General Timeline of the "Clow/Seattle" Incident.

1962

October 1962-

Officer Ron Sprinkle, an officer in the Seattle Police department is called up due to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Effective October 30 1962. He is told to report to Paine Field Washington. See this page for the record dated October 22, 1962. :http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~shibuken/GRAPH/Anti/SpecialOrder200.gif. His term was for six months. It didn't formally end until April 1962. This was later used to try to discredit his testimony to having detained a priest on the night of March 19th 1963, which was after all only 5 months later. See sprinkle.html for more detail on this.

November 21st 1962,

Units were released from the Cuban Missile Crisis, including Officer Sprinkle, who returned to his Seattle area duty station. He later testifies that he returned to work on the police force, but not to full time status until April.

See this page http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/cmcchron5.html For more detail,

also this source: http://www.geocities.com/chris_holte/StupidPR.htm for Jim Celer's post from 8/18/1999.

1963

March 16, 1963: Nikken departs Japan to conduct Gohonzon conferral ceremonies in the United States the first overseas ceremonies

March 19, 1963: Nikken, then Nichiren Shoshu Study Department chief, conducts a Gohonzon-conferral ceremony in Seattle.

March 19 - Alleged date of Nikken's "indiscretion".

May 3, 1963:

According to Hiroe Clow�s testimony, when she attends the 25th Soka Gakkai Headquarters General meeting at the Nippon University Auditorioum in Tokyo, High Priest Nittatsu invites her to his waiting room. With Nikken at his side, he says, "Thank you very much for your hospitality in Seattle." Turning to Nikken, he continues: "We caused you a lot of trouble. I am well aware of him." Nikken jumps up from his seat and bows.

April 26 1963

-- Officer Sprinkle formally reports back to "On duty Status" http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~shibuken/GRAPH/Anti/Jinji-Oboe200.gif

1967

Officer Sprinkle formally retires from military. See this page for his record: http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~shibuken/GRAPH/Anti/Gunjin-Kiroku200.gif

1980

Dec, 9, 1980:

Nikken visits the United States for the first time after becoming high priest. According to Hiroe Clow�s testimony, he requests her presence at the Los Angeles International Airport for his arrival.

1992 -- The war of Words is heating up.

Feb. 2 - Seven priests, including Reverend Gen'ei Kudo (former chief priest in Los Angeles), leave Nichiren Shoshu, forming the Association of Priests for the Reformation of Nichiren Shoshu. These priests are dubbed "domei priests" by Nichiren Shoshu members. They produce websites and are active in an "anti Nikken" movement. Nichiren Shoshu alleges these people are being recruited by Gakkai funds. See:

http://members.aol.com/shori2001/nichiren/shoshu/reformst.htm

March 30 - A group of young priests directly confront and question Nikken. With this incident, they leave Nichiren Shoshu and form the Association of Youthful Priests for the Reformation of Nichiren Shoshu. These priests create their own web site at

http://www.nichiren.com/index.html

Which they devote almost exclusively to Nikken's transgressions.

They aren't alone, soon other websites appear about these issues including

http://members.aol.com/nigelloyd/nichiren-shoshu/nikken-highpriest/seattle.htm

June 14 - A third group of priests leave Nichiren Shoshu to form the Association Concerned About Nichiren Shoshu and Devoted to Protecting the Law.

June 17 - The Soka Shimpo, the Soka Gakkai youth division newspaper, first publishes an article about the "Seattle Incident," reporting Mrs. Hiroe Clow's account of Nikken's run-in with prostitutes and police during a Gohonzon conferral trip to Seattle in 1960 when he was the Nichiren Shoshu Study Department chief.

July 10, 1992: Nichiren Shoshu issues a notice that reads in part: "The incident in Seattle, as it has been publicized, is an utterly groundless lie, a fabrication."

Aug.1, 1992: The Daibyakuho again calls Nikken�s altercation with prostitutes "fabrication". Regarding the prayer beads that Nikken and his wife went to mrs. Clow and her daughter, it denies everything, stating: "The high priest and his wife did not know that Clow has a daughter."

Aug. 11 - Nichiren Shoshu expels SGI President Ikeda as a lay believer (his second excommunication).

Aug. 12, 1992: Kotoku Obayashi, Nichiren Shoshu Overseas Bureau Chief, and Shinsho Abe, Nikken�s son, visit Seattle to investigate.

Aug. 28 - At a nationwide meeting of priests, Nikken states that he never set foot outside the hotel in Seattle on the night he is alleged to have had an encounter with prostitutes and police.(Note his "proof" is a diary, which experts later say was probably altered later).

