Petition
To:
The Honorable Keisuke Suzuki
Minister of Justice
January 7, 2025
University Lecturer / Former Part-Time Lecturer at Chuo University
×××××××××××××××
×××××××××××
Inoue ×××
[Introduction]
With the inauguration of the Second Ishiba Cabinet, the time has finally come for me to prepare and submit this petition addressed to Minister of Justice Keisuke Suzuki. I am filled with profound emotion at having reached this moment. At the same time, when I contemplate the substance of the petition I am about to present, I am overcome by immeasurable fear and tension, as though my entire body were frozen.
The section titled [Background Leading to This Petition] is necessarily quite lengthy. However, as the consistent and overarching theme of this petition is the pursuit of relief from the prolonged victimization resulting from an unprecedented and grave crime, I respectfully ask that you read it through to the end with your utmost care.
[Purpose of the Petition]
I state the following without any exaggeration: the only individual who possesses the authority to immediately implement the matters set forth below and to transform them into a force capable of changing reality is Minister of Justice Suzuki alone. Should the current situation—one in which there is not the slightest indication of improvement—continue any further, I will, without question, lose my life within six months to one year. More precisely, from the perspective of Minister Suzuki (should you be entirely unaware of the circumstances), the perpetrators and accomplices of an unimaginably vast organized crime will have succeeded in carrying out what they repeatedly attempted against me—namely, a “premeditated killing”—and my life will be extinguished from this world exactly as they have long desired.
For more than twelve years and eight months, my research assistant, Mr. M, and I have been relentlessly deprived of our own lives in a manner of extreme cruelty. We have been continuously shut out from legal relief and subjected to the systematic destruction of our living environment, to the point that survival itself has become impossible. This has occurred for one reason alone: so that the perpetrators and accomplices of this large-scale organized crime may erase and eliminate every trace of their unprecedented and unparalleled criminal acts from society and from history, and thereby eliminate us—the living witnesses—from this world.
If you are entirely unaware of these facts, you will undoubtedly be shocked. I therefore wish, at the outset, to inform Minister Suzuki of the identities of the principal perpetrators and accomplices of this large-scale organized crime, who are, in effect, the executors of acts tantamount to murder. They include: Takahiro Wachi, a former student of the Faculty of Law at Chuo University and currently an attorney, who created the initial trigger for this organized crime; the perpetrators and accomplices within Chuo University as an educational corporation (with Masahiko Omura as Chairman of the Board); multiple Ministers of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology since 2012; former politicians who graduated from Chuo University and several current politicians; Mr. Naoto Otani, former Secretary-General and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; former judges Takesato Ota (a graduate of Chuo University) and Naoko Nakayama, as well as multiple other judges; attorneys Haruko Shibamura and Shigeru Furuta; former prosecutors and current attorneys Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei; prosecutor Kumiko Suzuki; Mr. Takayuki Aonuma, former Deputy Prosecutor-General (a graduate of Chuo University); Mr. Kotaro Ono, former Prosecutor-General; and Ms. Naomi Unemoto, the current Prosecutor-General, who is also a graduate of Chuo University. There exists unequivocal evidence, and therefore the fact that the current Prosecutor-General is a perpetrator of this crime cannot be erased. As will be explained in detail below, this means that the Kishida Cabinet appointed a criminal perpetrator as Prosecutor-General.
The first person to whom I reported the existence of this large-scale organized crime was Mr. Katsuyuki Nishikawa, former Prosecutor-General (who was at that time the Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office), by means of the submission of an “Opinion Statement, Protest Letter, and Request” dated August 10, 2016. Mr. Nishikawa promptly initiated an investigation, and on December 6, 2016, conducted a search of Chuo University’s Tama Campus. However, beginning in 2017, pressure to prohibit further investigation was exerted through former politicians who were graduates of Chuo University, forcing the investigation into this unprecedented organized crime to stagnate over an extended period.
I believe that former Prosecutors-General Nobuo Inada, Makoto Hayashi, and the immediate past Prosecutor-General Yukio Kai each carried out, at their respective stages, the maximum possible investigations and criminal procedures. Nevertheless, it appears that pressure to prohibit investigation continued relentlessly up to and including the tenure of Prosecutor-General Kai, and it proved impossible to prevent the worst possible outcome: the appointment of Ms. Naomi Unemoto—herself a perpetrator well known to all four former Prosecutors-General—as Prosecutor-General. Although I sent a total of twenty-one letters entitled “×××××××” to former Prosecutor-General Hayashi and former Prosecutor-General Kai, it was not possible to bring this large-scale organized crime—tantamount to an act of terrorism that disrupts the national and legal order—to a comprehensive resolution.
In addition to these four former Prosecutors-General, I wish to inform Minister Suzuki that Mr. Yoshikazu Ochiai, former Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, and Mr. Toru Sakai, former Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office and current Justice of the Supreme Court, are also thoroughly familiar with this large-scale organized crime.
Despite the fact that four former Prosecutors-General and two former Chief Prosecutors of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office are aware of her involvement in criminal acts, and despite the overwhelming and vociferous condemnation directed at her by a great many citizens, Ms. Naomi Unemoto nevertheless refuses to relinquish her position as Prosecutor-General. The reason for this is clear: it is in order to ensure that her beloved alma mater—“Chuo University, the University of Law,” which has committed multiple serious crimes—may continue to prolong its existence indefinitely while maintaining the outward appearance of being untainted by criminality.
However, for Chuo University, which has continued for more than twelve years and eight months to deprive us of our lives, to violate every right we possess to pursue a “better life,” to endlessly destroy our means of living, and to drive us to the final stage at which survival itself has become impossible, to be protected by a Prosecutor-General who is a co-conspirator and to continue surviving behind a mask of innocence, can no longer have any effect other than functioning as an absolute coercion against us, the victims—namely, an order to “carry out our own death sentences” for the purpose of concealing the worst and most egregious injustice. In fact, since Ms. Naomi Unemoto assumed the office of Prosecutor-General, the two of us, victims whose enormous losses have not been remedied in any respect and who are merely gasping under conditions of fatal impoverishment, have been forced day after day to think of nothing but concrete methods of suicide.
Accordingly, this petition is submitted for the purpose of requesting Minister of Justice Suzuki to save our lives from this large-scale organized crime, which constitutes acts tantamount to murder, and at the same time to petition that you exert your utmost efforts to bring about a comprehensive resolution of this large-scale organized crime.
