However this decision was just as I expected and warned. After I submitted this document the Judge Kato Mieko was clearly in a bad mood and didn't try to hide this. I couldn't believe that she was going to judge fairly, so I appealed to the court to change the Judge.
However the conclusion is this. Doesn't she have any shame?
I will not appeal to the higher court but I will also appeal to the impeachment court and appeal to the mass media. I will accuse this Judge by all legal means.
In today's Japan when a Judge makes an unfair decision people do not complain about it, such system should be changed.
Tetsuro Tanaka
The extract from the statement document of the plaintiff.
(11)By such an experience I can expect the contents of the decision to unfairly support Oki Denki.
(12)Namely the court will ignore all evidence that I submitted and ignore the fundamental issue of this case and take the insistence of Oki Denki, that the Chairman has the right to kick out stockholders from the meeting. So it is not illegal to order the plaintiff to get out.
(13)If the Judge repeatedly ignore the fundamental issue of the case the court will lose their prestige.
(14)I ask you to never ignore the following items.
#1 If it is true or not that the Chairman said it was not intentional that they have held the stockholders meeting on "The common day".
The Judge didn't conclude.
#2 Is it fair or not that the chairman didn't answer the question of the plaintiff and ordered to kick him out when he asked to take a vote without any explanation. If the chairman doesn't take a vote, doesn't he have a responsibility to give a reason before he kicks him out?
The Judge didn't conclude.
#3 Is it true or not the guard men took the plaintiff out just by pushing him?
It is clear that it is not true from the video evidence and photographs. But the Judge said it is true.
#4 The insistence of the defendant that the plaintiff joined the stockholders meeting to get back his job and intentionally disrupt the meeting. Is it true or not?
The Judge didn't conclude.
#5 In 1999 the chairman expressed their thanks for the plaintiff's speech. That fact completely destroys the insistence of the defendant. The court should think about this.
The Judge didn't conclude.
#6 The concrete examples of the violation of the human rights in the workplace of the defendant, which was pointed out by the plaintiff with evidences is true or not?
The Judge didn't conclude.
#7 Did the defendant do bid rigging or not?
The Judge didn't conclude.
2006.6.30
1 All claims of the plaintiff are dismissed.
2 The plaintiff should pay the court fees.
1 About the conflict point of (1),(2)
(1) By the evidence of K1, K35, K37, K38, K41, O10, O11, O12, O15, and the witness Ueda Yoshihiro, witness Moribe Nobuyuki, witness Sawai Shigetoku and the plaintiff and whole incidence in the court the next fact can be acknowledged.The plaintiff joined the stockholders meeting as a stockholder and made questions that there are violations of human right in the defendants workplace and pointed out about the management of the meeting
#1 Stockholders meeting should be held on day expect "The common day"
#2 The company should declare the meeting day 2 or 3 months before.
#3 The company should admit the stockholders to take a copy of records of the meeting.
#4 The plaintiff asked to take a vote about these 3 questions.
The chairman made just a formal answer to the question #1 #2 #3 , but said it was not necessary to take a vote and said "give the microphone to the next questioner and sit down.
But the plaintiff continued to ask to take vote, so the chairman warned the plaintiff several times if he continued to disrupt they
However the plaintiff continued to ask for a vote, so the chairman ordered to take the plaintiff out at about 11:55 pm but the plaintiff didn't obey, so the chairman declared the proceeding will be stopped until the guard men remove the plaintiff.
The defendant's employee Moribe Nobuyuki and his follower guardsmen held the plaintiff from behind, who was showing a document from the doctor ( evidence K3) and took him to the aisle which directly connected to the entrance.
Then the guard men held him under his arms tried to lift him and pusher his waist and stop him from trying to return to the room.
The chairman restarted the meeting after the plaintiff was forcefully kicked out at 11:59.
(2) By the way the plaintiff insists that the orders to get out is an abuse of commercial law article 237, which is about the rights of a chairman. The plaintiff states and submitted the evidence about it .
However I acknowledge the reason that the plaintiff got ordered to get out is that he continued to ask to take a vote for #1to #3 and didn't obey the directions of the chairman and obstructed the proceeding of the meeting and disrupted the order of the meeting.
And it is clear that #1to #3 was not the theme of the meeting.
And there is no evidence the plaintiff followed the process relating to Commercial law 232.
So the conclusion is that the judge doesn't think the plaintiff had a right to ask for a vote be taken from #1to #3.
Thherefore I should say the plaintiff destrou proceeding of the ,etting because he continued to ask for a vote eventhout the chairman asked him to stop and worned him.
Considering such kinds of circumctances and the evidence mentioned I don't think that the chairman abused his rights, written in article 237. There is no evidence that supports he abused his position.
(3) By the way the plaintiff insists that even if the order to get out has no illegality, this kind of order doesn't have the right to use physical power. So the plaintiff claims it is illegal to throw hom out using physical power.
However the commercial law 237 doesn't completely prohibit the use of physical power. It accepts using physical power in the area of self defense.
So the physical act mentioned in (1) is in the leagal area.
(4) So I don't acknowledge the facts about (1) (2)
2 About the issue (3)
The plaintiff insists that he had been injured in the joint of his left shoulder on that meeting day.
The inflamation of his shoulder become worse because of the guard men twisting his left arm, he stated that and submitted evidence K1 K2 K3 K35.
However after the plaintiff , he went to Shikoku
However by thinking the state of plaintiff, after being removed physically from the meeting place he went to Shikoku and stayed for 2 or 3 days. and went to the hospital only after returned home and contend that the treatment is the same as before the meeting I don't acknowledge the fact of issue (3). And there are no another evidence to acknowledge the fact.
3 About issue (4)
As mentioned above in 1 there is no illegality in the order to get out. Eventhough the chairman forced the plaintiff to go out physical power, only that fact can not be said thatthe chairman treated the plaintiff as a stockholders gang . So it is not a fefermation of the plaintiff.
So as mentioned above I cannot acknowledge any claims of the plaintiff.
Tokyo District Court Hachioji Branch
Judge Mieko Kato
