「外国人記者クラブ」諸君に告ぐ。「小沢一郎裁判」における日本の「最高裁スキャンダル」と「小沢一郎殺し」の政治謀略を世界に向けて発信しよう。中国の「薄熙来事件」以上の大事件、大スキャンダル、大クーデターが、今、まさに、この日本で起きている。明日、「外国人記者クラブ」で記者会見予定のジェラルド・カーチスはCIAの情報提供者であり、手先だと言われている。カーチスこそ、小沢一郎という日本の有能な政治家を政治的に抹殺し、日本を奴隷国家にしようとしている、いわゆる「小沢一郎殺し」の張本人の一人なのかもしれない。「CI
■森ゆうこ議員の英文レポート。「FCCJの皆様へ。」
Members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan
A Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy: The Illegality of the Ozawa Trial
Tomorrow, April 26, a verdict will be delivered in the trial of Ichiro Ozawa, a trial resulting from a decision, by the fifth Tokyo Prosecution Inquest Committee, to force an indictment in his case.
The day before yesterday, we addressed a demand to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the House of Councillors to hold a closed session of the respective Justice Committees of both Houses to investigate the management of the Prosecution Inquest Committee. The demand was accompanied by a petition signed over the prior two days by 136 lawmakers. Please refer to the provided translation of the document.
As the illegality of the decision to order a forced indictment, made behind closed doors by 11 randomly selected members of the public, is explained in the document referred to above, I would like here to focus specifically on the Investigation Report submitted to the Prosecution Interest Committee by the Special Investigative Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office. Part of that report has been leaked by yesterday’s issue of the weekly magazine Shukan Asahi, and it reveals that even though prosecutors were unable to indict Mr. Ozawa due to a lack of evidence, the report claims conclusive prove that Mr. Ozawa was involved in criminality. This is nothing more than the falsification of official documents by the investigative authorities, which is itself a criminal offence.
The court case involving Mr. Ozawa should be immediately suspended as it has become clear that a falsified report was submitted by prosecutors, behind closed doors, to members of the committee, who were not legal experts, in order to convince them to order an indictment for the purpose of delivering a guilty verdict against a specific individual politician. Those involved in falsifying the Investigation Report should also be severely punished. These acts can only be carried out on an organizational level. Mr. Ozawa is a member of the Diet, the highest organ of the Japanese state. He is a representative elected by the people of Japan through fair elections as determined by the Japanese constitution. As such, an organization-wide effort by the investigative authorities to unjustly repress the political activities of Mr. Ozawa, someone who, were it not for such underhand actions, would have gone on to become Prime Minister, is a threat to the core of Japan's democracy.
The media in Japan have not only failed to properly report these events, they have actually contributed further to the efforts to bring down Mr. Ozawa with incessant negative coverage.
We respectfully ask for the co-operation of the members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan in informing the Japanese people and the people around the world of the truth behind these events.
April 25, 2012
Yuko Mori
Member, House of Councillors
Former Senior Vice Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
■森ゆうこ議員の英文レポート2
Demand to Hold a Closed Session of the Justice Committee to Investigate the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution
Mr. Takahiro Yokomichi, Speaker, House of Representatives
Mr. Kenji Hirata, President, House of Councillors
To uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy, we make the following demands of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the House of Councillors.
We demand that both Houses hold a closed session of their respective Justice Committees to investigate the management of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution. We request that the required instructions be issued to those concerned.
Reason for this demand:
(1) According to the Act on Committee for Inquest of Prosecution, Article 3, the committee has independent authority. However, there is no law to specify which of the three branches of state has jurisdiction over the committee. As a result, although the committee is able to exercise extremely strong administrative authority by issuing orders for "forced indictments" as a result of the powers of indictment invested in the committee by an amendment of the Act, no-one is in a position to take responsibility for such indictments, a situation that many legal experts have identified as possibly unconstitutional.
Further, as Article 26 of the same Act legislates that the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution proceedings should be carried out in secret, it is essentially impossible to examine whether decisions to force an indictment were reached by following the appropriate legal procedures.
