2016.12.12 Monday

044 Questions and proposal re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter"

The document “Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter” which I received on November 9—in response to the letter entitled“Opinion and request regarding JAGDA document” (“Request Letter” hereunder) which I submitted to the JAGDA office on September 30—was illogical in content, lacking in detail and sound reasoning. As it gave rise to many doubts and questions in my mind, I sent a list of questions and a proposal to the JAGDA Office on December 11.

I am recording the questions and proposal that I sent off today.

[Questions and Proposal to JAGDA]
(*Request Letter sent on 9/30 by Keiko Hirano shown in gray)
(*Response from JAGDA and remarks made by JAGDA shown in blue)
---------------------------------------------------

Japan Graphic Designers Association Inc.
A public interest incorporated association

To whom it may concern:

I am still waiting for your reply with regards to the letter of inquiry I sent you on November 30. I would appreciate your swift response concerning this matter.

On a different note, I am sending you a set of 18 questions, a proposal and request, once again concerning the “Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter (November 9)” which was received in response to my “Request Letter” http://hiranokeiko.tokyo/?eid=85.

This is not the first time I am sending you these questions. I have received answers for some questions, while others remain unanswered. This time, I would like you to respond to all 18 questions that I am submitting herewith.

 


Questions and Proposal re: “Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter”

Questions and Proposal (from Keiko Hirano) regarding “Reply from JAGDA (Received November 9)” in response to “Request Letter (Sent September 30)”

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(1)
In relation to the “overview”, the internal JAGDA email dated August 12 states that the document has yet to be approved by the General Assembly; yet the JAGDA website, dated July 28, still claims “JAGDA overview ….unveiled”. No change has been made as to the status of this said overview. If approval has not been met, and JAGDA admits that the document does not serve as the official overview of the organization, the wording on the website should be corrected at once. →

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
In regards to the overview document, the draft was compiled by the president and vice presidents, the three high ranking officials, which was then approved through a hand-around among board members and steering committee members, before it was finally unveiled. Therefore it stands as the organization’s “Official Overview”.

As stated before, the overview is not a “mere report” but the “Organization’s Overview”. →


→12/11/2016 Question (from Keiko Hirano)
(Question 1)

I am objecting to the claim that JAGDA is making, pronouncing that a “document that was approved among board members and steering committee members” is a “JAGDA Overview”; and to the fact that it continues to make the pronouncement as if it is indeed a “JAGDA Overview”. It is my understanding that a “document that was approved among board members and steering committee members” cannot be rightfully defined as a “JAGDA Overview”. In order to confirm the actual facts, I have asked you to define what you mean by “Organization’s Overview”; a question to which you have yet to respond. I want to know where “Organization’s Overview” stands. Please tell me, by your definition what does “Organization’s Overview” stand for? Please advise.

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(2)
Unless JAGDA can come up with a unified stance, as long as the standing of the document remains murky, JAGDA should not disclose the so-called “overview” outside the organization as a public statement. This must stop immediately.→

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
We do not believe our “stance” is murky.→


→12/11/2016 Question (from Keiko Hirano)
(Question 2)

By claiming “We do not believe our ‘stance’ is murky”, you are stating that “the views of board members and steering committee members” = “Organization’s Overview” = “JAGDA’s Overview”. Is this how it is actually defined per the Articles of Incorporation? Or, is it merely “what the JAGDA Office believes”? Please tell me. Show me the basis for making your statement that “the views of board members and steering committee members” = “Organization’s Overview” = “JAGDA’s Overview”.