Sept. 13 or 17 1992(two sources slight discrepancy) - Mrs. Hiroe Clow sues Nikken in Los Angeles District Court for defamation of character in conjunction with the Seattle Incident. Nikken publicly and in print had called her a liar. The suit is later dismissed on jurisdictional grounds before going to trial.

____________________________

1993

Dec. 15(or 25), 1993: Nichiren Shoshu files its libel suit against the Soka Gakkai at the Tokyo District Court. They claim that the latter's publications' coverage of the Seattle Incident amounts to defamation of Nikken. The Seattle Incident trial is born with the Soka Gakkai as the defense. The legal proceedings drag on for the next several years.

November 23, in Case BC 064 386, Judge Bernard Kaufman states:

Since plaintiff is a resident of California, great deference is given to her choice of a forum. There is an exception in "extraordinary cases" as set forth in the case of Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels 15 Cal.3d 853 (1976). In this case, plaintiff Hiroe Clow is the alleged victim of the defamatory statements. Although this is a personal tort, it appears to the court that she is, and the court so finds, a nominal plaintiff. Among the revelations documented by exhibits and declarations by the specially appearing defendants are that officials of Soka Gakkai have publicly stated that this particular lawsuit is simply the culmination of a long list of lawsuits [Exhibit 4] brought against Reverend Abe in order to pressure him to resign from his position as high priest of Nichiren Shoshu.

There are reports from Soka Gakkai publications that are exhibits in this case which evidence the fact that the Soka Gakkai instigated and financially supported Ms. Clow's lawsuit against Reverend Abe in California. There is substantial evidence in the declarations and exhibits that plaintiff's lawsuit is being funded by donations from over 100,000 individuals residing in Japan and much of this evidence is unrefuted by the plaintiff. The declarations and exhibits indicate numerous publicly staged events which led up to the pronouncements and alleged defamatory incidents which are the basis for this lawsuit. The evidence is more than ample that plaintiff Clow was actively seeking some sort of public confrontation with Abe and was in effect attempting to "bait" Abe.

A compelling fact found by this court is the fact that plaintiff chose to publicly discuss events which allegedly occurred over 30 years ago. In June 1992 plaintiff began making allegations in the press about Reverend Abe and events which occurred 30 years ago in Seattle. Numerous article were printed in Soka Gakkai publications about Mrs. Clow's allegations. One article demanded that the Reverend Abe respond to the allegations, and Mrs. Clow herself demanded a response from Abe. In fact, the day after Mrs. Clow sent her written demand to Reverend Abe, a Soka Gakkai publication reprinted the demand. The day after Mrs. Clow filed between parties of a particular religious denomination that is primarily centered in Japan with the stated purpose of Soka Gakkai members to force Abe to resign as high priest. The publications of Soka Gakkai on a continuing basis indicate the purpose of this lawsuit and gives this court the basis upon which to determine that the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff in the aid of her religious order to expel Abe as the high priest.

The Sokagakkai was frustrated in it's efforts to defend Ms. Clow's statements in the United States, which would have allowed them to use tools of discovery and the court to seek documentation for the verbal allegations she had made. Subsequent events would take place in Japan.

1995

Sept. 29, 1995: Nichiren Shoshu submits to the Tokyo Distirct Court a document tht changes its previous position, acknowledging for the first time that Nikken left the hotel the night of the incident. Nichiren Shoshu issues a notice to the same effect.

Oct.2 & 9, 1995: Mrs. Clow testifies at the Tokyo District Court.

November 1995, At a press conference in November 1995, Nichiren Shoshu alleged that Soka Gakkai had illegally planted a fraudulent record relating to the Seattle Incident in a US Government database. Further, Nichiren Shoshu published these allegations and distributed more than 1,350,000 copies of the publications, not only to its temples and associates but to various political, public and educational institutions both in Japan and in the US. In response, Soka Gakkai filed a lawsuit against Nichiren Shoshu in January 1996 seeking damages for defamation. Later this matter was investigated in a House of Representatives Investigation by someone whose real target was Janet Reno. Still later these allegations were found to have no prove-able factual basis and in a later House Report it was detailed how the original report had been intended to attack and defame Janet Reno. The Gakkai also sued for defamation and won a verdict in district court affirming that the charges were false.

Sept. 18 - Ronald Sprinkle, a former Seattle police officer testifies as a defense witness.

