4월 11일 월요일 오후 2시, 미주통일신문 원고인은 피고인의 가공할 사기허위 진술(항소심에서) 사실을 1년 후인 지난 4월 8일 늦게 발견(정관개정은 이사회 권한 주장의 1982년의 제18조), 이사회에서 [정관개정에 관한 사항을 심의-결의]한다는 조항을 [정관 개정권한이 이사회에 있다]라고 항소심에 허위 진술. 사기 였다.
이 같은 사기진술을 원고인이 알 턱이 없었다. 원고인 변호사 두 놈도 피고인 처럼 원고인을 속이고 사기를 쳤으니. 1년 간 항소심에 서류 한 장을 제출하지 않았고, 피고인의 "공격" 내용을 알려주지 않고 사기를 쳤으니.
겨우, 2005년 4월 8일 3차 반박문을 법원에 제출하고 돌아오는 시간에 차 안에서 번역사가 원고인 기자에게 "하 기환 피고인이 "정관 개정은 이사회 권한이 있다"고 주장한 정관이 있었는데요..."
아닌 밤 중에 홍두깨 ? 순간, 기절할 뻔 했던 원고인 배 부전 기자. {뭐 ? 한인회 정관(회칙)에 그런 말이 있어 ? 언제 정관인데 ? 뭐 1982년 ? 그러면 나에게 말해야지. 번역사가 뭘 해요 ? ! 빨리 사무실로 가요 ! } 차를 거의 50마일 속도로 달렸다. 법원 앞에서 구 한국일보 사옥 부근까지.
번역사가 가지고 나온 정관, 1982년도 판이 아닌 1984년도 판. 1982년도 한글 판은 없었다. 그려면 ? 1984년도 판도 동일 정관. 어이없는 사태. 법리를 모르는 사람들이 몰라서 몰랐던 무지의 사고.
제18조는, 이사회에서 정관개정을 할 것이 있는가 ? 있다면 그것을 개정할 것인가, 안 할 것인가를 심의 결의한다는 것을 [정관개정 권한이 있다]고 사기를 쳤던 것. 항소심 판사들에게.
항소심 판사들은 원고인 변호사가 쥐약을 처 먹고 서류 한장도 제출하지 않았으니 알 턱이 없는 노릇. 그래서, 항소심 판사들이 {피고, 하 기환이가 주장하는 1982년 정관심리를 다시 해.... }라고 방망이를 두들겼다.
그러나, 항소심 판사들도...... 오해를 받아야 한다. 그 같은 심리는 이미 1심에서 3번이나 판결을 했었다. 비영리단체는 정관을 뜯어고칠 때 몇 몇 이사들이 마음대로 못한다는 주법 5150조, 7150조 있다는 것을.
좌우지간, 재판 경력 100번이 있는 피고인이 항소심 판사에게 사기를 쳣던 것이 2003년 1월 이후, 2005년 4월 8일 오후 3시경 확인. 기자는 부랴 부랴 한글로 작성, 번역사가 오늘 번역완료, 법원으로 달려갔다. 3차 반박문 추가분 제출. 어휴..... 영양가 없는 일..... 아무도 도와주지 않는데.... 미주통일신문 기자 혼자서... 5월 11일 판결. 두고 보자. 작살이 날테니.
Simon Bae, publisher and editor Korea Unity Press, U.S.A. 3010 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 305-7100
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COUNRT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SIMON BAE; and MEMBERS OF THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
vs.
KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC.; KI HWAN HA, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants
Case No.: BC275912
DECLARATION OF SIMON BAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY DATE: May 11, 2005TIME: 8:30 AM DEPT.: 64 JUDGE: Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman
I, Simon Bae, declare as follows:
I am an individual, over the age of eighteen. Each of the matters stated herein is known to me for my own personal knowledge, except those stated on information and belief which I believe to be true. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
I. An important indirect evidence
I would like to submit additional very important indirect evidence for the judgment on May 11, 2005. About since 1995 or 1997, the former and current Presidents of our Korean American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA) amended the bylaws and election control rules by the directors unlawfully without asking the approval of the members. And among those amendments, those in Ha’s terms and Lee’s term affected the rights of the members materially and adversely. On the contrary, as can be seen in Exhibit 1, Korean American Federation of Orange County (KAFOC) opened the board of directors meeting in the Federation Hall on April 6, 2005, and reviewed the proposal of the amendment of the bylaws and election control rules. Then, KAFOC will announce the proposal of the amendment on the media on the 11th day; and then will have the public meeting in the Federation Hall at 11:00 AM on the 13th day; and then KAFOC will have the general meeting at Garden Grove Garden Beach Restaurant at 11:00 AM of the 20th day. (See the news article on April 7, 2005 in Exhibit 1). In addition, as can be seen at another page of Exhibit 1, according to the news article on October 23, 2004, Korean American Federation of San Diego (KAFSD) also announced to hold the public meeting for the amendment of the bylaws of the Federation at their Federation Hall October 28, 2004. Further, according to the article, for this amendments of extension of president term, the adjustment of terms of the executive officers and the directors, etc., KAFSD composed the bylaws amendment committee with President of Korean Senior Association, President of Korean Friendship Association, President of Chamber of Commerce, President of Korean Sports Association, President of Korean Taekwondo Association among the chief officers of the representative Korean community agencies. These chief officers are not the KAFSD directors appointed by the KAFSD President. This committee would research it for 2 months and would show the proposal at the public meeting. In addition, KAFSD had the news reporters propagate it to the public while saying, “Since we handles the bylaws of the representative agency of Korean people, we need the large concerns of the community.”
II. Rebuttal to Defendants’ allegations regarding the 1982 bylaws
In June of 2000, the KAFLA President Ha changed the constitution (the bylaws) and the election rules of KALA in a similar way to the method of Jung Hee Park, former President of Korea in order to extend his term from 2002. It caused the trial to start on about June 19, 2002, and the amendment was ruled as unlawful. Afterwards, Ha challenged another judge, but he lost completely. However, the rich man, Ha, continued to fight with his money. He filed the appeal. Afterwards, my two attorneys cheated me. They delayed the appeal process for 1 year while pushing their job each other. (I will bring those two guys to the court.) There was waste of time from January of 2003 through December of 2003. There was oral argument in the Appellate Court. I found that my attorney had filed no legal documents at that time. It really frustrated me. Until the oral argument in December of 2003, Plaintiff had believed that Plaintiff’s attorney filed the required documents with the Appellate Court already, since in October of 2003, Plaintiff confirmed through other attorney, Mr. Ji Young Kim, by paying $500 to that attorney, that Plaintiff’s attorney filed them with the Court. I paid the Jewish attorney $500. He refused to receive that money. Anyway, the hearing in the Appellate Court was a comedy. The major judge among three judges went out, and only the other two judges presided. Plaintiff found that Plaintiff’s attorney had never filed any document with the Court. Then, the appellate judges reprimanded the attorney, “Did you really pass the bar examination?” Then, the attorney replied he had no experience in the appellate courts. Plaintiff was so astonished and frustrated and upset. Then, the opinion was made after 3 months. Comical appellate