78 questioned the reliability of Reverend Moon's attorneys' characterization of his trial: I find it difficult to understand how prominent, reliable religious leaders, columnists, The extracts which have been included in these comments are intended primarily to demonstrate individual attitudes and prejudices relevant to the Subcommittee's inquiry regarding the present-day status of religious freedom in the United States. At the same time, however, we hope that this document may also shed light on many of the substantive issues which were addressed in the prosecution of Reverend Moon. It is our sincere belief that these comments fully support the conclusion that Reverend Moon was prosecuted solely because of his religious affiliation. Further, we believe that the tenor of the trial suggests that this was not simply a tax case involving an individual taxpayer, but rather a trial of the Unification Church, its beliefs, its religious principals, and its religious practices. The Church was tried and convicted through inflammatory appeals to the widespread negative preconceptions and biases existing against the Church in the 79 United States, as reflected through the jurors who were selected to hear this case. In conclusion, therefore, we believe that these comments responsibly address the questions raised during this Subommittee's hearing on June 26, 1984 concerning the fairness of the legal system in relation to the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. The purpose of this document is not so much to allege and analyze structural prejudices within the system of American Justice as it is to document the very real and disconcerting denial of fundamental fairness to a major religious figure in the context of a specific Federal prosecution. It is our hope that these comments will foster further discussion and debate in the public interest with respect to the vital issues of religious freedom currently before the Subcommittee. If the Subcommittee finds, in fact, that the Unification Church was not accorded the full protection guaranteed by the Constitution, as we believe it will, we would sincerely recommend that a thorough examination be conducted of Government practices, as exemplified by Reverend Moon's indictment, trial and conviction. Respectfully submitted, August 13, 1984 Edward F. Canfield Counsel For the Unification The enclosed comments are submitted on behalf of the Unification Church of America for inclusion in the permanent record made in connection with the Subcommittee's June 26, 1984 hearings concerning Religious Liberty in the United States. We request that these comments be accepted as a supplement to our written comments which were previously submitted on behalf of the Unification Church of America on August 15, 1984. The August 15, 1984 submission contended that the prosecution of Reverend Moon's trial had been conducted in a fundamentally unfair manner and that the proceedings against Reverend Moon resulted in an attack upon the Unification Church itself, questioning both the validity of its theological tenets and the professed faith of its numerous adherents. These additional comments, which focus on the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Reverend Moon's co-defendant, Takeru Kamiyama, lend further support to the disturbing conclusion that the criminal proceedings against Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama failed to comport with minimal standards of moral and substantive justice. These comments lend credence to the conclusion that such proceedings were motivated and sustained whether consciously or not by the improper influence of religious intolerance and bigotry. Mr. Kamiyama's conviction for false swearing was based, as discussed in these comments, upon a misinterpretation of both his testimony before the Grand Jury and the prosecutor's questions to Mr. Kamiyama in English. This misinterpretation was a direct result of the government's selection of an incompetent rather than a competent interpreter. Accordingly, we have also submitted for inclusion in the hearing record, a memorandum addressing the substantive requirements of the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. $1827, et seq., and the applicability of the Act to the present case. We feel that Mr. Kamiyama and Reverend Moon would not have been indicted and prosecuted if a qualified Grand Jury interpreter had been retained and Mr. Kamiyama's testimony had been properly interpreted. Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to both you and your staff, particularly Dee Benson, Esquire. The dedication of your office to the principles of the First Amendment and your practical assistance in our investigation of the Moon/Kamiyama prosecution are greatly appreciated. We are hopeful that these efforts will continue in order to ensure that Religious Liberty and the Constitutional Rights of both English and non-English speaking individuals will be protected. Sincerely, Edward F. Shams & Canfield Edward F. Canfield |