 |
|
|
|
 |
   |
 |
|
 |
|
JIYU
August 1996 Issue
The mysteries behind the lawsuit filed against Daisaku Ikeda
Why the civil suit was filed at this point in time: An analysis of the motive
Yoshihiro Sakaguchi, Journalist
Pointed Questions by the Foreign Press Corp
On June 24, 1996, Nobuko Nobuhira-who has filed a civil suit seeking ¥75 million in damages from Soka Gakkai Honorary President Daisaku Ikeda for alleged rape-held a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan.
Because the Soka Gakkai has members in most countries of the world, the foreign press corp was
particularly attentive to the charges made by Mrs. Nobuhira at the press conference.
Mrs. Nobuhira spoke for some 40 minutes, essentially repeating what she asserted in the article she wrote for Shukan Shincho. Aside from subjective impressions like “I lost consciousness” and her “clothes were torn to shreds,” there was little new evidence collaborating her charge. Moreover, there were so many inconsistencies in her replies to the fielded questions that the skepticism among the gathered reporters was palpable.
The following is an abbreviated transcript of the questions and answers that transpired, interspersed with some observations posited by this reporter.
 |
Question: |
|
Why did you file a civil suit rather than a criminal suit?
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
A criminal investigation would be hard on my client. I have handled numerous rape cases, and whether to press a civil or criminal suit is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As for this case, we haven’t ruled out filing a criminal suit.
|
|
Question: |
|
You said that you debated whether to file a civil or criminal suit, but the truth is, only the third incident is prosecutable under the criminal code. And much time has passed for even that incident; it would be extremely difficult to prove. In the case of a civil suit, the statute of limitations is only three years. Why, despite these factors, are you filing a civil suit? Also, in connection to an earlier question: Since you remained in the Soka Gakkai as a leader for such a long time, you probably had encounters with Ikeda even if you didn’t want to. Moreover, you have yet to explain the reason for your making the charges public now, after remaining with the Soka Gakkai for so long.
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
It certainly is true that, in general, it is difficult to establish proof in a rape case. That my client kept this secret and the fact that so much time has passed since they occurred adds to the difficulty. But the statute of limitations are not always firmly fixed. (Citing an example of a traffic accident,) in the event that an injury persists after the fact, or that damage suffered by the plaintiff is ongoing, then the statute of limitations do not necessarily apply. In Mrs. Nobuhira’s case, since the issue of divorce came up, and her psychological anguish has remained, we argue that the statute of limitations has not expired. Also, if the defense were to make an assertion like, “We admit the rape took place, but the statute of limitations have expired,” then that would be an abuse of the principle of statute of limitations. There have been legal precedents that hold that such claims are not acceptable.
|
|
Question: |
|
That’s the situation regarding the civil suit. But as for a criminal suit, you could still file charges over the alleged final incident. What are you going to do?
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
I can’t answer that because we haven’t determined an official position on that yet.
|
Whether to file a criminal suit or civil suit is a matter requiring the decision of Mrs. Nobuhira herself. The question by reporters asking why the plaintiff hasn’t sought to file a criminal suit is itself the focal point of the entire affair. It would seem that, if the plaintiff had had to bear her secret for so long, and that she felt as though she could no longer forgive the defendant, then it would not be a matter of monetary compensation, but a desire to put the alleged assailant behind bars. So skepticism over the plaintiff’s motive for seeking a civil suit lingers. Her attorney argues that a criminal investigation would be “hard” on Mrs. Nobuhira, but a civil suit would be no less arduous. If the plaintiff was truly confident in winning the case, then she would be forthright in filing criminal charges.
Suspicions Over the Lawsuit’s Timing
Another major mystery in this affair is: Why now? The plaintiff and her lawyer offer the difficulty in substantiating rape cases, to the fact that the alleged incidents took place in a secluded room and the passage of time since they purportedly occurred.
But citing whatever difficulties as a reason [for the delay] is incongruous-they should in fact be reasons to file suit as quickly as possible. The longer the delay, the less one is apt to recall all the details-not just the dates, time or places, but whether they were real or imagined. Of course, Nobuko Nobuhira’s recall may not fail her. But memory loss begins to accelerate in people from the forties and fifties; the plaintiff is 69. This is not to accuse her of such, but this reporter cannot help but think the charges should have been filed as soon as possible, while her recollection of the incidents remain vivid.
|
Question: |
|
Unless one is an expert at judo or some martial art, it’s extremely unlikely to make a person lose consciousness without killing her or him. Did Ikeda practice some kind of martial arts?
|
|
Answer (Nobuhira): |
|
I’m not aware that he did. But on one occasion, he gave my husband something, a bamboo sword, I believe. He, for example, used to play the piano and do other things, but I don’t know whether he practiced martial arts.
