Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #3
Note: In the original text, footnotes are grouped together at the end of the text, but here, for the convenience of the reader, the footnotes for the relevant sections are placed at the end of the divided text.
Discussions with my ex-fiancee (May 2019 - November 2020)
As I
mentioned at the beginning of this document, the purpose of this document is to
correct, to the extent possible, the misinformation that has been circulating
in the world about the alleged financial troubles by clarifying to some extent
the actual history of the exchanges that have taken place between myself, my
mother, and my ex-fiancee. Up to this point, I have explained my policy on
matters that are said to be financial troubles, my mother and I's perceptions
of matters that are said to be financial troubles, and the exchanges that took
place between my mother and I and my ex-fiancee since September 2010. I will
now explain what my mother's representative has discussed with my ex-fiancee
since May 2019, to the extent possible and necessary.
In the
articles in the Weekly Gendai published on November 30, 2020 and December 11,
2020 (as explained in "2", these two articles are collectively
referred to as the "Weekly Gendai articles" in this document), the
ex-fiancée describes her discussions with my mother. However, there are many
things that are not true, so I would like to explain how the discussion
actually took place. In addition to the discussion, there are a number of other
things in the article that are not true, but I have corrected them (as well as
incorrect information reported in other media) in several notes to the extent
possible and necessary, so please read each note. Please read each note.
(1) On
January 22 of the same year that the 2019 document was released, my mother made
a request to her former fiancé through her attorney Kamishiba (hereinafter
referred to as "the agent") that if there were any differences in
perceptions regarding past events, etc., she would like to examine these
differences and resolve them.
It was on
April 26 of the same year that I received the first response from my ex-fiancee
to this request. Discussions began after that, and we exchanged many times
until November 2020.
When the
ex-fiancee responded for the first time, she appointed a reporter from the
weekly magazine Gendai (hereinafter referred to as "the reporter") to
represent her [Note 19]. Since then, the representative has been meeting with
the ex-fiancee and the reporter to discuss the matter. The representative has
been meeting with the ex-fiancee and the reporter since then, and has been
communicating with the reporter frequently even without the ex-fiancee's
presence. There were times when false information was reported during our
discussions [Note 20], but I did not dare to actively deny it for the reasons I
have written in "2.
(2) On
May 8, 2019, the agent met with the reporter for the first time. On the 28th of
the same month, he met with the reporter for the second time. At that time, the
agent told the reporter that my mother and I did not want to confront my
ex-fiancee about the alleged financial problems, and asked her to work with us
to make an announcement [Note 21] after we had gained the understanding of my
ex-fiancee and resolved the issue to our mutual satisfaction. I would like to
cooperate in making the announcement [Note 21]. Since the reporter agreed to
convey those words to the ex-fiancee, I asked her to make the following three
requests with the aim of resolving the discrepancy in perception between my
mother and I and that of the ex-fiancee.
(1) If
any of the money exchanged was a loan, I would like you to explain the date and
amount of the loan, as well as the reason for each loan [Note 22].
(2) I
would like you to confirm whether there are any differences between the
perceptions of my ex-fiancee and my mother that I have explained in the 2019
document, and if so, please point them out to me [Note 23].
(3) I
would like you to assure me that you will not disclose the details of your
discussions with my mother until the matter is resolved.
(3) On
July 11, 2019, the representative had the first opportunity to have a direct
discussion with the ex-fiancee.
(3) On
July 11, 2019, the representative had the first opportunity to meet with the
ex-fiancée in person. At that time, the ex-fiancée said that she wanted to meet
with the mother because she could resolve the issue by meeting with the mother
in person, but she did not explain why. When my agent asked her what she
thought about the fact that a matter between two ordinary people, my mother and
her former fiancé, had developed into a larger topic of a completely different
nature, the marriage of Mako and me, she replied that she had not brought it to
the attention of a weekly magazine and that it seemed like something she had
not said was being written about her without her permission. I never said that
the order of events was different (regarding my publication of the 2019
document without prior confirmation from my ex-fiancee). I don't care who gives
it back to me.
