 |
|
 |
|
|
January 09, 1995
Volume 5, No. 1
New Evidence Refutes Nikken's
Claim About 'Seattle Incident'
Mrs. Clow discussed the case with her attorney, Barry
B. Langberg, and his law partner Joseph M. Gabriel, both
of the firm Langberg, Leslie and Gabriel, during an interview
with Ted Morino, managing editor for the 'World Tribune.'
SINCE Hiroe Clow first revealed the facts of the so-called
Seattle Incident in 1992, Nikken and various publications
under his control have denied her allegations and called
her a liar in print - both in Japanese and English. To
redeem her reputation and create a forum in which the
truth could be aired, Mrs. Clow subsequently filed a suit
in Los Angeles Superior Court on Sept. 17, 1992, charging
Nikken and several religious organizations under his direct
control with defamation. New evidence has recently been
revealed that supports her case.
Barry B. Langberg, Mrs. Clow's attorney, has shared with
the World Tribune evidence his investigation has uncovered
regarding Nikken Abe's activities during his 1963 visit
to Seattle. The evidence consists of records of one Nobuo
Abe being detained by the Seattle Police Department for
suspicion for solicitation of prostitution in March 1963.
The Seattle Incident was first brought to light in 1992
by Mrs. Clow, a pioneer SGI member now residing in Los
Angeles. The incident involved Nikken, now high priest
of Nichiren Shoshu, and some prostitutes in Seattle in
1963. At that time, Nikken was visiting the United States
as the Nichiren Shoshu study department chief to conduct
the first overseas Gohonzon conferral (gojukai) ceremonies.
Having kept silent for almost 30 years, Mrs. Clow publicly
revealed the incident and related events when she became
aware of Nikken's plots to destroy the SGI, the organization
for kosen-rufu she had helped build for many years.
Recently, that lawsuit reached an impasse due to technicalities.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has made procedural rulings
that it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus the trial
concerning the merits of the case will not be taking place
for the time being. While Mrs. Clow's attorney has called
these rulings incorrect and has launched an appeal, supporters
of Nikken and Nichiren Shoshu have been deliberately twisting
the meaning of these decisions by claiming that they indicate
that Mrs. Clow is lying. By promoting this view, they
are further defaming her integrity and dignity.This is
Mrs. Clow's personal lawsuit. However, the lawsuit is
of interest to SGI members because Mrs. Clow is a fellow
SGI member and because the outcome of the trial will bear
directly on Nikken Abe's qualifications as a high priest
of Nichiren Shoshu.
At this point, therefore, we would like to present the
facts of the case via an interview with Mr. Langberg,
Mrs. Clow's attorney, in which he answers questions posed
by Ted Morino, managing editor of the World Tribune. Mr.
Langberg is a prominent defamation attorney in Los Angeles
who has handled such noteworthy cases as the defamation
suits of comedienne Carol Burnett and actress Shirley
Jones.
************************
World Tribune: Mr. Langberg, thank you for taking the
time to talk with us today. To begin, could you recap
for us what is meant by the Seattle Incident?
Barry B. Langberg: Yes. The Seattle Incident refers to
an event that occurred in Seattle in March 1963, which
Mrs. Clow chose to reveal after many years of keeping
knowledge of it to herself. That incident involved Nikken
Abe when he came to the United States for religious purposes
- to conduct a religious ceremony. He was not the high
priest of Nichiren Shoshu at the time, but a ranking priest
within the order.
On the occasion of that visit, he was accompanied by Mrs.
Clow, who essentially was assigned to see to his well-being.
As Mrs. Clow has described the incident, she was eventually
summoned by the police to come to a street in downtown
Seattle where Nikken had become involved in a dispute
with some prostitutes some time between the late hours
of March 19 and the early morning hours of March 20. The
particular area to which she was summoned in those days
was very well known for prostitution and for being sort
of a rough neighborhood. At that time, Mrs. Clow had to
extricate Nikken Abe from a predicament that ultimately
led his being detained by the police. That, in brief,
is what is referred to as the Seattle Incident.
Moreover, on an airplane while bound to Chicago, Mrs.
Clow witnessed Nikken Abe make an improper advance toward
an airline stewardess. And, in addition, he even asked
Mrs. Clow to tell him where he could find pornographic
materials.
WT: We have heard that, while the case is still under
way, the most recent decisions by the court have not been
in Mrs. Clow's favor. Could you explain these decisions
and what they mean?
