UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY N. HARMON CASE NO.
MARY LOU WOO
APPELLANT’S OR PETITIONER’S INFORMAL BRIEF
a. Timeliness of Appeal or Petition:
(i) Date of entry of judgment or order of the district court: June 22, 2005
(ii) Date of service of any motion made after judgment (other than for fees and costs): N/A
(iii) Date of entry of order deciding motion: June 21, 2005
(iv) Date notice of appeal or petition filed: July 19, 2005
(v) For prisoners, date you gave notice of appeal to prison authorities: N/A
b. IF POSSIBLE, PLEASE ATTACH ONE COPY OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. The order from which you are appealing
2. The district court’s entry of judgment
3. The district court docket sheet
2. What are the facts of your case?
On January 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Application by Plaintiff-Trustee Mary Lou Woo for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment Against Bobby N. Harmon.
On January 13, 2005, Judge David A. Ezra issued an Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for April 11, 2005 before Mag Judge Kevin S. Chang.
On February 14, 2005, I wrote a letter to Walter A.Y.H. Chinn, Clerk, U S District Court, Honolulu, Hawaii, requesting that the Court recuse Judge Kevin S.C. Chang from the case as he was the judge in EQ2048, the Attorney General’s lawsuit for removal of the former Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate trustees, who were named as Defendants in my RICO lawsuit. I was also named as a Witness in EQ2048. Judge Chang also appointed the Interim Trustees, three of whom signed the Settlement Agreement which was at issue in this case.
On April 9, 2005, I filed my Scheduling Conference Statement and Motion to Disallow Arbitration Award. There is no record of this filing on the Docket Sheet.
On April 11, 2005, the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference was held by Judge Kevin Chang. I objected to the fact that a meeting of the parties at least 21 days prior to the Scheduling Conference, and a report submitted to the Court, as is required by Rule 16, did not occur. I also objected to the fact that Plaintiff Woo had requested a NON-JURY trial, while I had requested a jury trial. Some key dates scheduled were Non-jury trial on April 11, 2006; Final Pretrial Conference on February 28, 2006; Discovery deadline February 10, 2006; Settlement Conference set for January 3, 2006, etc.
On April 11, 2005, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order issued by Judge Kevin S. Chang.
On April 13, 2005, according to the Docket Sheet, a Notice of Motion and motion by plaintiff Mary Lou Woo for summary judgment was filed. Set for hearing June 6, 2005 before Judge David Ezra. I have no record of having received a copy of this Notice of Motion.
On May 16, 2005, I filed a judicial misconduct complaint (Docket No. 05-89053) with the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit Court against Judges Kevin S.C. Chang and David A. Ezra for conflicts of interests, failure to enforce the Rule 16 settlement conference rules, and for denying Defendant his Constitutional Rights to a jury trial.
On June 1, 2005, Party in Interest Kamehameha Schools filed a Joinder in plaintiff Mary Lou Woo’s motion for summary judgment.
On June 2, 2005, according to the Docket Sheet, Plaintiff Mary Loo [sic] Woo filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Application for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment against Bobby N. Harmon. “This motion set for 06/06/2005 09:45 AM before DAE will be decided on the papers without a hearing. cc: All counsel ... JUDGE David A. Ezra (et) [Entry date 06/06/05]” I have no record of having receive a copy of the Notice of Motion. Even if I had received this Notice of Motion, four days notice by First Class Mail (with two of those days being non-work days), was insufficient notice for me to prepare for the hearing, or to file any objections.
On June 6, 2005, I faxed a letter to Matt Tsukazaki, attorney for Kamehameha Schools, advising him that I had just received notice of their Party in Interest Joinder which was filed on June 1, 2005, and stated my objections regarding the insufficient time provided to Answer this late notice, and I requested a postponement of the Hearing scheduled for this date.
For June 6, 2005, the date which the motion was set for hearing before Judge David Ezra, there is NO ENTRY on the Docket Sheet.
On June 9, 2005, not having received a response to my June 6, 2005 letter, I wrote to Matt Tsukazaki requesting further information regarding Kamehameha School’s Joinder, and asked that he provide an Attorney of Record letter in this matter.
On June 20, 2005, Judge David Ezra issues Order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. [Entry date 06/21/05]. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this was my first notification that a Motion for Summary Judgment had been filed by Plaintiff and that this motion would be decided on June 6, 2005, without a hearing.
On June 22, 2005, Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.
