오늘 4월 13일, 만 4년 째 끌고 나온 LA 한인회 불법회칙 개정 등 사건에 관련 3차 재판이 열립니다. 원고인 미주통일신문 발행인은 3월 14일 담당 재판부에 다음과 같은 [재판 진행 준비자료]를 우송했다. 이 같은 보도는 이 사건이 추후 미주 한인역사에 기록으로 남기기 위한 목적에서 솟장 등을 업 그레이드 하는 것입니다.
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 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
I. Introduction
Until the most recent one since remanding this case to the trial court, every document has been prepared by Plaintiff in pro per just with the help of a Certified Korean interpreter. This brief began to be prepared in that way, too. But at this time, this brief has been reviewed and advised by an attorney, Andrew Kim. Plaintiffs deeply and sincerely appreciate Attorney Andrew Kim, Esq.
During the two terms of Defendant, Kee Hwan Ha (hereinafter, “Ha” or “Defendant”), as the President of THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. (hereinafter, “KAFLA”), many parts of the bylaw of KAFLA (hereinafter, “Bylaw”) including but not limited to the extension of the term of President of KAFLA have been amended. Plaintiffs SIMON BAE; and MEMBERS OF THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) hereby are informed and believe and thereon allege that those amendments of Bylaw materially and adversely affected the rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions or conditions of the members of KAFLA (hereinafter, “Members”) as to electing or voting and being elected or being voted; and Defendants violated Section 7150 of California Corporations Code (hereinafter, “the Code”).
KAFLA is a non-profit organization for the mutual benefits of Members of Korean people in Los Angeles County, and thus is governed by Part 3 of the Code (Sections 7110 through 8910). Among the executive officers including president and directors, the only position that is elected by the registered members is President, whereas directors are not elected by the registered members but basically appointed by President. In this sense, directors do not represent the members unlike congressmen represent the people of the United States. The directors’ function are more like the council members appointed by President of the United States, figuratively.
Therefore, the amendment of Bylaw of KAFLA shall be based on Section 7150 (b). Regardless of the real practice of KAFLA, it should be based on that Section, which states:
Bylaws may be adopted, amended or repealed by approval of the members (Section 5034); provided, however, that such adoption, amendment or repeal also requires approval by the members of a class if such action would: …
According to this Section of the Code, Article 21 of Bylaw complies with the California law. Article 21 states, “Revision of the Bylaws shall require favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members.”
On the contrary, Defendants are still contending, “Revision of the Bylaws shall require favorable votes from two thirds of the directors.” And they seem to allege that the governing code is Section 7150(a), which states:
Except as provided in subdivision (c) and Sections 7151, 7220, 7224, 7512, 7613, and 7615, bylaws may be adopted, amended or repealed by the board unless the action would:
(1) Materially and adversely affect the rights of members as to
voting, dissolution, redemption, or transfer; …
By the way, unfortunately, most of the amendments of Bylaw by directors not by registered members during Ha’s terms materially and adversely affect the rights of members as to voting, dissolution, redemption, or transfer, as will be specified in Part III. Therefore, Defendants’ act violates not only Section 7150(b) but also Section 7150(a) of the Code.
In addition, the translated version of Bylaw submitted by Plaintiffs is correct and accurate, as will be stated in a section of Part IV.
Moreover, Defendants still failed to meet the two thirds of the directors and failed the lawful process, too, which will be described some sections of Part IV.
Plaintiffs prepared the declarations from victims regarding this case to prove the above issues. Plaintiffs hope that they will aid in Court’s decision.
Some of the declarations are testimonies from people who were going to enter into the election race for president of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles, Inc. but could not, because the two defendants illegally amended the bylaws and election regulation provisions. They also declare regarding instances of unlawful activities and damages incurred by one of the defendants (Kee Hwan Ha) during his illegal tenure of presidency between the years 2000 to 2002.
II. Issues
(1) The act or attempt to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors instead of with favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members is unlawful.
(2) The interpretation or translation of the original Bylaw in Korean language as “to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors (instead of with favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members)” is inaccurate and/or improper.
