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
Plaintiff, SIMON BAE, AND MEMBERS OF THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. SIMILARLY SITUATED, reply to the Defendants’ Moving Paper in the Trial by Declaration including their OPPOSISITION as follows. This is the reply of Plaintiff Simon Bae to the opposition sent by the attorney for Defendants to Plaintiff on March 31, 2005.
I. Introductory Statements
In their opposition, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants and their attorney committed the offense of false representation in this Court as well as in the Appellate Court and they successfully cheated the judges of the Appellate Court.
Plaintiff requests this Court to inspect the representations of Defendants more carefully, since Defendants are disturbing and confusing the judge’s fair trial with very sly and false methods.
One of the essences of this case is that from 2000 Defendants have transgressed and infringed the rights of the members of KAFLA materially and adversely while violating non-profit organization laws and the spirit of constitution. Hence, Defendants deserves some penalty for their offenses.
Nevertheless, although the attorney of the prominent law firm recognized the clear implications of the rights of members and the compliance of the bylaws of KAFLA, Defendants continue to transgress and infringe the rights of the members of KAFLA materially and adversely and successfully cheated the judges of the Appellate Court and are still attempting to cheat the judge of this Court. Thus, they deserve penalty.
Therefore, Plaintiff discovered in their opposition that not only Defendants but also their attorney has cheated the courts against the fair trial until now, and Plaintiff believes that they violated the provision of ethics of California Bar Association.
As already warned, if Defendants’ attorney of the prominent law firm continues to ignore the state laws and continues to inflict monetary and mental damages to Plaintiff with the large amount of translation fees and attorney fees, he will file the complaint to the Bar Association.
II. Both versions of Plaintiffs’ briefs are equally effective.
In the opposition of Defendants arrived on March 31, 2005, Defendants state, “This Opposition does not address the second brief entitled “Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief” filed by “Plaintiff in pro per.” Defendants request that the Court disregard the second brief in its entirety, a sit was filed improperly.” And Defendants state they would address the brief filed in the name of attorney only, who was temporarily hired by Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes Defendants in this aspect. Plaintiff wonder and suspect why Defendants allege not to address the brief in the name of Plaintiff in pro per but to address that in the name of attorney only?
In the appeal process, Plaintiff was seriously shocked by his own attorneys who were so negligent. Plaintiff’s attorneys had not filed any paper for 1 year in the Appellate Court. These attorneys continued to promise more than ten times to complete the documents for the Appellate Court next week… next week… in front of Plaintiff and Korean community agency chiefs supporting attorney fees, but they continued to broke the promise. It was hard to talk with them over the phone. When I demanded to prepare the documents, the two attorneys pushed the duty to each other for 1 year. These two attorneys, who had been devotional in the trial court, changed their attitudes and even their facial expressions, and delayed the urgent appeal documents.
Plaintiff even called the Korean attorney’s parents since he could not meet them. But Plaintiff got no responses. If he called home phone and left messages in the answering machine, the response was just, “Don’t call home.” Both attorneys avoided Plaintiff. Plaintiff was mad, and blamed both attorneys in raised voice. The ghostly acts of the 2 attorneys in the Appellate Court made Plaintiff suspect them.
Thus, similarly, Plaintiff was frightened again by the suspicious acts of Defendants, who attempted to disregard the documents in the name of in pro per and to respond to the documents in the name of attorney only. As a result, Plaintiff orally dismissed the attorney for Plaintiff on April 2, 2005 at about 3:30 PM. The substitution of attorney was filed with the court and was served to the attorney for Defendants on April 4, 2005.
