A 50 Million Dollar Question Mark

Flip and C&K took the case to the National Assembly

Review Request Regarding the Riverside Dosan Memorial runs 20 pages, in Korean and English, paragraph by paragraph. C&K Independent Cultural Heritage, co-founded by Philip “Flip” Ahn Cuddy and Kim Suah, prepared it. Kim Suah and Shin Ji Ung wrote it, with Flip’s statement, and sent it to the office of National Assembly Member Kim Jun-hyuk. It was revised on September 11, 2026.

It carries Flip’s position. C&K organized the views and materials he provided (p. 2), and Every assessment, objection, and policy request reflects Cuddy’s position (p. 2).

It was written after the September 7, 2026 seminar on the Riverside project at the National Assembly, where Cuddy stated that the project’s historical premises and operating structure should be reviewed before support is given to new construction (p. 3). The submission puts that position formally to the Assembly office.

Title: Review Request Regarding the Riverside Dosan Memorial리버사이드 도산기념관 검토 요청
Prepared by: C&K Independent Cultural Heritage Co., Ltd.: Kim Suah and Shin Ji Ung
Original statement: Philip Ahn Cuddy (Philip Douglas Cuddy)
Sent to: Office of National Assembly Member Kim Jun-hyuk
Revised: September 11, 2026

The case rests on one book, printed twice

The argument for a new memorial relies heavily on Jang Tae-han’s 2018 book Pachappa Camp and its 2025 republication, Dosan Republic (p. 7). The publisher’s reply to Cuddy confirms that the later book republishes the earlier one.

From the book, the narrative runs to Chairman Kwak Do-won’s educational and memorial strategy, and then to requests for policy and financial support. Our conclusion: The book and the policy proposal should therefore be reviewed under the same standard of documentary verification. (p. 7)

We do not say Riverside was unimportant. The submission does not deny that Riverside was important in the lives of Dosan and Korean Americans (p. 8). Our objection is to turning one of several important centers into the first and largest Koreatown on the U.S. mainland and the origin of Korean democratic republicanism (p. 8), and then using that to justify a large construction project.

Flip raised this in 2016

In June 2016 a proposal to the City of Riverside called Pachappa the first Korean settlement. Flip’s letter names it: the Proposal presented on June 15, 2016 to the City of Riverside claiming Pachappa to be the First Korean Settlement. On 10 August 2016 he wrote to Dr. Carol Park of UC Riverside and asked for her sources. He put the census to her: In 1920 the US census reported four Korean families residing in Riverside - none using the Pachappa address.

On 7 December 2016, after the City Council approved the application, Flip wrote to the City, the Consul General and members of the Korean press. The resolution had been changed because of what he put on record: They removed "Dosan's Republic" from the title. And "Mecca" was not to be part of the recognition. "Koreatown" should not be in it. His verdict was plain: The City of Riverside decision was wrong and has made false claims.

Ten years on, the book at the center of today’s memorial plan, Jang Tae-han’s 2018 Pachappa Camp, has been republished in 2025 under the title Dosan Republic.

Flip’s email to Dr. Carol Park, 10 August 2016, subject Claims, with email addresses covered — Flip’s letter to Dr. Carol Park, 10 August 2016. Email addresses removed.

Source: Philip Ahn Cuddy, emails of 10 August and 7 December 2016 (from his records).

The submission documents 20 problems with the book

The review compares ninety-eight points in the book’s pages 5 to 157 and picks out twenty that are directly connected to the book’s central claims (p. 9). The table below is from pages 9 and 10 of the submission.

Some entries are small. In row 19, the Mellon Foundation becomes ‘Carnegie Mellon Foundation.’ Others go to the argument itself. In row 5, the exclusion of Hawai‘i conflicts with evidence the book cites. In row 1, a section billed as the largest includes 291 in San Francisco and 150 in Riverside.

Cuddy states that the problems in Dosan Republic as a whole are more important than passages concerning him personally (p. 9).

Their book: 20 problems

No.	Book pages	Core comparison
1	106 to 107	A ‘largest’ section includes 291 in San Francisco and 150 in Riverside
2	134	Claim of a Riverside majority conflicts with page 107
3	108	Redlands must be added to approach San Francisco
4	6 to 7, 49, 109	Person, date, subject, and nature of the ‘Dosan Republic’ remark
5	33, 65, 70, 140	Exclusion of Hawai‘i conflicts with evidence cited in the book
6	106	Family members are added only to Riverside’s figure
7	37, 91, 106, 108, 122, 135	Several population figures for the same camp
8	36, 69, 108, 119, 124 to 125, 130	Seasonal workers are counted while the camp is called non-temporary
9	18, 21, 35, 38 to 39	Founding date of the planning organization versus camp formation
10	20, 28, 32, 131	Continuous residence claim versus Dosan’s movements
11	28, 148, 151, 156	Internal conflict over the September 1911 return destination
12	36, 66, 70, 140 to 141	Founding claim versus the merger history
13	63, 92, 103	A 1904 adviser is recorded as arriving in 1905
14	46, 62, 70	Founder attribution versus publication history
15	54, 58	Draft attribution versus the cited basis
16	53, 69, 131, 139	Pachappa founding claim while the cited text names no place
17	6, 32, 49, 69, 71, 72, 83, 157	The 1911 convention opens on both November 22 and 23
18	5, 18, 39, 136	City plaque 1905 to 1918 versus repeated 1904 formation
19	5	Mellon Foundation identified as ‘Carnegie Mellon Foundation’
20	116	Calculation of ‘the year before last’ in a 1906 article

Source: submission pp. 9 to 10. Book page numbers refer to Dosan Republic, revised edition.