(3) The explicit statement in the original Bylaw in Korean language, if any, “to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors” violates California law codes and thus unlawful.
(4) The appointed directors like directors of KAFLA are different from the directors elected by registered members. The former board of directors cannot and shall not have the authority to amend the extension of the term of President of Bylaw, whereas the latter board of directors may have that authority.
(5) The translated version of Bylaw submitted by Plaintiffs is correct and accurate.
(6) Defendants failed to meet the two thirds of the directors.
(7) Defendants failed in the lawful process of the amendment.
(8) Suppose that the amendment of Bylaw by Defendants is invalid for any of the above reasons. Then, the current President of KAFLA who was elected by that invalidly amended bylaw should also be invalid, and thus new re-election should be performed pursuant to 1999 bylaw in a near future.
III. The amendments of Bylaw by the board of directors during Ha’s terms materially and adversely affected the rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions or conditions of the members of KAFLA
Defendant Ha has stepped from his office but he has outright violated California Corporate Code Section 7150. And since June 19, 2002, Judges David Yaffe and Mel Red Recana and two others have over three different occasions ordered as “Violation of amending Bylaw”, “violating the rights of the board of directors”, “disobeying the injunction to step down immediately and have a reelection”, “violation of Section 7150 of the Code”, etc.
Although the right to amend Bylaw lies with the registered members who are 18 or over, 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 amendment of Bylaw, especially changing the sections aiming at certain people so as to limit and incapacitate them from running for office. He has also without reservation changed election related provisions resulting in a violation of the constitution. Ultimately, he was the sole candidate, thus taking office without an election. Even during the amendment of Bylaw, he claimed that “he will not run for President again.” And even if, as Defendant claims, the right to amend Bylaw lies with the directors, the amendment of Bylaw will only be in effect for the following term and president.
Defendant has deleted the regulations for elections (Section 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 directors on the following term. Moreover, after Defendant’s reelection, this actually took place and those directors were the ones at the forefront of amending Bylaw.
Plaintiffs believed that after Defendant’s term, the current administration of Korean American Federation Of Los Angeles, Inc. has also acted in violation on July 26, 2004 when similar to Defendant, they also without notifying the registered members through newspaper publication, amended Bylaw. However, the new presidential team is alleging that the additional amendments had been performed in previous term, that is, the 2nd term of Ha.
This time, the officers fixed Bylaw by themselves (it is suspected that they are in cahoots with Defendant). During the board meeting, the moderator merely asked, “Do you agree with the amendment of Bylaw?” and moved on. The court must pay attention to these occurrences. In this way, the amendments of Bylaw have been too easy.
For the past thirty years, Article 5 of Bylaw stated the membership of KAFLA has been restricted to permanent residents and citizens over 18. However, after Defendant’s term, they secretly amended this law (thus even illegal aliens could become registered members) without even notifying to the public that such an event will take place. The directors were gathered at a restaurant and were forcefully asked if they agreed with the amendments. Plaintiff cannot just sit back and not to report this criminal collusion where an amendment simply passed on this one question. 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 Defendant arguing the fact whether the right to amend Bylaw lies with the directors or the registered members, even in light of these four trials, the Ha or new president (it is not clear as of now) has, in fact, come forth and stated that the right to amend the laws lies with the directors. How can this happen?
Once again, this time a few directors and executive officers gathered and in collusion, amended Bylaw, saying that the right to amend the laws lies with the directors in an explicit term and not the registered members. Our members, however, do not know a thing about this kind of criminal activities as of now.
In other words, Ha or the new presidential team as the successor of Defendant Ha (it is unclear as of now), has once again changed on their own accord what is the very heart of this very argument which is who has the right to amend Bylaw. They have changed this and in fact set in stone the very lie which says that 2/3 of the directors can amend Bylaw.
The court must clearly penalize these repeated offenders, Defendant and his successor, who have continually defrauded the registered members.