1996

In January 1996 the Gakkai filed suit for defamation in regard to the allegation that the Gakkai had planted incriminatory evidence about Nikken in the USA database.

Feb.7, 1996: Mrs. Clow is cross-examined by Nichiren Shoshu�s attorney at the Tokyo District Court, completing her testimony.

March 23 1996 -- Hiroe Clowe Dies of Lung Cancer

Judy Clowe, after her mother had died from Cancer, later testifies about the rued and intrusive behavior of agents of Nichiren Shoshu (lawyers). Perhaps that is why Nikken later fired his chief attorney.

Sept. 18, 1996: Mr Sprinkle, a former Seattle police officer who was allegedly at the scene of the incident, testifies at the Tokyo District Court.

Oct. 30, 1996: Nichiren Shoshu�s attorney cross-examines Mr. Sprinkle at the Tokyo District Court.

November 11 1996:The Hokkeko first tries to discredit Ms. Clows testimony with Sprinkle's Testimony (later it tries to discredit Officer Sprinkles Testimony) in post to ARBN by John Ayers:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&start=30&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=39&selm=847595824.17090%40dejanews.com

December 16 1996:Masafumita posts trial excerpts showing Officer Sprinkle testimony:

http://members.aol.com/masataisei/shoshu/recentde.htm

1997

Jan. 7, 1997: Nichiren Shoshu lawyers request the Tokyo District Court to conclude the examination of the case.

July 14 1997: Because the chief judge has changed, the court holds a session for the plaintiff and defendant to restate their cases.

Sept. 29 - The judge in the Seattle Incident trial decides that Nikken must testify, despite his attorneys' protests.

Oct. 6 - Nikken abruptly fires his chief attorney.

Dec. 22 - Nikken appears in court and presents his never-before-revealed diary that he alleges to have used at the time of the Seattle Incident. This "evidence" is intended to indicate that he was back in his hotel room by the time of the alleged incident. The defense shows that these diary entries have been altered at a later time. The Domei priests advance the case that the diaries prove all the more that he is a liar:http://www.nichiren.com/upe991207.htm

1998

May 18 - Attorneys for the Soka Gakkai question Nikken for a second time in the Seattle Incident trial.

August 19 1999: The Hokkeko members tried to say that Officer Sprinkle was related to a porn star named Annie Sprinkle:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&start=10&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=14&selm=xVOu3.2281%24Ss6.215870%40newshog.newsread.com

1999

February 25th 1999 -- Judy Clow gives sworn testimony to the events of her mothers death the previous year. This is posted to ARBN:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Judy+Clow&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=385b574c.3255090%40news.tpnet.pl

It is also made a web page at this location:http://templeissue.homestead.com/clow.html

March 16. Cross examination of SG Vice-President Nozaki concluded and new evidence submitted confirming Nikken's involvement with prostitutes in Seattle in March of 1963. Former Seattle police officer Edwin Curtis Marion offered testimony via sworn deposition. He remembers hearing at the time of the incident from a fellow officer about a dispute between a Bulihist priest and prostitutes over money.

August 6th cloeconspiracy.html. Nichiren Shoshu trotted out "evidence" that Officer Sprinkle "couldn't have been the arresting officer in March 1963 because according to their efforts he was still in the Army due to the Cuban Missile crises. This evidence was published on ARBN on August 14th. It is also put on a web site and is still there to this very day:

http://www.hokkeko.org.uk/buddhism/news_august_1999.htm

I also have a copy of a dejanews posting by "taimonten"(my friend John Ayers)Daibyakuhoonsprinkle.htm where they outline their claims in September. The news on Dejanews often was later than in Japan because of the need to translate articles.

August 14th -- The testimony against Sprinkle was rebutted by witnesses and proof that he was indeed on the force the night in question. Officer Sprinkle was working in a temporary manner while he was still on duty and received a general issue badge and gun each time he reported for work. He recalls that he also got married soon after the incident and so things from that time were very vivid to him. The reporter suggested that the testimony was for the sake of Hokkeko believers rather than the judge "theofficerwasthere.htm"

Between August 16th and 19th Craig Bratcher and Paul Muntz post articles on how Officer Sprinkle must have perjured himself since he couldn't possibly have been on duty on March 19th 1963, as he was in the Military at the time. They post his leave record showing that he was on leave from October 25 1962 to 4/26/1963 These articles continued to be published even as "refutations" were being published on the same news group. When the evidence was particularly weak, Craig Bratcher would substitute volumes of postings for quality. This was something he did the entire time I observed ARBN.