process it is. The 2-year unlawful term of president expired, even before the remanding. The opinion indicates that it is an error not to hear the 1982 bylaws. It is another error in the translation certificate. Regarding the surprising discovery of the false representations of Defendant (e.g., alleging 4 page Korean document were translated into 24 page English version) related to the opinion of error in the translation certificate, it has been described in the main text of my reply and Jin Ree’s declaration. Now, in this declaration, let’s focus on 1982 bylaws. This submission of the 1982 bylaws by Defendants has several problems as follows. (1) No Korean source version was filed. Only English version was filed. (2) The name of the translator was not identified, and no certificate of translation is attached. (3) It is unclear that the translator was one of the California State certified court interpreter or not. (4) Article 19 of the English version states, “Board of directors shall deliberate and resolve each of the following: 1. Matters to amend or enact the bylaws, regulations governing elections, and other regulations; …” It is still unclear whether the directors have the final authority of the amendment of the bylaws or just have the discretion of proposing the resolution of matters to amend to the members. Hereby, I believe it should be latter pursuant to Section 5150 of the Code and according to the indirect evidence of KAFOC and KAFDS as described in the above Part. (5) This Article disappeared later from 1995 bylaws. Pursuant to 1995 bylaws through 1999 bylaws, the directors had no authority to amend the bylaws any more, but the members have the authority to amend the bylaws through the annual meeting. (See 1995 bylaws in Exhibit A of “Declaration of Hyun Seung Yang in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment” filed with Defendants’ trial brief; and 1999 bylaws in Exhibit 4 of “Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief.”) (6) Since 1995 through 1999, pursuant to Article 20 Paragraph 1 of both bylaws, the bylaws can be amended in the annual meeting of the members. This provides, “The annual meeting shall be called by the new president every two years between April 1 and April 20 to examine and resolve important matters, including amendment of the bylaws and election administration rules, ….” (7) It means that since 1995, directors have had no authority to amend the bylaws at all and even no authority to resolve the proposal of the amendment. (8) Therefore, the 1982 bylaws have been no longer effective since 1995.
As a summary, the 1982 bylaws, which looks the only favorable evidence to Defendants, has not been effective since 1995, and thus it was not an effective evidence as of June of 2000, when Defendant amended the bylaws unlawfully. In this way, Defendants violated not only Article 21 of the 1999 bylaws but also Article 6 and Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the bylaws. Therefore, they violated Section 5150(b) of the Code. Much worsely, and much differently from the amendment in 1997 and 1999, the amendments during Ha’s terms and Yong Tae Lee’s term including but not limited to (1) the amendment of the extension of president term, (2) virtual limitation of poor candidates (See Kang’s declaration), (3) amendments of the financial provisions of the bylaws from Articles 30 and 31 of 1999 bylaws to Article 25 of 2000 bylaws (See Parts III and IV of Bae’s Declaration in support of Opposition), (4) amendment to “registered directors” from “registered members” affected and infringed materially and adversely the rights of the members. Therefore, Defendants also violated Section 5150(a) of the Code.
III. How have I been involved in this case?
After changing so many provisions of the bylaws and election rules arbitrarily with the directors following Ha in 2000, Defendant Ha re-ran the presidency in 2002 again. This was the first comic incident in the history of KAFLA. Then, after interrupting other candidates intellectually, Defendant Ha was elected without voting as a single candidate. He saved election cost of about $200,000 in 2002. In 2004, his following president was elected also without voting. The news of the re-election of Ha without voting from the extension of president term is published. More than 20 chief officers of Korean community agencies and more than 100 members gathered in front of KAFLA Hall and made vehement demonstration with the pickets while demanding, “The re-election of Ha is invalid,” “Step down.” Police unit also showed up. These demonstration continued afterwards. The media could not resolve it. In the evening time of the vehement demonstration, I was