주요 국내외 뉴스는 폭증하고 있는데... 위성 방송을 통해 세계 각처 교민들에게 뉴스 해설이 필요한데..... 공중파 TV 자금주는 어디 있습네까 ?

발행인 (2007-07-25 19:59:18)  

Date: Jul. 25. 2007

The Summary of petition for review

I am a plaintiff of this case. I have this trial since 2002 to Aug. 1, 2007 now as a representative of registered members of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” in the Korean Community.

I have received judgment of “The petition for review is denied” from the Supreme Court on Jul. 18, 2007.

Is this a written judgment? Why does not the Supreme Court present specific reasons about the denial to the plaintiff? Isn’t this case which the plaintiff raised related to the purpose of non-profit organization law that the legislature of California made in 1978?

Especially, there is no signature in the written judgment on which appellate judges should sign their names. There are their signatures only on the filed judgment in the court. The judicial should not make a play with people’s right of access to courts.

I respect judge’s decision as in the first trial in Jan. 14, 2003. That ruling is the best clear judgment. (Confer to Exhibit) Doesn’t the Supreme Court know who the benefit and protection of the non-profit organization law is ? This was the second time for the appellate judges who were the same ones in 2003 trial. I, a plaintiff, wanted to evade these judges. Because I myself, a plaintiff, prepared documents of the trial, I expected more fair judgment to come out.

That expectation was gone away. I testified defendant’s illegal acts for 30 minutes in front of 3 appellate judges, but they ignored plaintiff’s right claims. They disregarded my claims from the very first beginning. They rejected my testimony and additional exhibits.
They prevented me from making a statement. The judicial is not a dictator who controls people, and it should serve its people.
I felt some sense that they were only concerned about benefiting the defendant. These kinds of judges were in the U.S.A., and this is a surprising thing. (Confer to plaintiff’s testimony at that time)

I, a plaintiff, have requested the review again to the Supreme Court. If even the Supreme Court judge that defendant, Ha Kee Whan, and “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” joint defendants win the case again, the non-profit organization law of California must be abandoned. Therefore I ask a petition for the review again.

My petition for the review is not sufficient. But it is accepted by the court, I will present specific evidences in the court.

============
Important error about the first judgment of Supreme Court

The main constituent of plaintiffs is the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” which was registered in 1982 to Federal law and California State law of non-profit organization. Our KAFLA was created in 1962. Until today about 21 presidents of KAFLA have been elected and retired from office. There is no case like this in the Korean community, bringing a suit for illegal extension of president terms.

We operate all meeting according to the bylaws. The president of the KAFLA is elected by the registered members who are over 18 ages with votes. The board of directors of the KAFLA does not elect the president of the KAFLA.

I, a plaintiff, ask a petition for the review with serious and urgent mindset. The second decision of the first trial in Aug. 2005, the second ruling of the appellate court in Mar. 2007, and the first judgment of the Supreme Court in Jul. 2007 had important errors and wrong judgments, and they completely ignored the purpose of non-profit organization law of California.

============
The following is the summary of petition for the review related to misjudgment.

1. The non-profit organization law of California says that “the amendment of bylaws must be made by bylaws.”

2. And then, the defendants did not hold a public hearing, did not ask opinions of registered members, did not have a voting process. The defendant, an ex-president of the KAFLA, cheated members, stirred up few directors who follow himself, and amended randomly bylaws and election laws. And how can these behaviors be justified, and how can judges decide this ?

The defendants “violated the rights of members importantly and disadvantageously,” and this is very clear and intelligent criminal acts. If these crimes are “protected” even by the Supreme Court, I could suspect of judicial justice.

3. When the bylaws were amended, only 18 directors out of 45 directors agreed to change bylaws. Even though the board of directors may amend the bylaws, the votes for agreement were not over two thirds votes of directors to pass.

After that, the defendants submitted documents which faked with forged signature of chairman of bylaws-amendment committee, and claimed wrongly in the first trial that over two thirds votes of directors were agreed to amend bylaws.

