Simon Bae, publisher and editor
Korea Unity Press, U.S.A.
3010 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 305-7100
In Pro Per


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



Korea Unity Press, U.S.A., Simon Bae, publisher and editor,
and members of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles, INC.,
Plaintiff        

Vs.

Korean American Federation of Los Angeles, Inc., Ki Hwan ha,
and Does 1 to 50, inclusive.,
Defendant        

Case No.: No. BC 275912

Refusal and denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Request for temporary dissolution of the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles, Inc.
and nullification of non-profit status.

Date: December 2, 2004
Time: 8:30am
Dept.: 64
Judge: Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman



Plaintiff’s motion to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

(In consideration of the special circumstances surrounding this case, the plaintiff, unable to fully trust any attorney, has opted to proceed without counsel, but has solely put together these statements with the help of an interpreter. I hope that the Court will have an understanding heart in considering these unskilled statements of an immigrant plaintiff.)

<1> On this December 2nd of 2004 at 8:30am I, Simon Bae, being a naturalized citizen of these United States of America, being over 18 years of age, being the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Korean Unity Press, being the sole plaintiff of this court case, stand here in the courtroom as a member of this organization authorized by the bylaws (Chapter 1, General Provision Article 5 states “This organization is composed of residents of the county of Los Angeles, at least 18 years of age who are either Permanent Residents or Naturalized Citizens. Membership is distinguished between regular members and honorary members.”) of the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles, being the foremost charitable organization of the Korean Community, which started in 1960.

Today the defendant claims that since he has stepped down from the office of president on June 30, 2004 that the case should be dismissed. However, I fully and completely deny that request and further request that the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles be dissolved temporarily and that the registration for a non-profit organization be nullified.

The defendant has stepped from his office but he has outright violated California state law Article 7150. And since June 19, 2002 judges David Yaffe and Mel Red Recana and two others have over three different occasions ordered

(Violation of amending the bylaws, violating the rights of the board of directors. Disobeyed the injunction to step down immediately and have a reelection. Violation of California Law Article 7150.)

Although the right to revise the bylaws lies with the registered members who are 18 or over, the defendant, in trying to hold on to his office for a second term, brought together a so-called board of directors consisting of 17 people. Here he carried out an illegal revision of the bylaws, especially changing the laws aiming at certain people so as to limit and incapacitate them from running for office. He has also without reservation changed election laws resulting in a violation of the constitution. Ultimately, he was the sole candidate, thus taking office without an election (even during the revision of the bylaws, he claimed that “he will not run for office again.” And even if, as the defendant claims, the right to revise the bylaws lies with the board, the revisions of the laws will only be in effect for the following term and president.).

The defendant has deleted the regulations for elections (Article 2 Provision 3 which states that the board which has been appointed to oversee the election process cannot be part of the board for the following term.) which has been in effect for some thirty years. This kind of scheming is suggestive of the fact that those who actively cooperate in the illegal election process will be considered for the board on the following term. Moreover, after the defendant’s reelection, this actually took place and those board members were the ones at the forefront of revising the bylaws.

On January 14, 2003, Judge Recana, after a trial, ordered an immediate reelection. However, the defendant, instead of working to bring a reelection into effect, actually put a proxy in place to prolong the process so as to prohibit a reelection from taking place.

After the defendant’s term, the current administration of the KAFLA has also acted in violation on July 26, 2004 when similar to the defendant, they also without notifying the registered members through newspaper publication, revised the bylaws.

This time, the officers fixed the bylaws by themselves (it is suspected that they are in cahoots with the defendant.). during the board meeting, the presider merely asked “do you agree with the revision of the bylaws?” and moved on. The court must pay attention to these occurrences.

For the past thirty years, article five of the bylaws stated the membership of the KAFLA has been restricted to permanent residents and citizens over 18. however, after the defendant’s term the new president and the officers secretly revised this law (thus even illegal aliens could become registered members.) without even notifying to the public that such an event will take place. The board members were gathered at a restaurant and were forcefully asked if they agreed with the revisions. I cannot just sit back and not report this criminal collusion where a revision simply passed on this one question. Judge, how can an illegal alien become a registered member.