eating dinner with Scott Suh who was a Korean assistant for Los Angeles City Mayor and a pastor (3 people). They deplored, “Ha was re-elected unlawfully. He interrupted other candidates, too. How did it happen?” Then, I suggested, “Then, why don’t they file TRO rather than just deploring orally.” Then, they replied, “Who in Korean community will dare to pay for a lawsuit? Nobody will dare.” Then, I asked, “How much will be the cost of the lawsuit?” They said, “$5,000 will work.” Then, I gave the money to them for filing the lawsuit. But I did not appear in front nominally. By the way, I was attempting to get back that money since they could not pursue the lawsuit. Then, a former KAFLA President and the members who could not run for presidency because of the bad amendments retained an attorney. But I confirmed that many of the members were willing to participate in that lawsuit but did not dare to add their names as Plaintiffs in the complaint. Those people gave up as formal Plaintiffs, because they worried about the damage claims if they lost in the lawsuit. Then, I (I was and am a news reporter) researched the offenses of Defendants. In order to find the scale of the offenses, I researched the provisions of the amended bylaws and collected the information while discussing other news reporters about the background of unlawfulness of the bylaws amendments. I discovered an amazing phenomenon. Every news reporters said, “It is unlawful. But I cannot testify.” The reporters were afraid of Defendant. Moreover, some of the reporters were protecting Defendant. (Later, I made some of them to be removed from the editing department to other department. Since they tired to protect Defendant and distorted the true facts and suggested, “Plaintiffs will lose”, I reported to their supervisors.) Even some of the directors appointed by Ha said, “The bylaws amendment was not performed in the board of directors reasonably. I did not present in the meeting. Since they failed with the present directors, they passed it through faxing, and so on….” Of course, the media continued to publish, “The bylaws amendment was unlawful. They interrupted specific candidates….” I found that a wealthy person changed the bylaws of a public benefit organization arbitrarily with the self-conceit and despotic mind, “Who will dare to pay so much amount of lawsuit though I made unlawful acts?” And I found that it was the violation of the constitution. Thus, in about early 2002, I began to search Korean attorney and non-Korean attorney. Some of the attorneys told me to deposit more than $30,000, and an attorney who had reviewed the documents told he would not take the case. There was the inauguration ceremony on June 2, but all of the attorneys refused the case about on June 10, 2002 after delaying the refusal decision. Accordingly, I decided to file TRO trial in pro per without attorney of record. However, I could not dare to file it in a single name of mine only. Thus, I persuaded two other persons to make three co-plaintiffs. I paid $2,500 to a Korean attorney to prepare the complaint paper, and I filed it with the court on June 18, 2002, which was 2 days before the inauguration. On June 19, when 3 co-Plaintiffs arrived at the court, the other 2 Plaintiffs asked me, “Where is our attorney?” I responded to them, “We have no attorney. We will do it only with the interpreter.” Then, they said, “What? Are you going to do this trial without an attorney? No! Please leave out our names from the Plaintiffs. If we lose, we also will be damaged.” Then, they withdrew. Since then, I have remained as only Plaintiff. Nevertheless, at the hearing on June 19, 2002, which was continued by one day, as expected, I got a favorable ruling in the TRO trial though the application was denied. The ruling of Judge Yaffee states, “Plaintiffs claim that the person now serving as president of the Federation, Defendant Ha, was not elected to that position in the manner required by the corporate bylaws of the Federation. Plaintiffs are correct in that assertion.” It also states, “Said bylaws are not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that they may be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the board of directors.” However, the ruling on that day, which did not grant the injunction against Defendants, made Defendants continue to violate the state laws. In other words, the injunction against Defendants should have been granted since their unlawfulness was confirmed. But since the application was denied though their unlawfulness was confirmed, I still continue to spend a lot of money and continue to be demanded to pay the debts and accounts payable. Even my car has been secured.