4. The plaintiff submitted the witness and exhibits for forged signature like that, but why did even the Supreme Court reject them?

5. The second written judgment in the trial court is a cheat. The attorney of the defendant wrote the “provisional judgment” and upon that, words of “provisional” were erased and that judgment was sent to the plaintiff. Is this all right for judgment?

Does not the judge himself write his or her written judgment? It does not make any sense that the judge has signed his or her name on the judgment which the attorney of the defendant had written down? The signature of the judge is also strange. It does not look like the judge’s original signature. And at that time, the judge “threatened” me, a plaintiff, just before coming out the decision. The judge said, “The plaintiff has a disadvantage….Advantageous evidence for the defendant has come out…” Is this all right for the judges of the U.S.?

6. Most important thing is that a certain cheating attorney, Ki Hyun Kim, came to the plaintiff for the second hearing in trial court with free pleading and representation. That bad cheating attorney already had a connection with the defendant, Ha Kee Whan. I found out that Kim made the defendant advantageous, and he was in the defendant’s side. I, the plaintiff, immediately fired him as an attorney on April 4, 2005. But, the judge considered only the documents which fired attorney had submitted, and the judge rejected plaintiff’s documents. Especially, surprising thing is that after plaintiff’s attorney had been fired by the plaintiff, that fired attorney submitted many documents to the court. And the judge considered fired attorney’s documents, and why do not the Supreme Court know about this fact?

7. The defendant ignored the fact that the amendment of bylaws according to the non-profit organization law may be considered and deliberated only on the annual meeting. The defendant amended randomly bylaws several times. The defendant amended randomly even the election laws of the KAFLA. The defendant limited other competing rival candidate’s eligibility for election for 10 years.

8. The defendant secretly extended the president’s terms of office from March to Jun. 30. The defendant did not notified accounting balance sheets about totaling 800,000 dollars including about 35~400,000 dollar contributions from others for one year. The defendants diverted and embezzled much of contributions from others.

9. The most important illegal crime of the defendant is that in the article of “prohibit of seeking another term as a president of the KAFLA”, the defendant amended that article into “possibly seeking another term as a president”, and he sought another term and did the job with consecutively two terms. There was no defendant’s notice of accounting balance sheets for 4 years.

10. Especially, the bylaws of the KAFLA said that the person who committed a misdemeanor or did immoral behaviors would not run for election, but the defendant amended randomly this bylaws.

11. The defendant committed a horrible “crime” about 36 days before he retired from his presidency. The defendant amended bylaws that the right of amendment of bylaws is upon the two thirds pro-votes of registered directors.

12. According to these crimes of the defendant, our KAFLA in the Korean community has had 3 illegal presidents of the KAFLA with the illegal bylaws since 2002 to 2007 today. And currently, one of them is still the president of the KAFLA.

===============
Supreme Court should allow the review and take plaintiff’s testimony and witness.

The Supreme Court did not punish the defendants quickly who violated non-profit organization law, and with this, our 700,000 Koreans have a doubt about the judicial department of the U.S.A. And more importantly, the purpose of non-profit organization law of California has gone away. I, a plaintiff, strongly demand that the Supreme Court should begin urgent second review for this case.

I, a plaintiff, do not have enough money. The defendant is a professional about a trial in the court. The defendant had a record of 300 experience of trial, and he was accused on suspicion of cheating by our 100 Koreans. I, a plaintiff, have recognized that the defendant “has lobbied” tremendously through this trial.

The defendants said to their aides, “Game is over, and we will win the case” even before the judge decided. I found out this surprising fact, immediately reported it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the FBI investigated me and my witness.

If even the Supreme Court can not find out the facts and truth through this trial, I will ask “the hearing on non-profit organization law” to the State government of California, and I will ask a right of petition related to the hearing through advertisement of the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

I, a plaintiff, hope that the judges of the Supreme Court would immediately call the plaintiff and the defendant to confront with each other in the court, find out the illegality, confirm illegal amendment of bylaws-void of presidential term of office-enforcement of reelection, and let this case confirm again in the trial court.