What’s even more incredulous is the fact that, in the face of all these trials with the defendant arguing the fact whether the right to revise the bylaws lies with the board or the registered members, even in light of these four trials, the new president has, in fact, come forth and stated that the right to revise the laws lies with the board. How can this happen?

Once again, this time a few members of the board and officers gathered and in collusion, revised the bylaws, saying that the right to amend the laws lies with the board and not the registered members. Our members, however, do not know a thing about this kind of criminal activities as of this December 2, 2004.

In other words, the new president and administration as of July 2004, as successors of the defendant, has once again changed on their own accord what is the very heart of this very argument which is who has the right to revise the bylaws. They have changed this and in fact set in stone the very lie which says that 2/3 of the board can change the bylaws.

The court must clearly penalize these repeat offenders, the defendant and his successors, who have continually defrauded the registered members.

I am very weary of how these organized criminals are going to change the laws again. The court must take note of how these offenders are revising and deceptive concocting the laws so as to prevent the members who do not have the financial wherewithal to bring a lawsuit against them.

In light of the fact that these offenders along with the defendant has never had any intention of falling in line with the regulations of the non-profit organization of California, but has intentionally bulldozed over the rights of the members with continual illegal activity, I, the plaintiff, have confirmed that the KAFLA, which outwardly has been called a community service organization, but has, in fact, been for forty years a criminal organization.

In other words, if the right to revise the bylaws of a non-profit organization registered with the state of California, not merely a personal company, belongs to the president and the officers, then the logic follows that the right to elect the president of the United States lies not with the people but with members of the congress.

If one pays specially attention to election regulation provisions 1, 4, 5 and 6, it clearly stipulates that the president is not elected by the board but by registered members 18 and over who are either permanent residents or citizens, who do not have criminal records. And in light of such facts, things as important as electing a president or revising the term of the presidency should be first notified to the members at large and upon their consent should it be done. However, to say that 10 or so members of the upper echelon can do this on their own accord is a grave error. The plaintiff alleges that the appellate court has committed a serious error.

They have increasingly put the burden and pressure on the public membership through their illegal activities and prolonging of the trial process for the past three years. On this
December 2, 2004, I, the plaintiff, allege that not only the defendant but the appellate court has grossly misrepresented the laws of California, thus the defendant along with those in office at KAFLA will have to take responsibility for their actions. Under such audacious precipice, today I hope that the court will once and for all decide who holds the right to revise the bylaws, the privileged few or the registered members, and thereby prevent the defendant from misusing or abusing the laws of the state or any laws for that matter.

Furthermore, I request that this court, in line with the spirit of democracy and freedom, order the cessation of their term immediately and dissolve the current administration so that a new and free election could take place.

The Background to the request for temporary dissolution of the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA) and the nullification of the non-profit status.

As confirmed above, the defendant and their successors have once again revised the bylaws without notifying the members or making public such a meeting, but rather a privileged few have come together to take up a one-sided revision. Thus it leads one to believe that the successors of the defendant will likely not follow through on the demands of the registered members, therefore, it is conclusively deduced that an emergency dissolution and nullification of the KAFLA is needed at this point.

What’s even more startling is the fact that the defendant, during his tenure in 2000~2001, treated this organization as if it were his own personal company. He not only neglected the demands of the constituent members, but went on to form an egregious congregation of 17 of his own followers(2/3 not present. Can prove this) to fix the bylaws and the election regulations. And even to this very day, his devious actions are violating the very rights of our registered members. The defendant’s dubious actions and violations have not been amended but live on. They cannot be protected by the law and I, as the plaintiff, posit that the defendant’s motion to dismiss has no merit whatsoever and there are plenty of substantial evidence to be denied.

In other words, article nine of the bylaws, which our members have kept for the past thirty years, the article which stipulates that, “the term of the presidency is to be two years and at the end of said term all powers are relinquished. Moreover, a second term is prohibited.” After thirty years, the defendant, without any consent from the members, congregated 17 of his followers and revised it to read, “The president of this organization may have the right to run a second time.” (June 2, 2003) there was a precedent where then head of bylaws revision committee Grace Han and four other members including the president colluded to extend the term of the presidency by six months. This kind of activity is deemed illegal.

