this letter, Senator Dole requested that the IRS begin an investigation of the tax exempt status of the Unification

Church.

He expressed concern over "mind control techniques" allegedly employed by the Church, as well as the validity of the Church's fundraising activities and Reverend Moon's "affluent life [style]," which he characterized as beyond that which "could be reasonably expected for any clergyman." Subsequent to his indictment for tax evasion and

conspiracy, Reverend Moon publicly questioned the

Ignoring clear

Government's motives for prosecuting him. One notable speech, made on October 22, 1981 in Foley Square, outside of the District Court building in New York City, was reprinted in the New York Times. This speech was cited by the Government as the basis for its later refusal to accede to Reverend Moon's request for a bench trial. evidence that it would be impossible to find a non-biased jury, the Government insisted that Reverend Moon's public criticism of the Government's motives made a jury trial necessary in order to preserve the "appearance of fairness." Even the Court acknowledged, following several days of voir dire examination of prospective jurors however, that a non-jury trial would in fact be fairer, but concluded that it could not overrule the Government's refusal to consent to a bench trial.

Reverend Moon's concerns regarding jury bias were confirmed during the jury selection process. The Court's

5

examination of a panel of almost 200 prospective jurors 4/ revealed that a majority of those questioned had in fact been exposed to prejudicial publicity concerning the religious tenets and practices of the Unification Church and its leader, Reverend Moon. Many of these prospective jurors acknowledged that they harbored strong negative feelings about the Unification Church, its members, and Reverend Moon in particular. The preconceptions and prejudices of these prospective jurors focused primarily on the belief that the Unification Church was merely a cult and not a bona fide religion, that the Unification Church and Reverend Moon were involved primarily in business activities rather than religious endeavors, that the Church had expanded its membership by "brainwashing" young people, and that young members of the Church were compelled to solicit funds in order to accomodate the "luxurious" lifestyle of Reverend

Moon.

Despite the Government's awareness of widespread prejudice against Reverend Moon and the Unification Church, and contrary to the prosecution's assurance that Reverend Moon would not be tried in a religious context, the Government, from the outset of the proceedings against

4/

From the 200 prospective jurors impaneled, 63 were interviewed to select the final jury panel (see, TR. 300-1698) and 17 were interviewed to select the six alternate jurors (see, TR. 1699-1700, 1773-1900, 1933-2121).

Reverend Moon, attempted to exploit the known preconceptions and biases of the jurors who had been selected. The Government's efforts to introduce highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence continued throughout the trial and were for the most part successful. The Court, acknowledging that this evidence had no relevance to the substantive charges, nevertheless permitted the evidence to be admitted, accepting the Government's argument that such evidence was necessary to support the general and vague conspiracy alleged in the indictment.

The Government's efforts to persecute and silence Reverend Moon and the Unification Church did not end with Reverend Moon's conviction. In support of its opposition to

a recent request for a reduction in Reverend Moon's prison sentence, the Government provided the Court with a copy of Reverend Moon's prepared testimony before this Subcommittee on June 26, 1984. In that Opposition, the Government

stated:

That campaign of distortion continues to this day.
On June 26, 1984 defendant Moon appeared and
testified, in English, before the Subcommittee on
the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee,
United States Senate. . . In his testimony, a
copy of which was obtained from the office of
United States Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of
the Subcommittee, and is annexed as Exhibit A to
this memorandum, Moon repeated the baseless charge
that his prosecution in this case amounts to
persecution.
For the Court to grant this
motion in the face of the defendant's continuing
campaign of distortion and unfounded accusation
would be interpreted as an endorsement of their
baseless and discredited claims.
added.)

(Emphasis

7

The Court subsequently refused to reduce Reverend Moon's prison sentence.

Just as Reverend Moon's public criticism of the Government's motives served as the basis for the

Government's denial of his request for a bench trial in order to preserve the "appearance of fairness," Reverend Moon's public statements before this Subcommittee provided the basis for the Court's refusal to consider a reduction of his prison sentence. Responding to the fears expressed by

the Government, Judge Goettel explained that the prison

sentence could not be reduced because:

In his recent plea to Congress that he was being
prosecuted solely because of his religious views,
[Reverend Moon] totally misstated what was
involved in the prosecution. . . There is
nothing to the argument that he was persecuted
because of his religion. He was tried for
specific offenses of a non-religious nature.
was convicted of them and to reduce his sentence
now would give further fuel for the argument that
he has been persecuted, when he has not.

He

there is a need to let the public know that everybody is viewed by the courts as equals and that wealth doesn't affect the sentence administration. (Emphasis added.

Hearing on Motion to Reduce Sentence, July 18, 1984.

Ironically, the same adverse publicity which precluded a

trial by a fair and impartial jury was also cited in support

of the Court's decision not to reduce Reverend Moon's

sentence.

Essentially then, actual fairness to the

8

defendants in this case has been sacrificed in order to maintain a false "appearance of fairness."

As discussed below, the Government's actions in this case and the Court's approval of those actions,

resulted in a complete denial of a fair trial to Reverend Moon by a panel of impartial jurors. The trial, moreover, entailed an unfettered jury inquiry into the tenets,

practices and procedures of a recognized religious

institution, as well as the punishment of a religious leader based upon his exercise of the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

A.

Reverend Moon Was Investigated, Not Simply As a Taxpayer, But Because He Was the Head of the Unification Church.

The investigation which eventually led to the indictment, trial, and conviction of Reverend Moon was initially directed at the Unification Church and at Reverend Moon in his capacity as leader of the Church. Thus, in his letter to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Senator Dole listed the following reasons for an

investigation of the Unification Church:

(1) "Most of those contacting me question whether the organization is based on a bona fide religion or on mind control techniques.

This may indicate that the organization is

maintained not by religious motivation, but by the
calculated eradication or erosion of each member's

ability to make an alternate choice. The

well-documented process of training and initiation
activities appear to substantiate that the