Attempt to Contact the LEC Suidobashi Instructor and the Obstruction ②

This article is a continuation of the previous one, "Attempt to Contact the LEC Suidobashi Instructor and the Obstruction ①."

Summary of the Previous Post (Attempted Contact to the LEC Suidobashi Instructor and the Obstruction ①)

March 7, 2020
I brought with me a document I had prepared the previous day for Instructor Notomi and visited the LEC Suidobashi campus before the morning lecture began.
I had not informed anyone of this visit.

When I asked the staff on the first floor about the instructor's expected arrival route, they responded,
“She will come from one of the entrances facing the street,”
despite likely knowing that she would not be coming in the morning due to the class being held in a mock exam format.

I only realized after the lecture had already started that the instructor would not be there in the morning.

So, I spent some time elsewhere and returned to the campus again in the afternoon.

Although the instructor had already arrived, a man who appeared to be in a senior position and several staff members all falsely claimed,
“She hasn’t arrived yet.”

Eventually, after waiting until the lecture ended, a young man who introduced himself as the assistant branch manager appeared.

When the instructor exited the classroom, he physically blocked me from approaching her.

The assistant branch manager said he would deliver the document to the instructor on my behalf.

With no other choice at the time, I entrusted the document to him and decided to withdraw for the day.

Actions Taken After Failing to Make Contact

However, I doubted whether he actually handed the document to the instructor, so I submitted an inquiry via the Tokyo Legal Mind website.

Then, on March 14 of the same year, I received a reply via email stating, “There were no facts that should cause you concern.”

The phrase “facts that should cause you concern” was strange and ambiguous,
but I believe it referred to:

• The lecture hall being filled with people in suits instead of the usual students

• The instructor proceeding with the lecture as if nothing was unusual

I then sent another inquiry, this time including the full contents of the document I had given to the man claiming to be the assistant branch manager.

On March 17, I received the following reply:

• No such facts could be confirmed

• It is difficult to provide any further response

The next day, I responded to their email as follows:

• The instructor must have been aware of what happened during the lecture

• The staff could not possibly have been unaware of such a major and unusual event

I also added words of frustration and disappointment.

Second Attempt to Contact the Instructor

Subsequently, in order to confirm whether the instructor had read the document, I visited the LEC Suidobashi campus again on March 21, 2020.
This visit, too, was made without informing anyone in advance.

Before the lecture began, I tried to determine the instructor’s route by asking a staff member in the room on the first floor where course explanations and applications were handled. I asked where the instructor would be coming from.

The staff replied, “I think the instructor will enter from one of the three entrances facing the street,” so I waited outside accordingly.

However, even after the scheduled start time, the instructor did not appear. When I went to the lecture room, the class had already begun.

After waiting until the lecture ended, this time the instructor came out first.

When I asked, “Did you read the document?” she agreed to walk with me to the area near the instructor’s waiting room on the second floor.
There, she said, “Please don’t come inside,” so I waited outside.

Since the door to the waiting room was left open, I could see her standing and talking to someone face-to-face, although I could not see the other person.

Shortly after, a branch manager (a different person from the one who had appeared previously) came and suggested we talk on the first floor.
He also gave me his business card (he has since been replaced by someone else).

Around the counter area on the first floor, several male staff members were stationed, each attending to middle-aged female “consultants.”
It was obvious to me that they were planted “extras” (sakura).
One possible aim of this setup may have been to prevent me from raising my voice.

I suspect that the actual staff members were instructed to remain in the staff room until I left the premises.

During our conversation, the branch manager said:
“It's quite common for students to be replaced.”

However, I had been attending the same instructor’s lectures for many years, and not once had there been a mass replacement of students.
Even among regular attendees, it was rare to see more than one or two people in suits.
Moreover, the idea that in the 9th lecture of a 12-part course, most of the students were replaced—and the number of attendees had even increased—is, from a common-sense perspective, inconceivable.

He further said:
“I think I was also the branch manager at that time, but I don’t remember.”

But when I responded,
“The instructor is not the type to start a lecture without acknowledging a complete change in the student body,”

He replied:
“Perhaps she was feeling down because a close staff member was transferred—either the day before or the morning of the lecture.”

In other words, if he truly didn’t remember what happened, he should not have been able to recall such details—this clearly contradicts his earlier statement.

In any case, it is a fact that a large-scale operation was carried out on March 18, 2018.
Even if the staff working that day were not told the real reason behind it, they must surely remember the event itself.

Considerations

It’s possible that the actual students were given some form of explanation in advance.
Perhaps they were instructed to attend the lecture remotely from a different classroom.

The instructor was extremely popular, and during the peak of the patent attorney qualification boom, there were instances where, when the main lecture hall was full, overflow students would attend remotely from another room.

Those who appeared to be students and remained on the left side of the lecture hall on that day may have been genuine students,
but even they were likely not informed of the true reason behind what was happening.

In other words, there must be people among the students at the time who remember that something unusual occurred on March 18, 2018.

Perhaps, at the time, Tokyo Legal Mind believed that as long as it maintained the stance that “no such facts exist” and insisted that it was merely acting on its own, I would eventually give up.
Alternatively, it’s possible that this narrative was something they had been told by an organization involved in human experimentation.

Afterward

On March 25, the following week, I attended the lecture once again in order to inform the instructor that I had decided to give up pursuing qualification as a patent attorney.
On that day, both the number of students and the number of people in suits had noticeably decreased.

After the lecture, I took advantage of the question time to speak with the instructor.
She was aware that I had passed the first-stage exam twice.

In May 2022, I sent registered letters to SunFlare, a translation company, and several television stations that had acted suspiciously toward me, proposing that we jointly expose the issue.
However, I received no replies from any of them.

Subsequently, I sent certified letters of inquiry in February 2023 and February 2024, and followed up with an email on July 20, 2023.

The reply I received at that time again stated,
“There were no facts that should cause you concern.”

On August 20, 2024, I repeated my inquiry and also informed them that I was considering publicly disclosing the names of the (former or then-current) branch manager and the instructor, in anticipation that someone might eventually seek to uncover the truth about this incident.

On October 3, 2024, I publicly posted the names of the instructor and the branch manager at the time on X.
On November 18, 2024, I sent an email asking whether the company had any objections to this, but received no response.

It should be noted that both the company’s chairman and president hold licenses as attorneys.