The
representative responded that it was an unfortunate situation for the
ex-fiancee if it was not his intention to make a big fuss about it, and that
the situation required both parties to resolve the alleged financial problem to
their full satisfaction and announce it to the world. The former fiancé readily
agreed to this proposal [Note 26].
In order to determine whether or not my mother owes anything
to her ex-fiancee, I think it is necessary to first sort out where the
discrepancy in perception is and what the cause of it is, so I asked her to
answer my three requests. The ex-fiancee readily agreed to this request. At
this time, the ex-fiancee admitted that she may have misunderstood or
misremembered. In this way, it was confirmed that we would sort out the three
points that we had mentioned to the reporter earlier in order.
(4) On
August 8, 2019, the representative had a second meeting with the ex-fiancee.
In
response to the former fiancée's previous suggestion that it would be possible
to resolve the issue by meeting with my mother in person, the representative
told her that it would be difficult to accept the proposal without confirming
the difference in perceptions and that it would be impossible to consider the
proposal without a proper explanation of the former fiancée's thoughts first. I
asked again that we consider the matter after sorting out the three points. The
ex-fiancee agreed to this proposal.
At this
meeting, we were supposed to exchange assurances on the above three points (3),
but since the ex-fiancee was not feeling well, we decided to have her answer to
all three points at the next meeting. The meeting ended with the schedule for
the next meeting (August 14) and the one after that (August 22) being decided.
However,
the scheduled meeting on August 14 was postponed due to the former fiancé's
poor health, and the meeting on August 22 was held only with the reporter
because we could not reach the former fiancé. After that, we did not receive
any response from the ex-fiancee to our three requests. The representative
tried to discuss with the ex-fiancee by continuously contacting or meeting with
the reporter, but there was no response from the ex-fiancee [Note 27].
(5) A
meeting with the ex-fiancée was scheduled for September 26, 2019, but the
reporter was the only one who was able to meet with her on that day, and the
reporter only handed over a document containing the ex-fiancée's response that
she did not intend to respond to (3) above.
According
to the document written by the ex-fiancée, the reason for this was that she did
not want to keep the progress of the discussion and its contents secret, but
rather she thought it would be better to disclose accurate information on a
regular basis in order to reduce the number of reports that would distort or
inflame the situation unnecessarily. I understand the idea that this is a
personal issue and should not be made public, but since this has already become
a matter of national concern, I think it will bring the couple closer to
marriage if they disclose the circumstances of their marriage in good faith to
the public.
Although
it was a difficult answer to accept (please refer to Note 24 of "6" for
the reason), we still couldn't let the discussion come to a halt, so the
representative listened to the opinion of the reporter, who was our contact,
and decided to put aside the assurance of (3) for the time being and proceed
with (1) and (2) above. (6) The first year of 2049
(6) On
October 30, 2019, I received a document from my former fiancé through a
reporter, summarizing the date and amount of the loan and the reason for the
loan, as a response to (1) above [Note 28]. When I checked the contents, I
found that, just as in previous news reports, she had lent me the entrance fee
to my university in November 2010 and the tuition fee in the spring of the
following year. As I explained in [1] of note 11 of "5," I used my
own savings to pay for the entrance fee and the first semester, and all the
tuition thereafter was covered by the scholarship (see [1] of note 11 of
"5" about the entrance gift I received). Therefore, the agent
informed her ex-fiancee about it.
(7) Shortly thereafter, on November 13, 2019, my ex-fiancée
replied through a reporter that she had been mistaken about the entrance fee
and tuition. In addition, the ex-fiancee informed us of her thoughts that she
no longer wants to request money and that she would like to stop the discussion
for that purpose as it is unnecessary. The reporter explained that the
ex-fiancee said that she would no longer ask for money if she had to sort out
and explain various details even though she was the one who lent the money.
