False accusation nation

 Hostage justice is a partial phenomenon

In Japan's history, although human rights ideas have been formally given from the top, citizens have never claimed human rights on their own.
Because, literally, he has never received human rights education.
In fact, little changed because the monarchy constitution, the Meiji Constitution, formally replaced the Japanese sovereign constitution.
In particular, judicial power is not surprising, since its bureaucracy, or official, has not changed at all.

This is a major cause of the history of false accusations in Japan, which has continued from the postwar period to the present.
The people have been believed in myths, which are completely unfounded, to say that if the constitution is easily replaced, the rights and consciousness of the people and the legal spirit of civil servants will change together.
The media and press reporters have bought both roles.
Prior to the war, he played an explicit role as a government purveyor, but the essence remained unchanged after the war.
It is only natural that neither government organizations nor the press have been replaced by humans.
However, Japan has made a leap forward in post-war reconstruction, especially in the field of economic science, heading for developed countries.
It is also true that this rise to mass consumption civilization has given the people the illusion that their spiritual lives are improving and leveling up in parallel.

The inconvenient truth has always been concealed by the government, and has always been buried in the dark in the form of passive media and scholarly intellectual cooperation.
It was not born yesterday, such as hostage justice.
It has existed in Japan since ancient times.
It is openly present in this democratic era of Reiwa.
It has been 100 years since the constitution was transformed into a democratic constitution, and the feudal politics of criminal justice ignoring human rights is still alive.
It is clear how the public has been informed and how the media and academia are not performing their original functions.

In the history of false accusations, there have been no examples of failure at the stage of hostage justice.
The Ghosn case is the first failure of hostage justice.
As a result, the structure of the false accusations in Japan was exposed to the daylight, even to the bones.
Even in this period, the Japanese media did not recognize that the essence of the Ghosn case was a false accusation, an example of a failure during the hostage justice stage of the process.

Most foreign reporters can anticipate future developments.
Only Japanese reporters cannot predict where the trial will be.
The proof is that the prosecution leak information, which was dripping like a storm, has dried up like a river with dead water sources.
Such an idiot. The incident is about to begin with the Ghosn counterattack.

Japanese newspaper reporters do not have the intellectual ability to judge the content and direction of a trial.
Despite being a criminal reporter, he doesn't do the basics of criminal trials at all.
There is a situation in which this has been arrested by a prosecutor and drooling leak information of all-you-can-eat, and reporting it as it is.

Why is the prosecution silenced now without shedding Ghosn's disadvantageous information?
I hope Japanese journalists at least have such questions.
Why doesn't the trial proceed?
Did any expert explain?
Yame-ken(procecutor-ritired lawyer) and TV lawyers irresponsibly, they are spilling fakenews information such as "Gone's trial will not be held in the future."
The appearance of the Japanese media, together with the prosecutors, deciding on a "malicious silence" is probably a strange sight to the world press.

Editorial(False accusation theory)

 The judge is responsible for the false accusations

Since it is the judge who ultimately decides the defendant's innocence, it is only natural that the judge is liable for false charges.
However, in Japan, I have never heard of a judge taking any responsibilities, even if a judge repeatedly repeated false charges.
The problem is that the democratic society is educated so that the people do not think it is unusual or "unusual".
Japanese people get angry that anti-Japanese education is being conducted in neighboring countries in Asia.
First of all, the Japanese should reflect on the fact that "public employee pampering education" is being conducted in the Japanese society.
Because false accusations actually inflict innocent people.

False accusation is a crime by a lawyer

False accusations are caused by a trial, which is a procedure that only a lawyer can participate in and operate, so the main culprit is the judge, and both the prosecutor and the lawyer are accomplices.
In many past false accusations, national counsel did not defend themselves from innocence, but mostly ended with only guilty pleadings.What does this say without complicity?
The root cause is the responsibility of all lawyers who have made trials a secret behind the temple.
This is because the esotericity of the text of the law is a source of authority.
People need to know that the shallow depth of lawyers is one of the fundamental reasons for false charges.