Langberg: First, to say that there were decisions made
against Mrs. Clow is not entirely true, because this would
imply that the court made a decision on the merits or
the substance of the case. However, the court has never
ruled upon the merits of this case. On the contrary, the
defendants, who include Nikken, have done everything possible
to avoid a decision being made on the merits or the substance
of the case. There are two cases, really, involving defamatory
remarks made about Mrs. Clow in two separate Nichiren
Shoshu-related publications - in the Daibyakuho, a Japanese
publication, and in a special English-language edition
of the Dai-Nichiren. The only significant decision the
court has made in either of these cases concerns a request
by those defendants who do not reside in California -
primarily Nikken, Obayashi (the Nichiren Shoshu overseas
bureau chief) and Nichiren Shoshu in Japan. These defendants
asked the court not to proceed with the case against them
on the grounds that they do not have sufficient contact
with California for the court to have jurisdiction over
them.
Being a question of jurisdiction, this, of course, clearly
has nothing to do with the merits or facts of the case.
In particular, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether
Mrs. Clow is telling the truth and nothing at all to do
with whether these incidents really happened. The defendants
have done everything possible to avoid having the court
hear the merits of the case.
All we wish to do is to come in to court, present our
evidence before a jury, and have the jury decide who's
telling the truth about what really happened in Seattle
and what really happened on the airplane. On the other
hand, the defendants have avoided this by attempting to
convince the court that it doesn't have jurisdiction over
them - that the court should not hear this case on the
merits.
WT: What kind of approach are you taking to have the court
examine the merits of the case?
Langberg: As a matter of fact, Mrs. Clow is so intent
on having a chance to present the evidence and clarify
the truth that we have recently offered the other side
an opportunity to have the evidence presented in the forum
of a very simple and quick process. That offer is that
we will abandon the current appeals, Mrs. Clow will give
up her right to have her case heard by a jury, and the
two sides will agree on a retired judge to hear the case.
This process has a basis in the California constitution
and the decision of the retired judge would have the same
effect as a decision of the regular trial court.
The retired judge would then be appointed to sit as the
trier of fact, and the evidence presented to him to make
a decision based on the evidence that he hears. We are
confident that any trier of fact, whether it be a judge
or a jury will know what the truth is upon hearing the
evidence.
Of course, the jurisdictional decisions are now on appeal
to a higher court, and we believe there's a very good
chance that higher court will rule in our favor.
WT: Nikken himself has said that if what Mrs. Clow says
is true, he could not remain in his position as high priest
and would quit immediately. He has thus confirmed that
his status hinges upon the outcome of this lawsuit. It
seems that he should therefore definitely accept your
proposal. By the way, upon what does the court base its
decision that it lacks jurisdiction over the case?
Langberg: To understand this point, let's look at what
we and the defendants have been advocating. What they've
done so far is to convince the trial court that the State
of California lacks sufficient contact with Nikken to
exercise jurisdiction over him. They have asserted to
the trial court that Nikken really doesn't control the
California corporations known as NST (Nichiren Shoshu
Temple) and NSH (Nichiren Shoshu Hokkeko), that he has
power over them in name only, and that he exercises no
practical control over these corporations and no control
over the individual Nichiren Shoshu temples here in the
United States.
We have, however, presented substantial evidence to the
contrary. Nikken, for instance, appoints the chief priest
of each temple, makes financial decisions, and makes decisions
about acquiring property. We think that we've presented
very compelling evidence that he actually, personally
controls these entities.
In addition, they have made unfounded statements, presenting,
for example, a so-called expert on Japanese customs and
religions who testified that Nikken not only doesn't have
the power to control these entities but that the process
by which a person becomes the high priest is one in which
he is adopted into the family of the previous high priest.
I'm not an expert on Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, but I have
asked some people who are, including people in the family
of the previous high priest, and they certainly disagree
with this statement - they think it ludicrous that anything
like that could be said.
We took the deposition of Jiho Takahashi, the chief priest
of the San Francisco temple. On the first day of that
deposition, the Rev. Takahashi indicated that he really
knows very little about the workings of the California
corporation NST and its relationship with the Japanese
corporation Nichiren Shoshu. He also indicated that he
doesn't know much about the financial aspects of NST -
that although he was at the board meetings, he didn't
hear much. On the second day of questioning, however,
we showed him a two-inch stack of documents, most of which
were minutes from board meetings in which he himself had
functioned as secretary, taking down minutes containing
comments on Nikken's involvement in financial aspects
of NST and signing off on them. This was totally contradictory
to what he had told us the first day.
This is just a small portion of a tremendous volume of
evidence showing that California really does have jurisdiction
over Nikken and Obayashi in this case.
WT: Why, then, did the court decide that it has no jurisdiction
over this case despite such evidence to the contrary?
