For TheTokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch Civil Department
The intention of the request.

1 The defendant,Tokyo Metropolis, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case back to June 27th 2002.

2 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant

1 List of Litigant

1 Plaintiff

(1) The plaintiff was an employee of Oki Electronics Company. The plaintiff was fired in June of 1981 by the company because he refused an unfair transfer order.
Since then, he has continued to struggle asking for the improvement of unfair dismissal and labor control policies which violate human rights.
(2) Since 1987, he has joined the stock holders meetings and has pointed out the company's management principles, specifically concerning its labor control policy.

(3) Also, in present-day Japan, his activities have been approved by society which criticize similar cases of that which occurred at Oki Electronics company.

And his activities of lectures containing the use of original songs have been approved by not only the labor unions, civilian activities of human rights groups, or peace activists, but also public schools and the municipal board of education.

(4) Many people from all over Japan who empathize with him have joined in his struggle in front of the gate every day for support and communication.
Among those there is even a politician, Mr Kamei Sizuka, who is also a candidate for Japanese prime minister.

2 The defendant

(1) The defendant Tokyo Metropolis has the responsibility of compensatory damages for the victim from officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission according to the Nation Compensation Law .

2 Right of the plaintiff

1 Progress of this case

(1) On June 27 th 2002 , several officer of the Mita police pricinct of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police department attended OKI electric company's general stock holder's meeting in response to OKI's invitation.

The meeting chairman, OKI president Masakatsu Sinozuka, declared that police officers had attended at the begining of the meeting.

(2) The plaintiff tried to make a speech as a stock holder according to commercial law .
The security guards violated the plaintiff when he was demanding the chairman's answer.

Befor that incident occured ,the plaintiff suffered an injury to his shoulder and was treated at a clinic.

Fearful that something dangerous might happen, the plaintiff possessed a medical certificate one year prior to the year that OKI used violence against the plaintiff.

When the security guards resisted to the violence the plaintiff showed the medical certificate to them and asked that stop .

The plaintiff shouted that the police officers should make themselves known and to stop all violence if they should attendthe shareholder's meeting.
However they ignored and the violence made plaintiff's injury much worse.

(3) Details of the progress of this meeting are shown in attached sheet 3.

(4) The plaintiff went to Mita police head quarters to object the issue. Police officer Shinyama met the plaintiff.

The plaintiff gave the formalcomplaint to the chief of police office and asked the reason why the police officer or officers not only didn't stop OKI's violence but didn't make themselves known.

(5) The answer of Shinyama was as follow,

a They surely sent officers to OKI's stockholder's meeting requested by OKI.

b However, he didn't know the circumstances because they weren'tt reported by the officer who went to OKI,

He then said that he would question the officer or officers involved and then respond to the plaintiff.

(6) However, the plaintiff already called the Mita police head quarters and explained the case and asked Shinyama for a reply on August 13 th (3days before)

In spite of that, still on 16 th , Shinyama tried to intentionally be vague giving the plaintiff ambiguous responses such as " I will ask the officers and reply later, "

(7) On August 27 th the plaintiff called Shinyama.
Shinyamagave the following responses.

"Police officers have to visit several companies during the concentrated day and they don't have enough officers.
(In Japanese the concentrated day "means that many companies hold their stock holders meeting on the same as other companies.)
The officers who visited OKI were present at the beginning of the meeting but absent while the incident occered , because they thought nothing would happen and moved on to another company.
There for, they didn't witness the alleged crime."

The plaintiff accused him of being a lier and tha his answer was unbelievable.
But Shinyama insisted that police officers weren't present during the incident .

(8) The plaintiff asked to the Metropolitan Public Safety Commission to do an investigation concerning this police officer's answer according to The Police Law 78-2, "Complaint Statement Against Police Officer's Act."
The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission answered as follows.

a Police officers were presence at the case.

b The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission couldn't find anything illegal about Shinyam's action because he explainedto the plaintiff the reason why they sent police to the OKI's stock holder's meeting."

However, the explained the reason was that the officers moved to another company so they didn't witness the incident.

The laintiff complained again to Metropolitan Public Safety Commission but they didn't answer.