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(3)
Regarding the opinions submitted by JAGDA members: how will they be put to use? Unless this point is made clear, people will feel uncomfortable presenting their opinions. Is JAGDA simply going through the motions, seeking opinions for reference purpose only? Then there is no need to set a submission deadline. If JAGDA needs a deadline for feedback, does that mean the opinions will be compiled, put together and released in one form or another? When soliciting views from other people the purpose and the use of the collected material must be made clear. It is simply a matter of courtesy. If there is a lack of decency, how can we believe the organization really wants to hear our views? The vague-sounding “sharing” doesn’t do the trick. It doesn’t tell us what is going to happen. It doesn’t reveal anything.→

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
As is stated at the end of the JAGDA document, regarding this issue, JAGDA is resolved to commit more time and continue to study and digest the facts from a historical viewpoint. The individual opinions collected from all members will and should be put to use with this view in mind. The word “sharing” means the incorporation (of such voices).→


→12/11/2016 Question (from Keiko Hirano)
(Question 3)

You have not presented any specific policy in response to the question: “Regarding the opinions submitted by JAGDA members: how will they be put to use? When soliciting views from other people the purpose and the use of the collected material must be made clear”. Thus I am going to repeat the same question. Does JAGDA intend to compile and release the collected opinions in some form or other? How will the opinions be put to use in the future? Please show me a specific guideline.

(Question 4)
When you say JAGDA is resolved to “commit more time”, the phrase “more time” is an abstract expression which doesn’t specify any length of time. Is it six months, a year, or a decade? Please specify.

(Question 5)
When you say that JAGDA is resolved to continue “to study and digest the facts from a historical viewpoint”, I cannot understand what is meant by the word “viewpoint” in the phrase “historical viewpoint”. Please explain.

(Question 6)
What method do you propose “to study and digest the facts from a historical viewpoint”? Who will be tasked with the “study” and how will it be conducted? Please inform us of your specific policy.

(Question 7)
When you say, “The individual opinions collected from all members will and should be put to use with this view in mind” how do you intend to put the collected opinions to use? I want to hear about your specific plan.

(Question 8)
“The word ‘sharing’ means the incorporation (of such voices)” –this explanation does not make much sense. Once again, please explain what method you propose for “sharing” the collected opinions.

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(4)
JAGDA tried to present the document as a matter for approval at the General Assembly, knowing that it could not be part of the agenda, a matter for approval by the General Assembly. The cause must investigated. In fact, was JAGDA intending to ignore all processes and railroad the document through to approval? If that was the case, who planned it? Or was it a simple slip-up that led to a pseudo approval? Considering how JAGDA used the incongruous words, “Unless the document is approved today, JAGDA won’t be able to exist as a legitimate organization starting tomorrow”―totally unreal―to put a stop the Q & A session and force the audience to give their approval, it is difficult to believe that this was a simple slip-up. There is a definite feeling that it was intended. An investigation is called for. Somebody needs to be held accountable.→

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
It was only the night, two days before the general assembly, when it was finally confirmed that approval from board and steering committee members had been obtained regarding the draft of the JAGDA document. In fact, we were not even planning to present the document as an item for approval at the general assembly. However, considering the gravity of the issue, a last minute decision was made to present the “Organization’s Overview” as part of the business report for fiscal 2015.
Initially, we had requested that the following words be inserted when releasing the overview statement: “It is now time for JAGDA’s business report for the previous year. We are going to ask you to take a look at the contents which is there in the agenda that was handed out. In lieu of going over the report together, we would like to take this time to reveal our overview statement regarding the Olympic logo issue. The board and the steering committee have given the nod to this document”. The introduction, due to a procedural slip-up on the part of the JAGDA office, was left out, and not related to the members present at the assembly.→


→12/11/2016 Question (from Keiko Hirano)
(Question 9)

Of the total 3,049 members of JAGDA, 201 attended the General Assembly. Many of those present included members of the board and the steering committee, who are 44 in total. If indeed JAGDA was concerned with the “gravity of the issue” and considered this as a major issue, JAGDA should have first considered sending the said document to all members, as a priority. If it was a crucial issue, what prevented JAGDA from sending the document to all 3,049 members; why did they make it their priority to release the document at the general assembly in the presence of the 201 attendees. Please tell me the reason.

(Question 10)
Considering the circumstances—in which there was not enough time to hold any meetings before the general assembly—who actually made the last minute “decision to present the (Organization’s Overview)”? Who, at which point, using what method, made such a decision? Please tell me.

(Question 11)
You claim that “Initially, we had requested that the following words be inserted when releasing the overview statement”. To whom was the request made?