Langberg: The reason, I think, is obvious, and that is
that the trial court has basically misunderstood the case
and Mrs. Clow's motives in bringing it. This misunderstanding
is evident in the court's stated position.
The trial court has taken the position that this case
is really part of a religious conflict between the Soka
Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. As part of
that religious conflict, the court held that the case
should be heard in Japan, which it views as the most appropriate
venue because that is where the major portion of this
conflict is occurring.
We believe that the trial court has allowed this view
to override all of the evidence that has been presented
- and much of that evidence is very compelling and uncontradicted.
In taking this view, we have to say that the trial court
has very much misperceived the true nature of the case.
WT: Could you elaborate further why you think the court
has come to a mistaken conclusion by viewing the case
as part of a larger religious conflict?
Langberg: First of all, the act of libel is of a very
personal nature. In this case, Nikken and others have
called Mrs. Clow a liar, thus deeply defaming her personally.
No one else but Mrs. Clow can bring this case to the court.
The second point I want to make involves my personal impression
of Mrs. Clow's motivation. Of course, Mrs. Clow can speak
for herself, but my understanding is that she certainly
was motivated by this religious conflict. In other words,
the background of the religious conflict was undoubtedly
weighing heavily on her mind when she finally decided
to make this information public.
But the defamation suit that Mrs. Clow brought to the
court is a matter entirely different from the religious
conflict between Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI. The defamation
suit is a response to vile statements that were made about
her, that hurt her reputation here in California, not
in Japan. She lives here in California, and her reputation
is here in the community where she lives. Mrs. Clow's
personal reputation and the damage it has suffered through
such statements is in no way related to any religious
conflict.
What is important is the fact that these statements were
published first in Japanese in the Daibyakuho, and then,
because Nikken and others were not satisfied with these
statements being published only in Japanese - because
they wanted to ensure that people here in California could
hear these lies about Mrs. Clow - they published them
in English. Why, may I ask, would they publish these statements
in English if the whole import of the matter lies solely
in Japan, as the defendants claim? It doesn't make any
sense, does it? An English publication would not have
been necessary to defame Mrs. Clow in Japan; they could
have done it entirely in Japanese. They needed an English
publication because they intended to direct it here, to
California, where Mrs. Clow lives and where it would hurt
her the most.
To sum up, then, this lawsuit is Mrs. Clow's lawsuit,
brought by her to try to redeem her reputation. Anyone
who thinks that the lawsuit is being controlled or manufactured
by anyone else has been utterly misled. I, as Mrs. Clow's
attorney, am the only person making any of the legal decisions
in this lawsuit, and I make those decisions based only
on Mrs. Clow's interests.
Another point worth noting is that these defendants have
hindered us from getting at the truth in every possible
way. The jurisdictional objections are one major hindrance.
But even when we were conducting discovery (the process
of obtaining data or documents that a party to a legal
action is compelled to disclose to another party either
before or during a proceeding), the other side refused
to answer questions and produce documents properly. They
refused to the extent that the court had to order them
to produce documents and answer certain questions, imposing
on them a fine exceeding $6,000 because of their improper
refusals. It's extremely clear that they don't want to
have this case heard on the merits in front of a jury.
And, in particular, it seems that they don't want it heard
in California, where we have reasonable access to the
evidence, and where the process can be accomplished in
a relatively short period.
WT: Nikken Abe flatly denies Mrs. Clow's allegations.
Can you share with us your view on the truth of this matter?
Langberg: Certainly. We think that there is very strong
evidence to establish that Mrs. Clow, and not Nikken,
is telling the truth. First of all, the only evidence
that anyone who knows Mrs. Clow's character would need
is her word, because she's clearly not the kind of person
who would advocate a story like this unless it was true.
Also, if you think about it, it's an amazing story for
anybody to think up out of the blue. It would take a truly
strange imagination for anyone to simply manufacture something
like this - something that happened in Seattle in 1963,
in which a Buddhist priest solicited prostitutes and was
detained by police in the red-light district. Again, knowing
Mrs. Clow, you would easily realize that fabricating a
story like this would be the last thing she would do.
In case anyone needs additional proof beyond this, however,
we have, quite amazingly, been able to locate it. I say
amazingly because the length of time that has passed since
the incident would normally make it very difficult to
come up with any solid evidence. I believe this is what
prompted the defendant to deny the charges - his assumption
that we would never be able to prove something that happened
so long ago. I believe, however, that we will be able
to prove it in court. I can say this because we have employed
investigators and conducted a tremendous amount of research
in order to confirm what Mrs. Clow has said.
WT: Nikken and others claim that the place which Mrs.