Plaintiff is very weary of how these organized criminals are going to change the bylaws again. The court must take note of how these offenders are amending and concocting the bylaws deceptively 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, Plaintiff, have confirmed that 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 amend Bylaw of a non-profit organization registered with the State of California, not merely a personal company, belongs to the president and the directors, then the logic follows that the right to amend the constitution of the United States lies not with the people nor with the congressmen (who are elected by the people) but with members of the cabinet council.
If one pays special attention to election related Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Bylaw, it clearly states that the President is not elected by the directors but by registered members who are 18 and older and 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 amending 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 executive officers of the upper echelon can do this on their own accord is a grave error.
Defendants 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. Plaintiff alleges that not only Defendant has grossly misrepresented the laws of California, but also Defendant along with those in office at KAFLA will have to take responsibility for their acts. Under such audacious precipice, today, Plaintiff hopes that the court will once and for all decide who holds the right to amend Bylaw, 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.
As confirmed above, Defendant Ha or his successor (unclear yet) has once again amended Bylaw without notifying the members or making public such a meeting, but rather a privileged few have come together to take up a one-sided amendment. Thus, it leads one to believe that the successor of 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 KAFLA is needed at this point.
What’s even more startling is the fact that 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 also went on to form an egregious congregation of 17 of his own followers (2/3 not present. It can be proven) to amend Bylaw and the election regulations. And even to this very day, his devious actions are violating the very rights of our registered members. Defendant’s dubious acts and violations have not been corrected but continued on.
In other words, Article 9 of Bylaw, which our members have kept for the past thirty years, the article which provides that, “The term of the presidency is to be two years and at the end of said term all powers are expired. Moreover, a second term is prohibited.” After thirty years, Defendant, without any consent from the members, congregated 17 of his followers and amended 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 moderator of bylaws amendment 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 Defendant continues 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.
What’s more startling is the fact that the illegal amendments by Defendant are being recognized as being legitimate. The non-profit organization of California are being grossly neglected by 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 to be voted and restricted free fair competition. Thus, he has violated the rights of our members forbidding some of them from being elected. (Article 4 of Bylaw).
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 donation 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 31). Defendant has changed the provisions so that he does not have to report to the members nor publish them in the papers.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has taken on this organization, which is a community service organization, as if it were his own personal company and in June of 2000, brought on self-appointed 17 directors, in all who were his followers and illegally amended Bylaw. This still continues unchanged today. Through Defendant’s schemes, Article 6 (states the observance of Bylaw by all members), Article 9 (prohibition of running for office again), Article 21 (amendment of Bylaw is the right of members) have been affected. All of these illegal changes are still in effect today.
(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 the United States laws or anyone with a unethical or immoral misdemeanor record) or been legally pronounced incompetent. However, 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 Defendant’s background records.
Paragraph 5 of the same article (campaign funds are to be used for campaign purposes only…) This provision has been maintained for thirty years. But during Defendant’s the first term (1999-2000) and his 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 President.
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, Mr. Jong Min Kang told Plaintiff that Kang wanted to run for the office but was afraid that losing $60,000 would be detrimental and so could not afford to run. (See Mr. Kang’s declaration in Exhibit 1.)
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 Defendant won the 1999 election through corruption, he 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. Scarlett Eum, (tel. 213-383-6565, 213-248-0192), the person who had sued Defendant for corruption during the 1999 elections, tried to run again in 2002, 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 Scarlett Eum, it will recognize that Defendant is a corrupt and fraudulent person. (See Mrs. Eum’s declaration in Exhibit 2.)
We can also confirm how Defendant wanted desperately to continue for the second term. In Article 7 (eligible voters and eligible candidates), it states for the past 30 years amongst voters and candidates, only one form of ID, whether green card, driver’s license, or student ID needed to be shown. However, Defendant requested an affidavit from the candidates along with two years of utility bills proving residency in Los Angeles 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 for President. Mr. Nam had submitted all required documents except for the phone bills, which he was lacking 20 days to fulfill the two-year requirement. Thus, Defendant stands before the court today in order to punish Defendant who has completely ridiculed the constitutional spirit as well as those of the current administration who are still maintaining the illegal methods.