This is an astute question. It is no easy task for one person to knock a person unconscious. We may see it often enough in the movies or television, where one well-placed karate chop falls an adversary. But that only happens in fiction: it’s far more difficulty in reality. One need only to ask an expert in judo, karate or boxing. As one who used to practice judo, karate and sumo, this reporter ought to know.
In the February 22, 1996 issue of Shukan Shincho, Mrs. Nobuhira alleges that her clothes were ripped off, and she was unable to cry out for help because she fainted as a result of diminished blood circulation when she was bowled forward on her face. Whether her allegation is true or not will eventually be borne out. Let us now return to the questions raised at her press conference.
|
|
Question: |
|
The Soka Gakkai claims that the “Loire” coffee shop did not exist at the time the second incident allegedly occurred.
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
It did exist. We have evidence.
|
That is what the plaintiff’s lawyer asserts. But the truth is, there was no Loire. Mrs. Nobuhira claims that she was assaulted for the second time in the prefabricated coffee shop Loire built on the grounds of the Hakodate Training Center in August 1983.
Yet that could not be. On June 20, 1982, some 5,000 Soka Gakkai members gathered at the training center to participate in a major meeting. The Loire was only a temporary facility built to service those members for that one occasion. As such, when the meeting concluded, the coffee shop was dismantled and removed from the premise.
The Loire was not re-built when the second incident allegedly took place, August 1983, because there were no large-scale Soka Gakkai activities held at the time. So it did not exist during the month in question. One can only speculate what that implies. There is additional evidence corroborating Soka Gakkai’s assertion.
For its own reasons, the Japanese Forestry and Agriculture Agency has been taking aerial photographs of all the regions in Hokkaido [of which Hakodate is one]. Photos were taken over the Hakodate Training Center in 1982 and 1983, the former on October 2 and the latter, August 6. These pictures were filed away. But when examined, they show no sign of the Loire-an incontrovertible refutation of the plaintiff’s charges.
These facts are already available in Soka Gakkai publications, and Mrs. Nobuhira and her party have no doubt looked through them. Perhaps because they have, the plaintiff has begun to “change” the dates in which the alleged rapes took place. The reporters, however, were quick to point out the discrepancy.
|
Question: |
|
Why did you change the dates in the letter of complaint?
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
The Soka Gakkai’s claims to this effect are based on reports issued by the media. They were published at a time when we lawyers had yet to accept the case, so we cannot be held responsible for all the stories that the press comes out with. One article doesn’t tell the entire truth. If the contents are presented differently from what we have here today, then you should direct your questions to the people that wrote them. For our part, there are no discrepancies surrounding the facts.
|
|
Follow-on (Nobuhira): |
|
The dates are just as my attorney has stated.
|
This exchange is a bit difficult to understand. Are the plaintiff and her attorneys casting doubt on the credibility of the press? Or are they skeptical about the authenticity of the Forestry and Agriculture Agency’s aerial photographs?
Mrs. Nobuhira’s Motive is Clear
|
Question: |
|
Have you been ordered by the court to repay money that you borrowed?
|
|
Answer (Nobuhira): |
|
No. That has nothing to do with rape.
|
|
Follow-on (Attorney): |
|
She has not been ordered.
|
|
Question: |
|
What about your husband?
|
|
Answer (Nobuhira): |
|
He has. But that has nothing to do with the present matter. Also, my husband is a kamikaze-type person who recklessly went to court without a lawyer, and he lost. The Soka Gakkai has filed as many as three suits against him, but in view of the timing, it’s clear that they brought these lawsuits in order to silence me.
|
|
Question: |
|
Is it true that you have not returned the money that you borrowed?
|
|
Answer (Attorney): |
|
There is no truth to this, either for the plaintiff or her spouse.
|
|
Follow-on (Nobuhira): |
|
Just as my attorney says, it is not true.
|
To reiterate this exchange: The plaintiff asserts that her borrowing money is immaterial to the rape case; that her husband has outstanding debts, but that too has no relevance; and lastly, the Nobuhiras do not owe anyone money.
The Soka Gakkai Public Relations Office, however, notes: “The truth is, the Nobuhiras have compiled nearly ¥100 million in debt from numerous people that has yet to be repaid. The Nobuhiras say that the husband lost [the court cases in which people sued to get their money back] because he did not retain a lawyer. Yet, when they appealed one verdict to the Supreme Court, he lost in spite of retaining an attorney. In fact, the Nobuhiras have received a court order to repay their debt. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant in May 1996 to pay back ¥5.2 million to the plaintiff.
This single incident alone is evidence enough. False accusations leveled by one person against another so as to incur controversy as well as injure the latter’s reputation is intrinsically malicious, so much so that it may be considered inimical to the social fabric. For this reason, it should never be tolerated.”
