Page 4

Article 3:　The chain of events following the 30,000,000 yen donation. PA began to question her donation. She considered that her deceased husband certainly would not have demanded she donate the life insurance money he had left behind. Also, when PA heard from UCX a story concerning a person who had sold off all her land in order to procure funds to donate money, PA first began to suspect the stories of the spiritual world as fraudulent. PA regretted having paid the 30,000,000 yen donation. However, because UCY had forbidden PA to speak about her donation to anyone, PA could not seek related counsel or advice from anyone, and thus chose to live and bear the consequences alone. PA went to the Kasugabara Dojo occasionally. More frequently though, people were going and coming to PA's domicile to offer prayers and alms to the Maitreya Statue PA had purchased. During this time, an Oasis Society member ordered PA to bring her daughter to the Oasis Society. Also, PA was requested by a follower of Tenchi Seikyo to quit her job at a company (where she had begun working from September 1988), and to come to the said Dojo. Both mother and child were then ordered to join the UC. In addition, PA was requested to make further costly donations and cash loans. In response to all the above, PA deliberated that if she continued attending the above Dojo and so forth, her future would be unstable. Ergo, PA completely stopped going to the above Dojo from January 1989. It was after this decision that PA began to consider a way by which she might have her donation money refunded. Accordingly, PA demanded a certain person by the name of Ishii (the "deacon" of the Kasugabara Dojo), UCX and UCY to issue her a receipt for the amount of donation monies documented in this law suit. Around April of 1989, Ishii personally handed to PA at the PA residence a receipt for 30,000,000 yen written out under the name "UC Fukuoka Church." Around August 1989, PA engaged an attorney to help her recover the above said donated monies et. al. The following is a list of recovered damages, each gained vis-a-vis out-of-court settlements. - (1991.5.30)In retribution for the cost of a wall painting: Recovered a sum of 220,000 yen from Miyabi Co., Ltd. - (1991.1.25)In retribution for donated monies: Recovered a sum of 5,000,000 yen from ReiSeki Aikokai. - (1991.1.18) In retribution for the cost of a Maitreya statue and rosary beads, and for the cost of signature seals: Recovered a sum of 5,130,000 yen and 200,000 yen, respectively, from Toa Shoji. -In retribution for donated monies: Recovered a sum of 1,870,000 yen from Tenchi Seikyo. 　　All the above statements are recognized as true and valid [ Counter Argument of the UC concerning the 30,000,000 yen Donation] First, the UC held that the demand for the 30,000,000 yen donation was made on the same day from 10:30am to 1:00pm, during which interval 1) whether or not PA believed in Sun Myung Moon and the UC doctrine was clarified, 2) PA's faith in and understanding of the "unification principles" was judged to be sufficient by Endo, 3)PA was explained by Endo the purpose of the donation monies, 4) PA's intent to cooperate to this end was confirmed several times. 5) the sum of 30,000,000 yen was presented to PA as determined from the beginning upon consideration of her assets, and 6) PA's consent to the 30,000,000 yen donation was procured by Endo. Furthermore, the defendant UC denied that there were any other persons aside from Endo and Tokunaga in the room at the time when Endo requested PA's donation. The UC also refuted that Endo repeatedly left his seat (and the room), and that UCY and/or Tokunaga held PA's hands tightly while saying (among other things) "Hang in there. Don't give up." Ergo, the UC insisted that PA could have easily left the room at anytime. This claim is supported by the testimonies of witnesses UCY and the above Endo as well as by several exhibits of proof submitted by the UC. However, in line with the previous decision, even before PA was requested the 30,000,000 yen donation, she had already been urged by the same UC members to make similar donations. This is represented by the occasions when these UC members sought and procured PA's 5,000,000 yen disembursement and 7,000,000 yen donation vis-a-vis narratives used to convey wishes of PA's deceased husband and foreboding of PA's ancestral karma . Hence, it is rational to surmise that even on the occasion of the 30,000,000 yen donation, Endo et. al. conveyed and said the same things as in the previous example. Certainly, it is quite difficult to fathom that any person would candidly go through with a completely unexpected and urgent request for such an exorbitant donation. It may be deduced that on this same occasion, a combination of comforting and fear-inducing language and acts were readily employed. Evidence of such acts is fully represented in PA's deposition. In addition, the contents of both plaintiff B's deposition (concerning acts committed by Gondo who demanded plaintiff B donate a sum of 2,100,000 yen) and PA's deposition (concerning the 30,000,000 yen donation) thoroughly coincide where monetary donations were demanded vis-a-vis conveyances of pleas of a deceased spouse and practices of divination based on interpretation of ancestral backgrounds. In her own testimony concerning the solicitous acts aimed for the procurement of the 30,000,000 yen donation, Endo admitted having shown PA her family lineage chart , and having said (among other things) that the spirits of PA's ancestors would be freed and that PA would be protected by the world of spirits Therefore, based on the above conclusions, Endo did demand monetary donations vis-a-vis conveyances of pleas of a deceased persons and practices of divination based on interpretation of ancestral backgrounds. Conclusively, in light of the various circumstances in which it is natural to presume that monetary donations were demanded vis-a-vis verbal warnings of pernicious consequences that would result in the event demands for donations were not complied with: 1) It is rational to deem that acts were committed as stated in PA's deposition, and 2)It is impossible to readily adopt the above exhibits of evidence - posed by the defendant - which contradict the previous statement, and thus , 3)The defendant's claim is mooted as no further and sufficient supporting evidence exists.
back　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　next