Complaint to Judicial Conduct Commission re Judge Kevin Chang

Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM

Las Vegas, NV 89118-2070

April 25, 2005

VIA fax @ 808-539-4756

Commission on Judicial Conduct

Kapuaiwa Bldg., 425 Queen St., Rm 106

Honolulu, HI 96813-2914

RE: Judicial Misconduct - Judges Kevin S. Chang and David A. Ezra

CV05-00030 DAE KSC - Mary Lou Woo v. Bobby N. Harmon

Dear Commission Members:

This is to report what appears to be judicial misconduct in the referenced civil case by Judges Kevin S. Chang and David A. Ezra.

First, both judges have extreme conflicts of interests in this case as described in my letter dated February 14, 2005, addressed to U.S. District Court Clerk, Walter Chinn, and as described in my Scheduling Conference Statement, copies of which are attached.

Second, Judge Kevin Chang did not fairly and adequately act upon the arguments in Defendant Bobby N. Harmon’s Scheduling Conference Statement regarding the fact that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, in that a meeting between the parties was not conducted at least 21 days prior to the Scheduling Conference. In fact, no pre-conference meeting was conducted in which an out-of-court settlement possibly could have been reached, thereby making any further legal action unnecessary.

Third, Judge Kevin S. Chang has ordered that a NON-JURY trial in this matter will commence before the Honorable David Alan Ezra, on April 11, 2006, which goes against my demand for a TRIAL BY JURY as stated in my Scheduling Conference Statement. I maintain that this Order clearly violates my Seventh Amendment rights to a trial by jury of my peers.

As stated in the Preamble of the Revised Code of Judiciary Conduct:

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and is a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

In the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commentary under Canon 1 reads:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

Canon 2 of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct reads, in part:

A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary....

B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge....

Canon 3 reads, in part:

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

E. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:...

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:...

(iv) is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding....

Under the unusual circumstances of this case, it is possible that judges Kevin S. Chang and David A. Ezra may both be called as material witnesses for the Defendant.

For the above reasons, and others as stated in the attached documents, I hereby respectfully ask the Commission to take prompt and appropriate action in this case.

In addition, I hereby ask the Commission to take special note that one of your members is Benjamin M. Matsubara, Esq., who is intended to be named as a Witness for the Defendant in the subject lawsuit, and therefore should be excused from participating in the debate and resolution of this Complaint.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM

attachments

cc’s (w/o attachments):

Mary Lou Woo, c/o Steven Guttman, Kessner Duca Umebayashi, et al.

(via fax @ 808-529-7177 and e-mail: sguttman@kdubm.com)

Dee Jay Mailer, CEO, Kamehameha Schools

(via fax @ 808-523-6313)

Trustees Jervis, Lindsey, Peters, Stender, and Wong, c/o Kenneth Hipp, Esq., Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper (via fax @ 808-536-6700)

Mark Bennett, Attorney General, State of Hawaii

(via fax @ 808-586-1239 and e-mail: hawaiiag@hawaii.gov )