인터넷 미주통일신문사

LA 한인회 불법정관 개정 등 사건에 관련, 판결문이 곧 우송될 상황에 환장할 일이 발생.

다음은, 5월 12일 오후 3시 LA 민사법원 64호 판사에게 긴급 제출한 솟장.  2002년 원고인(미주통일신문 발행인)이 작성, 제출한 솟장 내용은 2000년 불법정관 개정 하 기환 피고인의 처벌이었으나, 현재 불법당선된 자 까지 연대책임을 추궁하는 것인데.....3월 14일 판사가 원고인 - 피고인 변호사 에게 "약정"을 하라고 명령.

그 내용은, 2000년 불법사기 정관을 한 (하 기환) 피고인만 처벌한다는 것(유일한 쟁점은 하 기환 2000년도 정관불법 개정 사건이라는 것). 그러니까, 원고인은 하 기환 피고인이 조작 사기친 한인회 정관(회칙)에 따라 2004년 당선되었다는 현재의 (이 용태) 회장까지 추가, 연대책임을 추궁, 처벌하는 것이 목적인데, 판사가 이 용태 불법행위자는 처벌대상에서 제외시키려는 사실이 우연하게, 어제 5월 11일 밤 원고인 번역사가 알려주어 확인했던 것.

이 놀라운 사실은 이미 3월 14일 법정에서 일어났던 것. 관련 자료를 원고인이 어제 밤에 알게 되어 오늘 담당 판사에게 "두 변호사 간의 약정은 무효"라고 선언.

담당 판사는 피고인 2명이 아닌 1명의 하 기환만 처벌하고 이 용태 현재 회장은 봐 주겠다는 의도에 대해 오늘 [2명 피고인 공동책임 처벌 하라]고 솟장을 긴급 제출. (정말 환장 하겠네요....변호사도 ... 모두 믿을 수 없으니..  만약 판사가 2명 피고인을 처벌하지 않으면 현재 회장을 직무정지 가처분 신청 재판회부 한다)

Simon Bae, publisher and editor
Korea Unity Press, U.S.A.
3010 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90010

Telephone: (213) 305-7100

Plaintiff in pro per

SUPERIOR COUNRT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SIMON BAE; and MEMBERS OF THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. SIMILARLY SITUATED,Plaintiffs,

vs.

KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC.; KI HWAN HA, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,        Defendants

Case No.: BC275912OBJECTION TO JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT DEPT.: 64JUDGE: Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman

Plaintiff, SIMON BAE, AND MEMBERS OF THE KOREAN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LOS ANGELES, INC. SIMILARLY SITUATED, file and serve OBJECTION TO JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT as follows.

Plaintiff Bae objects and disagrees to the JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT, which was agreed and signed by and among Attorney Andrew Kim, who was hired by Bae as an Attorney for Plaintiffs one time basis on February 9, 2005, and Katherine Frenck, the Attorney for Defendants, Yong Tae Lee, and Kee Whan Ha on March 3, 2005 and March 14, 2005.  This is attached here as Exhibit 1.
On May 11, 2005 at the evening time, Plaintiff Bae discovered and realized the potential implications of the said joint stipulation fortuitously and was very shocked.  He had not realized these potential implications mainly because his English is not strong enough.
That joint stipulation was signed and filed without the agreement of Plaintiff Bae.  Especially, this joint stipulation contains the paragraph, “WHEREAS, the Court ordered that the sole remaining issue in this matter is whether the bylaws of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles were properly amended in 2000.”  Plaintiff objected to this paragraph either.
This seems to imply that the current President of KAFLA, Yong Tae Lee, who was elected by the unlawfully amended 2000 bylaws, will be immune from any unfavorable judgments.  However, Plaintiff still believes that Yong Tae Lee also should be controlled by the coming judgment, because Plaintiff still prays for temporary dissolution of KAFLA and nullification of the current KAFLA as one of California non-profit organizations until the completion of the new re-election, and for re-election of President of KAFLA by the restored bylaw within a reasonable period.
Plaintiff is afraid that if the phrase, “sole remaining issue” (this phrase appears in each paragraph of the joint stipulation except the first paragraph) in the joint stipulation is interpreted in a narrow sense, the only remedy that Plaintiff can get will be for the restoration of the bylaw of KAFLA to the bylaw of 1999 among the first three remedies from Plaintiffs, whereas the first and the third remedies will be neglected.  This is one of the reasons why Plaintiff Bae objects and disagrees to the JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT, which was agreed and signed by Attorney Andrew Kim, who was hired by Bae as an attorney for Plaintiffs one time basis on February 9, 2005.  Furthermore, Plaintiff dismissed Andrew Kim from the Attorney for Plaintiffs on April 2, 2005 at about 3:30 PM, and the substitution of attorney was filed with the court and was served to the attorney for Defendants on April 4, 2005.
If the first and third prays of Plaintiff are not accepted by the Court for any reasons including but not limited to the above joint stipulation, which was neither signed nor agreed by Plaintiff Bae, he will have no choice but file another lawsuit (including a TRO action) against Yong Tae Lee, the current President of KAFLA, who also amended the bylaws of KAFLA in 2004 unlawfully according to the information and belief of Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, regardless of the said joint stipulation and regardless of the said phrase, “sole remaining issue”, Plaintiff Bae still pray the remedies including the following two relieves, which are the first and the third ones in his brief:
1.        For temporary dissolution of KAFLA and nullification of the current KAFLA as one of California non-profit organizations until the completion of the new re-election (because of the fact that Defendants ignored and disturbed and interfered with the order for re-election of Judge Recana of January of 2003).
2.        For re-election of President of KAFLA by the restored bylaw within a reasonable period.

Respectfully submitted.
DATED:  May 12, 2005

By: ______________________________
        Simon Bae
        Plaintiff in pro per

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

        I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action.  My business address is, 110 N. Berendo St., Los Angeles, California 90004.

        On May 12, 2005, I served the foregoing documents described as OBJECTION TO JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

Katherine Frenck
Paul, Hasting, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
515 South Flower St., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017

BY MAIL

BY FAX at (213) 627-0705

        I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California.  The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.  I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.  It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.  I am aware that on a motion by party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the “date of deposit for mailing" in Affidavit.

        I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

        Executed on May l2, 2005 at Los Angeles, California.

                                                        ___________________
                                                        Jin Ree