Another startling fact is that Defendant amended Article 4, which provides 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 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 Plaintiff is accusing Defendant of anti-democratic acts that affect the right of other members to vote or to be voted materially and adversely.
Pursuant to Articles 8, 28, and 29 of Bylaw, all funds are to be calculated from April 1 to March 31 of next year. Moreover, in Article 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, Defendant has never followed these provisions during his tenure. Also, while amending the bylaw, he changed Articles 30 and 31 (provisions regarding Audit). And also in Articles 30 and 31, 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 Defendant. How can a non-profit organization with donation 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 the court searches and digs up the fiscal reports of the past, it 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. Plaintiff has also made provisions to report this matter to the FBI. According to expert estimations, Defendant has misappropriated $300,000 of funds.
As described until now, Defendant Ha amended not only the provision of extension of terms of President but also other provisions too easily with the directors appointed by himself, and all of these amendments affect the rights of members materially and adversely.
IV. Argument
1. The act or attempt to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors instead of with favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members is unlawful.
This legal conclusion can be derived from the following Sections of this argument. For example, if either Section 2 or Section 5 is decided to be valid, it is automatically derived that the act is unlawful. For another example, if either Section 3 or Section 4 is decided to be valid, it is automatically derived that the act is unlawful. For a third example, if either Section 6 or Section 7 is proved, it is automatically derived that the act is unlawful. It implies that the chance for the act to be lawful is very low mathematically, since the act must pass all the 6 barriers to be lawful.
2. The interpretation or translation of the original Bylaw in Korean language as “to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors (instead of with favorable votes from two thirds of the registered members)” is inaccurate and/or improper.
Suppose that the original Bylaw written in Korean language contains vague and ambiguous part. For example, Korean sentence many times omit the subjects, and thus when interpreting/ translating it into English, some word, “he” or “she” or “we” or “they” must be added. In this case of Bylaw, the interpreter already knows that this bylaw is for a non-profit organization or an association but not for a private commercial corporation nor for a gangster organization nor for a city. If the bylaw is for a private corporation, the interpreter will interpret the said Korean part as two thirds of the stocks. If it is for a gangster organization, it will be interpreted as two thirds of the directors or of the big brothers according to the terminology used by the organization. If it is for a city, it will be interpreted as two thirds of the registered voters.
KAFLA is a non-profit organization and a non-profit association, not a private company nor a gangster organization nor a city government. Therefore, it is accurate or proper for the interpreter to select two thirds of the registered members instead of two thirds of the directors, whereas it is inaccurate or improper to select two thirds of the directors instead of two thirds of the registered members, if any.
This argument is also supported by Article 6 of Bylaw, which states, “Regular members shall have the right to vote and to be elected, and the obligation to comply with the Bylaws.” This implies the members have the right to vote for the amendment of Bylaw, too.
Therefore, this sense, the translated version submitted by Plaintiff is accurate and proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court based on this accurate and proper interpretation should be affirmed again.
3. The explicit statement in the original Bylaw in Korean language, if any, “to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors” violates California law code and thus unlawful.
As far as Plaintiffs know, there has been no explicit statement in the original Bylaw in Korean language indicating “to amend the term of President of Bylaw with favorable votes from two thirds of the directors”. Hence, this Section 3 of argument is irrelevant to both Plaintiffs and Defendants.
4. The appointed directors like directors of KAFLA are different from the directors elected by registered members. The former board of directors cannot and shall not have the authority to amend the term of President of Bylaw, whereas the latter board of directors may have that authority.
5. The translated version of Bylaw submitted by Plaintiffs is correct, accurate, and trustworthy.
The translated version of Bylaw submitted by Plaintiffs was translated by a California State certified interpreter of Korean, Jacky Noh, whose certificate number is 300150. The “Declaration of Interpreter/Translator” dated May 21, 2002 together with the relevant part of the English target version and Korean source version is attached as an Exhibit 4, which contains 1999 bylaw and 2000 bylaw. These have been already listed in the superior court on June 17, 2002, when the complaint of this case was filed with the superior court.
Therefore, the translation can be regards as valid, and the judgment based on this translation is also valid.