8/18/1999-- Jim Celer explains how Officer Sprinkle would have been still in the reserves but back home at the same time. The theory is floated that he was still technically on duty in the reserves, but was near enough home and little enough occupied (once the reserve units were released) that he would have had no problem working nights.

Also see: sprinkle.html

http://www.geocities.com/chris_holte/StupidPR.htm.

8/21/1999 -- Craig and Paul advance the theory/implication that the floating of the Kawabe memo

(see kawabe.html)

is a "desperate measure" to take attention off of the collapse of their case against Nikken.

See this post:http://www.geocities.com/chris_holte/Buddhism/IssuesInBuddhism/paulspinkawamem.htm

August 22 1999: Jim Celer explains how the Gun records are actually referring to one single Gun, and have nothing to do with other guns that are issued by the Police Department.

NST was being selective in order to allow the members to disregard the actual evidence

see:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=9&selm=19990821213834.26115.00001760%40ngol01.aol.com

August 29 1999: Paul posted this to

alt.religion.buddhism.nichirenhttp://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=37c979bc.9356423%40news.virgin.net

October 5 1999: Most of the Hokkeko members posting to ARBN by now had convinced themselves that the entire police force was lying on behalf of Officer Sprinkle and that his testimony was purjerous because the Gakkai was paying him. See this post for more;

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=e2e80b5f8f2ecc4f,46&seekm=7tcrrq%24qqg%241%40nnrp1.deja.com#p

October 25 1999: World Tribune carried a report on Mr. Sprinkles Testimony and deposition.

November 8 1999: Craig reposted a set of testimony purporting to be Sprinkle denying he witnessed the altercation between Reverend Abe and the two prostitutes:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=8&selm=560a1m%24vmo%40hyperion.nitco.com

This turned out to be a "red herring" as Sprinkle had made valid testimony, but the events he described were not the ones that the lawyer described. This was testimony given in 1996 and was aimed at discrediting Ms. Clow. It failed to do so, because Officer Sprinkle indicated his role wasn't the role of the officers that Ms. Clow was talking about on that night. He had first posted this in 1998(and maybe sooner):see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle&start=30&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=36&selm=343aa458.429024%40news.netnitco.net.

2000

March 21 2000http://web.singnet.com.sg/~ssaorg/newsns.html#verdict A verdict was rendered in favor of the Gakkai. NST appealed of course.Yahoo reports it this way:

The Tokyo District Court dismissed the lawsuit on March 21, 2000, ruling that Soka Gakkai had presented compelling and convincing evidence to corroborate the truthfulness of the witness's account, while Abe's own testimony was highly ambiguous and lacked credibility. The court concluded that Soka Gakkai had published articles in the public interest and that in view of the truth of the allegations, there was no incidence of libel.

March 21 2000 -- Nichiren Shoshu made it's claims that the verdict was unfair because of Hiroe Clow's personal history and doubts about Officer Sprinkles veracity. Michael Cody posted their opinion to

alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sprinkle+marriage&hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=02fda672.ef4fe3ae%40usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com.

It really doesn't matter what the courts say, they made up their minds long before the court did.

The Gakkai publishes it's article on the case in the World Tribune express:

http://www.sgi-usa.org/publications/wtexpress/WTEMar2100special.html

July 27 2000: The Committee on Government Reform investigates Rebeka Poston, a lawyer from Florida and issues this report:

http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/07.27.00/felonies_and_favors.htm

The report notes that:

Soka Gakkai�s main lawyer in the United States, Barry Langberg, hired Jack Palladino, a well-known private investigator, to determine whether Abe was arrested in Seattle in 1963.[6] Palladino then apparently contacted a source in the Bureau of Prisons who had access to the National Crime Information Center (�NCIC�) database. This source accessed the database, and noted the following information:

3/63, NCIC-NATF, Complaint by four females of possible pandering and solicitation by a bald Oriental, male, no english at 12:40 AM, taken in for questioning, at 1:30 AM, no english. detained [sic] and released at 3:30 AM, forwarded by teletype.[7]

It later turns out that this report was part of Representative Burton's effort to get Janet Reno and was rather sloppily conducted. The Hokkeko alleges that the above information (from the database) was forged, and indeed the information disapeared from the database when attempts were made to access it legally. Rep. Burton tried to make a case that Poston and Palladino had accessed the Justice Department's database illegally. However, that case was never made. The case does show that there was also overzealousness on the Gakkai side in getting evidence to "prove" that Nikken was arrested. This "proof" was obtained in such a way that it led to an investigation by Dan Burton: You need adobe:http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf/dojminviews.pdf

