Thanks to @speranzom for contribution of the Takken Taro transcript in my translation of the summary from https://jbbs.shitaraba.net/bbs/read.cgi/music/29852/1553736787 for 5/27 (Wednesday).
- Rena’s Instastory
- NGT and HKT holding company Sproot has formed a capital and business partnership with Piala Corporation. They announced they have signed an agreement for a third-party allocation of shares with LINE Co. and Septeni Co. The president of Sproot is also the president of investment company bdash.
- https://i.imgur.com/K6R4lFC.jpg
- From Sproot: “Sproot is newly established as the holding company for HKT48 and NGT48 ~Capital participation by LINE, Septeni Holdings, and Piala~”
- The Sproot president “likes” a tweet saying “there is no connection to Vernalossum officers or subsidiaries”.
- Nakamura Ryutaro, formerly of Bunshun, who at the beginning of last year insulted Maho in his explanation of the NGT incident, claims to be a victim.
- https://i.imgur.com/v6QvydE.jpg
- Nakamura’s remarks
- “(The [theater] apology) is something Yamaguchi herself wished for”, “There were no ill intent toward the members who gave out the information [to the yakkais]”, “I can’t condone the misinformation going around that the other members had [the yakkais] commit the assault out of ill intentions: reports have it that they only leaked it carelessly”
- https://i.imgur.com/KDSwddF.jpg
- Nakamura praises Ogino, and Ogino replies within 6 minutes
- “(Sad News) Former Bunshun reporter Nakamura Ryutaro: “Yamaguchi Maho hopes to apologize, and the member that reported when she was returning home had no ill intent””
- Takkentaro’s video: “Shock!! Σﾟдﾟ NGT, Consulting the material: the author of “Letter of apologies” and the “Settlement records” are the same person!!”
- https://i.imgur.com/eC4OeIf.jpg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrymzpmSTak
- This time we’ll deal with the settlement records. Anyway, it’s 99.99% assured that the person who made the settlement documents and the one who made the letter of apologies are actually the same.
- What I’m saying also goes for [defense] attorney Han [Akiyasu], but even defendant #1 and defendant #2 in the end have never once come to the Niigata local courthouse: from the beginning until the very end, they concluded everything through some conferences via telephone. How astonishing!
- Normally, one would come over to the courthouse at least once if they feel like that they would be going to win the lawsuit, but fact is that even attorney Han hasn’t showed up there even one single time.
- In the text: “Terms of the settlement: “As damages compensation obligations relative to the case in question, the defendants are to pay to the plaintiff… etc…” “
- Now, maybe everyone watching wouldn’t be so bothered by this text, but since I myself have carried out more than enough court trial cases in my time, that is bothering me. That is, the very fact that such a text even exists in there.
- A peaceful settlement means that you conclude the matters without determining in a clean-cut way who’s bad and who’s not. That’s what people would call a “spirit of give-and-take”, or something. But the fundamental idea is that a peaceful settlement would be something done at the point in time when both sides are still in a condition to make a compromise.
- If you want to determine in a clean-cut way between right and wrong, then you might as well go for a judge verdict.
- Yet, isn’t it “damages compensation obligations” that’s written in here in plain words? To say that you would pay money as damages compensation would mean that the defendant is acknowledging to the fact that they inflicted economic damages. For which reason damages compensation obligations would thus result from this.
- Yet, the norm is that when stipulating a peaceful settlement, they wouldn’t write “damages compensation obligations”, or such. Fact is, things would actually be made more vague by using such terms as “for settlement money“, or “out-of-court settlement money”.
- With “damages compensation”, that would mean they have explicitly acknowledged to having inflicted economic damages, and so it would be determined in a definite way who’s right and who’s wrong there. With things like that, then there wouldn’t be any need to have a peaceful settlement instead.
- Even so, they went on to deliberately include in there the words “damages compensation obligation”, and then had those entertainment newspapers write about that thing too. The way I am seeing it, it’s that they are using it for fact-twisting, so as to show how it truly it was all the defendants’ side’s fault.
- What do you think of it, everyone? This is actually not something which one would usually put inside — such a term.
- In the text: “4. The defendants are to acknowledge the details described below, and give an apology to the plaintiff, etc…”
- Now here they included the phrase “give an apology to the plaintiff”. I think that by having made the unfortunate decision to put that phrase inside, the person who composed this has shot himself in his foot.
- The reason is that it gives away how the person who made this settlement document, and the one who made that apology letter which I have brought up to all of you in the previous episode, actually happen to be the same person
- “Abstract section” * Refer to the picture
- About point ①: That one, right from the first look at it, is one bizarre text. Apologizing to AKS for having caused psychological distress to Yamaguchi-san…? I feel like they are inserting inside some rather strange kind of texts.
- Just one thing, but it doesn’t just stop at this. Fact is that a text which is just about 99% identical to the one here has been later reused in the apology letter, without variations.
- That’s right, they recycled the same exact text, the very same text as the one included in the settlement document. It’s modified just a very slight bit, but this is it.
- Comparison with the apology letter * Refer to the picture
- Aren’t they identical? They are pretty much the same exact thing. That means that when they made the settlement document, they also made the apology letter along with it, recycling the text of the former.
- In the text: “4. As a result of the defendants having given an explanation different from the facts …, this, as a direct consequence of the audio recording media and transcripts of said explanation being revealed publicly, has thus elicited the misunderstandings as though NGT48 members might be implicated in the very aggression in question”
- “As though”… So they are even writing in words that a man in his 20s or 30s would absolutely never write on his own. This is all straight from the text of the settlement document.
- Now, this is instead from the apology letter. Let’s now give a look at this apology letter which is purported as having been written down by the defendants…
- In the text: “As a result of the defendants having given an explanation different from the facts …, this, as a direct consequence of the audio recording media and transcripts of said explanation being revealed publicly, has thus elicited the misunderstandings as though NGT48 members might be implicated in the very aggression in question”
- Do you think this was written down by a different person? Because it’s obviously written by the same person, and he did so in a half-baked manner to boot.
- If this were a normal circumstance, even if this were written down by the same person, he would have made his brains work a little bit and redo it freshly anew in a way it would appear like it’s [the defendants] themselves who wrote it, but he didn’t use his brains at all about this aspect.
- Wouldn’t it be logical to retouch things a little after copying and pasting the text? Except they could still shorten the time needed to do it. And so they ended up recycling that around instead.
- Would anyone think that it’s the defendant who has written such a settlement document, instead? I mean, this is the kind of text that a law professional would write. Down to the way they are using contextual references [i.e. the “henceforth …” parts], and all the rest…
- And then, there’s also the fact that no non-disclosure clause has been included inside. They really did want to see the mass media to spread it around insistently and publicize it, namely to tell everyone how the members had nothing to do with this matter — it’s for this purpose that this text exists, hence why they didn’t include inside any non-disclosure clause.
- And even the mass media too, for their part, they haven’t remarked in the least how the author of the settlement details and the apology letter text actually happen to be the same. Who are they acting subserviently to…
- Yes, understandably, those people who would provide money for them are valuable, right? Although this is getting a little bit nauseating by now. “In order for things to proceed well for us from here on, we’d better pay our obeisance to AKS” — isn’t that a political-minded kind of decision to make?
Note: I try to repeat the Japanese thread as closely as possible here. Where I do make some editorial additions I’ll put them in [ ], though I do occasionally soften the posters’ tone.
Why is this here? My original announcement
0 Comments