Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMITTEE TO DEFEND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION V.

October 30, 1991

THE COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Plaintiff,
v.
SUN MYUNG MOON; BO HI PAK; UNIFICATION CHURCH INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ONE UP ENTERPRISES, INC.; NEWS WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; WASHINGTON TIMES, INC.; CAUSA USA; SCHWALB, DONNENFELD, BRAY & SILBERT, P.C.; PHILIP D. GREEN; JAMES GAVIN; DEBRA SULLIVAN; BERNICE COWIN; and WARREN S. RICHARDSON, Defendants


Stanley Sporkin, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPORKIN

STANLEY SPORKIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 This case comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because plaintiff, The Committee to Defend the United States Constitution ("Committee") has failed to state any cognizable federal claim, the motion is granted with respect to all defendants. *fn1"

 Background:

 On October 4, 1991, the Court conducted a hearing based upon the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on such a motion, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. McGowan v. Warnecke, 739 F. Supp. 662 (D.D.C. 1990).

 Plaintiff Committee brings this civil action under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a series of acts by an enterprise known as the "Moon Organization." That enterprise is alleged to be a strict, hierarchical organization which includes the defendants in this case.

 Plaintiff alleges that the enterprise took actions with the objective of establishing "a centralized system of global financial control as part of, in Moon's words, an 'automatic theocracy to rule the world;' that is, the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be exterminated and subject to the direct governance of Sun Myung Moon." Complaint at para. 101(a). *fn2" As part of that overall scheme the Committee alleges that defendants created and used the Committee to Defend the United States Constitution as a "front." It claims that despite its stated goal of educating the public, the Committee's real purpose was nothing more than "to obtain the greatest possible legitimacy, power and political influence to support defendant Moon's objectives, including obtaining executive clemency [for criminal conduct of which he had been convicted.]" Complaint at para. 101. Plaintiff Committee alleges that in connection with this scheme, the following events occurred.

 From the outset, plaintiff claims, the Committee's sole purpose was to serve as a "private public relations firm" to aid in Reverend Moon's attempts to gain a Presidential pardon. Complaint at para. 29. Defendant Bo Hi Pak, a confidant of Moon, provided the start up money for the Committee. In fact, it was conceded by plaintiff at argument that the sole source of funding for the Committee throughout its existence has been defendant Pak, defendant Unification Church, and other affiliates of the Moon Organization. Transcript of Motion to Dismiss at 10, 55.

 From the first meeting in July, 1985 until September 18, 1987, Finzer had no contact with the corporation on whose board he was serving. There is no allegation that any misrepresentations were made to Finzer during that period. None of the defendants told him that the Committee was defunct or that it was actually carrying out activities related to its stated educational goal. He simply fell out of touch. It was not until 26 months after its inception, and only because he was moving to another state, that Mr. Finzer checked on the activities of the Committee.

 Director Finzer was surprised, plaintiff's allege, to find that the Committee had taken actions during those two years. During that time the Committee allegedly was "financed, dominated, controlled and operated" by the Moon Organization. Complaint at para. 49. The following events had allegedly occurred without Finzer's knowledge or approval. The Moon Organization, acting through defendant Pak and defendant Bernice Cowin, had set up bank accounts for the Committee over which the Moon Organization maintained control. The Moon Organization, through defendant Pak and the Schwalb firm, had prepared corporate minutes referring to conferences between the directors when no one had ever conferred with director Finzer. These minutes had allegedly cemented the Moon Organization's control over the Committee by naming various officers of the Committee who could run its day to day affairs as directed by the Moon Organization.

 Most importantly, the plaintiff alleges that $ 400,000 of the funds donated to the Committee by the Moon Organization had been spent in a public relations campaign to secure a pardon for defendant Moon. The campaign consisted of full page advertisements in several national newspapers which ran in July and August of 1985 and depicted Moon's conviction as religious persecution. The exact cost of these advertisements is unknown. In addition, on February 7, 1986, defendant Cowin allegedly disbursed $ 179,783.18 in Committee funds to Editor's Press in consideration for the printing of a magazine which also supported a Presidential pardon for Moon.

 After the payment for the magazine, in February, 1986, until Finzer's reappearance, in September, 1987, the Committee filed tax returns and financial statements with the District of Columbia government. It did not, however, continue to actively disburse funds to aid Moon in securing a pardon. In fact, it appears from the allegations that during that period the Committee's operations practically ceased.

 After Finzer was informed of these actions by the Committee on September 18, 1987, he called a board meeting at which time defendant Richardson resigned from the board of directors. Finzer and two new directors thereafter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.