This kind of unfortunate and unforgivable acts committed by the defendant is alive even today as a legacy so that for the past four years the right to run for office has been limited and restricted. Thus, such infringements of the very basic rights are still prevalent today and even the current president seems to have taken office by violating the California laws.

Moreover, regarding the illegal laws that the defendant has made, the current administration also seems to be not wanting to revert back to the bylaws of 1982. Therefore, the plaintiff is requesting that the court give a strong and clear judgment.

Furthermore, the defendant has completely ignored the judgment to step down immediately and hold new elections as laid down by the judge at the initial trial. Thus he cannot deny the immense amount of trauma he has caused the members. Therefore, I request that, until a new public servant comes forth and is elected, KAFLA be temporarily dissolved and its non-profit status be nullified.

The defendant has, during his tenure, violated the spirit of the constitutional governance, completely disregarded the California laws including  Article 7150 of the non-profit laws and committed various other infringements. He has in fact forged the signature of the head of the bylaw revision committee to illegally revise the bylaws, appropriated some $300,000 of the contribution funds and especially because of the illegal bylaw revision of June 2004, the ripple effect has reached even till today and many of the 700,000 members of the organization are in complete disarray and chaos. He must take responsibility for his actions. An ultimate and forceful injunctive statute needs to be set.

What’s more startling is the fact that the illegal revisions of the defendant are being recognized as being legitimate. The non-profit laws of California are being grossly neglected by the defendant, and furthermore, he has set it so that a person cannot run again for office for 10 years after. As such he has infringed upon the rights of the members and restricted free competition. Thus he has violated the rights of our members forbidding some of them from running for office. (election regulation provision 4)

Also, he has extended the term for 6months thereby ending his term on june 30 when for thirty years, the term has always ended on December.

Also regarding the contribution funds collected, (to be audited every year by one certified public accountant and one respected member and to be reported to the board as well as published in newspaper. Bylaw article 9 provision 31) the defendant has changed the provisions so that he does not have to report to the members nor publish them in the papers.

Moreover, the defendant has, during his two terms totaling in four years, received around $1.3million which he has never reported to the members. Then four months after stepping down from office which was October 13, the defendant merely signed personally and appropriated funds. He never attached the bank statement from Wilshire State bank to the fiscal reports. According certain experts and journalists, it seems as though around $300,000 has been embezzled and so I am currently investigating this. (the plaintiff has reported these facts to the FBI to be investigated) such startling facts have been discovered around November 5, 2004.

For the past thirty years, our members have directly elected the president and never has there been any infringements upon our rights to revise the bylaws regarding the terms of the office. (The reason being that funds needed to run for president was around $100,000 to $250,000. Moreover, after being elected some $200,000 is used to operate and maintain, thus no one wanted to run for office for a second term.) After thirty years, the defendant has come along using his wealth as a weapon. And even if the revision of the bylaws by the board were legal, it still would not apply to the current president during whose term the revision took place. However, the defendant has claimed that there could be legal repercussions in the future and so this is the best preventive measure. The court must punish such evil actions.

<2> if I do not ask for another trial, then the rights of our 700,000 members will forever be violated and this problem will not be resolved. And for the past three years, the court has vacillated from decision to decision and thus the credibility of the California laws regulating the non-profit organizations have taken a nose-dive. Moreover, the greatest community service organ, KAFLA, has become a den of thieves and yet this criminal bylaw is still in effect.

<3> The appellate judge has committed a grave error in denying the request of the defendant for a new trial by submitting the Bylaw from 1982 as new evidence. In consideration of the significance of the document, a new trial was needed. Thus overturning of the initial judgment by the appellate courts was a serious mistake due to their ignorance of the essence of the argument.

The main thrust of the judgment of the appellate court which hung on the examination of the 1982 bylaw, was already thoroughly gone over during the first trial. Judge David Yaffe and Mel Recana has over three times judged that the plaintiff was right and that the defendant should step down immediately and have a new election.

The very reason for today’s proceedings is because the appellate court had allowed the defendant to stay on and finish out his term by giving him an extension.