(Question 12)
You claim that “The introduction, due to a procedural slip-up on the part of the JAGDA office, was left out, and not related to the members present at the assembly”. Then please explain what this “procedural slip-up on the part of the JAGDA office” was. What was the careless mistake? I want the details.

(Question 13)
In your response, you say, “considering the gravity of the issue”. Then, considering the extreme gravity of the issue, why not reach out to the actual people who were involved in the Olympic logo controversy, including the judges on the selection panel, and seek their cooperation in compiling the document? Why designate the task to Mr. Kenya Hara—why should he singlehandedly come up with the draft? In this setup, doesn’t it simply mean this was an “Overview by Kenya Hara”?

As for the judges on the selection panel, no one signed the “non-disclosure agreement”, with the exception of Mr. Takuma Takasaki, who was also serving on the Organizing Committee. This is a clear fact that the judges are well aware of. Furthermore, Keiko Hirano had offered her cooperation to JAGDA.

JAGDA chose not to hear from a judge who was on the panel, who offered her cooperation. Instead it went with a highly biased methodology—a document penned by Mr. Hara. Why? Please explain.

(Question 14)
At a general assembly, the most pressing issue is “passing measures and voting on agenda items”. Who decided on the proceedings of unveiling the overview document at the beginning of the general assembly? Please respond.

(Question 15)
You claim, “In fact, we were not even planning to present the document as an item for approval at the general assembly” and that a decision was made to “present (it) as part of the business report”. But in reality, JAGDA vice president Mr. Hara took the stage at the beginning of the general assembly, and took up as much as a third of the time of the 90 minutes scheduled for the assembly, reading out the document. As soon as he finished reading, he spoke out to the audience, “I seek your approval”. As a result, following tradition, members in attendance applauded. This is a process used at the general assembly for giving approval to an item on the agenda.

It was supposedly a document that JAGDA was “not even planning to present as an item for approval at the general assembly”. Then why take this route—a process used to seek approval at a general assembly—and resort to this action that amounts to an actual voting? Please explain this inconsistency.

(Question 16)
When a member voiced his objection towards the overview document, the director of the JAGDA office responded with the words: “If we don’t pass this resolution today, we won’t be able to continue as an association starting tomorrow. So, please, we need to follow through with the proceedings….” He clearly pointed to the document (and the ensuing action seeking approval) as “proceedings”. He claimed that “If we don’t pass this resolution today, we won’t be able to continue as an association starting tomorrow”, and put a stop to ongoing questions that were raised by the member who voiced his objection. On the day of the general assembly, the document was proudly called “proceedings”, an item for approval. Why the need to rephrase it, and call it “part of the business report”? Please explain this discrepancy.

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(4)
In fact, was JAGDA intending to ignore all processes and railroad the document through to approval? If that was the case, who planned it? Or was it a simple slip-up that led to a pseudo approval? Considering how JAGDA used the incongruous words, “Unless the document is approved today, JAGDA won’t be able to exist as a legitimate organization starting tomorrow”―totally unreal―to put a stop the Q & A session and force the audience to give their approval, it is difficult to believe that this was a simple slip-up. There is a definite feeling that it was intended. An investigation is called for. Somebody needs to be held accountable.→

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
In the first place, there was never any Q&A session being planned beforehand regarding the JAGDA document. So there was concern that if the impromptu Q&A session regarding the matter dragged on any further, we would not be able to resolve important matters that were listed in the agenda—including last year’s business report, and such. The director of the JAGDA office commenting that, “unless the document is approved today, JAGDA won’t be able to exist as a legitimate organization starting tomorrow” has nothing to do with the JAGDA document. But rather, the comment was made in relation to the other important agenda items.→


→12/10/2016 Question (from Keiko Hirano)
(Question 17)

In your response, you say that: “there was never any Q&A session being planned beforehand regarding the JAGDA document”. Then I need to ask whether or not, in the first place, a member has the right to raise a question during the general assembly. Please answer this question.

