Petition to President Bush and Governor of California
May 30, 2007
Respectful President Bush, Governor of California who makes lots of efforts for the State: I submit the following petition to you and please investigate this case.
Petition and request of investigation
Contents of petition: Request of investigation upon some trial court judges in the Los Angeles Civil Court, and some judges in the Appellate Court related to the rulings.
Petitioner: Korea Unity Press TV
Facts on submitting of petition
I am the media person who is doing my job for 36 years in the area of media and press in South Korea and the U.S. In 1981, I trusted the U.S.A.’s system which protected free press and democracy, and I left Seoul and came here, U.S. I am currently a U.S. citizen.
Since 1985 until 2007 now, I have four cases which are related to me and trials of my cases are going on in the downtown civil courts in the Los Angeles City, California, including sue misunderstanding me as a North Korean agent.
1. Especially, the ruling in 1996: The defendant is Ha Kee Whan, Real Estate businessman in Los Angeles. Reported to F.B.I. and sued with the reason that the defendant made the Korea Unity Press TV bankrupt with fake written in the chapter 7.
2. Especially, the trial in 2002: the defendant is the person who was elected illegally in election of president of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)”, and I brought a suit about suspension of performing his duties.
3. Especially, the trial in 2004: I brought a suit about newly illegally elected as a president of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)”, and about suspension of performing his duties.
4. Especially, I have experienced the appellate trial in December, 2003 and second appellate trial in May 3, 2007.
During these trials and judgments above, I, petitioner, came up with a big and important suspicions and I have reported this two times to the Judicial Committee authority(Phone: 415- 557- 1200. BMT : hs/L0614bae)
I, petitioner, was perplexed at the ruling of first case above in 1996, and I reported it to the then-governor of California claiming that there was some doubts about the ruling of the judge. And after that, I had received an answer from legal person in the office of governor.
During the process of my 70 trials in the civil court in Los Angeles, I, petitioner, have received over seven judgments and found out something surprised. And I am so surprised at the judicial scandals.
According to the right of access to courts of people upon the Constitution, it seems that some judges are committing judicial abuses and misusing judicial power, and this is a serious problem.
Respectful President Bush,
For what reason are we doing Iraq War?
* Some judges in the civil court of Los Angeles are not protecting California State law, and dealing with it as a trash.
* Some judges are cheating the rulings and faking it.
* I do not know whether some judges deal with a rich defendant, but they reject plaintiff’s evidences related to the case, those evidences are very reasonable and legal. Some judges consider only the defendant’s arguments and they do not even tell the acts which has violated the rights of people importantly and unfavorably. And I confirm this kind of abuse of his authority several times.
*Court of Appeal made even some additional mistakes which the trial court did not make. One of them is as follows.
Opinion: The definitions of “biannual meeting” and “regular meeting” do not preclude a vote to amend bylaws at a regular board meeting, as a regular board meeting is defined as a meeting to “discuss and resolve important issues.” (P 14)
Basically, this part of opinion is vague and ambiguous. However, it sounds like going to far. (The reason why Appellant uses “sounds like” is that this statement in Opinion is vague and ambiguous to him.) It sounds like having very embarrassing implication to the KAFLA and its members. Everybody even including Respondent Ha believes the amendment of bylaws can be made only in the annual meeting not in the regular board of director meeting. If this is interpreted as any regular board meeting can amend any provision of the bylaws, it can create a lot of troubles, which can be seriously against democratic operation of non-profit organizations. Bylaw is like constitution of a country compared to other kind of rules. Bylaw amendment should be stricter and less easy. In this part, this Court of Appeal sounds like going too far. Hence, it should be modified or clarified so that regular board meeting can never amend the bylaws. It is not the issue whether bylaw can be amended by the members or the directors. The issue is that bylaw can be amended in the annual meeting only or in regular monthly meeting. Appellant one more time emphasizes that bylaw cannot be amended in regular director meeting at all, whether it is amended by the directors or by the members.