(9) The plaintiff sent a formal complaint to the chief of Mita police headquarters via plaintiff's lawyer on June 10 th, 2003.

Their answer was as follows.

"The police officers were presence until the end of the meeting .Shinyama didn't receive a correct report from the officers. So he gave the wrong informaitionr to the plaintiff due to a mistake reaching "hasty conclusion"

(10) However,since it was a special case, it impossible that the police officers forgot the violence that occured in the stockholder's meeting

Shinyama's explanation was a lie which not only makes a mocking of citizens but makes the public lose confidence in the police.

(11) The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission has responsibility to supervise officer's actions with in the Metropolitan Police Department with adequacy.

The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission's correspondence of this case was that they ignored the unfair act of the officers of the Mita Police headquarters.

Their responsibilities were neglected .

２００３年１１月１８日
　　 Petition (against Tokyo Metropolis)

For TheTokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch Civil Department
The intention of the request.

１　被告は原告に対して、金１，０００，０００円およびこれに対する２００２年6月　　２７日から支払済みまで年５分の割合による金員を支払え。
1 The defendant,Tokyo Metropolis, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case back to June 27th 2002.

２　訴訟費用は、被告の負担とする。　
2 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant

との判決、ならびに第１項について仮執行の宣言を求める。
I ask the court to grant the judgement and temporarily apply the second request above.

請　　　求　　　の　　　原　　　因
The reason for the request.

�T　当事者
I List of Litigant

１　原告
1 Plaintiff

(1)　 原告は、被告沖電気工業株式会社（以降「被告会社」という）の社員であったが、１９８１年６月、不当な配転命令を拒否したことを理由に解雇された。
(1)The　plaintiff　was　an　employee　of　　Oki　Electronics　Company．The plaintiff　was fired in June of 1981 by the company because he refused an unfair transfer order.

　　　 以降一貫して、この解雇の不当性を訴え、更には、現在も続いている被告会社の人権を侵害する労務政策を改めることを求めて闘争を継続している者である。
Since then, he has continued to struggle asking for the improvement of unfair dismissal and labor control policies which violate human rights.

　(2) とりわけ１９８７年以降は、被告の定例株主総会に、株主として出席し、丁寧な論拠を準備して、会社の経営方針、とりわけ人事労働政策の誤謬を指摘し、その是正の実現達成することに努めてきている。
(2)Since 1987, he has joined the stock holders meetings and has pointed out the company's management principles, specifically concerning its labor control policy.

　
　(3)た現代日本には、被告会社と類似した人権侵害が多くの企業に存在している現実が存するが、そのことの持つ社会的問題性を鋭く指摘する原告の、講演ないし歌唱活動は広く支持され、講演依頼は労働組合、平和・人権問題を活動の目的とした市民団体からのみならず、公立学校、市教育委員会に亘り、その範囲は国内全域に及んでいる。
(3)Also, in present-day Japan, his activities have been approved by society which criticize similar cases of that which occurred at Oki Electronics company.

And his activities of lectures containing the use of original songs have been approved by not only the labor unions, civilian activities of human rights groups, or peace activists, but also public schools and the municipal board of education.

　(4)また、原告が上記�`に関連して、被告会社門前において連日続けている抗議行動には、国内全域から原告に共感する多くの人が支援と交流の為に訪れ、その中には自由民主党前政調会長亀井静香衆議院議員すら含まれる。

(4)Many people from all over Japan who empathize with him have joined in his struggle in front of the gate every day　for support and communication.
Among those there is even a politician, Mr Kamei Sizuka, who is also a candidate for Japanese prime minister.

２　被告　
2 The defendant

(1)　被告東京都は地方自治体として、国家賠償法１条に基づき、東京都公安委員会ないし警視庁の職員が、その業務をなすに際して行った不法行為による損害について、被害者に対して損害賠償の責任を負うべき者である。

(1)The defendant Tokyo Metropolis has the responsibility of compensatory damages for the victim from officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission according to the Nation Compensation Law .