========
Exhibits
1. A written judgment in the trial court in Jan. 14, 2003
2. Fake signature of the chairman of the bylaws-amendment committee by the defendant
3. Firing notice to plaintiff’s attorney
4. Cheating judgment of the judge in the second hearing in the trial court
5. In the judgment of the second hearing in the appellate court, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the judges know the purpose of the non-profit organization law.

=====

Respectfully submitted,

Date: Jul. 25, 2007

Plaintiff, Simon Bae
Publisher, Editor, & CEO
Korea Unity Press TV USA

3010 Wilshire Blvd. P.O. BOX 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90010, U.S.A.
Tel: (213)305-7100
E-mail: simon@unitypress.com
Web site: www.unitypress.com



Name:



Signature:
========================================

Date: Jul. 25. 2007

큰 글자로 .... 재심 청구의 요지 ............
The Summary of petition for review

나는 이 사건의 원고인 이다. 나는 우리 한인 유권자 등록회원들을 대리하여 2002년 부터 2007년 8월 1일 오늘까지 재판을 진행하고 있다.
I am a plaintiff of this case. I have this trial since 2002 to Aug. 1, 2007 now as a representative of registered members of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” in the Korean Community.

나는 지난 7월 18일 대법원에서 보내 준 [The petition for review is denied]라는 판결 요지를 받았다.
I have received judgment of “The petition for review is denied” from the Supreme Court on Jul. 18, 2007.

이것이 판결문 인가 ? 대법원은 denied에 대한 구체적인 근거를 원고인에게 제시하여야 하지 않는가 ? 원고인이 제기한 본건 사건이 1978년 켈리포니아주 의회에서 제정한 비영리단체법 취지에 관련이 없다는 것인가 ?
Is this a written judgment? Why does not the Supreme Court present specific reasons about the denial to the plaintiff? Isn’t this case which the plaintiff raised related to the purpose of non-profit organization law that the legislature of California made in 1978?

특히 항소심 판사들이 판결문에 판사 자신들이 서명하는 사인이 없다. 법원 보관용 판결문에만 판사 사인이 있을 뿐이다. 국민의 재판청구권을 사법부가 장난을 치는가 ?
Especially, there is no signature in the written judgment on which appellate judges should sign their names. There are their signatures only on the filed judgment in the court. The judicial should not make a play with people’s right of access to courts.

나는 2003년 1월 14일 1심 판사의 판결을 존중한다. 그 판결이 가장 명확한 판결문 이다.(증거물 참조) 항소심과 대법원은 비영리단체법의 법익보호가 누구인가를 모르는가 ? 항소심 판사들은 지난 2003년에 이어 두번 째 재판을 담당했다. 원고인은 그들을 기피신청을 하려고 했으나, 이번에는 원고인이 직접 재판서류들을 준비했기 때문에, 공정한 판결을 할 것으로 기대했던 것이다.
I respect judge’s decision as in the first trial in Jan. 14, 2003. That ruling is the best clear judgment. (Confer to Exhibit) Doesn’t the Supreme Court know who the benefit and protection of the non-profit organization law is ? This was the second time for the appellate judges who were the same ones in 2003 trial. I, a plaintiff, wanted to evade these judges. Because I myself, a plaintiff, prepared documents of the trial, I expected more fair judgment to come out.

그것이 무참하게 기대가 무너졌다. 그들, 항소심 판사 3인은, 원고인이 30분 간 피고인의 불법행위 등에 관련한 진술을 했으나, 그들은 원고인의 한 맺힌 정당한 주장들을 결국 무시했다. 그들은 처음 부터 마이동풍 이었다. 원고인의 진술을 고려하기는 커녕, 진술- 추가 증거물들을 거부했다.
진술을 가로 막았다. 사법부가 국민에게 봉사를 하는 조직인가, 아니면 국민 위에 군림하는 독재조직인가 ?