On November 8, 2021, I also sent a petition to former Minister of Justice Yoshihisa Furukawa, in which I conveyed the details of this large-scale organized crime and specifically requested that he inform the then Prime Minister, Mr. Fumio Kishida, of its existence. However, it is entirely unclear to what extent former Minister Furukawa conveyed this information to former Prime Minister Kishida. In any event, former Prime Minister Kishida proceeded, by Cabinet decision on June 28, 2024, to appoint Ms. Naomi Unemoto as Prosecutor-General. I strongly wish that former Prime Minister Kishida be made aware of the fact that, from the very day of that Cabinet decision onward, there have existed two victims who have been forced, on a daily basis, to contemplate concrete methods of suicide.
I have enclosed the petition that I previously submitted to former Minister of Justice Furukawa as well. I am acutely aware of how extraordinarily busy your days must be, yet I most respectfully and earnestly request that you grant this entire set of documents your careful attention.
[Requests of the Petition]
1.
respectfully petition that you request the Prosecutors Qualification Examination Commission to promptly place on its agenda the matter of relieving Ms. Naomi Unemoto of her duties as Prosecutor-General.
2.
I respectfully petition that you promptly relieve Mr. Kotaro Ono, former Prosecutor-General, of his position as a member of the Prosecutors Qualification Examination Commission.
The membership list of the Prosecutors Qualification Examination Commission has not been updated since April 18, 2024, and it includes Mr. Kotaro Ono, former Prosecutor-General. As will be explained in detail in the section [Background Leading to This Petition], he is a direct party to an unprecedented and grave crime in which, within the framework of Japan as a state governed by the rule of law, a localized state of emergency was secretly declared and extralegal violence was exercised against the victims in concert with Mr. Takayuki Aonuma, former Deputy Prosecutor-General.
3.
I respectfully petition that, simultaneously with the issuance of a resolution by the Prosecutors Qualification Examination Commission to relieve Ms. Naomi Unemoto of her position, a recommendation be made to remove her from the office of Prosecutor-General, and that her dismissal be approved by Cabinet decision.
4.
I respectfully petition that you inform Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, in as much detail as possible, of the crimes committed by Chuo University and of this large-scale organized crime (and that you provide him with a copy of this petition addressed to Minister of Justice Suzuki, so that he may review it directly, which I believe would be the most appropriate course).
5.
Having shared this information, I respectfully petition that you, together with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, exercise all available authority to bring about a comprehensive resolution of this large-scale organized crime, which threatens to expose the national order and the legal order to the risk of collapse.
6.
I respectfully petition that, after also sharing this information with Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Toshiko Abe, you request that strict and appropriate disciplinary measures be imposed on Chuo University as an educational corporation.
Mr. M has likewise sent a petition to Minister Toshiko Abe on the same date. Accordingly, I believe that she is already aware of the crimes committed by Chuo University and of this large-scale organized crime. I respectfully request that you contact Minister Abe without delay.
[Background Leading to This Petition]
This large-scale organized crime, constituting acts of organized killing, originated on April 11, 2012, when the Chuo University Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee subjected me to a brutal assault lasting one hour and fifty minutes, during which I was coerced into resigning voluntarily. The immediate cause was that Takahiro Wachi, then a second-year student in the Faculty of Law (Department of Legal Studies) and a participant in my Introduction to Contemporary Thought Seminar, together with his relatives, submitted false allegations to the university in order to have me expelled. Despite knowing these allegations to be false, the university chose to accept the Wachi family’s illegitimate demands.
Mr. Wachi harbored toward me an intense transference-based romantic fixation as well as an extreme desire for recognition. When he realized that these feelings would not be reciprocated, his positive transference transformed into an intense negative transference. He then sought to recast me as a grotesque monster, to deprive me of everything that constituted my life—my means of livelihood (i.e., income), my research activities, and my relationships with others—and to isolate me socially so that I would fall into ruin and ultimately be driven to suicide. His relatives, possessed by the desire to “make Takahiro Wachi a lawyer at any cost,” likewise longed for my expulsion from the university, viewing my presence as an obstacle to his legal studies.
These desires converged. They fabricated a grotesque false narrative, shared it with the university, and exploited the Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee—which did not prohibit false accusations—to carry out acts of coercion as a form of violence. In this manner, they succeeded in confining me within the blatant frame-up of being a “repugnant and dangerous human rights violator against Takahiro Wachi.” More than twelve years and eight months have now passed, yet I remain unable to escape this prison of false accusation.
Subsequently, although Mr. Wachi was criminally accused by me on suspicion of coercion, he was unlawfully granted a non-prosecution disposition by Ms. Naomi Unemoto and others. Astonishingly, instead of enrolling in the law school of Chuo University—the very institution that had fulfilled his wishes through criminal acts—he proceeded to enroll in the law school of ××××××, my own alma mater and the university where I had taught. This fact makes clear that the true stalker is Mr. Wachi himself, who continues to harbor transference-based romantic feelings toward me.
When I continued to refuse to consent to voluntary resignation despite all that was done to me, Chuo University escalated its violence in ways that defy belief, including lockouts, power cutoffs, and the sending of threatening letters. As a result, Mr. M and I consulted the Private Education Division of the Higher Education Bureau of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Mr. Keiji Umeki, then an official in the Councillor’s Office, expressed deep concern and sent a written demand with a deadline to Chuo University requesting an explanation. This action triggered Chuo University to abruptly send me a notice of dismissal on July 25, 2012, and on the following day, July 26, I was deemed to have been dismissed.
However, because the internal approval document bore no seal of the then Chairman of the Board, Mr. Shuji Kuno, it became clear that Chuo University had carried out what was effectively a sham dismissal without obtaining the Chairman’s authorization.
On November 20, 2012, the first session of labor tribunal proceedings that I initiated against Chuo University was held at the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Court. Because the university strongly resisted the court’s determination that it was necessary to summon Mr. Wachi as a witness, the case was immediately transferred to ordinary civil litigation. At that stage, it appears that criminal conduct on the part of the court itself had not yet occurred. Nevertheless, even at this first labor tribunal session, Chuo University submitted to the court a forged audio recording medium (a forged CD-R) and a forged written record of statements (later submitted as a transcript). These materials had been unlawfully created to conceal the threatening language, abuse, insults (such as calling me a “parasite”), persistent threats, and acts of violence that constituted the crime of coercion committed on April 11, 2012. These acts clearly satisfy the constituent elements of the crimes of forgery of private documents and unlawful creation and use of private electromagnetic records.
