Report on the 13th Oral Argument, April 27, 2026 (Monday)

With the start of a new fiscal year and a change in the presiding judge, our plaintiffs' first oral argument with a newly formed legal team of seven lasted well over the scheduled time, exceeding 30 minutes. Three of us (one plaintiff and two attorneys) made statements, but these totaled only about 13 minutes. The remainder consisted mostly of statements made by the defendant's attorneys in response to the court's question, "Do you have any planned counterarguments?" These statements were essentially just their own assertions. The defendant's arguments were roughly as follows:

1. I would like the court record to include a note that the plaintiff's statement exceeded the allotted time by 10 minutes.
2. I have no intention of responding to each and every point in the plaintiff's brief (6) (submitted at the end of March) (I confidently assert that I only glanced at the table of contents). I request that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed as they are belated (I will submit a letter to that effect). In particular, regarding the character of the bereaved families' association, I believe I stated on page 4 of the plaintiff's brief (2) that I would "not assert" that point.
3. If the plaintiffs place the emphasis of their argument on the "bereaved families' association," they should request the cancellation of the appointment of the chief priest (already hired) as a witness regarding the "Gokoku Shrine," arguing that he is "unnecessary" (and submit a written statement to that effect).
4. We are also considering the "Fifty-Year History of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association" (Exhibit 46). It describes the involvement of Christianity in the 1940s. Also, as the plaintiffs are likely aware, after the memorial service at the Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine, they attended a Buddhist memorial service in the afternoon.
5. The main point of contention in this case is whether the actions constitute financial accounting practices. The plaintiff is merely arguing that the preceding actions were unconstitutional.

If you want to expedite the proceedings of the lawsuit, you should have read our preparatory document (6) and submitted your arguments in writing before proceeding. Your words and actions are contradictory. Furthermore, you said that the prolonged lawsuit is causing inconvenience to the prefecture, but from our perspective, that's incredibly brazen. And point 3 is an argument that you haven't read our document, but it is the defendant who is using the bereaved families' association as justification for claiming that the official visit to the Gokoku Shrine is a social ritual. I'm not sure how point 4 relates to this lawsuit, but I suspect you're trying to justify not requiring the Gokoku Shrine's chief priest to give testimony. Point 5 should have already been resolved, but since the presiding judge has changed, it seems you want to bring up this initial point again.

Ultimately, the defendant agreed to submit all the details in writing again, and we agreed to submit documentary evidence regarding the religious nature of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association. The deadline for submitting both documents is June 22nd (Monday).

The next hearing will be held on Monday, June 29th at 2:00 PM in courtroom 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court .

While the goal is to establish the human rights of minorities, it was a little disappointing that there were so few observers.

On April 16, 2026 (Thursday), a "Request to State Opinions" was submitted.

On March 31, 2026 (Tuesday), the plaintiff submitted his sixth preparatory document.

With the resumption of the trial, which had been suspended for a long time, a progress consultation (discussion between the plaintiff, defendant, and the court) based on the opinion on clarifying the issues that we submitted on December 26th of last month was held on January 14th, 2026, in Courtroom 23 of the Yamaguchi District Court.

The two defendant attorneys entered the courtroom accompanied by three or four Yamaguchi Prefecture officials, and upon seeing the six of us plaintiffs lined up in front of them, they exclaimed to our attorney, "Wasn't this just a discussion between lawyers?", something that was pointless to say. I felt that everything was revealed here.

Now, our opinion paper's main content is to propose that the method (order) of applying the purpose and effect standard be adopted and the trial be conducted based on the precedent-based legal principle of the Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Ehime Tamagushi Fee lawsuit, and to add the missing fact-finding by Gokoku Shrine and the Prefectural Bereaved Families Association as a new point of contention.

The court's opening remark was, "I know it's a little late now , but ..." Then, when the defendant was urged to refute, he responded predictably, saying, "There is nothing more to refute. We should proceed as before. This goes against the spirit of the revised Civil Procedure Act." However, at a loss for words, the defendant's statement that "There is nothing more to refute" meant that we would make a new argument, the outline of which was already outlined in the opinion. This not only made the court unreasonable, but also suggested that the defendant had not even read the opinion. And indeed, the defendant said, "I didn't read the opinion thoroughly."

In the end, the defendant failed to turn the tide and now asked us to include a witness statement in our next written request.

What we need to accept is that the trial has been suspended for about six months due to our circumstances (although the defendant was in charge for the first two months). Therefore, our attorney promised to prepare the next documents taking into account the defendant's requests and requested that the deadline for submitting the documents be set by the end of March.

The court accepted this and, anticipating a rebuttal from the defendant - which would be fine if the defendant did not actually refute it, as this would amount to accepting our argument - and set the next hearing for Monday, April 27th at 14:00.