오로지 악질 피고인을 유리하게 하려는 모션들이, 눈동자에서 부터 나타났었다. 이 같은 항소심 판사들이, 미합중국에 있다는 것은 하늘이 놀랄 일이다. (당시 원고인 진술 녹취록을 참고)
That expectation was gone away. I testified defendant’s illegal acts for 30 minutes in front of 3 appellate judges, but they ignored plaintiff’s right claims. They disregarded my claims from the very first beginning. They rejected my testimony and additional exhibits.
They prevented me from making a statement. The judicial is not a dictator who controls people, and it should serve its people.
I felt some sense that they were only concerned about benefiting the defendant. These kinds of judges were in the U.S.A., and this is a surprising thing. (Confer to plaintiff’s testimony at that time)

나, 원고인은 오늘 다시 대법원에 재심을 청구했다. 대법원에서까지 하기환 피고인 및 한인회 공동 피고인에 대한 죄책이 없다고 거듭 판결한다면, 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법은 사문화 되어야 한다는 차원에서 재심을 청구했다.
I, a plaintiff, have requested the review again to the Supreme Court. If even the Supreme Court judge that defendant, Ha Kee Whan, and “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” joint defendants win the case again, the non-profit organization law of California must be abandoned. Therefore I ask a petition for the review again.

재심 청구서가 미비하다. 그러나, 나는 재심이 받아들여지면, 법정에서 구체적인 증거를 제시한다.
My petition for the review is not sufficient. But it is accepted by the court, I will present specific evidences in the court.

큰 글자로 ..... 대법원 1차 판결에 대한 중대한 오류 지적
Important error about the first judgment of Supreme Court

원고인의 재판 주체는, 지난 1982년에 연방법 및 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법에 등록한 봉사단체 [LA 한인회]다. 우리 한인회는, 지난 1962년에 발족했다. 오늘까지 약 21명의 회장이 선출, 퇴임했으며, 이 같은 회장 임기 불법 연장 등 혐의로 재판에 회부된 사례가 없다.
The main constituent of plaintiffs is the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)” which was registered in 1982 to Federal law and California State law of non-profit organization. Our KAFLA was created in 1962. Until today about 21 presidents of KAFLA have been elected and retired from office. There is no case like this in the Korean community, bringing a suit for illegal extension of president terms.

우리는 정관에 따라 모든 회의를 진행한다. 회장은, 우리 유권자 등록회원(18세 이상)들이 투표를 통해 선출한다. 한인회 이사회에서 회장을 선출하지 않는다.
We operate all meeting according to the bylaws. The president of the KAFLA is elected by the registered members who are over 18 ages with votes. The board of directors of the KAFLA does not elect the president of the KAFLA.

나, 원고인은, 오늘 피를 뿌리는 심정으로 재심을 청구했다. 2005년 8월 2차 1심 판결 및 2007년 3월 2차 항소심 판결, 2007년 7월 1차 대법원 판결은, 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법의 취지 등을 전면 무시한, 중대한 오류 이상의 오판 행위를 하였다고 지적하지 않을 수 없다.
I, a plaintiff, ask a petition for the review with serious and urgent mindset. The second decision of the first trial in Aug. 2005, the second ruling of the appellate court in Mar. 2007, and the first judgment of the Supreme Court in Jul. 2007 had important errors and wrong judgments, and they completely ignored the purpose of non-profit organization law of California.

다음은, 관련 오판에 대한 재심 청구 요지다.
The following is the summary of petition for the review related to misjudgment.

1. 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법은 [정관개정은 '정관'에 의하여 ...]라고 명시했다.
1. The non-profit organization law of California says that “the amendment of bylaws must be made by bylaws.”

2. 그렇다면, 피고인들이, 공청회 등을 통해 유권자 등록회원들의 의사를 확인, 투표로 결정하지 않고, 회장이라는 자가, 회원들을 속이고, 자신을 추종하는 일부 극소수 이사들을 선동하여, 정관과 선거법 등을 마구 뜯어 고친 행위가, 어떻게 하여 정당화 된다고 판사들이 판결을 하는가 ?
2. And then, the defendants did not hold a public hearing, did not ask opinions of registered members, did not have a voting process. The defendant, an ex-president of the KAFLA, cheated members, stirred up few directors who follow himself, and amended randomly bylaws and election laws. And how can these behaviors be justified, and how can judges decide this ?