How were the two briefs filed? Plaintiff prepared a draft of the brief with the help of a California State certified court interpreter, Jin Ree, and showed it to the attorney, Andrew Kim, to complete the final version of the brief while incorporating the whole draft in the brief. However, when Plaintiff saw the final version prepared by the attorney (hereinafter, “attorney version”) on March 14, 2005, he was disappointed since it does not incorporate the draft fully. The total pages are even fewer in the version than the draft (mathematically it should be more). At that time, Plaintiff decided to ignore the attorney version and adopt the version prepared by Plaintiff in pro per (hereinafter, “in pro per version”), and informed the attorney of the dismissal. Plaintiff had Jin Ree edit the draft as a final version hurriedly and print it. Then, Plaintiff filed it with the court.
Afterwards, on the same day, Plaintiff heard from the attorney that the attorney version also should be filed. He was persuaded and withdrew the dismissal and let the attorney version also be filed with the court at the late afternoon.
III. KAFLA of the members by the members for the members.
The government of the United States of America (USA) of the people by the people for the people is the basic idea and principle of democracy of USA. Likewise, KAFLA of the members by the members for the members is the basic idea and principle of democracy of KAFLA, which is a non-profit organization for public benefits of the members. KAFLA is neither a private company for private benefits of the owner nor a gangster organization for benefits of a few big brothers, but is a non-profit organization for public benefits of the members.
Therefore, any provisions of the bylaws or election rules of KAFLA or their interpretations against this basic principle of democracy of non-profit organization for public benefits shall be unlawful; and any amendments of the bylaws or election rules of KAFLA against this basic principle of democracy of non-profit organization for public benefits shall be unlawful. All of the amendments of the bylaws or election rules of KAFLA including but not limited to the extension of president term during Defendant Ha’s terms are against this basic principle of democracy of non-profit organization for public benefits. Therefore, the amendments of the bylaws by Defendants during Ha’s terms are unlawful.
As described in the Plaintiffs’ documents including briefs (especially Part III of in pro per version), the opposition and attached Bae’s declaration (especially Part I and Part III), Defendants’ interpretation of Article 21 is against the democratic principle, and their amendments of the bylaws are also against the democratic principle of a non-profit organization located in the United States. In addition, the so easy amendments of so many provisions of the bylaws and election rules by the directors appointed by the president during Defendant Ha’s terms are also against the democratic principle of a non-profit organization for public benefits located in the United States. Therefore, the amendments of the bylaws during Ha’s terms are unlawful.
The bylaws of KAFLA shall not be amended so easily and so frequently only by the president and the directors appointed by the president, as the Constitution of the United States shall not be. If, fortunately, the president is a modest and not a despotic person, during his or her term, the bylaws may not be amended at all or the minor amendment, if any, will not materially and adversely affect. On the contrary, unfortunately, during the terms of Ha, the bylaws and elections related provisions were amended a lot, and these amendments affect materially and adversely the rights of the members of KAFLA.
As Plaintiff Bae described in detail some suspicion about the embezzlement of KAFLA fund by Defendant Ha has been caused mainly by the so easy amendments of the bylaws by the appointed directors but not by the registered members. (Compare Articles 30 and 31 of 1999 bylaws, and Article 25 of 2000 bylaws.) This amendment looks less serious than the amendment of the extension of president term. But this is an example of the amendment against the principle of democracy of KAFLA “for” the members, whereas the amendment of the extension of president term is the prototype of amendment against the principle of democracy of KAFLA “by” the members.
Once again, KAFLA is a non-profit organization “of” the members “by” the members and “for” the members.
IV. The amendments of the bylaws and election rules by the directors during Ha’s and his successor’s terms materially and adversely affected the rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions or conditions of the members of KAFLA
It has been described pretty in detail until now, and these descriptions can be applied to both the above part and this part. In other words, Part III of brief of in pro per version and Parts III and IV of Bae’s declaration in support of opposition also describe how the amendments by Defendants materially and adversely affected the rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions or conditions of the members of KAFLA. In addition, the declarations of Kang, Eum, and other members also described it. For example, Kang declares he could not run for presidency mainly because of monetary burden. In other words, this amendment directly restrains the voting right of the members, since the members must vote the rich candidates only, who are relatively free from the monetary burden. Thus, pursuant to Section 5150(b) and Section 5150(a) of the Code, that amendment by the directors appointed by Defendant Ha is unlawful. Much less, the amendment of the extension of president term is of course unlawful, pursuant to those Sections.