IV. Some of the past history between Plaintiff Bae and Defendant Ha.
Finally, the past court disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant did not influence this case. What triggered off the court dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was when the defendant Kee Hwan Ha, in March of 1990, fraudulently filed the bankruptcy of Korean Unity Press, USA which the plaintiff publishes. The defendant had forged the plaintiff’s signature, social security and committed Korean Unity Press, USA into not even a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He had completely bankrupted the company unrecoverable. It was ridiculous. The plaintiff at the time had only $7,000 in debt; moreover, researching the terrorist nation of North Korea and reporting about it was my life’s calling and mission. There was no reason at all to file for bankruptcy, but it happened. I found out about the bankruptcy in 1993, at a bank. At the time in 1987, the plaintiff was being directly and indirectly supported by the President of Korea and the Commander of the Korean Army. Moreover, in order to increase the activity of the Korean Unity Press, USA in America, the Korean Government had given the Presidential sanction to the newspaper. The plaintiff had been exchanging information about North Korea with Korean CIA agents who were stationed in the US for about ten years. However in 1989, two of the intelligence agents asked the plaintiff to meet with them at a restaurant. (Currently Yongsusan Restaurant) At the time, they told the plaintiff that from now on the Korean government is pursuing reconciliation with North Korea. The plaintiff will now have to go to North Korea and meet their people. We must get rid of our animosity toward them and must act as their big brother. Therefore, the plaintiff should get ready to go to North Korea. This is an order from headquarters. The plaintiff immediately responded by saying, “I will not go to North Korea. My research into the North Korean establishment shows that it is not time yet to reconcile with them. This will backfire on us. Did the North Koreans ask to reconcile?... As a result of this, the approval of the previous President to support the plaintiff had been cancelled. And in order to cancel this, the defendant extracted the signature of the plaintiff who had been a tenant in the defendant’s building at the time, and gave it to the intelligence agents from Korea. I found out about the fraudulent bankruptcy when Mr. Gwang Duk Hwang, an active Major General of the Army who was stationed in the Korean Embassy in Washington D.C. called me twice in 1994. At the time, the officer said to me, “Three of our boys (President Tae Woo Roh’s lieutenant bodyguards) were messing around…however, it will be okay from now on.” And he comforted me as such. Moreover, Mr. S (deceased) who was the defendant’s Certified Public Accountant at the time called the plaintiff late at night and summoned me to his office. He informed me that the defendant colluded with the intelligence agents and filed the false bankruptcy…and that the defendant had received a lot of money. Not only that, the plaintiff, in order to confirm whether the signature was forged, met with the FBI rep in charge and within ten minutes it was confirmed. At that time, the FBI agent asked “who did such a thing?” and the plaintiff immediately answered “the forger is Kee Hwan Ha.” They said that they will investigate Kee Hwan Ha and I believe that he had been investigated later. Afterwards, in order to receive compensation, the plaintiff started a civil action suit. At the time, the presiding judge yelled at the defendant Kee Hwan Ha as he was about to testify and told him to “shut up! And sit down.” The judge had a furious expression on his face and stopped the defendant’s testimony. Then he told the plaintiff to say whatever he needs to say in Korean and the interpreter will interpret in English. And so I testified about the damage for about twenty minutes. The judge knew about the in’s and out’s of the case enough so that he asked the plaintiff if he wanted a jury trial. However, about a month later when the trial resumed, the judge disregarded the forgery confirmation by the FBI and gave a horrendous judgment saying that the signature looked like that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported this tremendous error in judgment to the Department head of the FBI, Civil Court’s Chief Judge, California Governor, and even to the L.A. Times. The judge of the case then died, we do not know the cause. Currently in 2005, the plaintiff has secured funds and will retry the additional forgery case of the defendant. This is shocking that the court which should carry out justice gives wrongful judgment and that a criminal should be protected by the law. This kind of error in adjudication by the American Court system saddens the hearts of us immigrants. This is a travesty of the civil court system which should not occur ever again. As we have seen above, the initiation of the lawsuit regarding the illegal bylaw revision of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles by the plaintiff was absolutely warranted. The defendant in January of 2002 had asserted a similar position as this when he was at a disadvantage; however, the plaintiff swears by heaven that this case has not been started with an ulterior, impure motivation.
V. Conclusion
As discovered in their opposition arrived on March 31, Defendants cheated the Appellate Court. And as stated in the main text of my reply, they failed the quorum for 2/3 votes with illogic of “number of directors of consent votes is larger than the number of present directors”. Defendants used the 1982 bylaws to interpret that directors have the authority to amend the bylaws from the Article 19 of that bylaws, “Board of directors shall deliberate and resolve each of the following: 1. Matters to amend or enact the bylaws, regulations governing elections, and other regulations; …” The director may deliberate (or review) and resolve the proposal of the amendment of the bylaws, but they do not have the final authority of the final amendment of the bylaws. Moreover, this ambiguous article has not existed any more since 1995. Then, why KAFOC and KAFDS unlike KAFLA let the directors deliberate and propose and then announce in the news media and then hold the public meeting and then hold the general meeting? It is clear and convincing that KAFOC and KAFDS complied with the non-profit organization laws, whereas KAFLA violated the same laws. I pray this Court to punish Defendant Ha, who continued his second term against the judgments of unlawful amendment of the bylaws and invalid election for three times, and then cheated the Appellate Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 11, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.