피고인이, [중대하고도 불리하게 회원의 권리를 침해]한 피고인의 명백하고도 지능적인 범죄행위들이, 대법원에서 까지 '보호'를 받는다는 것은, 사법정의 실현에 대해, 의구심을 갖지 않을 수 없다.
The defendants “violated the rights of members importantly and disadvantageously,” and this is very clear and intelligent criminal acts. If these crimes are “protected” even by the Supreme Court, I could suspect of judicial justice.

3. 피고인들은, 정관개정을 할 때도, 이사 45명 중에서 18명이 찬성했다. 가령, 이사회에서 정관을 개정할 수 있다고 하여도, 참석 이사 중 2/3 과반수 찬성을 하지 못했다.
3. When the bylaws were amended, only 18 directors out of 45 directors agreed to change bylaws. Even though the board of directors may amend the bylaws, the votes for agreement were not over two thirds votes of directors to pass.

그 후, 피고인들은 1심 재판 당시 [이사회 2/3 찬성 통과]했다고 정관개정위원장의 사인을 위조하여 법정에 제출했다.
After that, the defendants submitted documents which faked with forged signature of chairman of bylaws-amendment committee, and claimed wrongly in the first trial that over two thirds votes of directors were agreed to amend bylaws.

4. 그 같은 [사인위조] 사실에 관한 증인-증거물을 제시했는데도, 왜, 대법원에서까지 이를 무시했는가 ?
4. The plaintiff submitted the witness and exhibits for forged signature like that, but why did even the Supreme Court reject them?

5. 2차 1심 판결문은 사기 다.피고인 변호사가 작성한 [임시 판결문]에 [임시]글자를 먹으로 지우고, [= = 판결문]이라고 할 수 있는가 ?
5. The second written judgment in the trial court is a cheat. The attorney of the defendant wrote the “provisional judgment” and upon that, words of “provisional” were erased and that judgment was sent to the plaintiff. Is this all right for judgment?

판결문은 판사가 작성하는 것이 아닌가 ? 피고인 변호사가 써 준 판결문에 판사가 사인을 했다는 것은, 천인공로 할 일이다. 판사의 사인도 이상하다. 판사의 사인 같지 않다. 또, 당시 판사는 판결 직전에 원고인에게 '협박'을 했다. "원고인이 불리하다... 피고인에게 유리한 증거가 나왔다..."고. 이것이 미국 판사들이 할 짓인가 ?
Does not the judge himself write his or her written judgment? It does not make any sense that the judge has signed his or her name on the judgment which the attorney of the defendant had written down? The signature of the judge is also strange. It does not look like the judge’s original signature. And at that time, the judge “threatened” me, a plaintiff, just before coming out the decision. The judge said, “The plaintiff has a disadvantage….Advantageous evidence for the defendant has come out…” Is this all right for the judges of the U.S.?

6. 특히 중요한 것은, 2차 1심에서 원고인을 무상변론을 해 주겠다고 찾아 온 한국인 사기범 변호사(김기현)는 그 때 부터 하 기환 피고인과 내통을 하고 있었으며, 피고인들을 유리하게 서류를 작성하는 사실이 포착되었다. 그 때(2005년 4월 4일) 원고인은 즉시 김 기현 사기범 변호사를 해고 시켰다.. 그럼에도 판사는, 해고된 변호사가 제출한 서류만 고려했고, 원고인이 제출한 서류는 배척했다. 특히 놀라운 것은, 당시 해고된 변호사가, 해고된 후에도 판사에게 각종 서류를 제출하였다. 판사는, 또 이를 고려했다는 사실을 대법원은 왜 모르고 있는가 ?
6. Most important thing is that a certain cheating attorney, Ki Hyun Kim, came to the plaintiff for the second hearing in trial court with free pleading and representation. That bad cheating attorney already had a connection with the defendant, Ha Kee Whan. I found out that Kim made the defendant advantageous, and he was in the defendant’s side. I, the plaintiff, immediately fired him as an attorney on April 4, 2005. But, the judge considered only the documents which fired attorney had submitted, and the judge rejected plaintiff’s documents. Especially, surprising thing is that after plaintiff’s attorney had been fired by the plaintiff, that fired attorney submitted many documents to the court. And the judge considered fired attorney’s documents, and why do not the Supreme Court know about this fact?