In addition, during the term of the current president of KAFLA, Yong Tae Lee, the successor of Defendant Ha, in the regular meeting of the board of directors, about in July of 2004, the bylaws was amended again without asking the approval of the members. They proceeded the meeting in Oxford Palace Hotel while telling, “If you agree, please raise your hands.” In this way, they amended several provisions including amending it to “2/3 votes of registered directors” from “2/3 votes of registered members.” Now, by this amendment, Defendants and Yong Tae Lee materially and adversely affected the rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions or conditions of the members of KAFLA in a more formal fashion. Of course, all of these amendments violate Section 5150(b) and Section 5150(a) of the Code, and are unlawful.
V. Surprising discovery of the despicable false representations of Defendants.
Now, let’s describe the surprising discovery of the despicable false representations of Defendants about the issue of being trustworthy of the certificate of translator.
As described in Exhibit 1, through the help of Jin Ree, a California State certified court interpreter of Korean, whose certificate number is 300430, on about April 2 and 3, 2005, Plaintiff discovered very unusual statement in “Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff Simon Bae’s Trial by Declaration regarding the Validity of Amendments to the Bylaws of KAFLA”. It states:
Exhibit 1 consists of the same bylaws and translation that were erroneously admitted into evidence by the previous trial court and reviewed by California Court of Appeals. As much, they suffer from the same inadequacies. The translator’s certificate indicates that twenty-four pages have been translated, but the original document is only four pages long. In addition, the certificate indicates that the title of the original document is “Agreement, Bylaws, and Election Administration Rules,” but the title of the translation is merely “Bylaws.” Furthermore, the translation has a cover page, while the original document does not. (P2 L22 – P3 L2)
The translator of both 1999 bylaws and 2000 bylaws is Jacki Noh. She is a California State certified court interpreter. Her certificate number is 300150, which implies her seniority and experience is higher/ longer than Jin Ree. Exhibit 2 is her certificate of translation.
Firstly, the representation, “The translator’s certificate indicates that twenty-four pages have been translated, but the original document is only four pages long,” is false. The 1999 bylaws in source language of Korean consists of 4 pages and the corresponding translated version in target language of English also consists of 4 pages except the cover. The Korean version of 2000 bylaws in Korean has 4 pages and the corresponding English version also has 4 pages. This implies that 8 page Korean versions were translated into 8 page English versions. On the contrary, it is absolute false that 4 page Korean version was translated into 24 page English version.
These total 16 pages are listed in Plaintiff’s brief with 1 page of the declaration of Jacki Noh and certificate of Presiding Judge. Therefore, Defendant Ha and his attorney could have seen and should have known the true facts.
These pages were also filed with the Appellate Court, and Defendants stated the same false representations and/or misleading representations in the Appellate Court, but unfortunately not only Plaintiff Bae but also his attorneys failed to point it out exactly, and thus the Appellate Judges relied on the argument of Defendants only in their opinion.
Another representation, “The certificate indicates that the title of the original document is “Agreement, Bylaws, and Election Administration Rules,” but the title of the translation is merely “Bylaws”” is also false or misleading at best. Jacki Noh translated about 24 page Korean documents into about the same 24 page English version together with the certificate, and the documents were (1) 1999 bylaws, (2) 2000 bylaws, (3) an agreement, and (4) Election Administration Rules. Plaintiff also believes that the documents of (3) and (4) consists of about 16 pages both in Korean and in English. For some reason, the documents (1) and (2) only were used in this case. 1999 bylaws are just one of the 4 documents listed in the certificate.
It is also found that usually Jacki Noh tries to translate into the same number of pages as the source version through Jin Ree.