A fresh start with a new legal team - ongoing negotiations

In accordance with the wishes of the new legal team, a progress consultation will be held on Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 14:30 to clarify the issues and discuss future progress.

The four plaintiffs are also scheduled to attend.

The next date will be decided.

Due to our lawyer's emergency hospitalization, the 13th hearing (Wednesday, September 17, 2025) has been postponed.

We are working hard, including recruiting additional lawyers, in preparation for the next hearing.

After the previous hearing (12th hearing on Wednesday, June 4, 2025), the defendant submitted an application to change the next hearing date on Wednesday, June 18. The next hearing was scheduled to be the hearing date for the chief priest, but the chief priest was unable to attend and was considering whether to appear, and the defendant was also considering whether to question him. Will the defendant accompany the chief priest to represent his schedule?

I thought the postponement was inevitable, but no matter how long I waited, I received no further communication. Finally, the day before the scheduled hearing date of July 9th (Wednesday), the court contacted our lawyer. The defendant's schedule was such that September 17th (Wednesday) was the only option, and there was no other option.

This is the kind of behavior from a defendant who had requested a speedy trial when the court requested proof regarding the "war heroes." This reminded me of the first lawsuit filed by residents against the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which we won after damaging the court's image. This was the only lawsuit we won regarding the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant. However, the decision was overturned at the high court and later on.

Returning to the main topic, in addition to presenting a new date, the defendant submitted, as expected, a request for questioning of the chief priest himself. However, he called it a summons. Even though they were arranging the schedule...

As for the proposed schedule, my lawyer said it was possible, so I adjusted my schedule and agreed to the defendant's request for Wednesday, September 17th at 10:50. Now that I have the time, I would like to spend it on creating a written interrogation, taking into account the defendant's summary of the interrogation.

Report on the 12th oral argument of the first instance trial

The oral argument starting at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2025 was also enjoyable.

That being said, I was actually a little nervous.

This is because if all three of the plaintiffs' applications for certification (a constitutional scholar, a governor, and a chief priest) had been rejected, this could have been the end of the case.

After both sides had submitted their preparatory briefs (five from our side and eight from the other side) and their opinions on witness testimony, the presiding judge began to speak.

First, is there any evidence to support the defendant's claim that they only accepted the invitation from the Prefectural Bereaved Families Association, ignoring three of the four groups that invited them? The defendant said they would submit internal documents from the prefectural government, but this would be a repetition of their own claims of self-perception. The issue is the perception of the inviters and the people of the prefecture.

Next, the court asked the governor to tell them the distance from his home to the Gokoku Shrine. This was also directed at the defendant. I'm sure they will calculate the cost, but what is the court trying to do with that? Will it be considered an illegal expenditure, or will it be overlooked because it is a small amount?

And finally, the time came for the witness testimony. As per usual, the presiding judge spoke in a voice so loud that the spectators in the courtroom could hardly hear.

"As a result of the discussion, the constitutional scholar and the governor decided that, in any case,"

(What do you mean, "Anyway"?!)

"I would like to approve the chief priest's application for identity cards."

As I had been worried, I was half happy, but I still couldn't accept that the two of them were not selected.

However, if the chief priest's testimony is obtained, there is a high possibility that the governor's "delusional words" will be overturned.

It was the defendant who panicked.

When asked by the court if he planned to hold an interrogation, he replied, "We hadn't anticipated it..."

(That's probably true.)

The court decided not to go so far as to "detain" the suspect.

If he refuses, we'll call in another Gokoku Shrine chief priest...

The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2025 at 2:00 p.m., also in Courtroom No. 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court, where the chief priest will be questioned.

The defendant (the governor's side) presented the seventh preparatory document.

The court said, "The plaintiff will of course have a counterargument."

We replied, "Yes, we do. We are currently preparing it. We are also preparing personal and documentary evidence."

The court said, "Then let's wait for the rebuttal before deciding whether or not to grant the testimony application that has already been submitted."

Defendant: "We submitted our written request early on..." etc.

It was like that.

Our deadline for submitting written requests is Wednesday, May 21st, and the next hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 4th at 11:30 at the Yamaguchi District Court.

I wonder if there are any researchers on Gokoku Shrine...

Report on the 10th oral argument of the first instance trial

Held at Yamaguchi District Court on Wednesday, February 12, 2025.

The plaintiffs presented Preparatory Document 4. The contents of the document mainly prove that "Eirei" is a term used by a specific religion.

The defendants (the governor, etc.) stated that they did not believe it was necessary to delve into religious matters, but that they would like to submit a rebuttal by the next hearing.

The deadline for defendants to submit written documents has been set as Monday, March 24th, and the 11th oral argument will be held on Monday, April 21st.