The direct perpetrators of the coercion were Matazo Nakanishi, then Professor in the Faculty of Law and Chair of the Harassment Prevention and Awareness Committee; Kyoko Nagamatsu, then Professor in the Faculty of Policy Studies and a member of the same committee; and Motohiro Hashimoto, then Dean of the Faculty of Law and currently Vice President of Chuo University. At the first labor tribunal session, the individuals who appeared as representatives of the “employer” were not the Chairman of the Board, but rather Mr. Hashimoto and Mr. Nakanishi. It was also on this day that I first saw at close range Chuo University’s attorneys, Haruko Shibamura and Shigeru Furuta.
Subsequently, after Mr. M and I spent more than seventeen hours repeatedly listening to the forged CD-R, we determined that it bore no resemblance whatsoever to the coercive acts I had actually experienced on April 11, 2012. The entire recording had been thoroughly altered and edited. After all suspects in the coercion case were unlawfully granted non-prosecution dispositions, we commissioned a forensic examination at our own expense from a forensic science laboratory, which produced a scientific conclusion that the CD-R was unequivocally a forgery.
The civil lawsuit I brought against Chuo University proceeded from the first oral hearing held on January 30, 2013, at the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Court until the judgment date of February 26, 2014. As my attorney, Mr. NN, repeatedly exclaimed in astonishment and lament—stating that he had “never encountered a lawsuit in which such strange things occur one after another”—the proceedings unfolded in an extraordinarily abnormal manner, with relentless deviations from all standard judicial procedures.
Although the issues in dispute were the invalidity of my dismissal (i.e., confirmation of status) and a claim for damages, and although procedural defects in the university’s actions should have been the focus of the trial, the proceedings were forcibly distorted into a bizarre contest solely over the existence of harassment. This distortion was driven by Chuo University’s attorney, Haruko Shibamura, who from the outset branded me as a “dangerous and repugnant human rights violator against Takahiro Wachi” and subjected me to a barrage of abusive and defamatory language.
The presiding judge, Hiroshi Ichimura, who directed the proceedings from the first through the fourth oral hearings, displayed a clear shift in demeanor from the second hearing onward, suggesting that he had developed fear toward Chuo University. He became exceedingly submissive to the university’s side, consistently exhibiting conspicuous deference, excessive consideration, and unwarranted leniency. After court sessions, he even summoned only my attorney, Mr. NN, to a private room and applied pressure on him to “withdraw the lawsuit.” When Mr. NN demanded forensic examination of the forged CD-R, Judge Ichimura refused, stating that “what has been submitted will be treated as what has been submitted,” thereby declining any examination.
In these interactions, Judge Ichimura confronted my attorney not as an impartial presiding judge, but unmistakably as an agent of Chuo University. He was aware from the outset that both the CD-R and the transcript submitted by the university as evidence of alleged harassment were forged. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this lawsuit—entirely unfavorable and inconvenient to Chuo University—came to be regarded, under improper pressure from politicians and university affiliates, as a case in which the university could prevail only by committing criminal acts.
On May 22, 2013, slightly later than the initiation of the civil lawsuit against Chuo University, I filed a criminal complaint for coercion with the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. The accused parties were Motohiro Hashimoto, Matazo Nakanishi, Takahiro Wachi, Yoshiaki Hijikata, and Sachiko Obi. At that time, the head of the Tachikawa Branch was Ms. Etsuko Mori, a graduate of Waseda University, and accordingly, the complaint for coercion was formally accepted on June 24 of the same year. On October 6 of that year, I additionally filed a supplementary complaint naming Kyoko Nagamatsu, one of the direct perpetrators, as an accused party, and this complaint was likewise accepted on October 22 of the same year. Consequently, from June 24, 2013 onward, Hiroshi Ichimura, the presiding judge in the civil case against Chuo University, was engaging in criminal conduct under the Penal Code, namely the concealment of offenders, destruction of evidence, and aiding and abetting criminal acts.
From around the time the complaint for coercion was accepted, there can be no doubt that Chuo University was consulting with Mr. Takayuki Aonuma, a prosecutor and graduate of Chuo University (then Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, later Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, and subsequently Deputy Prosecutor-General), and possibly already with Mr. Kotaro Ono (then Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, later Prosecutor-General), regarding how to suppress and erase all criminal responsibility. That is, they were seeking methods by which the university could prevail unlawfully in the civil proceedings and secure unlawful non-prosecution dispositions in the criminal proceedings.
The method adopted was extraordinarily malicious: the civil and criminal proceedings were coordinated, with civil court judges and criminal prosecutors in charge of the investigation (together with those directing them, including Mr. Aonuma) mutually cooperating to conceal, to the very end, the forged CD-R, which constituted the absolute and direct evidence that the crime of coercion had been committed. In order to make this scheme even more secure, Mr. Aonuma, then Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, arranged for Ms. Naomi Unemoto, a junior prosecutor and fellow graduate of Chuo University, to be appointed as Head of the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office in January 2014.
In addition, beginning with the fifth oral hearing in the civil lawsuit, arrangements were made to replace the presiding judge with Mr. Takesato Ota, a judge who was likewise a graduate of Chuo University. It is highly probable that Mr. Aonuma and others, with the assistance of powerful politicians, exerted influence on Mr. Naoto Otani, then Secretary-General of the Supreme Court (and former Chief Justice), in order to bring about this personnel change. As a result, it was Mr. Otani, then Secretary-General of the Supreme Court Secretariat—who held effective control over judicial personnel decisions—who sent Mr. Takesato Ota, the judge who would ultimately present me with what can only be described as a “death sentence judgment,” into the civil lawsuit against Chuo University.
From the fifth oral hearing onward, Mr. Takesato Ota assumed control of the proceedings. As before, he summoned only my attorney, Mr. NN, to a private room after the close of court sessions, and in a manner far more coercive than his predecessor, Mr. Ichimura, he summarily rejected any proposal to submit the forged CD-R for forensic examination, declaring such a step to be entirely out of the question. He proceeded to intimidate and exclude Mr. NN from any genuine dialogue.
It is now abundantly clear that this was a criminal trial in form only—a massive organized crime in which the courtroom itself was used as the crime scene for a “premeditated killing.” The objective was to thoroughly conceal forged evidence, to secure an unlawful victory for Chuo University, to present me with a “death sentence judgment” so as never to release me from the false accusation of being a “dangerous and repugnant human rights violator against Takahiro Wachi,” and ultimately to drive me to suicide. This explains why the lawsuit was so profoundly abnormal, filled with “nothing but strange occurrences,” as my attorney, Mr. NN, was so repeatedly and deeply shocked to observe.