Editorial( Announcement of main office and leak information of prosecutors)

Big head office announcement

During the Pacific War, the headquarters distributed false information to the people only to inspire the people's will to fight.The publicity spreaders were the press and reporters.After the war, intellectuals all criticized the main office, but did not hear any self-criticism or remorse about the media that helped.
The Ghosn case was reported in the same way that the report was taken by the reporter, with the head office replaced by prosecutors.
The media is repeating the history of making the same mistake again

Prosecution leak information

In the Ghosn case, Ghosn had already been dyed as a black guilty by prosecutor leaks before the publication of accurate, evidence-based information in the trial.
There is no guarantee that prosecution leak information is true.
Up to this point, it is exactly the same as before the war, when the headquarters announced a false war situation.
If there is any inconvenient truth for the public prosecutor Ghosn's freedom and announces from abroad, that means that the people have been danced to the announcement of the headquarters in Heisei/Reiwa.

 

Summary of facts (5)

 The meaning of the 10 billion yen lawsuit

I'm sorry for Nissan's shareholders, but I heard this news and bursted
into laughter.
Ghosn claims that Nissan will go bankrupt within two years.
In fact, stock prices have been on a long-term decline since the coup.This is a clear warning signal when Toyota is on the rise and Honda is flat.
The public will not be convinced of the lawsuit of 10 billion yen, but the important thing is not to secure 10 billion yen in receivables, etc. Is a lawsuit seeking responsibility.
Even in the case of a public breach, the prosecution and the courts are trying to avoid it, and it is obvious how stupid that another riot police sought responsibility for the breach.

Neither the media nor the public know that this legal riot police is the backdrop of the Ghosn case.
With the emergence and rush of this unit, Nissan has launched a number of litigation cases worldwide that do not seem like commercial companies.
For-profit companies usually calculate a company's reputation and avoid litigation.
In particular, we do not pursue liability suits because we cannot expect them to be cost-effective.

The fact that it is truly ridiculous as a corporate act means that this case will take five to ten years to conclude, during which time it is highly possible that Nissan itself will disappear and disappear.
In other words, the initial payment of 300 million yen per person for the attorney lawyer and 1.5 billion yen per person for five lawyers.
After that, even if the annual expenses are spent, the lawsuit has no chance of winning.
If such high-risk investments are made by company executives, the company will just go bankrupt.

The lawsuits for damages against officers in corporate lawsuits are very difficult .

It is based on the approval of the Board of Directors, and unless the owner is a well-managed entrepreneur, the damages to the company can be regarded as the responsibility of one representative director.
Because it is difficult.
The lawyer who undertakes the lawsuit can even affirm that he or she does not know the Companies Act.

Summary of facts (4)

 Failure of hostage justice

Prosecutors who have failed to obtain a mandatory confession no longer have strong evidence.

Hostage justice is, in other words, a confession-centered trial.
The prosecution failed to do so and has no evidence to convict Ghosn, so the outcome of the trial is visible.
What is not visible is the Japanese media and the people who have been guided by it.
The prosecutor's and judge's approach here is to make the trial as long as possible.

The signs are already appearing.
Even though they have been arrested for a year and three months, even the first trial date has not been specified.
Surprisingly, the reason why the deadline has been delayed is that prosecutors refused to disclose, and resisted, judicial bargaining in pretrial arrangements, which should have been a system for speedy and efficient hearings. Is tolerated by the court.
Prosecutors openly disregard even if they are in their own interests, even in the case of pre-arrangement procedures prescribed by law for the purpose of expeditious trial.

Abuse of escape cases

If a lawyer has been appointed, the trial proceedings must begin even if the defendant is not available.

Ghosn escaped while the court was delaying the date.
Just because a lawyer has been appointed, the accused has been unable to appear in court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that even in this case, a trial procedure can be performed (Article 286-2 of the Act).
Nevertheless, the court has taken meaningless court proceedings.
Apparently, Ghosn's trial is likely to be suspended or dismissed.
That would be a complete violation of the Constitution and a criminal procedure law.

Operation Smokescreen

Prosecutors guided the public's attention to the immediate case.