The reason for my requesting this trial is because the appellate court has not been able to recognize the true substance of the matter at hand and also has overlooked the right to a speedy trial. As a result, the Korean community is in disarray and the credibility of the laws is going down.

What’s even more troubling is that the defendant illegal actions have gone unchanged until today, December 2, 2004. No one is looking to amend the wrongs. If the court continues to overlook such atrocities even today, then the 700,000 Korean community will start to doubt the validity of American laws.

<4> Plaintiff asserts that the defendant has taken on this organization which is a community service organ, as if it were his own personal company and in June of 2000, brought on self-appointed board members, 17 in all who were his followers and illegally revised the bylaws. This still continues unchanged today. Through the defendant’s schemes provisions 6 (stipulates the observance of the bylaws by all members), provision 9 (prohibition of running for office again), provision 21 (revision of bylaws and rights to membership). All of these illegal changes are still in effect today.

But because the courts have not laid down a stiff judgment, thus our members are still ambivalent about the courts and having no knowledge about the laws of non-profit organizations, they are in confusion. The defendant has ignored the California non-profit laws and so if the courts do not punished, then it may be a problem.

The court must recognize the fact that if you do not lay down an unwavering judgment, because the defendant is a very apt litigator, then the KAFLA will forever become an illegal organization. If you do not lay down a just judgment today, then these criminals backed up by their financial wealth will take advantage of the Korean community as well as the laws of California.

<5> they have ignored the judgment of the first trial and did not step down immediately. Moreover, the successors are still upholding the illegal bylaws till today. Therefore, I request that the courts may temporarily dissolve the KAFLA so that the Korean community leaders and members may come together to reconstruct a new community service organization.

<6> in order to illegally revise the bylaws, because the necessary 2/3 of the board member vote was not procured, the defendant had forged the signature of the head of the bylaw revisions committee. Thus the plaintiff is seeking to have an expert signature analyst examine the signature to confirm this fact. (Evidence attached. Analysis fees will be paid for by plaintiff)

<7> the defendant seeks to have the plaintiff penalized for not showing to court dates because he does not know about the strategy of the plaintiff. Additional facts will be submitted.

The plaintiff, while denying the defense motion to dismiss, also requests for a retrial. Such will be sent via registered mail.

Oath of Simon Bae, the plaintiff, regarding the denial of the defense motion to dismiss.

I, Simon Bae, the plaintiff flatly refuse the defendant’s motion for dismissal.
I also request that the organization be temporarily dissolved and the non-profit status be voided until a new administration which will dismiss the illegal bylaws will appear.

1.        this plaintiff can prove all the criminal activities of the defendant who has moved for a dismissal. If the court so desires, I can provide many apt witnesses to do the same as well.



========
important facts which help to show the necessity of requesting for a retrial

I immigrated to America in 1981. I am a naturalized citizen. I have been a print journalist since 1972 and am currently the publisher and editor of Korea Unity Press (www.unitypress.com). I also have a 30 minute talk show on cable tv 83 which analyzes the terrorist activities of North Korea.

-----

Particular characteristics of the case

1. I am the plaintiff of this case. I have alleged that the KAFLA still maintains the illegally revised bylaws which were so revised by the defendant between 2000 and 2001and thereby infringing upon the non-profit laws of California and upon the rights of the constituents.

The defendant has not shown any kind of remorse regarding his actions. Moreover, this illegal law is still implemented and is not regarded or recognized as illegitimate even now.

Furthermore, the current administration also seeks to revise the laws according to their own views and thus for the members to secure our rights, we can only turn to the courts for their firm and just judgment.

In light of what the current administration has done, it is suspected that they are in cahoots with the defendant. Thus as such criminal activity is surfacing, the KAFLA can be mistaken for a criminal organization, so the court must condemn these activities.

In light of the testimony above, even if the defendant’s  term has ended in June 30, 2004, his criminal acts are still uncovered and have not been rooted out or reverted back to normal. Therefore, I request that the motion to dismiss be denied and a new trial be started.

Until the illegal term extension of the president and all the illegal bylaws are reverted back to the norm of the bylaw of 1982, I have very good reason to press hard upon the crimes of the defendant which resulted in the chaos and confusion within the Korean community to seek punitive judgment from the courts. Thus until that day comes, I request that the KAFLA be dissolved temporarily and the non-profit status be nullified.