In this lawsuit, neither Mr. Ichimura nor Mr. Ota ever once met or spoke with me, the plaintiff. No examination of the plaintiff took place; no examination of Mr. Wachi, who styled himself as a “victim,” was conducted; no other witnesses were examined; all requests for forensic examination of the CD-R were summarily rejected without discussion; and the preparatory briefs drafted by my attorney, Mr. NN, were almost entirely ignored. Only the preparatory briefs submitted by Haruko Shibamura, which focused exclusively on portraying me as a grotesque monster, were accepted—beyond all questions of truth or falsity—as a false “truth,” and were embraced with near-maniacal zeal by the judges who were themselves perpetrators of the crime.
On February 26, 2014, Mr. Takesato Ota presented me with the “death sentence judgment.” It contained not a single trace of respect for the plaintiff’s human rights, and instead relentlessly reproduced—almost verbatim—the language of Ms. Shibamura’s preparatory briefs, which powerfully conveyed the message that my life was a “life not worth living.” The judgment was a ferocious text, a deranged document permeated throughout with overwhelming hatred, malice, and murderous intent, flowing like a lethal poison. The sole message transmitted by the judgment, from beginning to end, was nothing other than a massive threat: “Die.”
My attorney, Mr. NN, was left utterly appalled and remarked weakly, in a state of palpable fear, that it was “a judgment with grossly careless findings of fact.” This “death sentence judgment” was later subjected to a thorough analysis of its abnormality by Mr. O, a former student of mine and at that time an ally in our struggle, and was sent in the form of a petition to Mr. Saburo Tokura, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In other words, the Supreme Court is aware of the existence of this “death sentence judgment.”
It is inconceivable that even in a criminal trial a judgment could be written that so completely demonstrates the absence of human rights—ultimately, the absence of the human rights of any person whatsoever. I therefore wish to inform Minister of Justice Suzuki that this “death sentence judgment” authored by Mr. Takesato Ota (with the draft prepared by Associate Judge Ryuta Sudo) constitutes the most dangerous object imaginable—something that must not be permitted to exist within the human world of a nation that claims to be governed by the rule of law.
Although it was a “judgment” in name, the so-called “murderous judgment” functioned like a weapon. As I endured the intense sense of rejection and discomfort and forced myself to read through it carefully, I realized that it contained statements that were absolutely impossible to write at that point in time. Specifically, it stated in a definitive manner that, as of April 11, 2012, “there had been no coercion or threats by Matazo Nakanishi.”
Despite the fact that the forged CD-R had never been submitted for forensic examination, it was immediately obvious to Inoue that this was a blatant falsehood. The question of how such a statement could possibly have been written pressed upon me strongly, and before long the answer fell into place with a profound shock. In that moment, we fully understood the astonishing reason why Ota Takekiyo and others were able to assert, in a definitive manner, matters that should have been absolutely impossible to write in the “murderous judgment.” It was because the civil litigation and the criminal procedures arising from the criminal complaint for coercion were linked.
That is to say, the prosecutors in charge of investigating the coercion case at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, Tachikawa Branch; Naomi Unemoto, who by that time had already assumed the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Tachikawa Branch and was issuing instructions to them; and Takayuki Aonuma and others had secretly conveyed to the judges of the Tokyo District Court, Tachikawa Branch—most notably to Takekiyo Ota, also an alumnus of Chuo University—that:
(1) the forged CD-R would not be submitted for forensic examination;
(2) the prosecution would continue to falsely tell the plaintiff, Inoue, that it would be submitted for examination (so as to prevent Inoue from having it examined at personal expense in the civil litigation); and
(3) no investigation whatsoever would be conducted into Chuo University’s crime of coercion, all suspects would be given non-prosecution dispositions, and the case itself would be completely covered up.
Because Ota Takekiyo had obtained firm assurances from the prosecutors—who were themselves perpetrators of the crime—that the forged CD-R would never be examined and that all suspects in the coercion case would receive non-prosecution dispositions, he was able to brazenly write into the “murderous judgment” matters that were absolutely impossible to write, that is, falsehoods.
Shortly after Takekiyo Ota replaced the presiding judge, on November 19, 2013, Inoue was summoned by Hisanori Morikawa, the former prosecutor in charge of the coercion investigation, and went to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. Morikawa stated, “We will explore whether it is possible to bring an indictment by considering both the outcome of the civil litigation and the results of the CD-R forensic examination,” and requested that Inoue also enter into a mandate agreement with NN, who was the attorney handling the civil case, to act as counsel for the complainant.
In effect being compelled to incur an expense of 220,500 yen, Inoue reluctantly entered into a mandate agreement with Attorney NN to act as counsel for the complainant. Thereafter, NN handled communications with the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, and Inoue never again met directly with the former prosecutor, Hisanori Morikawa. At the time, I was plagued by strong doubts—why should the course of the civil litigation matter, and why should NN, the civil litigation attorney, also have to serve as counsel for the complainant?—but I can now fully understand that the true purpose was to constantly extract information about the civil case from NN in order to conceal all of Chuo University’s crimes, beginning with coercion.
I wish to inform Minister of Justice Suzuki that Naom i Unemoto, Takayuki Aonuma, and the direct perpetrators Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei; the judges including Hiroshi Ichimura and Takekiyo Ota; as well as Chuo University’s perpetrators and attorneys Haruko Shibamura and Shigeru Furuta—all participants in this organized crime—gravely violated the independence of the judiciary and the independence of judges in the exercise of their authority. As a result, they egregiously infringed upon Inoue’s right to a fair trial, and all clearly violated Article 76 of the Constitution of Japan.
Around June 2014, while the appeal was pending before the Tokyo High Court, Morikawa conveyed through Attorney NN that “the estimate for the examination has already been completed and approval has been granted.” He then suddenly transferred to the main office of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office without disclosing any subsequent developments. From August of that year, Yuji Nihei assumed the position of prosecutor in charge of the coercion investigation.
The presiding judge of the appellate court was Koichi Tamura. When he appeared at the first oral argument on June 5, he merely stated that “witness examination is unnecessary” and that “the next hearing will be the pronouncement of judgment,” without making any reference whatsoever to the application for forensic examination of the forged CD-R. After the court session ended, Shibamura and others—who normally left immediately—remained in the waiting room on this occasion alone, whispering anxiously among themselves. I believe they interpreted Tamura’s silence regarding the forensic examination as a strong indication of a likely reversal in favor of Inoue. I believe that Koichi Tamura actually intended to rule against Chuo University.