Prosecutors have arrested ineffective ICPO arrangements and have fallen themselves into self-trapped ant hell.
The ICPO arrangements are based on the principles of Member States' egalitarianism and the World Parliament, and they do not know that prosecutors will be painful and frustrating if used in domestic poses or smokescreen operations.
First of all, it is required to agree the venue of the beneficiary within 40 days.
If the recipient is not Japanese, this is a natural procedure, and it is clear that failure will occur here.
Second, the arranger will receive a request for cancellation of international arrangements.
If you are seriously considering punishment for a crime, there is no reason to stay on the venue, so rejection of the agreement is judged to be dishonest.

Summary of facts (3)

 Plea bargaining doctrine

Impossible complicity. Suspicion of self-proclaimed complicity.

Japan's Judicial Trade Law is a legal system that reveals the essential flaws of Japanese criminal justice, which has been criticized as prosecutor justice.
There is no sufficient logical examination, and the prosecution is a system for prosecution.

The timing of the agreement is crucial.

In an accomplice case, after prosecution, there is a judge's eye and a lawyer's eye, so there is no problem if one of the accomplices becomes a disadvantage testimony of another accomplice, that is, an enemy witness .
Prosecutors have no hesitation in disclosing the process of forming a cooperative agreement.
In this case, the cooperator is called the defendant.
The problem is a plea bargain at the investigation stage before prosecution.
It is a world of darkness because it is a world without the eyes of a judge or a lawyer.
If it is a general abstraction theory, the discussion will be complicated.

Alleged plea bargain

The first point of contact between prosecutor and co-accomplice is suspicion itself

How did the two self-proclaimed accomplices, Hari Nada, Managing Director and Toshiaki Onuma, interact with the prosecution?
First, as a logical premise, two self-described accomplices must be aware of being accomplices.
However, if they are aware that they are accomplices, they deny themselves that they are accomplices.
Conceal the facts as evidence and deny being the culprit.
Why did you conceal and not deny?
This is the biggest contradiction.
Was the crime of four people so obvious?

Here you come across a serious contradiction. If the crime is obvious, why have the internal auditors, as well as the external auditors, the external audit firm, and the SEC overlooked for eight years?

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to consider the fact of the crime based on the name of the crime and the requirements of the crime.

Critical matters in securities report

An important matter in this matter is executive compensation

The three executives (Ghosn, Kelly, and Saikawa), who decided on the specific amount of executive remuneration, were determined to make double decisions, especially for Ghosn.
In addition to the executive compensation actually received in each period, the same amount is specified and written in the form of a contract amount for non-competition contracts and consulting contracts at the time of future retirement.・ It is said that Nada and Onuma were ordered to keep secrets in a safe in a secretary room.
Hari Nada and Onuma are alleged to have been complicit in the concealment of the Future Reward Decision.

There is no accounting for future executive compensation in corporate accounting.
Remuneration received by executives upon their future retirement includes retirement benefits and contributions, all of which have approved metrics based on years of service and for which provisions have been made.
Therefore, corporate debt, that is, compensation for executives, cannot be in any way, because compensation that does not comply with those provisions cannot be approved by the Board in the first place.
In criminal law terms, it is an impunity.

Summary of facts (2)

Ignoring statute of limitations

Supreme court case supporting the prosecution's domineering.

There is a significant reason that the SEC has failed to keep pace with prosecutors and has only filed administrative and criminal charges for the last three years.
This is largely related to the prosecution's own prosecution, separating the first five years from the last three years.All criminal lawyers have decided to silence in shame of the past.
This is because the prosecution statute is in effect for the first five years.

There are shameful cases in criminal cases in Japan.
It is a precedent prevailing in the famous Hakusan Maru case 58 years ago.
In reality, it is a popular knowledge that has spread to the public with the private knowledge that escaping overseas does not complete aging.

Prosecutors have used the Supreme Court case as a shield to investigate the criminal's overseas travel history, and have filed countless cases stating that the prescription has not been completed.
This has had very discriminatory consequences for those traveling abroad and working, especially foreigners.

The Ghosn case is no exception.
Ghosn is originally a foreigner living in a foreign country, so he is rather short in Japan.
Ghosn was indicted in this position eight years ago, stating that "the statute of limitations will not be completed while abroad."

The prosecution's calculation of the period of suspension of the prosecution includes extremely serious case violations and logic violations.
However, as is often the case, none of the scholars has pointed out a serious case violation.
Since the court case was illegal in the first place, and because it was further interpreted illegally, the sign with the rule of law should be lowered immediately.

