Report on the 5th oral argument in the first instance

The fifth oral argument was held on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, from 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court, the same as the previous hearing.

The defendant, the governor, had already presented his rebuttal in the last hearing, so this time, for the first time, I presented my rebuttal in a preparatory document to the defendant's rebuttal. However, due to time constraints and other circumstances, I was only able to rebut the first part of the case, that is, the defendant's assertion that the requirements for a resident lawsuit were not met.

In essence, the defendant's argument is that it does not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit because it does not constitute a financial accounting act. However, since they presented a case in which a resident lawsuit was tried even for the use of a public vehicle, perhaps it was difficult for the court to reject the case. The fact that the court wanted to reject the case shows that it was fully prepared to reject the case at the third oral argument in the resident lawsuit to prohibit the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which began at 2:00 p.m. on the same day, even though the opening arguments were almost the same, the court was clearly prepared to reject the case. I think the difference is simply whether there is a precedent or not. In other words, it seems that the judge is a bureaucratic person who has no intention of setting a precedent. Unfortunately, this is the current state of the Japanese judiciary.

The next hearing will be held on Monday, July 8th at 11:30. We (the plaintiffs) will be presenting our rebuttal to the defendant’s rebuttal on the merits of the case.

Please attend as an observer.

The 4th oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court No. 31 on Wednesday, February 14, 2024, from 15:00.

As planned, Preparatory Documents 3 and 4 containing the defendant's (governor's) supplementary rebuttal were presented, and the next date was set. Approximately 3 minutes.

The outline of the preliminary document presented is to supplement the two-part argument that a resident lawsuit is impossible and that visiting Gokoku Shrine is nothing more than a social ritual.

Earlier on the same day, in the second resident lawsuit to ban the reclamation of land for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant, which began at 2 p.m., the same defense team argued that a resident lawsuit was not possible, as in the case above. In response, the presiding judge told the plaintiff that the hurdles to achieving the merits of the case were high. This may be a warning that there is a high possibility of rejection, and it may mean that a strong rebuttal is required. I believe that this statement applies to this lawsuit as well.

Next time, my attorney and I will pour our heart and soul into our (plaintiff's) preparatory document.

The deadline for submitting documents is April 15th, and the next 5th oral argument is May 8th.

We appreciate your continued support.

3rd Oral Argument Report

The third oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court on December 18th from 11:00 am. We submitted a petition for amendment of the complaint, and the defendant governor submitted Preparatory Documents No. 1 and 2, as well as Exhibits Nos. 1 to 3.

Preparatory Document 1 is only a new approval or disapproval of the amendments to our complaint, and Preparatory Document 2 is the substantive rebuttal. It will be published on the next page. Although it was quite a large amount, there were still some gaps, so a supplementary document was submitted in January, and we presented it at the next deadline, and our rebuttals were made one after another, with the defendant's rebuttals all in place. .

The next, 4th, date is February 14, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. [Yamaguchi District Court]. Immediately after the session ends, a report meeting will be held at the Yamaguchi Prefectural Bar Association Hall.

The governor's argument is broadly based on three steps: first, he requests dismissal on the grounds that there are no requirements for a citizen lawsuit, then he argues that the bill is constitutional and legal on the merits, and he further urges the court to avoid making a constitutional judgment. However, the objections to the merits of the proposal demonstrate that the applicant is probably considering the rejection as a ``just in case.''

By the way, during this time, the governor announced in parliament his intention to separate the memorial service for the war dead from Gokoku Shrine. Moreover, given that the question that led to that statement was asked by the lawmaker who has been most strongly pushing for the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine, it is expected that the move will actually be made in the near future. It's fine if it's at the stage that we're requesting...

If that happens, this will be the last trial against the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine, and I believe we must be more careful in our approach.

We appreciate your continued support.

2nd Oral Argument Report

The second oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court on October 11th from 2:00 p.m.

However, on this day, we confirmed that we had submitted a "petition for change of complaint" and new evidence dated September 28th in response to the request for clarification in the written answer submitted earlier by the governor, and We have only adjusted our schedule. In addition, the court pointed out that there was a need to partially revise the "petition for change of complaint" that we had submitted.

The future plan is that we will first resubmit the "petition for change of complaint" within two weeks, the defendant, the governor, will submit a preliminary document in November, and the next deadline will be December 18th, 2019. It started from 11:00.

Compared to the defendant and plaintiff seats, the audience seats were still noticeably empty. Please feel free to join us at the next session.

After the trial, several media outlets were present at the debriefing meeting held at the Yamaguchi Bar Association, but the case was not covered (I think).

1st Oral Argument Report

The first oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court at 11:00 a.m. on August 7th .

Previously, the governor submitted a written rebuttal, which, as expected, requested that the case be dismissed because it did not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit . In other words, it does not constitute a financial accounting act . Certainly not directly...

In court, there appeared to be six people on the governor's side: three prefectural government employees and three lawyers. Of the eight plaintiffs, we now have a total of five plaintiffs, four of them and one lawyer.

After reviewing the submitted documents, Itaru Akama, the oldest of the plaintiffs, gave his opinion.

The number of reporters and observers was fair, but this was probably due to the fact that just before the court opened, a resident lawsuit to ban land reclamation for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant (second round) was filed with the same court . At the same time, Chugoku Electric Power Co., Ltd., in collusion with Kansai Electric Power Company, had just announced the construction of a spent nuclear fuel intermediate storage facility in Kaminoseki Town .

The reality of this assumption was made clear at the subsequent report meeting held at the Yamaguchi Bar Association . In chronological order, the first 30 minutes of the reporting meeting were devoted to the residents' lawsuit to prohibit land reclamation for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant, and the second half was devoted to the actual trial, but the reporters' questions were only about the former, and not about the actual trial. It was the case that there was no such thing at all.

Of course, the nuclear power issue is important, but we need to look more closely at the root cause . It is a matter of inner freedom. Not only the employees of electric power companies, but those who are aware of the ``evil'' nature of nuclear power , yet choose to participate in it, are inconvenienced by the forces of this world, such as majority principles and peer pressure . It is also the principle behind the conduct of war.

The journey of minorities seeking human rights for minorities has only just begun.