On July 22 of that year, however, the appellant (Inoue) was once again forced to lose the case. When Koichi Tamura appeared on the bench, his outward appearance had changed so drastically that everyone believed the presiding judge had been replaced. With bangs hanging down like a ghost and a hollow, lifeless expression, he looked nothing like the same person. This convinced us strongly that, in the span of only about a month and a half, he must have been subjected to severe violence by someone, for the purpose of forcing him to distort the judgment. We believe that Tamura exposed his own ghost-like, altered appearance to the appellants as living evidence that he had been subjected to violence.
Indeed, the appellate judgment written by Koichi Tamura, in stark contrast to the “murderous judgment,” was extremely weak and written throughout in an apologetic tone. I am firmly convinced that there is an extremely high possibility that Tamura was coerced through violence into distorting the judgment and forced to write a decision contrary to his own conviction. Accordingly, I believe that Koichi Tamura was both a perpetrator who infringed upon Inoue’s right to a fair trial and, at the same time, a victim whose own independence in the exercise of judicial authority was violated.
After losing the appeal, the only remaining possibility for legal redress left to Inoue was that all suspects in the coercion case would be indicted. However, Yuji Nihei continued to convey falsehoods to Inoue through Attorney NN, repeatedly stating, “We will submit it for examination,” and continued to deceive Inoue right up until just before the statute of limitations for prosecution expired.
On January 27, 2015, Nihei summoned Attorney NN and Inoue to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office and provided what he called an explanation of the reasons for the decision not to prosecute. This explanation consisted entirely of empty, hollow reasoning intended to obscure the fact that no investigation whatsoever had been conducted. With an extremely tense expression, he confessed that “we did not submit it for forensic examination,” giving as his reason that “there was nothing strange when I listened to it with my own ears”—a rationale so crude that it would not deceive even a child. (When this was later conveyed to a forensic examiner at the Institute of Forensic Science, it was immediately rejected as “an absolutely impossible reason.”)
Nihei stated that it would take more than a week for the notice of disposition to arrive because he still needed to obtain approval. Nevertheless, a notice stating that a non-prosecution disposition had been decided as of January 30 arrived in less than a week. It was later discovered that approval had already been obtained at the time we were summoned on January 27 for the explanation. This is because Naom i Unemoto, who was the Chief Prosecutor of the Tachikawa Branch, had been transferred to the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Kochi District Public Prosecutors Office as of January 23, four days earlier, and it is certain that she had issued approval for non-prosecution dispositions for all suspects prior to that date.
(For the record, Hisanori Morikawa, the former prosecutor in charge of the coercion investigation, resigned as a public prosecutor effective March 31, 2015. It has also been confirmed that Yuji Nihei, who succeeded him as prosecutor in charge, resigned as a public prosecutor on March 31, 2021. However, official documents issued by the Cabinet Personnel Bureau merely record the date of resignation and subsequent employment, and no media outlet reported on Nihei’s resignation at all. Neither government agencies nor Nihei himself have disclosed the circumstances leading to his resignation. Unlike the treatment of other prosecutors, an extraordinary situation arose in which Nihei’s resignation was concealed from the public. It is possible that Nihei was quietly forced to resign—or even secretly dismissed for disciplinary reasons—in order to conceal his involvement in the cover-up of Chuo University’s crimes, as well as the crimes of judges including Naom i Unemoto, Takayuki Aonuma, and Takekiyo Ota. As the Minister of Justice at the time in 2021 was Yoko Kamikawa, I believe that she is aware of the details. Nihei later posted his career history on the website of a law firm in Fukuoka City where he was re-employed, but conspicuously omitted the timing of his resignation as a prosecutor and his alma mater.)
The presiding judge at first instance in the litigation against Chuo University, Takekiyo Ota, like Hiroshi Ichimura, must be regarded as having committed the crimes of harboring offenders, destruction of evidence, and aiding and abetting crimes. Likewise, Naomi Unemoto and Takayuki Aonuma, who conspired with Ota and others, as well as Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei, who acted under their instructions, must also be regarded as having committed the crimes of harboring offenders, destruction of evidence, and aiding and abetting crimes. I believe that these individual criminal acts, taken as a whole, are subsumed within an organized act of murder directed against Inoue.
The evidence for this lies in the scientific forensic examination results demonstrating that the forged CD-R, which Inoue submitted for examination at personal expense after all suspects in the coercion case were given non-prosecution dispositions, was unquestionably a forgery. The fact that the current Prosecutor-General is a violator of the Constitution, and the fact that he is a perpetrator of crimes, are absolutely beyond dispute.
It was clear that civil and criminal proceedings conspired to conceal all of Chuo University’s crimes, to completely shut Inoue out from any form of legal redress, and to carry out an “advance killing” by driving him into a situation where suicide would be the only remaining option. They may have assumed that I would be unable to raise the exorbitant cost of a forensic examination, but even so, I resolved myself and, on April 9, 2015, went to the Institute of Forensic Science and commissioned a forensic examination of the forged CD-R at my own expense. On July 23 of that year, scientific examination results were issued, conclusively establishing that the CD-R was a forgery.
Haruko Shibamura stated in the evidence explanation document (1) that the recording date was April 11, 2012. However, it was scientifically proven that the actual recording date (i.e., the date of creation) was October 17 of the same year. It was also scientifically proven that, although an IC recorder had been used for recording on April 11, 2012, the audio data recorded on the forged CD-R was not detected as having originated from an IC recorder at all.
What was ultimately proven by scientific forensic examination was the fact that Chuo University committed the Penal Code crimes of unlawful creation and use of electromagnetic records and forgery of private documents, and the fact that judges led by Takekiyo Ota and prosecutors led by Naomi Unemoto conspired to conceal all of Chuo University’s crimes by committing the crimes of harboring offenders and destruction of evidence.
Accordingly, from the moment the scientific examination results of the forged CD-R became available, the intensity of concealment efforts aimed at shielding Chuo University and its accomplices from the fact that they had committed multiple Penal Code crimes escalated to an extreme degree. From the victim’s perspective, this escalation was utterly outrageous, yet it must be said that it was virtually impossible to avoid. Carrying the forensic report with us, wherever we went we were fiercely repelled as heretics, pelted with blatant indifference, rejection, and brazen defiance, and repeatedly forced to confront new schemes designed to further the cover-up.
At the time, Chuo University President Shozaburo Sakai vehemently refused even to face the facts. Letters and evidence materials addressed to then-Chairman Takehisa Fukasawa never reached their proper destination. Chuo University’s internal audit office, acting under the guise of a whistleblower investigation, plotted to steal the physical forged CD-R that Chuo University itself had submitted to the court, and went so far as to engage in criminal conduct amounting to theft by copying the forensic report. (The individual who served as the overall supervisor of the internal audit whistleblower system at the time was the current Chairman, Masahiko Omura, and it cannot be ruled out that Omura instructed staff members to carry out these unlawful acts.)