(2) In addition to the above general shortcomings, the case of Ichiro Ozawa, a member of the House of Representatives now on trial in a criminal case resulting from such a forced indictment, has revealed unbelievable behavior by prosecutors, namely the falsification, by Prosecutor Masahiro Tashiro of the Special Investigative Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office, of the investigation report submitted to the fifth Tokyo Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution. The falsified portion the report was the principal reason behind the forced indictment, and we believe that this alone is enough to render the forced indictment invalid. It is also now clear that Prosecutor Tashiro engaged in other illegal activities including the use of incentives to influence witness testimony, actions which have been severely criticized by the judge.
(3) In the first place, the fifth Tokyo Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution that ordered the forced indictment of Ozawa went through various problems in the selection of its members including repeated mistakes by the committee secretariat in calculating the average age of the 11 committee members, a major failure that resulted in three separate announcements. Furthermore, when announcing the average age of two separate groups of 11 randomly selected members of the public, the secretariat announced the average age of both groups to be 34.55, identical down to two decimal points, an extreme statistical unlikelihood. Other issues include problems with the software for random committee member selection. As such, the public have major misgivings about the fairness of committee member selection, a crucial issue under the Act on Committee for Inquest of Prosecution.
(4) Due to the extremely limited nature of information disclosed, there have even been repeated protests, including large demonstrations and meetings, by members of the public who have doubts over whether the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution actually met at all.
(5) It has also been pointed out that an interview with prosecutors as required under the Act on Committee for Inquest of Prosecution, Article 41.6, Paragraph 2, was not carried out in accordance with regulations.
The Act on Committee for Inquest of Prosecution does not allow for a designated lawyer prosecuting the case to withdraw the indictments, nor does it allow the defendant to challenge the validity of the forced indictment resolution. Clearly, these are defects and omissions in the Act. Not addressing these issues would constitute a failure to act on the part of the legislature. This situation requires immediate investigation. In order to carry out an investigation while respecting the non-public and independent nature of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, the only possible method is a closed-session of the Justice Committee in both Houses, and we therefore make the above demands.
April x 2012
Members of the House of Representatives and House of Councillors
■裁判について。
April 25, 2012
Suspicions over the Tokyo 5th Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution That Filed a Mandatory Indictment against Diet Member Ichiro Ozawa
Volunteer citizens pursuing their suspicions about the dubious prosecution of Mr. Ozawa
Takehiko Shiki and Katsuko Ishikawa
History of the Incident
． On March 3, 2009, when Diet member Ichiro Ozawa was also the president of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Mr. Takanori Ohkubo, who was a secretary of Mr. Ichiro Ozawa and also in charge of accounting, was prosecuted in connection with illicit donations. Specifically, the prosecution claimed that the Rikuzankai, Mr. Ozawa’s political fund management body received illicit donations from two nonexistent dummy political organizations. The two political organizations were, however, proven to be not dummies in court (in the Nishimatsu case.)
． The prosecutors then invented the Rikuzankai case (regarding inaccurate dating of real estate acquisitions), and conducted an extensive investigation spending a large budget of 3 billion yen. As a result of this investigation, the prosecutors charged three former secretaries of Mr. Ozawa and the three former secretaries were judged guilty at the first trial. However, Mr. Ozawa was not charged, because of insufficient evidence.
． After that, citizens filed a motion with the Tokyo Fifth Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution that the investigation conducted by the prosecutors of this dropped case was insufficient. A Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution whose members are supposedly chosen by lot was convened twice, and the committee decided to charge Mr. Ozawa both times. Based on these decisions, Mr. Ozawa faced mandatory indictment. The case is currently being heard and the verdict will be given on April 26. It turned out that the investigation report submitted to the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was fabricated by one of the prosecutors.
Citizens’ Suspicions
． Did the Committee for the Inquest into the Prosecution convene and resolve in a regular way?
The prosecutors determined not to pursue the case after completing a large-scale investigation, but the decision was reversed by the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution without conducting any re-investigation. We find this highly suspect.