7. 피고인은, 특히 비영리단체법에 명시한 [정관개정은 년차회의] 에서만 심의한다는 것을 무시했다. 피고인 자의적으로 수 차례 걸쳐 정관을 뜯어 고쳤다. 심지어 선거법도 뜯어 고쳤다. 피고인과 라이벌인 후보의 회장 출마를 못하게 [10년 간 피선거권]을 제한했다.
7. The defendant ignored the fact that the amendment of bylaws according to the non-profit organization law may be considered and deliberated only on the annual meeting. The defendant amended randomly bylaws several times. The defendant amended randomly even the election laws of the KAFLA. The defendant limited other competing rival candidate’s eligibility for election for 10 years.


8. 피고인 회원들도 모르게 [회장 임기 만료 기한이 3월]을 [6월 30일 까지]로 연장했으며, 특히 1년 동안 받은 기부금 약 35만 달러 ~ 40만 달러 총 80 여만 달러에 대한 결산공고를 하지 않았다. 피고인들은 기부금 중 상당액을 유용 착복한 것으로도 확신한다.
8. The defendant secretly extended the president’s terms of office from March to Jun. 30. The defendant did not notified accounting balance sheets about totaling 800,000 dollars including about 35~400,000 dollar contributions from others for one year. The defendants diverted and embezzled much of contributions from others.

9. 가장 중요한 피고인의 불법-범죄 행위는, 회장은 [재출마 금지] 조항을 마꾸 난도질하여 [재출마 할 수 있다]고 뜯어 고친 후, 자신이 재출마하여 2회 연임 회장을 했다. 피고인은 또 총 4년 간 기부금을 받은 돈에 대한 결산공고가 없다.
9. The most important illegal crime of the defendant is that in the article of “prohibit of seeking another term as a president of the KAFLA”, the defendant amended that article into “possibly seeking another term as a president”, and he sought another term and did the job with consecutively two terms. There was no defendant’s notice of accounting balance sheets for 4 years.

10. 특히 피고인은, 정관에서 경범전과자-비도덕적인 행위 등을 한 사람은, 회장 출마를 못하게 했던 [정관] 까지 마구 뜯어 고쳤다.
10. Especially, the bylaws of the KAFLA said that the person who committed a misdemeanor or did immoral behaviors would not run for election, but the defendant amended randomly this bylaws.

11. 또, 피고인은, 임기 만료 36일 전에는 더 가공할 '범죄'행위를 자행했다. [정관개정 권한]이 [재적 이사 2/3 과반수 찬성]으로 뜯어 고쳤다.
11. The defendant committed a horrible “crime” about 36 days before he retired from his presidency. The defendant amended bylaws that the right of amendment of bylaws is upon the two thirds pro-votes of registered directors.

12. 이러한 피고인의 범죄들로 인하여, 우리 한인회는, 지난 2002년 부터 2007년 현재 까지 불법정관에 의하여 총 3명의 불법회장이 출현했으며, 현재 그 중 1명이 회장 직에 있다.
12. According to these crimes of the defendant, our KAFLA in the Korean community has had 3 illegal presidents of the KAFLA with the illegal bylaws since 2002 to 2007 today. And currently, one of them is still the president of the KAFLA.

큰 글자로---대법원은 재심을 허락하고 재판 청구권자의 진술-증언 심리 요구
Supreme Court should allow the review and take plaintiff’s testimony and witness.