In September 2015, we went to the Kasumigaseki Public Prosecutors Office and submitted to the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office a criminal complaint against the judges, a criminal complaint against the prosecutors, and several additional accusations. At the same time, we submitted a petition addressed to former Prosecutor-General Kotaro Ohno, enclosing the forensic report as well as copies of all complaints and accusations that had been submitted to the Special Investigation Department that day.
However, in less than a month, all of the complaints, accusations, and evidence materials submitted that day were returned by the Special Investigation Department with a level of cruelty that defies description. (Considering that, back in June 2013, the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office had accepted a criminal complaint for coercion even though the forged CD-R had not yet been submitted for forensic examination, this return by the Special Investigation Department appears extraordinarily unnatural and bizarre. The head of the Special Investigation Department at the time was Takahiro Saito, a Chuo University alumnus and now Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office.)
What this unreasonable and brutally cruel return decisively revealed was that former Prosecutor-General Kotaro Ohno had completely ignored and dismissed our complaints and accusations despite the enclosure of the forensic report—in other words, that he had demonstrated an intention to tacitly approve and overlook all criminal acts committed by Chuo University and its legal accomplices. From the moment we confirmed this appallingly cruel return, our trust in former Prosecutor-General Ohno vanished without a trace, and we were compelled to arrive at the absolute conviction that Ohno, too, stood on the side of the perpetrators of an organized crime aimed at erasing the victim from this world.
Furthermore, the repeated ringing of the intercom by postal delivery personnel in connection with the return of the documents inflicted severe psychological trauma on both myself and Mr. M. To this day, whenever an intercom rings, we are invariably seized by terror and anxiety, trembling with fear, nausea, palpitations, and cold sweats—facts that I wish Minister of Justice Suzuki to be fully aware of.
“Chuo University of Law,” unbelievably, submitted forged evidence in a civil trial and, moreover, enlisted primarily Chuo University-educated legal professionals as accomplices to violate the independence of the judiciary and infringe upon the victim’s legitimate right to a fair trial—an unmistakable violation of the Constitution. This was such an irredeemable, irreparable, and disgraceful act that it would not be surprising if Chuo University were stripped of its very right to exist. From around October 2015, a strong suspicion began to creep into us like an ominous black shadow, throbbing within us: that multiple state institutions—including the Public Prosecutors Office, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—were attempting to completely erase this unprecedented atrocity, even at the cost of the victim’s life.
By April 2016, this ominous suspicion had risen to a height reaching the heavens and transformed into a terrifying, undeniable conviction. We then encountered our greatest ordeal: being abandoned as “corpses in advance” in a lawless space where no legal redress would ever arrive from anywhere.
On November 18, 2015, after making minor revisions to the complaints and accusations that had been returned by the Special Investigation Department, we once again went to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office and submitted them to a prosecutorial clerk. Shortly thereafter, we were contacted by the clerk and informed that we would meet with a prosecutor on December 9 of that year. The prosecutor who appeared was Kumiko Suzuki, the prosecutor in charge of acceptance. It quickly became apparent that Suzuki’s assigned mission was to hurl one arbitrary and incoherent objection after another at our complaints and accusations, speaking in a disjointed manner, in order to force us to voluntarily abandon them.
In particular, she persistently fixated on the accusation of forgery of private documents submitted by Mr. M, pressing unreasonable objections and coercing us to accept, without argument, that filing such an accusation was “impossible.” We responded ambiguously and temporarily took all complaints and accusations back with us. Thereafter, Suzuki repeatedly telephoned Mr. M’s home, uttering outrageous statements that could scarcely be believed to come from a prosecutor, such as “The forensic report cannot be connected to any crime!” and “Forget the forensic results!” She relentlessly cornered Mr. M until she drove him to say, “There is nothing left but suicide.”
Nevertheless, Mr. M refined the accusation document to the utmost limit, and on December 25 of that year we once again visited the Tachikawa Branch and resubmitted all complaints and accusations, at which point Suzuki had no choice but to accept them. However, on March 9, 2016, a notice of disposition bearing the name of Kumiko Suzuki as the accepting prosecutor was sent to us, stating that all suspects named in all complaints and accusations had been given non-prosecution dispositions.
During our meeting, Suzuki had explicitly stated that she was merely the accepting prosecutor and would not conduct any investigation, and that once accepted, the investigation would be carried out by an investigating prosecutor. In reality, because the complaints and accusations were virtually free of defects, she had no choice but to accept them. She then, of course, conducted no investigation whatsoever, left the matter untouched, and after a certain period of time had elapsed, was compelled to send a notice of non-prosecution in her own name.
Suzuki’s obstruction of our complaints and accusations through incoherent verbal abuse was, however, nothing more than a prelude—a mere overture—to the greatest ordeal that awaited us thereafter.
The presiding judge at first instance in the litigation against Chuo University, Takekiyo Ota, like Hiroshi Ichimura, must be regarded as having committed the crimes of harboring offenders, destruction of evidence, and aiding and abetting crimes. Likewise, Naomi Unemoto and Takayuki Aonuma, who conspired with Ota and others, as well as Hisanori Morikawa and Yuji Nihei, who acted under their instructions, must also be regarded as having committed the crimes of harboring offenders, destruction of evidence, and aiding and abetting crimes. I believe that these individual criminal acts, taken as a whole, are subsumed within an organized act of murder directed against Inoue.
The evidence for this lies in the scientific forensic examination results demonstrating that the forged CD-R, which Inoue submitted for examination at personal expense after all suspects in the coercion case were given non-prosecution dispositions, was unquestionably a forgery. The fact that the current Prosecutor-General is a violator of the Constitution, and the fact that he is a perpetrator of crimes, are absolutely beyond dispute.
It was clear that civil and criminal proceedings conspired to conceal all of Chuo University’s crimes, to completely shut Inoue out from any form of legal redress, and to carry out an “advance killing” by driving him into a situation where suicide would be the only remaining option. They may have assumed that I would be unable to raise the exorbitant cost of a forensic examination, but even so, I resolved myself and, on April 9, 2015, went to the Institute of Forensic Science and commissioned a forensic examination of the forged CD-R at my own expense. On July 23 of that year, scientific examination results were issued, conclusively establishing that the CD-R was a forgery.
Haruko Shibamura stated in the evidence explanation document (1) that the recording date was April 11, 2012. However, it was scientifically proven that the actual recording date (i.e., the date of creation) was October 17 of the same year. It was also scientifically proven that, although an IC recorder had been used for recording on April 11, 2012, the audio data recorded on the forged CD-R was not detected as having originated from an IC recorder at all.