In addition, in “discuss and resolve important issues”, the “important issues” do not include revisions of the Bylaws and the Election Administration Rules, organization of the Chairman’s Group, deciding the Board of Directors fee, and examining the business plan and the budget, which shall be discussed and resolved in biannual meeting but never in directors’ regular monthly meeting. If this Court interpreted it in other way, it clearly form a serious misinterpretation and serious error and serious abuse of discretion. Of course the directors can discuss and resolve any other important issues except the above matters including the revisions of the Bylaws. (In fact, KAFLA directors discussed and resolved some of other important issues. For example, the considerably large amount of donation to 9.11 victims or establishing crime prevention patrol team is other important issues.)
In considering this part of opinion, also we should remember that the directors in KAFLA are different from congressmen in the United States. KAFLA directors are basically appointed by the president, rather than each of them is elected by the members. In this circumstance, if it is permitted to amend the bylaw in any regular director meeting, 12 times a year, it will create really a dangerous status in KAFLA and there will be more and easier chance in which the president can amend the bylaw with his or her own appointed directors.
Pursuant to the 1999 bylaw, even if Section 21 could be interpreted as the directors may amend some minor provisions of the bylaw, it does not exclude that members cannot amend the bylaw. At best, the section could be interpreted as both the members and the directors can amend the bylaw. The 1999 bylaw never deprives KAFLA members of the voting right of the bylaw amendment, and thus it shall never be interpreted in that way. Remember KAFLA is a non-profit organization of the members by the members and for the members, and it is not a private company of the owner by the owner and for the owner.
Especially, if the Court of Appeal interprets as the monthly regular director meeting can amend any provisions of the bylaw in any month, the constitution of KAFLA (i.e., the bylaw of KAFLA) will become very unstable. Through easier conspiracy with the appointed directors, in the future, any president or any representative director can easily amend some bylaw provision, which affects materially and adversely the rights of the members as to voting. For example, they can relatively easily amend a provision to extend from 2 year term to 4 year term, which is another example of affecting materially and adversely the rights of KAFLA members as to voting.
Not only in a non-profit organization but also in a country, the issue of the period of one presidential term or the number of terms per one president is critically material. The term is 4 years and one time re-running is available in the United States, the term is 5 years and no re-running is available in Republic of Korea since 1987. Because amending the period of the presidential term or the frequency of re-running affects materially and adversely the rights of the people as to voting, in order to amend those provisions of the constitution, it is asked the opinion of the people through the form of national referendum. It was performed in this way through national referendum in 1969 in Korea in order to amend permitting President Jeong Hee Park to re-run for President of Korea for the second time (total 12 years). Usually in non-profit organizations, the period per term is one or two years only, which is shorter than a national president, and re-running is more limited than that in a country. One of the reasons for this provision of the bylaw of KAFLA is to provide more persons with the chances to become the president so that each of them will take even better position in Korea or in the United States after serving KAFLA President. If these non-profit organizations want to amend the bylaw to increase the period of term or to increase the frequency of re-running, they shall ask the opinion of the members of that organization even if the directors can amend other kinds of minor provisions of the bylaw like increasing number of directors, as a nation shall amend that kind of material provisions of the constitution through national referendum of the people of that nation.
Or with conspiracy with appointed director, some president or representative director may amend the bylaw so that the president can be elected by directors and community leaders not by the members, which is also an example affecting the rights of members as to voting materially and adversely. Or they may amend the bylaw explicitly so that the members cannot vote for or against any bylaw amendment in any circumstance, which is also an example of affecting the rights of members as to voting materially and adversely.
In this sense, the current Opinion can be interpreted as the opinion against the democratic principle, KAFLA of the member by the member and for the member and thus can create further serious turmoils in Korean Community again. Therefore, the current Opinion should be seriously modified so that this case would be reversed and remanded to the trial court in order to protect the rights of the members and the democratic principle.
* Some judges do not put their signature on their written rulings that they judged, and it seems that their signatures are faked on the rulings.
* A judge who has received “preliminary rulings” that the defendant, law firm group, had written down erased “preliminary” letters, and sent it to me as a “rulings.”
* Defendants has faked the important trial documents and submitted them to some judges, but the judges has not even considered it rather they has made a decision against the plaintiff.
* The trial and sentencing has to be opened to the public, but they do not.
* Even though these are civil cases, some judges have rejected plaintiff’s important statement, and they have not received important additional evidences several times. And they have not written down the reason of dismissal about plaintiff’s petition of retrial, and they have not even considered plaintiff’s critical evidences.