6. Defendants failed to meet the two thirds of the directors.
Even if Defendant’s claim that the directors have the right to amend the Bylaw, it is still conclusively evident that their actions were very ignorant and illegal indeed.
From May of 2000 during Defendant’s tenure, he had attempted twice to amend Bylaw by gathering the directors. However, he could not get the necessary 2/3 of 48~50 directors. Defendants could have only about 17 directors for favorite votes to amend Bylaw. Finally, because he could not get enough of them together, he started to fax the absent directors to receive “yes” votes to amend Bylaw. At this time, the Korea times, and other media outlets reported that in extending the term of the presidency, they vote through the fax.
7. Defendants failed in the lawful process of the amendment.
Defendant Ha has in fact forged the signature of the moderator of the bylaw amendment committee to illegally amend Bylaw. In order to illegally amend Bylaw, because the necessary 2/3 of the director votes was not procured, Defendant had forged the signature of the moderator of the bylaw amendment committee. Thus, Plaintiff is seeking to have an expert signature analyst examine the signature to confirm this fact.
As such unconventional attempts to extend his term fell through on July of 2002, he forged the signature of Grace Han, who was the moderator of bylaw amendment committee during the June 2000 meeting to say that “2/3 vote was procured” and submitted it to the court. (See Simon Bae’s declaration in Exhibit 3 with supporting sub-exhibits.) According to declaration of Simon Bae, there are witnesses that state that only 17 were present at that time. Also, at that time, 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 people complained that he had broken his promise.
In addition, Plaintiff discloses a related startling new fact. After the trials started on June of 2002, in August of the same year, Grace Han, the moderator of the bylaw amendment committee, called Plaintiff to a coffee shop and told him that Defendant Ha may forge her signature to submit to the court. (See Exhibit 3.)
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 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 moderator of the bylaw amendment committee gave her signature to Defendant at a later time just to cooperate with him and so this can be confirmed.
8. Suppose that the amendment of Bylaw by Defendants is invalid for any of the above reasons. Then, the current President of KAFLA who was elected by that invalidly amended bylaw should also be invalid and thus new re-election should be performed according to 1999 bylaw.
Furthermore, Plaintiff requests 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.
Plaintiff is requesting this Section, because the current President of KAFLA is chosen without election from the unlawfully amended bylaw. Further, there is some suspect that the current President participated in some of the unlawful amendments of Bylaw.
9. Defendant committed other wrongful acts.
During his two terms totaling in four years, Defendant Ha has received around 1.3 million dollars, which he has never reported to the members. Then four months after stepping down from office, which was October 13, Defendant merely signed personally and appropriated funds. He never attached the bank statement from Wilshire State Bank to the fiscal reports. According to certain experts and journalists, it seems as though around $300,000 has been embezzled, and so Plaintiff is currently investigating this. (Plaintiff has reported these facts to the FBI to be investigated.) Such startling facts have been discovered around November 5, 2004.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant has no record of ever getting audited by the directors and auditors regarding this $1.3 million of donations that he received during his tenure from 2000 to 2004 from the Korean government and Los Angeles firms. He has never published the actual amendment of Bylaw but just did it by 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. Plaintiff has requested an investigation last week from the federal bureau of investigation.
Plaintiff hopes that these additional facts may help the court make its decision. (October 13, 2004) as laid out in the additional exhibits, Defendant, during his 2002-2004 term, has received $700,000 of donations. However, he has never disclosed this to the members at large and so he is reported with misappropriation of funds.
V. Conclusion
If the court does not put down such strong judgment, then wealthy guys like Defendant Ha will bother 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 organization law will fall in doubt of the legal system. And such illegal activities will abound in other non-profit organizations.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for damages and relief against defendant, and each of them as follows:
1. For emergency dissolution and nullification of the current KAFLA as one of California non-profit organizations.
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: March 14, 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 March 14, 2005, I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF 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 March 14, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.
___________________
Jin Ree
* 발행인님에 의해서 게시물 복사되었습니다 (2006-01-23 11:08) |
NEWS IN ENGLISH