As described until now, although Defendants checked the translation by Jacki Noh, who is a certified interpreter in the trial court, they cheated the Appellate Court with false representation. If they continue this intentional false representation against the translation of the certified interpreter approved by the court, Plaintiff will suspect the qualification of Defendants’ attorney and will tell this to the Court on May 11.
Defendants’ false representations were discovered fortuitously but definitely by Plaintiff through Jin Ree in Defendant’s opposition. God helped Plaintiff. In this way of false representations, Defendants successfully cheated the Appellate Court and still are attempting to cheat this Court. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these are intentional and willful and despicable false representations rather than negligent misrepresentation. They deserve the punitive damage compensation penalty.
These intentional false representations also demonstrate that Defendant Ha has no or doubtful credibility.
Plaintiff believes that the whole arguments of Defendants regarding the translation of Jacki Noh cannot and shall not work any more, and her certificate is trustworthy and her translation is reliable, regardless of the opinion of the Appellate Court.
VI. The amendments of the material provisions of the bylaws of KAFLA such as the extension of president term, re-running, etc. require the opinions of the members.
Defendants’ attorney should have known that the amendments of the material provisions of the bylaws of KAFLA, which is a public benefit non-profit organization, such as the extension of president term, re-running, etc. require the opinions of the members. Further, the attorney also should have known that Defendants ignored the system of participation of the members that had been practiced more than 20 years and the amendment of the material provisions of the extension of president term and permission of re-running in the bylaws with 17 directors appointed by Defendant Ha polluted the democratic legal system of the great United States.
To make the attorneys for Defendants understand Plaintiff, how many more times should Plaintiff emphasize it? Do they know that Defendant Ha was elected by the registered members in 2000 but not by the registered directors?
Where did the law firms for Defendants adopt the legal theory that KAFLA, a public benefit organization, which was registered with the Federal laws and State laws, does not require the votes for the members to elect the president or to extend the presidency term? These kinds of anti-democratic acts may be acceptable in the terrorist countries like North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. In the broader sense, the materials and allegations submitted to the court by Defendants demonstrate they ignored the diplomatic policy of spreading democracy by the United States.
In this sense, do the prominent law firm for Defendants think that KAFLA, a non-profit organization, is a private real estate company of Defendant Ha? Will the attorney for Defendants continue to neglecting California non-profit organization laws?
Defendants are still contending, “KAFLA does not have registered members,” and “Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence of registered members.” This made Plaintiff suspect why Defendants’ attorney who might have learned constitution and laws is still contending in that way. Plaintiff believes that Jacki Noh, who is a California State certified court interpreter, knew KAFLA is a non-profit organization for public benefits but not a private company and thus she translated Article 21 of the bylaws of KAFLA according to the non-profit organization laws.
In other words, the bylaws of KAFLA correspond to the Constitution of the United States. Suppose President of the United States and the council members such as Secretaries of Departments (of State, of Defense, of Justice, of Commerce, of Education, of Transportation, etc.) appointed by President amend the constitution to extend the president term for the third term (then, total 12 years will be available to 1 president). Then, who think this amendment of the constitution will not materially and adversely affect the rights of the people of the United States as to voting and transfer? Likewise, the amendment of the bylaws about extension of president term of a non-profit organization for public benefits shall be decided by the registered members but not by the registered directors. This is one of the basic principles of democracy. If Defendants’ attorney continues to ignore this basic principle of democracy and the laws, he will request Bar Association to disqualify the attorney.
VII. Plaintiffs presented the relevant statutory laws.
Defendants allege, “Plaintiff has not presented any law indicating that KAFLA cannot amend its bylaws by the directors.” However, KAFLA is not a private real estate company for profit owned by Defendant Ha, but it is a non-profit organization for public benefits. Plaintiff already presented statutory laws, in the brief and in the opposition, and concluded, “Defendants’ acts violated not only Section 5150(b) but also Section 5150(a) of the Code.”
