|
The Following was originally published in Japanese in the Daibyakuho, Special Supplement, 8/10/99, by Nichiren Shoshu Hokkeko Rengokai.
False Testimony on an Unprecedented Scale
Pillars of Gakkai's "Seattle Incident" Allegations Collapse Completely
The True Nature of Ikeda-Sokagakkai, Bared for All to See!
Overseas Bureau, The Nichiren Shoshu
(cover)
Whole Story Exposed as a Complete Lie from the Very Beginning!
Official National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, Police and Public Prosecutors Office Records All Reveal False Witness
Sprinkle, the Supposed "Officer at the Scene", on Military Leave with U.S. Air Force!
Everybody knows what happens to a sandcastle on the beach, and now the oceans of truth have done their work on a particular sandcastle of lies. Since June 17, 1992, Daisaku Ikeda's Sokagakkai (Ikeda-Sokagakkai) has repeatedly and persistently published false, fabricated allegations. Using Hiroe Clow as its witness, it has claimed in the Soka Shimpo, Seikyo Shimbun, and other Gakkai media that the High Priest used the services of prostitutes.
According to the Gakkai's story, on March 20, 1963, during the first overseas gojukai trip, High Priest Nikken had a dispute with prostitutes late at night in Seattle, was detained (questioned) by police, and rescued by Clow, a member of the local Sokagakkai women's division. Nichiren Shoshu responded by filing a defamation suit demanding an apology against co-defendants Daisaku lkeda and Sokagakkai with the Tokyo District Court. Sokagakkai called to the witness stand Ronald C. Sprinkle, a former Seattle Police officer, whom they claim was an eyewitness to the incident and an officer at the scene, to testify in court. Sprinkle testified along the lines of the story fabricated by Sokagakkai and, despite the passage of more than 30 years,
Pg. 1
further claimed that he "immediately recognized" Clow as the woman who had rushed to the scene of what the Gakkai calls the Seattle Incident.
However, there has been a remarkable development. Just as the Clow case now before the Tokyo District Court began to draw to a close, Nichiren Shoshu concentrated on a further investigation into Sprinkle's affairs and discovered astonishing information held by the Seattle Police Department and the U S. Air Force. Upon reviewing numerous official documents obtained from the police and the military under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Nichiren Shoshu's investigators learned that Sprinkle could not have possibly been patrolling downtown Seattle as a Seattle Police officer in March 1963, nor been involved in the Seattle Incident as Clow claimed: Sprinkle was in fact on leave from the Seattle Police Department, doing military service in the U.S. Air Force, at the time of the alleged incident! These findings prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Clow's testimony is also completely false.
(Image)
Daisaku Ikeda, a co-defendant (Kyodo)
Pg. 2
False Witness (Sprinkle) for a Fabricated Incident
Official records held by the Seattle Police Department and the U.S. Air Force clearly show that Sprinkle, who had been a U.S. Air Force
reservist as of October 1, 1962, was suddenly called to duty on October 28, 1962, by the Air Force at the outbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cuban Crisis was resolved quickly, and Sprinkle returned to regular Military service. He underwent daily military training at Air Force bases for six months until his release from active military service on April 26, 1963. Sprinkle submitted a military leave notice to the Seattle police Department covering this period, and the above official documents make it absolutely clear that until he returned to active police duty on May 6, 1963, he was not an active-duty officer of the Seattle Police Department. In other words, Sprinkle could not have possibly been a uniformed police officer with the Seattle Police Department neither in the late evening of March 19, 1963, nor in the early hours of March 20, 1963. In court, Sprinkle testified that he was a Seattle Police officer patrolling downtown Seattle in Seattle Police Department patrol car no. 123 on the night of the alleged incident; that he detained (questioned) an oriental male who had been arguing with prostitutes; that he called Hiroe Clow to the scene by dialing a telephone number written on a
(Image)
President Einosuke Akiya of Sokagakkai (Kyodo)
Pg. 3
piece of paper that the man had taken out of his pocket, and that he released the man into her care; however, the official records mentioned above prove that every one of these assertions is a total falsehood.
Clow claimed in Tokyo District Court that "When I met Mr. Sprinkle, I recognized him immediately as the police officer who had attended the scene 30 years ago." The latest findings reveal that this testimony is also completely false. With this simple utterance, the reliability of Clow's already ludicrous testimony was utterly destroyed.
Thus, Sokagakkai's attempt to prove that the so-called Seattle Incident had taken place, using Clow and Sprinkle as eyewitnesses, has collapsed from its very foundations. Sprinkle had received a monthly cash payment of four thousand dollars from an American law firm working for
Sokagakkai, and therefore Sokagakkai cannot be considered an innocent bystander to his false testimony. Sokagakkai is accountable for its role in this obstruction of justice, and should be denounced as the threat to civil society that it is.