* In the case of the appellate judges, it seems that they do not know the reason to establish the non-profit organization law of California and they judge the case wrongly. For example, President of the U.S. and governors are elected by the people. The person who is elected by people can not amend the law at his own will and can not extend his terms of office.
* Especially, they do not do speedy trial and delay it skillfully. And they make the judgments ineffective.
* Especially, even though rich volunteers according to the non-profit organization law are cheating some portions of donation, judges are not punishing them immediately, and the rights of access to courts of people are blocked and ignored continuously.
The following is my case numbers which are related to be investigated by authority.
1. In 1996, faked signature case number ( )
2. Since 2002 until 2007, four cases numbers
BC 275912
BC 340669-
B 164472
B186395
If you look over these cases, you can see that some judges have lost their will to protect the judicial justice, and they have misused the judicial independency. After I, petitioner, have observed some judges’ behaviors for 15 years in the court, I have found out that they have “acted” consistently for the benefit of “team or organization.”
When you investigate this claim above, if needed, you can call me and interview me directly. I can join any hearings and witness it.
In addition, if you need any information, you can contact major investigation and information agency in Los Angeles, and you can get so surprising information. I think that judicial reform is much needed. Some of them are like evils. Please investigate this thoroughly.
Respectfully yours,
Simon Bae
Date: May 30, 2007
Name: Signature:
Korea Unity Press TV USA
President /CEO Simon Bae
Tel: 213-305-7100
Address: 3010 Wilshire Blvd. PO BOX 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90010
----------------------------------------------------------
BUSH 대통령과 켈리포니아주 주지사에게 보내는 진정서
Petition to President Bush and Governor of California
5월 30일 2007.
May 30, 2007
존경하는 대통령 각하, 그리고 켈리포니아주 발전을 위해 노고가 많으신 주지사에게, 각각 다음과 같은 진정서를 올리니, 조사하여 주시길 바랍니다.
Respectful President Bush, Governor of California who makes lots of efforts for the State: I submit the following petition to you and please investigate this case.
(진정서 겸 조사의뢰)
Petition and request of investigation
진정 내용 : LA 사법부 일부 1심 판사 및 항소심 판사들의 관련 판결에 대한 조사의뢰
Contents of petition: Request of investigation upon some trial court judges in the Los Angeles Civil Court, and some judges in the Appellate Court related to the rulings.
진정인 : KOREA UNITY PRESS TV
Petitioner: Korea Unity Press TV
(진정서 제출 사실관계)
Facts on submitting of petition
나는 36년 간 한국과 미국에서 언론활동을 하고 있는 기자 입니다. 나는 1981년에 미국의 언론자유 보장, 민주제도의 우월성 등을 신뢰하고 서울을 떠나 미국에 왔으며, 현재 나는 미국 시민권자 입니다.
I am the media person who is doing my job for 36 years in the area of media and press in South Korea and the U.S. In 1981, I trusted the U.S.A.’s system which protected free press and democracy, and I left Seoul and came here, U.S. I am currently a U.S. citizen.
나는, 지난 1985년 부터서 LA 다운타운에 있는 민사법정에서 북한 에이젠트로 고소를 당하는 등 이유로 2007년 현재까지 4건 이상의 재판을 제기, 재판진행 중에 있습니다.
Since 1985 until 2007 now, I have four cases which are related to me and trials of my cases are going on in the downtown civil courts in the Los Angeles City, California, including sue misunderstanding me as a North Korean agent.
1. 특히 1996년 판결(피고인은 LA 부동산업자 하 기환. 당시 피고인이 미주통일신문사를 챕터 7 위장파산을 시켰다는 이유로 F.B.I에 고발 동시에 고소),
1. Especially, the ruling in 1996: The defendant is Ha Kee Whan, Real Estate businessman in Los Angeles. Reported to F.B.I. and sued with the reason that the defendant made the Korea Unity Press TV bankrupt with fake written in the chapter 7.
2. 특히 2002년 재판(피고인은 당시 LA 한인회 불법 당선자 직무정지 가처분 신청),
2. Especially, the trial in 2002: the defendant is the person who was elected illegally in election of president of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)”, and I brought a suit about suspension of performing his duties.
3. 특히 2004년 재판(새로운 LA 한인회장 불법 당선자 직무정지 가처분 신청)
3. Especially, the trial in 2004: I brought a suit about newly illegally elected as a president of the “Korean American Federation of Los Angeles Inc.(KAFLA)”, and about suspension of performing his duties.
4. 특히 2003년 12월 항소심 재판 결과 및 2007년 5월 3일의 2차 항소심 판결을 직접 경험한 바 있습니다.
4. Especially, I have experienced the appellate trial in December, 2003 and second appellate trial in May 3, 2007.
진정인은 위와 같은 재판 및 판결에 중대한 의문이 발생, [사법수행기관](전화
)에 2차례 이상 신고한 바 있습니다.
During these trials and judgments above, I, petitioner, came up with a big and important suspicions and I have reported this two times to the Judicial Committee authority(Phone: ).
진정인은, 지난 1996년에 위 1항 사건 판결에 대해 어처구니가 없어서, 켈리포니아주 당시 지사에게 "판사의 판결에 의혹이 있다"고 진정한 바 있으며, 그 후 주지사실의 법률 담당으로 부터 회신을 받은 바 있습니다.
I, petitioner, was perplexed at the ruling of first case above in 1996, and I reported it to the then-governor of California claiming that there was some doubts about the ruling of the judge. And after that, I had received an answer from legal person in the office of governor.
어쨌든, 진정인이 미국 LA 민사법정에서 70여 회의 재판과정에서, 또 7회 이상의 판결을 받으면서 확인한 놀라운 사법비리에 대해 충격을 받고 있습니다.
During the process of my 70 trials in the civil court in Los Angeles, I, petitioner, have received over seven judgments and found out something surprised. And I am so surprised at the judicial scandals.
헌법에 따라 국민의 재판청구권을 행사하는 국민에게, 문제 판사들이 자행하는 사법권 남용, 악용 사례는 충격적 이상의 상황에 직면에 있다는 사실입니다.
According to the right of access to courts of people upon the Constitution, it seems that some judges are committing judicial abuses and misusing judicial power, and this is a serious problem.
존경하는 대통령 각하,
Respectful President Bush,
우리가 무엇 때문에, 이라크 전쟁을 하고 있습니까 ?
For what reason are we doing Iraq War?
* 이곳 LA 민사부 몇몇 판사들이, 켈리포니아주법을 수호하지 않고 쓰레기로 취급하고 있으며,
* Some judges in the civil court of Los Angeles are not protecting California State law, and dealing with it as a trash.
* 판결문을 조작, 사기를 치고 있으며,
* Some judges are cheating the rulings and faking it.
* 일부 판사들이 재벌 피고인과 어떤 거래를 했는지 모르나, 원고인의 합리적이고 법치주의에 관련한 증거물들을 거부하고, 피고인 재벌의 주장만 고려하고, 중대하고도 불리하게 국민의 권리를 침해한 행위들에 대해선 일체 언급 조차 하지 않는 직권남용 사례가 수 차례 확인되고 있으며,
* I do not know whether some judges deal with a rich defendant, but they reject plaintiff’s evidences related to the case, those evidences are very reasonable and legal. Some judges consider only the defendant’s arguments and they do not even tell the acts which has violated the rights of people importantly and unfavorably. And I confirm this kind of abuse of his authority several times.
* 판사가 심리, 판결한 판결문에 담당 판사들이 사인을 하지 않으며, 사인이 조작된 흔적도 있는 판결문이 있으며,
* Some judges do not put their signature on their written rulings that they judged, and it seems that their signatures are faked on the rulings.
* 피고인 로펌 변호사 그룹에서 작성한 [임시 판결문]을 받은 판사가, [임시]글자를 먹으로 지우고 [.. 판결문]이라고 우송했으며,
* A judge who has received “preliminary rulings” that the defendant, law firm group, had written down erased “preliminary” letters, and sent it to me as a “rulings.”
* 피고인들이 중요한 재판서류 등을 조작, 위조하여 판사에게 제출하여도, 판사들은 일체 고려하지 않고 오히려 원고인에게 패소판결을 내리며,
* Defendants has faked the important trial documents and submitted them to some judges, but the judges has not even considered it rather they has made a decision against the plaintiff.
* 재판, 선고는 공개원칙임에도 이들은 전혀 공개하지 않으며,
* The trial and sentencing has to be opened to the public, but they do not.
* 그들 판사들은, 민사재판 임에도 불구하고, 원고인의 중대한 진술을 하면 거부했고, 중요한 추가 증거물들을 수 차례 거부, 반송했고 원고인의 재심 청구에 대한 기각사유를 명확히 하지도 않았고, 원고인의 결정적인 증거 등 제시에도 불구하고 그들은 판결에 전혀 참고하지도 않았으며,
* Even though these are civil cases, some judges have rejected plaintiff’s important statement, and they have not received important additional evidences several times. And they have not written down the reason of dismissal about plaintiff’s petition of retrial, and they have not even considered plaintiff’s critical evidences.
* 항소심 판사들 경우에는, 켈리포니아주 비영리단체법의 제정 취지도 모르고 엉터리 판결을 하고 있습니다. 요컨대, 부시 대통령과 주지사는, 국민이 선출하지 않고 일부 장관 및 지역 시장들이 선출합니까 ? 국민투표에 의거하지 않고 그 임기도 대통령이, 주지사가 마음대로 헌법을 뜯어고치고 임기를 연장하고 그 직을 연임할 수 있습니까 ?
* In the case of the appellate judges, it seems that they do not know the reason to establish the non-profit organization law of California and they judge the case wrongly. For example, President of the U.S. and governors are elected by the people. The person who is elected by people can not amend the law at his own will and can not extend his terms of office.
* 특히, 그들은 신속한 재판을 하지 않고, 지능적으로 지연시켜 판결문 효력까지 무력하게 했으며,
* Especially, they do not do speedy trial and delay it skillfully. And they make the judgments ineffective.
* 특히, 비영리단체법상 재벌 봉사자들이 기부금 일부를 사기하는 행위를 해도, 판사들이 즉시 처벌하지 않고 있는 등 국민의 재판청구권이, 원천 봉쇄, 무시되는 사례가 속출되고 있습니다.
* Especially, even though rich volunteers according to the non-profit organization law are cheating some portions of donation, judges are not punishing them immediately, and the rights of access to courts of people are blocked and ignored continuously.
다음은, 진정인이 제시하는 관련 조사대상의 사건 번호 입니다.
The following is my case numbers which are related to be investigated by authority.
1. 1996년 사인위조 사건 번호 (
1. In 1996, faked signature case number ( )
2. 2002년 ~ 2007년 까지 진행되는 4건 사건
2. Since 2002 until 2007, four cases numbers
BC 275912
BC 340669-
B ......
B186395
을 살펴 보시면, 일부 판사들이 사법정의 실현의지가 상실되었고, 사법권 독립을 악용한 사실이 드러날 것입니다. 진정인이 법정에서 이들의 행동을 15년 간 관찰한 결과, 그들은 '조직이익'을 위해 일사분란하게 '행동'한다는 사실도 알아 냈습니다.
If you look over these cases, you can see that some judges have lost their will to protect the judicial justice, and they have misused the judicial independency. After I, petitioner, have observed some judges’ behaviors for 15 years in the court, I have found out that they have “acted” consistently for the benefit of “team or organization.”
오늘 진정인의 위와같은 진정사실에 대해 조사를 할 때, 진정인의 직접 심문 등이 필요하다고 판단하면, 진정인을 불러 주기를 바랍니다. 진정인은 어떠한 청문회에도 참석하여 증언할 수 있습니다.
When you investigate this claim above, if needed, you can call me and interview me directly. I can join any hearings and witness it.
또, 필요한 정보가 필요하면 이곳 la 주요 수사정보 기관에 문의하시면 상당히 놀라운 정보를 입수할 것입니다. 사법개혁이 필요 합니다. 일부 그들은 악마와 같은 자들입니다. 이상 입니다. 철저한 조사를 하여 주십시오.
In addition, if you need any information, you can contact major investigation and information agency in Los Angeles, and you can get so surprising information. I think that judicial reform is much needed. Some of them are like evils. Please investigate this thoroughly.
Respectfully yours,
Simon Bae
|
NEWS IN ENGLISH