Since he
said that he would not ask for money, the agent thought that the case could be
interpreted as settled and asked the reporter's opinion. The reporter agreed,
so the agent decided to consider exchanging a written agreement to confirm
this. However, when we approached the ex-fiancee through the reporter, he
replied that he did not think the matter had been resolved. There was no
explanation until the end as to why he said it was not resolved even though he
did not ask for a refund, and the reporter said he could not give a clear explanation.
To end
the discussion without even reaching the stage of confirming each other's
understanding, without both sides being convinced, is to leave everything
hanging in the balance. We could not respond to the wishes of the ex-fiancee,
who said that she did not think it was resolved but wanted to end it.
(8)
During the next year or so, we did not change our policy as described in
"3" above, and continued to repeatedly ask the ex-fiancee to present
a method to resolve the issue in a way that both parties were fully satisfied
with, or to bring it closer to that, but we did not receive any response from
the ex-fiancee. As the impact of the new coronavirus became more serious in
2020, the representative continued to contact or meet with the reporter during
and after the declaration of the state of emergency to ask about the former
fiancée's intentions in order to find a solution that would satisfy her [Note
29]. The reporter said that if I wanted to solve the problem, I should just pay
4 million yen [Note 30], but as I wrote in "3", I did not choose to
give the money without a proper discussion.
In June 2020, while I had not received a reply from my
ex-fiancee, a reporter made a comment to the effect that he would like to have
my mother meet my ex-fiancee. Since the statement came out when we were asking
about the ex-fiancee's intentions in order to find a way to get closer to a
solution, the representative asked the reporter if that was the ex-fiancee's
intention. The reporter said he would check with the ex-fiancé, and later
answered that the ex-fiancé said he would like to meet with her to discuss the
matter [Note 31].
Although
my mother was hesitant to meet with the ex-fiancee in person due to her past
history, she still thought that following his request as much as possible would
bring us closer to a solution, so in September 2020, I informed the ex-fiancee
through my agent that I was ready to meet with him. At that time, the
representative was willing to meet with the former fiancé, but explained that
if the former fiancé wanted to discuss the matter at length rather than just
meeting face to face, it was highly likely that the meeting would end without
any discussion unless the discussion was organized to some extent in advance. I
asked him to answer again about (2) above, which he had not yet responded to. I
could not deny the possibility that if we did not confirm and sort out in
advance where the perceptions of the two parties differed, meeting in person
would only result in an argument and not a good opportunity. However, in
October 2020, I received a reply from the reporter that the former fiancé could
not answer the question (2) [Note 32]. So, in the end, my mother and I are not
sure whether there is a discrepancy between my mother's and my ex-fiancé's
perceptions (see "5" (3) and "5" Note 14) that the
ex-fiancé replied that he "did not intend to ask me to return the
money" when my mother accepted the dissolution of the engagement on
September 13, 2012, and the ex-fiancé's perceptions. My mother and I are still
unsure as to whether there is a discrepancy between my mother and I's
perception (see "5" (3) and "5" Note 14) and that of my
ex-fiancee.
On
November 1 of the same year, my ex-fiancee responded that if it was just a
face-to-face meeting, there was no need to meet as it would be meaningless for
both parties.
(10) In
parallel with the exchange about the pros and cons of meeting and discussing in
person, I received a communication from the ex-fiancee saying that he would not
ask for any money and that he wanted to announce to the world that the
discussion was over. I was first informed of his intentions in February 2020,
and in October, I was informed that he planned to make some kind of comment by
the end of October. There was no explanation as to why he suddenly wanted to
make a public announcement.
After
that, we continued to discuss the pros and cons of meeting face-to-face, and
the representative told the ex-fiancee that the content of the discussion was
not only the privacy of the ex-fiancee, but also that of Kei's mother, and that
making it public without permission might be an illegal act that violated Kei's
mother's privacy. If you are going to make a public announcement, you should,
as we have been discussing for a long time, either agree on the contents of the
announcement and send it out under a joint name, or at least obtain our consent
before proceeding. I told them that they should either agree on the content of
the announcement with both parties and send it out jointly, or at least get our
approval before proceeding. The reply from my ex-fiancee was that there was no
need to get our approval and that he did not think it was necessary.