(Image)
The late Hiroe Clow (Photo published with her initial accusations)
Pg. 4
Records Hold the Truth
Having reached the final stages of the Clow case in Tokyo, Nichiren Shoshu instructed attorney H. Jay Kallman, who had achieved a full victory for Nichiren Shoshu in the Clow lawsuits in Los Angeles, to reinvestigate Sprinkle thoroughly. Mr. Kallman set up an investigation team led by a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigator and two former officers of the Seattle Police Department. The team first noted that there had been a major crackdown on corruption within the Seattle Police Department in the early 1970s. They learned that Sprinkle had been interviewed by the King County Public Prosecutors Office, which was investigating corruption, and a memorandum prepared by the prosecutor was still on file. This memorandum records that Sprinkle stated in his interview that he had been called up for six months into the Air Force Reserves during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in the second half of October 1962. Based on this information, the investigators suspected that Sprinkle could have been on leave from
(Image)
Sokagakkai's star witness, former police officer Sprinkle
Pg. 5
the Seattle Police Department in March 1963, when Sokagakkai's Seattle Incident is supposed to have taken place. The team went to the Seattle Police Department and Seattle Police Pension Board to investigate further, seeking to clarify when Sprinkle had done his military service.
The Seattle Police Pension Board keeps accurate records on the number of days police officers work while in service to calculate retired police officers' pensions. It transpired that the Pension Board still had Sprinkle's original Time Credit Card. An entry on Sprinkle's card, dated October 30,1962, says, "Military leave starts." In other words, Sprinkle took a leave of absence from the police department to begin military service. Another entry, dated May 6,1963, says "Returned from military leave," indicating that Sprinkle returned to active duty at the Seattle Police Department after military service on that day. On March 20,1963, the date of Sokagakkai's alleged Seattle Incident, he had not yet returned to active police duty, but instead was still in the military. Sprinkle's Time Credit Card also confirmed that he had not been paid a salary by the Seattle Police Department during the period of his military leave.
Pg. 6
(Image)
Special Order of the 97th Troop Carrier Squadron dated October 28, 1962. Sprinkle was ordered to report immediately, on the same day.
Pg. 7
No Evil Escapes the Eyes of Heaven: Records Remain on File
Employment history records were also found in the files of the Seattle Police Department Personnel Office. In principle records are only kept for seven years after an officer's retirement, and the personnel department staff had initially replied that no records older than seven years were kept. But persistent inquiry uncovered older records, presumably because staff had no time to dispose of them. Among them were Sprinkle's, and his employment history records confirmed that he had been on military leave from October 30, 1962 until May 6,1963. Moreover, the records revealed that Sprinkle had been assigned to the Seattle Police Outdoor Range from April 1962, and that he did not begin patrol duty until May 6,1963, after his return from military service.
How Can a Police Officer Patrol without Badge or Service Revolver?
The Seattle Police Department Property Room administers police badge sets and service revolvers issued to police officers. There too, old records of badge sets and revolvers issued and returned were found intact. It was discovered after a painstaking search that Sprinkle had turned in his police badge set and service revolver for the period he was serving with the military, and that he was issued a new badge set and revolver on his return. It is a rule that uniformed police officers cannot go on active duty without a police badge on their person. The service revolver is also essential for a patrol officer. It should be clear to anyone familiar with law enforcement in the United States that no police officer could possibly go on patrol in downtown Seattle, late at night, riding in a patrol car, without his badge or service revolver.
Pg. 8
(Image)
(Image)
Seattle Police Department Property Room Gun Record Cards. These are kept by the Seattle Police Department Property Room to record the issue and return of service revolvers. When he went on military leave, Sprinkle turned in his revolver, a 38-caliber special, to the Property Room as of October 31, 1962. On May 1, 1963, just before returning to active police duty, he was issued a new revolver.
Pg. 9
Decisive Evidence of Fabricated Incident
Ikeda-Sokagakkai's Evil Conspiracy Unmasked
Furthermore, copies of the U.S. Air Force Reserve Orders addressed to Sprinkle were also discovered among the police personnel files. The first reserve order from the Sixth Air Force Reserve Region, dated October 5, 1962, ordered Sprinkle to go on six months' military service and report for duty on November 8. But then the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. Contemporary newspapers report that on October 27, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara called up for service 14,214 U.S. Air Force reservists. As a result, Sprinkle received a Special Order to report for duty on October 28 rather than November 8. A copy of this Special Order was also found among his police personnel records. A copy of a
Memorandum of Military Service issued by the City of Seattle was also found, which certified that Sprinkle had completed six months' military service with the U.S. Air Force.
Nichiren Shoshu Obtains Extra Evidence
At this point, the investigation team was completely convinced that Sprinkle was working for the military and not on active police duty during the six-month period between the end of October 1962 and early May 1963. However, given the importance of their findings, they sought additional confirmation by turning their attention to Air Force
personnel records. Air Force personnel records are held at the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records Office, in St. Louis, Missouri, and an FOIA request was transmitted to that office. The documents that were released as a result of the FOIA request confirmed the conclusions that had been reached from the records previously obtained by the investigators from the Seattle Police Department and Pension Board. Specifically, Sprinkle was
Pg. 10
on active duty in the U.S. Air Force during the above six-month period, including March 1963. Sprinkle's period of active duty military training took place in Lackland, Texas and Paine Field, Washington. Initially, Sprinkle had been ordered to go on long-term military service because of the Cuban Crisis, but after the crisis subsided he returned to regular military training to complete his six months of basic training. Having reached this stage, it was absolutely clear that Sprinkle was not an active-duty officer of the Seattle Police Department at the time of the Seattle Incident alleged by Sokagakkai. The above evidence constitutes decisive proof of Sprinkle's shameless and monstrous lies.