The six major newspapers reported on September 8, 2010 that the investigation was being upgraded and that a decision would probably be made at the end of October. The decision was, however, made on September 14, six days after the release of the report. September 14 was the date of the presidential election of the DPJ, in which Mr. Ozawa was running. These facts cause us to suspect that, if Mr. Ozawa was elected as the president, some kind of political power attempted to depose Mr. Ozawa as party president using the mandatory indictment decision as a political card. It is impossible to make a decision that quickly if the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution held at that time was regular.
The Office of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution has never disclosed the dates of the committee meetings, the number of times the committee meetings were held, and the rooms used for the committee meetings. They did not even keep minutes.
The Asahi Shimbun the next day reported the announcement of the decision (October 5) and the report of Yomiuri Shimbun on the second day after the announcement (October 6) was based on a dubious leak by someone related to the committee and cannot be trusted at all.
． Were any of the committee members selected fairly by lot?
The average age of the members of the first committee was initially announced as 34.27 and then changed to 34.55. The average age of the members of the second committee was initially announced as 30.9, then changed to 33.91, and then changed again to 34.55. A miscalculation of the average age of 11 people is most unlikely. Moreover, the average ages of the first and second committee members were exactly the same, 34.55. The probability of an average coincidentally resulting in the same young age (34.55) is about 0.000001%, meaning that it cannot be a coincidence.
We requested them to disclose the age，the date of birth, and the birth month of each committee member, but they have never done so. A total of 44 committee members have been selected, including the supplementary members. However, nothing can be inquired of them despite the suspect decisions that have been made by the committee.
． We suspect that the Supreme Court Secretariat may have exerted its influence in the selection of the committee members, committee supporting member（lawyer）, and the timing of decisions.
With the lot software created by the Supreme Court Secretariat, it is possible to manually input the names of candidates who are not selected as committee member candidates by the board of elections and freely erase any candidates.
Our Activities to Clear up Suspicions
In order to clear up the abovementioned suspicions, we contacted the Office of the Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution and the Supreme Court Secretariat that manages the committee office to ask questions and made a right-to-know request. As a result, the following facts were disclosed.
． The Supreme Court Secretariat controls and manages the Office of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution.
Court administrative officials are designated as the office clerks of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, and the Supreme Court Secretariat is in charge of all personnel affairs such as transfer, promotion and pay rises. They also restructure the framework of the organization.
The secretariat creates the rules and manuals used in the operation of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution. The secretariat directs the operation via documents.
The secretariat performs certain operations for the committee, such as sending questionnaires to committee member candidates.
The secretariat creates tools such as the lot system software and handbooks for the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution.
The secretariat undertakes budgeting and operation planning.
2. The Office of Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution has never disclosed the dates of the committee meetings, the number of times committee meetings were held, and the rooms used for the committee meetings. No conference minutes have been disclosed either.
3. The Office does not disclose the age, the date of birth, and the birth month of committee members or member candidates.
4. We requested disclosure of invoices for daily allowances and traffic expenses. However, we were shown only documents with the member names, dates of appearance and payees' bank account information blacked out. No one has confirmed the existence of the committee members.
5. The Office does not disclose the names of petitioners.
6. A citizen reported to us that the explanations, required by law, about how to exercise one’s membership of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution were given on September 28 (indicating a possibility of a breach of law)
Conclusion
Whether committee members were selected according to the law, whether the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was convened in a regular way, what information and explanations the prosecutors gave to the committee, and what discussions took place there: none of these have been disclosed. There is much that is suspicious, and violations of the law may well have happened. According to the Act on Committees for Inquest of Prosecution, a Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution is to perform its operation independently. But in actuality, the Supreme Court Secretariat controls the Office of Committees for Inquest of Prosecution and is suspected to exert some kind of influence on the decisions made by the committee.
To dispel the above suspicions, the Supreme Court Secretariat and the Office of the Committee for Inquest of Prosecution must disclose the facts. The final judgment should only be made after disclosure of those facts.
■本日、有楽町「外国人記者クラブ」で配布された「英文レポート」は、ここで読めます。
http://civilopinions.main.jp/2012/04/425.html
（続きは、『思想家・山崎行太郎のすべて』が分かる!!!有料メールマガジン『週刊・山崎行太郎』(月500円)でお読みください。登録はコチラから、http://www.mag2.com/m/0001151310.html ）