You responded that: “The director of the JAGDA office commenting that, ‘unless the document is approved today, JAGDA won’t be able to exist as a legitimate organization starting tomorrow’ has nothing to do with the JAGDA document. But rather, the comment was made in relation to the other important agenda items”. This statement differs from the facts I have uncovered.

9/30/2016 Request Letter (from Keiko Hirano)
(5)
The method used to lead and maneuver the General Assembly in the wrong direction was extremely rude not only towards the person who posed a question―and had the Q & A session cut short, but towards all JAGDA members who were present at the General Assembly that day. An apology is in order. JAGDA members are all entitled to the right to ask questions and take part in discussions at the General Assembly. Their rights were taken away at this assembly. Accountability regarding the rights of JAGDA members should be made clear.→

→11/9/2016 Reply (from JAGDA)
As given above, comments that suggest there was any intention to “lead and maneuver the General Assembly in the wrong direction”, or that “the Q&A session was cut short in a totally unrealistic manner”, or “existing rights (of the JAGDA members) … were taken away” do not reflect the actual facts. It is obvious that such criticism is way off the mark.


→12/11/2016 Proposal and Request (from Keiko Hirano)
You claim that “It is obvious that such criticism (do not reflect the actual facts and) is way off the mark” in trying to justify the proceedings at the general assembly. The statement greatly differs from the facts I have uncovered.

The string of statements made and action taken by the JAGDA vice president and the director of the JAGDA office during the JAGDA General Assembly for Fiscal 2016 were obviously undertaken to push an agenda item for approval. It cannot be construed in any other way.

Despite all this, if you still insist that “It is obvious that such criticism (do not reflect the actual facts and) is way off the mark” there is one surefire way to justify your claim. Why not make public the audio or video recording that the JAGDA Office made at the general assembly. Why not check the actual dialogue that took place at the general assembly as a way to establish the actual facts. The viewpoint that should be kept in mind is not “what the management or JAGDA Office thought” but how things were perceived by the receiving end. In order to secure this viewpoint, we should seek an impartial third party observer to assess the facts, and evaluate how the actions of the JAGDA management at the general assembly were perceived. This way we can expect a fair and impartial judgement.

(Proposal and Request 1)

I hereby propose and request that JAGDA provide an opportunity that allows the public hearing or viewing of an audio or video recording of the general assembly in the presence of an impartial third party observer.

[List of questions and proposal to JAGDA]
---------------------------------------------------

(Question 1)
I am objecting to the claim that JAGDA is making, pronouncing that a “document that was approved among board members and steering committee members” is a “JAGDA Overview”; and to the fact that it continues to make the pronouncement as if it is indeed a “JAGDA Overview”. It is my understanding that a “document that was approved among board members and steering committee members” cannot be defined as a “JAGDA Overview”. In order to confirm the actual facts, I have asked you to define what you mean by “Organization’s Overview”; a question to which you have yet to respond. I want to know where “Organization’s Overview” stands. Please tell me, by your definition, what does “Organization’s Overview” stand for? Please advise.

(Question 2)
By claiming “We do not believe our ‘stance’ is murky”, you are stating that “the views of board members and steering committee members” = “Organization’s Overview” = “JAGDA’s Overview”. Is this how it is actually defined per the Articles of Incorporation? Or, is it merely “what the JAGDA Office believes”? Please tell me. Show me the basis for your statement that “the views of board members and steering committee members” = “Organization’s Overview” = “JAGDA’s Overview”.

(Question 3)
You have not presented any specific policy in response to the question: “Regarding the opinions submitted by JAGDA members: how will they be put to use? When soliciting views from other people the purpose and the use of the collected material must be made clear”. Thus I am going to repeat the same question. Does JAGDA intend to compile and release the collected opinions in some form or other? How will the opinions be put to use in the future? Please show me a specific guideline.

(Question 4)
When you say JAGDA is resolved to “commit more time”, the phrase “more time” is an abstract expression which doesn’t specify any length of time. Is it six months, a year, or a decade? Please specify.

(Question 5)
When you say that JAGDA is resolved to continue “to study and digest the facts from a historical viewpoint”, I cannot understand what is meant by the word “viewpoint” in the phrase “historical viewpoint”. Please explain.