What was ultimately proven by scientific forensic examination was the fact that Chuo University committed the Penal Code crimes of unlawful creation and use of electromagnetic records and forgery of private documents, and the fact that judges led by Takekiyo Ota and prosecutors led by Naomi Unemoto conspired to conceal all of Chuo University’s crimes by committing the crimes of harboring offenders and destruction of evidence.
Accordingly, from the moment the scientific examination results of the forged CD-R became available, the intensity of concealment efforts aimed at shielding Chuo University and its accomplices from the fact that they had committed multiple Penal Code crimes escalated to an extreme degree. From the victim’s perspective, this escalation was utterly outrageous, yet it must be said that it was virtually impossible to avoid. Carrying the forensic report with us, wherever we went we were fiercely repelled as heretics, pelted with blatant indifference, rejection, and brazen defiance, and repeatedly forced to confront new schemes designed to further the cover-up.
At the time, Chuo University President Shozaburo Sakai vehemently refused even to face the facts. Letters and evidence materials addressed to then-Chairman Takehisa Fukasawa never reached their proper destination. Chuo University’s internal audit office, acting under the guise of a whistleblower investigation, plotted to steal the physical forged CD-R that Chuo University itself had submitted to the court, and went so far as to engage in criminal conduct amounting to theft by copying the forensic report. (The individual who served as the overall supervisor of the internal audit whistleblower system at the time was the current Chairman, Masahiko Omura, and it cannot be ruled out that Omura instructed staff members to carry out these unlawful acts.)
In September 2015, we went to the Kasumigaseki Public Prosecutors Office and submitted to the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office a criminal complaint against the judges, a criminal complaint against the prosecutors, and several additional accusations. At the same time, we submitted a petition addressed to former Prosecutor-General Kotaro Ohno, enclosing the forensic report as well as copies of all complaints and accusations that had been submitted to the Special Investigation Department that day.
However, in less than a month, all of the complaints, accusations, and evidence materials submitted that day were returned by the Special Investigation Department with a level of cruelty that defies description. (Considering that, back in June 2013, the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office had accepted a criminal complaint for coercion even though the forged CD-R had not yet been submitted for forensic examination, this return by the Special Investigation Department appears extraordinarily unnatural and bizarre. The head of the Special Investigation Department at the time was Takahiro Saito, a Chuo University alumnus and now Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office.)
What this unreasonable and brutally cruel return decisively revealed was that former Prosecutor-General Kotaro Ohno had completely ignored and dismissed our complaints and accusations despite the enclosure of the forensic report—in other words, that he had demonstrated an intention to tacitly approve and overlook all criminal acts committed by Chuo University and its legal accomplices. From the moment we confirmed this appallingly cruel return, our trust in former Prosecutor-General Ohno vanished without a trace, and we were compelled to arrive at the absolute conviction that Ohno, too, stood on the side of the perpetrators of an organized crime aimed at erasing the victim from this world.
Furthermore, the repeated ringing of the intercom by postal delivery personnel in connection with the return of the documents inflicted severe psychological trauma on both myself and Mr. M. To this day, whenever an intercom rings, we are invariably seized by terror and anxiety, trembling with fear, nausea, palpitations, and cold sweats—facts that I wish Minister of Justice Suzuki to be fully aware of.
“Chuo University of Law,” unbelievably, submitted forged evidence in a civil trial and, moreover, enlisted primarily Chuo University-educated legal professionals as accomplices to violate the independence of the judiciary and infringe upon the victim’s legitimate right to a fair trial—an unmistakable violation of the Constitution. This was such an irredeemable, irreparable, and disgraceful act that it would not be surprising if Chuo University were stripped of its very right to exist. From around October 2015, a strong suspicion began to creep into us like an ominous black shadow, throbbing within us: that multiple state institutions—including the Public Prosecutors Office, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—were attempting to completely erase this unprecedented atrocity, even at the cost of the victim’s life.
By April 2016, this ominous suspicion had risen to a height reaching the heavens and transformed into a terrifying, undeniable conviction. We then encountered our greatest ordeal: being abandoned as “corpses in advance” in a lawless space where no legal redress would ever arrive from anywhere.
On November 18, 2015, after making minor revisions to the complaints and accusations that had been returned by the Special Investigation Department, we once again went to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office and submitted them to a prosecutorial clerk. Shortly thereafter, we were contacted by the clerk and informed that we would meet with a prosecutor on December 9 of that year. The prosecutor who appeared was Kumiko Suzuki, the prosecutor in charge of acceptance. It quickly became apparent that Suzuki’s assigned mission was to hurl one arbitrary and incoherent objection after another at our complaints and accusations, speaking in a disjointed manner, in order to force us to voluntarily abandon them.
In particular, she persistently fixated on the accusation of forgery of private documents submitted by Mr. M, pressing unreasonable objections and coercing us to accept, without argument, that filing such an accusation was “impossible.” We responded ambiguously and temporarily took all complaints and accusations back with us. Thereafter, Suzuki repeatedly telephoned Mr. M’s home, uttering outrageous statements that could scarcely be believed to come from a prosecutor, such as “The forensic report cannot be connected to any crime!” and “Forget the forensic results!” She relentlessly cornered Mr. M until she drove him to say, “There is nothing left but suicide.”
Nevertheless, Mr. M refined the accusation document to the utmost limit, and on December 25 of that year we once again visited the Tachikawa Branch and resubmitted all complaints and accusations, at which point Suzuki had no choice but to accept them. However, on March 9, 2016, a notice of disposition bearing the name of Kumiko Suzuki as the accepting prosecutor was sent to us, stating that all suspects named in all complaints and accusations had been given non-prosecution dispositions.
During our meeting, Suzuki had explicitly stated that she was merely the accepting prosecutor and would not conduct any investigation, and that once accepted, the investigation would be carried out by an investigating prosecutor. In reality, because the complaints and accusations were virtually free of defects, she had no choice but to accept them. She then, of course, conducted no investigation whatsoever, left the matter untouched, and after a certain period of time had elapsed, was compelled to send a notice of non-prosecution in her own name.
Suzuki’s obstruction of our complaints and accusations through incoherent verbal abuse was, however, nothing more than a prelude—a mere overture—to the greatest ordeal that awaited us thereafter.
To what extent former Prime Minister Kishida was informed by former Minister of Justice Furukawa about this major organized crime for which Chuo University is the root cause—or whether he was not informed at all—there is no way for us to know. However, even if he had been informed, there is little choice but to assume that he was so overwhelmed by the demands of governance that he failed to fully grasp the unprecedented and extremely grave danger this major organized crime poses, one that could expose the very foundations of the national order to the risk of collapse.