The plaintiff further asserts that in the continuing retrials, the problem is not the cessation of the term of the defendant, but that through his actions, thirty years of tradition of the Korean community has been tainted and this fact needs to be affirmed before the Korean community. Also, especially because the illegally revised bylaws are still implemented in place thereby infringing upon the rights of the members, the plaintiff believes that the defense motion to dismiss be stricken and that a new trial be granted.

2. the defendant claims that “he has ended his term on June 30, 2004 and has never taken office since.” However, he is ignorant of the fundamental principles of the laws of America and needs rightly be punished. Due to the defendant’s criminal activities, the non-profit laws, which are based upon the democratic principles, remain illegally based even to today. And due to this, during the 2004 27th elections there were people who were restricted from running for office. (victims and witnesses available)

3. the plaintiff also requests a signature analysis report from a court appointed handwriting analysis expert because the defendant has deceptively forged the signature of Mrs. Grace Han, the head of the bylaw revision committee. This is needed to shed light upon such facts. (forged signature will be submitted as evidence)

the defendant is known to have been sued over 100 times by real estate investors. Thus he has been to court over 200 times and is known to have certain misdemeanor records. He is also an expert in filing for bankruptcy. He has been known to take out millions of dollars of loan from Korean banks then for some reason or other he would file for bankruptcy thereby causing great loss to the banks. Moreover, he has put most of his assets under someone else’s name and is reputed to be a corrupt real estate investor.

The plaintiff also asserts that the defendant has no record of ever getting audited by the board members regarding the $1.3million of contributions that he received during his tenure from 2000 to 2004 from the Korean government and Los Angeles firms. He has never published the actual revision of the bylaws but just did it himself, never disclosed the bank statements from Wilshire State Bank, never received the two signatures from the auditors but just signed it by himself and called the current president to a restaurant and unofficially withdrew some money. In all $300,000 out of some $1.3million have either been misappropriated or embezzled. I have requested an investigation last week from the federal bureau of investigation.

The plaintiff cannot sit idly by while such criminal activity abounds. The defendant remains remorseless and even the current administration resembles such “den of thieves” and yet the registered members are clueless to the law so remain puzzled. The defendant and his cronies with their wealth as buffers remain untouched, it is like trying to crack a brick wall with an egg.

At the onset of the initial trial, certain members of the journalists were siding with the defendant and so I had to shed some tears. At that time, I had to inform certain publisher of newspapers to let them know what was really going on.

However, in December of 2003, due to the prolongation of the appeals trials (the essential matter of which was to be the immediate removal from office of the offender) but due to the delayed response of the appellate court, the plaintiff’s right to speedy trial was violated.

Moreover, upon close analysis of the judgment of the appellate court, one can easily find traces of evidence showing the appellate court was being lax in letting the defendant finish out his term. After the appellate decision, certain Koreans were saying, “what kind of judgment is this?” or “this is very funny”. Certain portion of the Korean community started to doubt the facility of the justice of the American legal system and even the media focused in on such a phenomena. The plaintiff at this time pointed to the impropriety of the decision and spoke about this on the Channel 18 broadcast and even reported this to the appellate judges and investigative agencies.

The plaintiff has taken on a debt of about $50,000 due to the trials that took place over the past three years. However, even after the conclusion of this trial, I do not seek to receive compensation from the defendant regarding these fees. I only seek the bylaw of the KAFLA to be reverted back to the state of 1982.

My purpose in all this is to see any and all members without criminal records to be able to throw their hats into the presidential race and compete freely using a minimal amount of funding. My position is that such corrupt individuals as the defendant never again be the cause of fundamental democratic rights being infringed, non-profit laws of California never again be abused, fabricated, corrupted nor forgeries of signatures be used to mislead the Korean community. Moreover, it is an even greater outrage that actual members who participate in the day to day affairs of the organization never even once bothered to speak up against such evil deeds. Never once did they even protest against the defendant and so the corrupted bylaws remain till today. I cannot overlook such facts and that is why I am seeking for a new trial today.

