Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM

August 5, 2005

                                                                                  VIA facsimile only @ (808) 529-7177

Mr. Steven Guttman, Esq.

Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga

220 South King Street, 19^th Floor

Honolulu, HI 96813

RE:     CV05-00030 - Woo vs. Harmon - Motion for Assessment of Damages

Dear Mr. Guttman:

This is in reference to your Exhibit 4 - Chart of Violations of Final Arbitration Award Dated October 6, 2004, by Defendant Bobby N. Harmon. In your first chart (“Correspondence”), you list 40 letters identified only by the “Date of Violation”. As you have not provided a copy of these letters as exhibits, this information is insufficient for me to positively identify each individual letter.

As I intend to vigorously defend my position, even to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, that none of these letters violate any legitimate Arbitration Award, I hereby request that you provide a supplemental chart, or a revised Exhibit 4, in order to identify each of these letters by including the name of the addressee and the subject of the letter. It should not be necessary for you to provide a copy of the actual letter at this time; however, I will expect you to provide copies for the judge and jury at the time of trial.

As an example of how I intend to defend my case for each letter, on the first page of your Exhibit 4, you show the “Date of Violation” as 8/4/2004. You have shown by an “x” that this allegedly violated: “Event re KS and PC” ¶24(a); “Information re KS and PC” ¶24(b); and “Claims and defense issues” ¶24(h). You show the “Number of banned individuals & entities” as 18, and the “Sanction amount for this letter violation” as $9,000.00. According to my records, I did send a letter to you on August 4, 2004, which was referenced: Notice of Claim - Steven Guttman, Esq., Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, Ref. Mary Lou Woo, Trustee v. Bobby N. Harmon.

If this is the correct letter, it began by stating: “This is a follow-up to my Notice of Claim reported on December 12, 2003, and my follow-up dated June 19, 2004, against you and the law firm of Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, for racketeering, tax fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of attorney-client privilege, conflicts of interests, obstruction of justice, and other wrongful acts....”

I ended this letter by stating, “In the best interests of all parties concerned with the final settlement of the subject case, including Trustee Mary Lou Woo, I would urge you again to report this claim to your professional liability insurance carrier for handling. Or, if you and your firm, and other concerned parties such as Kamehameha Schools; P&C Insurance Company; Torkildson Katz Fonseca Jaffe Moore & Heatherington; Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper; Susan Tius; Jeffrey Sia; Bradley Tamm; Mary Lou Woo, etc., would rather attempt to negotiate a global, out-of-court settlement of all these separate claims (which can be found on the internet at www.the-catbird-seat.net/Claims-By-Harmon.htm), then I would be willing to consider this approach. In the end, I believe this would be the fastest, least disruptive, and most cost-effective method of bringing this case to absolute, FINAL closure.”

Courtesy copies of this letter were sent to Mary Lou Woo, c/o Steven Guttman; James B. Farris, Senior Case Manager, American Arbitration Association; Robert Kihune, Douglas Ing, Constance Lau, Diane Plotts, Nainoa Thompson, Trustees of Kamehameha Schools; Dee Jay Mailer, CEO, Kamehameha Schools; P&C Insurance Co., Inc.; Susan Tius, Esq., c/o Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh; Kenneth Hipp, Esq., Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper; Jeffrey H.K. Sia, Esq., Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia & Nakamura; Robert S. Tameler, ALPS, Claims Administrator for Bradley Tamm and Greg Dunn; Lori Chung, Aon Insurance Managers; Casimer Fidele, Tradewind Insurance Co.; Hugh Jones, Deputy Attorney General; J.P. Schmidt, Hawaii Insurance Commissioner; Janet Hughes, Internal Revenue Service; Billy Beaver, Pension & Welfare Benefit Administration; Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., U.S. Dept. of Justice; PricewaterhouseCoopers, c/o Warren Price III, Esq.; Marsh & McLennan, Honolulu Office; Terry Mullen, CEO/Pres., John Mullen & Co.; and Lyn Flanigan Anzai, Hawaii State Bar Association.

The full letter is posted on the Internet at www.the-catbird-seat.net/Claim-Guttman-8-4-4.htm, as I intend to include it as one of my exhibits in the event that you do not.

As an example of how I might defend myself regarding this particular letter, I perhaps would argue that this letter does not violate the Final Arbitration Award, because this is a simply a usual and customary “Notice of Claim” letter against your law firm. Besides being a legitimate Notice of Claim, I believe that the First Amendment guarantees me the right to submit this claim in the manner in which I did, including the public posting of this notice. As this claim also involves allegations of “racketeering, tax fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of attorney-client privilege, conflicts of interests, obstruction of justice, and other wrongful acts....”, I would argue that it is completely legal and justifiable to send copies of this letter to regulatory and law enforcement authorities, and that to attempt to suppress this information is tantamount to an attempt to obstruct justice. Since racketeering, by its very definition, includes multiple parties, I would also argue that it is completely legal to send copies of this letter to other parties that I am alleging are involved as co-conspirators in these same racketeering activities. Also, I will argue that you cannot sanction any individual for reporting criminal activity, or for merely reporting insurance claims - especially if those entities involved happen to be yourself, your client, and your law firm.

As I have stated in many previously letters, I will argue that these letters refer to NEW CLAIMS which were not at issue in Arbitration proceedings - thus the Final Arbitration Award is not applicable.

Further, I will argue that you were not authorized by your professional liability insurance carrier to respond to me regarding these insurance claims, nor to incur expenses defending against these claims against yourself and your firm. If your August 4, 2004 letter, is representative of other letters on your list, then I intend to request subpoena of your firm’s professional liability insurance records, including the names of your insurance carriers, agents, brokers, and claims adjusters, and the date each claim against your firm was reported to your carrier. The same documents will be subpoenaed from other “parties in interest” in this case if my “sanctioned” letters were addressed to them, rather than to your firm. I will also ask these other parties to submit statements showing how my letters caused them undue financial harm.

This is also to advise you that I intend to vigorously defend myself in a similar manner against the “Website Violations” that you have listed on your chart; however, it is not necessary that you further identify those listings.

As time is of the essence in this matter, I respectfully request that you provide me your supplemental identification listing, or revised Exhibit 4, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Bobby N. Harmon