By: ______________________________ Simon Bae
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is, 110 N. Berendo St., Los Angeles, California 90004.
On April 11, 2005, I served the foregoing documents described as DECLARATION OF SIMON BAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Katherine Frenck Paul, Hasting, Janofsky & Walker, LLP 515 South Flower St., 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
BY MAIL
I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on a motion by party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the “date of deposit for mailing" in Affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 11, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.
___________________ Jin Ree
Korea Central Daily [Estimated: April 7, 2005]
The proposal for the amendment of Korean American Federation bylaws on the 13th day.
Invited Yong Taek Han, Joseph Shin, and Lin Choi as directors.
Korean American Federation of Orange County (President: Young Dae Ahn) opened the board of directors meeting in Korean American Federation Hall on the 6th day at 6:30 PM and reviewed the proposal of the amendment of the bylaws and election control rules.
Korean American Federation had the opinion that the election control rules for the direct election by voting in the next term should be prepared to reduce the disturbance. And Korean American Federation will announce the proposal of the amendment on the 11th day and have the public meeting in the Federation Hall at 11:00 AM on the 13th day, and then have the general meeting at Garden Grove Garden Beach Restaurant at 11:00 AM of the 20th day.
In addition, the Federation invited Yong Taek Han, Joseph Shin, Lin Choi as directors, and promoted Directors Byung Hyoo Lee and Mee Ae Lee to Deputy Representative Directors.
On this day, the Federation decided to the signature movement for the objection to Japan as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and started to get the signatures from the agencies, religious organizations, and got the signatures in the markets on the 8th day (today) and the 10th day.
Further, the Federation provisionally decided to have the annual golf event on July 7 to prepare the fund for operation.
<Reporter Sang Hwan Lim>
Saturday, October 23, 2004 San Diego
The bylaws of Korean American Federation will be amended newly.
The public meeting on the 28th day… The bylaws amendment committee researched it for 2 months.
The adjustment of the terms of the president and executive officers.
Korean American Federation of San Diego (President: Nam Kil Kim) will hold the public meeting for the amendment of the bylaws of the Federation pursuant to Chapter 6 Section 38 Paragraph 2 of the bylaws at the Federation Hall (7750 Dagget St., #210 SD) at 7:30 PM on 28th day.
The purposes of the bylaws amendment at this time are to amend the unrealistic provisions and to clarify the unclear parts. For this amendment, the bylaws amendment committee with the moderator Kyung Yul Ahn (President of Korean Senior Association), commissioners Jae Doug Lee (President of Korean Friendship Association), Young Hwan Kim (President of Chamber of Commerce), Byung Hwan Yang (President of Korean Sports Association), Won Kee Min (President of Korean Taekwondo Association) was composed, and this committee will research it for 2 months and will show the proposal at the public meeting.
Regarding the rumor of the indirect election of the president, Nam Kil Kim, the Federation President, denied the rumor while saying, “That is not the fact. In considering the scale of Korean community of more than 30,000 people, the indirect election is not appropriate and may be accompanied by some side effects.”
The major issues of the amendment of the bylaws at this time are extension of president term, the adjustment of terms of the executive officers and the directors, the mandatory director fee, etc. It is known that about 30% of the bylaws will be supplemented or deleted.
The bylaws amendment committee personnel said, “Since we handle the bylaws of the representative agency of Korean people, we need the large concerns of the community.” They requested a large participations of the people. Phone for questions: (858) 467-0803.
web design by StouchDesign
NEWS IN ENGLISH