Then, on
November 30, an article was published in the Shukan Gendai [Note 33].
This is
the detailed history of my discussions with my ex-fiancee regarding the matter
of the alleged financial trouble. Although there are some limitations, I have
tried to write as much as I thought possible and necessary for your
understanding.
The following is an annotation
Note 19]
The business card of the reporter that the agent received on May 8, 2019,
clearly indicated that he was a "reporter" for the weekly magazine
Gendai. Since there was a concern that a non-lawyer reporter from a weekly
magazine could violate the Lawyers Act by representing the former fiancé in
legal matters, the agent pointed this out to the former fiancé during the
initial discussion on July 11, 2019, but he replied that he had no intention of
appointing a lawyer to represent him. The reason for not appointing an attorney
was only explained to me by a reporter who said that there were no attorneys
available to accept the case. I decided not to raise any particular objection
to the reporter's involvement in this matter in order to give priority to the
discussion, and decided to communicate with the reporter only to the extent
that I thought the reporter was not an agent but a contact point to communicate
with my ex-fiancee and to promote the discussion. The reporter responded that
she was only involved because the ex-fiancee did not want to contact the agent
or the media directly, and that she was the contact point for that purpose and
did not consider herself to be an agent.
There
were many reports that the two parties met only once in April 2019 or May 2019,
the following year, and have not discussed or even communicated with each other
since then, but this is not true. It was said that these reports were based on
statements made by reporters, but when our representative checked with the reporters,
they strongly denied that they had made such statements. Therefore, it is
strange that such reports continued.
Note 21]
I say "announcement" because I think that even if the issue can be
settled through discussion, it will not stop being reported unless it is
announced, given the current situation where the issue of alleged financial
trouble is being widely covered even though it is a matter between ordinary
people.
The
reason for (1) is that I have never directly received any specific explanation
from my ex-fiancee regarding the exchange of money, and I have only heard her
story through news reports. The purpose of this report was to confirm whether
or not what was being reported was indeed the perception of my ex-fiancee.
The
purpose of (2) was to confirm the differences between my mother's and my
ex-fiancee's perceptions, and to focus our discussion on the areas of
disagreement. The main purpose of this meeting was to confirm whether or not my
mother and I's understanding that my ex-fiancee replied that she "did not
intend to ask me to return the money" etc. when my mother accepted the
dissolution of engagement on September 13, 2012 (see "5" (3) and
"5" Note 14) was in conflict with my ex-fiancee's understanding. The
main purpose was to see if the ex-fiancee's perception (see "5"(3)
and "5"(14)) was different from his perception.
Note 24]
(3) was aimed at creating an environment where information and opinions could
be shared only between the parties concerned, and where discussions could be
held in a frank and flexible manner. Also, bearing in mind that my ex-fiancee
has been acting in a manner that is neither in accordance with the law nor
common sense by publishing and providing (incorrect) information about me and
my mother's privacy to weekly magazines without our permission, it was also
intended to dispel concerns that the background and content of the discussions
that were about to begin might be inadvertently divulged. The purpose of the
meeting was to dispel the fear that the process and contents of the upcoming
discussion would be misrepresented. In the first place, since this is a
discussion between ordinary people, there is no need to disclose the contents,
nor should there be (see also Note 1).
(See also
Note 1 in "1.") When the representative asked why the former fiancé
used a weekly magazine instead of contacting her directly if all he wanted was
to get his money back, the former fiancé explained that he was told by his
mother that it was logical for her to say something, and that he was told by
many media outlets that it was logical for her to contact him. During the
second interview on August 8, he explained that he didn't want to be perceived
as a threat by contacting us directly. When asked why he did not deny or stop
the weekly magazine if it was writing something he had not said, he did not
respond.