(Question 6)
What method do you propose “to study and digest the facts from a historical viewpoint”? Who will be tasked with the “study” and how will it be conducted? Please inform us of your specific policy.

(Question 7)
When you say, “The individual opinions collected from all members will and should be put to use with this view in mind” how do you intend to put the collected opinions to use? I want to hear about your specific plan.

(Question 8)
“The word ‘sharing’ means the incorporation (of such voices)” –this explanation does not make much sense. Once again, please explain what method you propose for “sharing” the collected opinions.

(Question 9)
Of the total 3,049 members of JAGDA, 201 attended the General Assembly. Many of those present included members of the board and the steering committee, who are 44 in total. If indeed JAGDA was concerned with the “gravity of the issue” and considered this as a major issue, JAGDA should have first considered sending the said document to all members, as a priority. If it was a crucial issue, what prevented JAGDA from sending the document to all 3,049 members; why did they make it their priority to release the document at the general assembly in the presence of the 201 attendees. Please tell me the reason.

(Question 10)
Considering the circumstances—in which there was not enough time to hold any meetings before the general assembly—who actually made the last minute “decision to present the (Organization’s Overview)”? Who, at which point, using what method, made such a decision? Please tell me.

(Question 11)
You claim that “Initially, we had requested that the following words be inserted when releasing the overview statement”. To whom was the request made?

(Question 12)
You claim that “The introduction, due to a procedural slip-up on the part of the JAGDA office, was left out, and not related to the members present at the assembly”. Then please explain what this “procedural slip-up on the part of the JAGDA office” was. What was the careless mistake? I want the details.

(Question 13)
On your response, you say, “considering the gravity of the issue”. Then, considering the extreme gravity of the issue, why not reach out to the actual people who were involved in the Olympic logo controversy, including the judges on the selection panel, and seek their cooperation in compiling the document? Why designate the task to Mr. Kenya Hara—why should he singlehandedly come up with the draft? In this setup, doesn’t it simply mean this was an “Overview by Kenya Hara”?

As for the judges on the selection panel, no one signed the “non-disclosure agreement”, with the exception of Mr. Takuma Takasaki, who was also serving on the Organizing Committee. This is a clear fact that the judges are well aware of. Furthermore, Keiko Hirano had offered her cooperation to JAGDA.

JAGDA chose not to hear from a judge who was on the panel, who offered her cooperation. Instead it went with a highly biased methodology—a document penned by Mr. Hara. Why? Please explain.

(Question 14)
At a general assembly, the most pressing issue is “passing measures and voting on agenda items”. Who decided on the proceedings of unveiling the overview document at the beginning of the general assembly? Please respond.

(Question 15)
You claim, “In fact, we were not even planning to present the document as an item for approval at the general assembly” and that a decision was made to “present (it) as part of the business report”. But in reality, JAGDA vice president Mr. Hara took the stage at the beginning of the general assembly, and took up as much as a third of the time of the 90 minutes scheduled for the assembly, reading out the document. As soon as he finished reading, he spoke out to the audience, “I seek your approval”. As a result, following tradition, members in attendance applauded. This is a process used at the general assembly for giving approval to an item on the agenda.

It was supposedly a document that JAGDA was “not even planning to present as an item for approval at the general assembly”. Then why take this route—a process used to seek approval at a general assembly—and resort to this action that amounts to an actual voting? Please explain this inconsistency.

(Question 16)
When a member voiced his objection towards the overview document, the director of the JAGDA office responded with the words: “If we don’t pass this resolution today, we won’t be able to continue as an association starting tomorrow. So, please, we need to follow through with the proceedings….” He clearly pointed to the document (and the ensuing action seeking approval) as “proceedings”. He claimed that “If we don’t pass this resolution today, we won’t be able to continue as an association starting tomorrow”, and put a stop to ongoing questions that were raised by the member who voiced his objection. On the day of the general assembly, the document was proudly called “proceedings”, an item for approval. Why the need to rephrase it, and call it “part of the business report”? Please explain this discrepancy.

