October 25, 2021 Case of request for cancellation of disciplinary action for town council members (plaintiff Yukiko Tsuchiya town council) 4th date Yokohama District Court 1st Civil Affairs Department

What was submitted in this court Plaintiff: Brief 3 & Evidence (Exhibit Ko No. 54-69) submitted, application for witness of Mr. Rouki, former deputy mayor Defendant: Correction of defendant's opinion on document submission order Contents of brief 3 from plaintiff Explanation of the main points in court. There are four points I would like to emphasize in particular. ・ The apology order is not a sanctuary where the parliament decides freely and does not have to ask the court's decision. In the case where the apology order was issued for the reason of Was not admitted, and the discretionary deviation was admitted and canceled. In view of this case, the court should decide on the apology in this case as well.

・ It is illegal to distribute the list of delinquents to members of the Diet The reason for the town's claim that distribution of the list is not a problem is that the town council is granted the right to inspect Article 98 of the Local Autonomy Law. However, only 0.1% of the special committees nationwide are granted this inspection right. When I requested the prefecture to disclose information, the reply from Yugawara Town was that this inspection had never been done. If so, it is clear that the submission of the list to the parliament is a violation of the Personal Information Protection Ordinance / Local Tax Law, and the plaintiff's point out that fact is a legitimate act (= illegality) to stop the violation. No).

・ The suspension of attendance by Representative Tsuchiya had a significant impact on the activities of members of the Diet. I was informed of the debate. The case judged by the Governor of Gunma states that even if the parliament takes 28 minutes, it cannot be said that there is no deviation.

-It is natural that the public relations activities of the parliament will be liable for defamation on the next date, and the defendant will refute these plaintiffs' allegations. The plaintiff has alleged that the minutes of the secret meeting should clarify the part on which the punishment is based in the document submission order, but the defendant has argued that it is not necessary to issue it, and the plaintiff again argues against this. It was decided to do.

The next due date is from 10:00 on December 22nd.

Yokohama District Court 1st Civil Affairs Department Reiwa 3rd year (Gyo C) No. 7 Defendant submitted briefs 1 and 2 and Exhibit Otsu No. 10-22. In response, the plaintiff will argue next time. In the proceedings, the plaintiff needs to specify which part of the plaintiff's remarks in the parliament, SNS, etc. corresponds to the "outside of the secret meeting proceedings" that the defendant punished, the part of the general question by the plaintiff of the secret meeting. The defendant requested a document submission order, but the defendant refused because the plaintiff once approved the deletion and the part had disappeared. However, this would have no basis for punishment, so the plaintiff argued that it was inappropriate and asked for a court decision. (Such an exchange took place in court)