Pursuant to Article 3 of the bylaws, “The Federation has jurisdiction over the Los Angeles County area and is established as a non-profit organization under U.S. Federal and California laws.” And pursuant to Article 21 thereof, “Revision of the Bylaws shall require favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members.” These articles are perfectly supported by the above law codes.
Plaintiff also presented, “KAFLA is a non-profit organization for the public benefits of Members of Korean people in Los Angeles County, and thus is governed by Part 2 of the Code (Sections 5110 through 6910).” And he also presented, “In this sense, the directors (who are appointed by the president) do not represent the members, whereas the congressmen (who are elected by the people) represent the people of the United States.” In addition, Plaintiff also analyzed how the amendments by Defendants affect materially and adversely the rights of the members as to voting and being voted while presenting the declarations of Kang, Eum, Bae, etc. (See both in pro per version and attorney version of brief.)
Now, Plaintiff needs more help from this Court. There could be some case laws, which support this basic principle of democracy. Plaintiff prays this Court to find some relevant case laws for this.
VIII. Ha’s second term was not valid.
Defendants contend, “Even if Plaintiff were to prevail, KAFLA’s amendment of the bylaws in 2000 and Mr. Ha’s second term were valid.” This contention by Defendants’ attorney makes no sense. Will this attorney also contend that it is proper that a despot extends his term after amending the constitution without approval of the people?
In a community of the United States, which is not a terrorist country but a democratic country, Defendant Ha (who is now suspected with the embezzlement of about 200-300 thousand dollars) made tyrannical acts through bad provisions and one of Ha’s followers succeeded the presidency without voting pursuant to those bad provisions. Still, Defendants’ attorney is alleging the above non-sense contention.
IX. Motivations and credibility
Defendants argue, “Plaintiff’s motivations should be considered in weighing his credibility.” Now, Plaintiff is considering filing a separate lawsuit for defamation, etc. against Defendant Ha and his attorney. As can be seen in Bae’s second declaration, the past relations with Ha have nothing to do with the credibility issue of Plaintiff Bae. Rather, as can be seen in Jin Ree’s declaration, it is clear and convincing that Defendant Ha has no credibility regarding the translation of Jacki Noh.
However, mainly because Plaintiff Bae very recently discovered the false representations of Defendants and their credibility issue really surprisingly as described in Part V and Jin Ree’s declaration, he had to do a lot more preparations for this reply until the deadline of April 8, 2005 (Friday). Fortunately, he could finish the main text of this reply and Jin Ree’s declaration, but he could not finish Simon Bae’s declaration until the deadline. He will file it separately on the next business day, April 11, 2005 (Monday). Thus, he prays this Court to regard the separate filing of Simon Bae’s declaration as valid one.
X. Defendants’ allegation of quorum of 26 directors is not trustworthy.
To prove that 26 directors not 17 directors were present in the meeting of directors on June 12, 2000, Defendants still failed to submit the clear and convincing evidence like 26 declarations of 26 directors or minutes yet. All they did was to utilize the “statement of undisputed material facts”, which contain errors or at best logical fallacies. They utilized Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Exhibit A of Declaration of Frenck instead of actually submitting the minutes. These two paragraphs were marked “Undisputed” in the above Exhibit A prepared by Attorney Endler, who was the former attorney of record of Plaintiffs. Now, for whatever reasons, Plaintiff Bae believes this was a mistake of Attorney Endler. Nevertheless, Mr. Endler marked “Disputed [KAFLA has not submitted minutes.]” all through Paragraphs 34 through 38. If Paragraphs 34 through 38 are disputed, logically Paragraphs 39 and 40 must be also disputed, regardless of the negligence or inadvertent mistake of Mr. Endler. Now, still without showing any clear and convincing evidence like the minutes or 26 declarations, Defendants allege that “This was reflected in the Board meeting minutes” is undisputed, and thus the evidence is sufficient to prove the quorum of 26 presences and 2/3 votes. Conclusively speaking, the evidence of the quorum by Defendants is still insufficient.
