46

This is going to give this jury a chance to try to
convict because they see here is Reverend Moon
telling them to go out and raise all this money
and do all these things and sell flowers and
candies and setting goals. If they want to set
goals for themselves, they have a right to do it
and that has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
(TR. 4280.)

We saw a lot of these documents in discovery
. but that was one of the reasons we asked for
a non-jury trial, and it was precisely because of
this kind of problem. At least as a Judge you can
see this and look at it fairly. I can't see that
12 lay people are going to bring their emotions
into this courtroom and they can't do that and I
respectfully object to it.

MR. FLUMENBAUM: This is a sophisticated jury who understands the evidence. (TR. 4285-4286.)

The Court overruled defense counsel's objection, however, and the Government continued its questioning in the following manner:

Q: This had to do with a specific fundraising campaign, did it not? (TR. 4290.)

Q: Isn't it a fact that your National headquarters got money from Mr. Kamiyama's team? (TR. 4297.)

Q: These "Master Speaks" are published by the church's translations of Reverend Moon's speeches that are given on various occasions, is that correct? (TR. 4378.)

Q: Isn't it a fact there were quotas set by
Reverend Moon specifically with respect to the
Belvedere trainees other than that was part of
their training session in terms of fundraising?
(TR. 4379.)

Subsequently, following the extensive direct examintion by the Government of one particular Church member regarding the business operations of the Church, counsel for

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.

MR. FLUMENBAUM: Very wide. . . . Let me
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.
4818-4819.)

(TR.

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. We are not going to go into

the subject.

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?

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." "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