In nearby San Diego, the Korean community there, last month, announced to the media that their revision of the bylaws will take around two months of examination then it will be disclosed to the media and a public hearing will take place. Also, in a similar case with a Korean Senior citizens group, Judge David Yaffe, on July 16, 1999 (case NO. BC 211894) decided that “self-appointed board members overlooked the authority of the members and revised the bylaws by themselves” and ordered the organization be dissolved and nullification of non-profit status be made possible.

The plaintiff pleads that the court, on December 2, 2004, find that the appellate court during it legal process delayed unnecessarily thereby overrunning time needed for a fair trial. Moreover, we know that during the first trial, it was decided that the president and ten of his cronies cannot on their own, revise the bylaw as stipulated by the non-profit laws. And as such I hope that such truth will be revealed and the KAFLA be dissolved and non-profit status be voided so that a new organ may be structured so that we may once again be registered as a just and stable non-profit organization with the state which will once again show the 700,000 Korean community members that America is truly the living example of justice.

I, the plaintiff, swear to the judge that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge.


Detailed list of the defendant’s violations

<1> Bylaw of the non-profit organization Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles. Article 1 the name of this organization shall be Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles.
Article 3 According to the federal laws of the United States and the laws of the state of California, this organization shall be  non-profit.
Article 5 Its registered members shall be 18 years of age, permanent residents and citizens of USA and residents of LosAngeles county.
Article 6 registered members have the right of vote and eligibility for election and the duty to observe the bylaws.

Article 9 The term of the president of this organization shall be two years and after such term all powers and authority of president shall cease and reelection is prohibited.
Article 21 all meetings shall consist of at least majority presence and all decisions shall be made with majority vote. Exception being revision of bylaws shall be done only with the approval of 2/3 votes.

In interpreting the above statements, “this organization” refers to the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles and it is accepted as being a non-profit organization run by its members. And as stated in article 21, all the meetings of the organization shall be done with at least majority present. However, the ever-important bylaw revision can only be done with 2/3 majority votes. In other words, the KAFLA which is regulated by the laws governing the non-profit organizations, cannot be run like a private company. It is a type of a corporation and such important events as extension of presidential term and bylaw revision shall only be done with the consent of the “shareholders.”

As stated previously, even after the judges decided that the right to revise the bylaws lies with the registered members, and even after the injunction to step down was laid down, the defendant kept on insisting that the right lies with the board members. They kept asking for new trials and thus made me tired and even the judges looked upon the defendant with fret.

Anyhow, the defendant, on March 10, 2004, said incorrectly that the appellate court upheld my insistence that the right to bylaw revision belongs to the board members.

Today, the court must decide once and for all whether the bylaws of the non-profit organizations of California can be revised by the board and the president or through the members at large.

The plaintiff posits that as according to article five of the bylaw, since the host of this very organization being the members at large, its operation shall be based upon their consent. Moreover, for bylaw revisions, it must be made public through publication, members need to be gathered at an open hearing and their opinions be heard then decided.

As the defendant was not weary of such factors, when he had been reelected illegally as the plaintiff had applied for immediate withdrawal from office, he was startled and it seems as though he posited the unreasonable statement that revision of bylaws can be done by the board only. We request a clear and firm judgment from the court.

<2> even if the defendant’s claim that the board has the right to revise bylaws, it is still conclusively evident that their actions were very ignorant and illegal indeed.

From May of 2000 during the defendant’s tenure, he had attempted twice to revise the bylaws by gathering the board members. However, he could not get the necessary 2/3 of 48~50 board of directors. Finally, because he could not get enough of them together, he started to fax the absence board members to receive “yes” votes to revise bylaws. At this time, the Korea times, and other media outlets reported that in extending the term of the presidency, they vote through the fax. (evidence submitted)

<3> As such unconventional attempts to extend his term fell through on July of 2002, he forged the signature of Grace Han, who was the presider during the June 2000 bylaw revision meeting to say that “2/3 vote was procured” and submitted it to the court. (there are witnesses that state that only 17 were present at that time. Also, at that time, the defendant clearly stated that even if the term were to be extended to two times, he would not run a second time. However, he reneged on his promise and ran again and many complained that he had broken his promise. Such words were spoken by the head of the bylaw revision committee. (witness can be provided.)

