« AnteriorContinuar »
0.89 84 21129 SEKAINIPPOSHA
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT 2
1. I, Tomoko Torii, currently live in 5-13-1, Takenosuka, Adachs-ku, Tokyo, Japan, and am a house wife.
2. During the period 1973-1976, I participated in the
I was also responsible for performing accounting
3. I remember that an several occasions I cashed cheaks
4. During the period in which I per ormed accounting functions for the Japanese Family Fund, we were very busy because of the extensive campaign activities.
Thus, I did not report to Mr. Kamiyama all of the details surrounding various activities concerning the Japanese Family Fund, such as the cashing checks for church members. !
Before I returned to Japan, I gave Yukiko Matsumura the fragmentary notes received from Yoko Yamanishi as well as my own brief note.
I swear under the penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT 3
DECLARATION OF KENJI ONUKI
Kenji Onuki declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
I, Kenji Onuki, currently reside at Belvedere
Estate, 723 Broadway, Tarrytown, New York.
I acted as a
chauffer for Reverend Sun Myung Moon between 1973 and 1980.
On several occasions during the period 1973-1975,
I was asked by Church members to assist them in cashing checks.
I presented these checks to the person who was responsible
was also asked to deposit monies from the Japanese Family
Fund, which included the checks described above, into the
Chase Manhattan Bank accounts.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the United States of America that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed
on December 10, 1984.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT 4
DECLARATION OF YUKIKO MATSUMURA
Yukiko Matsumura declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
I, Yukiko Matsumura, currently reside at 481 8th Ave.,
2. I assumed the responsibility for performing accounting functions for the Japanese Family Fund from Tomoko Torii in 1976.
3. I made several corrections to the Japanese Family Fund Ledger by pasting new entries over the original entries in August 1977. However, these corrections were made at the suggestion of Mr. Róbert H. Elliott, Jr., a tax attorney with the Washington DC law firm of Caplin & Drysdale. . The corrections were not designed to mislead the IRS investigation.
I swear under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Interpreters Act as applied to the proceedings against Takeru Kamiyama. In reviewing this memorandum, it is important to note the following limitations:
1. The authors have not reviewed any transcript of the original grand jury proceedings, trial or appeal;
The authors have not reviewed any of the
motions made pre-trial, post-trial or on appeal; and
3. The authors have relied solely on the information supplied to them by Messrs. Mitsuharu Ishii and
Time constraints have further limited the authors'
ability to research exhaustively the entire legislative
intent of the Court Intérpreters Act.
Takeru Kamiyama, a Japanese national, is a member of the Unification Church. He is an advisor to Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the founder and spiritual leader of the Church.
In 1982, Kamiyama was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns following a jury trial before Judge Gerard L. Goettel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months of prison. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions on all counts, except one, which was dismissed. United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983).
On May 14, 1984, the Supreme Court denied Kamiyama's petition for certiorari. United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 80 L.Ed. 20 818, 104 S.Ct. 2344 (1984).
Kaniya ma is presently serving his sentence in the federal penitentiary in Danbury, Connecticut.
JUDICIAL HISTORY LEAD ING
TO THE ENACTMENT OF
The evolution of the case law leading to the enactment of the Court Interpreters Act in 1978 has been toward a recognition of the need for foreign-languagespeaking de fendants to have competent interpreters in trial proceedings. This recognition has resulted in federal and state court holdings that failure to provide the defendant with a competent interpreter constitutes a denial of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial and due process of law. Moreover, Congress has now made clear, by enacting the Court Interpreters Act of 1978 (the "Act"), 28