Sprinkle's Lies Conscious and Willful
In the process of the investigation, another important fact was
discovered that cannot be overlooked. On May 31, 1996, at Sprinkle's request, the Seattle Police Personnel Office had given copies of the personnel records described above -- including his employment history records -- to an investigator called Douglas Anderson of Raven & Associates. Raven & Associates is an investigation agency that was working for Sokagakkai and its attorneys. The May 31,1996 date precedes by several months Sprinkle's deposition, made in the U.S., and his testimony in Tokyo District Court. In other words, Sprinkle's false testimony was not the result of any confusion, but a deliberate and intentional act committed after he and Sokagakkai had been given an opportunity to examine the contents of his personnel file, a file that clearly shows that he was not an active Seattle Police officer in March 1963.
Pg. 11
(Image)
City of Seattle Memorandum of Military Service. This document, which is maintained in the files of the Seattle Police Personnel Office,
certifies that Sprinkle was on active duty with the U.S. Air Force from October 28, 1962 to April 26, 1963.
Pg. 12
(Image)
Document released by National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records. This document clearly indicates that Sprinkle was on active duty with the United States Air Force from October 28, 1962 to April 26, 1963. The original document is stamped with the official raised seal of the National Archives and Records Administration to certify its authenticity.
Pg. 13
A Telltale Lie
During his testimony in Tokyo District Court, Sprinkle stated that he recognized Clow immediately, although he hadn't seen her for 30 years. Similarly, Clow testified in the same court about Sprinkle, whom she had met for the first time in 30 years, saying: "We were both 30 years older, so our figures had changed slightly; but I knew immediately that it was he." How could she have possibly "recognized" someone who wasn't at the scene? She should have been more sparing with her lies. There is no longer any doubt that Clow's testimony is as blatantly false as Sprinkle's.
(Image)
Sokagakkai's defamatory media coverage continues today.
Pg. 14
Clow's Whole Story: A Complete Falsehood
It was obvious at first glance that Clow's testimony was nonsense. Clow claimed that the then Study Department Chief Shinno Abe (the current High Priest) was detained by police after a dispute with prostitutes, and that she had rushed to the scene. According to her, the police officers then prepared a surety with "Nobuo Abe" entered as his name and instructed her to sign it in exchange for his release. Clow said she signed the surety and took him back to his hotel, and then reported to the police station to sign four official documents there on his behalf.
First of all, the notion of a surety is ridiculous in such a situation. Assuming for the purpose of argument that the police did think there was reason to have Clow take the unprecedented step of signing a surety for Rev. Abe, wouldn't they have thought it important enough to first verify Abe's correct name by looking at his passport? If they had done so, they would never have put down "Nobuo Abe" on the surety (the name on his passport was "Shinno Abe"). Further, the idea that the police would produce four documents after interviewing a person who knew nothing about the incident, instead of taking a statement from the person directly involved, is likewise ridiculous. No police force in Japan or the U.S. would ever deal with the case in such a ludicrous way. Even Sprinkle could not bring himself to support such a ridiculous story -- because he knew as common sense that the idea of a surety and four documents runs counter to the way the police would have handled such a situation.
Undeterred, Clow insisted that she had also met Sprinkle at the police station -- not at the air force base, where he was at the time! Her account can only be described as an outrageous falsehood.
Pg. 15
Who Was Responsible for the Fabrication?
How could Sprinkle, who knew nothing about the incident and had no previous involvement with Sokagakkai, testify that in the early hours of March 20,1963, an oriental male was arguing with prostitutes at the corner of Seventh Avenue and Pike Street? Unless someone had inculcated him with Clow's story, he couldn't possibly make testimony that agreed with Clow's fabrication in any way. In fact, Sprinkle was receiving a generous sum of $4,000 per month from the American law firm working for Sokagakkai, as Sprinkle testified at his deposition. Sprinkle further testified that he agreed to "cooperate in the case at the same time he entered" this financial arrangement. It does not require much imagination to conclude that the Gakkai was a "partner" in Sprinkle's incredible and disproven testimony.
All That's Left to Do: Await a Just and Impartial Decision
Nichiren Shoshu submitted to Tokyo District Court the public records described above as decisive proof of the false testimony given by Sprinkle and Clow. The day is near when Nichiren Shoshu will expose and denounce the ignoble, Machiavellian machinations of Sokagakkai, reveal to the world the true nature of Sokagakkai, utterly shatter its
conspiracy, and win a victory for truth and justice.
Pg. 16
End of article.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
|