As described in Part V and Part IX of this reply, Defendant Ha’s credibility is dubious. In this sense, his allegation and the allegations of some of his followers are also dubious. In addition, their evidence is still insufficient. Hereby, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants failed in the quorum for the meeting on June 12, 2000.
XI. “Total directors of consent votes > total present directors” is absurd and unlawful.
Defendants declared that in order to amend the bylaws, they got about 14 consent votes through faxing. Is this lawful? No, Plaintiffs do not think so. It is unlawful as well as un-mathematical and illogical. Mathematically speaking, total registered directors >= total present directors >= total directors of consent votes. In this sense, even if the allegation of 26 presences is true, this quorum was insufficient for the quorum for the amendment of the bylaws requiring 2/3 votes, though it was sufficient for any resolutions requiring majority votes. To amend the bylaws, at least 29 directors should be present and at least 29 directors of the present directors should vote consent. Total directors of consent votes > total present directors is simply un-mathematical, illogical, and unlawful. Voting through faxing without presence is absurd and ridiculous. Therefore, the amendment of the bylaws on June 12, 2000 is unlawful.
Plaintiffs pray this Court find some appropriate case laws about this mathematics and logic.
XII. Other violations of Defendants
The offenses of Defendant found in the legal processes from May of 2002 are very intellectual and habitual and despicable. Further, there has been the rumor that Defendant bribed some of the media people. Defendant made KAFLA as a den of offenses, and bullied poor Korean people and poor candidates.
In the Los Angeles Riot in 1992, 1.8 million dollars among 9 million dollars of the donations from Korean government and KAFLA members disappeared while being managed by Defendant Ha at that time. (This will be started after this trial.)
The embezzlement of about $200,000 - $300,000 by Ha out of about total 1.2 – 1.4 million dollars of donation from Korean politicians and so on for 2000-2004 is suspected. (The witness will be the representative director of KAFLA at that time, etc.)
Defendant did not announce the details of the donations for 4 years to the members. He did not report to California State or might fabricate the report if reported.
There was forging the signatures of public and private documents including the bylaws. Some of the directors revealed it to Plaintiff that the administrator, etc. was involved in it.
One of the biggest offenses in this case is that the signature of the moderator of the bylaws amendment committee was forged in the declaration of 2/3 votes of the directors submitted to the Court. Defendants got the signature of the moderator later, but the signature in the document filed with the court and signature obtained later are different each other.
Defendant also virtually extend his term 6 months (besides the 2 years) by amending the end of term from December to June.
During the trial of this case, several times, Plaintiff suggested Defendants, “Defendants apologize and Plaintiff drops the case.” But this suggestion was refused by Defendant. Plaintiff was tired of this case during the appeal process and almost gave it up for 1 year in the Appellate Court. If he had the motivation as alleged by Defendants, he would not waste times for 1 year in the appeal process and would show up in the first hearing after remanding.
Now, Plaintiff has insufficient money for this trial. He cannot pay the sanction amount of $725 demanded by Defendants’ attorney, either. So, he could not help taking just an interpreter to the court. He has paid no attorney fee to the attorney hired temporarily. Even now, Plaintiff can forgive Defendants, if Defendant Ha and current president of KAFLA, Yong Tae Lee, apologize in the court and promise through press release, “We amended the bylaws and election related provisions without knowing those amendments violate the state laws. From now on, we will let any proposed amendments be approved or disapproved by the registered members at the time of election of the president.”
XIII. Issue of settlement
When the current president of KAFLA met Plaintiff and requested to drop this case in the last March of 2005, Plaintiff responded, “The settlement will be available, if Defendants apologize and restore the bylaws and the election related provisions to those of 1999.” But since then until April 2, 2005, no contact from them has been made to Plaintiff yet.