�U　原告の請求権
�URight of the plaintiff

１ 事実の経過等
1 Progress of this case

�@ ２００２年６月２７日に、（別訴被告）沖電気工業株式会社本店別館（港区芝浦４丁目１０番３号）で行われた被告会社株主総会に於て、別訴被告会社から警備要請を受けた警視庁三田警察署長は、これに応えて要員を派遣し、一定の私服警察官が総会会場に臨場していた。

�@ On June 27 th 2002 , several officer of the Mita police pricinct of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police department attended OKI electric company's general stock holder's meeting in response to OKI's invitation.

この総会の議長であった別訴被告会社社長篠塚勝正は総会の冒頭、警察官の臨席を宣言した。
The meeting chairman, OKI president Masakatsu Sinozuka, declared that police officers had attended at the begining of the meeting.

�A　 原告は、株主として商法に認められた権利に基づいて正当な発言を行おうとしたが、別訴被告会社の警備員から不当に暴行を受けた。
�A　The plaintiff tried to make a speech as a stock holder according to commercial law .
The security guards violated the plaintiff when he was demanding the chairman's answer.

　　　 原告は当時肩を負傷しており整形外科に通院治療中であったが、前年の総会においても暴力行為が行われたので危険だと考え、通院中の整形外科医作成の診断書を持参していた。
Befor that incident occured ,the plaintiff suffered an injury to his shoulder and was treated at a clinic.

Fearful that something dangerous might happen, the plaintiff possessed a medical certificate one year prior to the year that OKI used violence against the plaintiff.

暴行を受けた原告は、警備員に対してそれを示しつつ、暴行を止めるように求めた。
When the security guards resisted to the violence the plaintiff showed the medical certificate to them and asked that stop .

、臨場しているという警察官に対しても、「警察官がこの場にいるのなら、名乗り出て暴力を制止するよう」求めた
The plaintiff shouted that the police officers should make themselves known and to stop all violence if they should attendthe shareholder's meeting.

が、三田署員は誰も動こうとはせず敢えて拱手傍観し、別訴被告会社による、原告に対する、その負傷が悪化するほどの違法行為を看過した。
However they ignored and the violence made plaintiff's injury much worse.

�B　なお本件株主総会の経過の詳細は、別紙３記載のとおりである。
�BDetails of the progress of this meeting are shown in attached sheet 3.

�C　 原告は２００２年８月１６日、上記の件に関して、三田警察署に申入れに行った。
　　　対応に出たのは暴力団対策係長新山警官であった。
�CThe plaintiff went to Mita police head quarters to object the issue. Police officer Shinyama met the plaintiff.

　　　原告は、新山係長に対して警察署長宛の「申入書」を渡して、申入れを行った。
The plaintiff gave the formalcomplaint to the chief of police office and asked the reason why the police officer or officers not only didn't stop OKI's violence but didn't make themselves known.

�D　 これに対して新山係長は、要旨
�DThe answer of Shinyama was as follow,

�@　沖電気の要請により株主総会に警察官を派遣したことは間違いない。
i They surely sent officers to OKI's stockholder's meeting requested by OKI.
'

�A　しかし、担当の警察官に話を聞いていないから当日の事情は分からない。
ii However, he didn't know the circumstances because they weren'tt reported by the officer who went to OKI,

　　　　　　関係者に訊いて、後に答える。
He then said that he would question the officer or officers involved and then respond to the plaintiff.

と回答した。

�C しかし、原告はすでに８月１３日に三田警察署に電話し、新山係長に対して経過を説明し、回答を求めていた。
�C However, the plaintiff already called the Mita police head quarters and explained the case and asked Shinyama for a reply on August 13 th (3days before)

しかるに、１６日の段階でもなお、このような「関係者に訊いて後日答える」等の、曖昧な対応で誤魔化そうとしたのである。
In spite of that, still on 16 th , Shinyama tried to intentionally be vague giving the plaintiff ambiguous responses such as " I will ask the officers and reply later, "

�D　 ８月２７日に至り、新山係長は電話に於て、以下のとおりの回答を行った。
�D On August 27 th the plaintiff called Shinyama.
Shinyamagave the following responses.

　「 警察官が少ないので、株主総会集中日は警察官が複数の会社の総会を掛持ちで廻っている。
"Police officers have to visit several companies during the concentrated day and they don't have enough officers.
(In Japanese the concentrated day "means that many companies hold their stock holders meeting on the same as other companies.)