Clow points out as the site of the incident was not an
unsavory area at the time, as she describes. Do you have
any evidence to contradict this?
Langberg: It is not difficult at all to refute this claim.
The neighborhood of 7th Avenue where the incident took
place is within a certain area in Seattle known as the
Pike Street area. There is no question that this area
was fraught with prostitution and related activities during
those years. We have any number of people who lived in
the area at the time, who worked in the area at the time,
including former Seattle police officers, who can all
testify unequivocally that it was an area that hosted
a high level of prostitution activities.
WT: Have you obtained any tangible evidence that supports
Mrs. Clow's description of the incident?
Langberg: Yes, we have. We retained the assistance of
another law firm, a large firm in Miami by the name of
Steel, Hector & Davis, and through their contacts
and sources they were able to determine that a record
exists in government files under the name Nobuo Abe reflecting
the 1963 event. The detention - the police involvement
- is reflected in the file based on a written record that
must have been made at the time by the police officers
reflecting Nobuo Abe's involvement with prostitutes. We
have received from the above law office a letter that
confirms this fact.
WT: Could you share with us any of the contents of that
document?
Langberg: Of course. The letter from Steel, Hector &
Davis reads:
Dear Ms. Clow:
You requested us to investigate whether the United States
government has maintained any records of an investigation
concerning an individual known as Nobuo Abe, a foreign
national, born Dec. 19, 1922. Subsequent to this request,
we engaged...a highly-prestigious private investigation
firm.
The letter goes on to cite the reputation and qualifications
of the firm and its director, but I will not go into specifics
here. The document continues:
[The investigation firm] reported to us on Nov. 17, 1994,
that a source within the U.S. Government in Washington,
D.C. was contacted and the source confirmed to the firm
that there is a record for Nobuo Abe. According to the
firm's report to us, the record refers to:
Suspicion of Solicitation of Prostitution
Seattle Police Department
March, 1963
From 1974 to 1979, I served as an Assistant United States
Attorney and Special Attorney with the United States Department
of Justice. Following my government service, I have been
practicing law primarily in the area of criminal defense.
Based on my experience, the contents of the record on
Nobuo Abe, as revealed to us by [the firm,] indicate to
me that some type of inquiry or investigation regarding
suspicion of solicitation of prostitution was conducted
in March, 1963, by the Seattle Police Department on Nobuo
Abe.
I am able to testify as to the truthfulness and accuracy
of my statements in this letter.
Very truly yours,
(signed by) Rebekah J. Poston
Of Counsel
WT: This is an impressive piece of evidence that seems
to prove the truth of Mrs. Clow's statements. However,
while the evidence you refer to cites recollections and
records pertaining to a Nobuo Abe, I understand that the
priesthood has protested that Nikken's name at the time
was pronounced Shinno Abe (though the Japanese characters
used in the name Shinno could also be pronounced Nobuo).
Would this claim present a problem in a trial?
Langberg: This is quite a simple matter. At the time,
Mrs. Clow thought Nikken's name was pronounced Nobuo Abe,
and this was the name she reported to the police. From
the beginning, Mrs. Clow has been consistent about this
point. The correctness of Mrs. Clow's memory is proven
by the evidence I have just now shared with you.
In addition, it is my understanding that the Japanese
characters for Shinno, which Nikken claims was his given
name at the time, would most naturally be pronounced Nobuo
by any Japanese person reading them. Shinno would be a
rather rare and unusual pronunciation of those characters,
while Nobuo would be usual. Mrs. Clow's only access to
Nikken's first name at the time would have been through
the written documents provided her, since I understand
by Japanese etiquette she would never have addressed him
by or inquired about his first name and, therefore, would
never have been informed of the way he pronounced it.
It is quite obvious that Mrs. Clow's impression at the
time, through seeing the name only in written form, was
that his name was Nobuo Abe, and this was the name she
reported to the police when asked.
I would like to pose the following question: How many
Nobuo Abes - or Japanese men whose written name could
easily be pronounced Nobuo Abe - were around the Pike
Street area of Seattle in March of 1963 and were detained
for solicitation of prostitution - a fact also verified
by the government file? The truth is obvious. They can
say whatever they want about the name, but I think if
they do, it will be very superfluous to the fact that
the legal evidence clearly indicates that Mrs. Clow is
telling the absolute truth.
Lastly, I would like to say that the moment I first heard
Mrs. Clow say what she had to say, I was convinced that
she was telling the truth. As we continued our investigation,
my conviction of her truthfulness steadily deepened. The
evidence I have shared with you this time is also proof
of her truthfulness. Of course, we do possess further
evidence that also supports Mrs. Clow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