The price has grown from $6 million to near KRW 74 billion

The money section opens with a plain sentence: Public reporting placed the project at about US$6 million in 2022 and as high as US$50 million in April 2023. (p. 12)

A December 2023 report put Phase 1 and Phase 2 together at US$20 to 25 million. In January 2024, about US$10 million referred to Phase 1, with funding proposed from Korean American donations, Korean government agencies, Korean corporations, and U.S. federal and state grants.

The timeline ends in September 2026: Discussion of Assembly support and an amount near KRW 74 billion (p. 13). Two earlier rows concern the city. In December 2016 a final city resolution removed ‘Dosan Republic’ and ‘First KoreaTown in USA.’ In February 2026 a city spokesperson said there was no council land approval or land clause in the 2023 MOU.

The submission asks that official records settle the legal status and area of the site, ownership or lease terms, city-council approval, the current total budget, the amount sought from Korea, and operating costs after construction. It also asks for incorporation records, bylaws, board structure, Form 990 filings, annual reports, donations, and public grants.

You can’t build a multi-million dollar monument without land.

Public record timeline

Date	What the public record shows
2000 to 2002	Reporting on the map, site, Korean laborers, and community
Dec. 2016	Final city resolution removed ‘Dosan Republic’ and ‘First KoreaTown in USA’
Dec. 2022	Headline referred to Riverside providing ten acres
Apr. 2023	Exploratory MOU and cost of up to US$50 million
Dec. 2023	Combined Phase 1 and 2 cost of US$20 to 25 million
Jan. 2024	Phase 1 at about US$10 million and proposed funding mix
Feb. 2026	City spokesperson said there was no council land approval or land clause in the 2023 MOU
Sep. 2026	Discussion of Assembly support and an amount near KRW 74 billion

Source: submission p. 13. The entries come from public reporting; the table does not cite individual articles.

We ask the Assembly to check the facts and open the books

Section 3, Specific Actions Requested, lists five asks, on pages 16 and 17.

01hear the materials and views of Philip Ahn Cuddy and other Dosan family participants under the same conditions as those of Jang Tae-han and Kwak Do-won. (p. 16)
02independently verify the ‘first and largest Koreatown’ claim, Dosan’s period of residence, contemporary use of ‘Dosan Republic,’ the place and conclusions of the 1911 convention, and the dates and provenance of maps and photographs. (p. 16)
03before public support is considered, disclose corporate, financial, land, construction, operating, artifact-ownership, and Korean funding-request records. (p. 16)
04until review is complete, refrain from adopting the disputed narrative as an official government position or as the basis for major financial support. (p. 17)
05compare new construction with repair, exhibition renewal, artifact return, and digitization using the same standards of cost, public value, historical accuracy, and sustainability. (p. 17)

It also names four alternatives, on pages 17 and 18:

A full review of Dosan Park in Seoul, with repairs and renewed signs and educational content.
A joint Korea and U.S. review of existing Dosan-related sites, including the family residence at USC, former Young Korean Academy facilities in Los Angeles, and the existing statue and park in Riverside.
A review of custody, research access, exhibition, loan, and digital availability for the 3,323 Susan Ahn Cuddy items at Independence Hall.
A public-interest consultative body with Dosan family participation.

The last of these answers a problem the submission names: the present landscape of multiple private organizations using Dosan’s name for memorial projects and fundraising (p. 14), which needs a separate framework with family participation.

The submission is just as plain about what it does not ask: Cuddy is not asking to be recognized as the exclusive representative or legitimate heir of the Dosan family. (p. 3) Cuddy does not seek to erase Riverside’s history or damage the reputation of any person or organization. (p. 18)

Please be part of the right solution, not part of the problem.
Review Request Regarding the Riverside Dosan Memorial, p. 19, closing line

Read all 20 pages

Every page of the submission, as sent, in Korean and English.

Open the PDF

Pages 1 to 2 of 20

Honoring Dosan requires honoring the truth. Dosan Ahn Chang Ho spent his life teaching his followers to seek the truth and reject empty pretenses. Building a memorial based on exaggerated history goes against the very principles it claims to celebrate.

Source: C&K Independent Cultural Heritage, Review Request Regarding the Riverside Dosan Memorial, submitted to the office of Rep. Kim Jun-hyuk, revised September 11, 2026.