3. What did you ask the district court to do (for example, award damages, give injunctive relief, order your release from prison, etc.)?
A. I asked the Court to recluse both judges, Kevin S.C. Chang and David A. Ezra, as having conflicts of interests in this case.
B. In my Scheduling Conference Statement, filed on April 9, 2005, I had requested a trial by jury.
C. In my Scheduling Conference Statement, filed on April 9, 2005, I requested relief as follows:
1. That the Court enter an Order and Judgment disallowing the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Award of Arbitrator Judith Neustadter, Esq. dated October 6, 2004.
2. That the Court award monetary damages, legal fees, and costs to Defendant for his pro se defense of this case, the amounts of which are to be determined.
4. State the claim or claims you raised at the district court.
Defendant maintained that the Settlement Agreement was obtained through fraud and misrepresentations and is, therefore, legally unenforceable.
Defendant maintained that many of the Parties In Interest in this case were also parties involved in EQ2048 - the Attorney General’s Lawsuit to Remove the Bishop Estate Trustees - and that these parties were therefore conflicted and should not have engaged directly in the settlement negotiations in the various underlying cases, or in the Arbitration proceedings. Defendant maintains that these conflicts of interests were tantamount to obstruction of justice in not only his various cases, but also in EQ2048 and in the State of Hawaii, Plaintiff vs. Henry Haalilio Peters and Jeffrey R. Stone, Defendants (CR. No. 99-1502), and in other cases which involved the same parties and circumstances described in my RICO lawsuit. Defendant also asked the Court to take note that Judge Kevin S. Chang also presided in these cases.
Defendant maintained that certain individuals deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented to the Court that they had the legal authority to negotiate settlement of these cases on behalf of Kamehameha Schools, P&C Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company and other Parties In Interest. Despite repeated requests for Attorney of Record letters and authorization letters from the insurance carriers in these cases, no party has provided any evidence that they were legally authorized to act on behalf of any Parties In Interest, or their insurance carriers, in the settlement of these cases.
Defendant asked the Court to take note that he has several outstanding claims against Trustee Mary Lou Woo, her attorney Steven Guttman, and other Parties in Interest in this case. The Defendant asked the Court to take note that these are NEW claims which were not at issue in the prior court cases or in the Arbitration, and that these new claims will not be resolved in the instant proceedings.
The Defendant also asked the Court to note that he has offered to attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable, out-of-court settlement of all claims with these various Parties In Interest, but that these parties have either failed to respond, or have indicated that they are not willing to enter into such negotiations. Again, however, the parties who have declined to negotiate have not provided any evidence that they legally represent the Party in Interest, or their insurance carriers. Defendant asked the Court to take note that he is still willing to try to negotiate an out-of-court, global settlement for all past, present and future claims related to these cases.
5. What issues are you raising on appeal?
A. Both judges assigned to this case, Kevin S.C. Chang and David A. Ezra were biased, and had conflicts of interests with other parties in this case - including the Kamehameha Schools’ trustees and the arbitrator, Judith Neustadter Fuqua - and should have reclused themselves.
B. The Court did not provide to Defendant adequate advance notice of hearings to allow him time to prepare his response and to attend the hearings.
C. The Ruling of the Arbitrator prohibiting Defendant from contacting certain parties such as “the Internal Revenue Service, the Hawaii Department of Taxation, the Insurance Commissioners in the States of California and Hawaii, the United States Department of Justice, KS’s insurance carriers and agents, and government employees in the States of New Jersey and New York,” and the Arbitrator’s order that “Respondent shall immediately remove all material relating in any way to a Protected Subject Matter from his website www.the-catbird-seat.net,” violates Defendant’s First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and the Press.
D. The judges’ refusal to grant Defendant a Trial by Jury violates his Seven Amendment Rights, which violation was exacerbated by the fact that the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Without a Hearing, violated the Court’s own Rule 16 Scheduling Order issued by Judge Kevin S.C. Chang on April 11, 2005.
6. Did you present all these issues to the district court? (If not, why) Yes.
7. What law supports these issues on appeal? (You may, but need not, refer to cases and statutes.) The First and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
8. Do you have any other cases pending in this court? (If so, give the name and docket number of each case.) Yes. Docket No. 05-89053
9. Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case? No.
10. For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior to filing your complaint in the district court? N/A
JULY 19, 2005
Internet Reference: www.the-catbird-seat.net/Woo-vs-Harmon.htm