I will once again disclose a startling new fact. After the trials started on June of 2002, in August of the same year, Grace Han the head of the bylaw revision committee called me to a coffee shop and told me that the defendant may forge her signature to submit to the court. And at that time, signed one of her name cards and gave it to be for safekeeping. Also present were Mr. An Bum Lee, Doctor of political science. Tel 213-272-7996. Can come as witness.)

The court must reconfirm such facts as forgery of signatures submitted to the court and realize that they are like organized criminals. If the court is at all dubious about the veracity of the plaintiff’s statements, then the court should at once appoint a handwriting analysis expert to appraise the signature. At the time of the trial, it was confirmed that the head of the bylaw revision committee gave her signature to the defendant at a later time just to cooperate with him and so this can be confirmed. If the court so needs, then appropriate witnesses will be summoned. The plaintiff will once again request, criminal proceedings regarding the forgery of signature.

<4> I will submit a singular piece of evidence. This is the document the 4 other members (other than the committee head) of the bylaw revision committee did not even sign.

<5> even if the defendant had revised the bylaws during his tenure, it still would not apply to his own term. It would only apply to the next president. However, the defendant has opted to completely ignore the California law and reran for the next term. He has thus disappointed some 30,000 registered members and the media as well.

<6> one must also direct their attention to the fact that the new administration succeeding the defendant also on July 26, 2004 opened a meeting of self proclaimed board members and revised the bylaws on their own accord. (Defendant suspected of being in cahoots.)

the following are some of the infringement of the rights of the citizens that the defendant has committed.

A.        (Provisions regulating the election process of KAFLA) Article 4 (eligibility of candidates) Anyone from the registered members who has never been incarcerated (anyone with a criminal felony record as according US laws or anyone with a unethical or immoral misdemeanor record) or been legally pronounced incompetent. However, the defendant struck the statement “anyone with an unethical or immoral misdemeanor record”. The defendant is known to have an unethical or immoral misdemeanor record. If the court so needs, it should check the defendant’s background records.
B.        Clause five of the same article. (campaign funds are to be used for campaign purposes only…) this clause will has been maintained for thirty years. But during the defendant’s tenure, (1999-2000) and second term (2002-2004), a despicable campaign regulation has surfaced. It states a deposit of additional campaign funds so as to prevent anyone without money from running for office.

In other words, with a deposit of $30,000 and public funds of $30,000, one can use the deposit for campaign funds and even the public funds can be used as campaign funds. Because of this, a certain Mr. ‘K’ told me that he wanted to run for the office but was afraid that losing $60,000 would be detrimental and so could not afford to run.

Under such provisions, a candidate has to deposit a total of $60,000 and with this also, in order to receive part of the deposit back, one must sign a waiver saying that they will not bring any lawsuits regarding the outcome of the election. This in effect, says, that even if a certain candidate wins through corruption, one cannot bring them to court. In other words, because the defendant won the 1999 election through corruption and was sued by his opponent.

Anyhow, the fact that after depositing two deposits of $30,000, and then signing a waiver of lawsuits in case of corruption seems illegal at best. (When Mrs. Scarlet Uhm, (tel. 213-383-6565, 213-248-0192) the person who had sued the defendant for corruption during the 1999 elections, tried to run again in 2002, the defendant changed the bylaw so that those who have brought lawsuits cannot run for another ten years. If the court merely hears the testimony of Scarlet Uhm, it will recognize that the defendant is a corrupt and fraudulent person.
c. we can also confirm how the defendant wanted desperately to continue for a second term. In article 7 (eligible voters and eligible candidates)it had stipulated for the past 30 years that amongst voters and candidates, only one form of ID, whether green card, driver’s license, or student ID needed to be shown. However, the defendant requested an affidavit from the candidates along with two years of utility bills proving residency in LA County and even proof of residency or even Gas bills or water bills for two years. He even asked for phone bills for the past two years from the candidates. (this kind of unreasonable requests were because he was trying to prevent a former Marine, Mr. Moon Ki Nam from running. Mr. Nam had submitted all required documents except for the phone bills which he was lacking 20days to fulfill the two year requirement. Thus I stand here before you today in order to punish the defendant who has completely ridiculed the constitutional spirit as well as those of the current administration who are still maintaining the illegal methods.

d. another startling fact is that the defendant revised the article 4 which stipulates about the eligibility of the candidates so that anyone who has in the past five years sued about the result of an election may not run for another ten years.