At this
point, we had discussed to resolve the issue by the end of August of the same
year, and I understood that the agent had reached a common understanding with
the ex-fiancee that we should resolve the issue to our mutual satisfaction and
announce that it had been resolved. It was in that context that the agent
mentioned "announcing that it was resolved. However, that was before the
discussions began. In the Shukan Gendai article, it is described as if the
agent was insisting on having the ex-fiancee announce to the world that the
issue had been resolved, but this is not the case.
According
to the reporter's explanation, the ex-fiancee was pondering the matter and
asked us to wait for him to respond because he has a difficult personality to
make a decision. He also explained that although he tried to persuade her, he
felt that if he said it too strongly, it would have the opposite effect.
Therefore, we decided to wait while continuing to pitch the issue through the
press.
He
explained that the diary of his ex-fiancee had been recorded on his computer,
and that he had extracted the relevant parts from it and organized them.
In the
article in the Shukan Gendai, the representative said that he insisted on
having the ex-fiancee announce that the financial issue had been resolved if
the negotiations were to be terminated, that he insisted on having the
ex-fiancee announce that the issue had been resolved, and that he strongly urged
the ex-fiancee to do so. When I asked her if it was correct to say that the
so-called financial problem had been solved (if she said so), she replied that
she did not want to ask for money and that she did not need to discuss it. I
asked him if that meant that the so-called financial problem had been solved
(if he said so, we would proceed to conclude a memorandum of understanding,
etc.), and he replied that he did not think it had been solved. Although we did
not understand the purpose of the reply, we have been trying to resolve the
issue in a way that both parties are fully satisfied with, so we have been
actively asking what we should do and how we should do it for over a year.
However, there is no such thing as asking a representative to announce that the
matter has been settled to a person who says he does not believe it has been
settled, and there is no such thing as insisting that the ex-fiancee announce
that the financial issue has been settled if the negotiations are to be
terminated.
As explained
in the main text of [Note 30] "5" and [Note 14] "5," when
my mother received a unilateral proposal from her ex-fiancee to terminate the
engagement on September 13, 2012, she told him that she would like to settle
the support she received during the engagement period. The ex-fiancee said,
"I had no intention to ask for it back. I made it clear to the reporter
that there was an objective recording of what the ex-fiancee said at the time.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the text, I was also told that if I wanted to
solve the problem, I could just pay 4 million yen outright, and the response
was that it didn't matter what I said or the recording. I was never asked to
confirm the existence of the recording or its contents. I was also asked if
there was any change in my mother's feelings toward the resolution of the
issue, but I told her that I would not be able to consider the matter unless my
ex-fiancee explained his thoughts properly first. As mentioned in Note 14 of
Section 5, we have not been able to confirm whether the reporter informed the
ex-fiancee of the existence of this recording or not.
When my
agent first met with the ex-fiancée on July 11, 2019, she also requested to
meet with my mother in person, but on August 8, 2019, she told me that it would
be difficult for her to do so if she could not confirm the difference in
perceptions. As mentioned in the main text, we responded that it would be
difficult to consider the matter without a proper explanation of the
ex-fiancee's thoughts first. I suggested that we should first sort out the
three points that the ex-fiancee had willingly agreed to, and the ex-fiancee
agreed, so I was not sure why this request came up when the three points were
not sorted out. Incidentally, my ex-fiancee has never once asked to meet me
directly. The article in Shukan Gendai on this point is incorrect.
The
reporter said that the reason seems to be that the contents in the 2019
document (the explanation of the background, etc., that my mother and I are
aware of) are so elaborate that it is difficult to refute any of them.
Because
of this, the discussion has not even reached the "negotiation" stage.
At the preliminary stage, that is, the stage of sorting out and scrutinizing
where the differences in perceptions between the two parties lie, it was agreed
that no more money would be sought, and thus the discussion broke off at the
"sorting out the differences in perceptions" stage. In that sense, it
is not accurate to say that he told her that he wanted to end the negotiations
as stated in the Weekly Gendai article, but that he was told that he no longer
wanted to ask for money and that he wanted to stop the discussions for that
purpose because it was unnecessary.
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #1
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #2
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #3
Comments
Post a Comment