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.

 

 Read Previous                                                                               Read More

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.

 Read Previous                                                                               Read More


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

Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #4

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kei Komuro Listed at Major U.S. Law Firm :There are Also Allegations of Career Fraud

Kei Komuro Receives "JFK Award": a New Allegation of Career Fraud?

Kei Komuro's Mother Criminally Charged with Fraud

What is Kei Komuro's Debt Problem

Classmate Bullying by Komuro

US to Pay for Mako and Kei's Security in the US, Japan Reports

Reported Scandals: The Japanese Will Never Accept Komuro

Kei Komuro Fails NY State Bar Exam?

Mako Komuro and Kei Attend Funeral of Mako's grandfather with Akishino Family

Former fiancée of Kei Komuro's mother releases comments: "I've asked Kei to convey her own wishes..."