Let's start by explaining what violates case law.The case in this case was a smuggling criminal, and after a single smuggling, he re-entered the country and found himself exposed and found guilty.
The period of suspension of the prosecution was one continuous period.
Ghosn's are intermittent departure periods in which entry and departure are
repeated.
The prosecutor added this simply.
Intermittent departure periods were summed up, with the interpretation of the case clearly different from the case in the case.
This alone is clearly a violation of case law.Just in case, let me explain why the sum of intermittent departure periods is absurd.
This is because the statute of limitations will start as soon as you enter the country, and the statute of limitation will be completed from the statutory statute of limitation at the time of the criminal offense, regardless of whether or not there has been a statute of limitations.

The reason that the Hakusan Maru case itself is an illegal case in the first place is evident from the large controversy at the Criminal Procedure Law Society from that time.
However, at that time, the scholar's logical justice was defeated by the judge and the prosecutor's doctrine of neglect and logic.
Since that time, the ruling pointed out that it would unfairly discriminate against overseas employees.
Sixty years later, in the Ghosn case, it is clearly a case of foreign discrimination
You have to be in the limelight.
However, the age of precedents was too old, and nobody concretely considered the case and logic of precedents.
Because he does not reconsider, only the conclusion continues to walk alone.

Hakusan Maru Supreme Court Case

The direct question was whether the “when the offender is outside the country” in the first paragraph of Article 255, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be the sole requirement for suspension of prosecution.
Or, in two cases, "when the criminal is outside the country" and "when the criminal is running away (case)", "the prescription shall be suspended because the copy of the indictment cannot be effectively served. 

The Supreme Court interpreted formally two parallel sentences at the location of the term “case”.
On the other hand, ordinary Japanese interpreted that, in spite of the position of the word "case", taking into account the meaning, two cases where a copy of the indictment could not be reached, in which case the prescription would stop. 

The deciding factor between whether the Supreme Court's interpretation is correct or the ordinary Japanese interpretation is actually laid down in the provisions of Article 254 of the preceding Article, which is the principle rule of the statute of limitations.
To put it simply, a prerequisite for the suspension of the prosecution statute is that the prosecutor is at a stage where a prosecution can be filed.
The wording simply states that "the prosecutor will prosecute a prosecution," but it means that if the case is not mature up to that point, the prosecution shall not be suspended or recognized.
The essence of the prescription system is that it has a legal effect on the existence of certain objective facts.
In particular, since the prosecution statute is the statute of limitations on the prosecution's right to prosecute, it requires the existence of the prosecutor's objective legal act.
That is nothing but a prosecution.

However, this alone does not solve the problem.
It remains a question of what to do in case of non-arrival of the indictment.
Article 254 stipulates only the case of arrival and does not state the case of non-arrival.
Therefore, Article 255 supplementarily stipulates the case where the indictment has not been reached.
There was no problem unless an example of non-reach was given.
The prosecutor abused it because it had two examples, with sloppy and inaccurate Japanese expressions.
The judge further assisted by forcing the interpretation.

But the problem did not end there.The Supreme Court was a breach that had to show a reasonable reason for the statute to stop simply by saying "the culprit was abroad."
If this succeeded, there was no problem, but the Supreme Court failed.
But no theory at the time pointed to this failure.
So this illegal case survived.

The case law says. If the culprit is outside the country, the right of criminal scrutiny would be out of reach of the state and the search could not be conducted.
It is clear from a little concrete consideration that this is a bright red fallacy.
By the way, let's point out the deception in the case of Hakusan Maru.
Smuggling offenses are completed when they cross territorial waters. After that, there is no need to investigate because the criminal is out of the country and whatever he does is not related to the crime.
There is no hindrance to the investigation within the territorial waters.
All other domestic criminals have no difficulty in investigating even if the culprit is abroad.
In the case of foreign criminals, the Japanese criminal right is certainly not covered, but rather the local penalty is applied first, so the exercise of national power is a double punishment.
There is no inconvenience even if the investigation is not possible. How the Supreme Court's reasoning
It is obvious that it is literally a desk theory.