However, now, he thinks the derivation of any settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants will not be available. Firstly, if he makes a settlement with them, many members of KAFLA and the Korean government and the United States government may misunderstand that Plaintiff is bribed by Defendants. Secondly, now, Plaintiff is requesting even stronger irrevocable judgment against Defendant by this Court, “The current bylaws are invalid. Perform the speedy re-election pursuant to 1999 bylaws within 3 months. Appeal will not work. The KAFLA is restrained only for the period until the completion of the re-election. None of the followers of Defendant Ha will take the office temporarily as an acting president. The election process will not be managed by Dispute Mediation Committee but by the chief officers of more than 20 community agencies. A stronger penalty will be imposed to Defendants if they disturb the re-election again.” Otherwise, Defendant will disturb the judgment of the Court again with their strong monetary power and Korean community will fall into a big turmoil, and the people will suspect the speedy and fair legal process, and the followers of Defendant Ha will succeed the presidency one after another.
Plaintiff prays again for the stronger judgment than that of January 14, 2003, such as “For temporary dissolution of KAFLA and nullification of the current KAFLA as one of California non-profit organizations until the completion of the new re-election.”
XIV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages and relief against defendant, and each of them as follows:
1. For temporary dissolution of KAFLA and nullification of the current KAFLA as one of California non-profit organizations until the completion of the new re-election (because of the fact that Defendants ignored and disturbed and interfered with the order for re-election of Judge Recana of January of 2003).
2. For the restoration of the bylaw of KAFLA to the bylaw of 1999.
3. For re-election of President of KAFLA by the restored bylaw within a reasonable period.
4. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
5. For damages from emotional distress and mental suffering in an amount to be proven at trial.
6. For consequential damages.
7. For costs of suit incurred herein including attorney fees and interpretation/ translation fees.
8. For punitive and exemplary at damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
9. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted.
DATED: April 8, 2005
By: ______________________________
Simon Bae
Plaintiff in pro per
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 8, 2005, I served the foregoing documents described as 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 8, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.
___________________
Jin Ree
imon 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
I, Jin Ree, declare as follows:
1. 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.
2. I am a California State certified court interpreter of Korean. The certificate number is 300430. I have been this certified interpreter since June of 1992. I am fluent in both Korean and English.
3. I began to participate in this case as an interpreter in 2002. Since then, I have helped Plaintiff Bae for interpretation, translation, consulting, preparing legal drafts and documents, etc. regarding this case.
4. I had already known Jacki Noh, another California State certified court interpreter of Korean, when I began to participate in this case as an interpreter in 2002. I also had met her personally before. Her certificate number is 300150, which implies her seniority and experience is higher/ longer than me. I believe she is fluent in both Korean and English.
5. At the meeting with Attorney Andrew Kim for this case in the evening time of April 1, 2005, I discovered very unusual statement in “Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff Simon Bae’s Trial by Declaration regarding the Validity of Amendments to the Bylaws of KAFLA”. It states:
Exhibit 1 consists of the same bylaws and translation that were erroneously admitted into evidence by the previous trial court and reviewed by California Court of Appeals. As much, they suffer from the same inadequacies. The translator’s certificate indicates that twenty-four pages have been translated, but the original document is only four pages long. In addition, the certificate indicates that the title of the original document is “Agreement, Bylaws, and Election Administration Rules,” but the title of the translation is merely “Bylaws.” Furthermore, the translation has a cover page, while the original document does not. (P2 L22 – P3 L2).
6. When I read it, I already felt something wrong. After returning my office I began to research it by myself. And I concluded that the above statement contains critical false representations and/or misleading representations as of the evening time of April 2, 2005.