In the past, an attorney retained by the Soka Gakkai sought to extort ¥200 million from his client. The Nobuhira case seems to echo that affair.
The scenario is familiar: An individual who has been near the highest echelons of the Soka Gakkai has a tabloid weekly with strong anti-Soka Gakkai editorial sentiments publish material on the organization. Other members of the media then join the fray. Whether the material is factual or fictional does not matter: what does matter is that the press, the business that it is, fall over each other with follow-on stories. That end is just what the individual wants to achieve, so it isn’t relevant what the contents are, just as long as it is packaged for shock value. The resulting imbroglio is then left to the Soka Gakkai to clear up.
Nobuko Nobuhira and her husband Junkou are two focal players on front stage, acting out their roles. While time will tell who scripted their play and who choreographed it, what is puzzling is the exact motive of the plaintiff. Why did she decide to confess to what allegedly happened at this time, when she had endured all these years, choosing not to confide even in her beloved spouse?
One source let on the following: “Her motive is clear. But I won’t reveal it here because people don’t really listen, and it’ll just cause a ruckus. But it isn’t a surprise for those who know that couple.”
Now then, a stunning statement was made at the press conference held at the Foreign Correspondents Club: the denial that the Nobuhiras were not repaying money borrowed from other people. Yet, a veritable stream of people have been coming out in public to assert that the Nobuhiras have wrecked their lives.
Kikue Shimizu, whose lawsuit against the Nobuhiras was thoroughly endorsed by the No. 1 Hakodate District Court in 1993, related the following: “The Nobuhiras were after me for my money, and I eventually loaned them ¥7 million. They repaid part of the loan. But they still owed me ¥2.64 million, so I gritted my teeth and resolved to get all my money back by suing them.”
(Incidentally, the Nobuhiras, dissatisfied by the district court verdict, appealed to the Sapporo superior court, only to learn that their appeal was dismissed on May 29 of this year.)
Mrs. Shimizu is a sincere, warm and quiet woman. Her taciturn son, who stood by her side, was visibly upset by the unapologetic Nobuhiras and their deviousness.
Victims’ Association Sues the Nobuhiras
“Whenever I met Junkou, he was always insisting that I loan him money,” recalls Shigeko Takaishi. “He used to say, ‘I’ve often been in jail. So if something happens, I don’t mind going back; it’s like a retreat for me.’ He was a man who used to say such things without batting an eye. He used to hang around my house or wait in the alleys for me [to ask for money]. It was a truly frightening experience.”
Mrs. Takaishi once unwittingly told Mrs. Nobuhira that her husband was looking to sell some land and houses he owned. That led to a storm of more problems.
“Let my husband (Junkou) handle it,” Mrs. Nobuhira insisted. Her spouse not only sat in on negotiations to sell the Takaishi’s real estate, but requested to be paid as an intermediary. Even worse, Mr. Nobuhira even asked that the money made from the deal-¥8 million-be loaned to him. Unable to put him off any further, the Takaishis agreed to loan part of the money. Things did not end there, however: Mrs. Nobuhira began soliciting Mrs. Takaishi to buy her used clothes-which she did, for ¥800,000. The Nobuhiras, in short, had become like sharks in a feeding frenzy, refusing to let go of the prey they had in their jaws.
Indeed, the couple seems to have victimized a large number of people. No longer able to tolerate such abuse, they in turn got together to form an “Association to Prosecute the Nobuhiras.” The association, vowing to hold the couple accountable, wrote in its newsletter:
“We came together to shed light on the iniquitable activities of the Nobuhiras. They are infamous sham artists who-by misrepresenting themselves as “good people” to the media-have repeatedly caused great social harm through financial misbehavior and other misdeeds. This association was established to expose their insidious conduct and the true extent of the anguish they caused.
We seek through this association newsletter to protect our rights as individual citizens, and tirelessly work so that our voices may be heard by as many people as possible. We would be delighted, moreover, to accept any information about the Nobuhiras you may have, or learn your views on the matter or this newsletter itself.”
Virtually all the members of the victims’ association are honest, unsuspecting women. Worse still, many of the victims are widows who are humbly making ends meet through what little financial assets or life insurance money their deceased spouses left them. It boggles the mind to learn that Nobuko and Junkou Nobuhira borrowed money from them-and when asked to repay it, the couple would sue their victims in return.
The Nobuhiras’ notoriety has gotten so bad that even their relatives reportedly refuse to deal with the couple. Readers may find all this incredible, yet the sad fact is, it is the truth. And sooner or later, it will be drug up to see the light of day.
Back to The Accusations of Nobuko Nobuhira >>
|
|
|
 |
|
