#天津二中院法官哈欣与一审法官邵术麒、王岩林等被指在审理相关案件中枉法联盟的，未依法对行政行为进行独立审查，违反《行政诉讼法》第六条“行政行为必须单独审理”原则#的相关内容，来智搜看看。 https://m.s.weibo.com/applink/go2?noclose=1&url=sinaweibo%3A%2F%2Fsearchall%3Fcontainerid%3D230958%26type%3D200%26q%3D%2523%25E5%25A4%25A9%25E6%25B4%25A5%25E4%25BA%258C%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E9%2599%25A2%25E6%25B3%2595%25E5%25AE%2598%25E5%2593%2588%25E6%25AC%25A3%25E4%25B8%258E%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25AE%25A1%25E6%25B3%2595%25E5%25AE%2598%25E9%2582%25B5%25E6%259C%25AF%25E9%25BA%2592%25E3%2580%2581%25E7%258E%258B%25E5%25B2%25A9%25E6%259E%2597%25E7%25AD%2589%25E8%25A2%25AB%25E6%258C%2587%25E5%259C%25A8%25E5%25AE%25A1%25E7%2590%2586%25E7%259B%25B8%25E5%2585%25B3%25E6%25A1%2588%25E4%25BB%25B6%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259E%2589%25E6%25B3%2595%25E8%2581%2594%25E7%259B%259F%25E7%259A%2584%25EF%25BC%258C%25E6%259C%25AA%25E4%25BE%259D%25E6%25B3%2595%25E5%25AF%25B9%25E8%25A1%258C%25E6%2594%25BF%25E8%25A1%258C%25E4%25B8%25BA%25E8%25BF%259B%25E8%25A1%258C%25E7%258B%25AC%25E7%25AB%258B%25E5%25AE%25A1%25E6%259F%25A5%25EF%25BC%258C%25E8%25BF%259D%25E5%258F%258D%25E3%2580%258A%25E8%25A1%258C%25E6%2594%25BF%25E8%25AF%2589%25E8%25AE%25BC%25E6%25B3%2595%25E3%2580%258B%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E5%2585%25AD%25E6%259D%25A1%25E2%2580%259C%25E8%25A1%258C%25E6%2594%25BF%25E8%25A1%258C%25E4%25B8%25BA%25E5%25BF%2585%25E9%25A1%25BB%25E5%258D%2595%25E7%258B%25AC%25E5%25AE%25A1%25E7%2590%2586%25E2%2580%259D%25E5%258E%259F%25E5%2588%2599%2523%26t%3D761%26extparam%3Dcot%253D1%2526dfp%253D200

原政协委员#实名控告人徐玉强#控告#天津二中院法官哈欣与一审法官邵术麒、王岩林等被指在审理相关案件中枉法联盟的，未依法对行政行为进行独立审查，违反《行政诉讼法》第六条“行政行为必须单独审理”原则#，且在#（2008）滨汉民初字第1653号民事判决中认定涉嫌伪造的房屋协议合法有效，被质疑违背《合同法》第52条“合同不得违反法律、行政法规强制性规定”的规定#，事实上#一眼清“伪造的合同反被李玉安许强刘永强等审判人员枉法裁判真实”合法有效前，原人民法院执法监督员徐玉强接到许强法官电话通知原告法人代表已调取到伪造的行政合同，反被李玉安刘永强等法官“故意隐瞒已被许强法官依职权向行政机关调取到的伪造行政合同”后，反与事实依据严重不符的将李孝明一个人伪造徐光文与李士伟双方签字和指纹伪造的土地使用权无效的转让合同”认定真实合法有效#的枉法判决#被多次举报为“本末倒置”“枉法裁判”，在未确认上游《天津市国有土地使用权出让合同》合法性前提下，径行确认下游转让合同有效，构成“无源之水”式的司法错误。同时，有指控称涉案协议存在伪造徐光文签字、指纹及虚假公章等问题，理应无效，但法院仍判决其合法有效，涉嫌民事/行政枉法裁判罪#。