Casey, Scott & Canfield, P.C. 420 Washington Building 1435 G Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 783-6490 December 28, 1984 Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Suite 135, Russell Building Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed memorandum is intended to summarize the various issues raised by the separate written comments previously submitted on behalf of the Unification Church of America on August 15, 1984 and on December 10, 1984. Because of the length of these submissions, we felt that it might be helpful to include this document as an introductory summary in the hearing record. This document is intended to present a broad overview of the proceedings against Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama and to demonstrate the interdependence of the charges brought against each. The summary demonstrates that the prosecution of Mr. Kamiyama had a crucial impact upon the trial and conviction of Reverend Moon. As set forth in detail in the comments which have been previously submitted, the facts surrounding the joint prosecution of Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama lead inevitably to the conclusion that the government's case against them constituted nothing less than a indictment and trial of the Unification Church, its members and theological tenets. We believe that the implications of this joint prosecution are critically relevant to the issues of religious liberty currently being reviewed by the Subcommittee. EFC:cs Enclosure Sincerely, Edward F. -F. Canfield Edward F. Canfield Casey Scott & Canfield, P. C. 420 Washington Building 1435 G Street. N. W Washington. D. C. 20005 (202) 783-6490 BACKGROUND & SUMMARY The Prejudicial Effect of the Joint Prosecution and Trial Of Reverend Sun Myung Moon and Takeru Kamiyama On August 15, 1984, written comments were More recently, submitted to the United States Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (Committee on the Judiciary) detailing the prejudicial impact of the circumstances surrounding the prosecution and trial of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder and spiritual leader of the international Unification Church movement ("Unification Church movement"). supplemental comments addressing the prosecution of Reverend Moon's co-defendant, Mr. Takeru Kamiyama were forwarded to the Subcommittee for inclusion in its formal hearing record. These documents demonstrate the fundamental impropriety of the prosecution of Reverend Moon and the interdependence of the proceedings against both defendants. The separate comments submitted to the Subcommittee should be read together for the reasons set forth below. Thus integrated, they demonstrate that the proceedings against Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama ultimately constituted a singular coordinated attack upon the international Unification Church movement. Reverend Moon was convicted of Conspiracy and Subscribing to False Federal Income Tax Returns on July 16, 1982, following a six week jury trial. The same jury, sitting in the Southern District of New York, also convicted Mr. Kamiyama of Conspiracy, False Swearing, Obstruction of Justice and Submission of False Documents. Mr. Kamiyama, a long-standing associate of Reverend Moon, had been a financial advisor for the international Unification Church movement. The proceedings in this case were the result of an extensive Internal Revenue Service audit of Reverend Moon's personal finances between 1973 and 1975, formally initiated on October 12, 1976. While this audit lasted for several years and ultimately involved an investigation of Unification Church movement assets, the audit indicated that Reverend Moon was not liable for any excess federal income tax in 1973 and that he was liable for only $5,000 and $2,300 excess federal income tax in 1974 and 1975 respectively. However, even this minimal tax liability, as asserted by the government, should not have been attributed to Reverend Moon because the assets at issue were the property of the Unification Church movement. Had the government properly recognized this fact in preparing its calculations, Reverend Moon would not have been subject to any tax liability whatsoever for the years in question. Because the amounts claimed by the government would not normally have justified a prosecution for tax evasion, the government relied upon an abstract theory charging Reverend Moon with subscribing to materially false Federal Income Tax Returns. In doing so, the government successfully utilized an initial allegation of minimal tax liability in order to support a major tax prosecution. Because the government's investigation of Reverend Moon disclosed a paucity of evidence of any wrongdoing, prosecution of Reverend Moon was initially rejected by the Department of Justice. The initial favorable determination, however, was reversed when the Assistant United States Attorney responsible for Reverend Moon's case, Mr. Martin Flumenbaum, personally presented the Tax Division with purported "evidence" of perjury and submission of false documents by Mr. Kamiyama. This unusual step reflected Mr. Flumenbaum's overriding determination to pursue criminal charges against Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama. This determination was manifested, moreover, in comments to Justice Department colleagues, reported in the "American Lawyer": [Mr.] Mark Pomerantz [an Assistant United States Attorney] remembers that when the prosecutors returned from a trip to the Justice Department in Washington to argue for authorization on the Moon indictment, Flumenbaum turned down a ride back to the New York courthouse from the airport this way: 'If they don't want to authorize prosecution, I'll take the subway, back to Paul, Weiss.' [i.e., his prior employer.] 1/ Mr. Flumenbaum's allegations against Mr. Kamiyama, used to support the decision to go forward with this prosecution, grew out of Mr. Kamiyama's appearance before a Federal Grand Jury investigating Reverend Moon's finances. Mr. Kamiyama was summoned before the Grand Jury on July 9, 16 and 21, 1981 because of his familiarity with the financial interests of the Unification Church movement. to Mr. Kamiyama's lack of fluency in English, however, his testimony before the Grand Jury was interpreted by Mr. John Mochizuki, a Japanese-English interpreter retained by Mr. Flumenbaum. Due Although he knew that Mr. Kamiyama's testimony would be a vital element of the government's case against Reverend Moon, Mr. Flumenbaum, in selecting an interpreter for Mr. Kamiyama, did not attempt to consult with Court officials normally responsible for the retention of interpreters. Moreover, in selecting his own interpreter, Mr. Flumenbaum did not even comply with the basic requirements of the Court Interpreters Act of 1978. This Act mandates the appointment of qualified interpreters for parties and witnesses not proficient in the English language Thus, the in actions brought by the Federal government. |