(Question 17)
In your response, you say that: “there was never any Q&A session being planned beforehand regarding the JAGDA document”. Then I need to ask whether or not, in the first place, a member has the right to raise a question during the general assembly. Please answer this question.

(Proposal and Request 1)

I hereby propose and request that JAGDA provide an opportunity that allows the public hearing or viewing of an audio or video recording of the general assembly in the presence of an impartial third party observer.

---------------------------------------------------

(Question 18)
If JAGDA should claim that it will not allow the public hearing or viewing of the audio or video recording of the general assembly, which we know was attended by 201 members, and it refuses to disclose information, I need to hear your reason.

 

Keiko Hirano
December 11, 2016


---------------------------------------------------

 

Keiko Hirano

 

Keiko Hirano:
Designer/Visioner, Executive Director of Communication Design Laboratory
Hirano served on the panel that chose the official emblem for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics, which was ultimately withdrawn.

Personal note:
I contributed an op-ed piece to the November issue of the “Kenchiku Journal” magazine (on sale November 1). The special feature of the issue is “Ridiculing the Olympic Games”.
http://www.kj-web.or.jp/


五輪エンブレム問題の
事実と考察
001 責任がとれる方法で 002 公募期間の短さ 003 『展開』『展開性』『展開力』 004 知らされなかった招待作家 005 ブログを読んで下さっているみなさまへ 006 利害優先の土壌 007 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.1 008 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.2 009 『公』の仕事 010 専門家の盾 011 秘密保持誓約書という密室 012 いまこそ、私心なき専門性を問う 013 判断の論拠 014 最終の審議 015 金銭感覚と敬意の相対性 016 表現におけるモラリティと表現者のモラル 017 言葉のちから 018 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.1 019 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.2 020 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.3 021 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.4 022 願い 023 摩訶不思議な調査報告書 024 負の遺産とならないように 025 出口なき迷路 026 届かぬ思い 027「社会に位置づくデザイン」という観点 028 無責任主義の村 029 審査委員として知り得た情報のすべて 030 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.1 031 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.2 032 1対3の構図 - 「A案」VS「BCD案」 033 今を生きる 034 負の連鎖……を断つために 035 欲望の公害 精神の断絶 036 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.1 037 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.2 038 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.3 039 事実はひとつ 040 新世界へ 041 JAGDA文書への意見と要望 ― 法律の専門家による分析 042 JAGDAの回答 JAGDAへの要望書 043 「要望書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する更なる質問 044 「意見書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する質問と提案 045 ブラック・デザイン
Tokyo 2020 Olympics Logo Controversy--Facts and Observations 001 My way of taking responsibility 002 Duration of contest was way short 003 “Development” “Development Capabilities” “Development Power” 004 Guest artists I wasn’t told about 005 To My Readers 006 A culture where special interests take priority 007 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.1 008 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.2 009 Strictly “public” work 010 Specialists as shields 011 Behind closed doors-secrecy surrounding a non-disclosure agreement 012 Time to put selfless expertise to the test 013 Rationale behind my decision 014 The final review session 015 Is the money mindset relative to paying respect? 016 Morality of expression and the morals of its creator 017 The power of words 018 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.1 019 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.2 020 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.3 021 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.4 022 My wish 023 Mystifying investigation report is out 024 In order to prevent a negative legacy 025 Stuck in a maze with no exit 026 A voice unheard 027 A viewpoint that calls for “design with a place in society” 028 A village with a policy of irresponsibility 029 Every piece of information that I garnered as a judge on the selection committee 030 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.1 031 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.2 032 The underlying picture of one against three - “Plan A” versus “Plans BCD” 033 Living in the moment 034 Putting a stop……to a negative chain of events 035 Pollution by greed and discontinuity of the spirit 036 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.1 037 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.2 038 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.3 039 Every fact has only one version 040 Toward a whole new world 041 Opinion and request regarding JAGDA document―An analysis by a legal specialist 042 Reply from JAGDA Request letter to JAGDA 043 More questions re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 044 Questions and proposal re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 045 Rogue design