2002

Nichiren Shoshu finally dropped it's case against the Sokagakkai.:

TOKYO, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Following Tokyo High Court chief judge Kazuo Masui's strong recommendation, on 31 January Nichiren Shoshu withdrew completely its claim accusing Soka Gakkai of libel in the ``Seattle Case.'' In 1993, Nichiren Shoshu had sued Soka Gakkai for libel regarding coverage of its high priest Nikken Abe's alleged altercation with prostitutes in Seattle in 1963. In March 2000, the Tokyo District Court found that the incident had indeed taken place as reported, so the Soka Gakkai publications were not libelous. Nichiren Shoshu appealed that decision, but on the High Court chief judge's advice ended up agreeing to drop their whole claim.

Soka Gakkai attorney Morio Miyahara comments,

``For Nichiren Shoshu to withdraw their claim brings this case to a welcome end and the District Court ruling remains intact.''

Contact:

Joan Anderson

Soka Gakkai International

Office of Public Information

Tel: (81) 3 5360 9830

Fax:(81) 3 5360 9885

E-mail:[email protected]

Also:PR Newswire, Document ID:FB20020205390000016

Shumuin Notice 3380, dated January 31, 2002, issued in English February 14 2002

A Complete Stop Finally Imposed on the IkedaSoka Gakkai's Reporting--Developments in Tokyo High Court Render Shimoda Decision Void--

Since June 1992 the Soka Gakkai has repeatedly published sensational reports in its internal media accusing High Priest Nikken Shonin of misconduct during a March 1963 visit to Seattle, Washington, USA. The reports were based on a story told by Hiroe Clow and alleged, among other things, a wee-hour altercation with prostitutes when then the Study Department Chief was in the city on a trip to conduct Gojukai Ceremonies.

Since the accusations were groundless, Nichiren Shoshu responded to the reporting by filing a defamation suit naming Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai as defendants; but incredibly, Tokyo district Court decided against Nichiren Shoshu and found for the defendants. Finding the court of first instance's decision totally unacceptable, Nichiren Shoshu immediately appealed, and the case was moved to Tokyo High Court. In the course of its deliberations Tokyo High Court issued a strong recommendation that in exchange for a covenant that Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai shall hereafter cease all such reporting, Nichiren Shoshu agree to withdraw its lawsuit. After careful considerations, we concluded that spending further time and effort to pursue judicial condemnation of the Soka Gakkai's reporting is not necessarily in Nichiren Shoshu's best interests, and we have decided to accept the Court's recommendation in a spirit of tolerance and good.

(In otherwords they are finally admitting they have lost)

These developments culminated today in a judicial settlement that puts an end to both the exhaustingly long Clow-related litigation and the Soka Gakkai's tenacious campaign of negative reporting. Among other details, the settlement requires that Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai stop any further defamatory reporting on the condition that Nichiren Shoshu withdraws its lawsuit. Thus this settlement strictly enjoins (prohibits) the Soka Gakkai from any further reporting on the Clow story and attendant allegations. This outcome means much, much more to Nichiren Shoshu than a simple winning of the lawsuit. Though the Soka Gakkai's reporting was groundless to begin with, now that the Soka Gakkai has pledged not to publish any more reports on the matter, Nichiren Shoshu has agreed in the settlement to refrain from pursing the Soka Gakkai any further. Nichiren Shoshu will now cease actively addressing the Clow accusations and attendant media reports. In this regard, however, it is particularly important to note that the settlement protocol confirms Nichiren Shoshu's right to deny those facts reported by the Soka Gakkai in connection with the Clow story.

Also worthy of particular note is that Nichiren Shoshu's withdrawal of its suit and the Soka Gakkai's consent thereto at the Tokyo High Court today, has rendered void (Article 262, Code of Civil Procedure) the lower court decision issued by Presiding Judge Fumio Shimoda, which unilaterally adopted the Clow story in the presence of contrary evidence.

In this way the Clow Incident litigation has been concluded with Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai enjoined (prohibited) from continuing further publication of the Clow story.

Although Nichiren Shoshu views this outcome as a significant victory in that it prohibits the Soka Gakkai from continuing its reporting on the Clow incident which was the prime objective of its filing the lawsuit, Nichiren Shoshu still remains firmly committed to exposing the Ikeda Soka Gakkai's deviations from the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin and True Buddhism, as now the priesthood and laity alike concentrate, in view of the significance of the 750th Anniversary of the Establishment of True Buddhism, on bringing this important year's celebratory events to a great success.