이상, 대법원은, 이 같은 비영리단체법 위반자들에 대한 공정하고 신속한 처벌을 하지 않아, 우리 70만 한국인들이, 미국의 사법부를 의심하고 있으며, 그 보다 더 중요한 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법의 취지가 유명무실해졌고, 사문화 될 수 있다는 사실에서, 대법원의 긴급 2차 재심이 시작되어야 한다는 것을, 원고인이 강력하게 요구한다.
The Supreme Court did not punish the defendants quickly who violated non-profit organization law, and with this, our 700,000 Koreans have a doubt about the judicial department of the U.S.A. And more importantly, the purpose of non-profit organization law of California has gone away. I, a plaintiff, strongly demand that the Supreme Court should begin urgent second review for this case.

나, 원고인은 돈이 없다. 300여회 재판 기록이 있으며, 우리 교민 100여 명에게 사기 등 혐의로 고발-고소를 받은 피고인은, 전문 재판꾼이며, 특히 그가 이번 재판을 통해, 어떤 가공할 '로비'를 했는가를 원고인이 인지하고 있다.
I, a plaintiff, do not have enough money. The defendant is a professional about a trial in the court. The defendant had a record of 300 experience of trial, and he was accused on suspicion of cheating by our 100 Koreans. I, a plaintiff, have recognized that the defendant “has lobbied” tremendously through this trial.

피고인들은, 판사가 판결도 하기 전에 [게임 오바... 한인회가 승소한다 ]고 측근들에게 말했다. 나는, 이 충격적인 사실을 탐지, 즉시 미국 연방수사국에 신고했으며, 연방수사국은 나와 관련 증인을 조사했다.
The defendants said to their aides, “Game is over, and we will win the case” even before the judge decided. I found out this surprising fact, immediately reported it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the FBI investigated me and my witness.

나는, 이 재판이 대법원에서까지 진실의 실체를 밝히지 못하면, 켈리포니아 주정부에 [비영리단체법에 관한 청문회]를 요구하고, LA 타임즈, 뉴욕 타임즈, 워싱턴 포스트 지 등에 광고란을 통해, 청문회 등 관련 국민청원권을 발동한다.
If even the Supreme Court can not find out the facts and truth through this trial, I will ask “the hearing on non-profit organization law” to the State government of California, and I will ask a right of petition related to the hearing through advertisement of the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

대법원 판사들은, 즉시 원고인과 피고인을 법정으로 불러 대질시킬 것이며, 그 위법성을 적발, 피고인 3명에 대해, 정관개정 불법- 당선무효-임기 무효-재선거 실시 등을 확인, 1심에서 다시 재판확정이 되도록 해 달라.
I, a plaintiff, hope that the judges of the Supreme Court would immediately call the plaintiff and the defendant to confront with each other in the court, find out the illegality, confirm illegal amendment of bylaws-void of presidential term of office-enforcement of reelection, and let this case confirm again in the trial court.

증거물 제출
Exhibits

1. 2003년 1월 14일 1심 판결문
2. 피고인의 정관개정 위원장 사인 위조 증거
3. 해고된 변호사 [해고 통지서]
4. 1심 2차 판사의 사기 판결문
5. 2차 항소심 판결문이, 비영리단체법의 취지를 알고 있었는지 등에 대해선, 대법원이 판단해 주기를 바란다.

1. A written judgment in the trial court in Jan. 14, 2003
2. Fake signature of the chairman of the bylaws-amendment committee by the defendant
3. Firing notice to plaintiff’s attorney
4. Cheating judgment of the judge in the second hearing in the trial court
5. In the judgment of the second hearing in the appellate court, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the judges know the purpose of the non-profit organization law.



Respectfully submitted,

Date: Jul. 25, 2007

원고인 SIMON BAE
korea unity press TV

추악한 판사들이 남긴 '자국'들 ㅡ. 미국서도 이런 짓을 할 수 있나 ?  왜, 왜 ?    Why ?  
* 발행인님에 의해서 게시물 복사되었습니다 (2007-07-27 17:03)