 2008 to ask the prosecutors to pay to make the transcript.

No matter what, the dismissal of this falsified case ceased their criminal wrongful prosecution on Mr. Zhou, which was built on Belanger’s caught self-denial perjury, when Indianapolis government chiefs hid the crime scene’s surveillance footage to conspire with prosecutors and Belanger to frame up him with 5 falsified charges for 3 years. Mr. Zhou finally proved his innocent, after so many years’ wrongful prosecution with the perjuries, but it had destroyed Mr. Zhou’s life and his engineer career and his health under the tremendous pressures of Indianapolis government officers’ perjury frame-up.

However, these Indianapolis government’s corrupted officers and their multi felony crimes had not been punished by the law, after FBI agent Robert found their corruption crimes on April 21, 2008 based on the evidences during the long meeting with Mr. Zhou at FBI Indianapolis filed office. FBI field chief agent Welch covered up the hate crime case, harbored these corrupted officers with his misprision of the felony crimes.


Iowa Chinese Association director Mr. Swallow Yan had supported Mr. Zhou for 7 years since 2007, he had referred Mr. Zhou to China Tribune chief editor Ruzhao Cheng, then editor Cheng gave the series reporting since 2009 for many times, helped to broadcast for the social justice. Mr. Yan gave him tremendous help and supported his legal actions during these years, such as reporting his hate crime to U.S. FBI Indianapolis field office in April 2008. Mr. Yan made the Chinese Chicago Consulate General to meet Mr. Zhou for International law’s consulate protection. Mr. Yan referred Mr. Zhou to US House Representative with LA editor Qiu and other community leaders.

Mr. Yan was the outstanding community leader, had been invited by president Obama twice to White House as Asian American elite. Just like two IU law professors, Mr. Yan and China Tribune editor Cheng helped Mr. Zhou based on their righteousness.


On June 17, 2011, Mr. Yan referred Mr. Zhou to meet Chicago Chinese General Consulate’s Consuls Song Jianming and Wang Lei, they found his hate crime event as the horrible human right abused case. 

Next Monday, they called US FBI Indianapolis field office’s chief agent Welch based on International Law and its Consulate Protection Treaty, to request Welch to investigate Mr. Zhou’s human right event, Welch’s assistant answered and forward the request to Welch. Without Welch’s reply, Chinese consuls continued to contact Welch a few more times. However, Welch violated International Law with contempt to ignore to Chinese General Consulate’s justified requests. Until today, Welch did not give any reply to Chinese Consuls’ requests, he was audacious violating International Law with contempt, it just proved that FBI field chief agent Welch intentionally committed misprision to cover it up, intentionally violated the International Law and US law. 

FBI’s ignoring was the contempt to International Law and its human right treaty and US constitution and US federal criminal law Civil Right and Hate Crime law.


In November 2012, under the referral of several Chinese community leaders and editors, Mr. Zhou contacted the US House Representative for his hate crime event and for US FBI Indianapolis chief agent’s misprision of this severe felony crime case. At the same day, US FBI agent replied to this US House Representative, its agent promised to give a formal reply in 3 days. Then FBI agent gave a formal reply in 3 days to this US House Representative, admitted to know Mr. Zhou and admitted that Mr. Zhou had reported his hate crime case in April 2007 at its Indianapolis field office, but did not release any record, but the FIOA proposal. 

That FBI agent finally admitted Mr. Zhou’s hate crime event to this US House Representative clearly proved that FBI Indianapolis chief Welch had intentionally violated US law to refuse to reply to Mr. Zhou since 2008, had intentionally violated International Law to refuse to reply to Chinese Chicago Consulate’s consul justified request since 2011; however this FBI chief agent Welch really scared about US House Representative’s inquire for Mr. Zhou’s hate crime event.


In Midwest district, U.S. FBI staffs had harbored to protect the criminal Jon Burge for over 10 years without punishing Jon Burge, who was Chicago former chief policeman and had committed the human right abuse crime for many years. FBI’s misprision of Burge was outrageous, African American in Chicago outcries for tens of years, FBI just harbored Burge in their safe box. Until Obama president was elected from Chicago area, he and AG Holder took the action in 2008, Jon Burge is in federal prison now for his human right abuse crimes, which he committed when he was Chicago chief policeman. 

Now, FBI Indianapolis chief Welch harbored Indianapolis government’s corrupted officers to cover up Mr. Zhou’s hate crime case, it was just the copy of US FBI covering Jon Burge human right crime case. It has to be stopped; US FBI must stop its misprision of Mr. Zhou’s hate crime event. Chicago is about 110 miles from Indianapolis, the same federal district of federal government offices.


Under Mr. Yan’s referral, China Tribune editor Cheng and his reporters Ms. Xiaoming Qian and Ms. Xingqi Su had reported it for four times. LA Chinese Newspaper editor Sunny Qiu had reported it twice, World Journal Newspaper Los Angeles chief editor Shyh Yaw Chen had reported this hate crime event for 3 times since 2009, after Mr. Zhou went to World Journal Chicago and Detroit offices with the evidences since 2005, which  offices did not give a report. LA Television Global Version Eastern Wisdom’s English program host Jack Zhao had interviewed Mr. Zhou and journalist Xiaoyna Li twice. The full cover reporting by reporter Ms. Xiaoyan Li was posted online and published by the China mainland magazine in June 2013, got hundreds of thousands readers’ attentions


A group of law professors of several Chinese best law school, of Beijing University and China University of Political Science and Law, Nankai University, had found the merits of Mr. Zhou’s crime event as typical and horrible human right abuse case made by US government officers with their government power tool, had posted his case to their class projects several months ago, gave Mr. Zhou for their legal experts’ supporting.

Previous report links:
http://www.atlanta168.com/articles.php?id=23641
http://www.atlanta168.com/articles.php?id=24642
http://www.atlanta168.com/articles.php?id=27873