Thus, the two parties have finally decided to "drop the matter." Each refusing to admit publicly that it was wrong in any of it's behaviors. Nichiren Shoshu preferring the "safe saving" spin that it's decision to drop the suit was a "victory" and the Gakkai putting a similar spin on it's decision. If they have decided to stop fighting, then perhaps that is a good thing.

For the words of the court terms visit this link:

Court Terms

Court decision (I changed the numbering to fit html):

1. Based on the reasons listed below, this Court urges that this lawsuit be terminated, with the Appellants withdrawing their claims and the Respondents assenting to their withdrawal.
2. There is concern that the continuation of this litigation in and of itself is not conducive to the interests of either the appellants or the respondents, whose aim is to spread their religious teachings, conduct ceremonies and activities, convert, foster and support believers, as well as the growth of their religious groups; rather, furtherance of this matter may impede these aims. It may also be surmised that many believers associated with the appellants and the respondents may wish that this litigation be quickly brought to a close, while doing as little harm to the dignity of either of these two religious bodies as possible.
3. The greatest point of contention in this case surrounds the question of the behavior of an officer and representative of the appellants nearly forty years ago in the city of Seattle, in the state of Washington in the United States. Compared to the average case, determining the facts in this case has involved remarkable obstacles in terms of evidence, the amount of time elapsed since the incident in question, the physical distance from Japan, and language as well as systemic differences. Although the efforts of both parties and their Counsel have been duly noted, further attempts to determine the truth shall infringe the spirit of 1 (1.1) above.
4. Both parties in this case respect this court's intent behind its recommendation to settle this lawsuit and agree with the following provisions:
   1. The Appellants shall withdraw all their claims in this lawsuit and the Respondents shall assent to their withdrawal.
   2. Both the appellants and the respondents shall henceforth cease making reference to, expressing opinion and/or making comments regarding the facts related to the point of contention referred to in article 2(1.2 in original) above.
   3. Concerning the case in question, the appellants and respondents mutually affirm that, beyond the stipulations set forth in this settlement, no claims or obligations concerning this case will exist between them.
   4. Each party will be responsible for all of its costs arising from this lawsuit and settlement, including those stemming from the initial trial and from the appeal process.

   Addendum:

5. Article 2(2.2) in the above settlement constitutes a firm agreement by both parties not to engage in any further activity that may be defined as defamatory. A simple denial of facts related to the point of contention mentioned in 2 (1.2) above does not violate Article 2.2.

On February 22, 2002, the Tokyo District Court ruled in Soka Gakkai�s favor in a defamation suit against Nichiren Shoshu. Soka Gakkai filed the suit in January 1996 after Nichiren Shoshu alleged that it had illegally planted a fraudulent record relating to the Seattle Incident in a US government database. The court concluded that there was no evidence of Soka Gakkai planting a fraudulent record in any US government database. (This was partly because the Gakkai never was able to even get hold of such evidence or present it in court). It further found that Soka Gakkai did not illegally access any US government database. The Court ruled that Nichiren Shoshu�s allegations were therefore unfounded and defamatory and ordered it to pay Soka Gakkai 4 million yen (about US$29,700) in compensation.

Epilogue

When the split first happened, I think that some SGI leaders hoped to some day get back with Nichiren Shoshu, perhaps after getting Nikken Shonin to resign his position and Nichiren Shoshu to acknowledge that High Priests are only human after all (something they do and don't do now). But as a result of the rancor generated by the personal attacks against High Priest Nikken and the very public way that these matters went back and forth in the tabloid press and the court system, the response of the priests in demolishing buildings such as the Sho-Hondo donated by the Gakkai and in making it clear that he and the priesthood want no part of President Ikeda and the Sokagakkai. It looks like a permanent rift has opened up between the two groups. That would be sad, but these affairs have exposed the very human reality underlying the previously "triumphalist" and very righteous claims made jointly by the organizations when they had one front. Ikeda and Nikken are only human after all.

The lawyers on both sides of this case were often over-zealous. Judy Clow reports being harrassed by Nichiren Shoshu lawyers. Nichiren Shoshu tried to make a case that her mothers death was a conspiracy. Both groups have evidenced paranoia and extreeme willingness to use "win at any cost" tactics. And both groups got egg on their face. What I find most sad, is the unwillingness of people (expecially Nikken's < ahref="ikeda.html" target="main">(or Ikedas) lay followers) to look at facts objectively.