Harmon's Reply to Guttman's Response to Objection

BOBBY N. HARMON, CPCU, ARM

Email: bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com

Website: www.kycbs.net

Debtor, Pro Se

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

In re ) Case No. 99-04339

) (Chapter 7)

BOBBY HARMON et al. )

) HEARING

)

) DATE: January 19, 2005

) TIME: 9:30 a.m.

) JUDGE: Honorable Robert J. Faris

______________________________)

DEBTOR’S RESPONSE TO STEVEN GUTTMAN’S RESPONSE TO DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY STEVEN GUTTMAN AND
KESSNER DUCA UMEBAYASHI BAIN & MATSUNAGA AS ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE MARY LOU WOO

BOBBY N. HARMON hereby responds to STEVEN GUTTMAN’S RESPONSE TO DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, electronically filed on January 7, 2005, Docket No. 139.

In his response, Guttman states, “Although the Debtor’s narrative extends for twenty-one (21) pages and includes an additional sixty (60) pages of exhibits, the pleading fails to set forth any objection or challenge to the specific facts set forth in the Second Supplemental Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (“Fee Application”). Nor is there any specific objection to the compensation requests contained in the Fee Application.”

This is plainly a false statement. Even a cursory reading of Harmon’s Response, and the 60 pages of exhibits, gives clear evidence of multiple objections and challenges to the specific “facts” set forth in Guttman’s Second Supplemental Application. In addition, my primary objections to the Fee Application were that the original bankruptcy proceedings conducted by Guttman, and the subsequent Arbitration proceedings, both involved multiple, and ongoing, acts of fraud and racketeering. Therefore, I believe that these primary objections made it unnecessary to list specific objections to any individual items contained in Guttman’s Application. If listed individually, these objections to specific items could fill hundreds of pages and I sought to keep the filing as brief as possible. However, if the Court wishes, or if Steven Guttman demands, that I provide further specific objections or challenges to the alleged facts set forth in his Second Supplemental Application for Compensation, I will present such objections and challenges. This will, however, require additional time and expense on my part and I would need to ask the Court to postpone these Hearings for an additional thirty (30) days in order to prepare these documents.

(This period could be shortened and the expense reduced, however, if Guttman would consent to file certain documents electronically - specifically, if he would agree to file all documents contained in what was previously on the website: www.kycbs.net/HarmonArbitration.htm . I would be willing to transmit these electronic documents to him by e-mail, if the Trustee would agree to this procedure.)

Before challenging any specific “facts” set forth in Guttman’s Application, however, I would first need to obtain a true, complete copy of the Settlement Agreement, including Exhibit 5, which was the underlying basis of the dispute being arbitrated, and which was not presented to me, or to the Arbitrator, for the arbitration proceedings. Also, I would need to know the identities all signatories to the Agreement, and verification that the signatures of the Kamehameha Schools Interim Trustees were authentic, and not forgeries, and that proper legal protocol was followed by the Interim Trustees in the approval of the Agreement. Also, I would need evidence, in the form of ATTORNEY OF RECORD LETTERS, or similar documentation proving that the attorneys for Kamehameha Schools in the original litigation, as well as in the resultant arbitration, were actually representing the parties they purported to represent in the underlying litigation as well as in the resultant arbitration.

Since this case involved a number of large, international insurance brokers and companies, it also should be required that all parties, including the attorneys, involved in these proceedings disclose to me, and to the Court, the names of their professional liability insurance brokers and carriers in order to determine if any of these parties had undisclosed conflicts of interest at the time of the original settlement discussions, or at the time of the arbitration proceedings. If any of these attorneys, such as Matt Tsukazaki, who have purported to be representing the insurance carriers for P&C Insurance Company or Kamehameha Schools in the negotiation of the Settlement, I will need written evidence from such insurance carriers that they pre-approved these attorneys to act on behalf of their respective companies. Also, I will need from P&C Insurance Co., Inc., a copy of the Indemnity Agreement I signed with them when I was appointed as the president of that company.

It obviously is not possible for me to challenge “facts” when these facts have never been presented to the Debtor, to the Court, or to the Arbitrator, Judith Neustader.

Even with the furnishing of these facts, however, I still have multiple outstanding claims, distinct and apart from the instant proceedings, against Trustee Mary Lou Woo; Steven Guttman and his law firm of Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga; Matt Tsukazaki and Robert Katz of Torkildson Katz Fonseca Jaffe Moore & Hetherington; Susan Tius of Rush Moore Craven Morry Sutton & Beh; Kenneth Hipp of Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper; Jeffrey Sia of Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia & Nakamura; Trustees and executives of Kamehameha Schools and P&C Insurance Company, including Hamilton McCubbin, Dee Jay Mailer, Nathan Aipa, Louanne Kam and Colleen Wong; Marsh & McLennan, Inc.; Aon Risk Managers; Island Insurance Company; the American Arbitration Association, and others.

This provides the reason that I have repeatedly suggested to the Trustee that we do NOT reargue the multitude of issues involved in this case, or to become even further involved in NEW claims which have NOT been addressed or resolved by the Settlement, Release and Indemnification Agreement, or by the decision which was inappropriately rendered by a biased Arbitrator. I have, instead, suggested that ALL PARTIES involved in any related dispute attempt to resolve ALL CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS on a GLOBAL BASIS through private negotiation, or private and non-binding mediation, rather than continue with this costly and time-consuming litigation on a separate case-by-case and party-by-party basis.

In light of the foregoing, I again request that the Second Supplemental Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses by Steven Guttman and Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga be DENIED; or, in the alternative, be DEFERRED until all outstanding claims and issues related to this matter have been resolved either though voluntary negotiation or mediation, or by fair litigation in the appropriate Courts.

DATED AT LAS VEGAS, NEVADA: January 13, 2005

_____________________________

BOBBY NORRIS HARMON,

Debtor Pro Se

E-references: