4) "Seattle Case"
SG-eye contends that
  • the Gakkai lost every litigation over this in America; 
  • that it lied about having one particular piece of evidence; 
  • so, therefore, it must follow that the evidence in Tokyo, where the Gakkai won, was fabricated and untruthful.
Well: 
  • there was one court case in America before the Tokyo trial, and one during the Tokyo trial. The first was dismissed during procedural hearings, and no evidence was ever presented; the second was initiated by Nichiren Shoshu, attempting to have a Gakkai witness indicted for perjury, and Nichiren Shoshu lost; 
  • as seen in the Newsweek story that SG-eye itself has posted, it is likely the Gakkai did have the evidence it claimed a note in the FBI files concerning the detention of a foreign national in Seattle; but that this evidence was erased by a man who now works for Nichiren Shoshu; and 
  • it therefore does not "follow" that the Tokyo court erred in declaring that Nikken had indeed frolicked with prostitutes that night in Seattle; and it's arguments concerning the veracity of witness Ronald Sprinkle are based on documents it had to deliberately misconstrue.
This latter charge is, in short, that the detaining officer who testified in court that it was Nikken Abe whom he detained after an altercation with prostitutes was actually serving in the reserves the night in question.

Concerning that charge, the judge in the Tokyo trial said:

"It is a fact that SPRINKLE was on leave for military duty and stationed at Paine Field, Washington, as a reservist. Apart from his duties at the base during working hours, he was not obliged to remain at the base. Based on the facts that many reservists had jobs in addition to their military duties, that SPRINKLE's pay as a reservist was low, and that he intended to return to his job as a Seattle Police Department Officer, it can be determined that he was on patrol work with the Seattle Police Department on the night of the incident. Judging from the facts that SPRINKLE's testimony is highly credible, the allegations of the plaintiff cannot be sustained, and the fact that he was on leave for military duty cannot prove that he was not present at the scene of the incident."
Nichiren Shoshu's argument rests on a number of documents they found after the judge had ordered the two sides to try to reach a settlement; in other words, it was some two years after Sprinkle had testified, and three years since the start of the trial There will be more on the timing later.

The Nichiren Shoshu members who built SG-eye, of course, did not have access to the trial, and they do not accept anything SGI members say about it. Their only source of information, then, is Nichiren Shoshu which has been very selective in what it has allowed them to know, and always accompanied by a declaration of impending total victory.

But in this case, the very items they chose to share tell us that's there's a lot more information, that they have ignored some of it, and that they have some of it but chose not to share it. What is missing is: The FOI military service record report says, right in the middle: "Assignments and their geographical locations see attached". Attached? Nichiren Shoshu has chosen not to share it.

The Seattle Civil Service leave confirmation: Look down to the bottom. "This form to be attached to report of return from leave". Attached? Nichiren Shoshu has chosen not to share it.

They also produced a property log from the Seattle police that, Nichiren Shoshu told its followers, was a record of Sprinkle's custody of his gun; and that this log showed he did not have a gun in March 1963.

Having been told that's what it is, one might read it that way and agree. The problem, however, is that it is not a record of Sprinkle. There are no overlapping dates. It's not "Birkenshaw came to get a gun, we issued him one. Then Rombauer, and we issued one to him, then Sprinkle came and we gave him one too."

The numbers at the top of the pages are not page numbers they are serial numbers. It's "This particular gun was issued to Birkenshaw. After he returned it, it was given to Rombauer. After he returned it, it was given to Sprinkle..."

It is not "the" record, it is two records, each of a different gun. A separate record was kept for each gun issued by the department, which makes perfect sense.

And it's not a record of Sprinkle, it's a record of two distinct items he was issued at different times.

TOP PAGE
REVOLVER 38 spec S&W 4 bbl 835176
Item Description Serial#
Name Date Issued  Date Issued Date Returned
Birkenshaw  10-22-46 26 May 61
Rombauer  10-2-61  11-15-61
Sprinkle  12-18-61  10-31-62
Kelly  11-2-62  5-25-65
B/O to range May 23 1965
traded in on new gun 5-20-65
Birkenshaw was issued S&W 38 spec 4 bbl, serial # 835176 in 1946. He returned it May 1961. It was then given to Rombauer in October of that year. He kept it for just a month, and it was then given to Sprinkle on December 18, 1961. Sprinkle turned it in when the reserves were activated, and three days later it was given to Kelly.

Kelly had that gun when Sprinkle returned to duty. And all we can tell from the record (bottom page) Nichiren Shoshu has provided you is that Sprinkle was given a completely different gun, #975797, on May 1, 1963.

For Nichiren Shoshu to prove anything, it has to have the record of EVERY gun, to demonstrate that there was not some OTHER gun Sprinkle was issued between October 1962 and May 1, 1963.

Then, there is the FOI-released record of his military service, and the orders.

The SGI answered this in court by producing affidavits from the Seattle PD, to the effect that Sprinkle had been transferred to part-time reserve duty at a base in Seattle, thus allowing him to work for the department on the side; and, since he was still technically in the reserves, he was issued a temporary badge and gun. Nichiren Shoshu, of course, does not share these documents with its members, thus allowing them to believe that the judge was misled, or deliberately ignored compelling evidence.

Nichiren Shoshu's evidence, in truth, was not all that "compelling".

So these forms together mean nothing. They are not an accurate record of Sprinkle's comings and goings, they are not an accurate record of his custody of a gun, they're not consistent within themselves, the released versions omit vital information, and they were misrepresented to Nichiren Shoshu members as being something they are not.

The whole purpose of this exercise is to fool Nichiren Shoshu's own members. To that end, its American lawyers sought an indictment for perjury against Sprinkle in Seattle. The judge in that case, seeing the same evidence, ruled there was no perjury and refused to indict.

Why would Nichiren Shoshu wait three years to impugn the witness, when they had the opportunity and the obligation to do so at the time he testified? What would suddenly make them think, "Hey, let's see if he was off the force at the time?"

Nothing that has anything to do with the trial. But Nichiren Shoshu needed to get its followers all worked up. There was a campaign under way to reach a number target for the big tozan of 2002.

But then the Kawabe Memo is leaked, giving lots of people the impression Nikken has doubts about the fundamental object of their faith.

So, to make them forget that, Nichiren Shoshu concocts a scheme to declare "great victory", get its people all worked up about the "evil Gakkai", and jumping for joy about how righteous their high priest is.

It plasters the Japanese press with their deceptive "evidence", and feed it to their most gullible Internet warriors.

But then, they lost the Seattle trial, and the Kawabe Memo has not ceased to exist. Their efforts, being based on falsehoods, are futile.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Trial provided Nichiren Shoshu, and Nikken Abe specifically, with a wonderful opportunity to display their basic nature of vindictiveness, their utter contempt for common human beings:

The following is the affidavit of Judy Clow, (daughter of the late Mrs. Hiroe Clow) which attorneys for the Soka Gakkai submitted in the Seattle Incident trial in Tokyo. In this document, Judy Clow reveals how, in March 1996, at the urging of attorneys for Nichiren Shoshu, the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsy on her mother's body without the Clow family's consent.

I, Judy Clow, being first duly sworn swear and affirm as follows:

1. I am a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California and I am over 18 years of age. The matters herein contained are of my own personal knowledge and if called to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so.

2. I am the daughter of Hiroe Clow, a witness to the Seattle Incident case in Japan. This affidavit concerns the facts and circumstances surrounding the congratulatory prayer beads sent to me by Rev Nikken Abe upon my wedding, as well as the facts and circumstances pertaining to the reasons for the delay of my mother's cremation because of an unauthorized autopsy.

3. I was born on July 23, 1960 in San Diego to Leslie and Hiroe Clow. My father died from a stomach ulcer in December, 1962, shortly after my mother gave birth to my brother, Frank. My mother raised both of us as a single parent. My mother's wish was that my brother Frank and I become respectable American citizens just like our father.

4. I entered West Los Angeles College in 1978 and learned accounting there. I have worked at Security Pacific Bank, Bank of America and Bank of California. I became manager of Gardena branch office of Republic Bank in 1995. Currently I am the manager of Gardena Branch of First Bank.

5. On March 12, 1983, I was married to Albert P. Saldivar at the Nichiren Shoshu Myoho-ji Temple in Etiwanda. A week or two prior to the wedding, a gift from Rev. Nikken Abe was delivered to my mother's house. Although at that time I was not fully aware of the significance of such a gift, I clearly remember the occasion because my mother was very surprised that Nikken had sent the gift. I remember her saying, "we are very honored, because it is very unusual for the High Priest to send a congratulatory gift to a lay believer."

6. The gift was a set of very beautiful prayer beads, the quality of which I had never seen before. The beads were contained in a wooden box wrapped in white ceremonial paper with Japanese calligraphy on it. Although able to speak Japanese, I was not adept at reading the language, and so did not understand what was written on the white wrapping paper. My mother informed me that Nikken, in his own hand, had written "Congratulations, Abe" with a traditional Japanese calligraphy brush.

7. At that time, Rev. Shobo Sakata, then chief priest of Myoho-ji Temple, informed us that special instructions from Nikken which accompanied the gift directed that it be presented at the wedding ceremony. Sakata undertook to carry out this task.
 

8. In fact, a videotape of the wedding ceremony shows that after the exchange of rings, Sakata carried out these instructions from Nikken and stated as follows: "This is a gift from the High Priest, Nikken Shonin Geika, on the occasion of the wedding ceremony of Albert and Judy. Please come forward. I sincerely hope that you will always keep in mind the deepest mercy and the wishes of the High Priest shown in the celebration of this wedding." Then Sakata handed the beads to my mother and she put the beads on my hand.

9. I have not used the beads since the wedding and have kept them in a bank safety deposit box. The only times that the beads have been removed from the safety box was in order to take pictures of them in conjunction with the Seattle Incident case or because I moved them from one bank safety deposit box to another. When the pictures I mentioned were taken, I believe the beads were stored in the safety deposit box at the University Village branch of Bank of America. I went to Japan to attend the cross-examination of Nikken Abe, during which time he denied the fact that he had sent the beads to me. He testified that the shape of the ribbon on the wrapping paper was not one used in wedding ceremonies. I do not know anything about such Japanese traditions, but I clearly remember the beads were sent to me upon my wedding. I cannot understand why he is lying about this.

10. My mother died of lung cancer on March 23, 1996. Prior to her passing, I had become very concerned about her health because of her complaints about her physical condition and loss of appetite. I believed that these symptoms were related to the physical strain of being required to repeatedly travel to Japan for the purpose of providing testimony in this litigation. I could not even imagine that she was suffering from lung cancer. In mid-March, 1996, I became really alarmed about her health and I urged her to see a doctor. My mother reluctantly agreed to see a cardiac specialist suggested by Mr. [Barry] Langberg [attorney for the Soka Gakkai]. On March 20, she got a complete physical check-up at Dr. Steven Tabak's office. On March 22, after having reviewed the results of a CT-scan and other tests performed on my mother at Cedars Sinai Hospital, Dr. Tabak informed me that his diagnosis was that she had an advanced case of lung cancer rather than a heart ailment. He recommended that she be examined by a lung specialist the following Monday, March 26, to confirm his diagnosis. This news was a severe blow to my brother and I, and I asked the doctor not to inform my mother of his diagnosis.

11. During this time my mother was very concerned about her upcoming cross- examination, and she told me that under no circumstances would she be prevented from going to Japan to give testimony. She said that whatever her condition turned out to be, she would not consent to any kind of operation at that time, because it would prevent her from being able to go to Japan. Instead, she wanted to have medication prescribed for her. My brother and I explained my mother's intentions to the doctor, and his response was that he did not want to make a superficial decision, but in no uncertain terms, he emphatically said he did not think she should go. We were trouble by her insistence, but we were very moved by her determination to achieve justice at trial. On March 23, after laying down to rest at home, she never again awoke.

12. Because she died at home, police officers came to the house soon after she expired. From our home, the officers contacted Dr. Tabak, who explained to them that she suffered from an advanced case of lung cancer. After hearing this explanation from the doctor, the officers came to the conclusion that she died a natural death and asked the doctor if he would be willing to sign the death certificate. The doctor readily agreed to do so.

13. Before the scheduled date of my mother's funeral, March 27, a man by the name of Campbell working for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office called me and said that there would be an investigation into her death because of allegations made by Kazumoto Ohno that her death occurred under suspicious circumstances. However, later that same day, Mr. Campbell called me back and said that Dr. Tabak had clarified the circumstances surrounding my mother's death and then apologized for the inconvenience. I was upset and outraged that someone who didn't know my mother or anyone from her family and who wasn't even present when my mother died, could so callously interfere in such a solemn occasion. Nevertheless, I felt relieved that the funeral was going to be able to proceed as scheduled.

14. On March 27, at 11:00 a.m., as scheduled, the memorial service was held. Afterwards, my mother's body was carried to the crematory. However, at around 5:00 p.m., the coroner's office again called to inform me that the cremation had been suspended, this time due to a formal complaint made by an attorney named Yasuhiro Fujita. They also told me that Captain Morgan of the Gardena Police Department had been assigned to the case. I immediately called the Gardena Police Department to find out what was going on. I was able to talk to an officer named Nakamura. He informed me that a homicide investigation had been commenced due to a complaint made by attorney Yasuhiro Fujita on behalf of Nichiren Shoshu, but he would not elaborate any further.

15. Because the cremation had been stopped under such circumstances, I became exasperated and consulted with Mr. Brunon, an attorney familiar with coroner office procedures, introduced to me by Mr. Langberg. Mr. Brunon was not able to tell me anything definitive about what could be done because he had not seen Fujita's complaint. However, he was able to inform me that the cremation was suspended in order to maintain the status quo, and that the police are extremely cautious in cases where allegations have been made that a death was the result of something other than natural causes. The result of Fujita's corrupt, improper and vulgar interference was that we were unable to cremate my mother's remains that day. We therefore spent a long, anguished evening feeling that the completion of this sacred occasion marking the conclusion of my mother's life was heartlessly ripped out of our control.

16. On the following day, March 28, at around 11:00 a.m., the coroner's office called me and informed me, to my absolute horror, that they had conducted an autopsy on my mother's body without our consent. I was staggered and appalled. During the conversation, the coroner told me that they had conducted the autopsy because there had been a complaint that the Soka Gakkai had been involved in her death. Despondently, I called Mr. Brunon and informed him of the conversation with the coroner, and begged him to find out what was going on as soon as possible. Mr. Brunon was able to ascertain that although it would take several weeks for the formal results of the autopsy to come out, the coroner's office nevertheless felt that it was quite obvious that my mother had died from natural causes, namely progressive lung cancer accompanied by heart disease. I was somewhat comforted when he also told me that based upon this information, the police had immediately concluded their investigation.

17. I was disgusted to find out from Mr. Brunon that he had learned that an individual named Kazumoto Ohno had sent numerous faxes to the Gardena Police Department, the coroner's office and sheriff's office which made false representations such as "The Soka Gakkai has a long history of criminal activity," "The second president of the Soka Gakkai Toda had been poisoned to death," and "The doctor who was present at Clow's death bed was a Soka Gakkai member."

18. I was also informed by Mr. Brunon that attorney Yasuhiro Fujita, acting on behalf of Nichiren Shoshu, had filed the vicious complaint which charged that the Soka Gakkai had been involved in the death of my mother, and demanding that evidence of the crime should be preserved. The complaint had been accompanied by several magazine articles critical of the Soka Gakkai.

19. I was further shocked to learn that the aforementioned Kazumoto Ohno was a freelance reporter working for the Japanese magazine "Weekly Bunshun." When I called the funeral home, I found out that someone from the "Weekly Bunshun" had called there on March 26, inquiring about my mother's funeral. Also, someone thought to be working for the magazine had attended the funeral. I became nauseous when I later learned that the "Weekly Bunshun" carried a loathsome article casting unsubstantiated doubt on my mother's death. Since Fujita's complaint was filed after Ohno's faxes had initially failed to convince the police to start a homicide investigation, the inference I made is that they probably were working in close collaboration.

20. The official autopsy report, including results of toxicology tests, made clear that there was nothing suspicious about my mother's death whatsoever. The Gardena Police Department expressed its regrets and informed me that Fujita probably tried to use my mother's death to enhance his side's position in the litigation in Japan, and that the Gardena Police Department was very upset with Fujita because they felt he had manipulated them.

21. We were finally able to cremate my mother's body on March 29. My family, including my brother, were humiliated and mortified by what Nichiren Shoshu and Fujita did to my mother and to us. In my eyes, by charging that my mother had been murdered, Nichiren Shoshu and its minions have revealed themselves as being desperate and despicable people. That they would deliberately attempt to inflict severe emotional distress on the grieving family of someone just deceased fills me with revulsion. I will never forgive Nichiren Shoshu for its wrongdoing. A religious organization should never conduct itself in such a manner. Because of my desire to illuminate for the court in the clearest terms possible how Nichiren Shoshu has defiled itself in connection with my mother's death, I have written everything as it happened to the best of my memory.

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

Executed this 25 day of February, 1999 at Gardena, California.

Judy Clow


       Other "Temple Issue" Topics:

  • Overview of Temple Issue
  • Deja Vu
  • The Kawabe Memo
  • Zen Cemetery
  • Shinto Talisman
  • Truth About the Heritage

  •