7. Firstly, is the representation, “The translator’s certificate indicates that twenty-four pages have been translated, but the original document is only four pages long,” true or false? I confirmed that the 1999 bylaws in source language of Korean consists of 4 pages and the corresponding translated version in target language of English also consists of 4 pages except the cover. I also confirmed that the Korean version of 2000 bylaws in Korean has 4 pages and the corresponding English version also has 4 pages in which no cover is found. This implies that 8 page Korean versions were translated into 8 page English versions, but it is absolute false that 4 page Korean version was translated into 24 page English versions. Therefore, the above representation by Defendants is false.
8. I also confirmed that these total 16 pages are listed in Plaintiff’s brief with 1 page of the declaration of Jacki Noh and certificate of Presiding Judge. Therefore, I infer that Defendant Ha and his attorney should have known that
9. I had already known that these pages were filed with the trial court in 2002, since those pages were cited from the original complaint. And I discovered in Exhibit A of “Second Declaration of Katherine Frenck in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Brief Re Trial by Declaration” that Defendants stated the same false representations in the Opening Brief for the Appellate Court. However, according to my inference, unfortunately not only Plaintiff Bae but also his attorney failed to point it out exactly, and thus the Appellate Judges relied on the arguments of Defendants only in their opinion.
10. Secondly, I also researched the representation, “The certificate indicates that the title of the original document is “Agreement, Bylaws, and Election Administration Rules,” but the title of the translation is merely “Bylaws.”” As of now, I believe that Jacki Noh translated about 24 page Korean documents into about the same 24 page English version together with the certificate, and the documents were (1) 1999 bylaws, (2) 2000 bylaws, (3) an agreement, and (4) Election Administration Rules. I also believes that the documents of (3) and (4) consists of about 16 pages both in Korean and in English. I assume that the documents (1) and (2) only were used in this case for some reason. 1999 bylaws are just one of the 4 documents listed in the certificate. Therefore, I also concluded that the second representation is also false or at best misleading.
11. I also discovered in the above Exhibit A of Frenck’s Declaration, that Defendants stated the same false representations and/or misleading representations in the Opening Brief for the Appellate Court as the above paragraph.
12. There is a third representation, “the translation has a cover page, while the original document does not.” I believe that this is not one of the false representations but it is relatively a minor issue. I assume that for some reason, Plaintiffs omitted the cover in Korean version while filing with the court. This seemed to be a minor mistake of Plaintiffs, but it was not the fault of the certified interpreter, Jacki Noh, I believe.
13. To confirm the above conclusions, I called Jacki Noh in the afternoon of April 2, 2005 and left message. Soon after, she called me and I could talk with her starting at about 5:00 PM. Basically, she did not fully remember and told me she should open her own computer files on or after April 18, 2005 since she was out of home for a while. But I confirmed that her certificate number is 300150 and also that usually she tries to translate into the same number of pages as the source version.
14. I called Plaintiff Bae and told it to him over the phone about April 2 and 3, 2005, and I invited him to my office to explain personally on April 3, 2005. About at late afternoon time of April 3, 2005, I explained it to Bae personally while showing the documents. He was also highly excited while listening to my explanations of the falsehood of the representations in the above statement. He wrote additionally his statement in Korean including the sentence, “God helped Plaintiff.”
15. Now, I wonder how these false representations or misleading representations regarding the certificate of a California State certified court interpreter of Korean, Jacki Noh, could have passed as a true representations until another California State certified court interpreter of Korean, Jin Ree, discovered their falsehood. These representations passed Defendant Ha’s own attorney, passed Plaintiff Bae, passed Bae’s 2 attorneys, and passed 3 Appellate Judges, and then did not pass another certified interpreter.
16. As a result, I believe that the whole arguments of Defendants regarding the translation of Jacki Noh cannot and shall not work any more, and her certificate is trustworthy and her translation is reliable, regardless of the opinion of 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 8, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.
By: ______________________________
Jin Ree
* 발행인님에 의해서 게시물 이동되었습니다 (2005-12-22 15:03) |
NEWS IN ENGLISH