Nevertheless, even if former Prime Minister Kishida was unaware that Ms. Naomi Unemoto was one of the perpetrators of this major organized crime, when one considers the enormous damage inflicted upon the victims and the slow, state-inflicted “killing” of the victims by national power, it must be said that his responsibility is extraordinarily grave for having appointed Ms. Unemoto—first as Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, and subsequently as Prosecutor General—through Cabinet decisions.
Former Prime Minister Kishida, who is no longer the Prime Minister, can no longer be expected to take responsibility for this excessively serious appointment decision by undertaking concrete actions to realize the dismissal of Ms. Naomi Unemoto—an outcome that has now become the earnest wish not only of the victims but of a large majority of the public. Such action must be regarded as no longer possible.
The grave negligence affecting the very lives of the victims, which former Prime Minister Kishida most likely committed without any knowledge of the underlying facts, must now be rectified by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Accordingly, the responsibility to relieve Ms. Naomi Unemoto of her position as Prosecutor General has been transferred to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.
[Conclusion]
No matter how much public criticism she may face, and no matter how openly she may be denounced by frontline prosecutors within the Public Prosecutors Office as “lacking the qualifications to serve as Prosecutor General,” Ms. Naomi Unemoto has never attempted to resign. This is because her boundless desire is to ensure that her beloved alma mater, Chuo University, continues to survive indefinitely as “the Chuo of legal studies,” a university purportedly untainted by crime. At the same time, her refusal to step down serves to conceal the criminal acts of the many legal professionals who acted as accomplices in covering up Chuo University’s numerous crimes—among them Mr. Takayuki Aonuma, Mr. Tsunetaro Ohno, Mr. Takemasa Ota, and many others—and to ensure that none of these individuals are ever subjected to criminal proceedings. By prolonging her tenure as Prosecutor General in pursuit of this massive cover-up, Ms. Unemoto seeks to ensure that the repeated acts of “preemptive killing” inflicted upon the living witnesses—the victims—are ultimately completed through the victims’ suicides, after all possibilities of survival have been systematically cut off.
The desire to prolong the life of Chuo University, the concealment of the innumerable criminal acts committed by legal professionals who are accomplices—including herself—and, as a consequence, the completion of the “preemptive killing” of the victims: it is precisely for the realization of these objectives that Ms. Naomi Unemoto, in her capacity as Prosecutor General, has been exploiting members of the Liberal Democratic Party. This is the single most important point that I wish to convey, loudly and unequivocally, to Minister of Justice Suzuki. (The members of the Liberal Democratic Party are, in all likelihood, entirely unaware that a secret, localized state of emergency—never lifted to this day—has resulted in the suspension of the effectiveness of multiple laws; that, as a result, Ms. Naomi Unemoto, herself a perpetrator of these crimes, continues to remain in the position of Prosecutor General; that all perpetrators involved in concealing Chuo University’s crimes, beginning with Ms. Unemoto, remain at large without ever being subjected to criminal procedures; and that the “preemptive killing” of the victims of this major organized crime is on the verge of being completed. Unaware of all this, they are being made to participate in the massive concealment of the numerous crimes committed by Chuo University and the organized crime seeking their total eradication. Unaware of all this, they are being made, outside the law, to participate in the “slow killing” of innocent citizens who have never been sentenced to death.)
Nearly thirteen years have now passed since the commission of the crime of coercion on April 11, 2012. As a researcher in contemporary philosophy and a practitioner of language arts, the victim had numerous creative projects planned. Yet every condition necessary to bring them to fruition—mental and physical freedom, financial stability, and the basic sense of the natural sustainability of life itself—has been completely and utterly stripped away. Nearly thirteen years of my life, which by right should have been mine to use freely, have been thoroughly taken from me and destroyed by the extrajudicial violence of Chuo University and all accomplices, beginning with Ms. Naomi Unemoto.
——(Here, three fairly long paragraphs are omitted, as they contain material that deeply concerns the victim’s privacy.)——
Regarding the extreme and worsening hardships endured by my mother and myself since 2012—hardships that have grown more tragic with each passing year—I have already informed four Prosecutors General who served prior to Ms. Naomi Unemoto, particularly former Prosecutor General Makoto Hayashi and former Prosecutor General Yukio Kai, in detail through twenty-one communications. From a limit situation in which I am forced to live each day prepared for death and compelled to contemplate concrete means of ending my own life, I earnestly and repeatedly implore Minister of Justice Suzuki, as a final appeal, to rescue my mother and me, as well as Mr. M, by presenting, as soon as possible, clear and reliable indications that this major organized crime will be brought to a comprehensive resolution.
I would also like to inform Minister of Justice Suzuki that, since 2018, we have continued to testify about the many crimes committed by Chuo University and this major organized crime aimed at their total concealment through Twitter (now X), and since 2019, through a blog as well. The name of the X account is “井上莉絵瑠🐰Usaneko-Passion,” and the username is “@Belle75875497.” I follow the accounts of both Minister of Justice Suzuki and Prime Minister Ishiba. The blog is titled “Contemporary Thought and Testimony.” On it, we have published letters and petitions sent to Prosecutors General prior to Ms. Unemoto’s appointment, a petition sent to Ms. Unemoto during her tenure as Chief Prosecutor of the Hiroshima High Public Prosecutors Office, petitions sent to three former Ministers of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology during their respective terms, the criminal complaint for coercion submitted to the Tachikawa Branch of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, and multiple complaints and accusations submitted to the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office. Several crucial pieces of evidence have also been made public on X. More than 100,000 readers have already visited “Contemporary Thought and Testimony,” and the criminal acts of Ms. Naomi Unemoto will become known to an even wider readership in the future.
“Contemporary Thought and Testimony” is a blog established so that we—who have been confined for many long years within an invisible camp-like space created by extrajudicial violence—may inform the public of the truth and seek relief.
We have already reached the final stage of a limit situation in which death could occur at any moment. It is therefore with absolutely no time to spare that I have written this petition to Minister of Justice Suzuki. Should there be no early indication whatsoever that the matters requested in the section “[Petition Requests]” will be faithfully carried out, the risk that our lives will be taken will finally reach its peak. In that event, I regret to inform you in advance that I will make this petition public on “Contemporary Thought and Testimony.”
end
Respectfully submitted.
(Additionally, there exists a rather lengthy “Postscript,” but as it does not directly concern this major organized crime, it has also been omitted.)