当日沖電気の株主総会に臨席した警察官は、総会開会時には臨席していたが、何も起きそうにないので、本件事件が起きた時は、すでに他社の株主総会臨席のため移動していた
The officers who visited OKI were present at the beginning of the meeting but absent while the incident occered , because they thought nothing would happen and moved on to another company.

だから事件を目撃していない、と言っている。」

There for, they didn't witness the alleged crime."

　原告は、「この回答は到底信じられない。」として追及したが、新山係長はあくまでこの回答に固執した。
The plaintiff accused him of being a lier and tha his answer was unbelievable.
But Shinyama insisted that police officers weren't present during the incident .

�E この三田警察署側の説明に納得のいかない原告は、監督機関である東京都公安委員会に調査を求めた。
　すなわち原告は、２００２年９月２６日、警察法７８条２項に則って東京都公安委員会に対して、上記について苦情の申立を行った。

�E The plaintiff asked to the Metropolitan Public Safety Commission to do an investigation concerning this police officer's answer according to The Police Law 78-2, "Complaint Statement Against Police Officer's Act."

　 これに対する公安委員会の回答は
The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission answered as follows.

�@　事件当時、警察官は総会会場に臨席していた。
�@ Police officers were presence at the case.

　　としたうえで
�A 「三田警察署に対して田中様が申し出られたことにつきましては、当日、 同署の担当の捜査員から、警察処置を執らなかった理由等について説明がなされるなど、不適切な対応等は認められませんでした。」
�A　The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission couldn't find anything illegal about Shinyam's action because he explainedto the plaintiff the reason why they sent police to the OKI's stock holder's meeting."

　というものであった。　　しかし苦情申立書にも述べたとおりその「説明」なるものは、
However, the explained the reason was that the officers moved to another company so they didn't witness the incident.

「警官は総会の当初はいたが、他社の総会に移動していたため現場にいなかった。だから当該事件を目撃していない。」

などという非合理なもので、「理由の説明」などというものでは到底なかった。
　原告は「納得いかない。」として、再回答を東京都公安委員会に対して要求した。しかし、回答はなかった。

The laintiff complained again to Metropolitan Public Safety Commission but they didn't answer.

�F　 また２００３年６月１０日付けで、代理人である弁護士を通じて行った申入に対する三田警察署長の回答は
�F　The plaintiff sent a formal complaint to the chief of Mita police headquarters via plaintiff's lawyer on June 10 th, 2003.

「警察官は株主総会が終了するまで臨場警戒にあたっていたが、原告の問合せに答えた暴というものであった。

Their answer was as follows.

"The police officers were presence until the end of the meeting .Shinyama didn't receive a correct report from the officers. So he gave the wrong informaitionr to the plaintiff due to a mistake reaching "hasty conclusion"

�G　 しかしそもそも、警察官が臨場した株主総会に於て、会社側によって実力行使がなされるという、極めて特異な状況について、これを目撃した部下が誤った記憶を有するということはあり得ず、従って、状況を目撃した部下からの報告を、「早合点をして」「その場にいなかった」などという、事実と全く異なる把握をなすなどということは、およそありえないことである。
�GHowever,since it was a special case, it impossible that the police officers forgot the violence that occured in the stockholder's meeting

新山係長の「説明」は、市民に対してとぼけた虚言をなし、相手を愚弄するもの以外のなにものでもないばかりでなく、後に述べるごとく、警察に対する信用を著しく失墜さしむものである。
Shinyama's explanation was a lie which not only makes a mocking of citizens but makes the public lose confidence in the police.

　 �H 　ところで東京都公安委員会は、警視庁の警察活動を総括している機関であって、これが適法適切に行われるよう監督すべき権限と責任を有している。
�H The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission has responsibility to supervise officer's actions with in the Metropolitan Police Department with adequacy.

しかし東京都公安委員会の前記対応は、三田警察署の担当係官の市民に対する愚 弄行為を、そのまま是認し、放置しているものであって、公安委員会の上記職務を、 明らかに、完全に懈怠しているものである。
The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission's correspondence of this case was that they ignored the unfair act of the officers of the Mita Police headquarters.

Their responsibilities were neglected .