47

Reverend Moon advised the Court that his testimony would

leave the record unclear as to the reasons for the Church's

involvement in different business operations:

MR. STILLMAN:

. I would like to ask
essentially one question with respect to those
businesses, namely, what the purpose is for having
them. I believe the witness would testify that
the purpose is to allow the church to develop a
financial base so that it can be self-supporting
and go on and do their work. Now, my concern is

THE COURT: I know what your concern is. You are opening the door with a question.

Let me

MR. FLUMENBAUM: Very wide. .
just state for the record: based on our review of
some finance, these businesses drain money as
opposed to generate money from the church. .
If Mr. Stillman is going to bring that up, open
the door on this, I feel that that would allow me
on redirect to develop that whole area. (TR.
4818-4819.)

Shortly after the foregoing exchange, the

Government questioned another witness so as to elicit

testimony that Reverend Moon addressed business matters

during meetings with several other Church leaders. On cross examination, Reverend Moon's counsel asked:

Q:

Did you from time to time at the meetings that you attended hear Reverend Moon speaking with church members and church leaders concerning matters of religion.

A: Yes.

MS. HARRIS:

I object. That is outside the

scope of the direct.

MR. STILLMAN: Outside the scope? Is that not what we just listened to?

MS. HARRIS: No religious matters, talking about business.

48

THE COURT:

Well, establishing they also

discussed religion.

the subject.

We are not going to go into

MR. STILLMAN: I'm not going into the

subject. I just want to paint the whole picture
for the jury. (TR. 5102.)

The Government thus continued to question witnesses with regard to the fundraising activities of the Church:

Q:

With respect to fundraising, did
Reverend Moon set quotas for the trainees?

Q: How much did they have to earn before they could leave the training program?

Q: Do you remember what the quota was in the beginning for the training? (TR. 5130.)

Q: These people would come back each night after a day of fundraising? (TR. 5131-5132.)

Later, during cross examination of a Government

witness, counsel for Reverend Moon again attempted to establish the principles guiding the relationship between the Unfication Church and its various business enterprises:

Q: Did you ever hear Reverend Moon express his view with respect to the relationship between the church and business?

Q:

And is it true, sir, that he has the

view and expressed the view

-

MR. FLUMENBAUM: Objection.

THE COURT: Let him finish the question.

MR. FLUMENBAUM: Okay.

MR. STILLMAN: If your Honor please, the Government seeks to establish the notion and they sure would like to get up on summation that Reverend Moon is simply a businessman and that's all there is to it here. And what I am suggesting to you is that there was in his mind and the view and the way in which this church operated, an effort to build a business and a church together, this witness understood that to be so, he has so sworn to the Grand Jury and I don't intend to go much beyond essentially what he said to the Grand Jury on this subject.

THE COURT: I don't think it is an appopriate way to establish it. It is not a direct issue in this case at all. It might explain why certain things were done or not done, but a state of mind concerning the desirability to lead business and religious matters is not directly an issue in this

case.

I would say moreover, if you do it you are opening a door to something you would not care to open the door to. So I will sustain the objection. (TR. 5254-5257.)

At the conclusion of the trial, counsel for Reverend Moon made a final attempt to place the Government's remarks concerning the Church's business ventures in their proper context. Once again his efforts were met with a Govenrment objection:

MR. STILLMAN: Now, businesses. Churches own businesses. Many of the major churches in this

THE COURT: You are going outside the record
Mr. Stillman. (TR. 6356-6357.)

Mr. Flumenbaum, however, stated in his summation to the

jury:

Moon is a businessman. Moon has always been a
businessman. He was a businessman in Korea, he
ran factories there, you saw his business card.
You saw the fact that even when he was in the
United States before he was on the board of
directors of Il Wah Pharmaceutical Company in
Korea, it is all in the evidence before you.
have those documents. (TR. 6472.)

We

It is thus evident that as a result of the Government's tactics, the jury was denied the benefit of a complete explanation of the Church's fundraising activities; the jury was essentially left to decide the case on the basis of the jurors' own preconceptions as supplemented by the Government's inflammatory "evidence." While the Court allowed the Government to introduce evidence in support of its theory that the Church was a business, not a religion, efforts by the defense to put this evidence in a fair and balanced context were met with Government objections. Government's objections, as contrasted with those of the defendants, were sustained by the Court. Such a process fails to comport with the requirements of fundamental fairness established by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Government's actions, moreover, were

The

51

tantamount to a denial of the respect and freedom from

interference which all religions are entitled to under the Constitution.

2.

The Government Attempted to Discredit
Church Members Who Appeared to Testify
By Focusing Its Questions Upon the Issue
of "Brainwashing."

The most unfortunate example of the Government's

efforts to exploit known juror preconceptions concerning the Unification Church occurred during the testimony of Church

members who appeared on behalf of the Reverend Moon.

The

jurors were warned during the Govenrment's opening statements, to carefully scrutinize these witnesses for what were later to be characterized as obvious signs of "brainwashing":

MR. FLUMENBAUM: I urge you to give careful consideration to these witnesses and scrutinize their testimony very very very carefully. You will find that these witnesses will be intensely loyal to Moon and Kamiyama. (TR. 2192.)

The actual meaning of this warning surfaced early in the trial during the Government's examination of Mr. Burgess, a Church member:

Q: [MR. FLUMENBAUM] Mr. Burgess, you love
Mr. Kamiyama very much, don't you?

A: Yes, I do.

And you love Reverend Moon very much?

Q:

A:

Yes, I do.

Q: You worked closely with Mr. Kamiyama since 1972?