The court must pay attention to the fact that the defendant has forcefully taken away the right of a citizen to rightfully bring a lawsuit in order to confirm the corruption of a given candidate’s campaign. That is why I am accusing the defendant of anti-democratic acts and authoritarian proclivities.

E. I hope that these additional facts may help the court make its decision.(October 13, 2004) as laid out in the additional exhibits, the defendant, during his 2002-2004 term, has received $700,000 in contributions however, he has never disclosed this to the members at large and so he is indicted with misappropriation of funds.

In article 8 clause 28, 29 it stipulates that all funds are to be calculated from April 1 to March 31 of next year. Moreover, in clause 31, the auditors are to consist of one CPA and one respected member of the Korean community so that an annual audit may take place and a report be given to the board of directors and published in a daily paper.

However, the defendant has never follow these stipulations during his tenure. Also, while revising the bylaw, he removed Article 9 (provision regarding Audit). And also in article 8, it merely states, “in order to increase the quality and the fairness of income and expenditures, two auditors will selected according to the opinions of the Board of directors.

This is exactly the deceptive criminal activity of the defendant. How can a non-profit organization with contribution income of some $400,000 annually not have an audit or public disclosure to its members?

Thus, this defendant, after thirty years of peace and calm, has come along and committed serious fraudulent criminal activities. Not only that he has, thoroughly violated the laws of the state and nation thus he is unforgivable.

As such, if you search and dig up the fiscal reports of past, you will notice that only his signature appears and that the two auditors never signed them. If the court so desires, the bank statement should be procured from Wilshire State bank and examined for the new trial. I have also made provisions to report this matter to the FBI. According to expert estimations, the defendant has misappropriated $300,000 of funds.

Also, there is factual proof that in 1992 during the riots, the defendant, while in charge of $800,000 which was contribution sent from Koreans abroad and the Korean Government, funneled some of this money for himself.

The plaintiff has met with the man who was entering the information regarding the funds from the riots into the computer. This man has told me that he would hand over this evidence in a disk for $10,000. however at that time, I did not have enough money to make this deal. But I reported this to the FBI and they came to the man’s house and procured the evidence.

Such criminal activities as outlined above are so clear. The damage is still being done. And such damage cannot be corrected. And such criminals as the defendant wearing the mask of public servants are carrying on with their illicit activities. It is my strong assertion that such acts are continuing to this day.

The attorneys for the plaintiff has given up appealing the case and even avoided my contact. He had also delayed the submission of the motions for 10 months. And thus losses were incurred due to this attorneys irresponsible acts.

Moreover, during the trials, certain five cronies of the defendant has come to me, the plaintiff, and tried to bribe, and even threaten me. (information regarding a hit on the plaintiff was procured and on January 20, 2003, reported such facts to the FBI.

The current administration is still continuing on the legacy of deceiving the constituents and illegal revising the bylaws.

It is also sad to say that the illegal revisions which helped the defendant stay one more term in power, has yet to be reversed and there is no one who can reverse this.

And even under the order of the court on Jan. 10, 2003 to step down immediately and have new elections, the defendant used various tactics to prevent this from happening. And so during this new trial we need to confirm the fact that the current administration is same in the actions as the defendant and thus a temporary dissolution of the organization must be ordered.

If the court does not put down such strong judgment, then wealthy guys like the defendant will bother the plaintiff and other innocent members through lawsuits. Moreover, the Korean Community will be in chaos and the members who are unaware of california’s non-profit laws will fall in doubt of the legal system. And such illegal activities will abound in other non-profit organizations.

The non-profit bylaws of the KAFLA should be temporarily nullified. This is the plaintiff assertion for this trial.
* 발행인님에 의해서 게시물 이동되었습니다 (2005-12-22 15:03)